Thursday, March 4, 2010


The first of Trevor’s two oral questions for next week’s States sitting has been necessary due to “the not unexpected” move by the Chief Minister, Senator Terry Le Sueur to keep details of any additional payments outside of contractual entitlements relating to the recently resigned Chief Officer of Health & Social Services out of the public domain.

Trevor says that whilst the obvious response for the Chief Minister should have been to simply either confirm or deny that any such payments had been included, Senator Le Sueur had instead attempted to hide behind claimed ‘confidentiality’ and effectively refused to answer.

‘Any additional payments of taxpayers’ money outside of contractual agreements – agreements that all States employees must have under law – are not covered under blanket confidentiality’ says Trevor. ‘The response last month was, as I say, not unexpected, but it does once again show complete contempt for both transparency and the general public who are fully entitled to know what went on here.’

As a consequence Trevor says he decided to take advice from the Data Protection office before attempting to lodge a re-worded oral version of the question in order that he didn’t fall foul of getting it knocked back by the Bailiff due to any ‘loopholes’ as he says has happened before.

‘I’m pleased to say that Data Protection confirmed that in their view the entitlement in the ‘public interest’ that details of any possible payments outside of contractual ones should be made available was very strong. As was said, this was a top civil servant and any monies would come directly from the public purse. If politicians are not to be able to get answers on such fundamental issues then we really should drop any pretence to claiming that we are a democracy, let alone a government that is accountable to its people. It really is that black and white.’

Question One - Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Chief Minister –

“Given that any additional monies/severance payments outside of the contractual entitlement paid to the former Chief Officer of Health and Social Services would have been made from public funds, what justification can the Chief Minister give for not divulging the contents of the agreement to the Assembly in his written response on 23rd February, particularly in the interests of accountability and transparency (as outlined in the Ministerial Code of Conduct)?

Question Two of Trevor’s follows on from his written question on the 23rd of February that revealed the remarkable and eye-opening figures relating to the real amounts of tax actually paid by some of the island’s 1.1.(K) residents (details of which can be viewed on this site in an article below).

Given that Assistant Minister for Treasury & Resources, Deputy Eddie Noel had previously told the States that he was of the opinion that 1.1.(K) residents could not have their tax rates re-evaluated, and possibly increased like the general public, Trevor says it is absolutely essential that this be clarified.

‘With the much-trumpeted review of taxation being promised by the Treasury & Resources Minister this issue cannot simply be left to later be used as an excuse to actually do nothing at all in this area,’ Trevor told us; ‘worse, to actually use this as an excuse to instead increase taxation levels on ordinary working people. Not just so-called ‘middle Jersey’ residents, but those who can afford any increase, whether this be via increased GST or anything else, the least. Hence my question as to the legal standing of agreements made; particularly those dating back to before the current regulations from 2005.

Question Two - Deputy T. Pitman of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Minister for Treasury and Resources ­

“Would the Minister clarify under which aspect of Jersey’s tax legislation individuals were deemed able to be legally granted 1(1)(k) status and thus negotiate their own tax contributions with the Comptroller of Income Tax prior to 2005; and advise whether 1(1)(k) status also means individual tax rates cannot be increased by government in line with a changing economic climate?”

We all look forward to hearing the answers…


  1. Getting an answer from Terry...a bit like pulling teeth!

  2. If you sat next to Jimbo Dimbo would you want to speak much?

  3. Constable ConstableMarch 8, 2010 at 7:58 AM

    So if you get blanked again on any "additional" payments where do you go next, Deputy?

  4. Trevor, I admire your doggedness but you just know that you will not get an answer. The sickening thing is that it all paints a picture of deeply held contempt for politicians who would try and get answers. But even worse than that contempt for the public.

    You can even see this in your other question about 1 1 K tax. We are told they all pay fortunes and bring huge benefits in trickle down, the amount of domestics and gardeners employed. The stats contained on this site prove that to be quite false as for every one who does pay what you might expect there is another who pays nothing like. Spin, spin and cover up. It is the Jersey Way. Best of luck anyway.

  5. Deputy Trevor PitmanMarch 8, 2010 at 1:48 PM

    Constable Constable

    Are you a police officer or the father/mother of a 13th, secret parish we know nothing about?

    But where will I go next? I will go back and keep going back until I get a satisfactory answer. The question is a simple one that really demands nothing more than a simple, straight forward answer.

    As a constituent who contacted me put it: unless there is something to hide what is the problem? This is public money and people have a right to know how it is spent; why it has been considered warranted, and on the authority of which person or persons.

    I think that sums it up.

    On the other hand, if no additional 'severance'payments have been made then all the Chief Minister has to do is tell us that and the matter is ended. But we will get to the bottom of this even if it means waiting until the relevant accounts are published.

    Incidentally, it has been suggested to me that I should have asked SEB the question instead, and that this might be used as a reason why I won't get an answer.

    To me this doesn't seem like a valid argument as the person I would then be asking would be...the Chief Minister in his role as chair!


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.