This content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost. Let us know if you find any major problems.
Text in this format is not official and should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments. Please see the PDF for the official version of the document.
STATES OF JERSEY
r
BUDGET 2006: AMENDMENT
Lodged au Greffe on 1st November 2005 by Senator R.J. Shenton
STATES GREFFE
BUDGET 2006: AMENDMENT ____________
PAGE 4 –
- to increase the estimate of revenue expenditure of the Health and Social Services Committee from £132,419,500 to £ 132,799,500 by adding –
£ 3 8 0 ,0 0 0 t o enable more children in need of care to be placed in family-based care instead of residential units;
PAGE 2 –
- to increase the estimates of income from Indirect Taxation by not introducing a discounted rate of Vehicle Registration Duty for imported second-hand vehicles, in order to enable more children in need of care to be placed in family-based care instead of residential units, by increasing the estimate of income from Vehicle Registration Duty from £3,101,000 to £3,481,000.
SENATOR R.J. SHENTON
REPORT
This weekend I received the Budget details and the agenda for next Tuesday 1st November.
The development of fostering and adoption services in Jersey had been placed at the end of the agenda with little likelihood of being debated.
This proposition clearly sets out the failures in our present system and sought to rectify the situation where children in need of love and attention were consigned to residential units instead of family homes. For those members who chose to read the report the issue was quite clear, adopt a system where voluntary family help was made available or institutionalise youngsters at much greater cost to the community.
The comments of Finance and Economics were disgraceful, not only did they show how ignorant they were of the savings that could be shown in financial terms and more importantly in young lives, but they included as manpower requirements 12 professional carers who would not be Civil Servants but responsible adults trained to meet a need.
The cost implications which appear to worry the business-minded among us appeared to outweigh the savings implicit in the report, and much more important was the effect on the children, even children in a caring community.
The fact that the Budget was embargoed until Tuesday, the last debating day before its presentation, gave little opportunity for amendment.
However, I amended last year's Budget to include the Agri-Environment scheme and amend the tax on agriculture.
This year I wish to amend the Budget again by deleting the new discounted rate of VRD for second-hand vehicles and make the money available for the fostering and adoption scheme in 2006 and the years to come.
The choice that members will have to make is who is the more important – the second-hand car dealer or children in need of care and attention.
This reduction in VRD came after representation from the trade and it's a pity that the Committee did not seek representation from senior citizens and the children who need our support.
We state on the platforms at election times, those of us who stand, that we are against the number of vehicles on the Island roads and the pollution that is caused. How can we support this VRD measure and neglect the children who miss out on family life?