Monday, February 15, 2010

TREVOR'S WRITTEN QUESTIONS FOR 23RD FEBRUARY

Trevor's written questions for next week's States sitting focus on a number of different areas. Question One arises directly from concerns already expressed within the JDA Blog, that really the Chief Minister should play no role in the debate around the proposition being brought to the Assembly by Deputy Bob Hill of St. Martin.

Question Two poses issues that have been troubling many political observers recently and which really should warrant clear answers in the public interest following on from the Verita Report.

Question Three, Trevor tells us, is an issue that a number of the 'progressives' in the States have been discussing due to the regular disappearance/non-appearance of a number of senior politicians during sittings - not just from the Chamber but from the States building. Having rejected Trevor's move to increase the quorum from 27 to 35 we would have to say that it is surely only fair and proper that all unexplained absences from sittings are highlighted for the public.

In many ways Question Four follows on natuarally from the first. Given that we are consistently told that suspensions such as that of Mr. Power and Mr. Day are simply necessary 'nuetral acts' whilst serious allegations are investigated the fact that the same approach has not been applied to the States CEO cannot but help to raise eyebrows. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty but the States simply must have consistency in their approach. Following on from the still unresolved questions around the responsibility for setting up Operation Blast, the release into the public domain of the sworn affidavit from Mr. Power by Deputy Hill really does make this a question that demands an answer.

Finally, Question Five to the Minister for Treasury & Resources poses a question that should be answered fully in the light of the prmised review of taxation in the island; not to mention the storied now doing the rounds that GST may have to be rasied to 12%. Our 1.1.K system is in need of a complete overhaul not least because of the two tier structure that has been allowed to develop with individuals being accepted as residents either side of the current legislation. Having heard from the Chief Minister last year that taxing 1.1.K's would be 'immoral' and the claim from Assistant Treasury Minister Deputy Eddie Noel that individual tax agreements could not be renogiated, clarification of the sort Trevor is seeking will be interesting to say the least.







To Chief Minister



“Given that he is a central figure within the suspension of the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, does the Chief Minister consider that he is conflicted in the matter and should therefore declare an interest and withdraw from the debate of the Deputy of St. Martin’s proposition to set up an independent Committee of Inquiry into the suspension and the way that it has been handled (P.9/2010)?”




To Chief Minister(as responsible for staffing matters -

“Will the Chief Minister clarify whether the recently departed Chief Officer of Health and Social Services received any additional monies/severance bonus payments outside of his contractual entitlement, and, if any such payments were made, did this come from the public purse and what was the total amount?

Would the Chief Minister also clarify whether the former Chief Officer of Health and Social Services resigned, was invited to resign, was dismissed or left by ‘mutual agreement’ in the light of the Verita Report findings?”




To Chairman oF PPC

“Given the fact that the requirement for a Member to attend meetings of the States is set out within the Oath found in Schedule 2 to the States of Jersey Law 2005 and paragraph 2 of the Code of Conduct in Schedule 3 of Standing Orders, will the Chairman advise what disciplinary measures, if any, exist to ensure Members carry out their duties as required?

Would the Chairman advise whether Members leaving the Chamber and indeed the States Building entirely after roll call to pursue non-States matters and to conduct private business is in breach of the above legislation; further still, if none exist will the Committee consider developing disciplinary sanctions to put a stop to this practice?”



To Chief Minister

“In the light of the serious and detailed allegations against the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers outlined in the sworn affidavit, signed by the suspended Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, recently released into the public domain by the Deputy of St. Martin, will the Chief Minister clarify why he has not, as a ‘neutral act’, suspended the Chief Executive until the allegations of engaging in political activity wholly outside of his remit can be fully investigated?”



To Minister for T&R

“Given that 1(1)(k) classified residents fall into two categories; namely those who were granted residence before current regulations were put in place, and those who have been granted residency since, will the Minister list the number of individuals by year for the period 2005 to 2008 inclusive, who paid tax within the following brackets –

(a) less than £20,000;

(b) between £20,000 and £50,000;

(c) between £50,000 and £70,000; and,

(d) between £70,000 and £99,000?

If any 1(1)(k) classified residents do fall into these categories, would the Minister advise how this fits into the framework outlined within the relevant income tax legislation?”

9 comments:

  1. Deputy Pitman, IMHO, is asking all the right qustions and I hope the replies he gets are posted on here also. I say replies because, as I'm sure the deputy knows he will not get anything that rembles an answer.

    Also he must be aware that he could be affecting "some" States members morale so a meeting might be held to remove him from his seat.

    Keep it up Trevor we ALL deserve the truth to come out, and you're certainly doing your bit to get to it!

    ReplyDelete
  2. The majority of us are bored of this line of questioning and besides you just admitted there will not be any answers.

    What are you going to do when Power is gone? Will you then move back onto more pressing issues which actually effect this Island?

    I have concluded that the Voice for children blog was only ever set up to attack the Council of Ministers and rock the system on behalf of a Mr Stuart Syvret. Even the JDA must now realise that at the next election time this continued behaviour will come under massive scrutiny because I am already aware of candidates which will use it.

    This is Bob Hill's baby, so the rumour that the JDA are just running out of ideas maybe plausible?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Cheeses of NazarethFebruary 16, 2010 at 9:13 AM

    Paul,

    You do not seem to regard possible corruption in the highest levels of our government and civil service to be "issues which actually effect this Island".

    How blinkered. How unbelievably stupid

    ReplyDelete
  4. Deputy Trevor PitmanFebruary 16, 2010 at 3:49 PM

    Paul

    Hang on...in another of your posts you say that we 'do nothing' yet now we are 'rumoured' to be 'running out of ideas'. You can't have it both ways, Jon.

    My only interest in this case is if, as appears to be well and truly the case, correct procedures were not utilised. If senior civil servants have been involved in political matters that they shouldn't be. And if all or any of the motivation behind the suspension was for anything other than the operational reasons claimed.

    Everyone who cares about justice should be concerned about that - whatever their political persuasion. Even you Jon.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This geezer "Paul" and "Gary" for that matter sound a bit too much like a loser that went under the guise of "Debumblebee" and a few dozen others as well.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous:
    We know about Paul. As long as his comments are fit for publication it does not really matter. If we were to restrict comments to those from verifiable identities, we wouldn't have had your own contribution, either. So we just have to put up with phoneys.

    Paul:
    You are wrong about everyone being bored with it. This subject seems to bring far more comments than all the other things we discuss on here, like minimum wages.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hold on here Trevor, I would actually argue that everybody should be involved in political matters in one way or another. I understand from sources that Lenny Harper may well be in trouble for postings on Stuart's blog, now if you want to vocally defend these people thats your call but don't end up with mud on your face if the proverbial hits the fan.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Deputy Trevor PitmanFebruary 19, 2010 at 1:15 PM

    Paul

    Excuse me, but where exactly does Mr. Lenny Harper come into the above equation? I don't think I have even mentioned the gentleman. Nor, indeed, had anyone else till you did.

    We are talking about a lot of unanswered questions - questions you say that you are bored with (which is your perogative, of course) but actually any right-thinking individual will surely want satisfactorily clarified. End of. Whatever that finally reveals.

    Because then we can all move on to other equally pressing political issues without this always being in the background.

    And everyone I talk to personally does want those questions answered - even though their political perspectives may vary hugely. As I said on Channel news today, the way this whole situation has been drawn out and mishandled well...if there isn't a conspiracy of some kind in reality, then the COM have done an absolutely brillian job of making a significant number of people think that there probably IS one.

    It has been a shambles, Paul, and behind the scenes I think you will not find many politicians who will say anything different. In terms of procedure we also simply can't have a system where serious complaints/allegations are made against Mr. A and he gets suspended, whilst the same sort of complaints are made against Mr. B and he doesn't.

    I'm sorry, but I simply can't see how or why anyone - other than someone who wanted something covered up - would have a problem with this.

    ReplyDelete
  9. A few years ago I heard of a millionaire coming to Jersey back in the 1970s who was meant to have had his tax rate set at six thousand pounds and was still paying that sum more than twenty years later. If the answer to the taxation question does reveal that any of our high value 11k residents are paying sums that many of us would be happy to be paying then I think that it is a scandal. It surely can't be possible. Can it?

    ReplyDelete

We shall not accept comments that are offensive in language or content, libellous, irrelevant or deranged.
We have no means of editing comments -it is all or nothing. So, if there is any of your comment we can't use, we can't use any of it.