‘There was no lease to Earl Fraser’ – Hon Julian Fraser RA
Hon Vanterpool made the allegations during the Fifth Sitting of the Fourth Session of the Second House of Assembly on March 19, 2015.
In a comment to this news site today March 25, 2015, Hon Fraser said, “It came as no surprise that the NDP administration would seek to unearth frivolous arguments and statements such as this and distort them because we are looking at a situation where they want to change the story. They want to change the issue from there being a floundering economy in the Virgin Islands, one that they can’t seem to get their arms around. They have the international community such as the French government blacklisting our territory and our most vital industry which is financial services and the more recent reports that are coming out of the United States regarding the territory and its finances, I think they are seeking some sort of distraction.”
He said that the statement which Minister Vanterpool came to the House with was totally misleading and “people need to take a look at what I have to say regarding the matter and draw their own conclusions.”
“There was no such thing as a lease…there was no agreement that was given by me. All I did was simply made an offer so that we could use the property and that is as much as I would like to say about it,” said Hon Fraser.
Severe water crisis in 2001
In a statement sent out to media houses on Tuesday March 24, 2015, Hon Fraser said that it was at a time some 14 years ago back in 2001 when the territory was under a severe water crisis, his predecessor Minister fo Communications and Works Hon J. Alvin Christopher (R2) in an attempt to ease the crisis had gone as far as to bring a floating Water Plant (barge) into the territory to be stationed in Sea Cows Bay to produce water and pumped into the Hannah Hill Reservoir.
“This initiative never materialised because the plant had a short call elsewhere and was met with issues resulting in its premature departure from the territory,” said Hon Fraser.
He said that after the setback with the floating Plant, the Minister engaged with Hydro Management Resources Inc. (HMR Inc.) of New York and proceeded to search for a suitable place to erect a plant to supply the Hannah Hill reservoir.
“According to the Minister they had considered Pockwood Pond but it turned out to be unsuitable. However, on their way back to Road Town they took a liking to the property owned by Mr. Earl Fraser. The following day, while serving as Minister for Natural Resources and Labour I was invited to accompany the Minister and his team to see the site in the presence of Mr Earl Fraser and basic agreement was reached as to the site,” said Hon Fraser.
Cabinet reshuffle
Hon Fraser continued that the Minister, unfortunately, could not advance the project since there was a Cabinet shuffle. In that same shuffle, however, he (Hon Fraser) became the new Minister in 2002 and inherited the concept of the water Plant being on the site and proceeded to advance it.
“Is it true that, ‘I wrote a letter agreeing for the Virgin Islands Party (VIP) Government at the time to lease property for a desalination plant in Sea Cows Bay from my brother, Earl Fraser, when in fact the land had belonged to Government?’ Absolutely not, it is not true that I wrote to lease any property, for nowhere in my letter is the word lease ever mentioned. And neither is it true that the land belonged to the Government, the land belonged to Earl Fraser who under a 1977 authorisation by the Executive Council reclaimed the land and was in the process of obtaining a lease for the seabed,” he said.
Process a normal one
Hon Fraser went on to explain that this process is a normal one. “And the letter I wrote was an offer letter and not a lease. Let me take the opportunity to quote the paragraph in my letter: ‘Given the importance of this operation, its short duration, and the revenues being realised by the main contractor (HMR Inc.), $15.8 / 1000 I-gals, we consider an offer to you of $1.00 / 1000 I-gals flat, to be fair. Term 6 of the Agreement calls for the Plant to be in operation for a period of 2 years, after which, both the government and HMR Inc. will enter into arrangement to remove the Plant from your site.”
He said the terms and conditions of any Agreement were to have been negotiated between Earl Fraser and the Ministry for Executive Council’s approval. “The statement said that with regards to the report of a 2010 claim made by Mr Earl Fraser for about $1.5 million from Government,” he said.
“The facts tell the story, as Mr Fraser made his initial claim to Government from as far back as 2004 during the NDP Administration of 2003-7 which triggered an opinion by the Attorney General, followed by an Executive Council Paper in 2007 for compensation and a lease for the seabed. As a matter of fact the Council had already taken a decision on the lease in Mr Fraser’s favour, and decided to make compensation conditional upon his receipt of the seabed lease,” said the statement.
“The Minister stated that he doesn't know if the agreement was binding since there was no Executive Council approval. However, the Attorney General by way of letter to the Permanent Secretary dated September 2004 affirmed that the Minister had, ‘Ostensible authority to make the offer by virtue of his position as the Deputy Chief Minister and Minister for Communications and Works’. In Town Investment Ltd. V Department of the Environment {1978} A.C. 359 the House of Lords held that the exercise of an act of Government by a Minister in his official designation binds the Government,” said Hon Fraser.
“Raising an alarm that my letter also acknowledged that the contract between Government and HMR Inc. was copied to Mr Earl Fraser, a private citizen, is nothing but a red-herring,” he said.
He added, “This is common, since Mr Fraser had all rights as the landlord to know how an operation being carried out on a property he owns will be conducted and is likely to impact upon him. Besides, the Agreement is a Public Document which everyone has access to. To state that the files did not show that the Executive Council, now called Cabinet, had taken a decision to enter the agreement with Mr Earl Fraser to lease the property, is basically posturing.”
.png)
.png)
.png)
Follow Us On
28 Responses to “‘There was no lease to Earl Fraser’ – Hon Julian Fraser RA”
You off topic, he he This issue is STRICTLY about M@rk Lies
We got to be careful not to weaken the organs of government because you hate a person. In this case Mr. Fraer.
2. we don't want to hear what you have to say - we want to know what you did in reaching conclusions Mr. Minister.
3. when someone say "all I did was simply... - RED FLAG.
4. "that is as much as I would like to say about it" - why is that? RED FLAG.
5. "there was no agreement that was given by me." - watch out!
6. a basic agreement was reached with his brother - that kills number 5 above
7. "nowhere in my letter is the word lease ever mentioned." - how insulting to play with the people's intelligence.
8. "...the letter I wrote was an offer letter and not a lease" - who are you kidding? Please don't try to play us.
9. where or who is the real red-herring and exactly who is posturing now Mr. Minister?