By J. Brock (FINN)

A meeting of Legislative Council took place at1030hrs on Friday, 23 February 2007. Present were Cllrs. Summers, Rendell, Cockwell, Robertson, Clausen, Hansen, Stevens and Davies. Also present were the Acting Attorney General, Miss Ros Cheek, the Financial Secretary, Mr. Derek Howatt, the Chief Executive Mr. Chris Simpkins, the Clerk of Council Mrs Claudette Anderson , the Commander British Forces South Atlantic Islands, Brigadier Nick Davies, and the Speaker, Mr. Lewis Clifton.

Prayers were conducted by the Rev. Kathy Biles of Christ Church Cathedral. Confirmation of the minutes of the meeting held on Friday, 15 December 2006 went smoothly.

Pursuant to Section 5 of the Census Ordinance, the Acting Attorney General’s Report on Census Patterns shown by the 2006 census and the subject accounts laid on the table in accordance of the provisions of Section 57 of the Finance and Audit Ordinance for the year ended 30 June 2006, Falkland Islands Government Currency Fund, Pensions Old Scheme Fund, Insurance Fund, Capital Equilisation Fund, And for the year ended 31 December 2005, The Retirement Pensions Equilisation Fund.

Would the Honourable Richard Cockwell please inform this House if the road to the west of Port Howard Settlement is complete in construction to enable heavy goods vehicles access to the proposed ferry head on West Falkland is on time? And, if not, what further work needs to be undertaken and what is the estimated cost?

Mr. Speaker, Honourable Members, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to reply to this question, which, although the questioner is a member of the Transport Advisory Committee, I think it is a useful thing that these issues are actually put clearly.

The road west of Port Howard was constructed along similar lines as the rest of the Camp Track Network with a basic specification being a road suitable for light 4-wheel drive vehicles all the year around. This section of road along with the rest of the Camp Road Network should be limited to a maximum of 15 tonnes during winter months. It’s most likely to be from the middle of April to the beginning of October, depending on the weather conditions. The first objective to improve the West’s Ferry head is considered to be to cap the road from Port Howard to Harps Farm - a process that will take a fully geared up team approximately one season. The overall cost is likely to be £300,000.00.

These works on West Falkland have not yet been programmed as current programme has been concentrated on the MPA Road, to be followed by sections of the North Camp Road on East Falkland. Usage on un-surfaced roads is always going to be weather dependent. And, even once capping has been carried out, this will continue to be the case.

IH: I thank the Honourable Member for his reply.

Could the Honourable Richard Davies advise what are the current policies on in-fill plots that are currently used for grazing horses in Stanley and whether there are plans for providing grazing plots as opposed to grazing rights on the common exist?

Thank you. And, could I also thank the EPO, Crown Council and Public Works for assisting with the answer.

The current policy of encouraging the development of housing for privately owned in-fill plots within Stanley does not take account of grazing issues. However, it is much anticipated that any in-fill plots suitable for such development would be used for horse grazing other than on an infrequent basis. However, as you know, the Lands Committee is currently reviewing several areas of government owned land within Stanley, which may be released for housing development if their release does not impact unfavourably on green space provision within the town.

One of these areas being considered by the Lands Committee is currently being used for house raising and that is the 10-acre plot at the junction of Sapper Hill and Bypass Road. It was advertised for housing development in early 2006. That is the area adjacent to Stanley Common and is not part of the Common and it is used for horse grazing as part of the Common at the minute.

Executive Council have also invited Officers to consider a further four-acre plots currently used by Government as a private grazing plot could be considered for housing development. At present this is not form part of the Lands Committee review and that’s the area near the old butchery. And, no proposals have been put forward for the creation of grazing plots other than grazing rights on Stanley Common. And, anyone interested in leasing a plot from Government is advised to consult the Attorney General’s Office at Malvina Gardens. And, anyone interested in grazing their horse on the Common should contact the Department of Agriculture.

JR: I thank the Honourable Davies for that answer. Could I clarify then that there are areas that people could apply to for grazing sites. Is that what I understand correctly from that last bit of your answer?

RD: As far as I recollect, some of the grazing plots which were tendered a few months ago were not taken up. Furthermore, if somebody with a horse or if somebody identifies a plot who thinks it belongs to Government and could be used for grazing they should then go to the Attorney General’s Office and find out whether it is available or would be available.

JR: I just - to clarify again - presumably this applies to areas of the Common as well that somebody could feasibly identify a suitable area and then fence off or not?

RD: No. It is not policy to fence off areas of the Common for private grazing. Grazing on the Common is administered by the Department of Agriculture. Rights to graze on other areas of Government land are administered by the Attorney General’s Office. I think just to summarise what I said earlier, it is not anticipated that there will be a conflict of interest between the development of in-fill plots and horse grazing but some of the larger Government plots, which may turn out to be suitable for housing would be suitable for grazing as well.

JR: Thank you to the Honourable Davies for his excellent answer.

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions if I may, the first is a brief one. Does the list of plots available for application for grazing include the Triangle? My second question is, where can anybody refer to this alleged policy of in-fill plots and has it. In fact, been approved by Executive Council as an amendment to the Town Plan? Was it widely discussed in the Planning Committee? Has there been any public consultation about the issue of in-fill plots, since I know that large numbers of the community are concerned about the extent of in-fill plots and possible over-development?

RD: Thank-you. The Triangle, I don’t think is part of the properties which are available or the areas which are available for grazing. And, that is because it is currently, I believe, Administered by Government House, with the permission of the Falkland Islands Government.

Regarding the in-fill plots policy, I think it is fair to say that’s been widely publicised and discussed. It’s part of the draft housing strategy although it hasn’t been formally ratified by Executive Council.

MS: So, this is not, in fact, the current policy?

RD: It’s part of the draft housing strategy, yes, if passed it will become policy.

JR: I’d just like to ask when in devising the in-fill plots, whether sites were identified with the permission of the owners or whether some owners might find that part of their property has actually been designated as a potential in-fill plot without them being aware of it?

RD: You are now starting to ask questions slightly beyond the policy. However, the identification of in-fill plots. About eighteen months ago a study was done by the Environmental Planning Department, which showed over 200 potential in-fill plots within Stanley. These were not done with the owner’s consent. Indeed, I think half my garden is probably identified as a potential in-fill plot. Quite a large number of those plots would not currently be suitable and some have actually come before the Planning and Building Committee for outline Planning Permission development and have been refused for reasons like lack of road access. So, I think it would seem to me it was a reasonable exercise to undertake to get a feel for the potential number of plots within Stanley. And, if your plot has been marked or shaded in as a potential in-fill plot it doesn’t imply that you have to release it or any pressure on you. Far from it. It was a helpful exercise to name the sort of - the number of houses that might be put in Stanley. And I am well aware of the public concern about the development of in-fill plots.

The Financial Secretary, the Hon Mr Derek Howatt (DH) explained the purpose of the Bill. The Bill was raised under a certificate of urgency.

DH: Mr Speaker, Honourable Members, the Taxes and Duties (Special Exemptions) Ordinance was amended in 2006 in order to ensure that certain persons in relevant employment could not benefit from tax exemptions granted under Section 9a.

Relevant employment means employment to provide a service to the British Regular Armed Forces or to the Ministry of Defence in an amendment that came into force on 01 January 2007.

However, a review of the law by Executive Council determined that the amendment to the law went further than was intended by Honourable Members and may have had undesirable affects as the exemptions are granted or denied on the basis of the person’s place or origin.

This Bill, as approved by Executive Council yesterday, amends the ordinance with effect from 01 January 2007 by replacing the 2006 Amendment with an exclusion of the following persons from the benefit of an exemption under Section 9a:

A person who was present in the Falkland Islands when they were engaged for relevant employment or a person who was present in the Falkland Islands in the three months before being engaged for relevant employment.

The Bill also provides where these exclusions do not apply to a person who is present in the Falkland Islands in the course of relevant employment immediately before being engaged for a new form of relevant employment.

That means that a person will not be excluded from the benefit of an exemption simply because the person is moving immediately from one relevant employment to another.

In relation to a person who has been present in the Falkland Islands and who leaves for a period of three months or more, provided that in the view of the Commissioner of Taxation the principle reason for leaving is not to enable the person to qualify for the benefit of an exemption under 9a, the Bill has the affect that if the person were then to apply from outside the Falkland Islands for engagement for relevant employment, the person would be entitled to the benefit of an exemption in the same way as a person who had never been here.

The Bill also amends the Ordinance to remove references to old age pension contributions under the Old Age Pensions Ordinance 1952 and replaces them with references to Retirement Pensions Contributions under the Retirement Pensions Ordinance 1996.

I beg to move the first reading of the Bill.

Cllr Summers seconded the Bill. It was fast tracked and passed.

Mr. Speaker, Honourable Members, I intend to address two issues, I hope relatively briefly. The first is the publication of the Mental Health Strategy. Councillors had an opportunity during the course of this week to attend a presentation of the Mental Health Strategy given by the Medical Department - the Chief Medical Officer and the Community Psychiatric Nurse. And, very interesting it was. And I commend to anybody who has an interest or who thinks they may have an interest in mental health issues including stress issues, the strategy that’s been put forward.

The issues I raised in the course of that discussion is: why is it that this community seems to have much more of an issue of mental health than you might imagine it should have? What is it that causes the level of stress that apparently exists in this community? Well, I think it is something for us to think seriously about when we propose changes, when we propose developments, when we think about our own ambitions for this country, are we sometimes pushing too hard? Are we over-ambitious to the extent that we are causing an awful lot of people more stress than we reasonably would wish?

I don’t have an answer to this question but I think it is a question that’s worth raising and worth reflecting on when we. As a group and, indeed the Government as a whole sits around and proposes developments - new ideas - things that we might think are a good idea but in fact might create a good deal more stress and angst than we otherwise may have thought of. So, it’s a thinking issue.

Mr. Speaker, I am now going to go where angles fear to tread. I want to talk about the quality of justice. I accept that in any democratic society there has to be a very clear division between politicians, elected members - call them what you will - the executive and the judiciary. That is the case in this country. And, so it should be.

However, I don’t think that should preclude Elected Members from commenting on the way that justice is carried out and the quality of the justice that’s being delivered in our community. It is, after all, our duty, our responsibility to make sure that citizens in this country are treated properly, fairly and well by the justice system. I think we are entirely free to comment on that.

My comments don’t relate only to the recent case of the Police but they do draw heavily on the experience from that. They draw also on other experience over a number of years from watching the justice system at work here.

I think by in large it is a good justice system but I think those that are responsible for it need to think about what they are doing and why they are doing it.

Perhaps the biggest issue about the Police Trials was one of time. Somebody much wiser than me once said that justice delayed is justice denied. In the case of the police trials, I think we are aware of the affects that the timescale had on not only the people directly involved in that case but their families, their friends and people close to them.

I think it’s had a much more devastating effect on a number of people than most would realise. So, I would ask those involved in future cases of assault or an entirely different case, think about what you are doing when you are delaying things - putting things off - well, we can’t do this, we can’t do that - it’s not convenient for this person, that person or the other person. It is not a good thing to delay justice.

I was disturbed on a number of occasions that I had to remind some pretty senior people in Government, including two pretty senior people in Government House that the objective of the Government in terms of the police trials was not to achieve a conviction. It was to achieve justice. That’s our objective. And, I am not sure that was always in everybody’s mind.

Certainly there were a number of occasions when I was disturbed about a number of things that were being said or things that were being done or not done have lead me to believe that actually the objective was to achieve a conviction - not to deliver justice. That can’t be right. And, everybody who is responsible for the justice system should think about that.

There are some other issues I think that still surround that case, that, perhaps pertain to that. I think we are aware that there are a number of issues that were quietly put away because they might have interfered in the process of that case. That can’t be right.

There are still some issues around, particularly issues to do with bullying that I am convinced were not properly investigated and were possibly just swept away because it was not convenient to deal with them at the moment. That can’t be right.

None of this pre-supposes that I support corrupt, criminal or bad behaviour because clearly, I do not. And, if people have made mistakes and have broken the law then they will be duly punished. But they should be punished in proportion to what they have done. And, that is a very important issue.

I wish also then just to touch on an issue that will be raised or has been raised in the context of the Constitution. It is not clear in our Constitution, or from the Police Ordinance, who is responsible in this Government, in this community and in this society for the management of the Police Force. That is intolerable. It cannot be right. It has to be absolutely clear. It is my view - as I said on a number of occasions in Select Committee - that the Police Force ought to report to the head of the Civil Service - the Chief Executive - like all other Civil Servants. I know that is not necessarily the view of the previous Governor or this Governor but it is certainly my view. And, I think it is also the view of a number of other people. That issue needs to be buttoned and it needs to be absolutely clear. And, I am not convinced, I have to say, in terms of what we have seen in the last several months, that the custodians at Government House are not necessarily the best custodians of the management of the Police Force.

On that note, Mr. Speaker, I support the Motion.

Mr. Speaker, Honourable Members, our economy relies on our fishery and we are rightly proud of the way that we manage it in a sustainable and effective manner. But we shouldn’t forget that this work relies on the labour of hundreds of men working on the ships over the horizon. And, anyone who has ever been onboard a jigger or know what the conditions are like on many of them. They are not all bad but some of them are pretty grim. They have small cabins, overcrowded, not much food, long working hours and fresh water and washing facilities are extremely limited.

The sea around here is, in itself, a harsh and unforgiving, dangerous environment and life is going to be hard on the best managed ships. Nonetheless, young men from poor countries get a living and we get our fishery.

What is intolerable is that we get cases where men have been tied up, imprisoned, beaten and otherwise abused. And it is also intolerable that life is made worse by unsafe working practices and lack of basic safety equipment, which would cost little or nothing to correct.

At the beginning of this week, as you all know, on the eve of the 20^th anniversary of our fishery, ten young men jumped off a Taiwanese Jigger in the harbour in an attempt to swim ashore. Two of them didn’t make it and are missing presumed dead. I am given to understand that they were either non-swimmers or weak swimmers. They didn’t wear life jackets so one can understand the desperation that drove them to jump into our bitterly cold water.

I saw the survivors in Hospital. They are bright, pleasant, courteous and grateful people mourning the death of their two sea-mates.

Once again the community responded quickly and decisively and I would like to thank the Police, the Fire Service, the launch and the helicopter crews and our hospital staff who looked after them, interpreters and everyone else who was involved. We will take every means within our power to deal with this properly and to ensure that any wrong-doing is dealt with.

And, it’s extremely commendable that FIG takes a robust stance when flagrant human rights violations come to light as we did in 1998 with the case of the InSung 101. Criminal instance which occur within our territorial waters must be dealt with by the force of law. And, it is commendable that we can afford to be moderately generous with medical treatment and repatriation where the costs can’t be recovered.

But I would ask if this is enough. I don’t believe that there is any shred of consistent concern to protect rights to pro-actively protect human rights in the Fishing fleet. Although individuals are concerned about the issue, there doesn’t appear to be any great enthusiasm for investigating the core problem or taking effective and pro-active action.

And, it is true that international law makes it difficult to respond effectively to instances which occur in our zone but outside our territorial waters.

Some progress has been made in that the new Falkland Islands Licensing Ordinance has been changed to include basic safety standards to make provisions for checking safety equipment as part of license conditions. This is a step forward but we do need to make sure that it is properly implemented.

So, what could be done to reduce the toll of death and injury in the fleet? If we are to improve the situation, we need a clear idea of the working conditions and accident rates. Most of what we know is piecemeal and anecdotal. It occurs out of sight and over the horizon. And, I would put it to you that the making a distinction between non accidental injuries, between beatings and these very gross violations of human rights that we have seen, from time to time distinguishing them from the instances of this complete lack of proper safety precautions is perhaps less important than trying to reduce the instance of injuries and deaths in general.

We know a bit about what goes on and most of the injuries are the result of accidents rather than attacks but I would put it to you that these can in themselves can be violations of human rights. The majority of them appear to me to be entirely preventable and to rise from the appalling safety standards and a very casual attitude to human life and health, in some parts, of the fishing fleet. And I would stress some parts.

We hear about sea anchors parting, causing some of the severe injuries we see in the hospital. And it’s said that these lines are in often very poor condition. We see men with head injuries where squid blocks have fallen on their heads during transhipping and they haven’t been wearing hard hats. And one has to compare the costs of one night’s stay in hospital and a launch trip against fitting out a crew with proper hard hats. And, you can get hard hats which are suitable for use in freezer holds. Improvements cost nothing. We see men with frostbite on their hands from working too long in the freezer holds. And, it’s a simple matter to do shorter shifts and higher turn-overs, where they don’t get frostbite.

There are things we can look at and these are not the rambling of a bleating heart liberal. I think there are good reasons for us to do something more proactive.

I alluded to the rare incidents of gross violations of human rights. I think it brings our whole fishery into disrepute and it’s unfair for the majority of responsible companies. I think there is a potential for the companies benefit by reduction in medical and insurance costs and in fishing time lost when a crewman is injured. Control of risks makes good business sense. And, a recent initiative in Alaska reduced commercial fishing deaths by 64% using fairly straight-forward mainly voluntary measures. I would suggest that a healthy fishery needs healthy companies as well as healthy fish stocks.

It would also be good for our international standing to be seen to take a proactive approach. And LEGCO’s proposal in 1998 to deny licences to ships involved in human rights abuses was picked up immediately by the International Labour Organisation so that it makes us look good in international eyes.

If we do lose occasional revenue so be it. My belief is that as long as the squid come into our waters, the ships are going to follow it and it’s over-fishing and climate change that threatens our fishery, not the defence of human rights

In summary I would say that progress could be made at relatively little cost by perhaps for example developing a voluntary accident prevention programme perhaps with some judicious incentives.

And I would like to suggest that we celebrate our 20^th anniversary of the fishery not only with our record of a well managed fishery but with a determination to take a more proactive approach to the welfare of the men, who bring in our revenue.

That’s enough on that and I am sure you are aware of my feelings.

Just in brief, once again I will mention Capt Pembroke. We are justifiably very proud of our unique environment in the Falklands. And, Cape Pembroke perhaps to us doesn’t seem very special when you compare it with places like Westpoint, Carcass and Sea Lion. I say that environmentally the most important site. But I put it to you that if you can’t look after Cape Pembroke, which is on our doorstep, what hope is there for the rest of the Islands? And I would also say again, look at it through the eyes of a visitor because there is an extraordinary amount happening to Cape Pembroke. I don’t suppose there is a capital city in the world that has a penguin colony right on its doorstep or with plants that are so rare there are only a handful in places. Where else can you go and see Dolphins, Sea Lions and if you are lucky a whale walking along the shore and where you can see a square rigger laying on the beach and the wreck of a tug that brought her in a few hundred yards out. We’ve got fantastic white sand beaches, crystal water and we need to value it.

We have made progress and protection from over-grazing has allowed the tussock to come back and the clearance of rats on the offshore two tussock islands has allowed Light Chin Petrels to start nesting again. In spite of these successes it is also very vulnerable with more visitors each year and we have to ask ourselves if the Falklands are the place where nature is in charge or whether the 4-wheel drive is in charge.

The point I am coming to is that I am delighted to say that the Military have taken a strong line on this and taken the decision to stop non-essential driving by their vehicles on the area of Cape Pembroke. I would like to ask Brigadier Davies to pass on my thanks to those concerned for a responsible attitude and express the hope that the rest of the community will take the same responsible attitude.

Finally and very briefly I would like to echo the point made by my honourable colleague, Mike Summers about the Mental Health Strategy. I think it’s an interesting point. If there are apparently high levels of stress in our society related in some way to the pressure that we as a Government put on individuals and I think it is certainly well worth thinking about.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. I support the Motion.

Mr. Speaker, Honourable Members, I have just a few things that I would like to talk about. The first is something that the people in the Islands will be pleased about that the Government is going to employ Dr Chris Doyle to work on a number of telecommunications issues. And from reading recent local news I see that Cable & Wireless feel they are giving relevant information but Dr. Doyle feels that he needs more to do the job. There is a gap between the two parties which hopefully will narrow and close for this work to be carried out.

Our telecommunications in Camp is always a current topic and very important to all that live there. And, you can’t go down to the pub to meet friends and you can’t easily nip to your neighbour n many places. So all forms of communication, whether its radio, TV or just plain telephone, internet it’s very important in isolated areas like Camp. And, I would like to say that Government is working hard to build something to Camp in all these areas.

I think one of the hardest things for me to accept is how Cable & Wireless view Camp as merely a separate part of the Falklands and always look to improvements or work in that area to be funded by FIG. And. I believe by FIG giving Cable & Wireless permission for protecting their core business, we should receive something in return like a commitment to the financially less desirable parts of the business.

Moving on to the roads, we seem to be linking up a few more parts of the jigsaw and another very important one for the East Falklands was the joining up of the roads. There is now a road that goes all the way around the East. The road from San Carlos has now met up with the road just past Greenfield Farm and this will be great for anybody who works in that area and anybody on the North Camp who wants to get access to Goose Green or even MPA. It’s probably a lot quicker to go via Greenfield than to go all the way up to Stanley and back down again. So I would like to congratulate peter Mc Kay and his team for really cracking on with a very important part of the Road Network. I am not quite sure what we have got in mind for the San Carlos River (from aside) "A bridge." Yes, it’s a bridge.

Finally, I would like to thank David Higgins and, to a degree his wife for letting him come for all the great work he’s done past and present. Again, in the newspaper, the story about him says he’s got great respect from his staff. He seems to have a lot of respect from students and, equally, he’s got a lot of respect from parents. And, certainly my recollection - not in this time obviously but when our children were under his stewardship, he seemed to be at Parents’ Evenings just as interested in our children as Toni and myself seem to be, which is, I think what every parent would like to see from anyone in that position. David has come and worked for some months in probably what is - has been a challenging time but I spoke to him recently and he says it’s been an enjoyable time as well. Si I thank him again and I wish him an enjoyable retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I support the Motion.

Mr. Speaker, Honourable Members, we’ve had three people talking fairly lengthily on very serious matters which I do associate myself with everything that’s been said. Although it’s in other things I would like to mention, if I could just start off with reminding the Hon Dr Davis that the Falkland Islands Defence Force had the largest contingent of men on the beaches when they were searching for the unfortunately lost seamen. And, I think we really should recognise their contribution.

It’s 20 years since the establishment of the Fishery and I am not going to say too much about it because I am sure that the Honourable Andrea Clauson will have something to say about it being in her portfolio. But having held the portfolio for eight years I do wish to remind everybody in the Falkland Islands that virtually everything that we have today which enhances our way of life is solely due to the establishment of the fisheries and the far-sighted work that was done 20 years ago. The Falklands as they are now would be a very different place if it wasn’t for the establishment of our fisheries regime. And I do recommend everybody to recognise that.

Just on a slightly lighter note on the 2007 Committee if I could just possibly put in something in public to them. People have actually asked about the coloured lights on Ross Road. I am sure the Power and Electrical Department had problems with them and they are oping actually to get them set up again before the 14^th of June.

One thing that came out in discussion with one of my colleagues today which I think is an extremely good idea - the town now is beginning to look smarter, the buildings are being painted up and there is one monstrosity directly behind the monument which really needs something done to it and that’s the Secretariat. Could we not actually paint it to match the Town Hall. I think it would be a much more attractive looking building and I think we should look at it as a matter of urgency.

Mr. Speaker I beg to support the motion.

Mr Speaker, Honourable Members, I will be very brief today. In fact that Cllr. Cockwell and I made a pact to speak very briefly today but I think I will probably beat his time. Issues that normally affect my portfolio have been relatively quiet and I have nothing to say on those matters. Mu colleagues have already spoken on important issues and I am sure the Councillors who haven’t spoken have things to say so therefore I will move on very quickly Mr Speaker and refer to the adage "if one has little or nothing to say his course is to say little or nothing."

I support the motion.

Mr. Speaker, Honourable Members, I want to touch on a number of issues that have been already raised and bring a few more in and I’d like to start with recalling to you all the pleasure I had several weeks ago to attend the opening of the Port Edgar Road and to see the visible and to see the visible delight on the faces of the Alazia Family when they at last had their road right through to their door. There are some things that happen within our duties as Councillors which are not necessarily very enjoyable but that was particularly enjoyable. There is now one less road to be done and the number left to be done are getting fewer and fewer all the time and I really hope that the Dunnose Head connection is made this season and again anticipate the quality of life improvements that it will bring to people living in that part of West Falkland.

But in all this we need to take into account the quality of the machinery that our road gangs are working with. The road gangs in my opinion - and I am sure in all our opinions - are doing a really good job but they are working with old machinery that was probably due for the scrap heap in some cases five, six seven or eight years ago. With a working life of 10 years. I think that’s the normal criteria that is used - and here we are 18 or 19 years later in some cases so I just want to bring to your attention the fact that there will be a need for some focus on the need for new machinery. That, I think, can be justified in one very simple way and that is the down time that results from people standing there, twiddling their thumbs whilst the bit of equipment is repaired. We are paying these guys to be out there doing the work. If they can’t work because the machinery isn’t working, that is not a very sensible way of using our money.

And, I think we all need to focus on that a bit more than we have in the past. It is fair to say in all this it was expected that beyond next year there would be very little more work to be done on roads and road building. That is not now the case and new roads are going on the list on an almost daily basis. At Transport Advisory Committee we were given a long list of new requirements following the completion of the basic system. And, there is going to have to be some careful examination of how far down that list we go.

I would also like to join the Honourable Richard Stevens in commending Peter McKay for the work that’s been done on the Greenfield link. It was one of the things in my manifesto. I am really pleased it’s happened as quickly as it has. I would want to confirm to him also that it is in the plans for a bridge to be built over the San Carlos River next season. Having said that, there are a number of projects. In the pipeline for next season we will just have to hope and pray - I think that’s the only way I can put it given all the other things that are there - that it is done this coming season. And although one of the Honourable Members whispered to me that the best thing we can do with the San Carlos River is fish in it, I would like to see us fishing off the bridge.

I would also like to touch on the issue of the Fisheries Incident early this week. It is a great pity that it happened this week of all weeks but it is just an indication of the vagaries of the industry which I think weall in the back of our minds know exist and we have to just do what we can to support them in this very difficult business when we can. I take fully into account the comments made by the Honourable Richard Davies. And, whilst it is totally commendable that we try and do what we can to support the fishing industry and to introduce legislation, if we can, to improve working conditions. It is a fact that it would require international agreement. And, I think this is where, in the past, we have found obstacles to stop us from doing this. But I would also like to join in commending the fishing industry for all that it has done for the Falkland Island over the last 20 years and to recognise that contribution.

The last point I want to make is about the smoking ban and I listened avidly to the phone-in on Monday night and it brought a few more points out in the open. However, I would agree with the Honourable Dr Andrea Clausen in her recent interview in the newspaper where she made the point that we seem to be moving off the principle of the reasoning behind that working group. And, I would like to comment that voluntary schemes, which have been tried in other places, in which some Members here believe is the way forward, don’t work. They are about comfort rather than public protection. And, our duty is towards public protection. I therefore hope that the final report of this working group will be back on the line with the principle involved which is finding ways of banning smoking in public places. And, I know that all those people, who filled in their questionnaires - their public health questionnaire - 77% of them, I think it was,

who agreed with that. I know that they would be very disappointed if we don’t keep on that line.

Mr Speaker, I support the motion.

Mr. Speaker, honourable Members, I have been listening with great interest this morning to many serious and sombre subjects brought to us and there is food for thought there.

I would just like to comment a little bit on the reference Councillor Summers made to the cause of the levels of stress that seem to be appearing in our community. It is worrying and I am sure that he’s absolutely right that to a certain extent that the expectations that the pressures we have put in on ourselves on our community in order to try and achieve ever more far reaching goals has had its affect. I would suggest that perhaps we are seeing to some extent years of budgetary pressures and the affect that had on the staff and in Government.

I think that probably there is an issue of expectation and I think it is expectation that is not just down to the individual’s expectations. It’s a fairly common occurrence in affluent societies where that very affluence can give rise to greater expectations and causes depression, if those expectations don’t match the reality. But it’s also to some extent our expectation - corporate expectations, if you like, of Government.

Just listening to the wonderful ambitions and absolutely vital ambitions already expressed around this room today about human rights protection for our entire fishery, the very valid comments that Councillor Rendell made about the need to replace some capital equipment, the condition of the secretariat - these are all aspirations - these are all things that we want to achieve.

And, we want to carry on trying to achieve them because that is what we must do. Bur they are all pressures that probably has its affect eventually on the number of people being referred for stress related conditions.

I was just going to talk very briefly about the economic report that’s going to be released to the public today. It makes some interesting reading. It is probably the sort of thing we will put to one side while we find a good reason to quote from it to back up our views. And, I think to a certain extent that is exactly what I am going to do.

In it there was reference made about the level of risk in the private sector and I don’t want the private sector lobbing rotten apples at the radio - it’s not really necessarily a comment on them but a comment as much on that as it is on the messages that Government gives out. There are concerns about this, not just in terms of the level of infrastructure the development that doesn’t take place because of this tendency towards risk aversion. But also there are other dangers over public sector involvement and inflationary pressures and essentially taken away the incentives from the private sector to develop.

We need to look at that. We need to look at the environment that we create and what we do to encourage greater incentives. For the private sector to develop. That’s something we are all conscious of and we have to work on that but I think it is something everyone in the community should be aware of to try and move a little bit from what’s Government going to do about it to what are we going to do about it. My husband every day says to me, what is this Government going to do about it, whether he’s talking about the weather or the state of the squid fishery. Quite frankly, I’ve got to have a better answer.

Finally, just one last thing, I just wanted to make public - I have already expressed it to my colleagues - that we’ve had the journalists visiting - many, many journalists visiting during the course of January. We had the media centre up at in the Argos Building, which was attended by Pippa Lang and by Sarah Clement of Sealed PR, who gave an absolutely excellent impression of the Islands. There are lots of very, very positive comments made by the journalists and I would just like to congratulate the journalists on that this is the sort of impression they are going to have all the year around. I would remind people that what we are wanting to do is give a very favourable impression of the Falklands. It is our bound and duty to assist in that but Pippa and Sarah and everyone else involved in the media centre have started that process fantastically and I would like to thank them on behalf of all of us.

Finally, just my very, very last comment is to echo Councillor Stevens’ comments about David Higgins. He came here at a very critical time in the Education Department. He has not had an easy ride for the last three or four months but he has approached it stoically and with good humour and I know there are a lot of people who are sorry to see him go. I hope he enjoys his retirement probably gets a little better weather than we are having this summer.

Mr. Speaker I support the motion.

Mr Speaker, Honourable Members, firstly I would like to comment on some of the things that have been said today in this room. Firstly, in terms of the smoking or the working group on the possible prohibition of smoking and enclosed public places, which is an awful mouthful and I apologise for that. I think the working group will, indeed, pick up on the comments that you have made and members of the public have made. I don’t control the working group. I merely chair the working group and a report will come back to EXCO. We have been sent terms of reference and, if we wished to move away from those terms of reference and we must seek EXCO approval to do that. As chair I hope that when we go back to EXCO with proposals that EXCO can make judgments in due course as to whether or not they support those changes.

Regarding the events of earlier this week, the comments have been made in terms of abuses of human rights, I absolutely support the comments that have been made but I will refrain today from commenting on it further because we are in the middle of a police investigation and I believe in the past the Falkland Islands Government has done as much as it has been able to do to mitigate against such abuses but I would like to see that we look further at this and potential things that we may do to improve the situation but after this current episode has concluded.

The main subject I wish to talk on today is that of the 20^th anniversary of the Fishery. I know some colleagues have already commented. I feel very proud to be involved and to stand today to speak about it. When I left school at 16 - just a few years ago - it was almost the start of the fishery. Actually I left school and went to work at the newly established Fisheries Department which was in Porta Cabins near the sea wall. And there was a very young John Barton there as a fisheries scientist. And you just have to think about that and the fact that I have grown for my two years alongside the growth of the fishery and watched it being involved on and off in the fishery.

So today I would just like to make a few comments about the period from the start of the fishery until now. We must be very proud of what we have achieved here. I have been made aware it took some time for the fishery to be established despite our critical will in the Islands in the 70s and early ‘80s. And in the Mid 1980s it was established. Apparently it exceeded initial expectations while contributing millions to the economy.

It was very rewarding to hear last night at the public presentation that actually, in terms of at least Government revenue, the fishery had contributed in excess of £400Million to date over the last 20 years.

And, I think we have to comment on the very careful fiscal policy that we have had in place, which has allowed us not only to invest in our infrastructure and our services and to provide the community at large with a reasonably high standard of living, they have also allowed us to build security in terms of the investments we now have, which amounts to a little over half of that total.

In terms of the way the fishery has developed from a Government prospective in the early days we had to bring in a lot of expertise because there was little here. And it is very rewarding to see that 20 years on, we now have all of that expertise in house.

I would like to extend my thanks and recognition for this team of people down the road in their dodgy, grey building, as they pointed out last night for the work that they do. It’s very valuable and nice to see that it is done in house.

I would like to mention the industry as well because we wouldn’t have a fishery without the participation of the private sector. And, they have responded over the years to the current fisheries policy as it is today and have developed from a largely brokerage arrangements in the early days in joint ventures with varying levels of local control to what we have today, which is the new long-term property rights system. One of the key goals of the system is to maximise local control. Of course we have 100% ownership and I think it’s very rewarding to see how the private sector has grown and responded in response to the policies of the day.

Other than that, I would just like to say that we are, this week, celebrating the 20^th anniversary. The first event was last night - a very well attended presentation which was up to excellent standard from the Department of fisheries and representatives of the industry. And, I would like to commend them on an excellent presentation. I would like to encourage them to present it again because I think we can go some away to encourage the people on the street to be more involved with what is going on.

We have had comments and I will say it again from people in the public, who don’t know what the fishery has done for them. I find it amazing they would think like that they would think like that given the high standard of living they enjoy today that is a result in some way to that fishery. I would like to see the presentation given away perhaps later this year and bring in some more of the public.

I will just plug tomorrow as well - the official open day for the fishery. There will be three vessels tied up at FIPASS. There will be a jigger, a long-liner and a trawler and there will be tours available on the vessels and, I understand some food to try, to. So I encourage everybody in this room and in the public to come along and see what the fishery is and t see the cutting edge of the fishery. The people who work on these vessels are the cutting edge of what we have built around it.

And I mustn’t forget stamps that I wish everybody to rush out and purchase them in order to support this very important anniversary.

Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Speaker, Honourable Members, I am very pleased to be here today at the beginning of an important year for the Islands - one in which I hope everyone can feel reassured and confident about the future.

I am grateful to Councillor Davies for his kind comments and we are very pleased to do what we can. To help protect and preserve what is a unique environment here and we look forward to doing what we can in the future to work very closely with both FIG and the Community to take that forward.

And also, I note Cllr Summers’ comments about stress. And, I think that this is probably a subject worthy of closer examination for the future.

I support the motion.

(100X Transcription Service)