Senator Bailhache's proposition is the first to debated at next Tuesday's States Sitting. Today the COM lodged comments in respect of Senator Breckon's proposition in relation to an inquiry into the sale of the Broad Street Post Office Building which is to be debated at the same Sitting. However its Comments re the Plemont purchase are still no where to be found, Why?
Earlier today the Treasury Minister, Senator Ozouf lodged his Comments in relation to Senator Bailhache's proposition which seeks States approval to spend £3.5million to assist the National Trust for Jersey to purchase the Plemont Holiday Village and return it to its natural state.
Senator Bailhache's proposition also (cheekily) requests the Treasury Minister to identify the appropriate means means of funding for the States, should they wish to do so, to provide a grant to the National Trust for Jersey in order for them to acquire the Plémont Holiday Village.
Senator Ozouf's Comments can be read HERE
Senator Ozouf has made it clear that there are no immediate funds, however he wishes to assist his good friend and fellow Minister Senator Bailhache by raiding the funds from the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) law 1999 ( The Law) which can be read in full HERE
I hope that ALL States Members will read Senator Ozouf's Comments and read the (Law) which the Senator has conveniently omitted to provide a link why? Is it because he knows that what he is proposing is well outside the provisions of (The Law). He knows that, so does Senator Bailhache, the Council of Ministers, the Attorney General, Uncle Tom Cobley and all who have read Article 24 which covers how the funds can be dispersed.
For the benefit of readers and hopefully those States Members who read my Blog Article 24 is as follows:
24 Criminal
Offences Confiscations Fund
(1) There shall be
established a Fund to be called the Criminal Offences Confiscations Fund which,
subject to this Article, shall be managed and controlled by the Minister for
Treasury and Resources.[22]
(2) All
amounts –
(a) recovered
under or in satisfaction of a confiscation order; or
(b) received
under an asset sharing agreement,
shall be included in the monies which
are paid into the Fund.[23]
(3) Monies paid into
the Fund shall not form part of the annual income of the States.
(3A) The
Fund shall be a special fund for the purposes of the Public Finances (Jersey)
Law 2005[24].
(4) Subject to
paragraph (5), monies in the Fund shall be applied by the Minister for
Treasury and Resources for the following purposes, that is to say –
(a) in
promoting or supporting measures that, in the opinion of the Minister for
Treasury and Resources, may assist –
(i) in preventing,
suppressing or otherwise dealing with criminal conduct,
(ii) in dealing with the
consequences of criminal conduct, or
(iii) without prejudice to the
generality of clauses (i) and (ii), in facilitating the enforcement of any
enactment dealing with criminal conduct;
(b) discharging
Jersey’s obligations under asset sharing agreements; and
(c) meeting
the expenses incurred by the Minister for Treasury and Resources in
administering the Fund.[25]
(5) Before promoting
or supporting any measure under paragraph (4)(a), the Minister for
Treasury and Resources shall consult the Attorney General and other persons or
bodies (including other Ministers) as the Minister for Treasury and Resources
considers appropriate.[26]
(6) Monies paid into
the Fund, while not applied for any of the purposes mentioned in
paragraph (4), may be –
(a) held in
the custody of the Treasurer of the States at the States Treasury; or
(b) placed,
in the name of the States, in a current or deposit account with one or more
banks selected by the Minister for Treasury and Resources,
and any interest earned on such monies
while held in such an account shall be paid by the States into the Fund.[27]
(7) Monies held in
any account by virtue of paragraph (6)(b) may be withdrawn on the
signature of the Treasurer of the States.
(8) In this Article,
“asset sharing agreement” means any agreement or arrangement made by or on
behalf of Jersey with a country or territory outside Jersey
for the sharing of the proceeds of criminal conduct that, as a result of mutual
assistance, have been confiscated or forfeited either in Jersey
or elsewhere.[28]
As can be seen from the above Article there is no way in which funds which are intended for preventing,
suppressing or otherwise dealing with criminal conduct or in dealing with the
consequences of criminal conduct can be used to purchase the Holiday Village.
It might be worth reminding Senator Ozouf, States Members and Law Officers that when seeking to use money from the same source to fund the Committee of Inquiry (COI) into the abuse of Island residents, the request was rejected because it fell outside the provisions of Article 24, even though it was argued that the COI was dealing with the consequences of criminal conduct.
Is the reason for the COM's failure to lodge its Comments because it has lost its spin script writer and is therefore unable to find someone with the ability to pull the wool over the eyes of States Members, or has it been reminded that the provisions of the (Law) do not allow for funds to buy Plemont which was denied to supporters of the COI which the Council of Ministers opposed.
Apart from bringing the States into disrepute by recycling the Plemont issue, using highly questionable or even "dirty" tactics to achieve their goal does little for the reputation of the individuals concerned.
Apart from bringing the States into disrepute by recycling the Plemont issue, using highly questionable or even "dirty" tactics to achieve their goal does little for the reputation of the individuals concerned.
If it was Geoff Southern bringing this proposition and not king Bailhache would Ozouf be breaking all the rules to accommodate him?
ReplyDeleteI thought that Geoff Southern lodged a decent amendment last time round which would have satisfied most people, but unfortunately because it was Geoff''s amendment, the Trust and COM could not lower them selves to accept it.
DeleteBob.
ReplyDeleteIn February 2011 Senator Francis Le Gresley submitted a written question to the Treasury Minister asking for funds from the COCF to be used for the COI.
You, and your readers, should be very interested in the REPLY.
Thank you Voice for the link which covers the points I have published in my blog above.
DeleteI ask that Readers click on to the word Reply above.
Oh dear Bob, you have been misleading your readers. This is not what I expect of you.
DeleteI had drafted a comment about Ozouf's proposal being illegal, and looking for very unpleasant explanations (as there were no innocent ones). Then I (wisely) decided I would check Ozouf's comments on the Plemont proposition for myself. He did not say what you said he did.
I come back to that in a bit, but first some meat on the bone of Voice for Children's link to the Written question on the use of the Concfiscation Fund for the COI.
I followed up on Ozouf's reply to the Question linked to above, in my speech on P19/2011. Here it is:
________________________________________
Extract from Hansard, Tuesday March 1st 2011, debate on Bob Hill’s amendment to P19/2011, which was Francis Le Gresley’s proposition to ask the Council of Ministers to reconsider their decision not to hold a COI.
Deputy of St. Mary
…………….
“I circulated a paper to Members and I would like them to look at it now, it is headed “P.19 Historical Child Abuse Inquiry: Additional information about the uses to which the Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund has been put in the past.”
………………
On page 1, ............. Members will see what the Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund has been used for.
……………………………..
I will just read some of them out……………………. Staff salaries and others, in the Law Officers Department; running costs of Magistrates Court; police for C.C.T.V. (Closed Circuit Television) storage equipment; Criminal Injuries Compensation Fund implementation, which is fair enough; court and case costs
…………
Now, we are being told that, and it is in one of the reports, we should not use the proceeds of the C.O.C.F. (for the COI) because it would not be proper, it would not fall within the guidelines of spending of that fund.
………………..
I am sorry I cannot find the exact reference for the Criminal Confiscation Fund and ... yes, I can, just one moment. “The Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund has to be used in promoting or supporting measures that in the opinion of the Minister may assist in the preventing, suppressing or otherwise dealing with criminal conduct.” - Preventing, suppressing or otherwise dealing with criminal conduct; that seems to me to be exactly where this inquiry is and certainly it is a lot nearer to that than some of the things on which that money has already been spent in the past.
______________________________
Indeed.
So certainly nobody can use the COCF for buying Plemont. But that is not what Ozouf is proposing.
You have criticised Ozouf for not putting a link to the COCF law in his comments. Where is the link to Ozouf’s comments in what you write?
Here it is, and readers can see that he is not suggesting to use the Fund to part pay for Plemont. He is using it to fund Police expenditure (which on past performance re this fund is acceptable) and then using the money released by this to fund the Plemont expenditure
http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyPropositions/2014/P.107-2014Com.pdf
It is fancy footwork, but it is different from what you say.
Daniel, thank you for your comment and as they say “it’s good to talk” and I welcome the opportunity to respond.
DeleteNot only have I published the Proceeds of Crime Law but contrary to what you say, I have published Senator Ozouf’s Comments which for ease of finding and I put it on its own and can be found in paragraph 5 in my blog above.
As you were one of the key figures in supporting the call for the Committee of Inquiry, you are well aware that use of the Confiscation of Crime Fund could not be used to fund the COI because it was deemed to contrary to the Law. I would say that the reason given was spurious because the person interpreting the law was opposed to establishing the COI.
You say “So certainly nobody can use the COCF for buying Plemont. But that is not what Ozouf is proposing.” In your words you say that Senator Ozouf is not suggesting to use the Fund to part pay for Plemont. He is using it to fund Police expenditure (which on past performance re this fund is acceptable) and then using the money released by this to fund the Plemont expenditure.”
You go on and say; “It is fancy footwork, but it is different from what you say. Indeed.”
Daniel, you are right “it is fancy footwork” and some may say Senator Ozouf “is taking from Peter to pay Paul” however, others like me may put it stronger by saying that he is “cooking the books.”
The fund is not earmarked to fund Police expenditure it is for “preventing, suppressing or otherwise dealing with criminal conduct and in dealing with the consequences of criminal conduct.” I ask that you look carefully at what Senator Ozouf is suggesting because it does not square with the provisions of the Fund?
You say that you “had drafted a comment about Ozouf's proposal being illegal, and looking for very unpleasant explanations (as there were no innocent ones). Then I (wisely) decided I would check Ozouf's comments on the Plemont proposition for myself. He did not say what you said he did.”
If you would like to submit your drafted Comments, I would be pleased to publish them.
Why not celebrate our benefactors and rename Plemont headland as Curtis Warren though I suspect that the bunnies might have to wait rather a long time to receive funding from that quarter...my understanding with the Criminal Compensation Fund is that it has run out of funding and grants have all but ceased to be given...so much for social priorities.
ReplyDeleteWhat a novel suggestion, you might get away with the word warren because of the rabbits in the area but somehow Curtis does not really fit in.
DeleteYou are right to draw attention to the lack of funding in relation to victims of crimes.
Sorry, I am a bit confused by all this. Can I just ask you (and Daniel) one thing not to do with Plemont but ...... has this fund been used to pay for the States of Jersey legal bills in respect of suppressing Stuart Syvret? It seems to me that there seems to be a bottomless pit of money coming from somewhere to do this. Barring a driving liscense change of address infraction, I am not aware of any criminal act committed by Stuart. Naming a rogue nurse is hardly a crime when it is in the public interest and by law- public interest stuff is exempt from the DP laws. They pile it on Stuart because IMO, they have something very big to hide and Stuart is both clever enough and brave enough to step forward in protecting and standing up for victims of child abuse and other crimes, much to their dislike. The Jersey police found weapons, drugs, stolen medicine and all sorts at his home, yet I am not aware that this man has ever come in front of the courts to explain his actions. The Nursing and Midwifery Council found that nurse guilty of maliciously deceptive and incorrect paperwork and if I remember, the Health Department were not vigilant so the suspicious deaths that occured in Jersey hospital could have been prevented. It would be very interesting to see where this money has been coming from. Thanks and sorry its a side issue but I think its important.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment which is important and it is not a side issue because the use of the Confiscation Fund should be the subject of close scrutiny as it is open to abuse.
DeletePerhaps a States Member will ask for a breakdown of money spent because I do believe that money has been spent on matters which are contrary to the Law.
Clever slight of hand.... probably perfectly legal but costs dearly in terms of credibility of the states. Would it not be easier for the Bailache boys to put their own money where their mouth is and issue a loan to the National Trust?
ReplyDeleteBob,
ReplyDeleteThey don't call it cooking the books any more. Its now called "creative accounting."
What ever term is used, they both leave a nasty smell.
DeleteI read on Facbook that Philip Bailhache gets £200,000 per year for his pension. If he had any moral compass, he would be giving that money to that family of the child abused by that centineer Roger Holland. If Philip had done his job properly, that abuse would have been prevented.
ReplyDeleteIf those States Memberswho are at the forefront for spending money which the States does not, had launched a public appeal for the money it would have increased their standing.
DeleteAs it is it they want a quick fix at the a public public's expense.
This latest debacle by Ozouf and his book cooking is not going to be favourable for his re election in October. It could be the final nail in his coffin.
ReplyDeleteBob, I fear our two 'worthy' senators are playing a game of 'you scratch my back etc' after all they both have propositions coming up on Tuesday.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading and digesting your comments Bob, all i can say is that i feel that you are totally unsupportive of removing this "Festering Wound" on our coastline, and would go to any lengths (if you were still in the states) to prevent public money from aiding the National Trust . I ,fortunately on the other hand see things from a totally different perspective from you, and i hope very much that those who are in the States and serving us can see the big picture , and give somthing back to the Environment for once, and for generations to come. Money is only money, you c'ant take it with you. The Environment and the people of this Island are King.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment Tony. It’s good to receive an opposing view, even if I don’t entirely agree with it.
DeleteYes I do want to remove the “Festering Wound” and that will be achieved by allowing the Developer, who has received Planning Consent, to get on with removing it and replace it with 28 homes and at the same time give to the Island 2/3rds of the headland absolutely free.
I agree that we can’t take our money with us when we depart from this earth, however if use the money wisely it can be to the benefit of any number of people. Supporting the Developer’s original plan is not only a generous compromise but it will come at no cost to the National Trust for Jersey or taxpayers?
There has been a precident when we look back to the end of WW2. A very similar set of circustances with Noirmont Point, but on this occasion the Owner was wanting to sell to the Public, not to a Private developer, (which would have been a lot more profitable)
DeleteThe States Funded around 50% of the cost, the Public ( and remember post war was very Austere times indeed, far worse than today) funded the rest. How many people can say today after visiting that glorious part of Jersey , would have preffered the States in 1950 not to have had that courage and vision for the future - for the next generations to come ? Make no mistake, Noirmont Point would be covered in luxury houses today otherwise. It is incumberant for us also to do the same thing. We owe at least this very small offering from an otherwise relentless, terrible legacy of development over the past 50 years
Good try Tony, but I'm not convinced.
DeleteBob, if you can't see all around you what money and Greed has done all around the island, then I give up ! Plemont, if it was developed into what was envisaged, luxury homes for millionaires, not for the likes of local families that's for sure) - & it would not have stopped there either because I know they had bought more land around the "footprint " of the envisaged development. They would wait a few more years and another application would go in...that's the way these tenacious developers work, I know, I have been photographing thier activities for 28 years now
DeleteYes, I have seen what money and greed has done all around the Island, but are you being fair to the Developer who having had his plans approved has been harassed into agreeing to a sell out.
DeleteThroughout my life I have tried to be even handed and looked at the issues and not the personalities. I have never met Mr Hemmings but like any other applicants he is entitled to be treated fairly and within the Law.
We now have a situation where the most senior Ministers are prepared to cook the books to achieve their goal. What does that say for the integrity of the Island? Do you support buying the land knowing that the books have been cooked to make the purchase possible?
“Tony the Prof” has published another thought provoking blog which can be accessed at the top right hand corner of my blog.
Tony's guest Adam Gardiner makes some excellent points and is well worth reading. He has asked a number of questions which I suspect that many of the National Trusts supporters do not know the answers..
The Council of Ministers has yet to lodge its Comments, however this morning the Planning Minister has lodged his.
As is to be expected he does not support the Bailhache proposition and has submitted some valid reasons to support his decision.
His Comments can be read here.<A HREF="http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyPropositions/2014/P.107-2014Com%282%29.pdf>CLICKHERE</A>
In my previous Plemont blog I mentioned how Senator Bailhache's proposition has been rushed through. Clearly from Adam's remarks, the States is not in a position to debate the matter because too many questions remain unasked let alone answered.
I hope that some States Member will ask that the debate be deferred until more information is at hand.
Bob.
DeleteLINK.
I am grateful to Voiceforchildren for providing a link which will enable direct access to the Planning Minister's Comments.
DeleteBob.
ReplyDeleteWomen in Politics and STATE RADIO.
Have to agree with Bob on this one, had the proposed development gone ahead there would now be much needed housing, AND a large portion of the headland preserved in perpetuity at no cost to the public. That is not about money, that is a pragmatic compromise.
ReplyDeleteI support retuning the Plemont headland to nature.
ReplyDeleteBut let’s speak plainly – the use of the COCF to fund it – for that in truth is what is proposed – is simply ultra vires.
If what is proposed was lawful – which it is not – then the same methodology could henceforth be used to fund any pet project of any States department or States member.
Why bother having the COCF focused and structured in the way it is now, if this overt account-churning was lawful? Under what is proposed, any indulgence at all – any unfunded whim of any politician – could be funded out of any vague “law” or “policing” head of expenditure – with the “loss” then simply being paid back from the COCF.
Unless the Attorney General delivers a very – very – robust and uncompromising condemnation of the startling & brazen unlawfulness of what is proposed, the world will see the true measure of Tim Le Cocq - given his opposition to use of the COCF to fund a public inquiry into preventing child-abuse.
Stuart
ReplyDeleteLets take £3.5 million from the prison budget and give the money to Jersey Heritage then use the COCF to take up the shortfall at the prison.
Lets take £1.7 million from the pollice budget that funds motorised equipment and uniforms and give it to planning to create twenty new posts, and take it from the COCF to make up the shortfall in the police budget.
Lets take the cheque book and all responsibility from Senators Ozouf and Bailhache at the next election and make up the shortfall in States members by electing people with integrity.
Answer given by the AG at States Sitting on 1st March 2011 during debate on the COI re use of Criminal Offence Confiscation Fund
ReplyDeleteThe Attorney General:
I stand with an element of confusion because it had been whispered in my ear that I am conflicted in giving an answer but so far as I am concerned I am giving legal advice and the benefit of my legal opinion to the Assembly, and I am not entirely certain on what basis it can be suggested that I am conflicted in doing so. The Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund is established under the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law and the relevant Article is Article 24. Article 24 provides that the fund is separate from the general revenues of the States and is a specific purpose fund. Articles 24(4) and (5) are, I believe, the relevant provisions and the Deputy of St. Mary is correct when he says that there are certain purposes that the fund must be used for in promoting or supporting measures that in the opinion of the Minister - and for these purposes that is the Minister for Treasury and Resources - may assist in preventing, suppressing or otherwise dealing with criminal conduct, in dealing with the consequences of criminal conduct or without prejudice to the generality of those clauses facilitating the enforcement of any enactment dealing with criminal conduct, discharging Jersey’s obligations under asset sharing agreements and meeting the expenses incurred by the Minister in administering the fund. Before supporting any measure under that paragraph the Minister has an obligation to consult with the Attorney General. The question, as I understand it, is whether or not I agree that the fund can be used for the purposes a Committee of Inquiry. The Minister for Treasury and Resources, I think, gave a written answer to a written question in February in which he indicated that having consulted with me the view was taken that it would be difficult to argue that the inquiry, depending upon its terms of reference, could be taken as dealing with the consequences of criminal conduct. That is the view that I hold. The vires that enables the fund to be used seems to me to point to dealing with the direct consequences of criminal activity or actions taken to stop criminal activities occurring or in processing the prosecution of crime. I think an investigation, if I may say so, into the care regime, in whatever form it takes, would not be the consequences of criminal conduct. It may be knowledge about it and concerns about it arise as a result of investigation into criminal conduct but I do not think that an inquiry into the care system is a consequence of criminal conduct. In my view the fund is not designed for such a purpose. In indicating I am not sure why the thought might be there that I might be conflicted in giving that advice, it seems to me this is a matter of legal interpretation and that is my interpretation of the Article and the proposition, of course, or indeed any of the amendments does not purport to point to a particular source of funding. I am merely indicating what my view is of the Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund.
QED.
DeleteTim Le Cocq - we await your performance.
And do not think for one instant this is an occasion from which you can hide - hide behind the 7 Bedford Row lawyer Howard Sharp - in his capacity as "Solicitor General", for whatever that means, of what his worth is in that post.
You - Tim Le Cocq - nailed your colours to the mast in opposition to a public inquiry into the gross breakdown in the rule of law which enabled, then covered-up, decades of concealed child-abuse.
If you - Tim Le Cocq - are not in the Jersey parliament when this matter is debated - and if you fail to state the plain law - which, unlike on the occasion of your opposition to investigating child-abuse, is clearly against what is proposed - well, that will be added to the rap-sheet against your appointer.
Tim Le Cocq - there is no hiding place.
Stuart Syvret
Bob,
ReplyDeleteGood day for for the Developer, National Trust for Jersey and those with few morals and another example of double standards.
Plemont vote result, 35 for with only 11 against.
The following Members voted aganst.
DeleteSenator Sarah Craig Ferguson Connétable Leonard Norman
Connétable John Martin Refault Deputy Robert Charles Duhamel
Deputy Judith Ann Martin Deputy Geoffrey Peter Southern
Deputy Anne Enid Pryke Deputy Sean Power
Deputy Tracey Anne Vallois Deputy Michael Roderick Higgins
Deputy Nicholas Basil Le Cornu
So, who says crime doesn't pay, the Island has been able to buy Plemont with the proceeds of crime. thank you all you criminals.
ReplyDeleteWhich ones?
ReplyDelete"Which ones?" indeed. It is not really clear, in Jersey, where the line between criminal and non-criminal behaviour lies, or indeed who the criminals are. The line separating acceptable and unacceptable conduct is arbitrarily moved as a matter of policy, it seems, rather than being the subject of careful development.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the funding of a grant to the National Trust by arbitrarily reducing the Police budget and introducing funds from the COCF is ultra vires. I think that if one were suitably backed to make an application for judicial review, apart from the difficulty of getting leave to apply for judicial review, one could place a serious hole in Police finances.
Hopefully those that are beyond reach at present will find themselves in serious trouble in the future. Then, perhaps, the politicians of that future day can apply the COCF fund to ensure that they are properly and fully brought to justice.
Hi Bob. A new blog is launched replacing the Bald Truth Jersey. Please feel free to add it to your listings. Cheers. http://notthestatemedia.blogspot.com/2014/09/leaked-email-reveals-new-secret.html
ReplyDelete