Falklands : Legislative Assembly Friday, 18 September 2009 Part 1
Submitted by Falkland Islands News Network (Juanita Brock) 27.09.2009 (Article Archived on 11.10.2009)
A meeting of Legislative Assembly – the last for this session’s Legislative Assembly – took place on Friday, 18 September 2009 at 1030hrs.
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY FRIDAY, 18 SEPTEMBER 2009 PART 1
Commentary by J. Brock (FINN)
A meeting of Legislative Assembly – the last for this session’s Legislative Assembly – took place on Friday, 18 September 2009 at 1030hrs. Present were the Chief Executive Mr Tim Thorogood, Speaker, Mr Keith Biles (KB), The Clerk of Council, Ms Claudette Prior (CP) the Acting Attorney General Ms Ros Cheek (RC), the Acting Director of Finance Mr Ambrose Simon Wilkie (SW), Cllr Richard Stevens (RS), Cllr Mike Summers (MS), Cllr Dr Andrea Clausen (AC), Cllr Mike Rendell (MR), Cllr Ian Hansen (IH), Cllr John Birmingham (JB) and CBFSAI Air Commodore Gordon Moulds (GM).
The meeting began with prayers by Rev. Richard Hines of Christ Church Cathedral.
KB: Good morning Honourable Members and welcome to, in fact, what is the last Legislative Assembly of the session. First of all, I would like to thank the Rector and the Associate Minister of the Cathedral, who have attended every session of this Legislative Council and Assembly and who lead us in our prayers. Thank you for your participation. It is much appreciated.
The Speaker then gave the usual warning about mobile phones being switched off and then advised the Assembly that there were two acting members present needing their approval. The Acting Attorney General and the Acting Financial Director were approved by the Assembly. After the oath of office was given to the Acting Financial Director, Assembly business began with the confirmation of the record of the Assembly meeting held on 24 July 2009 was held.
Papers Laid on the Table by the Hon Chief Executive:
Copies of Subsidiary Legislation Published in the Falkland Islands Gazette since the Last Sitting of Legislative Assembly and Laid on the Table Pursuant to Section 34-1 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance 1977
1. Financial Ordinance 2009 Correction Order 2009
2. Immigration Suspension of Issue of Permanent Residence Permits No 2 Order 2009
3. Family Allowances Penalty Notice Regulations 2009
4. Capital Equalisation Fund Order 2009
Questions for Oral Answer:
Q-8/2009 by the Honourable John Birmingham
Mr Speaker, Honourable members, Can the Honourable Richard Stevens Please inform the House of the systems by which the Camp Medical Chests are kept in date and fit for use?
Answer by the Hon Mr Richard Stevens:
Mr Speaker, Honourable Members, there are 68 Camp Medical Chests. They are kept in Camp in order that people can obtain the most commonly used medications promptly after having them prescribed by the Doctor. A review of the stock to be kept in the chest was made a few years ago and it is considered to be fit for purpose. If a person from Camp consults a doctor by telephone, the Doctor, will then make an entry in the person’s medical record and prescribe the medication. This means the pharmacy can then dispense to replace the medications to the Camp Chests. The most difficult items to keep in date are therefore those used most infrequently.
Staffing pressures from within the department for the past year has meant that this priority has not been picked up. It is anticipated that it will become a priority during the next few months.. The Health and Social Services anticipates the people who have the Camp Medicine Chests, at their responsibility, will be keeping them in a clean and tidy condition.
JB: Mr Speaker, Honourable Members, I thank the Honourable Member for his reply.
Q-9/2009 by Hon John Birmingham:
Mr Speaker, Honourable members, following the major investments in more management in the Education Department in the last two years, can the Honourable Richard Stevens, as Chair of the Education Board, please inform this House if there are any plans to review the success or otherwise of those news posts?
Answer by the Hon Mr Richard Stevens:
Mr Speaker, Honourable members, this answer’s a little bit longer than my last one. The Honourable John Birmingham is correct in pointing out a significant investment has been made in Education. This initiative follows an external inspection that highlighted the weaknesses in the system that was judged as lacking the depth in management required to develop teaching and learning and promote the level of change expected of education in the 21st Century.
It is worth remembering that the bulk of the new structure has been in place for one year. Indeed two of the teaching and learning responsibility allowances have not been taken up by members of staff for the last two terms.
A clarification that would be worth noting (is) that within the schools the two new posts of Deputy Head Teachers have been created. The remainder of the initiative has been the funding, the teaching and learning responsibility allowances for staff willing to take on additional roles. The Deputy Head Teacher in the Infant/Junior School – Camp – has been very involved in integrated Camp Education with mainstream provision.
The Portfolio holder on the Education Board, the Director of Education and the Head Teachers, have been involved in monthly monitoring meetings. At these meetings progress has reviewed initiatives contained within the school improvement plans. There is no doubt that the rate of progress would not have been possible without the depth of management in place.
Over the year the schools have looked to a number of issues including raising standards in teaching and learning through greater consistency across the schools, improving transition between the schools, developing a consistent approach to the promotion of positive behaviour, raising the aspirations and expectations of the school community and developing clear procedures for a consistent approach to pastoral issues.
It is planned that the programme of regular monitoring meetings will continue and possibly be embedded in the oversight role of the Education Board. It’s also planned that a full review will take place that will include the full inspection.
We are currently in discussions with the services child education which is provisionally planned that the inspector will meet with the head teachers in early December and conduct a desk top review. This will be followed by a substantive inspection later in 2010. A management structure will have been in place for two years and this is a reasonable period after which a review should take place.
A review will include the examination results, which at that time, will represent the first group of young people to have studied with the new system for both years at Key Stage 4.
The Education Board is anticipating an improvement on some of the disappointing results of recent years.
JB: I thank the Honourable Member for his very interesting reply. Would he be able to tell me when that reply will be available to members of the public?
RS: I would think so. Having spoken and read it over the airwaves I would imagine it would be quite available in the public domain.
JB: Thank you. I am well aware that it is published but I just asked the question to make sure that members of the public are also aware of that. Thank you
MS: Mr Speaker, can I ask the Honourable Member if he is able to tell us which of the teaching and learning responsibilities have not been taken up? Which ones are they and does he know why that is and what affect it might have?
( *See the comment made by the Speaker and the Chief Executive)
RS: Unfortunately, I can’t give the detail that the Honourable Member is asking but I can make that available.
KB: Could I suggest that, that is placed as a written answer in the minutes of this meeting?
RS: You can. Thank you.
JB: Mr Speaker, Honourable Members, is the Honourable Richard Stevens and the Board of Education concerned that in the year 2006 there were 12 individuals who had the grades to go away for further study at an “A” level, level and yet this year there are only three? Could he assure me that the Education Board and the Education Department are concerned and are taking steps to improve those figures?
RS: Mr Speaker, Honourable Members, I would like to thank the Honourable John Birmingham for that question. And, I would like to tell Members that we understand within the Education Department that any process that we put in place will take a number of years to show..
Unidentified voice: “Carry on.”
RS: .. any significant result. However, having said that, we must also remember that different cohorts, different years – because we are such a small community – we are always going to get good years and bad years and on top of that, it always has to be taken into consideration that within classes we will get people with special needs and other things that we have to consider. So, on the whole, we are looking for a gradual improvement but probably an undulating improvement. So what they are looking for is an improving trend.
JB: I thank the Honourable Member for his answer.
KB: Before we continue to the next question, there is a slight change that needs to be made to the wording as recorded.
TT: Mr Speaker, thank you. Just a small actual correction but I think it may be important. I think the Honourable Richard Stevens may nave said that two of the teaching and learning responsibility allowances had not been taken up by members of staff for the last two terms. My understanding is that the positions have only been taken up by two members of staff for the past two terms. That may, indeed, have had a bearing on the Honourable Michael Summers’ question as well.
RS: Mr Speaker, Honourable Members, I would like to thank the Chief Executive for that and my appalling reading. That is in fact the case, which is probably why I didn’t know the answer to the question.
MS: The Honourable Mr Speaker, I withdraw my question.
Q-10/2009 by the Hon John Birmingham:
Mr Speaker, Honourable Members – and I do feel a bit sorry for the Honourable Richard Stevens who is clearly having to answer all of these today with the absence of the Honourable Janet Robertson – but can he – is the Honourable Richard Stevens aware that it is – in the opinion of various professional mechanics – that the old Rover Ambulance is very much fixable and could be brought back to a serviceable standard at a relatively small cost?
Answer by the Hon Richard Stevens:
Mr Speaker, Honourable Members, the Health and Social Services Department are grateful for the opportunity to reply to this question. Advice from the Manager, Plant ad Vehicle Section says that for a reasonable amount the old Land Rover Ambulance may be able to be brought to being in a roadworthy condition. The life of the old Land Rover Ambulance could be extended for a few more years, possibly about five. The LBV Ambulance, which will be in need of replacement in the next year or so, has deteriorated at a faster rate than the last Land Rover Ambulance.
There is a risk in the upgrading of the old Land Rover Ambulance to a road-worthy condition, however, a thorough inspection by the Manager, Plant and Vehicle Section indicates that it here is probably a reasonable risk and Health and Social Services are glad to accept the advice because the Land Rover Ambulance is the preferred ambulance for use.
Funds will therefore be released to undertake the upgrade it to road-worthiness work and then be undertaken to review the benefit of upgrading the body of the ambulance and extend the life of the vehicle even further although the costs of this are uncertain at the present time.
JB: Mr Speaker, Honourable members, I would like to thank the Honourable Richard Stevens for his answer. Can he confirm that the funding for this will come from the Medical Department?
RS: From reading this answer it looks as though that is the case but I can’t – I couldn’t absolutely guarantee it.
JB: Thank you very much for your answer.
Legislation:
The Immigration Amendment Bill 2009:
CP: This Bill has been published in the Gazette and ready to go to the second reading.
Explanation by the Chief Executive:
Mr Speaker, thank you. Mr Speaker, the principle purpose of this bill is to amend the Immigration Ordinance to enable a new system for awarding Permanent Residence Permits using a points system to be introduced and operated by the Principle Immigration Officer.
This will replace a much more discretionary approach for the award of Permanent Residence Permits which had been in use previously.
This change is achieved through clause 5, which substitutes a new section 18 of the Immigration Ordinance.
The details of the points system will be set out in regulations which have been approved by executive Council and will be laid before the House at its next meeting, in the event, of course, Mr Speaker, the bill is approved today.
The approval of this bill will enable the new regulations to come into effect and allow the present moratorium on Permanent Residence Permits to be lifted.
At the same time the power has been given to the Principle Immigration Officer in an amendment to Section 23 of the Ordinance to revoke Permanent Residence Permits. This power is currently held by the Governor. This amendment is achieved through Clause 6. This is consistent with Clause 7 of this bill through substitution of the present Section 28 of the ordinance, which establishes an appeals process against decisions taken by the Principle Immigration Officer.
At present there is no appeals process. The bill allows for appeals to be made against the Principle Immigration Officer’s decisions in relation to Permanent Residence Permits award and revocation to the Governor. Of course, the Governor in this context means Governor in Council as provided under the Constitution.
In undertaking these changes the opportunity is being taken in Clauses 3 and 4 to adjust a key definition in the ordinance by substituting the word “partner” for the term “spouse” and by making some consequential amendments to related definitions. The term “partner” will include married, and unmarried couples and civil partnerships so is more in keeping with non-discretionary provisions of the Constitution.
Finally, the bill provides a schedule for transition provisions which deem certain categories of dependents previously named on Permanent Residence Permits to be granted Permanent Residence Permits subject to certain conditions being met.
Mr Speaker, I move the second reading of the bill.
MR: I second the bill Mr Speaker and I would just like to make a few comments about the process that has been undergone in getting to this stage.
KB: Could I suggest that we take that as a general discussion?
MR: Yes
KB the Motion is that the bill be read a second time. Is there any objection to that Motion?
MR: Mr Speaker, Honourable Members, apologies for that error. I was so wanting to get the point across that I put it in the wrong place.
The point that I wanted to get across was really an appreciation for the work that has been undertaken particularly by the Principle Crown Council – the Acting Attorney General – as she is today and the Immigration Officer for all the work – and the Chief Executive as well for all the work that has been undertaken in the last four or five months, given the hiatus that existed before then in trying to get to a final conclusion.
The work that had been done previously by the Immigration Working Group has now become so much more apparent to particularly the Chief Executive as he has seen the source of problems that had to be overcome during the whole process. So, I would just like to give that note of appreciation for the work that’s been carried out.
At the reading of Clause 2 the Hon Mr Mike Rendell spoke announcing an amendment to it.
MR: Mr Speaker, in fact I think there is an amendment to be proposed to Clause 2, which is that as a result of the delay in the coming to this House of the Bill, the date of 01 August 2009 in Clause 2 needs to be substituted by 01 October 2009.
Cllr Mike Rendell spoke to say that in the Schedule of the bill the dates that were mentioned in Clause 2 needed to be changed accordingly. The bill was read a third time and passed.
Transcript by 100X Transcription Service
|
