THE STATES OF JERSEY TRANSCRIPTS OF DEBATES 1. Fief de la Fosse: proposed agreement with Les Pas Holdings Limited – P.117/2003, Committee of the Whole House, held in camera on 16th and 17th September 2003; and 2. Fief de la Fosse: proposed agreement with Les Pas Holdings Limited – P.117/2003, Addendum and comments, held in camera on 23rd and 24th September 2003. The attached transcripts have been prepared and checked by the States Greffe. They have not been prepared by ‘Hansard’ trained staff, but it is hoped that they will provide as accurate a report as possible of the proceedings. Fief de la Fosse – Les Pas 2 16th September 2003 - morning Greffier I know on occasions in-Committee discussions have been chaired from the Greffier’s desk, I think perhaps for the interest of convenience members won’t mind, I get a slightly better view from the chair. Perhaps we allow one or two minutes to ensure that the doors to the Chamber had been correctly closed and people have left the precincts. Deputy Troy Sir, can I ask one question regarding the recording. Will the usual conditions apply to obtaining access to the recordings? I understand that the information is sensitive but if members can have copies of the recording under an undertaking that they keep the contents confidential that is acceptable presumably. Greffier We will need to seek advice from the Law Officers. I would imagine, unfortunately, Deputy it may not be possible for copies to be made but possibly the Solicitor General may be able to advise us whether it would be appropriate for the recordings to be available for members to listen to, perhaps we can come to that later unless you wish to address that point now Madam Solicitor General. Solicitor General My advice on the point would be against circulating multiple copies to individual members. There is always the risk of accidental loss or something of that nature, there would be nothing against a copy being available in the States Greffe to be read. Senator Routier Sir, just a minor point, were the speakers on in the tea room? Greffier They should be off Senator. Senator Le Maistre Just for the sake of clarity as it’s been some while since we’ve had an in-committee debate in this House, it was put over by the media that effectively this was a P & R meeting in-committee. I think it’s important for members to be aware that an in-committee debate is held according to Standing Orders and that it is a normal States meeting. It happens to be in-camera which is an unusual thing in itself perhaps, but it is a normal States meeting and normal Standing Orders apply. Greffier Thank you Senator that was very useful. Very well, I think, do you wish to make any introductory remarks Mr. President of the Policy and Resources Committee? Fief de la Fosse – Les Pas 3 Deputy Bridge Sir, I was just going to say that in my time in the States I’ve only been involved in one in-committee debate. I don’t know how new members felt about whether there was anything you felt you could add to explain exactly how it progresses. Greffier Yes, very well, if it does assist members. As the Deputy says there has only been one in recent times which was the Tourism Strategy which was a slightly different occasion. Basically as Senator Le Maistre has correctly pointed out to us the normal rules in Standing Orders will apply so effectively it’s not a free for all in terms of interruptions, etc. members will be called to speak by the chair, but the important difference of course is that members are not restricted to speak only once they can seek to speak as many times as they are called. As I pointed out to members in my letter last week it is certainly not my intention to in any way try to stifle or bring the discussion to a premature end and of course at the end of the discussion there is no vote and I would possibly urge members to view this as an opportunity to share information which I’m sure members will receive from the Solicitor General from the Committee but also some members will wish to share information they themselves have found. Perhaps this isn’t the occasion to have long debates on the merits or otherwise of the proposition because that will be the occasion for proper debate which will be held in due course. I don’t think we want to have a dress rehearsal for whenever the main debate is held. Did you wish to make any introductory remarks Mr. President? Senator Walker Yes Sir, thank you I will be very brief because I concur fully with the remarks you just made. I also agree with the Deputy of Grouville and Senator Le Maistre that this is an extremely unusual occurrence for this House. It may well, under all the circumstances and probably is a unique occasion for this House. It will certainly, I believe, be whichever way the final debate decision goes, an historic meeting of this House, whether that’s the right or wrong reason, it’s not for me to say. But Sir, this is one of the most important issues this House has had to address in recent times certainly since I’ve been a member, and it does as you’ve said provide a very considerable opportunity for members to gather as much information as they feel they require and I’m grateful, I have to say to Senator Syvret for proposing this way forward, I believe it is a very acceptable and proper way of proceeding given the constrictions placed upon us in public debate in terms of legal advice. It is as I’ve said an opportunity for members to gain as much information as possible and is also of course an opportunity as you have said Sir, for members to make as many points as they wish as well and to speak as often as they are called. But particularly this is an opportunity which has so far not been available in debate to members to get the full legal background and the full current legal advice from the Solicitor General and it is of course that legal background and current advice to which my Committee has been acting and reacting since we first became involved in this situation. And Sir, as you said in your letter and you’ve repeated this is not really the day for debating the main issues that will come in due course but I know that you feel and certainly I feel that members should be free to raise any issues that they wish during the course of this debate. So I will not talk to the issue at this point I may well of course, wish to speak and almost certainly wish to speak later, perhaps more than once and obviously I’m available as are members of my Committee to answer any questions that members may wish to put to us throughout the day, as I now I think the most appropriate thing for me to do would be to hand over to the Solicitor General and ask her if she can provide the legal background, the history of the legal current background and the current legal advice against which basically forms the most important part of the background certainly to this entire matter. Fief de la Fosse – Les Pas 4 Senator Le Claire Sir, sorry to interrupt Madam Solicitor, I do beg your pardon. Would it be possible please, Sir, through you, for Madam Solicitor to make it quite clear where the new advice comes into the advice she’s just about to give. Solicitor General Yes. In fact I have some preliminary remarks to make before I begin the substantive address. Firstly I’m going to take the House through the entire chronology of advice which has been given and I’m afraid that may take a little time but I think it is necessary, I think members should know and I expect that members will want to know what advice has been given at each stage and if it has to be done in detail, it has to be done in detail. I’m sorry about that but I don’t think there is any option. Secondly, between the presentation by the Policy and Resources Committee at the beginning of June and today there has been quite significant amount of information, disinformation and distorted information put into the public domain. Now some of it in fact, I would have regarded as quite irrelevant to the legal advice but because some of it is so misleading and I’m sorry to say in some cases so untruthful, I think that I have to incorporate it into my chronology because if I do not I fear that members may be left with some very misleading and wrong information and so that I’m sorry to say will add to the length of my address. There have been some approaches from individual members with queries I will try where possible to incorporate the answers to those into this address and again some of them don’t go I don’t think directly to the legal advice which I’m giving but nevertheless because they have been raised I’m going to attempt to cover them. The next point is that members will have questions and some of those questions I may not be able to answer immediately that is partly because I do not have the conduct of the litigation, that is in the hands of Advocate Binnington and although I have called for his files and I have his files in the Law Officers’ Department, there are simply too many of them to have on this bench with me.