SITTING around the lunch table, my wife asked my daughter (who lives in London) what burning local issue I should write about in this column.

Immigration, problems with the economy, ineffective government? No, said, my daughter – Fort Regent.

Now when someone from outside the Island identifies the Fort as the major issue to be tackled, then you realise what a criminal waste of time there has been in sorting out what could soon become a major eye sore almost in the centre of town.

There have been reports and more reports, there have been studies, ideas and dreams about what to do with the Fort, and what is the sum of all this effort? Very little.

Now a scrutiny panel is looking at the issue again and they have had some very interesting hearings and a lot of submissions, but while I would hate to pre-judge the outcome, all the evidence points to one conclusion – it is too difficult a problem for the Island’s system of government to tackle.

You only have to read the transcripts of the Scrutiny panel’s hearings to realise that it’s going to be near impossible to reach consensus. That means that in our way of governing the Island, which relies heavily on consensus, nothing is going to happen. No one is going to be able to push anything through the maze of conflicting interests, viewpoints and sheer bureaucracy.

The Scrutiny panel will no doubt produce an interesting, comprehensive report which might just find enough space on the shelf next to the dozens of other reports produced in the past 15 years.

Mind you there is just a chance that, like the Waterfront, there will be enough agreement to push ahead with a particular project. However after different experts and the ill-informed special interest groups have finished with it, what’s left will be so bland and unexciting that it might be better to leave the Fort to rot.

One clear message comes out of the work of the Scrutiny panel which rather puts the damper on any dreams about turning the Fort into something useful. That is that there’s no money to do anything with the crumbling Victorian structure. Not only are they having difficulties in keeping it maintained, they can’t afford to demolish some of the dilapidated buildings. They can’t even afford a feasibility study, which one expert estimated could cost £1m or so.

So if there’s no money now, and there’s not likely to be much more available for quite a few years to come, what’s going to happen to this iconic structure (yes, you have to use that word at least once in a column like this)?

The answer is you have got to get help. That means getting the private sector involved.

Now this shouldn’t be considered revolutionary because taxpayers are always complaining that government is spending their money on facilities and services that could be better provided by private companies. So why should the taxpayer pay for a disused fort?

But the important question to ask really is how do you get private enterprise involved in breathing new life into the Fort? Why would they be interested?
The simple answer, of course, is that they would be interested if there was enough money in it. Building homes would probably be the most lucrative option as it is everywhere else in the Island. But it’s unlikely that the planners would approve. So it has to be something to do with tourism and leisure which will attract more people to visit the Fort.

So wouldn’t it be a good idea to develop some all-weather facilities up there, where locals and visitors could go and enjoy themselves when they weren’t able to sun themselves on the beach? You know, a bit like … well, Fort Regent as it used to be, actually.

But it would need to be more than that because the visitors are not coming in the numbers they used to (perhaps there’s not enough for them to do). So we have to think of something that adds to the facilities available for tourists and even provides them with another reason to visit Jersey. The obvious facility is, of course, a casino.

Now I wouldn’t be seen dead in a casino myself. They hold absolutely no interest for me, but I know that millions of people enjoy a night out at the casino and they are not all addicted gamblers financing their habit through crime. Anyone who doubts what can be achieved should visit some of the RSL clubs in Australia. Many of them are in small outback towns, but they provide luxury surroundings, city-standard entertainment and all kinds of other facilities, all paid for with the proceeds of gambling.

A casino at the Fort could be part of a complex including a restaurant taking advantage of the tremendous views, a new conference hotel, perhaps an art gallery and rejuvenated sports facilities as well as open spaces and exhibition areas reflecting the site’s heritage. There could even be a cable car linking the Fort to the Waterfront, as the Fort might well prove more of a magnet for people than what’s proposed on the Waterfront.

This could all be funded at a minimal cost to the taxpayer, and it might even be that part of the gambling proceeds could be earmarked for charitable causes, thus helping to overcome some of the moral objections.

This might all be a bit too exciting for Jersey, of course, and it will certainly attract the opposition of the genteel landowners from the country who rarely venture into town. But it is a solution to the Fort problem, and at the moment, it looks like the only solution.

Perhaps the scrutiny panel will come up with something different, but financing will always be the stumbling block. That and the inability to find anyone prepared to push a project forward in Jersey against the inevitable opposition.