The official version of this document can be found via the PDF button.
The below content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost, therefore it should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments.
STATES OF JERSEY
r
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES COMMITTEE: VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE
Lodged au Greffe on 3rd February 2004 by Senator E.P. Vibert
STATES GREFFE
PROPOSITION
THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion
th a t t hey have no confidence in the Environment and Public Services Committee.
SENATOR E.P. VIBERT
Note: As required by Standing Order 18B, the following States members also signed the proposition – 1 . S e n ator P.V.F. Le Claire.
2 . D ep uty R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour. 3 . D ep uty G.P. Southern of St. Helier .
T h e r eason for moving this proposition is set out in the attached report.
REPORT
I am bringing this proposition because I believe that the Committee has made a number of fundamental errors in the last twelve months on a wide range of subjects, which has given the electorate the impression that the Government of this island is incompetent, disorganised and totally un-businesslike in the manner in which it runs the island's affairs.
Regarding the bus saga it has also shown itself to be reckless, lacking in fundamental business acumen, which has cost the taxpayer £187,000, and careless with the truth.
A recent audit of its public service division by the States Auditor has also shown it to have a very low standard of procedure and governance.
I will be presenting to the States evidence of the above on the following matters –
- T h e ConnexBus contract and subsequentrelated activities.
- T h e residents parking scheme for St. Helier.
- A tt emptsto introduce seweragecharges.
- T h e Broad Street taxi rank debacle.
- T h e States members parking scheme.
- T h e Hautde la Garenne affair.
- T h e result of the auditofthedepartmentby the States Auditor.
This is a crucial Committee in terms of its relationship with the public and the performance of this Committee is particularly relevant to how the public perceives the States.
This will be even more important this year when a decision has to be made on waste disposal and the purchase of a new incinerator with a likely cost tag of £40 million
In the light of the current Committee's performance in respect of items 1-7 above I believe the States could have no confidence in leaving that decision to this Committee as currently constituted.
There are no financial or manpower implications arising from this proposition.