3 Questions for Sarah Ferguson.

[moot]

Sarah, I have 3 questions for you
1)There is no getting away from the fact that Jersey will be hit by a recession if it hits the UK albeit perhaps not to the same degree. The building industry is always one of the hardest hit in recessions and Harcourt would be no exception with commitments in various countries on the go, law suits in two and perhaps starved of credit.
Sen Ozouf has said that he would make sure that "the contract with the developers is watertight to protect the interest of the islanders / tax payers "
The only way this could be done is by bank guarantees which, up to recently, was " waterproof " With banks now going bust how exactly could this be achieved ? 2)Considering the Esplanade Quarter depends on these same finance houses willing to spend a small fortune to move from their present locations to the Quarter and the cost of project being over £300 million, ( most expensive States project ever ) do you not think it prudent to shelve the project until the global finance situation has improved greatly ?
Bearing in mind that it is our money put on the line and the risks taken would be ours, the tax payers
3) If you are elected to be Senator on Wednesday and susequently become Economic Development Minister would you disclose the amount of subsidies ( our money ) paid to airlines BMI, FLYBE and EASYJET
given these could amount to as much as £5 million per year ( perhaps between £3 and £3.5 million to BMI alone for Heathrow ) ?
Minister MacClean has persistantly refused this for reasons of "commercial sensitivity" even though asked by several States members to do so and given it is our money after all

[Fritz]

Good post Stu.

Is this the appropriate time to, "Throw the toys out of the pram", or ,"Be subtle", Sarah?

[Nick Palmer]

First Nick- you should have noted that I always say at least £30 million. 

Err, I did Sarah - in slightly different words.
I do support your findings that the way Chief Officers have operated is the most part of the trouble and where significant changes can be made. If I get in, I will want to be in on any "revamping" of the "civil service".

A very useful reason for enquiring into the incinerator ash dumping problems caused by Mulready and Stuttard's little fiefdom would have been "pour encourager les autres" - a chess move, if you like, that would have fired a shot across the bows of current civil servants. Most politicians seem scared to take them on - probably because most States members are working at their "peter principle" level of incompetence and do not have either the brains or knowledge to take the "Sir Humphreys" on.

I have frequently noted and mentioned over many years that I believe part of the problem, indeed maybe the root, is the States H.R. department and their policies and values.

[Sarah Ferguson]

I think you are absolutely right and there is a question mark over the Esplanade Quarter.  It is not the States who will be putting the money up but there are strong discussions going on to include measures which will prevent the States being left with a half finished development on their hands.  I think it highly likely that it will be put on hold at the moment.

Interestingly, I was taking part in a discussion on the Freedom of Information Law last week.  We have it drafted but it is necessary to make sure that access for Joe Public is affordable.  

Without seeing the details, it is difficult to see what the commercial sensitivity is.  It also depends on the format for the subsidies.  Are they cash subsidies or are they reduced landing fees?  Should we perhaps make it a level playing field?

The airport used to make a profit but the states clawed it all back.  Should the airport be considered as a strategic asset and be allowed to operate on a breakeven basis.  

My own inclination is for transparency and openness.  Frankly I think we should have published accounts for both Harbours and the Airport and, if they are GAAP accounts, then the subsidies would be included.  I know that companies such as Easy Jet are pretty draconian in their demands and if there is a downturn then that airline will pull out pretty quickly as their margins are pared down.

The problem is that if each airline has a different amount/form of subsidy then obviously everyone will scream that someone else is getting a better deal and demand the same.

Sorry if this doesn't answer your question but I haven't got all the facts.

[Razzard]

Politics is like the real world it what you actually do not what you say your going to do.

Not good English Wayne. Did you ask Colleen to type if for you?

[Razzard]

swigs another glass of red and says..."type IT for you?"

[Sarah Ferguson]

Stuart

I think we will agree to disagree - your memory is not the same as mine so we are never going to agree. 

In fact I think the only time we agreed was over the Family Nursing fracas.

I have been giving some thought as to how Health should be restructured without this extremely expensive New Directions stuff.  I understand the estimates are £60 million or so and Health Dept has its eye on the Health fund held by Social Security.  Over my dead body, I can assure you.

The original avian flu proposals were equally preposterous.  I consulted with someone I knew who has a doctorate in epidemiology - net result: Public Health took the original plan away and brought back a more realistic one.

[Pomme de terre]

I think you are absolutely right and there is a question mark over the Esplanade Quarter.  It is not the States who will be putting the money up but there are strong discussions going on to include measures which will prevent the States being left with a half finished development on their hands.  I think it highly likely that it will be put on hold at the moment.

Quite. We haven't revisited Harcourt and their ability to fund this (awful) project for a while, certainly not since the credit crunch took on its latest terrifying deminsions. Must dig out that old Harcourt thread...