JDA DEPUTIES STATES ACTIVITIES

Homepage

Trevors Oral and Written Questions for Tuesday 6th July 2010

Geoff's Oral and Written Questions for Tuesday 6th July 2010

TREVOR’S ORAL & WRITTEN QUESTIONS FOR TUESDAY 6th JULY 2010 OR SORRY, SENATOR LE MARQUAND…GROUNDHOG DAY PART 86…

Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier will ask the following oral question of the Minister for Home Affairs
“Will the Minister advise whether the alleged author of the Metropolitan (Met) Police Interim Report is himself under investigation by the Met regarding alleged anomalies in the report’s construction and whether the author neglected to interview crucial witnesses who could have refuted allegations made by the Former Deputy Chief Officer against the former Senior Investigating Officer and the suspended Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police?”

Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier will ask the following question oral of the Minister for Treasury and Resources
“Given that in the Fiscal Strategy Review public consultation document it is stated that a key consideration in implementing a 30% Income Tax rate for those earning above £100.000 is the possibility of such individuals choosing to leave the Island, will the Minister advise what firm evidence, if any, his department has to support such fears?”

Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier will ask the following written question of the Minister for Home Affairs
“Under questioning about the lengthy suspension process of the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police on the 22nd June 2010, the Minister asked for patience, advising Members that all would be revealed in July, will the Minister now give assurances that when referring to July he meant that information, including access to the so called 'Metropolitan Police Interim Report' and information as to whether the former Chief Minister and current States Chief Executive Officer received briefings on other States Members as a consequence of 'Operation Blast', will be provided to members before, or during the last States sitting prior to the summer recess; or will the Minister be seeking to delay the release of such information until the summer recess has begun, thus preventing the opportunity for Members to ask questions?”

Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier will ask the following written question of the Minister for Economic Development
“Will the Minister advise what action, if any, the Harbours Department has taken to address the long-standing anti-social behaviour problems suffered by residents at Albert Quay Apartments; specifically whether the promised speed bumps are yet in place; what, if any, impact the new speed cameras have had and, if no action has been taken when will these matters be progressed?”

Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier will ask the following written question of the Minister for Education, Sport & Culture
“Is the Minister able to identify any alternative efficiency savings, other than cutting the three life guards at Havre des Pas swimming pool, which would have less front-line impact on services, and, if so, what might these be?”

From Trevor "Does anyone genuinely think any States member actually enjoys going back to an issue again and again and again? Well, maybe there are few out there who do believe such nonsense. But the truth is the answer is no. That it sometimes has to be done – if you don’t fall for the calculated ploy used by some Ministers of trying to grind you down until the question is dropped by attempting to belittle the issue’s importance – is just another example of the sorry state of ministerial government.

Indeed, one more reason why I and a rapidly growing number of other Members sick to the back teeth of the mockery of democratic government that this system has become under Chief Minister Le Sueur will be backing Senator Breckon’s proposal for a complete overhaul. But that is a story for another day.

The fact is that just as I have stated in the Assembly on more than one occasion, I have no personal axe to grind on behalf of the suspended Chief of Police underlying these questions. All I am concerned with is getting to the bottom of a process that would not be tolerated in any self-respecting democracy; about finally getting some transparency. About ensuring that people – no matter who they are – should be treated as innocent until proven guilty; not to mention how under this Council of Ministers it is possible to hide behind guff like ‘neutral acts’ whilst spinning lies about investigations that will only take ‘weeks’, yet then are allowed to drag on for months, even years.

If all of this upsets a few people I’m afraid all I can say is – tough. The number of people who have contacted me supporting continuing this line of questioning until we finally get answers, set against those who would just see the issues dropped indicates that most people think natural justice is something worth being tenacious about.

As per the written question regarding the Senator’s comments suggesting that everything would be made clear come July, it is interesting that I had to remove reference in the question to the globally established practice of governments looking to ‘bury bad news’ by revealing information when it would largely go unnoticed. The point I was seeking to highlight here is that if ‘July’ was to mean after the next but one States sitting of the 19th then any opportunity for asking questions would be put on hold for two whole months.

Wouldn’t that be a shame? Mr. Power would be gone, and as we all know it has never been the intention to allow a full and proper disciplinary process to be undertaken: a process where both sides of the story could be heard and allegations defended.

As to the other questions I hope to be writing something on the taxation issue shortly, having raised questions on this and the related subject of 1.1. (K) s a number of times. The other questions which relate to St. Helier No. 1 District are self-explanatory. One relating to long-standing work in support of constituents, the other to explore the possibility of whether the Minister for ESC could manage to find any alternatives to a cutting of a frontline service, rather than the rather populist approach in a proposition of just telling the Minister he couldn’t do it: period."
 

Return to top of page

Geoff's Written Questions for 6th July

1.To Chief Minister:
Will the Chief Minister state what formal consultation, if any, has taken place with representatives of States employees over the potential job losses contained in the proposals put forward by ministers in the Comprehensive Spending Review, and if none will he state when he expects consultation to start?

Will the Chief Minister indicate the timescale over which he envisages any redundancies will take place and the extent to which these will be covered by Voluntary Redundancy or Voluntary Early Retirement schemes already in place or will need compulsory redundancies?

Will he further detail for members any proposals he has for changes to the Voluntary Redundancy scheme to be applied from 2011, and state when he expects to consult with employee representatives over any changes, or whether he intends to impose it unilaterally as he did with the pay freeze?

What estimates does he have for the cost in redundancy or other payments of the 67.6 job losses already proposed?

2.To Treasury & Resources Minister:

Will the minister inform members why in his FSR consultation documents on personal and business taxation he has proposed a figure £30m for additional personal tax but has set no such figure for any additional contribution from the business sector to fund essential public services?

Can he further explain why over the period 2004 to 2008 Income tax receipts from salary and wage earners has increased by 66% (from £136m to £225m) whist Company tax has only risen by 23% over the same period (from £189m to £233m)?

Will the minister also give members his estimates of what the overall tax take (including GST, the 0/10 regime and income tax) between these two revenue generating sectors will be for the current tax year?


3.To Economic Development Minister

The minister promised last month to initiate a wide-ranging public consultation over the potential impact of the introduction of further competition into the postal market on the finances of Jersey Post and the maintenance of the USO; where is it and when can we expect the public and other stakeholders to be consulted?

Does the minister accept that proper regulation and not competition may be the way forward in the delivery of efficient postal services for all postal users?

4.To Treasury & Resources Minister:

Does the minister consider his description of GST as “mildly regressive” as a fair and balanced statement to use in his consultation on personal taxation when his own figures show that it has more than twice the impact on the income of the lowest earners than it does on the highest?

Will he also explain to members why in the consultation on personal tax, almost half of the questions concern business but he describes the Business tax review as a “technical exercise” aimed solely at business and taxation experts? Why has he not consulted the public on what they believe to be the correct balance to be struck between Business and Personal taxation?

Will the minister state why he has chosen to cap social security contributions at £115,000? Is it simply to be competitive with Guernsey’s £117,468? What would the effect be of removing the ceiling altogether

5.To Health Minister:

Will the minister inform members of the decision-making process relating to her CSR proposals, to include the timeline of meetings at which these decisions were made and who was making these decisions?

Where services are to be reduced will the department produce any risk or cost/benefit analysis carried out on the change?

Will the department state which, if any, any services are to be outsourced along with the estimated costs of such moves?

Where there are to be job losses, will the department give details of the terms and conditions being offered to staff under any VR or VER scheme which is in place, and state what timescale is envisioned for any such processes given that these proposals will not receive sanction from the States until September?

Will the department also give details of what consultation, if any, with employee representatives has taken place or will take place?
 

Return to top of page

TREVOR’S ORAL QUESTIONS FOR JUNE 22ND

Trevor’s two oral questions for this weeks States sitting are published below. They are both set to Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand and relate to issues Trevor has raised before with regard to the long-standing saga of the suspension of the States of Jersey Police Chief Officer, Graham Power.

According to Trevor the eventual answer – even if he doesn’t get it on Tuesday – to the question on Operation Blast will prove “very interesting and raise a whole lot more questions in it self”.

On a completely different subject, in response to questions a number of people have been asking this past week or so, Trevor also says that, constituent work permitting, he hopes to get his thoughts on the recent by-election and all that has transpired since up on the blog immediately this week’s States sitting is out of the way. This should probably mean by Thursday night.


Question One – To the Home Affairs Minister:

“Given that on 8th June 2010 when asked whether he would make available to Members the ‘Metropolitan Police Interim Report’ the Minister stated that he would have to take legal advice before coming to a decision, will he now advise whether he has taken such advice, who specifically the advice was sought from, whether he will be making the report available and, if so, at what date?”


Question Two – To the Home Affairs Minister:

“Will the Minister advise the Assembly whether (in the course of the investigation into ‘Operation Blast’) both the former Chief Minister and the current Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers received reports into the background of States Members, including any allegations or record of criminal activity; and, if so, under what authority?”

Return to top of page

Geoff's Written Questions 15th June 2010
1. To Education Sport & Culture minister

Can the minister confirm that under the savings proposal ESC-4 "re-defining core business for schools" he plans to axe the employment of Modern Language assistants in secondary schools, and state how many posts this will involve and what other measures are included under this "re-definition"?

Will he also state what proportion of the £298,000 saving this measure accounts for?

Will he further assure the assembly that such a cut will not reduce the standards achieved in foreign language examination grades achieved by our students especially in spoken French standards which is a proud and unique part of our Jersey heritage? Can he state what impact this will have on his much-heralded initiative at Hautlieu School to introduce the International Baccalaureate (IB) which requires high standards in a second language study beyond the age of 16?

Will the minister also state whether the posts have been advertised and candidates have applied, but that shortlisting and the interview process has been suspended? Will he then state when appointments have been made in previous years in order to allow appointees to take up their places for the start of the new academic year in September?

Finally, will he state whether any decision of the States on this matter in September has been pre-empted by his departments actions?

2. To Treasury & Resources minister

Will the minister inform members on a department by department basis what grades of staff were involved in the drawing up of the CoM summary of the savings proposals and assure members that it was not solely the efforts of CEOs and senior finance and other administrative directors?

3. To Health Minister

Will the minister inform members of the extent to which access to chemotherapy for cancer patients is being rationed in Jersey and in particular to the drug "Avastin" which is currently being trialled?

4. To Planning & Environment minister

Given the minister's long term goals on improving energy efficiency in the island what justification does he have for the 5% (£54,000) reduction in energy efficiency grants in proposal PE-S4 of the CSR?
 

Geoff's Written Questions to Ministers May 11 2010

1. To ED Minister
Following his promise at the last session, will the minister inform members what request he has made to JCRA over the consultation timescale concerning the granting of class 1 postal licences to two competitors to Jersey Post and inform members what the new timescale for the process now is?

Will he state what meetings he has had with stakeholders to address the concerns expressed by Jersey Post and the CWU and inform members and if not why not?

What steps has he taken to ensure that the consequences of the introduction of new competitors in this sector will have on the maintenance of postal Universal Service Obligations are made clear to the Jersey public, and if none, when will he do so?

2. To T & R Minister
Will the minister inform members of the terms of the new Voluntary Redundancy (VR) package to be applied to public sector workers and state how it differs from the previous scheme and how it compares with the new statutory redundancy terms soon to come into force in the island?

Will the minister state why public sector union representatives have not been consulted over the drafting of the VR terms and at what stage does he intend to consult them? Does he not accept that the absence so far of such consultation constitutes bad employee relations practice?

When he comes to investigate public sector terms and conditions as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review at what stage does he intend to consult with union representatives? Will he assure members that he will properly seek agreement with employee representatives before bringing any proposals to the States for ratification?

3. To ED min
Will the minister inform members:

a) why Jersey Finance commissioned the report “Transfer mispricing and child mortality” by Richard Teather;

b) how much the report cost, and

c) the extent to which Jersey is involved in the practice of transfer pricing (or mispricing) of goods and services?

4. Notwithstanding the response he gave to question 5289 on 20th April, when he stated that over 1,000 civil servants (over one sixth of the workforce) have access to “livelink”, will the minister advise members how many of these are senior management above grade 10?

Further can he state how many officers, and at what grades, are involved in the process of producing a single Ministerial Decision to appear on the government website?

Can he explain to members why there has been a massive reduction in the number of decisions published on the website compared with the old committee system of “acts” published along with the accompanying reasons or briefing papers? Does he not accept that “livelink” has reduced the information available to scrutiny and the public rather than, as it was designed to do, increase accessibility and accountability?

Does he not accept that with set up and hardware costs at over £2m and annual running costs of £131,000 (the cost of 3 committee clerks it replaced) “livelink” has been an expensive and inefficient failure?

5. T & R min
Can the minister explain to members when he felt able to confirm on the 20th April that he had comprehensive information on the first stage of the CSR as follows:

“I have now received proposals from all ministers detailing how they would save 2% of their gross budgets along with user pays initiatives, growth bids and invest to save schemes.”

Why he was unable to release this data to union reps and to scrutiny on 23rd April?

Will he now detail for members his new schedule for releasing this information to all stakeholders and ensuring that all proposals get the most thorough debate and scrutiny before coming to the States in the Business Plan 2011?

NUT COVERAGE OF MARCH

DEFEND OUR PUBLIC SERVICES FIGHT THE CUTS

The JDA believes that Jersey’s public services are a vital bedrock in sustaining the local economy and the community both in good times and now, during the worst economic recession in living memory. They ensure essential investment in infrastructure and support for business, and can mitigate the worst social and economic consequences of the downturn. As public services come under increasing pressure to cut costs and jobs, we believe that the Treasury Minister’s view that spending cuts are the only option needs to be robustly challenged. For Jersey to emerge successfully from the current recession in a strong position for the future, we need to strengthen and sustain our public services.

We believe that that before we can decide on any measures, the public and the States must be in a position to fully understand the first year (2%) cuts in the context of :

a) the full (10%) cuts to be applied over 3 years, and
b) the possible tax changes that that might mitigate the cuts

Deputy Southern has called for such an open debate. The Treasury minister has refused to take part.

Public sector workers know that 10% cuts cannot be forced through without major disruption to services to the vulnerable and large-scale redundancies. This in turn will make the recession worse and further delay any recovery.

The Council of Ministers of ministers appears to be hell-bent on cutting services. Those services that are not scrapped will be subject to outsourcing or outright privatisation. This will result in lower standards of delivery and reductions in terms and conditions for workers as it has in the UK and elsewhere.

The first cut has already taken place: the arbitrary, unilateral and perverse decision to impose a pay freeze, and thereby an effective cut in public sector pay, removing at a stroke some £7m from circulation in an already depressed economy.

The teachers may have led the way in opposing the reactionary and oppressive tactics of the ministers, but this is just the start of a long campaign. We call on all workers, private and public, to oppose these drastic cuts.

Return to top of page

SHONA’S ORAL QUESTIONS FOR APRIL 20TH

Question One - To the Minister for Transport & Technical Services

“Would the Minister inform Members whether he believes his justification for backing the importation of Guernsey’s waste, namely that it will raise £4 million in revenue for the States, is congruent to any environmentally sound principles and the States strategic aim of improving and sustaining our own environment?”

We can’t help thinking Shona’s question to Constable Mike Jackson, the Minister for Transport & Technical Services, might be one that most of Jersey’s community would be asking if they had heard his statement on why we should be importing other people’s waste into our island i.e. we should import other people’s rubbish into our beautiful island so that we can burn it – because this will help us fund…recycling!  All we can say is “Shamoah, Minister!” If this makes sense then frankly you probably should have stuck to moon-walking!


Question Two - To the Minister for Housing

“Would the Minister inform Members what plans, if any, his department has for refurbishing Hue Court?”

Few of the island’s politicians have campaigned more tenaciously to bring our housing stock up to standards that should be expected in the 21st century than Shona. Indeed, as she has told www.jdajersey.co.uk on many occasions, along with income support and health issues housing-related problems (especially the widespread damp issues) form a huge part of her constituent work – year in/year out. As Shona rightly says, it is absolutely imperative that we ensure our older social housing developments are refurbished to the very highest standards possible – a fact hammered home only recently by the findings of the Whitehead Report. Far from saving the States money the appalling neglect to essential maintenance over the last decade or two is now costing the taxpayer millions. Run down housing contributes hugely to social problems. We must not let Ministers make the same mistakes again.

Return to top of page

TREVOR’S ORAL QUESTIONS FOR TUESDAY 20th APRIL 2010

With his oral questions once again following a mix of origin in his constituent work and wider political issues continuing to concern many across the whole community, prior to next week’s States debate for once Trevor had only this brief – almost cryptic - comment to make to www.jdajersey.co.uk.

“Funny how ‘investigative’ journalists and ‘political’ correspondents sometimes seem to be anything other than what most of us would see as remotely ‘investigative’ at all. Indeed, I was tempted to say the same with regard to being ‘political’.

But like so many members of the public who contact me from all over the island, becoming increasingly cynical, I too have to come to wonder that such apparently staggering diversions from what surely must be outlined in some professional’s job description is in fact all too ‘political’ in origin after all; perhaps entirely so.

Of course, another possibility that I suppose one has to consider is that such journalistic anomalies arise from nothing more than a spectacular shortage of good old ‘testicular fortitude’ faced with the dilemma of digging out and reporting something that might not sit at all well with many in positions of great power.

Whatever the reason next Tuesday could be very… interesting…”

Deputy Trevor Pitman


Oral Question to the Minister for Home Affairs

“Following analysis of the sworn affidavit of the suspended Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police will the Minister advise the Assembly whether he has fully investigated every possible allegation of a conspiracy existing to remove the Chief Officer from office, further still, is the Minister wholly satisfied that no such conspiracy to remove the Chief Officer or to try to discredit him to justify his removal existed?"


Oral Question to the Minister for Economic Development 

“Having worked in support of residents at Albert Quay for over ten months, and residents having been promised that a solution was imminent before last Christmas, would the Minister advise the Assembly when he will finally be in a position to put an end to this anti-social behaviour by installing the agreed security barrier to control late night access to the areas directly under residents’ apartment balconies and bedrooms?”

Return to top of page

GEOFF FOLLOWS UP ON MINIMUM WAGES

Further to the recent unsuccessful attempts by JDA Deputies to set a more reasonable rate for the minimum wage, Deputy Geoff Southern will bring this proposition to firm up the good intentions expressed by the Social Security Minister during the debate:-

The States are asked to decide whether they are of the opinion:
 
a).        that the minimum wage should be set at 45% of average earnings, to be achieved over a period of not less than 5 years and not greater than 15 years from April 2011 ; and
 
(b) to request the Employment Forum to have regard to this objective when making its recommendation on the level of the minimum wage to the Minister for Social Security.

Deputy G P Southern


REPORT

In summing up the debate of P212 / 2009 which followed extensive debate on P14 /2010, the Minister of Social Security had the following to say:

“.. it has been difficult for me to bring forward a recommendation… because it has been a slight step back from the percentage of the previous year, and I strongly believe that they (Employment Forum)should be bringing forward recommendations which increase the level towards the 45%”.


Minimum wage level - principles

The Employment Forum recommended in 2006 that the minimum wage for April 2008 should be set by reference to 40% of the overall average weekly earnings, as released in the June 2007 average earnings statistics. This was based on evidence that minimum wages in other jurisdictions are generally around 40% of the average wage of those jurisdictions.

In making its recommendation, the Forum had been influenced by the Economic Advisers advice regarding the States inflation policy and caution regarding the competitiveness of export driven industries. The Forum emphasized that if the States of Jersey wished to raise the bottom end of earnings, the minimum wage must equate to more than 40% of the average wage in future. Ideally, the Forum would aim to gradually increase the percentage of the average wage used in the formula towards 45% in the future. For example, 40.5% of the average wage would have given a minimum wage of £5.47 for April 2007. The Forum intends to take this into account in its 2007 internal review of the proposed uprating mechanism.

By 2008 the principle of raising the relative purchasing power of the minimum wage to over 40% of the average had been adopted.

“The Institute of Directors suggested that the minimum wage should be £6.08 per hour, based on a formula of 40.5% of the June 2008 average weekly earnings. Although a number of respondents said that the formula should not be increased beyond 40%, the Forum considers that this is based on an expectation that the 40% figure itself will be significantly above the average earnings figure.”


They concluded as follows –
“The Forum unanimously agreed to show a commitment to very gradually increasing the minimum wage above 40% of weekly average earnings (half a percent increase for 2009).
The Forum recommends a minimum wage of £6.08 to apply from 1st April 2009.”

Recent debate

On 25th March the States decided that it would not support either my proposition P14 / 2010 or Deputy Trevor Pitman’s amendment which maintained the 40.5% standard and raised the level to 41%, respectively. Given the impact of the recession, the Assembly decided instead chose to go along with the recommendation of the Forum.

The Social Security Minister, despite supporting the recommendation, appeared to lend his support to the principles outlined by the Forum above when he stated in his summing up on P212 / 2009:

“… I believe that there should be (a formula) and we should over time see it moving up”.

In the debate on this issue I pointed out that the level of the minimum wage, whilst clearly being an economic decision, was also one which was legitimately also a political one. In establishing a minimum wage the States have quite properly committed themselves to the protection of our lowest paid employees. I argued that this protection must be at least maintained and when possible raised along the lines suggested by the Forum. The Social Security Minister appeared to give support to this approach when he said:

“Sometimes this Assembly has not always felt itself able to make difficult decisions in times of good when we should have done … part of the role of government is to put pressure on business to do the right thing.”

As the minister made clear, politics (though not “politicking”) has a role to play in setting the minimum wage rate. He finally made his personal position on the minimum wage crystal clear, when he stated:

“I have made it clear to the Employment Forum that when we are out of recession, they should have the courage to come forward with increases because it is only right and proper that they do so.”

This proposition, I believe, allows the Assembly to put its weight behind the Minister’s obvious support for the principled approach adopted by the Forum, and sets the right political framework within which the Employment can feel supported in judging the pace at which the minimum wage rate can be improved.

There are no manpower or financial implications for the States in this proposition.

Return to top of page

GEOFF CALLS FOR TIME TO THINK ABOUT POST OFFICE CARVE-UP

Deputy Geoff Southern will be challenging the potentially disastrous proposal to destroy the viability of our postal service in the name of free-market dogma, initially with this proposal to delay a decision until the consequences have been properly assessed.:-

The States are asked if they are of the opinion

To request the Minister for Economic Development to extend the period of consultation over the granting of postal licences to Citipost and HubEurope so that members may be fully informed of the consequences of such action by the JCRA

Report

On Wednesday 31st March 2010 the JCRA placed an advert in the JEP (see over) of its proposal to grant a Postal Operator’s licence to Citipost and HubEurope to convey large letters and packets, which includes CD and DVD fulfilment post. The closing date for comment is midnight 30th April 2010.

Jersey Post’s managing director has accused the JCRA of “failing in its duty to properly assess the impact on the traditional postal business.” Mr Carr stated that the decision to open the whole of the bulk business mailings market could result in substantial cuts to future services including a reduction of deliveries to every other day and the existing Post Office network being halved.

Despite being assessed in 2006 by the JCRA as an efficient operator, and recently agreeing a 4-year modernisation deal with the Communication Workers’ Union (CWU) which included the loss of 80 jobs, the Post Office see this as an “attack” on the only profitable part of the business leaving losses to be picked up by Jersey Post or the taxpayer.

The CWU agrees that the long-term viability of Jersey Post is seriously threatened by the introduction of competition to this market. They state that they “will not sit back and watch the decimation of this very valuable social service carved up and destroyed through the introduction of phoney competition designed for the benefit of a few at the expense of the many”. They are calling for urgent talks with all stakeholders including States members.

It is my opinion that such a radical move cannot just be allowed to proceed in such a timescale without full consideration by the Assembly of the potential impact on the infrastructure of the island.

There are no manpower and financial implications to this proposition.

Return to top of page

PEOPLE, POLICY & PUBLIC CONCERNS – TREVOR’S WRITTEN QUESTIONS FOR THE STATES SITTING ON APRIL 20TH

Once again Trevor’s written questions for the forthcoming States sitting arise from a mixture of his St. Helier No. 1 District constituent work, further contact from individual islanders relating to on-going issues of wider public concern, and matters linked to established JDA policy commitments.

The recent JCRA proposals, not to mention the distinct lack of adequate political information, has left a lot of people from all political perspectives scratching their heads, Trevor told www.jdajersey.co.uk.

‘If we are serious about maintaining a proper daily delivery service for standard letters, keeping costs as low as is practical linked in with protecting jobs – not to forget the hugely important ‘social’ aspect of many older and/or disabled people actually having that contact with ‘the postie’ – then the competition for competition’s sake approach makes no sense at all. Hopefully,’ Trevor adds, ‘the States will see sense and agree to Deputy Southern’s proposition to ensure a far more in-depth analysis of all of this is implemented before any decisions are taken that could have disastrous long-term implications.’

Trevor tells us that his question relating to the unsafe ‘listed’ building in La Motte Street in St. Helier No. 1 District is also essentially about protecting jobs.

‘Letting people who have worked hard at developing their businesses suffer, due to an inadequate approach to ensuring ugly and obtrusive scaffolding such as this - deterring many shoppers, particularly visitors unfamiliar with the town – are erected and removed in the most rapid of timescales possible is simply not acceptable. The paving in the area has just been upgraded so this just makes a complete mockery of what we are trying to achieve at significant financial outlay.’

Ensuring adequate postal voting facilities are in place is a key aspect of all modern democracies committed to social inclusion, and with the commitments to building a more equal, fairer society featuring so strongly in the Strategic Plan it will be interesting to see if such statements really are little more than words. ‘Is it any wonder that so few turn out to vote in elections,’ Trevor observes, ‘when contrary to every modern democracy you look at Jersey has gone out of its way to make that as difficult as possible for many of those who already struggle to have their political voice heard.’

As to the questions to the Attorney General and the Minister for Home Affairs, Trevor feels these speak for themselves, being related to issues that understandably continue to strike a cord of intense interest with large numbers of the public.

Nevertheless, Trevor did tell us that with regard to the question to the Attorney General he had been contacted by a number of people from across the island expressing concern about material that has recently been made available via the internet and believing that there is a need for further answers to be provided publicly. To this regard Trevor also revealed that he had had a request within his original question for official confirmation that a death certificate had been made available to the Jersey authorities (in relation to developments in the case reported last year) turned down by the Bailiff on the grounds that this was not the responsibility of the Attorney General…

Here at www.jdajersey.co.uk we think the answers to all the questions below will make interesting reading. We will, of course, do our best to publish anything of particular interest in due course. For those readers wanting access to the answers to all written questions from States Members we would remind you that these are eventually available on the States own website.


WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
“a) Given that Jersey Post has worked hard at improving efficiency, including the use of voluntary redundancy packages, and is only 4 months into a four-year plan, what action, if any, will the Minister be taking following the decision of the Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority (JCRA) to advise the public of its proposal to issue a Class 1 Postal Operator’s Licence to convey Large Letters and Packets to Citipost DSA Ltd and Hub Europe Ltd?

b) Would the Minister set out the impact that the grant of such licences will have for Jersey Post and confirm that the bulk mailing represents the core profit-making aspect of its operations? Would he further state whether the introduction of competition will lead to job losses and increased long-term costs for the public and would he state whether or not he supports the introduction of competition in this area?

c) Would the Minister state how both Jersey Post and competitors can survive and thrive financially in the years ahead within such a limited market where the comparatively unprofitable but socially essential daily mail delivery to domestic and business customers alike is intrinsically dependent on the more profitable side of the business?”



WRITTEN QUESTION TO H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL
In view of the detailed States of Jersey Police ‘Sequence of Events: Macguire investigation’ timeline published on the internet recently together with the content of the Report by the Manager, Mental Health Services dated 23rd February 1999 and other material including the 26th July 1990 letter from the then Education Committee President, is the Attorney General satisfied that the decision of his predecessor (as summarised in e-mail correspondence from the now Deputy Bailiff copied to all States Members on 8th April 2010) not to pursue the case against Mr. and Mrs. Macguire was both wholly justifiable and correct and, if so, will he state why? Will the Attorney General also clarify whether the issue of Mr. Macguire’s stated terminal illness at the time was ever discussed in any shape or form as a potential justification/reason for not pursuing the case in the 1990’s?


WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT
Scaffolding surrounding a ‘listed’ but empty and unsafe business premises in La Motte Street is having a hugely damaging impact on retailers whose businesses are hidden from view from shoppers which is particularly damaging to potential business in relation from visitors to the island who will not know the hidden shops are there; what measures is the Minister taking to ensure that this eyesore is rectified and what assurances, if any, in terms of timescales can he give the proprietors of the retailers being negatively impacted upon as to when this scaffolding will be removed?

WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE CHAIRMAN OF PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE
As access to a postal voting mechanism is a fundamental part of all modern, fully functioning, inclusive democracies, will the Chairman inform members what consideration, if any, her Committee has given to ensuring that those who wish to do so, especially the elderly and those with mobility problems or other disabilities, can easily vote by post in the coming elections in line with priorities 6, 8 and 15 of the Strategic Plan 2009 – 14?


WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS
"Further to the written and oral answer given on 9th March 2010 relating to the suspension of 2 officers from the States of Jersey Police for just less than 18 months would the Minister advise -

a) which person within the States of Jersey Police was responsible for taking the decision that resulted in the suspension of two police officers and whether the individual responsible for the original decision to suspend them was the same person who made the decision to re-instate them without charge? If so, does the Minister believe that this shows sound judgement?

b) that the costs listed in the answers of 23rd March 2010 showed the total cost to the States of Jersey Police of these suspensions and included all ancillary matters such as staff costs and overtime to cover the suspended officers?"

Return to top of page
 

EARLIER ACTIVITIES AND QUESTIONS

SHONA'S ORAL QUESTIONS FOR MARCH 23rd 2010.
Question One: to The Chief Minister

"Following on from the rejection of P9/2010 on 23rd of February 2010, when he stated that he would be appointing an independent expert in the shortest possible timeframe to undertake a review as to whether procedures with the suspension of the Chief (Police) Officer were correctly followed, will the Chief Minister inform Members whether the expert has been appointed and when the findings will be published?"

Question Two: To the Minister for Social Security

"Would the Minister inform Members, since the implementation of Income Support, how many recipients under 25 have applied for the Housing Component and how many have been refused?"
 

 Thursday, March 18, 2010
TREVOR’S ORAL QUESTIONS FOR TUESDAY 23rd MARCH 2010

Always at the forefront of endeavouring to ensure the losses of ordinary workers’ jobs – public sector or private - really are the last resort after all other possibilities have been explored, Trevor’s oral question to the Minister for Economic Development raises this issue once again. Readers of the website will have their own views, of course, but as the JDA ask here, laudable though it is, viewed within the present economic climate is the maintenance of the ‘top 500 banks only’ mantra really more important than protecting 30 finance jobs that could have been saved?

Trevor’s oral question to the Home Affairs Minister, reference the spectacularly invisible Metropolitan Police ‘Interim Report’ raise issues that anyone remotely committed to ensuring transparency and natural justice surely agree must be answered – and without further delay.

Just who did produce it? What is really in it? Who has actually seen it – and more to the point who can verify this? Not surprisingly, given what with the best will in the world can only be described as the truly shambolic, strung-out process by which the island’s Chief Police Officer has found himself suspended (for what is now rapidly approaching 18 months), the question really can even understandably be asked: does the Metropolitan Police ‘Interim Report’ actually exist as a physical, written document at all?

Hopefully come next Tuesday we might actually begin to get some answers. If not then suspicions that all really isn’t as it should be can only be given more credence.


Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Minister for Economic Development ­

“With 30 jobs being lost at Kleinwort Benson due to the Regulator's refusal to grant a licence to a non-top 500 bank, will the Minister advise what support, if any, is being offered by his Department to the staff affected to try and help them find other employment in the sector; further still, does the Minister concede that the Regulator’s decision may actually be counter-productive?”


Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Minister for Home Affairs ­


“Will the Minister inform Members on what date in 2008 the Metropolitan Police were requested to forward an Interim Report, who requested it, whether it was used in connection with the suspension of the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police and whether the Minister will make the report available to States Members?”

Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Cuts must be Surgery, not Butchery.

The JDA have always taken the position that there is more that could be done to fill the looming “black hole” in Jersey's public finances by a range of fairly gentle alternative taxes, each raising a few million towards the necessary total. However, alternative taxation may no longer be enough, and it is time to look at expenditure, as well as revenue. The ordinary Jersey people we formed to represent are becoming increasingly concerned by the conspicuous bloat and the rising tax bills to pay for it, and, if we are to stay in touch and relevant as a party, we need to be turning our thinking to the subject. Most of the current JDA Council have worked in the public sector for at least part of our working lives, and should know the score. Speaking for myself, I would like to add my general agreement to the various calls for some trimming of public sector spending, to suit the harsh reality that we are both locally and globally entering the backstroke of the boom-bust cycle.

I also share the suspicion with others, that there is more dispensable surplus to be found at the shoulders of the States organisation than at the base. Thus, I would not endorse crude, untargetted pro-rata cuts across the board, but I would like to see our elected representatives defending the effective provision of public services, facilities and benefits, and letting go of otiose fripperies and side-tracks. Therefore, I would point out something that seems to have been overlooked, so far.

There is a balance to be struck in the administrative burden on front-line staff. It is plainly unacceptable for the operational workers of all types to be left to carry on without any supervision of how they work, nor accounting for what they have worked on. However, the insidious big inefficiencies are to introduce excessive supervision that makes no useful contribution to the task, and to collect unnecessary information on the off-chance that someone wants to know. (The latter is a personal bugbear of mine, as I used to be a UK Civil Servant spending around 45% of my time compiling statistics about our actual work, just in case some MP ever asked a question.) Before middle-management can be reduced, there must be a radical culture change in the public sector. If we are not to have unproductive support clerks churning out sheaves of never-to-be-read paperwork, then the front-line staff have to do it themselves. And if the front-line staff are taking time out of their real work to do their own admin, then that admin needs to be reduced to the bare minimum. Both private business and public service alike use “Due Diligence” as an excuse to waste time and money on unthinkingly gathering all sorts of useless data, these days. If shareholders of private businesses are content to let their management do this, that is their privilege. We are all shareholders of the state, though, and we should be demanding that judgement be applied with diligence, not just filing.

So, we need to develop a general policy of evaluating all procedures and structures by the question “Does this help or hinder getting the job done?”. The obvious targets are Assistant Directors and Managers. In some cases, I would expect that they actually do assist with an otherwise impossible workload. But, it can so easily happen that supervisors nearer the front line report in detail to them, for the Assistant to report in summary to the Chief Director or Manager, when the supervisors could have spent less time reporting in summary directly to the Chief, freeing 100% of the Assistant Manager's time for a more productive alternative position. Then there are forms with ill-considered boxes, that time must be spent completing and processing, to supply irrelevant information. If it is not something that needs to be known to manage effectively, it is not worth the bother.

There is a part for opposition politicians in this, too. When asking ministers to admit embarrassing statistics, they should give a thought to how much Civil Service time is going to be absorbed in compiling those figures, and how much more is going to be absorbed in future as the civil servants prepare for the chance of being asked again next year. Is it always worth £100 of clerical time to score a little point, that doesn't make the news anyway, at Question Time.

To sum up, we can fairly painlessly trim a lot of waste through a case-by-case examination of which management posts are effectively side-tracks, and an end to amassing statistics from habit instead of to a purpose. Only then, if still necessary, should we be scaling back the services and facilities that it is government's purpose to provide, and that in a prioritised way, not slashing by numbers.
 

Return to top of page

Monday, March 15, 2010
TREVOR’S WRITTEN QUESTIONS FOR 23RD MARCH 2010

Trevor’s written questions for next week’s States sitting take in three different ministries – Treasury & Resources, Home Affairs and Social Security. The first question to Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand relates to the timescale for setting up an Independent Jersey Police Authority. The second relates to a proposition Trevor lodged late last year regarding the need to formulise an all-encompassing strategy to finally tackle youth offending.

Having agreed to put this on hold until 20th April to allow time for the unfolding of work being undertaken by Professor Andrew Williamson, Trevor tells us that with just a month to go he hopes the answer will give an adequate ‘progress report’ which will indicate whether to proceed with the debate or delay a little longer.

Trevor says that his questions to the Ministers for both Social Security and Treasury & Resources have their root in the need to identify any individuals ‘playing the system, whether this be at the top or bottom of the economic ladder’.

The question to the Minister for Social Security follows on from Deputy Gorst’s statement, quoted in the media last week, about benefit fraud. Given the department’s spend of £93.8 million, specifically it seeks clarification of the total amount of monies involved with the nine cases prosecuted by the department in 2009.

Finally, Trevor states that his questions to the Treasury & Resources Minister will provide further detailed background information in support of on-going discussions on taxation between the JDA and a number of other progressive politicians. He added:

‘Like the question to Social Services, the question put to T& R about the very lowest levels of tax payment amongst 1.1.K residents will help build up the true overall picture in order to achieve a full and fair perspective. With provision of both sets of figures it will enable us to move away from spin and hearsay in two, highly emotive areas of politics to examine cold, hard fact.’

Return to top of page

WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS
BY DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER
ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 23rd MARCH 2010

Question

“Having agreed to defer my proposition P.201/2009 ('Strategy for dealing with young offenders: establishment of a working group') to await any developments arising from related work being undertaken under Mr. Andrew Williamson relating to the creation of a ‘Children’s Plan for Jersey’, will the Minister advise as to what stage this work has now reached and when he expects it to be concluded?”


WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES
BY DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER
ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 23rd MARCH 2010

Question

“Given that with 123 such residents there is no possibility whatsoever of any individual being able to be identified will the Minister clarify the number of 1(1)(k) residents, if any, by year for the period 2005 to 2008 inclusive, who paid tax within the following brackets:

(a) less than £5,000

(b) between £5,000 and £10,000”


WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY
BY DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER
ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 23rd MARCH 2010

Question

“Given that Social Security recently highlighted the fact that there had been just nine prosecutions for benefit fraud in 2009 would the Minister clarify the collective total amount of the de-frauded monies involved?”


WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS
BY DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER
ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 23rd MARCH 2010

Question

“Will the Minister advise what progress has been made regarding plans for the creation of an Independent Jersey Police Authority and further still, at what date does he believe the necessary preparation work will be completed and the Authority launched?”


WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES
BY DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER
ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 23rd MARCH 2010

Question

“At present those 1(1)(k) residents granted such status after 1st January 2005 are taxed at the following rates:

The first £1m of foreign income at 20%
The next £500,000 of foreign income at 10%
The balance of foreign income at 1%
All Jersey source income at 20%

The Minister has further advised the Assembly recently that the taxation percentage of all 1(1)(k) residents can be legally increased/enhanced. This being accepted, will the Minister advise what increase in tax revenues could be expected if all 1(1)(k) residents were to be taxed instead at:

the increased rates of 25%, 12.5%, 2% and 25% respectively; or (b) alternatively by a straight-forward 1% increase in all four categories?”
Posted by JDA Council at 10:04 PM 2 comments Links to this post
 

Geoff's Written Questions for 23rd March 2010
1.to Treasury and Resources Minister

When the minister points out that public spending has risen by 30% over the past 5 years as evidence for the need to make drastic cuts in public services will he confirm that during this period:

a) half of that increase has come in the last 2 years, under his stewardship of the public purse;
b )when the control of inflation was his, and his predecessor’s, number 1 target, RPI(X) a measure of non-staff inflation totalled 17.7%;
c) wage increases, according to the AEI, totalled 22%, and
d) these figures do not include the decision to spend £103m on the EFW plant in 2008

Will the minister also give members details of the additional 190 public sector posts employed during this period, so that members can assess how many were front-line employees directly concerned with service delivery?

Will the minister also give members details of the 10 positions, along with the salaries, that he wishes to create to better monitor spending in his department?

2.to Treasury and Resources Minister

Will the minister condemn the approach taken by the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel in requesting the CAG to produce figures for prospective GST rates required to eliminate budget deficits on the unlikely assumptions that:

a) no action was to be taken to curb public spending to below 6% annual increases, and
b) no attempt was to be made to raise further income from other taxes?

Does the minister accept that to project a 12% GST rate by 2014 is unnecessary scaremongering, and will he confirm that he has no intention of following any such misguided strategy.

Will he further confirm that he has no intention of raising the GST rate in the short term?

3. to Social Security Minister

Does the minister accept that the 3 levels of impairment component in Income Support are there to compensate those with an illness or disability for the increased costs of their condition and that successful applicants for these components should not have their benefits reduced through consequent reductions in other components?
What actions, if any, and in what timescale, will he take to correct this anomaly in the system which does not act in the best interests of those with a disability and, if none, why not ?


4. to Social Security Minister
In response to question 5133 about the Education Allowance (approximately around £30 per week available to less well off families of 16-19 year olds to encourage them to stay in education) the ESC minister had the following to say:

“It is my understanding that the form and extent of support available is unchanged, despite the fact that it is now available via Social Security rather than Education.”

Will the Minister inform members whether this allowance is still directed to 16-19 year olds in education and, if not, how and to whom is it now directed?

What structural differences currently exist in IS for 16-19 year olds in work and in education?

What action, if any, and in what timescale, will the minister take to create incentives to 16-19 year olds to stay in education, and if none, why not?

5. To Health and Social Services Minister

Will the minister inform members what budget provision, if any, she has made, or has under consideration, to fund payments for unpaid overtime or other additional hours to cover for understaffed services for:

4.nurses, and
5.other medical staff?

Will she further inform members of the extent to which any such payments are required for each of these groups by giving:

6.the number of staff affected
7.the total of additional days (or shifts) worked
8.the total sums required?

Return to top of page

Questions for the February 2nd 2010 Sitting

Trevor tells us that his written questions for the States sitting of February 2nd arise from a mixture of his current constituent work; unresolved issues arising from the last States sitting; and some developing work on a review of taxation. The question to the Home Affairs Minister relates to many months work supporting residents of Albert Quay to get the authorities to finally tackle long-standing problems with anti-social behaviour. The question to the Attorney General follows on from a question on the use of independent lawyers during the Historic Abuse Inquiry that went unanswered at the last sitting due to States 'Question Time' over-running. The question to the Treasury Minister arises from work Trevor is analyzing with regard to progressive taxation possibilities. Finally, the question for the Chairman of the Privileges & Procedures Committee relates to the dissatisfaction a number of Members felt with the manner in which the complaint to PPC from Jersey's suspended Police Chief was dealt with.


WRITTEN QUESTION TO H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER
ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 2nd FEBRUARY 2010
"Will H.M. Attorney General please clarify whether any of the three former members of 7 Bedford Row Chambers subsequently employed within or by the Attorney General’s office, as mentioned in an answer to a written question on 19th January 2009, were involved in any way in work relating to the Historic Abuse Inquiry; and if so, would he advise what form this involvement took?"

WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS
BY DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER
ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 2nd FEBRUARY 2010
"Will the Minister advise how many complaints, if any, have been received by the States of Jersey Police over the past twelve months relating to anti-social behaviour emanating from the area around the Albert Quay Apartments and surrounding land, particularly problems involving cars and motor bikes; further still, how many arrests have been made and how many charges have been brought against those involved in such anti-social behaviour?

Given the number of complaints from residents concerning anti-social behaviour involving cars and motorbikes outside the Albert Quay Apartments, will the Minister advise whether it is the responsibility of the States of Jersey Police or the Harbours Department to deal with this; and whether speed limits and Island-wide restrictions on the sounding of horns within certain hours can be enforced by the States of Jersey Police?"


WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES
BY DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER
ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 2nd FEBRUARY 2010
"Given that taxation rates are in line for review, based on current figures, would the Minister advise what increase in revenue would be achieved by the introduction of a progressive tax rate of either 25% or 30% being implemented for those earning more than £100,000 per annum?"


WRITTEN QUESTION TO CHAIRMAN OF PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE
BY DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER
ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 2nd FEBRUARY 2010
Following her response to a question on 19th January 2009, concerning the letter of complaint to the Privileges and Procedures Committee made by the suspended Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, when the Chairman stated that she had intended to mention the letter to the rest of the Committee but that it had not been done , whilst also stating that she often did not inform the Committee of such contacts, would the Chairman advise whether she feels that such comments are consistent; and whether she feels that such practice does not undermine confidence in the Committee to do its job?"


Deputy Geoff Southern will be asking these questions:-

Post Office Questions

Economic Development Minister
To what extent has the ED department been in consultation with the management of Jersey Post, either directly or through the JCRA or other bodies over the recently announced restructuring plan for Jersey Post?

In particular, will the minister explain to members the meaning of the following statements from Jersey Post:

1.The redundancies at Jersey Post are not a reduction in jobs…”
Will the minister inform members how many employees are there now and how many at the end of the process in 2013?

2.There is to be a “re-alignment of pay to market rates for particular skill sets and activities”
Does this re-alignment mean pay cuts for any employees, and if so which grades and how many? Further, will the minister outline for members the depth of any such pay cuts?

3.Can the minister assure members that this process will not result in deterioration to the Universal Service Provision, including collection and delivery provision?

4.In particular, has the minister received any assurances that Post Offices or sub post offices will not be closed or otherwise affected by this process?

Social Security Minister
Will the minister detail for members of the extent that his department has been involved in discussions over the impact that the restructuring plan recently announced by Jersey Post will have on redundancies and reduced wages and hence on his departments expenditure on Income Support and supplementation? Will he give members an estimate of these projected costs?

To Housing Minister
The Assistant Minister for Housing stated publicly on 24th January that “by and large they (J- cats) are on a time limit”. Will the minister state whether the policy of granting permanent J-cat licences has changed and state what proportions of the 348 and 533 licences granted in 2009 and 2008 respectively were granted in the public and private sectors?

To Chief Minister
Following the breakdown of the mediation process between the States Employment Board and teachers’ representatives, will the CM inform members what instructions were given to the States representatives on the 2009 pay offer in order to allow meaningful mediation to take place? What further measures does the CM have under consideration to avert the prospect of industrial action in our schools?

To Housing Minister
Notwithstanding the ongoing consultation process his department is engaged in, will the minister inform members what options he has under consideration to eliminate the chronic underfunding of £7.5 m on annual repairs and maintenance identified in the Whitehead report?

Return to top of page

______________________________________________________________________________
 

Past Activities

Debbie de Sousa has asked questions of the Transport &Technical Services Minister on Gas. She is doing a proposition to the Economic Development Dept. on legislation to control Estate Agents (Alan Maclean is going to LOVE that!) and stop gazumping, a proposition to get GST of fuel for people on low incomes attached to the winter fuel allowance, and a proposition to look at the timing of the strategic plan, business plan and budget.

Shona Pitman is working on her motion re. Boxing Day. Debbie and Shona have had successes in challenging planning applications. PPC and the Council of Ministers are bringing a suggestion for a time limit on speeches for propositions. JDA deputies should bring an amendment.

Geoff Southern has put in questions about the Water board, which have been fed around Deputies, and is doing 2 more on Telecoms redundancies. He is doing propositions on the Water Works redundancies to ask the ED Minister to request the JCRA to produce a report on the implications of the lay-offs, and to ask the Social Security Minister to report back to the House on whether redundancies conform to the employment law. He is asking Social Security to find ways of funding payments such as removing the cap on contributions. He is trying to get a co-operative approach from the SS Minister on improving the Income Support policy as part of his Scrutiny review. He has also had casework successes.

Trevor Pitman has spent 3 days at Westminster (where no Blackberries are allowed) and the Welsh Assembly seeing how they do scrutiny. His proposition on naming young offenders has been pushed back to 1st December, when he is also bringing the proposition to ban Blackberries. He is also working on laws on knife crime exploring issues around deterring people from carrying knives. Something about 1.1(K)s needs to go in as an amendment to the budget. The Parliamentary party will look at it next week.

Return to top of page