This content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost. Let us know if you find any major problems.
Text in this format is not official and should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments. Please see the PDF for the official version of the document.
Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel
Record of Meeting
Date: 1st September 2015
Present | Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré, Chairman Deputy K.C. Lewis Connétable C.H. Taylor Deputy S.J. Brée, Vice-Chairman |
Apologies |
|
Absent |
|
In attendance | Mr T. Oldham , Scrutiny Manager Mrs J. Hales , Scrutiny Officer |
Ref Back | Agenda matter | Action |
Item 3 24/08/15 513/45 | 1. Jersey International Finance Centre The Panel considered correspondence to the Greffier that it had been copied into from Carey Olsen, the law firm representing the States of Jersey Development Company (SoJDC), in regard to the summons issued by the Panel to SoJDC requiring it to provide the pre-let agreement between SoJDC and UBS, the funding agreement between SoJDC and HSBC and the construction contract between SoJDC and Camerons, together with any side letters and other documentation pertaining to these agreements. It further considered responses from UBS, HSBC and Camerons to the Panel's correspondence to those parties requesting them to voluntarily provide the Panel with their respective aforementioned documents. The Panel noted that no parties had submitted the requested documentation and that the summons served on the Managing Director of the SoJDC, by the Panel was now subject to formal challenge as per Regulation 5 of the States of Jersey (Powers, Privileges and Immunities) (Scrutiny panels, PAC and PPC) Regulations 2006. The Panel recalled that Regulation 5 allowed a person served with a summons to challenge the summons and the challenge to be considered by PPC in accordance with the provisions set out in Regulation 6. That process was now being initiated by the Greffier and PPC. The Panel agreed that it would seek the appropriate advice to help inform its next steps, and would further seek the advice of the Greffier to clarify its understanding of the process that was being initiated through PPC. This would include matters relating to possible conflicts of interest relating to members of PPC in this matter. The Panel noted the ongoing work of its advisers in advance of submission of their final draft report that was anticipated very shortly. The Panel agreed that it would seek to publish a related interim report soon after the outline for which it discussed and agreed. Report drafting would begin at the earliest opportunity by the officer in close consultation with the Chairman and a draft presented for the Panel |
|
consideration shortly thereafter.