St Helena : St Helena Executive Council Meeting Report (04/04/08)
Submitted by Saint Helena Herald (Juanita Brock) 16.04.2008 (Article Archived on 30.04.2008)
H. E. the Governor Mr Andrew Gurr updates us on what happened during this vital Government Committee meeting.
ST HELENA EXECUTIVE COUNCIL MEETING REPORT
08/04/08
This was the first Executive Council for over a month. This doesn’t mean that nothing has been happening as there has been a full Legislative Council and a number of Informal Legcos during that period.
The first part of every EXCO is open to the public. The meetings are announced on the radio and the discussion is often lively and informative. Yet very few of the public ever come to watch their representatives in action. The absence of anyone at today’s meeting was commented upon, and I was asked to encourage any of you who may be interested in attending to do so. You can come and go as you please during the meeting and I am sure that your presence will be appreciated.
The first item was a Memorandum entitled “Recommendations of Infrastructure Project Steering Group”. This Group was set up during a visit in 2007 by Nigel Kirby of the Air Access Team. Its role is to make recommendations on the priority that we should give to the numerous infrastructure projects that are considered necessary as part of the overall improvement in our society. By infrastructure I mean things like roads, electricity, water, government buildings and so forth. These projects were identified by John Cocks in his infrastructure report and some 35 were considered. With such a long list, it is obviously important to decide where we start, and that was the purpose of this Paper. Each project was placed in one of three categories – immediate priority, priority, and low priority. When I tell you that the total sum of money in the immediate priority category is over £38m you will get some idea of the scale of these proposals.
High up in the immediate category were investments relating to electricity and water as well as the road rehabilitation and maintenance programme, and I was happy to accept the recommendations of the committee on the unanimous advice of the elected Members.
The next item was a Memorandum on Employment Policy. It was really to ask EXCO to confirm that the work being done currently by Ann Muir, in response to a LEGCO motion from March 2003, is on the right track. We are desperately short of having an adequate employment policy on the island and by agreeing with this Paper we accept that movement towards such a policy will be positive but gradual rather than immediate. This is because there are many issues that are commonplace in such legislation in say the UK, that are not capable of rapid transfer here at present. This is because the introduction of many of the benefits of such legislation could place an unacceptable burden on small businesses. Indeed it could drive some out of business altogether.
So to what am I referring? Such matters as written employment contracts, a national minimum wage, a maximum working week, maternity and paternity leave, sick pay, redundancy pay, protection against discrimination, proper disciplinary and grievance procedures, protection against unfair dismissal and so on. You will all appreciate the obvious fairness of such legislation, but also the cost of it. Councillors were content to move ahead in considering these issues as part of an ongoing process. It is a process over which EXCO will have control in the months ahead as we deal with the components of an integrated legislation.
We then moved to those items closed to the public. There was an item concerning an application for a Landholding Licence that was deferred pending fuller information. We then considered a Paper from the Public Works and Services Committee on the issue of householders paying for the disconnection and reconnection of water supply. It has been felt inequitable that Saints who work abroad should be able to leave their houses connected to mains water and yet escape standing charges by having their supply turned off at no cost. Clearly the maintenance of service provision has a cost whether the householder is there to use it or not, and so a small charge was recommended for disconnection and a further one for reconnection. The cost for reconnection will be more for a longer period of disconnection.
The Acting Chief Secretary then brought before EXCO a Paper on the Wind Generation Project. I am sure most of you will be aware that the Land Planning and Development Control Agency turned down the Government’s request to erect three more wind turbines at Deadwood Plain. They did so on 14th January. The administration was very disappointed at this decision and lodged an appeal.
Subsequently it was revealed that the Governor, as advised by EXCO, could reverse that decision by a process referred to as “Calling in”. However that revelation was made over 30 days from the date of the decision by the Agency and was thus not capable of being called in. The appeal was set to take another 4 months or so. Elected Members were concerned about this because of the high cost of power generation and the fact that each throwing away about £3,000.
The Attorney General advised that the waiting time could be significantly reduced by submitting another similar request for permission to the Agency. If they were to turn it down once again, then it could be called in within the 30 day limit.
I arranged an informal meeting with the Agency in which I informed them of my concern on this matter and questioned their reasons for refusal. Those reasons were to do with the aesthetic appearance of the turbine against the skyline, and the risk to the wirebird population on Deadwood Plain. I was able to reveal to them new information that to site the turbines in the alternative position they had proposed would cost an additional £200,000 for the HV lines and track, as well as generating significantly less power, estimated at £22,500 per annum, for the whole of their working lives. The economic case seemed to be overwhelming.
However when presented with the second application the Agency turned it down, indicating that their reasons were unchanged.
Councillors were unanimous in their recommendation that the calling in should be resolved by reversing the decision of the Agency and I am content to accept that advice.
I must add that in principle I am disturbed at having to take this kind of action as I believe that it should not be necessary.
However we all have the benefit of living in a democracy, and your elected Members were convinced that the views of the Agency, an unelected and independent body, were not in the overall interest of the island on this matter. Very occasionally we need this kind of mechanism to enable us to take a broader view than may be possible when acting within constrained guidelines.
The meeting finished at just after 11.30am.
AMG
8th April 2008
|
