Falklands : Legislative Assembly 25 May 2011: Papers, Amendments and Questions for Oral Answer
Submitted by Falkland Islands News Network (Juanita Brock) 05.06.2011 (Article Archived on 19.06.2011)
After the Motion for Thanks speeches were completed H E the Governor Mr Nigel Haywood left the chamber. Mr Keith Biles then presented two new Members with their Legislative Assembly ties.
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 25 MAY 2011
Papers, Amendments and Questions for Oral Answer
By J. Brock (FINN)
After the Motion for Thanks speeches were completed H E the Governor Mr Nigel Haywood left the chamber. Mr Keith Biles then presented two new Members with their Legislative Assembly ties.
Confirmation of the Record of the Meeting of the Legislative Assembly held on 25 February 2011 was held; and the Speaker, Mr Keith Biles, signed it m as a true record.
Papers to be Laid on the Table by The Honourable 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.
– Taxes & Duties (Defence Contractors’ Employees Exemption) Order 2011
– Immigration (Permanent Residence Permits) Regulations 2009 (Correction) Order 2011
– St Mary’s Walk (Parking Control) Order 2011
– Stanley (Various Roads) One Way Traffic (Amendment) Order 2011
– Coins Order 2011
– Taxes (Amendment) Ordinance 2011 (Correction) Order 2011
– Davis Street at Philomel Street (Parking Control) Order 2011
– Coins Order (No 2) 2011
– Criminal Justice (Revised Standard Scale of Fines) Order 2011
– Road Traffic (Variation of Fines) Order 2011
– Ross Road (Clearway) Regulations Order (Amendment) Order 2011
And in accordance with Clause 11 of the Public Accounts Committee Ordinance 2009 the reports of the Public Accounts in respect of the Falkland Islands Government Internal Audit Reports on:
The Pensions Department
The Fisheries Department
Capital Projects
Individual Transferable Quotas
The Power and Electrical Department
In accordance with Section (80) of the Constitution the report of the Public Accounts Committee on the Public Accounts of the Falkland Islands Government 2009/10
In accordance with Section 81(7) of the Constitution the report of the Public Accounts Committee on the activities of the Public Accounts Committee during the period 1 February 2010 to 31 December 2010.
Motions
Motion No 3 of 2011
“That this House notes the report and recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee on the private use of Government Telecommunications facilities by government employees.” Proposed: The Hon Emma Edwards (EE)
EE: Mr Speaker, I propose the Motion. The Public Accounts has really just finished its first full year and this is our first set of recommendations to be divulged to the house. This particular one has been looking at telecommunications and private use of those telecommunications by the Falkland Islands Government and their employees. We would like to thank Andrew Lee, who assisted us when we carried out the enquiry.
For public information, FIG spends about £220,000.00 per annum on telecommunications. But perhaps we should put this into some sort of perspective by actually looking at how much usage, for example, in one month what FIG actually uses on the internet.
The top 10 FIG departments use a total of 27,296 MB, whereas just one private sector company used 12,717 MB. That was back in November 2010. I think we could feel that FIG was using their internet in an appropriate manner. However, the FPAC did recommend some areas perhaps where FIG should look at how telecommunications should be used.
For example, local telephone calls are currently not logged. I believe, though, it is up to this House to decide whether or not logging in order to retrieve the money is a worthwhile matter.
There are also other recommendations within the report suggesting that FIG may wish to look at and review the policy that it currently uses for personal e-mails for their employees and also to identify time wasted surfing the net. There are suggestions by the PAC Committee for the Government to invest in certain software which may be able to assist with this.
I personally doubt this is the right approach to use in the 21st century but it’s up to my colleagues and the Falkland Islands Government to decide that.
Thank you Mr Speaker.
Seconded by The Hon Bill Luxton (BL):
Mr Speaker, I would like to second the Motion.
There was no objection and the Motion was passed. Mr Biles reminded all present that there was a reporting back procedure in that within 6 months there has to be a report back to Legislative Assembly about progress.
Motion No 4 of 2011
“That this House notes the planned programme of work for Public Accounts Committee for the period January 2011 to December 2012.
Proposed by The Hon Bill Luxton (BL):
Mr Speaker, I would like to propose the Motion. This schedule of work for the PAC in the forthcoming year is quite extensive and the list is in the public domain and the Members have it. Perhaps the items that will be of most interest to the public, we shall propose a certain amount of discussion lately at the public meeting and various (venues) are the recruitment costs for government posts, so the PAC will be looking at that.
I am glad also to see that we will be looking at the costs of Morrison’s contracts and reviewing the whole Government contract with Morrisons’ and also looking at the Stanley Services monopoly provision of fuel and it is a subject close to my heart.
Mr Speaker, I support the Motion,
EE: Mr Speaker I wish to second the Motion. The planned programme for the PAC I believe is quite exciting as well as well as looking at the accounts of statutory bodies and the bodies receiving public funds. The committee has identified a number of areas that people want to have investigated. These include Morrison’s, as my colleague has already said, recruitment as well as the supply of fuel, which I believe is affecting everybody’s budget this year. The PAC has also just recently finished a detailed enquiry into the Stanley Dairy. I am sure the details will be published shortly and will make good reading as well as highlighting recommending actions to improve the ways Government funds are spent.
DS: Mr Speaker, I would just like to thank my two Honourable Colleagues for their work on the PAC and once again to reiterate my support for the PAC. And, I believe it’s still looking for members I believe it is a very valuable job – a very worthwhile job – very interesting and rewarding.
I support it
There was no objection and the Motion passed.
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
QUESTIONS FOR ORAL REPLY
Question Number 03/11 by the Honourable Bill Luxton
Would The Honourable Sharon Halford please advise this House:
a) the total cost of the new Cattle Grid recently put in place at the Fox Bay Airstrip
b) who decides the need for works such as these?
c) which budget was this charged to?
SH: Mr Speaker, the total cost of the new cattle grid recently put in place at the Fox Bay airstrip was £9,800.00. This included the construction cost as per contract won by McLean Ltd and the materials supplied by PWD.
Who decides the need for works such as these? The PWD Highways section based on survey work carried out in 2009/10 and 2010/11. This particular grid was the old steel pipe tube type and had reached the end of its useful life and needed replacing.
There has been a policy over the last couple of years to gradually replace this type of cattle grid Islands-wide because generally they do not stand up to the traffic on the roads these days
Which budget was this charged to? It was charged to 954/4020- Cattle Grid replacement.
BL: Mr Speaker, I thank the Honourable Member for that reply. In fact I dispute the fact that the cattle grid had reached the end of its life. It was at the end of an airstrip taking no heavy traffic at all. All that would ever go over it would be land rovers and vehicles – no lorries. I consider it to be a total waste of money. And, I really feel that £9,800.00 could be better spent in addressing some of the really poor areas.
Would the Honourable member advise whether in the future we can have some greater input into these funds are spent?
SH: I believe this matter would have been looked at by the TAC when the list of works went out for the season. We had a number of cattle grids and they were listed prior to the contracts going out.
GS: Sorry, I might have dozed off there. Would the Honourable Sharon Halford please confirm – that was it £9,800.00 for one cattle grid?
SH: That was the cost I was given. It included the construction costs and all the materials supplied by PWD.
GS: Would the Honourable Lady be able to obtain for me a breakdown at some stage of this material and so on?
SH: Gosh, I’m like a Jack in a Box here. I would absolutely love to.
Question Number 04/11 by the Honourable Bill Luxton
Would The Honourable Sharon Halford please advise this House:
The total cost of the Capping of the main Port Howard to Fox Bay road from the Hill Cove turn off to the Chartres turn off.
SH: Mr Speaker, I have a different question here. There is another part to it. The question I have also includes the main Port Howard to Fox Bay Road. The answer to the total cost was £134,102.25 per contract by McLean Ltd. But this answer, I suspect addresses the capping of the …Sorry, that was a repetition on my question here. The total cost was £134,102.24 as per the contract from McLean Ltd.
BL: Could the Honourable member please clarify whether that is the piece of road that I mentioned in my question rather than all the works that were done this summer?
SH: It is what I have to the answer to your question.
BL: Mr Speaker, would the Honourable Member agree with the assessment of the other Camp Members around this table and others that this was a total waste of money in that this was generally recognised as one of the best bits of road on West Falkland and it was easily drivable on at 60/70MPH if you wished - go straight with a perfect surface. And would she agree that, that money would have been far better spent in some of the “death trap” areas that still exist south of Fox Bay and would she endeavour in the future that such a waste of money doesn’t take place?
SH: I don’t think it is for me to give an opinion as to whether or not certain places on the West should or should not be done. I have already made known to people that – people on the West know as well as everybody else I am not familiar with the roads on the West and I have to ask for advice on various areas. I take on board that a lot of people on West Falkland thought this to be an area that was not necessary to have been done. And I was actually under the impression that spot-capping was going to be the order of the day and not a large area. However, this did not materialise. Whilst in many areas we can’t go back and the money has been spent – whether it has been wasted or not, it has been spent. But in the future we surely must be looking at the best use of the funding we have. The funding is not as we would like. We would love to have much more and therefore we should be using or making the best use of whatever is available to us.
RE: Mr Speaker, Honourable Colleagues, I would like to support the views expressed by my colleague on my right – the Honourable Bill Luxton. This was some 3.5 miles of excellent road. In fact, some years back I was carrying Bill Rammel who was then the Minister of State in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, along the road with the Governor. I told Bill Rammel that this was the only remains of the “Roman Occupation” of the Falkland Islands. Bill Rammel did pick it up and thought it was funny. The Governor was not impressed. However, it pointed out that this was a very good piece of road and it was totally unnecessary and it came about because the Transport Advisory Committee of 12 months ago failed to make its decisions perfectly well known. There was confusion and by the time I, as sitting on the Transport Advisory Committee had discovered the errors, it was too late; the contract had been let and we couldn’t then do anything about it. But I do agree. It was a waste of money; I do agree that it would have better been spent on capping and I would ask, please, that the Honourable Sharon Halford takes this point forward to the next Transport Advisory Committee (meeting) on June the 3rd and please ensure that the decisions taken at that meeting are clearly expressed.
SH: Mr Speaker, we will do our best to ensure that it is clear after the meeting what is proposed. However, I might just add that on the transport issue I have realised for some years that a Member around this table showed me once before that when it comes to the building of roads and maintenance, we all become experts.
DS: I firstly apologise for making my Honourable Colleague jump up and down like a Jack in the Box as she said earlier. Just a minor point, I think. I heard £134Thousand and something followed by £1,304. I wasn’t clear what the cost was.
SH: Apologies if I got the figures mixed up. It was £134,102 and 25p.
EE: Thank you Mr Speaker, would the Honourable Sharon Halford explain to me why it was that the decision was taken to actually cap this area of road when areas down further South of Fox Bay have, been pointed out on numerous occasions to be in a serious state and really do require capping?
SH: I think we already have said that we were not aware that this area was actually going to be done. When it comes to capping we are not in a position to do huge areas. We simply cannot afford it. And as the Honourable Colleague to your right has already said, in this case, it was a waste of your money.
BL: Mr Speaker, just to ask – would the Honourable Sharon Halford please ensure that after the next meeting of the TAC one area in particular, which is on the Port Stephens Road, past Crew Harbour, which is a real death trap and people living down there – sooner or later somebody’s going to get killed there unless something is done about it. I would ask that, that area in particular is addressed in the next season.
SH: Mr Speaker, declaring my interest, this area is also mentioned in the last one because I nearly came off the road there.
The Motion was passed.
Clients have a copy of the proposed financial bill so FINN will cut to the debate after the Financial Secretary, the Hon Mr Keith Padgett, completed his presentation. The report of Select Committee is included in this transcription.
The Chief Executive seconded Mr Padgett’s request to beg the Bill be read a second time.
DS: Mr Speaker, I would like to make just a few comments on the budget as last year’s budget was not an easy one and the lowering of the taxation threshold plus the introduction of MST were two items that were not popular. However, the options we had were stark and simple. We had to increase revenues or begin to cut services. Any cuts in service would have resulted in a lowering of living standards that people have quite rightly come to expect.
I spoke earlier about the economy and will not go into those same arguments again but suffice to say that we are not yet heading into the rosy glow of economic comfort. If it hadn’t been for Illex and oil exploration this year’s budget considerations would have been a great deal more difficult. We have been fortunate but we must never become complacent.
I sincerely hope that by this time next year we will see some positive results from the EDS, TDS and the RDS. We need to invest rather than just spend and decision makers need to consider carefully and properly what the potential return on our investments is; not just to the government but also in terms of economic benefit to the country.
Mr Speaker I would just like to add the thanks of all of us – I am sure – to the Honourable Financial Secretary and all of his team who have done an excellent job with the budget sessions this year.
Thank you.
The Bill and the draft estimates went through to the Select Committee of the House and the Hon Mr Roger Edwards was appointed chairman.
A Bill for an Ordinance to Increase Various Allowances, Benefits, Charges, Contributions, Fees and Penalties Provided for Under the Laws of the Falkland Islands Make New Provision for Certain New Charges and Penalties; to Make New Provision in Relation to Electricity Prices and Related Matters and to Make New Provision in Relation to Taxable Benefits
KP: Mr Speaker, Honourable Members, this Bill essentially has three purposes. Firstly, it gives effect to the increases in various allowances, benefits, charges, contributions, fees and penalties provided for under the laws of the Falkland Islands. It also makes new provisions in relation to certain charges. These increases relate to the proposals in my budget presentation and can be summarised as follows:
1. Clause 3 increases the banking licence fee; Clause 4 increases commissioners for oils fees, Clause 5 increases Companies and Private Partnerships fees, and the revised fees set out in Section 1 of the Bill, Clause 6 increases Customs Service fees and Entry and Clearance fees, Clause 7 increases various Animal Product Importation fees, Clauses 9 and 10 increase Firearms and Ammunition Licence fees, Clause 11 increases Fishing Product Inspection fees, Clause 12 increases Harbour Dues, Clauses 13, 14 and 15 increase various Land Charges and Land Registry fees and Revised fees set out in Schedules 2 and 3 of the Bill, Clause 16 increases the Notary Public fees, Clause 17 increases Plant Importation fees.
2. Clause 8 introduces a new charge for public health inspection, Clauses 19, 20 and 21 increase various licence and registration fees, for example, for Patents, Marriages, Births and Deaths, Clause 22 increases Pensions and Pension Contribution rates, Clauses 23,24 and 28 increase the Vehicle Licence and other Road Traffic fees, in addition, Clause 23 makes for provision of Vehicle Licence fees - a Car Tax purchased for less than a year, Clause 25 increases various landing, parking and Navigation charges at Stanley Airport and Clause 27 increases Stanley Common Grazing fees.
All the aforementioned increases take effect from the 1st of July 2011, apart from Clauses 3 and 22 relating to Banking regulations and pensions which take effect from 1st of January 2012; and Clause 25 relating to Stanley Airport Charges, which will come into force upon publication (in the Gazette).
The Objects and Reasons section of the Bill seeks to explain the increases and shows the old and new figures for ease in comparison. I think that includes all the Legislative Amendments that were included in the Budget Presentation
The second purpose of the Bill is to amend and introduce new provisions relating to Electricity supply to ensure that the Electricity supply regulations are fit for purpose. In addition a level of flexibility is incorporated to accommodate some level of change to existing practices. Clause 8 of the Bill sets these out and the Amendments would come into force on Friday. The main changes would be as follows:
1. The Financial Secretary would be responsible for setting and reviewing electricity prices rather than the Governor acting on the advice of Executive Council. However, the Financial Secretary would have to take into account directions from Executive Council and the advice of the Director of Public Works.
2. Changes in price would have to be publicised in addition to being published in the Gazette including on FIRS. The changes could be brought into force the day after being broadcast on the radio.
3. Due to the difficulties in reprogramming card based Electricity Meters, it would be possible for pre-paid Meter Cards to be purchased at more than face value to accommodate any future price variations.
4.
This article is the Property and Copyright of Falkland Islands News Network.
| 
