Monday, May 3, 2010

TREVOR’S WRITTEN QUESTIONS FOR 11TH MAY 2010

Trevor has the following written questions lodged for the 11th May States sitting. Unusually for him he has only three lodged this time around rather than the normal full quota of five. Trevor tells us that this is the direct result of the current exceptionally busy period of constituent work he has on. :

“Unfortunately, with the lodging deadline times having been brought forward due to the holiday weekend, whilst right in the middle of finalising these I was contacted regarding some very urgent constituent issues. As a result I was unable to get my final two questions accepted before the 9.30am deadline - the Greffier’s office being understandably very strict about anything being even a minute late!”

Once again the three questions form a mixture of wider political issues and Trevor’s constituent work, the first question being a follow-up to his question to the Planning & Environment Minister on 20th April. This is in reference to the unsafe ‘listed’ building in La Motte Street in St. Helier No. 1 District, where obtrusive scaffolding and makeshift wooden screening are having a damaging impact on nearby businesses.

The second question Trevor tells us he feels very strongly about. Put to the Chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee this asks about the issue of some States Members regularly leaving the Chamber having registered their ‘presence’ at Roll Call to disappear to their day jobs.

‘This shouldn’t be allowed to happen. And what I, and a number of other backbenchers, find particularly galling is that one of the worst offenders is regularly to be heard droning on to the media about ‘States efficiency’ and how much Members cost the public.” Given his strong feelings on the matter Trevor tells us that he will be writing a post specifically about this issue in the very near future.

The third question is another to the Planning & Environment Minister, Senator Freddie Cohen. With the upcoming debate on the Town Park this asks the question on most people’s lips. Will the Council of Ministers, for once, support the wishes of the public and proceed with the development of the Town Park this year? Or attempt to reduce the much-needed ‘green lung’ in the middle of St. Helier to the size of a postage stamp by building expensive town houses all around its parameter under the guise of needing to ‘frame it’? We can only hope that for once commonsense and respect for the wishes of the public sway the day!

*Note. We will have the oral questions for 11th May from Trevor, Shona, Debbie and Geoff up on the website late on Thursday once they have been officially approved.





QUESTION ONE: TO THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT


“Further to my written question of 20th April 2010, in relation to scaffolding at a building in La Motte Street, when the Minister stated that one of the problems delaying the removal of the scaffolding was the death of the owner, would the Minister state if he has information regarding the ownership of the building and, if so, disclose this to members?

Would the Minister further advise whether the detrimental effect of the scaffolding to other businesses in the vicinity has featured in his department's discussions with the owners of the property and outline what pressures, if any, can be applied to bring ensure that the scaffolding is removed as swiftly as possible?”





QUESTION TWO: TO THE CHAIRMAN OF PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE


“Given growing public concern about various aspects of States efficiency -will the Chairman advise what measures, if any, the Committee has at its disposal to monitor and ensure that those members also having second jobs/careers give adequate commitment to carrying out their public duties? Further still, what sanctions, if any, can be put in place to prevent members simply leaving the Assembly after roll call to go to their second place of work?”



QUESTION THREE: TO THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT

“Will the Minister confirm whether he intends to allow work to begin on the Talman area of the Town Park, but to oppose the development of a park on the rest of the designated area, if it is to be without buildings, and, if so, does he not consider that this would be contrary to the public’s expectations for the site?”

20 comments:

  1. Gobbie The States rafter GoblinMay 4, 2010 at 9:37 AM

    Looking down from my many peepholes in the States Chamber roof more often than not all I spy where some of our allegedly senior politicans are meant to sit is a load of empty seats. Take the back row for instance. Who was meant to sit next to the much criticised ex-Senator Syvret? I really couldn't tell you because this seat was as empty as a Tory's head.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mr Gobbie

    You are not suggesting that this is...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Trevor. Are you going to name names? If some of our politicians are really - what can only be described as treating the public as mugs by preaching about the need for value for money while actually sodding off to their business office - then we really ought to know. Surely you should be bringing this up in the States as a matter of real urgency? What do PPC think about this and more importantly what are they going to do about it?

    ReplyDelete
  4. If they build on the site of the 'Town park' frankly that will be a complete betrayal. I hate to use the term but the "oligarchy" disgust me more with each passing day.

    ReplyDelete
  5. If a persons business is ruined because of a decision made by the E & P minister then surely some kind of funding should be in place to allow such people some kind of compensation? Does anyone know if such a fund exists?

    ReplyDelete
  6. One frequently empty seat could be occasionally filled if Uncle Fester would just stay in the building after roll call

    ReplyDelete
  7. Gobbie The States rafter GoblinMay 5, 2010 at 7:08 AM

    Anonymous #6

    You do mean 'Senator' Uncle Fester don't you? As opposed to Grandpa Munster that pops in now and again at the end of the same row?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Reference the town park let us hope that there are a lot of ring-binders in the States next week!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sorry to lob this in to the mix, but can we all get off this HDLG thread (within the NUT article)now?

    Because whoever is running it the attacks that blog carrries on good hardworking States members like those from the JDA, Higgins, Hill, Tadier, nevermind their obsession with attacking Syvret, show that the JDA blog really should not be engaging with such trouble makers if that is going to be their approach.

    I agree with what someone else said under a different story, genuine criticism based on policies or political leanings is fine. But some stuff on the HDLG blog is just personal attcks.

    Consequently this blog as a genuine political news web-site really shouldn't be exposing more people to the deranged, far-right views of some of the posters on HDLG (it isn't all I accept) by effectively advertising it to unsuspecting people who might genuinely be interested in politics.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Jon H (the real one)May 5, 2010 at 1:29 PM

    "what sanctions, if any, can be put in place to prevent members simply leaving the Assembly after roll call to go to their second place of work?”

    I will be interested in the response to this.

    Any idea of the number who actually have second jobs?

    ReplyDelete
  11. That is surely a topic for further questions, isn't it. To my mind being a full time politician instead of a part-time lazy 'businessman' should be written into the rules so that only those fully willing and able to do the job full-time can stand.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Confused but not that confusedMay 6, 2010 at 6:15 AM

    JDA/Mod

    I know this question probably belongs in an older thread but... If "Gazza" isn't "Jon" then why has he gone as far as telling a member of "Citizens Media" that he was setting up the HDLG blog some weeks back? Maybe "Gazza" or "Jon" could come on here and clear this up for readers like me?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Confused but not that confusedMay 6, 2010 at 6:19 AM

    I don't think any politician should have a second job. If you have a second job then it is quite clear that by definition you can't be giving your all at the first one. As a taxpayer then the bottom line for me is that this isn't acceptable because I am helping pay their salaries and am being short changed. Politicans who leave the Chamber after registering their attendance should be sacked.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Have you got a second job Trevor? Even if you haven't am I right in betting this is a matter of choice. I am sure you would have been allowed to stay on up at Education if you had wished too. Wouldn't that have been the smart thing to do from a community point of view which the JDA is always banging on about. It hardly seems fair to criticise someone for splitting their time between the States and, say, running a Trust or something similar when others could equally keep on their employemnt at the time of election? Do you not agree?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Jon (the real one)May 6, 2010 at 9:45 AM

    The HDLG Farce Blog is not set-up by me and I have never said anything of the sort to anybody. People have quizzed me as to who has and I have an idea and thats all I can say. I just wish some people would give me some piece surely the Jon H attacks are getting boring by now?

    ReplyDelete
  16. There: Jon has repeated for the public record his private assurance that HDLGF is not his blog. No more comments on the basis that it is, please. DR

    ReplyDelete
  17. Trevor,

    I have been to the States a number of times and the gaps on the benches are really surprising. With the BBC and the JEP having little media boxes above the Chamber you might have thought that this would have been commented on.

    But I take it that, obviously being in the know you are only concerend with those who do, as you say, push off out of the building. Not those who are in and out but at least stay on the premises doing their emails or whatever? I take it that these can at least hear debates? Is that correct?

    I do agree with your concern I should point out, just wanted a bit of clarity. It is taxpayers money after all.Why should we pay for someone doing half a job and probably making a mint in the process too?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Perhaps some politicians leave the assembly for long spells because they have to go out and feed their pet troll?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Have the JDA members got any oral questions lodged this week? They are usually up on the blog by now. Hope you lot have not been doing a Tadier and having a lie in missing the deadlines?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Monte Casino:
    Regarding the comment I haven't published: I would be wholly unsurprised if you were proved right. However, even a proven liar's word has to take precedence over a wholly fictional character's in the public record, I think. If you care to identify your real self to me, I am happy to correspond on that subject by private email with you, but not openly on the public web.

    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.