Who is on the States committees?
Scrutiny Management committee
President of Scrutiny Deputy Dr Andy Sloan put forward two uncontested candidates.Deputy Liam McKenna was elected with 33 votes and Deputy Haley Camp with 35. There was one blank voting paper.
Committee for Economic Development
President of Economic Development Deputy Sasha Kazantseva-Miller nominated four candidates, who were uncontested.Deputy Rhona Humphries was elected with 35 votes, Deputy Haley Camp with 36, Deputy Andrew Niles with 33, Deputy Lee Van Katwyk with 34. There was one blank voting paper.
Committee for Education, Sport and Culture
President of Education, Sport and Culture Deputy Paul Montague put forward four uncontested candidates. Deputy Andy Cameron was elected with 30 votes, Deputy Sarah Hansmann Rouxel with 34, Deputy Aidan Matthews also with 34, and Deputy Jayne Ozanne with 31.There was one blank voting paper.
Committee for Employment and Social Security
President of Employment and Social Security Deputy Tina Bury nominated four candidates who were uncontested.Deputy Garry Collins was elected with 33 votes, Deputy David Dorrity with 36, Deputy Jayne Ozanne with 33, and Deputy Tom Rylatt with 34.There was one blank voting paper.
Committee for Environment and Infrastructure
President of Environment and Infrastructure Deputy Adrian Gabriel put forward four uncontested candidates.Deputy Andy Cameron was elected with 34 votes, Deputy Bruno Kay-Mouat with 32, Alderney Representative Alex Snowden with 36 and Deputy Sally Rochester with 31. There were two blank voting papers.
Committee for Health and Social Care
President of Health and Social Care Deputy George Oswald nominated four uncontested candidates.Deputy Aidan Matthews was elected with 33 votes, Deputy Sally Rochester with 34, Deputy Jennifer Strachan also with 34, and Deputy Munazza Malik with 36. There were two blank voting papers.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
16 minutes ago
- The Independent
Rachel Reeves admits Labour has ‘disappointed' people while in government
Rachel Reeves admits Labour has 'disappointed' people while in government. The politician said she understood that being Chancellor meant making unpopular decisions. She told an audience at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival that Labour had got the balance right between tax, spending and borrowing. But she said that balancing the books meant making tough decisions, even if the are unpopular. Appearing on the Iain Dale All Talk fringe show, she said: 'The reason people voted Labour at the last election is they want to change and they were unhappy with the way that the country was being governed. 'They know that we inherited a mess. They know it's not easy to put it right, but people are impatient for change. 'I'm impatient for change as well, but I've also got the job of making sure the sums always add up – and it doesn't always make you popular because you can't do anything you might want to do. You certainly can't do everything straight away, all at once.' Ms Reeves pointed to Labour's £200 million investment in carbon capture in the north east of Scotland, which she said was welcomed by the industry. At the same time, Labour's windfall tax, she said, was not liked by the sector. 'I can understand that that's extra tax that the oil and gas sector are paying, but you can't really have one without the other,' she said. Defending Labour's record, she said her party had the 'balance about right'. 'But of course you're going to disappoint people,' she added. 'No-one wants to pay more taxes. 'Everyone wants more money than public spending – and borrowing is not a free option, because you've got to pay for it. 'I think people know those sort of constraints, but no-one really likes them and I'm the one, I guess, that has to sort the sums up.' Ms Reeves said Labour had to deliver on its general election campaign of change, adding that her party did not 'deserve' to win the next election if it does not deliver the change it promised.
Telegraph
17 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Labour council offers asylum seekers cooking lessons to ‘experience joy'
A Labour-run council is offering cooking classes to asylum seekers so they can 'experience joy'. Cambridge City Council announced a new set of grants for community groups including funding for the lessons and also gardening classes for migrants. It comes as the council became the second local authority to introduce a four-day week on full pay for staff. Sir James Cleverly, the former Tory home secretary, said the move 'speaks volumes that Labour councils are spending taxpayers' money on cooking and gardening lessons to asylum seekers, whilst cutting back on bin collections all the while hiking council tax to record highs.' 'In both Whitehall and your town hall, under Labour – you pay more and get less,' he added. The council denied any reductions in services such as bin collections, insisting that it continues to collect domestic waste, recycling and green waste. Resettlement Community Grants, which were launched on July 23, offer up to £30,000 for 'arts and cultural projects, community crafts, cooking and food, gardening and connecting with nature, sports and other opportunities to experience joy'. The council also pledged to 'extend support to enable more refugees or asylum seekers to settle in Cambridge' after deciding to increase the number of council homes made available to asylum seekers in March. Delowar Hossain, a Tory councillor, was the only member of the council to oppose the move and spoke out about the recent decision to introduce a four-day week. He said: 'Our residents work hard and pay taxes for full services. A four-day work week would mean they get only 80 per cent of the service for the same tax they currently pay.' 'Reducing inequality' A spokesman for the council said Cambridge was 'proud to offer such a range of grants' which allow for 'projects that will help to reduce social or economic inequality for Cambridge residents with the most need'. The Government has already faced criticism for encouraging the adoption of four-day weeks in public services. In November last year, Angela Rayner, the Deputy Prime Minister, did away with a 'best value' intervention issued by the previous Conservative Government against South Cambridgeshire. The intervention would have allowed auditors to stop the reduced working hours. Instead, her department stated: 'We encourage active and ongoing dialogue with the workforce and trade unions on any changes to local working arrangements.' However, trade unions representing civil servants have increasingly called for more public bodies to adopt moves towards a four-day week, and the PCS union has called for Rayner's own department to follow suit. Last year, its general secretary said: 'A four-day week would give workers an additional day to spend how they like.' The Government plans to introduce a 'right to switch off' for council workers, preventing contact on days off, alongside a potential four-day week rollout across Whitehall and local authorities if union demands are met. Tories argue the four-day week, union demands, and sanctuary city policies lead to higher taxes and worse services for taxpayers.
The Guardian
17 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Chancellor's attempt to intervene in car finance scandal branded ‘disgraceful'
Rachel Reeves' efforts to intervene in the supreme court case on the car finance scandal were 'unprecedented and disgraceful' and send a 'really bad message' to consumers that the government is willing to defend wrongdoing by banks, Treasury committee member and Lib Dem MP Bobby Dean has said. While the supreme court largely sided with finance companies on Friday – helping lenders avoid a £44bn compensation bill – Dean said the chancellor had gone too far to show she was on the side of business. That included a controversial bid to intervene in the supreme court hearing in January, in which she urged judges to avoid handing 'windfall' compensation to borrowers. That attempt was ultimately rejected. 'I thought it was pretty unprecedented and pretty disgraceful,' said Dean, who sits on an influential parliamentary committee which scrutinises City firms, regulators and the Treasury. The chancellor had also been considering overruling the supreme court's decision with retrospective legislation, to help save lenders billions of pounds, in the event that it upheld the entirety of October's court of appeal ruling, the Guardian revealed last week. 'What message does it send to consumers that the industry can do wrong, the courts can support the claim that they've done something wrong, but the government is ready to intervene and defend the industry that's done wrong, instead of defending the consumer? I think that's a really bad message to put out,' Dean said. 'I feel like this government sometimes is too keen to demonstrate it is on the side of business, and is sometimes not understanding the rights of consumer,' he added. Reeves intervention efforts followed intensive lobbying by the car loan industry, which feared that the supreme court would uphold last October's shock ruling by the appeal court. That October ruling suggested commission payments paid by lenders to car dealers were unlawful, unless explicitly disclosed to borrowers. It could have opened the door to billions of pounds of compensation claims against companies including Lloyds Banking Group, Santander UK, Barclays and Close Brothers, and result in a redress scheme that rivalled the £50bn payment protection insurance saga. Lobby group the Financing and Leasing Association (FLA) – which represents car lenders – had warned the government that a big compensation bill could push some lenders into failure, while others would offer fewer or more expensive loans to claw back their losses. That could restrict options for borrowers who relied on credit. City bosses were also warning the Treasury that ongoing uncertainty over the scandal was deterring international investment in the finance industry, and was therefore putting the UK's economic growth at risk The FLA's head of motor finance Adrian Dally said that the lobby group was 'pleased' with the supreme court's ruling, and felt its concerns had been heard by Treasury and regulators. He confirmed the FLA had been speaking with the Treasury nearly every week in the wake of the court of appeal ruling in October, including about its concerns on the car finance case. However, he rejected suggestions the Treasury had prioritised the industry over consumers. 'We absolutely disagree with that because, ultimately, this [car finance] industry is a vital part of the nation's infrastructure, and enables millions of people to get to work, to get to school, and that was put at risk by these court cases. And ultimately, we believe the industry's interests and the consumers' interests are aligned on this.' Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion But Dean said government interventions set a 'really bad precedent if you're going to intervene on cases of consumer redress on the basis that it might damage industry, because then almost every consumer redress case would fall,' Dean said. Dean added that compensation schemes can give consumers confidence to borrow and invest, knowing will be protected when companies take advantage of customers. 'Obviously, the best industry is one where these redress systems are not needed in the first place, because people play by the rules.' The Financial Conduct Authority is due to confirm whether or not it will press ahead with a compensation scheme before the stock markets open on Monday morning. A Treasury spokesperson said: 'It is vital that consumers have access to motor finance to enable them to spread the cost of a vehicle in a way that is manageable and affordable. 'We respect this judgment from the supreme court, and we are working with regulators and industry to understand the impact for both firms and consumers. 'We recognise the issues this court case has highlighted, and we are already taking forward significant changes to the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Consumer Credit Act.'
