IMPORTATION OF FIREWORKS IN 2007 FOR A CHARITY EVENT: INVESTIGATION
P.21/2011
Originally Lodged au Greffe on 8th February 2011
by the Deputy of St. John
Report from the Ministers for Home Affairs, Planning and Environment, and Economic Development.
Report from the Ministers for Home Affairs, Planning and Environment, and Economic Development.
Page.
Section 1: Introduction. 6
Section 2: Department Report – Environment. 8
Section 3: Department Report – Economic Development. 12
Section 4: Department Report – Home Affairs. 16
Section 5: Report Summary. 27
Section 6: Appendices. 28
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.
Appendix 3. Initial Risk Assessment by Mr McDonald. 20 May 07.
Appendix 4. Partial List of Chemicals 8 June 07.
Appendix 5. Chemical content details 12 June 07.
Appendix 6. Updated Risk Assessment by Mr McDonald. 10 July 2007.
Appendix 7. Report by Environment Division. 24 July 2007
Appendix 8. Report by Environment Division. 27 July 2007
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. Letter to Mr. McDonald from EDD Regulatory Services 3 April 2007.
Appendix 12. E-mail response to Mr. A Lewis from Senator Ozouf. 22 May 2007.
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 to Mr T Archer, Essex Pyrotechnics Ltd, dated 6 February 2009.
Appendix 19. Letter from the Minister for Home Affairs to HM Attorney General, dated 26 February 2009.
Appendix 20. Letter from Chief Officer Home Affairs to Mr M Osborne, Ronez Quarries, dated 6 April 2009.
Appendix 21. Letters from Chief Officer Home Affairs 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 dated 22 April 2009.
Appendix 23. Letters from Chief Officer Home Affairs 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 to Mr T Archer, Essex Pyrotechnics Ltd, dated 31 July 2009.
Appendix 25. Letter from Chief Officer Home Affairs to Mr M Osborne, Ronez Quarries, dated 22 September 2009.
Appendix 26. Letter from Chief Officer Home Affairs to Mr T Archer, Essex Pyrotechnics Ltd, dated 20 January 2010.
Appendix 27. Letter from Chief Officer, Home Affairs to Mr McDonald, dated 20 January 2010.
Appendix 28. Letter from Mr McDonald to the Chief Officer Home Affairs, dated 09 February 2010.
Appendix 29. Ministerial Decision MD-HA-2010-0024.
Section 1: INTRODUCTION.
In P21/2011, the Deputy of St John proposed the following:
“THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion
(a) 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;
(b) 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 17 March 2011 and received unanimous support.
Each department referred to in part (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 5 April 2007 (See Appendix 1) and representatives from the Department met Mr. McDonald on 2 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 seven tonnes of material (two 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 14 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 22 May (See Appendix 3), but this did not contain the information that had been requested in the letter dated 14 May. On 8 June 2007, the Department received a partial list of chemicals (See Appendix 4). Between 9 and 11 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 12 July (See Appendix 5). An updated risk assessment was received from Mr McDonald on the 16 July 2007 (see Appendix 6). Environmental Protection assessed this information and produced two reports in response by 27 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 two 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 1 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 2 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 18 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, TTS, Home Affairs, Environment, and Economic Development reviewed Mr. McDonald’s issue on 22 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 31 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 20 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 23 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 or request for financial support from Economic Development Department.
The officer replied on 3 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 Economic Development Department 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 from the Department in underwriting the project.
The Minister responded favourably to the idea and asked a number of questions in an email (see Appendix 12) on 22 May 2007 in regard to the proposed event prior to a meeting between the Department officials, Mr. Lewis and Battle of Flowers representatives.
The email 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 email dated the 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 this appendix
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 were next involved when Mr McDonald approached the Department in January 2008. He had two 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 Jan 2008 , lawyers representing Essex Pyrotechnics had issued a written warning to Mr McDonald that legal proceeding 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 6 Feb 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 Feb 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 mothers 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 Feb 27th 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 13 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 10 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 12 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 13 July 2007 the States of Jersey Fire and Rescue Service (SJFRS) issued to Mr Terry McDonald a licence to import 5780kg Gross (1008kg Net Explosive Quantity) of fireworks (Licence number FWI 01/07) (see Appendix 15). The expected date of arrival of the 125,000 fireworks was 24 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 two 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 phone message dated 16 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 17 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
- 1500 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 1500 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 6,000kgs of fireworks were ultimately stored in one location (Ronez Quarry). Although the Explosives Law Code of Requirements states that a maximum of 900kgs 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 five separate containers.
In a letter dated 29 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 1 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 20 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 6 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 26 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 6 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 16 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 two weeks. The owner replied to this letter on 22 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 31 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 22 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 20 January 2010, to advise him that the safe destruction of the rockets would commence on 19 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 9 February 2010 that he was “…more than happy for this (their destruction) to happen…” (See Appendix 28).
Consequently, on 30 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 16 October and 9 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 for 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.
gov.je