Falklands : LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY MEETING HELD ON FRIDAY, 25 FEBRUARY 2011 (Part 1)
Submitted by Falkland Islands News Network (Juanita Brock) 04.03.2011 (Article Archived on 18.03.2011)
A meeting of Legislative Assembly took place at 0930hrs on Friday, 25 February 2011. Present were Councillors Sawle, (DS), Cheek, (JC), Short, (GS), Ross, (GR), Halford, (SH) and Luxton. Absent were Councillors Edwards, E (EE) and Edwards, R (RE). Also present were the Speaker, the Hon Mr Keith Biles, (KB), the Clerk of Council, Ms Claudette Prior MBE, (CP), the Attorney General, Mr David Pickup, QC, (DP) the acting Financial Secretary, Mr Simon Wilkie, (SW) and the Chief Executive, Mr Tim Thorogood, (TT). Prayers were said by the Reverend Richard Hines of Christ Church Cathedral.
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY MEETING HELD ON FRIDAY, 25 FEBRUARY 2011 (Part 1)
Papers, Questions for Oral Answer, Motions and Legislation
Commentary by J. Brock (FINN)
A meeting of Legislative Assembly took place at 0930hrs on Friday, 25 February 2011. Present were Councillors Sawle, (DS), Cheek, (JC), Short, (GS), Ross, (GR), Halford, (SH) and Luxton. Absent were Councillors Edwards, E (EE) and Edwards, R (RE). Also present were the Speaker, the Hon Mr Keith Biles, (KB), the Clerk of Council, Ms Claudette Prior MBE, (CP), the Attorney General, Mr David Pickup, QC, (DP) the acting Financial Secretary, Mr Simon Wilkie, (SW) and the Chief Executive, Mr Tim Thorogood, (TT). Prayers were said by the Reverend Richard Hines of Christ Church Cathedral.
After the speaker gave the usual reminder about mobile phones, business began with confirmation of the record of the meeting held on Friday, 26 November 2010. The record was signed as a true record of the meeting.
The Following papers were laid on the table by the Hon Chief Executive, copies of subsidiary legislation published in the Falkland Islands Gazette since the last sitting of the Legislative Assembly and laid on the table pursuant to section 34.1 of the interpretation and general clauses ordinance 1977:
1. Statistics Ordinance 2010 (Correction Order) 2010
2. Smoking Signs Regulations 2010
3. Smoking (Amounts of Fixed Penalties) Order 2010
4. Livestock and Meat Products Identification and Movement of Cattle Regulations 2010
5. Livestock and Meat products Identification and Movement of Pigs Regulations 2010
6. Livestock and Meat Products Identification and Movement of Sheep Regulations 2010
7. Immigration (Visa Exemptions for Holders of Taiwanese Passports) Order 2010
8. Correction Various Orders 2010: In accordance with the provisions of Section 57 of the finance and Audit Ordinance of the Falkland Islands, the Falkland Islands Government Financial Statement for the year ended 2010 in respect of the Currency Fund, the Retirement Pensions Equalisation Fund, the Insurance Fund and the Capital Equalisation fund.
9. And in Accordance with Clause 11 of the Public Accounts Committee Ordinance 2009 the report of the Public Accounts Committee on the Falkland Islands Government Internal Audit (June and August) 2010
10. The Media Trust Report and Financial Statements for the year Ending 30 June 2009
11. The Public Accounts of the Falkland Islands Government (08/09)
12. Falkland Islands Tourist Board (2008/09)
13. The Falklands Conservation Accounts (2008/09)
14. Stanley Services Ltd Accounts (2008/09)
15. Falkland Islands Museum and National Trust Accounts to 30 May 2010
16. And the Falkland Islands meat Company Accounts to 30 June 2009
Questions for Oral Answer:
Question No 1/2011 By the Hon Mrs Sharon Halford:
Would the Honourable Glenn Ross please inform this House of the total number of horses permitted to graze Cape Pembroke in the winter months and give the total number that actually grazed there during the last winter?
Answer by the Hon Mr Glenn Ross:
Mr Speaker, I thank the Hon Sharon Halford for asking this question and I am grateful to the Department of Agriculture for providing me with the answer, which reads as follows:
The total number of horses permitted to graze during the winter at Cape Pembroke is 50. During the 2010 winter 46 horses and 4 fouls grazed at Cape Pembroke.
SH: I thank the Honourable Glenn Ross for his response and I would ask that he perhaps go back and clarify for us at some time in the not too distant future where this figure arose from because originally the figures were much lower and they have obviously changed over the years. And the reason I asked this question Mr Speaker, is because a number of members of the public brought to my attention that the area appeared to be well over-grazed and this is not in anybody’s best interest. And could I ask the Honourable Glenn Ross that he take this matter back to the Agricultural Department and please look at it more in-depth for the next winter?
GR: Mr Speaker, I am assured that the current capacity at Cape Pembroke has been worked out from the land area required to feed the horses but I am very happy to take that undertaking and I note the Honourable Sharon Halford’s concerns and I will get back to her on that once I have spoken to the Department of Agriculture.
DS: Mr Speaker just to leap to the defence of my Honourable Colleague Mr Glenn Ross, when I was but a twinkle in my mother’s eye, I assume, somewhere around the 1950s I think at that time there were probably about three dairies supplying Stanley and I believe that there were actually over 100 dry cattle grazing over winter in Cape Pembroke as well as over 20 horses and I just thought he might find that of interest.
SH: Mr Speaker, if I could point out to the Honourable Dick Sawle that the grazing area has considerably diminished since that time. There are a load of eroded areas and the aftermath of 1982 a huge portion of the area has been lost.
Question No 1/2011 By the Hon Mrs Sharon Halford:
Could the Honourable Bill Luxton, for the Chair of the Historical Buildings Committee, please inform the House:
a. What Type of building can be listed and
b. Whether or not buildings may be de-listed at some point after they have been listed?
Answer by the Hon Mr Bill Luxton:
Mr Speaker, I thank the Honourable Sharon Halford for the question and standing in for the Hon Emma Edwards, Chair of the Historical Buildings Committee.
What type of building can be listed?
The Falkland Islands have many historic buildings and/or structures of which over 50 are now listed by the Falkland Islands Government of being of special architectural or historic interest. These buildings and structures cover a wide variety of styles, construction methods and historic significance, some with origins dating back to the 18th Century (that would be Port Egmont). The current list includes the police station, the Tabernacle and Cape Pembroke Lighthouse, as well as numerous dwellings, stone corrals, water pumps, shearing sheds and other structures. Buildings are listed by the Governor in Executive Council by the powers set out by the planning ordinance following a recommendation from the Historic Buildings Committee. It is current Government Policy not to list buildings without the consent of the owner. Buildings are listed based on their merits as good examples of Falklands’ Architecture from a particular period or as having a strong historical association. The older a building is and the less altered from the original state, the more likely it is to qualify for listing. Virtually all structures built before the 1850s qualify, as well as many dating from 1850 to 1900. Buildings constructed after 1900 are only likely to be considered if they have particular social significance.
Can a building be delisted?
There is no specific provision in the planning ordinance to delist a building although planning permission may be granted to demolish a listed building. However, under the Interpretation and General clauses Ordinance, the Governor has the power to amend subsidiary legislation and implicitly has the power to revoke it. He could therefore revoke an order made under the Planning Ordinance which listed a property. The procedure would be to make an application to the Historic Buildings Committee in the first instance for consideration for the matter then to be referred to the Governor in Executive Council for a decision.
SH: I thank the Honourable Bill Luxton for his detailed reply. I was delighted to hear that stone corrals had been listed. I was unaware of that and I would be grateful if a list of these corrals could actually be published so that the general public know which ones have actually been listed. It may then stop some of them being pulled to pieces and used as BBQs. On the delisting I am slightly concerned that you may have to demolish the house to delist. I was glad to hear that you did actually find a way around this. But I thank him for his answer.
Motions:
Motion No 1/2011 by the Hon Mr Bill Luxton:
The Motion Reads: That this House notes the report and recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee on the Falkland Islands Government’s use of its vehicles.
BL: Mr Speaker, I would like to propose this Motion. I have nothing particularly to add.
SH: Mr Speaker, I second the motion. It is pleasing to see this report coming from the Public Accounts Committee on an area of FIG that does create a fair amount of interest from the public and sometimes this can also be a controversial topic. The use, not misuse of FIG vehicles is an area I feel should be supported, as for many people on call; they have to dash off at a minute’s notice and under these circumstances, why should they have to deny their families the use of their own private vehicles. Again, for those who have to travel regularly, throughout the Islands, why should they not have the use of a work vehicle? As the PAC seem to be satisfied with the way FIG vehicles are monitored and they only make a few recommendations on how the system may be improved slightly.
BL: Mr Speaker, I am very happy to leave it to the Honourable Sharon Halford having just replaced the Honourable Emma Edwards on the PAC and not really being effete with what lead up to this particular report.
The motion passed with the Speaker noting that the recommendations requiring a response from Government back to Legislative Assembly within 6 months.
Motion No 2/2011 by the Honourable Bill Luxton:
BL: Mr Speaker, the same thing applies with this Motion. I replaced the Honourable Sharon Halford, of course, on the Public Accounts Committee and had the first meeting yesterday and I am sure when she seconds, she will give us a more detailed summary of this recommendation.
SH: Mr Speaker, I second the Motion. It is also pleasing to see this report coming from the PAC on an area which a large amount of public funds have been invested into. Since the Company was first formed the mission station was changed more than once and will probably continue to change as the Company, hopefully, progresses. In this instance, the PAC has recommended that an updated public statement be made for the future direction and management of the Company. I hope that this report and the previous one show that what the PAC are doing is checking and advising where they believe improvements can be made. Contrary to what some may think, they are not conducting a witch hunt or naming and shaming.
The Motion reads as follows: The Motion is that this House notes the report and recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee on the Falkland Landholdings Corporation Accounts to the year ending 30 June 2009.
There was no objection to the Motion being passed. The recommendations require a response back to Legislative Assembly in 6 months’ time.
LEGISLATION:
The Supplementary Appropriation Bill 2010/2011 Bill 2011:
Explanation by the Acting Financial Secretary, Mr Simon Wilkie (SW):
SW: Mr Speaker, Honourable Members, this Bill, if enacted, will provide the legal authority for the additional sum of £1,172,750.00 to be withdrawn from the Consolidated Fund to replenish the Contingencies Fund. This includes £172,250.00 for two Contingencies warrants that were approved by Standing Finance Committees on 22 October 2010 and 27 January 2011. The remaining of the funding in the amount of £1Million relates to changes to the accounting treatment in the funds allocated in support of shipping so that they must now be appropriated as an operating subsidy from the Consolidated Fund rather than financed as a loan from the Cash Legalisation Fund.
I beg to move the second reading of the Bill.
The Chief Executive seconded the Bill. There was no debate and the Bill was dealt with by the Short Procedure. There were no amendments and the Bill was read a 3rd time and passed.
The Taxes Amendment Bill 2010:
The Bill has been published in the Gazette so today’s procedure began with a second reading.
SW: Mr Speaker, Honourable Members, in this Bill we make a number of Minor amendments to the Taxes Ordinance. It also makes two connected amendments to other legislation – the Retirement Pensions Ordinance – and the Health and Medical Services Tax Ordinance. Some of the amendments are purely technical, for example, some of the amendments simply remove provisions from the Taxes Ordinance that have become obsolete where some other amendments would incorporate existing extra statutory concessions or taxation office practice into the Taxes Ordinance. It is proposed that most of the Amendments are back-dated to the 1st of January 2011. This is so it can apply to the whole of the current tax year.
However, the Bill was published in the Gazette at the end of November and a press release was released at the same time, so tax payers had at least some warning of the proposals and were given the chance to remand their tax affairs accordingly. Although most of the amendments would be backdated to the 1st of January 2011, there is one exception. Part 3 of the Bill would retrospectively authorise tax relief that has already been granted between 01 March 2006 and 31 December 2010. It might be helpful for me to summarise some of the key changes that would actually make a difference to tax payers.
Clause 4 would mean that leasing overseas property for residential use would be treated as a business for tax purposes. As published in the Gazette, Clause 4 also contains a provision relating to treatment of Directors as employees of a company and a new definition relating to the tax treatment of entertainment received from an employer.
Honourable Members had expressed concerns about how these aspects of the Bill would operate in practice to ensure that those concerns can be addressed, I intend to add amendments to this clause during the Committee stage. I will explain those amendments when we get to that stage but it may reassure Honourable Members to know now that I will be moving those amendments.
Clause 5 would mean that all distributions made by a company to its shareholders that are not just dividends are included in the definition of income chargeable to tax.
Clauses 6 and 12 would postpone the date by which tax normally has to be paid each year. Currently the deadline is the 1st of September. And this would be put back to the 1st of October.
Clause 9 would mean that individuals could no longer claim excess tax credits on distributions they receive.
Clause 10 would grant an exemption of tax to reserve Police Officers and retained Fire Fighters on the bounties they receive for those duties. That would bring them into line with Members of the Falkland Islands Defence Force.
The effect of Clause 11 would be to deal with Entertainment that Employees receive from their employers. I mentioned before that Honourable Members had expressed concerns about how that aspect of the Bill would operate in practice. For that reason I intend to move an amendment during committee stage, take this Clause out of the Bill. Again, it may reassure Honourable members to know now that I will be doing this.
Clause 12 would allow businesses to claim reductions for charitable donations made in kind as well as those made in cash. The combined effect with Clause 18 and one of the two new sections to be inserted by Clause 19 would have dealt with the entertainment as above by employers and business entertainment. Again, because Honourable Members have expressed concerns about how this could operate I will be moving amendments when we get into Committee to remove these provisions from the Bill.
The other section to be inserted by Clause 19 deals with the tax treatment overseas properties that are let for residential use. The new section would introduce a flat rate deduction for wear and tear. That would be in place if capital allowances for the property.
Clause 20 would make a number of changes to Capital Allowances, including the change I have just described. It would clarify that Capital Allowances can’t be claimed twice for scientific expenditure. It would also introduce a balancing charge for residential property on which Capital Allowances are claimed.
Clause 22 would allow non-residents who pay retirement Pensions Contributions for part of the year to claim a tax deduction for those contributions. Non residents would still not be able to claim deductions from Falkland Islands tax for other pension contributions.
Finally, Clause 28 would amend the Medical Services Tax Ordinance to bring the time limit for employers’ end of year returns into line with the time limit that applies under the Taxes Ordinance.
I hope that this explanation is helpful to Honourable Members.
I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
The Chief Executive seconded that and no Member spoke to the principles of the Bill. After the second reading the Acting Financial Secretary moved five amendments to Clause 4. Those amendments moved made two changes to the substance of the Clause. The first change removed the definition that was needed in connection with the proposals relating to entertainment provided by employers. Those clauses would be left out of the Bill and the definition was no longer required. The second change was to leave out the provision that Directors are to be treated as Employees for tax purposes and not just in relation to specific provisions of the Taxes Ordinance. The original purpose of providing an amendment about the tax treatment of Directors is to deal with an anomaly in relation with benefits in kind such as company cars. Rather than make a blanket amendment at this time the specific anomaly could be dealt with by amending the Taxes Benefit in Kind laws. That alternative action will be proposed to Executive Council. Mr Wilkie went on to say that tax payers were given notice to this proposed change in November 2010 and were advised at the time that it might be back dated for the beginning of this year. He further said that it remains possible that this change will be further back-dated to 01 January. Mr Wilkie’s proposed amendments were accepted for Clause 4.
Mr Wilkie said that Clause 11 would have inserted a new section into the Taxes Ordinance that dating that the tax treatment for employees of entertainment that they and their guests received from their employers. This would be left out of the Bill to deal with concerns about how it would operate in practice.
Dick Sawle objected to the principle in the Clause but Clause 11 was omitted from the Bill and subsequent clauses re-numbered accordingly. Dick Sawle questioned the definition of ‘entertainment’ and said he could not find it in Clause 4. In the course of time this needed to be clarified. Clauses 12 to 17 are now Clauses 11 to 16.
The new Clause 17 would have inserted a new section into the Taxes Ordinance dealing with the tax treatment for employees of entertainment that they and their guests received from their employers. Mr Wilkie said this needed to be left out of the Bill to deal with concerns about how it would operate in practice.
Clause 17 as renumbered was omitted from the Bill and subsequent clauses re-numbered accordingly.
Clause 19 as Gazetted, now Clause 17 as re-numbered, would have inserted two new sections into the Taxes Ordinance. The first, No. 99a would have dealt with the tax treatment of business entertainment gifts. This was left out of the Bill because to deal with concerns about how it would operate in practice. The other new section dealing with the wear and tear deduction for residential letting outside the Falklands still needs to be included but now needs to be re-numbered from 99b to 99a. It is now “New Section 99a” and the first line of the clause was amended to read “the following section is inserted after Section 99.” The wording from 99a to “their permitted guests,” was omitted from the Clause.
Re-numbered Clause 17 as amended stood part of the Bill and there was no debate. Clauses18 to 26 reflects the new numbering and also stand part of the Bill.
The Bill was read a third time and passed, with the Chief Executive seconding the Motion proposed by the acting Financial Secretary.
The Immigration Amendment Bill 2011:
The Bill has been published in the Gazette and went to a second reading.
The Hon Chief Executive’s Explanation:
Mr Speaker, Thank you. I hope this proves easier for me than my poor friend with the most recent Bill.
Mr Speaker, if I can just explain the main purpose of this Bill, the main purpose is to incorporate three new provisions into the Immigration Ordinance in order to address important inadequacies which had been recently identified in advance of the more general intended overhaul of the ordinance later this year. The opportunity has also been taken to make a minor corrective amendment and to repeal superseded regulations which had previously been overlooked.
Mr Speaker, if I could explain each of the amendments in turn, firstly clause 4, paragraph b. of the definition of prohibited person at section 2 of the Immigration Ordinance currently provides for the Governor to notify the Principle Immigration Officer of categories of persons who hold such notification are prohibited persons. I should say, Mr Speaker, this power, of course, is only exercised exceptionally where it can be established that such a course of action is justified as being conducive to the public good.
However, the inadequacy of the current immigration laws is that there is currently no provision for the Governor to declare an individual a prohibited as opposed to a category of people, where it can be established that such a course of action as being justified as being conducive for the public good.
Clause 4 of the Bill therefore would address this by supplementing the existing power by repealing the definition of ‘prohibitive person’ Section 2 Paragraph d and substituting a new paragraph d, which would allow the Governor to also notify the Principle Immigration Officer that an individual is a prohibited person.
|
