Ex Gratia Payment to Terry McDonald (P.130/2013): Comments

STATES OF JERSEY

EX GRATIA PAYMENT TO TERRY MCDONALD (P.130/2013): COMMENTS

Presented to the States on 19th November 2013 by the Minister for Home Affairs

STATES GREFFE

2013   Price code: F  P.130 Com.

COMMENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

Although the Deputy of St. Martin has indicated to the Minister for Home Affairs that he does not intend to allege that there was any fault on the part of the Ministers for Home Affairs, Economic Development or Planning and Environment in relation to this matter, there are a number of reasons why the issue of fault or lack of fault needs to be dealt with in these comments. These reasons include –

1. The fact that the Deputy of St. Martin has referred in the report attached to his proposition to the very good material that was presented by the then Deputy of St. John  (now   Connétable  of   St. John )  at  the  time  of  his  proposition (P.21/2011). Unfortunately, by so doing, he is effectively incorporating into his comment material which alleges fault on the part of the 3 Ministers.
2. The probability that, even if the Deputy of St. Martin were to make no such allegations in his opening speech, other members of the Assembly may do so.
3. The need to ensure that all the members of the Assembly are properly briefed upon the facts and have access to the relevant documents in order to assist them in making their decision. That is particularly so because of the inaccurate information which has circulated in the Island in relation to this matter over a number  of  years.  We  are  concerned,  in particular,  that  members  of  the Assembly  who  have  not  read  the  very  full  and  detailed  report  of  the 3 Ministers (entitled Importation of Fireworks in 2007 for a Charity Event: investigation  (P.21/2011) –  combined  report  of  the  Ministers  for  Home Affairs,  Planning  and  Environment  and  Economic  Development' (R.113/2011)) may then come into the debate with a wrong understanding of the underlying facts. For this reason, a copy of that report has been attached as an Annexto these Comments. References in these Comments to Appendices are  references  to the  documents  contained  in the  various  Appendices  to R.113/2011.

2. THE ROLE OF THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT MINISTER AND DEPARTMENT

The  allegation  of  fault  against  the  Minister  for  Planning  and  Environment  is, effectively, that members of his staff who were concerned with the issue of water pollution issues wrote to Mr. McDonald just before the fireworks display was due to occur in order to threaten him with prosecution under the Water Pollution (Jersey) Law 2000; that this came as a surprise to Mr. McDonald and that, being a former police  officer,  Mr. McDonald  did  not  want  to  risk  prosecution  and,  therefore, withdrew from the record rocket attempt.

This issue is dealt with in some detail in section 2 of R.113/2011.

In  fact, Mr. McDonald  wrote to  the  Head  of  Fisheries  and  Marine  Resources  on 3rd April 2007  detailing  his  plans  for  dealing  with  the  remains  of  the  rockets (Appendix 1)  and,  following  a  meeting  with  the  relevant  officer  or  officers,  he received a letter from the Environment Division of the Planning and Environment Department on 14th May 2007 which outlined his responsibilities under the Water Pollution Law (Appendix 2).

On  22nd  May  2007,  Mr. McDonald  produced  a  Risk  Assessment  document (Appendix 3) and the issue of Pollution Threat to fish, birds/environment, etc. is dealt with on page 54 of that document, which is page 73 of R.113/2011. From this, it is apparent that Mr. McDonald was aware that a beach clearance team would be needed to  pick  up  all  110,000 rocket  sticks.  The  need  for  the  rockets  to  be  totally biodegradable is also acknowledged there.

On  27th  July  2007,  the  Environment  Division  produced  a  report  in  response  to Mr. McDonald's  proposals  (Appendix 7),  in  which  they  make  various recommendations, which include a recommendation in relation to pollution levels in section 2.2 of that report. They also produced a report to assess the Pollution to controlled waters and toxicity (Appendix 8).

The 2 reports of 24th and 27th July 2007 did not recommend that the event should not take place, but sought to determine the risk and provide measures for Mr. McDonald to follow so that environmental damage could be minimised. I invite the Members of the Assembly to read these in order to determine the facts for themselves.

Subsequently, as recommended, Mr. McDonald undertook a daylight test-firing trial on 1st August 2007. Mr. McDonald was informed on site that nothing observed at the test-firing trial altered the Department's position that the attempt could go ahead without  difficulty  if  the  simple  guidance  given  was  observed.  However, Mr. McDonald gave media interviews later the same day as the test-firing to say that he was to call off the world record-breaking event. The then Minister for Planning and Environment had publicly stated his support for the rocket launch a few days before the event was called off.

In conversation with the then Environment Director on site, Mr. McDonald stated that he thought that cancelling the event was the right thing to do, that he had noted the concerns being raised by some sections of the public, and that he felt the public generally were less supportive of this type of event than they had been of his previous record-breaking attempt years earlier. He was told that this was a matter for him to decide, but that if the event did go ahead he should adhere to the guidance issued by the Department.

It follows from the above –

1. that Mr. McDonald was aware of the issue of potential pollution right from the start;
2. that he was given sensible and appropriate advice as to how to mitigate that risk by officers of the Planning and Environment Department, who did not oppose the record attempt provided that their advice was followed;
3. that the Minister for Planning and Environment of the time was supportive of the record-breaking attempt proceeding; and
4. that Mr. McDonald nevertheless decided not to proceed.

3. THE ROLE OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS AND THE HOME AFFAIRS DEPARTMENTS

Before I look at the possible issue of fault on the part of the Home Affairs Department, I want to point out that the Home Affairs section of the Report of the 3 Ministers (section 4)  in  its  opening  paragraphs,  supports  the  view  of  the  Planning  and Environment Department that Mr. McDonald was very well aware of environmental issues.

The second paragraph of that section reads as follows –

In  April  2007,  some  3 months  before  the  rockets  were  imported, Mr. McDonald  met  with  the  Explosives  Licensing  Officer (ELO)  and  the Explosives  Ordnance  Disposal  (EOD)  Officer  at  the  request  of Mr. McDonald. Mr. McDonald was asked if any of the fireworks were blue, as all fireworks contain different chemicals to produce the desired colour, and blue rockets often contain copper oxide which is a particularly toxic chemical for  marine  life.  The  ELO  recalls  that  Mr. McDonald  responded  that  the colours  were  not  a  problem,  as  all  the  rockets  would  be  biodegradable. Mr. McDonald  further  added  that  the  Environmental  Health  Officers  had raised concerns about pollution. Both the ELO and the EOD Officer drew attention to the possible risk of pollution to the beach at West Park and the sea,  which  could  be  caused  by  the  rocket  sticks  and  spent  casings. Mr. McDonald told the ELO and the EOD Officer that there would be plenty of volunteers to clear the area after the display.'

The only allegation of fault of which we are aware in relation to Home Affairs Department relates to the permit which was granted to Mr. McDonald by the States of Jersey Fire and Rescue Service to import the fireworks. The issue relates to the fact that  the  initial  licence  to  import  fireworks  dated  13th  July  2007  (Appendix 15) stipulated that the imported fireworks could be stored at Vinchelez Farm, St. Ouen , whereas Mr. McDonald was subsequently informed that they could not be stored there and a revised licence was issued on 8th October 2007 (Appendix 16) for them to be stored at Ronez Quarry.

There is a lot of detail on this contained in section 4 of R.113/2011 and we would refer Members  of  the  Assembly  to  that  Section  without  repeating  the  detail.  A  full assessment, including a site visit, had been made prior to the issuing of the licence to determine the suitability of Vinchelez Farm for storage purposes of the large quantity of fireworks and a Tactical Plan had been drawn up (Appendix 17). However, this had been based upon information provided by Mr. McDonald that Vinchelez Farm was empty. When, upon making a further site visit on 17th July 2007, it was discovered that  Vinchelez  Farm  was  still  partly  occupied,  Mr. McDonald  was  informed  that Vinchelez Farm could not be used for storage purposes of the fireworks unless the staff accommodation was empty.

Subsequently, Mr. McDonald made alternative arrangements for storage with Ronez Quarry and, although the revised licence is dated much later, it is clear that the Fire and Rescue Service had accepted the revised storage arrangements with Ronez Quarry as being acceptable.

It would have been completely unsafe and unacceptable for the Fire and Rescue Service to have allowed storage at Vinchelez Farm to continue whilst people were continuing to live in staff accommodation there.

Furthermore, even if there had been some basis of complaint against the Fire and Rescue Service, which has always been denied, there is no logical link between the place of storage and the decision to not proceed with the record-breaking attempt.

On the other hand, it is clear that the Home Affairs Department were concerned, at an early stage after the decision, not to proceed with the record attempt, in relation to public safety issues relating to the continuing presence in the Island of such a large quantity of fireworks in one place.

The  last  3 paragraphs  of  the  Planning  and  Environment  section  of  R.113/2011 (section 3) refers to meetings which took place in late 2007 and early 2008 with a view to the disposal of the fireworks; and it is clear from this that from a very early stage the Home Affairs Department were willing, at their own cost, to dispose of the fireworks. However, that initiative was thwarted because of the difficulty in getting both Mr. McDonald and the supplier of the fireworks to agree to this option. This is referred  to in  Mr. McDonald's  letter  dated  19th March  2008  to  the  Environment Division, in which he indicates that he does not own the fireworks because he has never paid for them and explains that his current financial difficulties mean that he cannot borrow money in order to pay for the debts associated with the fireworks (Appendix 9).

The Home Affairs Department and the Minister and Assistant Minister renewed their efforts  to  resolve  the  stalemate  in  early  2009,  and  Appendices  18  to  27  contain correspondence  on  this.  Eventually,  by  his  letter  dated  9th  February  2011 (Appendix 28),  Mr. McDonald  agreed  to  the  destruction  of  the  fireworks.  The Ministerial Decision in relation to this is at Appendix 29. The cost to the Home Affairs Department in relation to the controlled destruction of approximately 5.75 tons of fireworks was £4,713.00. This was carried out for public safety reasons and because Mr. McDonald did not then have the financial means at the time to pay for this.

4. THE ROLE OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

The  allegations  of  fault  against  the  Minister  for  Economic  Development  lie  in 2 possible areas. The first relates to whether the Economic Development Department should have paid the sum of £20,000 towards the costs of the Record Attempt, and the second  relates  to  whether  they  should  have  made  greater  efforts  to  assist Mr. McDonald once he had got into difficulties.

In relation to the first area, Mr. McDonald first wrote to the Economic Development Department (EDD) Regulatory Services on 23rd March 2007, and he then sought permission and support to proceed with the Record Attempt (Appendix 10).

The response to this was a letter dated 3rd April 2007, which indicated that the Department  had  no  objection  to  Mr. McDonald's  endeavour.  However,  it  also indicated that this was subject to other permissions involving other bodies. At some time in May 2007, Mr. A. Lewis telephoned the Minister for Economic Development and the then Minister replied by e-mail (Appendix 11) to the effect that EDD could potentially get involved with it.

Subsequently,  by  e-mail  dated  8th  June  2007,  the  then  Minister  for  Economic Development  made  a  caveated  (or  conditional)  offer  in  the  following  terms (Appendix 13) –

We have considered the Battle of Rockets proposal and will be happy to provide a grant of £20,000 based on the projected outputs of the event detailed in your email of 3rd June – this should cover the majority of the cost of the rockets and associated insurance. I would like to attach a caveat – namely that the world record attempt forms part of a larger pyrotechnic display linked to the  finale  of  the  Moonlight  Parade.  We  believe  that  this  is  an  absolute requirement to make the event capable of delivering additionality and for it to attract in kind marketing support through our various channels to market.'

The position of the Minister for Economic Development is simply that the caveat or condition was never met. The world record attempt did not form part of the Moonlight Parade because Mr. McDonald decided not to proceed with it.

In  relation  to  the  issue  of  subsequent  assistance,  it  is  clear  that  the  Economic Development Department played a part in the attempt in early 2008 to come up with a solution. That has already been referred to in the Home Affairs section of these Comments. However, a letter from EDD to Mr. McDonald dated 6th February 2008 (Appendix 14)  confirms  these  discussions.  Unfortunately,  this  initiative  did  not succeed, presumably  for  the  reasons  set  out in  Mr. McDonald's letter dated 20th March 2008 (Appendix 9).

In passing, I would mention that according to the section of R.113/2011 produced by the Minister for Planning and Environment, the Minister for Economic Development in early 2008 was of the opinion that public funding of Mr. McDonald's debts was not an option.

In the report attached to the Deputy of St. Martin 's Proposition, there is a timeline which includes an allegation that in August 2008 another local fireworks company offered to pay off (over time) all the associated debt if the States could provide an interest-free loan. It is also stated there that this was refused as unworkable. There was no reference to this offer in the Minister for Economic Development's section of R.113/2011. However, the Minister for Home Affairs has been able to obtain a copy of the letter of offer, which is dated 1st April 2008 and was addressed to the then Minister for Economic Development. That offer would have required the Minister for Economic Development to pay not just for the fireworks, but also all the associated costs, with a gradual but not guaranteed repayment over an indefinite period of time. The offer also required the States to agree on other matters in terms which were unacceptable. The offer was considered but was eventually refused at some time in June 2008 as being unworkable and unacceptable.

5. FINAL THOUGHTS ON THE PROPOSITION

The letter of Mr. McDonald dated 20th March 2008 (Appendix 9) is significant in this regard because in it he does not allege any fault on the part of any of the 3 Ministers or their Departments. In fact, in the letter he expresses his thanks to various departments. His letter includes this paragraph –

"I really do appreciate everything that you have done to try to help resolve my problems. There never was a them and us' situation and I will make that abundantly clear in my press releases, together with mention of the support from Senator Ozouf and others along the way."

We find it sad that Mr. McDonald was not able to maintain that position, and that in later press briefings and the information attached to P.21/2011 has sought to blame various departments. From the letter of 20th March 2008, we believe that it is clear that Mr. McDonald's original position was that he hoped that the people of Jersey would lobby States members to help him out of his problems because of his past service to the Island and because he had been trying to do something for Jersey.

We hope that the Deputy of St. Martin and other members of the States will be able to maintain that position.

The decision for Members then will then come down to 2 options –

1. That members take the view that Mr. McDonald, whilst very well-meaning, got  himself  into  a  tangle  which  left  him  with  debts  but  it  is not  the responsibility  of  the  States  of  Jersey  to get  people,  no  matter  how  well meaning, out of financial tangles which are of their own making.
2. That members take the view that, although Mr. McDonald got himself into a tangle which was of his own making which left him with debts; nevertheless, because of his past record of service to the Island and desire on this occasion to do something for the Island, the States of Jersey should pay the sum of £50,000 as requested in the proposition.

We do not find that we can support the expenditure of public money in circumstances in which there has been no fault on the part of any of the departments involved.

 _____________________________________________________________________

Statement under Standing Order 37A [Presentation of comment relating to a proposition]

These comments have been presented after the noon deadline due to –

1. the need to investigate a matter which was raised in the proposition and not covered by the previous report of the 3 Ministers;
2. the difficulties in obtaining the agreement of all 3 Ministers when information in relation to (a) was discovered late on.

STATES OF JERSEY

IMPORTATION OF FIREWORKS IN 2007 FOR A CHARITY EVENT: INVESTIGATION (P.21/2011) – COMBINED REPORT BY THE MINISTERS FOR HOME AFFAIRS, PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Presented to the States on 15th September 2011 by the Minister for Home Affairs

STATES GREFFE

2011   Price code: F  R.113

REPORT

Table of Contents

Page Section 1:  Introduction.........................................................................................  4

Section 2:  Department Report – Environment .....................................................  5 Section 3:  Department Report – Economic Development....................................  7 Section 4:  Department Report – Home Affairs....................................................  9 Section 5:  Report Summary..................................................................................  14

Section 6:  Appendices

1  Letter. Mr. McDonald to Head of Fisheries and Marine

Resources. 3 April 07.................................................................  15 2  Letter. Environment Division to Mr. McDonald. 14 May 07.....  17 3  Initial Risk Assessment by Mr. McDonald. 20 May 07.............  19 4  Partial List of Chemicals 8 June 07............................................  76 5  Chemical content details 12 June 07 ..........................................  77 6  Updated Risk Assessment by Mr. McDonald. 10 July 2007......  81 7  Report by Environment Division. 24 July 2007.........................  88 8  Report by Environment Division. 27 July 2007.........................  95 9  Letter. Mr. McDonald to Environment Division 19 March 08...  102

10  Letter from Mr. McDonald to EDD Regulatory Services

23 March 2007............................................................................  104 11  Letter to Mr. McDonald from EDD Regulatory Services

3 April 2007................................................................................  105 12  E-mail response to Mr. A. Lewis from Senator P.F.C. Ozouf .

22 May 2007...............................................................................  106 13  Caveat Grant Provision EDD to Mr. A. Lewis and explanatory

note from Mr. A. Lewis to Senator P.F.C. Ozouf 8 June 2007 ..  107 14  Letter from EDD to Mr. McDonald – Financial advice and

assistance dated 6 February 2008...............................................  110 15  Licence to import explosives (Licence No. FWI 01/07) dated

13 July 2007................................................................................  111

16  Licence to import explosives (Licence No. FWI 01/07

(Revised 3)) dated 8 October 2007 and licence to import

explosives (Licence No. FWI 01/07 (Revised 4)) dated

24 January 2008.........................................................................  113 17  SJFRS Tactical plan for temporary risk at Vinchelez Farm,

St. Ouen , undated.......................................................................  116 18  Letter from Chief Officer, Home Affairs Department, to

Mr. T. Archer, Essex Pyrotechnics Ltd. dated 6 February 2009  119 19  Letter from the Minister for Home Affairs to H.M. Attorney

General, dated 26 February 2009...............................................  120 20  Letter from Chief Officer, Home Affairs Department to

Mr. M. Osborne, Ronez Quarries, dated 6 April 2009...............  122

21  Letters from Chief Officer, Home Affairs Department to

Mr. McDonald and Mr. T. Archer, Essex Pyrotechnics Ltd.,

dated 16 April 2009...................................................................  123 22  Fax from Mr. T. Archer, Essex Pyrotechnics Ltd., to Chief

Officer, Home Affairs Department, dated 22 April 2009..........  127

23  Letters from Chief Officer, Home Affairs Department to

Mr. T. Archer, Essex Pyrotechnics Ltd., dated 24 April 2009,

1 May 2009, 8 May 2009 and 20 May 2009..............................  128 24  Letter from Chief Officer, Home Affairs Department to

Mr. T. Archer, Essex Pyrotechnics Ltd., dated 31 July 2009....  132 25  Letter from Chief Officer, Home Affairs Department to

Mr. M. Osborne, Ronez Quarries, dated 22 September 2009....  134

26  Letter from Chief Officer, Home Affairs Department to

Mr. T. Archer, Essex Pyrotechnics Ltd., dated

20 January 2010.........................................................................  135 27  Letter from Chief Officer, Home Affairs Department to

Mr. McDonald, dated 20 January 2010 .....................................  137

28  Letter from Mr. McDonald to Chief Officer, Home Affairs

Department, dated 09 February 2010.........................................  138 29  Ministerial Decision MD-HA-2010-0024..................................  141

REPORT

Section 1:  INTRODUCTION

In P.21/2011, the Deputy of St. John proposed the following –

"THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion

1. to request the Ministers for Home Affairs, Economic Development and Planning and Environment to review the events surrounding the importation of over 100,000 fireworks for a charity attempt at a world record  in 2007,  and  in  particular  the  actions  taken  by  their departments in relation to this matter, with a view to ascertaining why difficulties  arose  which  led  to the  eventual  cancellation  of  the proposed launching of the fireworks and a substantial financial loss for the organiser even though the importation was initially approved by all relevant authorities and a Bailiff 's permit issued for the event;
2. to request the Ministers to present to the States no later than the end of May 2011 a report setting out the results of their investigations and details of any appropriate actions they intend to take to compensate the organiser for the losses he incurred."

This proposition was debated on Thursday 17th March 2011 and received unanimous support.

Each department referred to in paragraph (a) above has supplied a résumé of their involvement in the matter and these are supplied in Sections 2 to 4 in the following report.

The inclusion of individual reports supported by evidence in the form of Appendices seeks to give readers the facts behind the events prior to, during, and after the failed rocket attempt.

Section 2:  DEPARTMENT REPORT – ENVIRONMENT.

The  Environment  Division  received  a  letter  from  Mr. McDonald  regarding  his proposed World Record-Breaking attempt on 5th April 2007 (see Appendix 1) and representatives from the Department met Mr. McDonald on 2nd May 2007 to discuss the issue.

At this meeting, it was explained to Mr. McDonald that his proposal had the potential to cause pollution of controlled waters and he was asked for a statement of how the project would be managed. It was made clear that his statement would have to include the type and weight of the chemicals contained in the fireworks.

It was apparent from the earliest discussions that the proposed launch would involve approximately  7 tonnes  of  material  (2 container-loads  of  mixed  toxic  chemicals, cardboard and wood) being launched into the air and then falling into the sea or onto the shoreline.

A letter was sent to Mr. McDonald from the Department on 14th May 2007 (see Appendix 2). The letter reminded him that details of the chemical components of the rockets  were  required  and  also  highlighted  his  responsibilities  under  the  Water Pollution  (Jersey)  Law  2000.  Without  details  of  the  chemical  component  of  the rockets,  the  Department  was  unable  to  accurately  determine  the  likely  threat  of pollution of St. Aubin's Bay that the record attempt posed.

Mr. McDonald provided an initial Risk Assessment' on 22nd May (see Appendix 3), but this did not contain the information that had been requested in the letter dated 14th May. On 8th June 2007, the Department received a partial list of chemicals (see Appendix 4).  Between  9th  and  11th  June,  discussions  were  held  between  the Department and Mr. McDonald requesting the remainder of the information.

The details of the chemical content for all rocket types were received on 12th July (see Appendix 5).  An  updated  risk  assessment  was  received  from  Mr. McDonald  on 16th July 2007 (see Appendix 6). Environmental Protection assessed this information and produced 2 reports in response by 27th July. These reports were –

1. A  guidance  document  entitled  World  Record  Rocket  Launch Attempt –  a  response  from  the  Environment  Division,  States  of Jersey.' This focussed on the main areas of risk associated with the attempt and provided mitigating measures which could be simply put in place by Mr. McDonald to avoid environmental pollution. Example topics  covered  in  this  report  were;  Risk  to  areas  of  ecological importance (including eel grass beds)', and Clean-up of site'. These recommendations  offered  easy  and  low-cost  recommendations  and mainly involved avoiding sensitive areas of the beach, and ensuring that all the firework debris was collected up before the incoming tide (see Appendix 7).
2. World Record Rocket Launch Attempt – An Assessment of Pollution to controlled waters and Toxicity': This assessed the likely pollution potential  to  St. Aubin's  Bay  of  approximately  1.8 tonnes  of  raw chemicals entering controlled waters. Also borne in mind was the

4.8 tonnes  of  cardboard  and  wood  detritus  that  would  have  to  be  cleared from the beach. It was found that the main environmental damage to the bay would be from vehicle access and debris (see Appendix 8).

The 2 reports did not recommend that the event should not take place, but sought to determine  the  risk  and  provide  measures  for  Mr. McDonald  to  follow  so  that environmental damage could be minimised.

A daylight test-firing trial was then undertaken by Mr. McDonald on 1st August 2007 to  evaluate  how  far  the  rockets  would  travel  when  fired.  This  was  to  help Mr. McDonald  work  out  the  zones  on the  beach  for  firing  and  debris collection. Mr. McDonald did not test-fire the quantity of fireworks he had initially proposed, and officers on site during the test-firing noted that he seemed surprised when they went off with a bang and not a crackle – which the rockets he had ordered were supposed to do.

Mr. McDonald  was informed  on  site  that  nothing  observed  at  the test-firing  trial altered the Department's position that the attempt could go ahead without difficulty if the  simple  guidance  given  was  observed.  However,  Mr. McDonald  gave  media interviews on site on the same day as the test-firing to say that he was to call off the world record-breaking event. The then Minister for Planning and Environment had publicly stated his support for the rocket launch a few days before the event was called off, and this was reported in the JEP on 2nd August 2007.

In conversation with the then Environment Director on site, Mr. McDonald stated that he thought that cancelling the event was the right thing to do, that he had noted the concerns being raised by some sections of the public, and that he felt the public generally were less supportive of this type of event than they had been of his previous record-breaking attempt years earlier. He was told that this was a matter for him to decide, but that if the event did go ahead he should adhere to the guidance issued by the Department.

The  Environment  Division  remained  in  contact  with  Mr. McDonald  after  the cancellation, and after it transpired that he was unable to sell his fireworks and was in financial difficulties he talked to the Minister for Economic Development on 18th January 2008. The Minister advised that public funding of his debts was not an option.

A joint party including representatives from the Law Officers' Department, Transport and Technical Services, Home Affairs, Environment, and Economic Development reviewed  Mr. McDonald's  issue  on  22nd  January  2008.  Disposal  options  were reviewed, as Home Affairs judged the temporary storage as not suitable for the longer term.

Environmental Protection met Mr. McDonald on 31st January 2008 to inform him that Home Affairs were willing to dispose of fireworks at their cost. In addition to this, officers  from  Economic  Development  met  Mr. McDonald  to  offer  advice  on  his businesses and debt position. A letter from Mr. McDonald was then received on 20th March 2008 stating his intention to go public' and ask the people of the Island for financial support (see Appendix 9).

Section 3:  DEPARTMENT REPORT – ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

The original request for support of the Rocket Launch' was received in a letter (see Appendix 10) dated 23rd March 2007 addressed to an officer from the Regulatory Services Section of the Department from Mr. McDonald in which he set out his plan for the event and requested in-principle permission for use of St. Aubin's Bay as the launch site.

Reference was made in the letter to the need to obtain permission from a number of agencies,  and  the  letter  carried  an  assurance  that  all  materials  would  be  totally biodegradable' with the added assurance that adequate measures would be taken to gather all spent materials after the event. The letter from Mr. McDonald made no reference  to,  or  request  for  financial  support  from,  the  Economic  Development Department (EDD).

The  officer  replied  on  3rd  April  (see  Appendix 11)  that  the  Department  had  no objection, provided that all relevant bodies also gave their permission for the event to take place.

The next involvement for EDD was initiated by Mr. Anthony Lewis , then News Editor of the Jersey Evening Post and a major figure within the Side by Side' charity, who telephoned the then Minister for Economic Development, Senator Philip Ozouf , in May 2007 requesting the financial support of the Department in underwriting the project.

The Minister responded favourably to the idea and asked a number of questions in an e-mail (see Appendix 12) on 22nd May 2007 in regard to the proposed event prior to a meeting  between  the  Department  officials,  Mr. Lewis  and  Battle  of  Flowers representatives.

The e-mail response from Mr. Lewis (see Appendix 13) deals with a number of the issues raised. These are mostly in connection with the efficacy of the event and its ability to raise the charitable donations.

The Economic Development Department, after considering the proposal, confirmed, in an e-mail dated 8th June, that a grant of £20,000 would be made available. The offer of financial support was subject to the world record attempt formed part of a larger pyrotechnic display linked to the finale of the Moonlight Parade of the Jersey Battle of Flowers  in  August  of  that  year.  Copy  of  the  caveated  offer  of  £20,000  is  also referenced in Appendix 13.

The EDD £20,000 grant was to be released to Mr. McDonald. The Battle of Flowers Council would have paid for additional fireworks which would have been let off as part of the same display, thus creating a much larger impact through the combination of the rocket launch and the finale firework display. It was an express condition that the grant was conditional on the world record attempt proceeding as the finale to the Battle of Flowers Moonlight Parade. Neither, Mr. Lewis nor Mr. McDonald raised any concerns with the grant offer, or the caveat attached, and continued to organise the record attempt.

Ultimately, as the rocket launch was cancelled several days before the display was due to take place, the question of payment to the Side by Side' charity did not arise again, and thereafter the matter was handled for the time being by other agencies of the States.

EDD was next involved when Mr. McDonald approached the Department in January 2008. He had 2 meetings seeking advice about the claims being made against him to pay for the supply of a large number of fireworks from Essex Pyrotechnics.

At the time of the first meeting on 30th January 2008, lawyers representing Essex Pyrotechnics had issued a written warning to Mr. McDonald that legal proceedings would  commence  if  the  monies  owed  for  the  fireworks  supplied  were  not  paid immediately. During the initial meetings, Mr. McDonald indicated that Lloyds Bank had agreed to provide new loan facilities, and he agreed to contact the bank to discuss a new facility.

The  work  undertaken  by  EDD,  following  the  initial  meeting,  was  limited  to establishing how much Mr. McDonald owed to his creditors, and his options to deal with the pressing claims for payment. The outcome of EDD's work confirmed that Mr. McDonald would have to secure a bank loan of £25,000 to enable him to pay his creditors. This may have required Mr. McDonald to enter into a formal voluntary arrangement with his creditors.

The work undertaken by EDD concluded that Mr. McDonald's creditors could have been satisfied over a period of time if the loan of £25,000 was secured. This was confirmed in writing by an officer from the Department who wrote to Mr. McDonald on 6th February 2008 confirming the above and, if required, offered EDD continued assistance and financial advice (see Appendix 14).

The EDD officer followed up the letter with a call to Mr. McDonald, and arranged a meeting on 27th February 2008 to discuss progress with the bank loan and paying his creditors. It was at this second meeting that Mr. McDonald confirmed that he was not prepared to provide the security requested (his mother's house) by the bank to secure the loan. Mr. McDonald was reminded that his creditors would probably continue to pursue monies owed through the courts and that EDD offer of advice and assistance remained.

Mr. McDonald  has  not  made  contact  with  EDD  since  the  last  meeting  on  27th February 2008.

Section 4:  DEPARTMENT REPORT – HOME AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT

This report summarises the actions taken by the Home Affairs Department in relation to the importation of rockets by Mr. T. McDonald for a charity world record attempt in 2007.

In April 2007, some 3 months before the rockets were imported; Mr. McDonald met with the Explosives Licensing Officer (ELO) and the Explosives Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Officer at the request of Mr. McDonald. Mr. McDonald was asked if any of the fireworks  were  blue,  as  all  fireworks  contain  different  chemicals  to  produce  the desired colour, and blue rockets often contain copper oxide which is a particularly toxic chemical for marine life. The ELO recalls that Mr. McDonald responded that the colours were not a problem, as all the rockets would be biodegradable. Mr. McDonald further added that Environmental Health Officers had already raised concerns about pollution. Both the ELO and the EOD Officer drew attention to the possible risk of pollution to the beach at West Park and the sea, which could be caused by the rocket sticks and spent casings. Mr. McDonald told the ELO and EOD Officer that there would be plenty of volunteers to clear the area after the display.

The involvement of the States of Jersey Fire and Rescue Service (SJFRS) in respect of any firework display is primarily to provide the display organisers with the necessary licence to import the pyrotechnics; it is not within their remit to sanction or agree to any displays taking place. However, a representative of the SJFRS does sit on the Bailiff 's Entertainment Panel where the decision whether such events should take place is made. The Panel heard Mr. McDonald's application on 13th June 2007. When requested to do so, the SJFRS will review the display organiser's risk assessment regarding any fire safety issues and make comments accordingly. Mr. McDonald's risk assessments were viewed and discussed with the SJFRS and the amended risk assessments reflected adequate fire safety measures for the proposed event.

Mr. McDonald's Risk Assessment Update number 2', dated 10th July 2007, states in relation to the blue rockets: "Finally, I have just established that our blue rockets are not now to be produced by the Chinese Factory. Our entire launch will now consist of red and white rockets (The Jersey Colours) accompanied by lead free crackle". Earlier in the same document, Mr. McDonald had written: "I have now received and passed on  the  full  chemical  compound  mixtures  for  the  red  and  white  rockets  to  the Environmental Service Department for their consideration."

On 12th July 2007, in his Risk Assessment Update number 2, Mr. McDonald advised that the preparation area for the fireworks was to be Vinchelez Farm, St. Ouen .

Mr. McDonald wrote –

"It is an ideal location for such use as it is isolated, easily secured and has sufficient covered space for our use, together with adequate parking areas. It is also fairly easily accessible to large vehicles such as tractors and trailers and P-30 plated lorries. In addition to a large agricultural shed there are two large stone built stores one of which will be ideal to store the empty rocket frames in and the other will act as a temporary magazine for the fully loaded trays. There will no longer be a need to utilise 20ft containers as temporary storage. Loading will take place within the confines of the main metal clad shed which will be sub-divided into five areas, for safety purposes.".

When  Mr. McDonald  first  met  with  the  SJFRS  to  discuss  the  importation,  they discussed  storage,  and  it  was  agreed  that  5 ISO  containers  would  be  provided. Ultimately, Mr. McDonald had difficulty getting 5 containers, so it was agreed with the  SJFRS  that  once  the  fireworks  were  at  Vinchelez  Farm,  they  would  almost immediately be broken down into smaller amounts and stored separately in their firing boxes on flat-bed trailers.

Before the SJFRS issued the licence, they met with Mr. McDonald on a number of occasions at Fire Service HQ and also at Vinchelez Farm. During the visit to the farm, SJFRS photographed the areas which were proposed for the storage of the fireworks and where the display rigs would be set up and loaded with the fireworks prior to transportation to the firing site.

On 13th July 2007, the States of Jersey Fire and Rescue Service (SJFRS) issued to Mr. Terry  McDonald  a  licence  to  import  5780 kg  Gross  (1008 kg  Net  Explosive Quantity) of fireworks (Licence number FWI 01/07) (see Appendix 15). The expected date of arrival of the 125,000 fireworks was 24th July 2007 and the licence stipulated that the fireworks were to be kept in an approved store located at Vinchelez Farm, St. Ouen (stored in an ISO container). ISO containers are the standard steel containers that one sees on the back of articulated vehicles.

The  import  licence  was  ultimately  amended  on  2 occasions  to  stipulate  that  the fireworks could be stored at Ronez Quarry (see Appendix 16).

It would appear that it was originally intended to use more of Vinchelez Farm than was  ultimately  proposed.  A  telephone  message  dated  16th  July  2007  from Mr. McDonald to SJFRS says: "Update re Vinchelez Farm. Only have use of half farm – agricultural sheds. Re-hashed plans.".

The record of a site visit on 17th July 2007 noted the following points –

Sutton Transport

- Transportation from Harbour

- Containers to stay on site as storage

- Should event be cancelled fireworks will be returned to container for export

Fireworks

- To be stored in transportation containers

- Completed trays to be stored in enclosed compartment, north end of shed

- Four areas allocated indoors for loading fireworks into trays

- One tray constructed per allocated area

- 1,500 fireworks per tray

Premises

- Old granite building not been (sic) used

- Security  cameras  to  be  temporarily  installed  around  premises monitoring people entering & exiting site

- 10 persons currently resident at site are due to leave before work begins

The SJFRS discussed the presence of people resident on the site with Mr. McDonald, as they had originally been told that Vinchelez Farm was empty. On their site visit they found that an area, which was originally intended for storage, was being used as accommodation. The SJFRS told Mr. McDonald that the area would not be able to be used  unless  the  accommodation  was  empty.  They  did  not,  however,  impose  any condition that staff had to move out.

The Deputy of St. John 's report refers to a telephone call received by Mr. McDonald from the SJFRS 2 hours before the rockets were due to arrive. Unfortunately, the SJFRS have no recollection of this event and have no recorded evidence of any conversations. It is known, however, that one of the senior officers (now deceased) had discussions with Mr. McDonald regarding the storage of the fireworks at Ronez, and this may be what the Deputy of St. John is referring to.

Once it became apparent that Vinchelez Farm could not be used, as it still had people resident on site, it is believed that Mr. McDonald liaised with Ronez Quarries, and arranged for the rockets to be stored there. As detailed above, he had a conversation in this respect with one of the senior officers from the Fire and Rescue Service and an amended import licence was subsequently issued, which refers to Ronez Quarry as the storage site.

The  SJFRS  prepared  a  Tactical  Plan  for  the  farm  (see  Appendix 17).  The  Plan stipulated that: "Fireworks will initially be located in the transportation containers (no. 8 on site plan), when assembly is in progress there will be up to 6,000 fireworks located in assembly areas in the shed (1500 fireworks per area – 3, 4, 5 & 6 on site plan). Once a launch tray has been completed it will be moved to the store room (2 on site plan)."

Fireworks  were  to  be  taken  from  the  containers  to  the  sheds,  where  up  to 1,500 fireworks could be prepared at any one time in each of the designated areas (the fireworks would be fused, matched and filled). Once the launch trays containing the live' fireworks were ready, they were to be moved to a separate store room.

The SJFRS liaised with the ELO on a number of occasions regarding the pyrotechnics. The main concern was the large number of fireworks being held in one place. The SJFRS assured the ELO that they were happy with the arrangements, and the fact that once the fireworks were at Vinchelez Farm they would almost immediately be broken down into smaller amounts (900 kg loads) and stored separately in their firing boxes on flat-bed trailers.

Approximately 6,000 kgs of fireworks were ultimately stored in one location (Ronez Quarry). Although the Explosives Law Code of Requirements states that a maximum of 900 kgs should be stored in one place, the SJFRS took a broad view of the overall quantity  of  fireworks  in  one  place  and  satisfied  themselves  that  the  storage arrangements (at the foot of a quarry) were acceptable from a fire safety point of view. It  is  understood  that  containers  were  in  very  short  supply  at  the  time,  and Mr. McDonald had been unable to source 5 separate containers.

In a letter dated 29th July 2007 from Mr. McDonald to the SJFRS, Mr. McDonald wrote in respect of the test-firing of rockets that was due to take place on 1st August 2007: "The main concerns, I suspect, will be how far or how high the rockets will travel, how much paper is scattered, the noise levels and volume of smoke produced and the likely environmental impact of the mass firing itself.".

In  Mr. McDonald's  risk  assessment,  dated  20th  May  2007,  he  makes  only  one reference to the possibility of the display not taking place: "From a safety point of view I would be the first to suggest that if it did not take place as scheduled it should not take place at all. This will be further addressed at a later stage because it poses its own problems concerning the disposal of the rockets in a safe and acceptable manner. The subject of further risk assessments I'm afraid." (pages 32/33).

After Mr. McDonald took the decision to cancel the display, the rockets remained at Ronez Quarry and Mr. McDonald made efforts to find a purchaser, whilst remaining on site with the rockets. For reasons of public safety, the EOD Officer and ELO inspected the rockets at regular intervals.

In  2008,  the  Home  Affairs  Department  understands  that  Mr. McDonald  had  the opportunity to dispose of the fireworks to another UK firework company. However, this ultimately did not come to fruition because of the difficulties in ascertaining who had the title of the rockets.

During 2009, there were various exchanges of correspondence between the Home Affairs Department and both Mr. McDonald and the supplier of the fireworks who, the Department was given to understand, had not received payment for the rockets from Mr. McDonald, and maintained that he remained, therefore, the owner of the rockets.

On 6th February 2009, the Department wrote to the supplier of the fireworks, advising him that the pyrotechnics could not stay in Jersey, and that they should either be safely destroyed, or shipped back to him (see Appendix 18). No response was received in respect of this letter.

On 26th February 2009, the Minister wrote to the Attorney General seeking his advice on the legal situation in relation to the rockets (see Appendix 19).

In  April  2009,  Mr. McDonald  left  Ronez  Quarry  and  effectively  abandoned  the rockets.

On 6th April 2009, the Department wrote to the Managing Director of Ronez Quarries asking that the rockets be allowed to remain safely at the quarry pending further enquiries (see Appendix 20).

The Department wrote to both the owner and Mr. McDonald on 16th April 2009, having taken advice (see Appendix 21). Whilst not accepting any responsibility for the situation in which Mr. McDonald found himself, the Department offered at its own expense to arrange to ship the rockets back to the owner within 2 weeks. The owner replied to this letter on 22nd April 2009, seeking clarification in relation to some points, but not accepting the terms of the letter (see Appendix 22). Mr. McDonald replied, declining to accept any of the terms of the Department's letter.

There was a subsequent exchange with the owner, but this reached an impasse (see Appendix 23). In a telephone conversation with the Department, the owner stated that the rockets were no longer of any commercial value to him and that if they were returned to him he intended to destroy them. On 31st July 2009, the Department wrote to the owner, suggesting that the rockets be either exported to him or destroyed (see Appendix 24). No response was received.

On 22nd September 2009, the Department wrote to the Managing Director of Ronez Quarries (see Appendix 25).

Appropriate legal advice was obtained, and acting on that advice the Department again wrote to the owner on 20th January 2010, to advise him that the safe destruction of the rockets would commence on 19th February 2010 if he did not write to the Department to set out his plans to either remove or destroy the rockets (see Appendix 26). No response was received from the owner.

A  letter  was  sent  on  the  same  day  to  Mr. McDonald  in  the  same  terms  (see Appendix 27). He responded on 9th February 2010 that he was "more than happy for this (their destruction) to happen" (see Appendix 28).

Consequently,  on  30th  March  2010,  the  Minister  for  Home  Affairs  signed  a Ministerial Decision (MD-HA-2010-0024) approving the disposal of the rockets by controlled burning. (The Ministerial Decision was an exempt decision at the time (see Appendix 29).)

The  controlled  burning  of  the  rockets  at  Ronez  was  delayed  because  the  quarry activities moved to the vicinity of the area that had been identified as a suitable location for the burning.

The EOD Officer, assisted by the ELO, carried out the disposal of the rockets between 16th October and 9th November 2010. This took a total of 133.5 hours of operational time for the EOD Officer and 25.25 hours of operational time for the ELO, resulting in the destruction of approximately 5.75 tons of pyrotechnical material, consisting of 626 cases of rockets and 3 cases of match fuse.

The EOD Officer provides a certain number of man-hours for operational work as part of his contract. The cost of the destruction was therefore offset partially by utilising the unexpended operational hours in the 2010 contract. The additional cost to the Department of carrying out the destruction of the rockets, consisting in additional man-hours, mileage, sample analysis and the purchase of some equipment totalled £4,713.00.

Section 5:  REPORT SUMMARY

The previous sections, with the support of the following Appendices, show significant and  well-documented  evidence  of  a  high  level  of  extremely  positive  and  helpful involvement  from  States'  officers  and  Ministers  from  the  very  beginning  of Mr. McDonald's proposed intentions.

The  chronologically  supplied  information  puts  the  facts  surrounding  States' involvement  behind  the  assertions  made  in  P.21/2011,  giving  the  reader  a  fuller understanding of how many people, departments, and elected members offered help, and in what way that help was offered to the organiser.

It is clear that far from the States' intention being to stop the attempt, efforts were made to ensure that if the attempt was to go ahead it did so with financial and practical support from a variety of sources in the States of Jersey.

The  degree  to  which  this  advice  and  information  was  accepted,  taken  up,  and understood is in question, as it is clear that had the organiser laid the foundations correctly from a financial and an environmental perspective, the outcome may have been a successful culmination to an already arranged event.

The  Ministers  for  Home  Affairs,  Planning  and  Environment  and  Economic Development are therefore assured that the issue has been dealt with in an appropriate manner and that, because of this, no compensation to Mr. McDonald is necessary from the public purse.

Section 6:  APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1 Letter. Mr. McDonald to Head of Fisheries and Marine Resources. 3 April 07

APPENDIX 2

Letter. Environment Division to Mr. McDonald. 14 May 07

"Planning and Environment Department

Environment Division

Howard Davis Farm, La Route de la Trinite Trinity , Jersey, JE3 5JP

Tel: +44 (0)1534 441600

Fax: +44 (0)1534 441601

Our ref: Your ref:

Dear Mr McDonald

Firework Record Attempt 10 August 2007

Thank you attending a meeting recently at Howard Davis Farm to explain and discuss the proposed firework record attempt scheduled for 10 August 2007.

I am writing to you with respect to aspects of water pollution and waste management covered during discussions and not in relation to fisheries, animal welfare or ecology whose representatives also attended the meeting.

I recognise your shared concern to minimise any negative environmental impact during the event.

With this in mind, I would like to bring to your attention the requirement to comply with the provisions of the Water Pollution (Jersey) Law 2000 and the Waste Management (Jersey) Law 2005.

Article 4 of the Water Pollution (Jersey) Law defines pollution as the introduction directly or indirectly into controlled waters of any substance, or energy, where its introduction results or is likely to result in:

1. a hazard to human health
2. harm to any living resources or aquatic ecosystem
3. damage to any amenity
4. interference with any legitimate use of controlled waters.

Controlled waters includes coastal waters, the foreshore and beaches.

With this in mind, I would therefore ask you to forward a breakdown of the composition of chemicals used in the rockets so that we can assess any likely potential environmental impact arising from them.

I would also appreciate it if you can forward your contingency plan to deal with waste from the rockets, including rockets which were not ignited during the displayed and with respect to safe disposal of all unfired rockets in the event that the display is cancelled. The transport and safe disposal of this waste is covered by the Waste Management (Jersey) Law 2005.

Should you have any questions, or wish to discuss any pollution or waste related aspect of the record attempt, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Many thanks

Assistant Director - Environmental Protection"

APPENDIX 3

APPENDIX 4 Partial List of Chemicals. 8 June 07

APPENDIX 5 Chemical content details. 12 June 07

APPENDIX 6 Updated Risk Assessment

APPENDIX 7 Report by Environment Division

APPENDIX 8 Report by Environment Division

APPENDIX 9 Letter. Mr. McDonald to Environment Division. 19 March 08

APPENDIX 10 Letter from Mr. McDonald to EDD Regulatory Services. 23 March 2007

APPENDIX 11 Response to Mr. McDonald from EDD Regulatory Services. 3 April 2007

APPENDIX 12 Response to Mr. A. Lewis from Senator P.F.C. Ozouf

APPENDIX 13

Caveat Grant Provision EDD to Mr. A. Lewis and explanatory note from Mr. A. Lewis to Senator Ozouf . 8 June 2007

APPENDIX 14

Letter from EDD to Mr. McDonald – Financial advice and assistance dated 6 February 2008

APPENDIX 15 Licence to import explosives (Licence No. FWI 01/07) dated 13 July 2007

APPENDIX 16

Licence to import explosives (Licence No. FWI 01/07 (Revised 3)) dated 8 October 2007 and licence to import explosives (Licence No. FWI 01/07 (Revised 4)) dated 24 January 2008

APPENDIX 17 SJFRS Tactical plan for temporary risk at Vinchelez Farm, St. Ouen , undated

APPENDIX 18

Letter from Chief Officer, Home Affairs Department to Mr. T. Archer, Essex Pyrotechnics Ltd., dated 6 February 2009

APPENDIX 19

Letter from the Minister for Home Affairs to H.M. Attorney General, dated 26 February 2009

APPENDIX 20

Letter from Chief Officer, Home Affairs Department to Mr. M. Osborne, Ronez Quarries, dated 6 April 2009

APPENDIX 21

Letters from Chief Officer, Home Affairs Department to Mr. McDonald and Mr. T. Archer, Essex Pyrotechnics Ltd., dated 16 April 2009

APPENDIX 22

Fax from Mr. T. Archer, Essex Pyrotechnics Ltd., to Chief Officer, Home Affairs Department, dated 22 April 2009

APPENDIX 23

Letters from Chief Officer, Home Affairs Department to Mr. T. Archer, Essex Pyrotechnics Ltd., dated 24 April 2009, 1 May 2009, 8 May 2009 and 20 May 2009

APPENDIX 24

Letter from Chief Officer, Home Affairs Department to Mr. T. Archer, Essex Pyrotechnics Ltd., dated 31 July 2009

APPENDIX 25

Letter from Chief Officer, Home Affairs Department to Mr. M. Osborne, Ronez Quarries, dated 22 September 2009

APPENDIX 26

Letter from Chief Officer, Home Affairs Department to Mr. T. Archer, Essex Pyrotechnics Ltd., dated 20 January 2010

APPENDIX 27

Letter from Chief Officer, Home Affairs Department to Mr. McDonald, dated 20 January 2010

APPENDIX 28

Letter from Mr. McDonald to Chief Officer, Home Affairs Department, dated 09 February 2010

APPENDIX 29 Ministerial Decision MD-HA-2010-0024