|
Homepage
&
Comment
External blog site.
To leave blog please click back button on your browser to return to
main site.
|
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?
For next week’s States
sitting Trevor has the
following two oral
questions lodged. The
first was intended to be
in two parts and was to
be asked of the
Privileges & Procedures
Committee, but due to a
difference of opinion
regarding to Standing
Orders, this was
re-directed to the
Chairman of the Comité
des Connétables and the
second and main part
omitted in error. Trevor
explained:
“Being made aware that
there have been moves
afoot by some in the
States to decrease the
times the polling
stations are open at
elections I wanted
clarification that no
moves would be made to
do this prior to the
forthcoming by-election
- possibly under the
smokescreen of
‘efficiency savings’.
Such a move would in
reality even further
erode the number of
busy, working people
able to cast their vote
– which in my view is,
of course, exactly what
some in the States want
because it is ordinary
working people who tend
to vote for the JDA and
other Progressives. I
believe that any such
moves need to be opposed
as strongly as possible.
After all, this appears
to all be part of a
growing trend as we have
already witnessed with
the undermining of the
postal voting process in
Jersey that is a
fundamental aspect of
all modern, functioning
democracies the world
over.”
Trevor tells us that he
will still seek to raise
this second issue as a
supplementary. The
approved wording of the
question at present
to the Chairman of the
Comité des Connétables
is as follows:
Will the Chairman
advise the Assembly of
the likely cost of
organizing and running
the forthcoming
Senatorial by-election?
The second oral question
Trevor has lodged is in
support of his written
question relating to the
so-called ‘Metropolitan
Police Interim Report’.
For an explanation as to
the background of this
we suggest readers
should see the posing on
written question below.
Oral question to the
Minister for Home
Affairs
“Given that the Minister
has consistently advised
the Assembly that he has
not personally seen the
‘Metropolitan Police
Interim Report’ relating
to the process leading
to the suspension of the
Chief Officer of the
States of Jersey Police,
will he advise whether
he has now been able to
obtain a copy and
confirm that the report
does exist as a physical
document?”
Return to top of page
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
|