STATES OF JERSEY
r
Strategic Plan 2006 to 2011 (P.40/2006): fourth amendment
Lodged au Greffe on 22nd May 2006
by the Connétable of St. Helier
STATES GREFFE
STRATEGIC PLAN 2006
TO 2011 (P.40/2006): FOURTH AMENDMENT
____________
After the
word “Appendix” insert the words –
“, except that, in Commitment Six, Outcome 6.1, after
Action 6.1.3 insert the following action –
‘6.1.4 Bring
forward to the States for approval proposals to ensure fairness between the
parishes in relation to the costs of maintenance of public amenities such as
public parks, gardens and toilets within St. Helier and other parishes in 2006
(T&R)’ ”.
CONNÉTABLE OF ST. HELIER
REPORT
Background
In 2004 I lodged an amendment (attached as
Appendix 1) to the Report and Proposition ‘machinery of Government:
Relationship between the Parishes and the Executive’ (P.40/2004) and succeeded
by a large majority vote in securing the States’ agreement that ‘the cost of
maintaining public parks, gardens and toilets within St. Helier should be
funded by the Island’s ratepayers. However, when the basis of the ‘equalisation
of welfare’ moved away from the original transfer of infrastructure costs and
revised proposals were presented to the States in the following years, that
commitment to address a fundamental inequity was reneged upon, albeit by a slim
margin of two votes.
This decision to go back on a previous States
agreement to tackle the unfairness of the situation whereby the taxpayer meets
the costs of public amenities such as Howard David, Millbrook and Sir Winston
Churchill Parks, but not the cost of similar facilities provided in
St. Helier was all the more surprising given the terms of the amendment
(attached as Appendix 2) which I put to the revised machinery of
Government proposals (P.66/2005) and which form the basis of this amendment to
the Strategic Plan.
It should be clear that I was doing no more than
asking that dealing with the inequity recognised by a large majority of States
members in 2004 should still be on the agenda. Despite the narrow defeat (how
members voted is recorded in Appendix 3) I took comfort from the
advice during the debate from several States members, including the then
President of Policy and Resources, Senator Frank Walker, that I should bring
forward a separate proposition to achieve my objective which, in their view, no
longer formed a logical part of the revised proposals relating to the
establishment of an Island-wide rate. This is what I am seeking to do in the
amendment to the draft Strategic Plan of the Council of Ministers.
The arguments for creating a level playing field in
respect of how public amenities are paid for are as valid today as they were in
2004, and I would accordingly refer members to the reports in the two
Appendices.
There are no direct financial and manpower
implications involved in the Treasury and Resources Department bringing forward
proposals to achieve equitable funding of public amenities.
APPENDIX 1
machinery
of government: Relationship between the Parishes and the Executive (p.40/2004) –
AMENDMENT
Lodged au Greffe
on 11th May 2004 by the Connétable of St. Helier
In paragraph (a) insert a new paragraph (iii) –
“(iii) the cost
of maintaining public parks, gardens and toilets within St. Helier should
be funded by the Island’s ratepayers;”
and renumber the following paragraph accordingly.
CONNÉTABLE OF ST. HELIER
REPORT
For over 2 years I have been a member of the
Steering Group set up by the Policy and Resources Committee to come up with
solutions to the unfair burden of welfare, so I was shocked to discover that
one of the important recommendations of the Group had not been included in the
Committee’s proposals.
From early on in the work of the Steering Group it was
accepted that the cost of maintaining public parks, gardens and toilets within
the Parish of St. Helier currently met by the ratepayers of
St. Helier should be funded from the Island-wide Services Fund. The logic
of this is inescapable: the cost of maintaining public parks and gardens in
St. Saviour (Howard Davis Park), St. Lawrence (Millbrook Park),
St. Brelade (Sir Winston Churchill Park), St. Martin (Devon Gardens),
is currently funded by the taxpayer, as is the cost of providing public toilets
around the Island, and transferring their cost to the Island-wide Services Fund
under the proposals in P.40/2004 was never questioned. The unfairness of the
present arrangements which mean St. Helier ratepayers alone bear the cost
of parks, gardens and toilets provided in the Island’s capital for the benefit
of all had to be addressed, and indeed, was going to be addressed until the
eleventh hour.
The officer who headed up the project on behalf of the
Policy and Resources Committee confirmed this in an email on 8th April this
year: ‘from the time of my involvement St. Helier costs were included.
The reference in the Phase 2 report is Figure 7.4 page 71.’
This part of the ‘package’ was important when it came
to presenting the Steering Group’s proposals to the Policy and Resources
Committee and Comité des Connétables on 25th March 2003: the 3rd slide of the
presentation said –
|
Issues – St. Helier Paying for services other Parishes do not –
parks and toilets (up to £1 million per quarter or 0.3p per quarter) |
and the 6th slide included under the heading –
|
Main recommendations – financial … The cost of parks and toilets currently met by the
St. Helier ratepayer should be paid for on an Island-wide basis |
More importantly, addressing the unfairness of the
current situation was an important factor in the support given to the Steering
Group’s proposals by the Procureurs du Bien Public of St. Helier, and by
the Constable when the proposals were explained in the
public meeting in the Town Hall on 4th June 2003. Indeed, the 5th slide in the
presentation made to Parishioners said the following –
|
Recommendation: The cost of all parks & gardens
and public toilets currently met by the ratepayers of St. Helier, should
be met on an Island-wide basis Ø St. Helier
is currently the only Parish whose ratepayers are funding the cost of parks
& gardens and public toilets. Ø These
costs are adding 0.3p to the St. Helier rate per quarter. |
Although there was no specific mention of this part of
the proposals in the draft Proposition prepared last autumn, the draft Report
included the following paragraph –
‘In
addition to the costs shown in Figure 7, the Steering Group recommended
that the cost of parks and gardens and public conveniences currently met by the
ratepayers of St. Helier should be funded on an Island-wide basis. It
would not be fair for St. Helier’s ratepayers to fund these costs when the
cost of all other parks and gardens and public toilets were to be shared across
all ratepayers in the Island.’ (para. 29, p.13).
Given the fact that the Proposition was seeking in
principle approval for the detailed work to commence on the transfer of welfare
to the States and the transfer of other services to the Parishes, I judged this
a sufficient commitment that the long-standing issue was going to be settled as
part of the package of measures to be worked up following a positive States’
decision.
That commitment to correct a fundamental unfairness in
the position of St. Helier was dropped following a meeting of the Comité
of Connétables on 23rd February 2004, during half-term week when the Constable
of St. Helier was out of the Island.
The minutes of the meeting record that –
‘the
Connétables queried whether (the cost of St. Helier parks and gardens of
£830,000) featured as part of the costs of services to be transferred and
pointed out that other Parishes incurred costs in maintaining public areas.
Senator Ozouf said that whilst this could be met from the central services fund
it was a separate issue. The ‘cost neutrality’ related to the costs transferred
between the Parishes and the States and it was the commercial ratepayers, who
were mainly in St. Helier, who would be paying the increased costs under
the proposals. Following discussion it was agreed this paragraph should be
deleted from the report as there was uncertainty as to whether or not
St. Helier parishioners wished to give up their parks and gardens (sic)’.
Thus an important part of the proposals were discarded
without any consultation with the Parish whatsoever. It is worth remembering
that a consideration of ‘the position of the Parish of St. Helier’ was one
of the key objectives of the entire project under the terms of the Act of the
States dated 28th September 2001.
Senator Ozouf was right to point out to the
Connétables on 23rd February that the issue of what services are paid for out
of the Island-wide (or ‘central’) services fund, does not affect which States’
services are transferred to the Parishes in exchange for native welfare.
However, this is not ‘a separate issue’ for St. Helier. Commitment to
ending this aspect of the unfairness of St. Helier’s position is required
from the States, especially as St. Helier’s contribution to the
Island-wide (or ‘central’) services fund, if a commercial rate is introduced to
help meet the cost of Island-wide services, will be so large.
The Comité des Connétables have queried whether the
public areas in other Parishes and currently funded parochially would also be
met from the central fund [Minute No. 1 of 23rd February 2004 refers]. At
their meeting on 5th April 2004 it was agreed that if I were to put forward an
amendment to P.40/2004 as I indicated I wished to do, that amendment should
refer to public areas including parks and gardens in all Parishes, and I
reflected this logical approach in the drafting of the amendment.
This approach was supported by the President of the
Policy and Resources Committee and the Vice-President of the Finance and
Economics Committee when I met with them to discuss the matter on 22nd April.
Indeed, Senator Walker said that he was more than happy to recommend to his
Committee that commitment to funding public amenities in St. Helier be put
back into P.40/2004 by way of an Amendment in the name of the Policy and
Resources Committee.
However, when Senators Walker and Ozouf attended the
Comité des Connétables on 26th April 2004 to put forward the suggestion that
the proposed amendment be lodged by the Policy and Resources Committee, there
was no agreement among the Constables over either the principle of
St. Helier’s public amenities being funded from the Island-wide Services
Fund, or the principle of funding all such facilities around the Parishes.
Questions were also raised about the cost of St. Helier’s parks, gardens
and toilets, and how much expenditure was entailed. As a result, it was agreed that
I would lodge an amendment to address the need, in principle, for publicly
funded amenities in the Island’s capital.
The details, I would argue, are not required for this
debate. The actual costs of providing such public amenities were calculated and
taken into account in the preparation of the Steering Group’s reports, (as were
the actual costs incurred by the Public Services Department for their provision
of services – which have now been revised in the wake of the FSR), and
these reports are available to all members. There is no doubt that if the
principle of meeting the costs of public amenities from the Island-wide
Services Fund is agreed, there will be a good deal of discussion further
down the line about how those costs are calculated, the need for competitive
tenders, and so on. Indeed, the mechanism by which the future Conseil des
Connétables arrives at a sensible and fair allocation of expenditure from the
Island-wide Services Fund is bound to be highly contentious, if recent
discussions on the Comité are anything to go by.
There are no financial or manpower implications for
the States in this amendment.
APPENDIX 2
MACHINERY OF GOVERNMENT:
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PARISHES AND THE EXECUTIVE (P.66/2005) –
AMENDMENT
At
the end of paragraph (a), after the words ‘native welfare’ insert the words ‘but to request the
Policy and Resources Committee to
bring forward to the States for approval alternative proposals to establish an
equitable system to ensure fairness between the parishes in relation to the costs
of maintenance of public amenities such as public parks, gardens and toilets
within St. Helier and the other parishes;”.
CONNÉTABLE OF ST. HELIER
REPORT
An unfortunate and, I believe, undesirable result of
the changes to the ‘MACHINERY OF GOVERNMENT: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PARISHES
AND THE EXECUTIVE’ proposed by the Policy and Resources Committee is that the
lack of equity in the treatment of St. Helier ratepayers that was set to
be removed following the States’ adoption of my amendment to P.40/2004
(reproduced above as Appendix 1) will no longer be so removed, if the
proposals in P.66/2005 are accepted unamended. The Policy and Resources
Committee have not sought to conceal this side-effect of the revised proposals,
as it is stated in paragraph 8 of their Report that –
As a
consequence, it is no longer proposed that the Parishes should take on the
responsibility for the costs of maintaining public parks, gardens and toilets
within St. Helier, as had been proposed in paragraph (a)(iii) of
P.40/2004, as amended.
The arguments in support of there being a ‘level
playing field’ in terms of who pays for public amenities provided around the
Island were set out in the Report accompanying my original amendment, and need
not be repeated here. The central point at issue and the fundamental unfairness
of the present situation is that the ratepayers of St. Helier, uniquely,
pay for such public parks as Parade Gardens, the People’s Park, La Collette
Gardens, and the well-used toilet facilities dotted around the Parish, whereas
the ratepayers of other parishes do not contribute to the costs of maintaining
similar facilities within their boundaries.
During the debate it emerged that one of the potential
obstacles to the successful passage of the amendment was that it referred
uniquely to such public services as are provided in the Island’s capital and
not, for example, to such small areas of parkland or other facilities as are
provided for general use at the expense of the ratepayers in other parishes.
Concerns were also raised about those amenities that all parishes provide, such
as hanging baskets around the parish halls, and there was a danger during the
debate that the ‘hanging basket’ argument – which is de minimis – would distract the minds of States members …
There was also discussion concerning the fact that the
Parish of St. Helier delivers the public amenities in question using its
own labour force, whereas the rest of the Island’s public amenities are
maintained by the Public Services Department. I would argue that the key issue,
however, is not who delivers the services but who pays for them. At the same
time, it is worth pointing out that discussions between the Parish and the
Environment and Public Services Committee into how common services may be
delivered more efficiently and with less duplication of effort are well
advanced, following the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding at the end of
2004.
This amendment differs from the previous one in that
it simply asks the States to agree that the unfairness surrounding ‘the
position of St. Helier’ – one of the original objectives of the
entire ‘Machinery of Government’ project (Act of the States dated 28th
September 2001) – will be addressed by the Committee. Clearly there is a
variety of ways of achieving this, including the requirement that the
ratepayers of all parishes fund the public amenities within their boundaries,
or that St. Helier receives an appropriate contribution towards its costs
in this area from the Island-wide rate.
The financial or manpower implications for the States
in this amendment will depend on which mechanism is proposed by the Committee
for dealing with the ‘position of St. Helier’, if this amendment is
adopted.
APPENDIX 3
THE STATES commenced consideration of a proposition of
the Policy and Resources Committee concerning the Machinery of Government:
relationship between the Parishes and the Executive, and rejected an amendment
of the Connétable of St. Helier that at the end of paragraph (a),
after the words “native welfare” there
be inserted the words “but to request the
Policy and Resources Committee to
bring forward to the States for approval alternative proposals to establish an
equitable system to ensure fairness between the parishes in relation to the
costs of maintenance of public amenities such as public parks, gardens and
toilets within St. Helier and the other parishes;”.
Members present voted as follows –
|
POUR: 17 |
|
CONTRE: 19 |
|
ABSTAIN: 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senator P.V.F. Le Claire |
|
Senator F.H. Walker |
|
|
|
Senator
P.F. Routier |
|
Senator W. Kinnard |
|
|
|
Senator
P.F.C. Ozouf |
|
Senator T.A. Le Sueur |
|
|
|
Connétable
of St. Helier |
|
Connétable of
St. Martin |
|
|
|
Deputy
of Trinity |
|
Connétable of
St. Ouen |
|
|
|
Deputy
J.L. Dorey (H) |
|
Connétable of
St. Saviour |
|
|
|
Deputy
L.J. Farnham (S) |
|
Connétable of
St. Brelade |
|
|
|
Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (S) |
|
Connétable of
St. Mary |
|
|
|
Deputy
J.B. Fox (H) |
|
Connétable of
St. Peter |
|
|
|
Deputy
J-A. Bridge (H) |
|
Connétable of
St. Clement |
|
|
|
Deputy
J.A. Martin (H) |
|
Connétable
of St. John |
|
|
|
Deputy
G.P. Southern (H) |
|
Deputy
R.C. Duhamel (S) |
|
|
|
Deputy
J.A. Bernstein (B) |
|
Deputy
of St. Martin |
|
|
|
Deputy
of St. Mary |
|
Deputy
of St. John |
|
|
|
Deputy
P.J.D. Ryan (H) |
|
Deputy
M.F. Dubras (L) |
|
|
|
Deputy
J.A. Hilton (H) |
|
Deputy
P.N. Troy (B) |
|
|
|
Deputy G.W.J de Faye (H) |
|
Deputy
S.C. Ferguson (B) |
|
|
|
|
|
Deputy
of St. Ouen |
|
|
|
|
|
Deputy
of St. Peter |
|
|