Jersey Discussion, Argument, Comment and Message Blog

A Real Party Here At Last?

2011-12-05T20:28:00.000-08:00

Press release

A group of Jersey residents are planning to set up a Jersey branch of Lib Dems Abroad. A new States is in place. We recognise that Jersey needs policies that face up to the scale of the economic, environmental and social challenges facing the island. To help to draw up these policies, Lib Dems Abroad in Jersey can look at the work of the UK Liberal Democrat party and can consider how far they apply in a local context. We feel that their strong emphasis on local community issues alongside an outward looking international agenda fits well with the best of Jersey traditions.
While we endorse open debate and fairly placed criticism we do not collectively associate with the views of any particular Lib Dem MP or spokesperson on matters affecting Jersey.. However a grouping of people, proud of traditional Jersey values, who wish to see them continue to flourish in the best interests of all Jersey people, not just in finance, can help to promote positive new policies here.
An initial meeting has been planned for 5.30 pm on Wednesday, December 7th at Hautlieu School to form a committee and receive ideas from everyone interested in the proposal. Later there will be a vote on a constitution for the Jersey branch, using a draft provided by Lib. Dems Abroad.
We are supported by two candidates in the recent Senatorial elections, Rose Colley and Mark Forskitt, both of whom have served as Lib Dem councillors in the UK in the past.
We hope to involve both young and not so young. Maureen Lakeman, studying the International Bacclaureate at Hautlieu, has already attended two Lib Dem conferences in UK. Ed Le Quesne was a member of the SDP and then joined the Lib Dems when it first formed and through the Amos Group of Christians Together in Jersey has long taken a close interest in local affairs.
If you can’t attend the initial meeting, please register your interest by e-mailing one of us. It is not necessary to be a member of the Lib Dems to attend.
Maureen Lakeman Maureenlakeman@hotmail.com 07797 920606
Ed Le Quesne edleq@jerseymail.co.uk 730131
November 2011
____________________________________________________________

( Leave a comment )

Syvret petiton

2011-11-27T03:14:00.000-08:00

Ian Evans is seeking support for a petition to the UK Parliament about Stuart Syvret's imprisonment. I think he is bang to rights, but I know some of my readers are more sympathetic to him, so here is the link:- http://therightofreply.blogspot.com/2011/11/john-hemming-mp-succeeded-where-i.html

roll on 2014

2011-10-20T09:25:00.000-07:00

There we go then: some big disappointments, e.g. the excellent Mark Forskitt ending up amongst the back-markers and Sir Phil topping the poll, but generally completely unsurprising stuff, e.g. the excellent Mark Forskitt ending up amongst the back-markers and Sir Phil topping the poll.

The only real shock results for me were the losses of Deputies Bob Hill and Debbie de Sousa. Both principled and hard-working politicians who pulled their weight. Their successors have a lot to live up to and owe it to the whole island to prove that they were worth displacing the other two for.

Lyndon Farnham didn't seem as good a politician as he is a businessman last time around, but I would rather have him than Cohen.

With the Cameron government due to remain in power on the mainland for some years to come, we can probably get by a little longer with the current regime. By 2014, we may, of course, have seen a major reorganisation of the States, one way or another, and if we get that wrong, then the status quo could become even more deeply entrenched. However, I shall just have to hope that a lot more of the people who just grumble that politicians are all the same bother to come and help us elect some better ones next time.

Senatorial Voting??

2011-10-15T07:57:00.001-07:00

As this was originally an explicitly partisan blog, I really ought to take a few sides in the coming elections. We don't really do elections in a very big way out here in Trinity, but at least there are the Senatorials. And they are a rather challenging choice this time around.

If you are content with the current States, and want more of the same, your choice is easy: Bailhache, Cohen, Gorst and Farnham. All competent to play their parts in effectively continuing to deliver the same old failing right-wing agenda.

However, politics is about moral values, as well as competence. If you are reading this, you probably are not particularly keen on right-wing moral values. Thus, while you may prefer the above to the utterly clueless people who occasionally stumble into elections, you may join me in wishing for some capable people with a centre or even left-wing value system. Now let us try and find four of those on the ballot paper.

Rose Colley? Rather ambiguous, as political lawyers often are. Her background suggests a social conscience, and she seems to say the right things. On the other hand, her proposers were as establishment as you can get. Was she using them, or is she really one of them, and making a misleading election pitch. Given the alternatives, I think I shall take a chance on the former being true, and vote for her, but I am not without doubts.

Linda Corby? I know her personally, and she is an entertaining raconteuse who has led a colourful life, as she tells it. She will bring passion and commitment, and will not be pressured into shutting up when there are whistles to be blown. I fear she would be out of her depth on policy, though. If you are sure there will be another right-wing landslide, then she is at least cut out for being a fierce backbench watchdog, and you may want to vote for her to take that role. I want an alternative government, though, not more snipers, so I don't think she is for me.

Mark Forskitt? YES! Political experience in a bigger jurisdiction, a firm grasp of both local and global issues, and rather better credentials than Syvret to take a stand on the child care problem, despite a balanced view of priorities that push this one some way down his list.

Sylvia Lagadu? Sylvia Lagadu?

Francis le Gresley? YES! He may be a lacklustre public speaker, but he is a doer and an organiser who has pulled his weight in his brief term as a Senator.

Darius Pearce? Colourful character and creative, original thinker. Sooner or later he will think of something I can approve, probably later. This time's idea is an abdication of responsibility and misses the point of representative democracy, however, so I shall not vote for him.

David Richardson? Clever and serious, but doesn't really communicate any clear strategic view. He certainly is not bottom of my list, but nor has he earned a place in my top four yet.

Stuart Syvret? My readers' favourite, and, in bygone years, the recipient of a few of my own votes. Still intelligent, articulate and an exceptionally talented public speaker. However, he is now conspicuously broken by his struggles,and his common sense, judgement and integrity have all crumbled to ashes. Vexatious litigation and poison-pen blogging are poor qualifications for high office, to my mind. Deserves twelfth place, but will probably come higher. Hopefully not in the top four, though.

Chris Whitworth? When I saw that he had declared, I thought that was another of my votes settled. Then, I saw the tongue-in-cheek tone of his campaign. Chris is a another clever and serious candidate, with a fine track record of serious work at the grass roots of Jersey politics. He is a bit uncharismatic, though, and lost badly for that in a previous campaign. This time he has overcompensated in his efforts to be seen as a colourful character and made himself look a lot sillier than those who know him think him to be. As I do know him, and have confidence in his ability, I should vote for him. On the other hand, he has campaigned badly, and a vote for him is probably wasted. So, there is a case for tactically voting for Linda Corby after all. She is rather unlikely to get in, either, but there is at least a remote chance of a shock result, which a few more votes would help towards, while poor Chris is now a lost cause in this election.

JRA Survey

2011-10-14T13:22:00.000-07:00

JRA Election Candidate Survey now at http://jraelection.blogspot.com

Mark Forskitt For Senator

2011-07-20T12:05:00.000-07:00

Jersey needs what Mark Forskitt has to offer even more now than when he stood in 2008, so he has been persuaded to run again this year. He has a Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/pages/Mark-Forskitt-for-senator-2011/224697014235844 for more information.

Big Trev's Back Online

2011-05-08T07:07:00.000-07:00

Deputy Trevor Pitman, formerly the main author of this blog, now has his own blog page. See The Bald Truth in the links box on the left.
By the way, Dave Rotherham, the other main writer of JDACMB is now using his own blog page, Ugh, it's him! for all new material, too. Link in same box.

Notice

2011-02-11T14:28:00.000-08:00

Emille’s Funeral will be held on Wednesday at 10.45 am at the Crematorium followed by a meeting at the Old Magistrates Court (back of Town Hall) from 1145am.Family, friends and former colleagues are welcome to attend.
By voiceforchildren

Interesting Meeting Next Week

2011-01-17T05:58:00.000-08:00

The famous or infamous, according to your perspective, economist Richard Murphy will be in Jersey for a public meeting on the topic “Jersey – Let finance work for you” at Hautlieu on 24th January at 7pm. He is looking forward to debating with his critics, as well as meeting his supporters, so it should be a lively and interesting meeting, wherever your own standpoint is.

Facing It!

2010-12-31T05:42:00.000-08:00

Facing what? that this blog is to all practical intents and purposes defunct, that's what.

None of the numerous people whom I invited to keep or start contributing, when we hived this off from the JDA have submitted anything since, and I already have a personal blog I sporadically use anyway for my own articles.

I am not going to delete this one, and, with 2011 being an election year, I might start getting some submissions yet. However, I cannot see where any new material would come from at present, so I am leaving it up merely as an archive of the live stuff there was in the past.

Thank you for having been readers, and for commenting, if you did.

goodbye

David Rotherham

JRA Apology

2010-11-23T14:02:00.000-08:00

Thank you to those who came to The Peirson tonight. We owe you all our apology for not considering that Deputy Power might be taken too ill to even cancel, and so not checking he was still coming 24 hours previously. We hope you enjoyed your social drink sufficiently to be a reasonable compensation for our failure to deliver the promised event.
David Rotherham

2 Meetings

2010-11-21T20:08:00.000-08:00

The Jersey Rights Association will have its AGM at the Peirson 7.30pm, Tuesday 23rd Nov, guests welcome, followed by a public talk by Deputy Sean Power on Housing Issues at 8.30. All welcome.

The Jersey Human Rights Group will hold its AGM at 5.30 on Mon 29th Nov. Meet in Royal Square beforehand for escorted access to States Building.

Disclaimer

2010-09-17T07:16:00.000-07:00

Word has reached me that personal opinions expressed by myself in my own name are being attributed by some to former colleagues in a party that none of us are in any more.
No postings on here, nor letters to the JEP, signed by myself alone have been anything other than my own individual work, not discussed with, let alone approved by any other person.
It is an injustice to blame anyone else for opinions of mine, when I have no idea whether they share or disagree with my view, and they may not have even seen my pieces. Conversely, I am nobody else's puppet or mouthpiece.
David Rotherham

Just an "Accident" of Timing, of Course.

2010-09-11T07:05:00.000-07:00

Autumn: As work gets quieter for me and schoolwork ties up more of my family's time, I can soon spare some time for all these consultations we keep getting offered. And what do you know - I am too late for all the juicy ones I would have liked to have contributed to - Island Plan, Taxes, Crown Officers. I wonder; is Summer actually the best time for most people to examine these things, and my own life out of sync, or has there been a little sleight of hand to reduce the number of people inconveniencing the government with their opinions?
Any thoughts, anybody?
David Rotherham

Anyone for a Bring-A-Policy Party?

2010-08-27T09:40:00.000-07:00

When I was a much younger man, I sometimes went to the kind of party where lots of young adults arrived bringing various kinds of alcohol, which went on the table for each to help themselves to whatever selection they fancied, from whatever had been brought.

The other day, suffering a less physical kind of hangover from too much time in a very different sort of party, I was musing on the contrast between the two meanings of the word. It suddenly occurred to me that the model of the Bring-A-Bottle drinks party could actually be viably applied to creating some kind of political coalition of independents in a culture of no conventional parties.

My idea was that politicians and potential candidates of broadly similar views pool their manifesto ideas. But, instead of a conventional party process of whittling down the differences to come up with a single party line for all to follow, each area of policy would have a series of numbered alternative manifesto proposals or positions, being all the items any of the participants submitted on that topic. Then, when all items were submitted and collated, each participant would select their own favourite item numbers, be they their own work or another's. The scheme collator could then paste the chosen items into a standard format with the candidate's personal details and colours.

The result would be a display of obvious unity and mutual assistance, and yet, importantly, nobody would be having to compromise any principles, nor sacrifice any independence, to toe a party line.

The next step will be to sound out possible invitees: Too few takers would mean too little substance to be worth the bother. But, what do our readers think? Would you be happier voting for somebody who has collaborated with others in developing their strongest possible manifesto, or somebody who has done all their own work, for better or worse? Comments, please.

David Rotherham

Nothing More To Say

2010-08-15T20:03:00.000-07:00

As promised, we have now published our definitive statement on our departure. This press release, from 10pm, 15th August, is as much as we wish to say on the subject. Now we shall move on.

"In the light of the press release of Friday 13th August from the JDA Honorary President we believe it to be necessary to clarify the following:

Due to a growing difference of opinion between leading JDA members regarding issues of strategy and political direction all JDA Council Members and the party’s membership were contacted on the 11th August to advise them that JDA Deputy Chairman, David Rotherham, Deputies Trevor and Shona Pitman and Deputy Debbie De Sousa were resigning from the JDA as of this date.

Though this was a difficult and painful decision to make given the number of years of blood, sweat and tears that we have given to developing the JDA, we took this decision in the hope of preventing irreconcilable differences developing into, or being spun as an acrimonious public quarrel. To this regard we intended putting out only the briefest of statements to the media.

All four of us believe passionately that to ultimately bring about the change our island so desperately needs, we have to engage a wider cross-section of Jersey’s ordinary working people in line with our centre-left political principles; as opposed to allowing ourselves to be wrongly portrayed as representing the interests of only a certain section of society.

Unfortunately, even in the light of the Honorary President’s surprising press release we perceive this narrow base to be the current direction of the JDA pursued by a minority Council. This is simply not the political ideology that we signed up to when we joined, and is not what we have worked so hard for. It is also certainly not true of the diverse constituent base that Deputies S. Pitman, T. Pitman and De Sousa all work with on a day-to-day basis.

Nevertheless, though existing on a number of levels it is fair to say that these internal differences have been brought to a head by two key events. The first of these was the split decision to support the JDA standing a sitting States Member, Deputy Geoff Southern, in the recent Senatorial by-election; a decision driven through even though it was clearly apparent to a number of us that this would be a politically muddy campaign where a skewed and split vote was inevitable.

The second has been the recent press release and media interviews given by Deputy Southern regarding the union alternatives to the Council of Ministers proposals on taxation and cut backs. Whilst it must be reiterated here that we are all wholly committed to recognition of modern Trade Unions as an essential check and balance to ensure industrial best practice, the fact is that neither the proposals nor our stated collective support for them was discussed with or agreed with us or any other JDA Council Member beforehand. This we find wholly unacceptable.

Viewed in the current wider political perspective we have thus come to the conclusion that for the immediate future the best way forward to achieving positive change is via way of a political coalition with other similarly minded States Members; and, indeed, like-wise motivated individuals outside of the States - a coalition where all members are willing to sign up to, and work together to achieve a small number of clearly defined principles. Having already been involved in such initiatives this is what we will now be striving to do.

A constituted ‘party’ on the other hand, as put forward in the JDA Honorary President’s press release with people of both left and right political leanings brought and held together only by a desire for reform we simply do not believe can work and is something we will not be involved in. We nevertheless wish all our former colleagues in the JDA the best of luck in their endeavours for the future. Whilst we can no longer agree on the path forward we fully recognise that they too want only the best for the working people who are the backbone of Jersey’s success; and who, indeed, make Jersey the special place that it is.

We shall not be making any further comment.

David Rotherham (Deputy Chairman) Deputy Shona Pitman

Deputy Trevor Pitman Deputy Debbie De Sousa"

New Package, Same Goods

2010-08-11T09:10:00.000-07:00

As hinted at recently, the main author of this blog left the JDA today, and I am taking the blog with me. So, I have contrived something else to fit the initials JDACMB and renamed it. Without the JDA link, we can accept copy from anybody, if it is suitable. Breaking down the email to avoid spambots, I have an account at the ".co.uk" domain of "yahoo" in the name of "cdrotherham", that you can send submissions to.
The comment policy will continue to be that, you may disagree with us, but you may not be grossly offensive.
We hope that you will continue to read.

David Rotherham

Reader Feedback Needed Urgently

2010-08-05T20:15:00.000-07:00

As Ted and Geoff prepare their new team for their 2011 campaign, so some of the longer serving JDA Council Members will be standing down from it very shortly. Including most of the contributors to this blog.

So, we could go two ways, depending on public demand:

The default, if we don't get significant demand for the other option, will be to rebrand this blog, keeping these authors, and launch a new JDA Council blog, with a new URL, for the new Council.

The alternative is that the current authors simply walk away from this one, and our current readers go look for us elsewhere on the web. So this URL remains the JDA Council's.

Tell us now, if you care which we do.

NAPIER – WHEN WILL WE GET IT AND WILL WE GET IT ALL?

2010-08-04T20:31:00.001-07:00

Outlined below is a written question (with answer) I asked at the last States sitting with regard to the ridiculously overdue ‘Napier Report’. The question is a straight-forward one and needs comparatively little explanation. I post it now only in the light of the latest saga encountered in trying to finally get the author’s long-overdue findings into the public arena.

As some readers will have heard by now this latest delay is being put down to the sending of official letters to a number of key players in the suspension of the former Chief Police Officer. These letters are known in the trade as ‘Scott letters’. When utilised they are meant to provide a last chance for any individual about to be criticised, and possibly even face disciplinary proceedings, as a result of aspects of their conduct to attempt to explain or justify this.

At least that is how it works in the UK. The process is not meant to be a means of manipulating the findings of a report in order that potentially embarrassing elements of those findings might then be watered down or be kept out of the public arena. Will this same above board process be carried out here in Jersey? Just consider the answer to my question below for a moment:

“it (the report) will be published in full.”

Even long overdue, a clearer promise one could surely not get, and I hope that it ultimately proves to be adhered to. However, whilst not only have politicians subsequently been unable to get an answer to the question of when exactly did the Chief Minister and the senior civil servant at his department receive a copy of the report, I also have it from a pretty reliable source that attempts will be made to keep certain key details likely to lead to disciplinary measures confidential.

And this simply can’t be right.

One good thing about having focussed so much on what was obviously a deeply flawed process surrounding the suspension of the Chief Police Officer as I did has been that – and in stark contrast to the Home Affairs |Minister’s temper tantrum in the States last month I can’t help but point out – I knew that I for one would not be eating the Minister’s much-vaunted ‘humble pie’. The process and its handling has, after all, been a total shambles. This is I’m afraid cold, hard fact no matter how much he might try to deny it.

Not least in the simultaneous use of material meant specifically for a full disciplinary procedure whilst all disciplinary measures were in fact unceremoniously dropped. Indeed, if one is to go by the inconsistent statements from the Home Affairs Minister between Scrutiny hearings and the States Assembly itself suggest most likely were never genuinely to be pursued at all?

Now, while I believe that all must be accountable for their actions if things don’t go as they should, criticism of the Chief Police Officer’s failings have been played out in full view of the public – some might say to overkill by certain sections of the media – yet this has been done, as I say, without the proper full and fair disciplinary process that both the individual at the centre of it all and we, the taxpaying public, should have been able to expect to be certain no stone was left unturned.

Could it really consequently be right if some of the equally significant failings – I can say no more than that right now – of some of those deeply involved in the very same process are allowed to be hidden away by means of a quickly cobbled together excuse of ‘confidentiality’; likewise the outcome of any resultant disciplinary action?

The answer has to be 100% that it is not. Neither will the presentation to politicians and the public of a report ‘redacted’ until it is only 30% of the original text; 10% of the overall material - thus removing the bulk substance of the issues at hand. Will such a ploy be attempted? With the Chief Minister apparently now back from a break it is high time he laid any such concerns to rest. Maybe he will even let us know if the now retired former Chief Police Officer got the offer of the Scott letter process…

Written Question to the Chief Minister 22nd July 2010

'Will the Chief Minister clarify the full reasons as to why the report into the issues surrounding the suspension process of the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police - promised to the Assembly to be completed in six weeks - has instead not been completed prior to the announcement that all disciplinary measures were to be dropped; further still, when will this report be completed and made available in full to all States Members?'

Answer

The original timescale for the completion of the independent review into the suspension of the Chief Officer of Police was six weeks as stated in the Deputy’s question. Unfortunately, due to difficulties in arranging convenient dates for interviews and travel disruptions caused by the Icelandic volcanic ash cloud, it was not possible to complete the interview process with one of the key witnesses during the Mr Napier’s first visit to Jersey. A second visit had to be arranged to that suited both people.

All of the interviews were completed by 9th June 2010 and I am awaiting the final report. Unfortunately, due to other work commitments, Mr Napier was unable to complete his final report immediately after the interview process was complete.

I have been advised by Mr Napier, that he is currently writing his final report which should be completed by the end of July. Once the report has been issued and all parties concerned have had the opportunity to consider any findings, it will be published in full.

The Wiltshire Report. And Yet Another Abuse of Process

2010-07-09T13:16:00.000-07:00

Here are two self-explanatory open emails to Senators le Sueur and le Marquand, from Trevor and Shona Pitman. Even to the bitter end, any substantial fault there may or may not have been on Chief Constable Power's part continues to be overshadowed by ongoing abuses of process by the Home Affairs and Chief Minister's Departments.

"Dear Terry/Ian

Please could you tell us all, why the Wiltshire Report has been sent to the media (embargoed) before Members of Government. Please tell us why this happens so often - the COM are always telling us that 'it won't happen again', but it always does. It shows nothing but disrespect and contempt for your colleagues. Also, could you tell us if this is the full report.

Once again, a hugely important piece of information and States Members (or non-exec Members) are left out. Can we have some answers.

shona"

"Ian & Terry

Just to follow this up from Deputy Shona Pitman. Please could you tell us why you feel it acceptable or necessary that the Media should be given this document (much redacted of course) to go over for three days longer than States Members? That it is embargoed for reporting is irrelevant.

With several hundred pages wouldn't it be far better for all involved if the rest of us States Members were given time to digest this and come up with appropriately informed, searching questions for the presentation? Perhaps not, eh...

Could you also tell us all why I only found out about this issuing of the document through a media contact?

Could you also tell us why, even as a States Member, upon inquiry I was initially fobbed off that nobody knew if the media were getting copies - when it was quite clear from my earlier inquiries that ten lovely shiny new copies hot off the press had winged their way to the Chief Ministers Department this Friday afternoon?

Why I was eventually told by the Deputy CEO that it was simply all down to a problem with the printing, and you were hoping to send everything out but couldn't because of the rush with the Business Plan.

But then told I still couldn't - as a States Member - have one even if I drove down that minute and saved the taxpayer the postage? Where was the inconvenience - I could have picked mine up along with Channel, BBC, 103 and the JEP!

Finally, as per Shona's e-mail, please tell all of us, right, left, centre and greens amongst us - what kind of 'government' deems it correct or conducive to the development of 'inclusive' government to send out such a hugely important document to journalists before other elected members of that government?

Actually, don't bother answering the last one - I will do that for you. It is the kind of government that time and time again treats non-executive members with utter contempt; a COM so arrogant and bloated with self importance that it just doesn't care about acting in this fashion; it is the sort of COM for which the first priority is always to spin the angle they want the public to buy.

Out of interest will States Members also be issued with the full details of the complaint the IPCC instructed the MET to investigate reference alleged evidence and witnesses that the authors of the report would not incorporate? Having no axe to grind for anyone but purely being interested in fairness and transparency as I am I am certain you will make sure that this is done...

Just for the record, Ian made mention of people eating 'humble pie' in the States this week. Though I wasn't referred to as one of them, fact is that as I have focussed all my questions on the truly appalling handling of this incredibly flawed suspension process from start to finish - I have already been proven right a 100 times over. This latest shambles really puts the icing on the cake.

I now just can't wait to hear first-hand about the senior civil servant who wasn't involved in any way in receiving illegal police reports on the backgrounds of States Members...

[Trevor]"

They Missed A Trick - Let's Not Give It To Them

2010-07-05T10:24:00.000-07:00

The Jersey Establishment missed a trick when they carried out their infamous cherry-pick of the Clothier proposals for government reform. Most of the political representation for a Jersey citizen is by the twelve Senators: You get one Connetable and one to three Deputies, depending where you live, and then at least three-quarters of your votes are for Senators. That is quite important, as it lets in a wider range of politicians. To be a Deputy, you have to find an electoral district where most of the voters agree with you, and no other candidate there does, or come through the middle of a split vote for like-minded candidates sharing the majority between them, for want of a party to organise such things. To be a Senator, it is usually enough to command a substantial minority around the island overall, without having to find a concentration of your potential supporters. From the voter's point of view, picking six at a time from a slate of candidates enables a degree of ticket-splitting, in which both some candidates focussing on economic issues and some on social issues can be chosen, with a view to electing a well-rounded and balanced government.

Now, given that there is an inbuilt conservative majority in almost every one of Jersey's constituencies, the right-wing could have further consolidated their hold on power by seizing on the Clothier Report's recommendation that the Senators and Connetables be replaced by Deputies, for a single type of member. Just think, no more maverick populists soaring to the top of the polls as everybody's fifth or sixth choice, just a collection of bland parish bigwigs toeing the establishment line.

The tiresome rigmarole of the recent by-election, so needlessly caused by a wilful breach of an erstwhile Senator's oath of office, has once again set people to wondering whether Senators are worth having. Even amongst the progressive wing, with the most to gain from their continuing existence, “one class of Member” seems to some to be a more tempting principle than “Fourteen votes, not one”. This thought must be firmly and vigorously resisted. An all-Deputy Chamber will marginalise voters, and especially minority voters, and suffer a greatly increased democratic deficit. And “one class” will be the misleading spin put on this failure to fool unthinking electors into believing that they have been done a favour.

Some people say that Senators should serve an “apprenticeship” as a parish Deputy first. But to what end? The work is the same, the powers, or lack of them are the same. But if a candidate has confidence in another in their home district, or believes that the electorate will, then the only constituency where they can offer themselves as a resident rather than a carpetbagger is the island as a whole.

Perhaps the class of Member that should be removed is the Connetables. They are elected to be community leaders of their parishes, not the island, and voters may have different opinions of their municipal and state governments. Certainly, up here in Trinity, the Parish functions perfectly, but the States work no better for us than the rest of Jersey.

We need all the talent we can get in our government, and as strongly democratic way of electing them as possible. An all-Deputy assembly would be an impediment, not a boon.

David Rotherham

TREVOR’S ORAL & WRITTEN QUESTIONS FOR TUESDAY 6th JULY 2010 OR SORRY, SENATOR LE MARQUAND…GROUNDHOG DAY PART 86…

2010-07-02T12:36:00.000-07:00

Does anyone genuinely think any States member actually enjoys going back to an issue again and again and again? Well, maybe there are few out there who do believe such nonsense. But the truth is the answer is no. That it sometimes has to be done – if you don’t fall for the calculated ploy used by some Ministers of trying to grind you down until the question is dropped by attempting to belittle the issue’s importance – is just another example of the sorry state of ministerial government.

Indeed, one more reason why I and a rapidly growing number of other Members sick to the back teeth of the mockery of democratic government that this system has become under Chief Minister Le Sueur will be backing Senator Breckon’s proposal for a complete overhaul. But that is a story for another day.

The fact is that just as I have stated in the Assembly on more than one occasion, I have no personal axe to grind on behalf of the suspended Chief of Police underlying these questions. All I am concerned with is getting to the bottom of a process that would not be tolerated in any self-respecting democracy; about finally getting some transparency. About ensuring that people – no matter who they are – should be treated as innocent until proven guilty; not to mention how under this Council of Ministers it is possible to hide behind guff like ‘neutral acts’ whilst spinning lies about investigations that will only take ‘weeks’, yet then are allowed to drag on for months, even years.

If all of this upsets a few people I’m afraid all I can say is – tough. The number of people who have contacted me supporting continuing this line of questioning until we finally get answers, set against those who would just see the issues dropped indicates that most people think natural justice is something worth being tenacious about.

As per the written question regarding the Senator’s comments suggesting that everything would be made clear come July, it is interesting that I had to remove reference in the question to the globally established practice of governments looking to ‘bury bad news’ by revealing information when it would largely go unnoticed. The point I was seeking to highlight here is that if ‘July’ was to mean after the next but one States sitting of the 19th then any opportunity for asking questions would be put on hold for two whole months.

Wouldn’t that be a shame? Mr. Power would be gone, and as we all know it has never been the intention to allow a full and proper disciplinary process to be undertaken: a process where both sides of the story could be heard and allegations defended.

As to the other questions I hope to be writing something on the taxation issue shortly, having raised questions on this and the related subject of 1.1. (K) s a number of times. The other questions which relate to St. Helier No. 1 District are self-explanatory. One relating to long-standing work in support of constituents, the other to explore the possibility of whether the Minister for ESC could manage to find any alternatives to a cutting of a frontline service, rather than the rather populist approach in a proposition of just telling the Minister he couldn’t do it: period.

Deputy Trevor Pitman

*A final point for Jaime. Sorry, Jaime, but in answer to your question I get my information from a number of sources which obviously vary considerably in line with the issues. If similar concerns/issues/also surface on other blogs sometimes, then great. The fact that some people are actively seeking transparency should surely be applauded whether one agrees with those people’s views or not

Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier will ask the following oral question of the Minister for Home Affairs

“Will the Minister advise whether the alleged author of the Metropolitan (Met) Police Interim Report is himself under investigation by the Met regarding alleged anomalies in the report’s construction and whether the author neglected to interview crucial witnesses who could have refuted allegations made by the Former Deputy Chief Officer against the former Senior Investigating Officer and the suspended Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police?”

Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier will ask the following question oral of the Minister for Treasury and Resources

“Given that in the Fiscal Strategy Review public consultation document it is stated that a key consideration in implementing a 30% Income Tax rate for those earning above £100.000 is the possibility of such individuals choosing to leave the Island, will the Minister advise what firm evidence, if any, his department has to support such fears?”

Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier will ask the following written question of the Minister for Home Affairs

“Under questioning about the lengthy suspension process of the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police on the 22nd June 2010, the Minister asked for patience, advising Members that all would be revealed in July, will the Minister now give assurances that when referring to July he meant that information, including access to the so called 'Metropolitan Police Interim Report' and information as to whether the former Chief Minister and current States Chief Executive Officer received briefings on other States Members as a consequence of 'Operation Blast', will be provided to members before, or during the last States sitting prior to the summer recess; or will the Minister be seeking to delay the release of such information until the summer recess has begun, thus preventing the opportunity for Members to ask questions?”

Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier will ask the following written question of the Minister for Economic Development

“Will the Minister advise what action, if any, the Harbours Department has taken to address the long-standing anti-social behaviour problems suffered by residents at Albert Quay Apartments; specifically whether the promised speed bumps are yet in place; what, if any, impact the new speed cameras have had and, if no action has been taken when will these matters be progressed?”

Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier will ask the following written question of the Minister for Education, Sport & Culture

“Is the Minister able to identify any alternative efficiency savings, other than cutting the three life guards at Havre des Pas swimming pool, which would have less front-line impact on services, and, if so, what might these be?”

Geoff's Written Questions for 6th July

2010-06-28T07:30:00.000-07:00

1.To Chief Minister:
Will the Chief Minister state what formal consultation, if any, has taken place with representatives of States employees over the potential job losses contained in the proposals put forward by ministers in the Comprehensive Spending Review, and if none will he state when he expects consultation to start?

Will the Chief Minister indicate the timescale over which he envisages any redundancies will take place and the extent to which these will be covered by Voluntary Redundancy or Voluntary Early Retirement schemes already in place or will need compulsory redundancies?

Will he further detail for members any proposals he has for changes to the Voluntary Redundancy scheme to be applied from 2011, and state when he expects to consult with employee representatives over any changes, or whether he intends to impose it unilaterally as he did with the pay freeze?

What estimates does he have for the cost in redundancy or other payments of the 67.6 job losses already proposed?

2.To Treasury & Resources Minister:
Will the minister inform members why in his FSR consultation documents on personal and business taxation he has proposed a figure £30m for additional personal tax but has set no such figure for any additional contribution from the business sector to fund essential public services?

Can he further explain why over the period 2004 to 2008 Income tax receipts from salary and wage earners has increased by 66% (from £136m to £225m) whist Company tax has only risen by 23% over the same period (from £189m to £233m)?

Will the minister also give members his estimates of what the overall tax take (including GST, the 0/10 regime and income tax) between these two revenue generating sectors will be for the current tax year?

3.To Economic Development Minister
The minister promised last month to initiate a wide-ranging public consultation over the potential impact of the introduction of further competition into the postal market on the finances of Jersey Post and the maintenance of the USO; where is it and when can we expect the public and other stakeholders to be consulted?

Does the minister accept that proper regulation and not competition may be the way forward in the delivery of efficient postal services for all postal users?

4.To Treasury & Resources Minister:
Does the minister consider his description of GST as “mildly regressive” as a fair and balanced statement to use in his consultation on personal taxation when his own figures show that it has more than twice the impact on the income of the lowest earners than it does on the highest?

Will he also explain to members why in the consultation on personal tax, almost half of the questions concern business but he describes the Business tax review as a “technical exercise” aimed solely at business and taxation experts? Why has he not consulted the public on what they believe to be the correct balance to be struck between Business and Personal taxation?

Will the minister state why he has chosen to cap social security contributions at £115,000? Is it simply to be competitive with Guernsey’s £117,468? What would the effect be of removing the ceiling altogether

5.To Health Minister:
Will the minister inform members of the decision-making process relating to her CSR proposals, to include the timeline of meetings at which these decisions were made and who was making these decisions?

Where services are to be reduced will the department produce any risk or cost/benefit analysis carried out on the change?

Will the department state which, if any, any services are to be outsourced along with the estimated costs of such moves?

Where there are to be job losses, will the department give details of the terms and conditions being offered to staff under any VR or VER scheme which is in place, and state what timescale is envisioned for any such processes given that these proposals will not receive sanction from the States until September?

Will the department also give details of what consultation, if any, with employee representatives has taken place or will take place?

TREVOR’S ORAL QUESTIONS FOR JUNE 22ND

2010-06-23T20:05:00.000-07:00

(Accidentally posted to wrong blog originally)
Trevor’s two oral questions for this weeks States sitting are published below. They are both set to Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand and relate to issues Trevor has raised before with regard to the long-standing saga of the suspension of the States of Jersey Police Chief Officer, Graham Power.

According to Trevor the eventual answer – even if he doesn’t get it on Tuesday – to the question on Operation Blast will prove “very interesting and raise a whole lot more questions in it self”.

On a completely different subject, in response to questions a number of people have been asking this past week or so, Trevor also says that, constituent work permitting, he hopes to get his thoughts on the recent by-election and all that has transpired since up on the blog immediately this week’s States sitting is out of the way. This should probably mean by Thursday night.

Question One – To the Home Affairs Minister:

“Given that on 8th June 2010 when asked whether he would make available to Members the ‘Metropolitan Police Interim Report’ the Minister stated that he would have to take legal advice before coming to a decision, will he now advise whether he has taken such advice, who specifically the advice was sought from, whether he will be making the report available and, if so, at what date?”

Question Two – To the Home Affairs Minister:

“Will the Minister advise the Assembly whether (in the course of the investigation into ‘Operation Blast’) both the former Chief Minister and the current Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers received reports into the background of States Members, including any allegations or record of criminal activity; and, if so, under what authority?”
Posted by JDA Council at 8:13 PM
Labels: Jersey politics
2 comments:

Anonymous said...

I wish Trevor would get away from these repetitive Graham Power suspension questions. Can't he just leave it until Home Affairs have got their final reports out into the public? It is getting tedious.
June 22, 2010 1:48 PM
Anonymous said...

Well done for being persistent on this issue Trevor. I understand what you are getting at - you just want some answers and everything out in the open. Couldn't agree more.
June 23, 2010 5:06 AM

"No Damage Done"???????

2010-06-19T15:26:00.000-07:00

DEPUTY Geoff Southern shows his customary resilience in the face of adversity, with his insouciant declaration that there was no damage done by the result of his latest Senatorial campaign.

On the other hand though, the statement held no trace of his other customary qualities of being good at grasping facts and interpreting figures.

All that he says beneath the headline is indeed true. Geoff's error is that it is not all that there is to be said. Moreover, the unsaid items are big ones.

As he belatedly admits, many voters saw there was no advantage in voting for him, as he was already in the States anyway. That much was always obvious, so the assumption that those many voters would not notice that catch was rash, to say the least. The key agendum of any election is to elect the candidate enjoying the widest confidence; economics and policing are subordinate issues. To have re-elected the sitting candidate would simply have moved the actual choice of the new member to a secondary by-election, in which most of us would not have got a vote. Thus, success would have been an own goal against democracy. Although the goal was easily saved by the electorate, the attempt to score it was a lower standard of competence than the JDA usually aspire to. And it damages the party to be seen as incompetent and anti-democratic.

Geoff's intention to show the JDA are a “serious political force” would have been fine, had we done so. However, asking the voters to endorse us as such is, like any big question, double-edged. The derisory thousand votes we managed to scrape answers us alright, but that answer is “Oh no you're not, hahaha!” Geoff sought enhanced authority, but instead it has been immensely diminished. And, as he ran as our candidate, the party has lost its credibility with him, and the JDA's other public representatives lose what added kudos they gained from being in the team. Now, that is damage in a very big way, for all of us in the party.

The by-election campaign was a still deeper misjudgement, though. Despite Stuart Syvret's 2007 declaration of intent to destroy the JDA, he and we aim a broadly similar policy raft at the same voters. In 2005, we assumed that anyone who voted for us would vote for him, too, and ever since, we have known that we shared the same base. Voting for him and us did neither any harm, but this time it was him or us. Stuart's relationship with his voters goes back a decade before the JDA was even formed, and they resented being asked to choose. True he has alienated some of them with his recent behaviour, myself included, but three and a half thousand still thought what he has got right made the rest worthwhile. Having been made to choose against us, that large body of voters will now be considering themselves JDA opponents, and it will be an uphill struggle to tempt them back. Worse, the personal acrimony towards a man so many are fond of has antagonised them against us, especially from people perceived to be his friends. For myself, as Syvret has pointedly snubbed me each time we have met, whether you put that down to plain rudeness or shrewd judgement, I have no friendship to betray, but some of my party colleagues have been closer to him, in the past, so public responses to private breaches look more disloyal than they are from the outside. So, we have thousands of our core voters at least resenting us, and in many cases seeing us as traitors. That may not be how it was, but it it is how it has been seen. And that, too, is grave damage to the JDA.

Not only has the campaign split the wider progressive cause in Jersey, but its failure has posed a risk of splitting the party. Many outsiders are urging us to dump founding members Geoff and Ted, while many others want to see the other founding members, Trevor and Shona, wash their hands of us, despite the establishment of the JDA having been their big project of the last five years. Yet, cleansing reputations by sackings and walkouts raises further problems in going on. Were anybody to bring a successful motion that Geoff be expelled for bringing the party into disrepute, we would all wonder who would be next, and lose trust in our own party. Besides, as the candidature was a Council decision, they would have to fire the lot of us en bloc, and there are not enough other potential party leaders in the membership to fill the gap we would leave. Even after quitting, the Pitmans would still be tagged ex-JDA for the next ten years, so they would salvage little public repute for the price of abandoning the party that has been more their baby than anyone else's since 2006. This kind of destabilisation is damage, too.

I am not sure that I liked seeing Unite's logo alongside our own on our adverts, either. Having been a TGWU member in the late 1970's, when Mostyn Evans was sacrificing his subs-paying members' interests to his political aims, I am not keen on trade unions getting political. I am still less keen on the prospect that the JDA could become, either in fact or in popular imagination, a paid front for Unite, or any other union. If the relationship is clearly and openly that they are backing us, that is fine, but if we are fronting them, and becoming the Jersey Labour Party by stealth, then I want no more part of it. Cosying up to the unions could be damaging, unless the JLP is really an objective.

After this, the JDA plainly cannot field any Senatorial candidates, and possibly not even any Deputies in 2011, and maybe not even in 2014 either. The party can endure as a means of organising teamwork between centre-left politicians and between their supporters, but it will now be several years of re-establishing its reputation before it can return to a party's real business. That is terrible damage.

So, Geoffrey, there is great damage done, actually. Jersey needs to develop party politics, and we want a centre-left one in the range. So, the JDA needs to go on, but it would be ridiculous to pretend that this has been anything other than a massive setback that has undone four years' progress. Politics is a numbers game like snakes and ladders, as well as in the sense you meant, and we are back at about square 3 now.

I second Geoff's closing remarks, though:
Keep the faith. The fight goes on.

David Rotherham

NO DAMAGE DONE

2010-06-16T21:18:00.000-07:00

The JDA still have 4 members in the States committed to the cause of progressive change. Committed to standing on a manifesto which insists on protecting public services and the introduction of fairer more progressive taxation, government reform and sustainable population limits.

Many will present the result of the election as a defeat for the JDA. The reality is that I am a sitting deputy who is delivering effective opposition to the Council of Ministers and therefore lots of voters thought that there was no advantage in voting for me. Many people, on leaving the polling stations, said that they agreed with my policy but I was already in there.

The fact is that all other candidates were trying to align themselves behind the critical vision of the current Council of Ministers that the JDA, with me in the forefront, has proposed. The agenda of this election was not that of Stuart Syvret’s vision of corruption, but one in which we have to tackle the economic realities of the recession. I hope that the successful candidate, Francis Le Gresley, will help to deliver what he has promised. This includes reform of Income Support, moves towards progressive taxation, which has long been advocated by the JDA. I look forward to his support on the many issues which I have led in the States, and will continue to bring to our assembly.

I said on the hustings that I would deliver. I expect Francis to honour his promises in the same way. States members have to have a strong backbone. I will expect strong support from Francis on the social and economic policies that I will continue to present to the States.

Well done Francis. To the victor the spoils.

I thank all JDA members and fellow travellers for their efforts in this campaign. Keep the faith. The fight goes on.

Geoff Southern

Geoff's Written Questions 15th June 2010

2010-06-13T20:59:00.000-07:00

1. to Education Sport & Culture minister

Can the minister confirm that under the savings proposal ESC-4 "re-defining core business for schools" he plans to axe the employment of Modern Language assistants in secondary schools, and state how many posts this will involve and what other measures are included under this "re-definition"?

Will he also state what proportion of the £298,000 saving this measure accounts for?

Will he further assure the assembly that such a cut will not reduce the standards achieved in foreign language examination grades achieved by our students especially in spoken French standards which is a proud and unique part of our Jersey heritage? Can he state what impact this will have on his much-heralded initiative at Hautlieu School to introduce the International Baccalaureate (IB) which requires high standards in a second language study beyond the age of 16?

Will the minister also state whether the posts have been advertised and candidates have applied, but that shortlisting and the interview process has been suspended? Will he then state when appointments have been made in previous years in order to allow appointees to take up their places for the start of the new academic year in September?

Finally, will he state whether any decision of the States on this matter in September has been pre-empted by his departments actions?

2. To Treasury &Resources minister

Will the minister inform members on a department by department basis what grades of staff were involved in the drawing up of the CoM summary of the savings proposals and assure members that it was not solely the efforts of CEOs and senior finance and other administrative directors?

3. To Health Minister

Will the minister inform members of the extent to which access to chemotherapy for cancer patients is being rationed in Jersey and in particular to the drug "Avastin" which is currently being trialled?

4. To Planning & Environment minister

Given the minister's long term goals on improving energy efficiency in the island what justification does he have for the 5% (£54,000) reduction in energy efficiency grants in proposal PE-S4 of the CSR?

Geoff Answers Ben Queree

2010-06-09T09:45:00.000-07:00

Deputy Geoff Southern's letter to the JEP, responding to Ben Queree:-

The careful reader of Ben Queree's column (8th June) would draw the clear implication that my motives in bringing a motion of no confidence in the Chief Minister were solely based on opportunistic electioneering. Such an accusation would be fair (but mistaken) if coming from from a rival candidate, but totally inappropriate when expressed in the island's only newspaper about one of nine candidates in a by-election. I am grateful therefore to the Editor for granting me this right to reply.

Ben Queree appears to have a limited grasp of the realities of political life. To oppose and defeat a major piece of the Council of Ministers' policy, no matter how ill-thought out and badly constructed, requires enormous efforts. The argument and debate will go on to September, and will pre-empt the budget decisions in December. It is not just a case of turning up and giving a speech on the day. The weaknesses and flaws need to be aired early and often in order to allow them to be firmly established.

The fact is there is no political coherence to the Comprehensive Spending Review. In the absence of a strategic agreement amongst ministers, and with no consultation with front line workers, it has been left to chief officers and senior mangers to produce the 2% savings. The States still has no evidence of what the full cuts (10% or £50m savings) will look like. Neither do we have any idea of what alternative tax changes might be acceptable to mitigate the cuts. We are making decisions in the dark.

An early and full debate on the overall strategic vision of the Council of Ministers in the serious context of a no-confidence debate is, I believe, legitimate. What has happened so often in the past is that some individual parts of the package will get picked off by members and defeated but the main body of measures will get bulldozed through. Scrutiny will do its best, but in the rushed timescale required, but it cannot amass the required evidence of the harm that these savage cuts will do to the workforce and to the most vulnerable in society. Scrutiny is in any case often ignored.

I have brought over 80 propositions, including votes of no confidence, to the States in my time and I know that timing is critical. The CSR debate needs to be had now, before it is firmly established as the only option. A no confidence debate, whatever the outcome, will set the context for the long campaign to come on this, the most serious issue which has come to the States in recent times. It will affect the quality of life of all residents for years to come. I maintain that my actions are appropriate, timely and based on a long-held promise to protect public services.

Debbie's Questions for 8th June

2010-06-04T20:16:00.000-07:00

Debbie de Sousa will be asking these questions:
Question for the Education Minister

Will the minister inform members if he is aware of the discrepency with the allocation of free nursery places due to a childs date of birth. If not will he take steps to address this.

Question for the Minister for Social Securty

What steps if any is the minister willing to take to insure that within the CSR that those most vulnerable will not be affected by cuts.As many of those put forward target these groups ie GST Bonus and the Reduction in adeptations by 50% and the removal of the Christmas bonus to certain groups. These are but a few

You Asked - Geoff Answers

2010-05-29T10:26:00.000-07:00

Many of you have wondered what has been going on, with Geoff Southern's somewhat unexpected decision to stand against Stuart Syvret. And it is very much a question of standing against Syvret, as well as the heavyweight challenge of Francis le Gresley, not seeking a futile upgrade in Geoff's job title. We have seen some lively comments on the Council's blog, not all supportive, but many asking for explanation. Geoff has been too busy with organising a campaign in a hurry to prepare a soundbite-packed Press Statement, but we can now quote at length from an email in which he explains his position to a leading activist from outside the party.

Geoff admits “I have struggled with this decision over the last few weeks. I originally said that I would not stand against Stuart if he stood, as we share some common principles.I assure you this has not been an easy decision to make.”

“However,” he goes on to explain, “ many people have approached me to indicate that they had lost faith in Stuart and asking whether JDA would stand a candidate. Many said that they were unable to bring themselves to vote for Stuart and might not vote at all. I have tried to find ways to get another credible candidate but have been unable to do so.” Geoff correctly anticipated the tenor of the comments on our blog and others with his prediction that “Stuart has a core vote that will stick. I will not take those votes, I believe. Those who cannot bring themselves to vote for Stuart would in my absence vote Le Gresley if at all. Those are votes I can pick up, based on my record.”

Despite the protests of Syvret's die-hard followers, their man has been less of a leader in the States than they like to think. Geoff reviews his recent performance, as seen by fellow progressives: “I too have been disillusioned and disappointed by Stuart's behaviour. I feel his action in leaving the island has contributed very little to the debate over child abuse and cover-ups, let alone corruption. Many of us have attempted to carry on the fight here on the island including Bob, Trevor and Monty. Stuart's absence from the fight was I believe largely counter-productive... In the meantime I have helped investigate and publish positive moves to prevent abuse in our Protecting Vulnerable Children report.
“I'm sorry but I have been [working flat out] establishing a party for the last 5 years in the face of incredible opposition. Stuart has maintained his position as outside any party throughout. Whilst we have been fighting public sector cuts, lifting the minimum wage, fighting the wage freeze etc, Stuart has largely sat on the sidelines. I have been trying to form a broader team with other progressives (success over Town Park and redundancy payments). Where was Stuart? Off island.”

Stuart Syvret is clearly so well-loved by his loyalists that we would simply not be believed, were we to leak the whole story of his bombastic threats against us. However, Geoff cites the tip of the iceberg. “Apart from his bullying tactics in stating that all not on his side are his enemies, the final straw for me came with his statement that the only way forward was the forming of an undefined party, his party, to bring about change. This is a line we have often heard from Stuart but he has never followed through. He was invited to join (and indeed lead) the JDA by both Ted and later by me . He refused.”

Geoff draws clear conclusions from all this, as these final quotes show:
“The fact is that after 5 years of struggle I believe that the JDA is the spearhead of a progressive movement which is increasingly respected. Stuart sits outside it and is trying to bully others out of the way. Stuart's way is "my way or no way" it seems. His politics remains personal and not collective. For the JDA to not stand a credible candidate in this election and give the centre-left a way forward would be a failure of its duty. Whilst we have been striving to create cohesion, Stuart has chosen to remain apart ... If the JDA were to duck this challenge, many would conclude that we are not a serious political force. Success in this election does not leave us static, but establishes us with an island-wide mandate and the chance to increase our numbers in the following Deputy by-election in St Helier 2.

“This is not a zero growth policy. It could be a gain. Neither is it due to my personal ambition. I would love to stand aside, but I believe that would damage the party. Like it or not JDA must stand, and equally like it or not, I happen to be the best available candidate. All I ask is a fair contest. Politics is a numbers game, but to predict worst outcomes is defeatist. It has held us back for years. I will not join in. I think the JDA has won the right to carry the banner of the progressives. We will not go away.”

NEW! Ted Vibert's Election Blog

2010-05-28T09:15:00.000-07:00

We are proud to announce the return of the now-recovered Ted Vibert to the team. He is worth a separate blog page of his own, so we have given it to him at
http://tedvibert.blogspot.com - link on left. His first post tells a few home truths about the Syvret situation.

TREVOR’S ORAL QUESTION FOR TUESDAY 25th MAY

2010-05-20T13:19:00.000-07:00

For next week’s States sitting Trevor has the following two oral questions lodged. The first was intended to be in two parts and was to be asked of the Privileges & Procedures Committee, but due to a difference of opinion regarding to Standing Orders this was re-directed to the Chairman of the Comité des Connétables and the second and main part omitted in error. Trevor explained:

“Being made aware that there have been moves afoot by some in the States to decrease the times the polling stations are open at elections I wanted clarification that no moves would be made to do this prior to the forthcoming by-election - possibly under the smokescreen of ‘efficiency savings’. Such a move would in reality even further erode the number of busy, working people able to cast their vote – which in my view is, of course, exactly what some in the States want because it is ordinary working people who tend to vote for the JDA and other Progressives. I believe that any such moves need to be opposed as strongly as possible. After all, this appears to all be part of a growing trend as we have already witnessed with the undermining of the postal voting process in Jersey that is a fundamental aspect of all modern, functioning democracies the world over.”

Trevor tells us that he will still seek to raise this second issue as a supplementary. The approved wording of the question at present
to the Chairman of the Comité des Connétables is as follows:

“Will the Chairman advise the Assembly of the likely cost of organizing and running the forthcoming Senatorial by-election?”

The second oral question Trevor has lodged is in support of his written question relating to the so-called ‘Metropolitan Police Interim Report’. For an explanation as to the background of this we suggest readers should see the posing on written question below.

Oral question to the Minister for Home Affairs

“Given that the Minister has consistently advised the Assembly that he has not personally seen the ‘Metropolitan Police Interim Report’ relating to the process leading to the suspension of the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, will he advise whether he has now been able to obtain a copy and confirm that the report does exist as a physical document?”

TREVOR’S WRITTEN QUESTIONS FOR 25TH MAY 2010

2010-05-19T06:43:00.000-07:00

Trevor has the following three written questions lodged for next week’s States sitting. Two of the questions are set to the Minister for Home Affairs. With the highly unsatisfactory process underlying the suspension of the Chief Police Officer showing little sign of satisfactory – specifically transparent conclusion - the first question focuses on the long-standing saga of the crucial ‘document’ repeatedly described as the ‘Metropolitan Police Interim Report’.

Asked about his reasoning for putting the question Trevor says that he has lodged this in an attempt to finally draw out whether this ‘document’ actually exists in a physical, paper format of significant content. Or whether the ‘document’ is, in fact, just an electronic e-mail to which the title ‘Metropolitan Police Interim Report’ has become attached. With some speculating as to whether this much-referred ‘document’ actually exists at all, one way or another, the answer should be highly illuminating,

The second question to Senator Le Marquand follows on from questions Trevor asked the Minister during the sitting of 11th May. Given that the Senator was unable to confirm whether or not some survivors from the Historic Abuse Inquiry had been shown articles of evidence relating to allegations - long before any investigations or trials would have taken place - Trevor says that this question is just an ‘official’ follow-up to get what certainly appears to be a highly unusual move on behalf of the police clarified. Any subsequent questions would obviously be shaped by the nature of the answer.

Trevor’s third question is another follow-up, this time to his questions that revealed the shocking reality of just what double standards have been allowed to exist with regard to taxation by this and the last Council of Ministers. As Trevor says, at a time with the ordinary working person - i.e. most of us reading this - are again being warned how we must face up to tightening our belts for the common good, the reality that not only are the majority of our wealthiest residents not paying the bench mark figure of tax that they should, but that a good number are actually paying less tax than many ‘middle earners’ simply cannot be acceptable. The question for Senator Ozouf if he is to be taken seriously as protector of the public purse is: are we all in this together or does there continue to be one rule for the wealthy and another for the rest of us?

Question One – To the Home Affairs Minister

“Given that the Minister has previously stated that he has never personally seen the 'Metropolitan Police Interim Report’ but only an electronic version of an e-mail apparently attached to this document; will he investigate and clarify whether this 'report' actually exists as a physical (paper) document or just in electronic format; whether it exists in the accepted 'report' format most professionals would be familiar with i.e. a detailed document of several pages; or whether this is in the form of just a simple e-mail of a small number of paragraphs; and whether, irrespective of the format the 'report' takes, the words 'Metropolitan Police Interim Report’ appear as a title?”

Question Two – To the Minister for Treasury & Resources

“Will the Minister advise whether he views the low degree of taxation (as outlined in response to my question on 23rd March 2010) amongst current 1(1)(k) residents - several of whom are paying between £5,000 and £10,000 tax; and a further ten paying less than £5,000 tax - in comparison with many lower and middle earners as acceptable within the present, highly challenging economic climate, and what measures, if any, he is currently examining to tackle this within the agreed Strategic Plan commitment to creating a fairer, more equal society in Jersey?”

Question Three – To the Home Affairs Minister

“Following my questions on 11th May 2010, when the Minister informed the Assembly that he did not know whether or not the former senior investigating officer of the Historic Abuse Inquiry had invited a number of the Haut de la Garenne survivors to the police station in November 2008, where they were shown evidence recovered from the cellars, will he advise whether this event can now be corroborated by the States of Jersey Police; why and for what purpose such an action took place; and advise whether showing evidence to individuals alleging abuse/assault would have, as a consequence, made all such evidence inadmissible in a Court of law?”

2Out Of 3 Ain't Bad. Or is it?

2010-05-17T09:29:00.000-07:00

Senator Maclean answered a couple of Geoff's written questions as quoted below. Pedants may observe that three were asked, but two answered. Perhaps having Ministers who believe 2=3 explains a few things!

WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
BY DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER
ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 11th MAY 2010

Question

“Will the Minister inform members –

(a) whether Jersey Finance commissioned the report “Transfer mispricing and child mortality” by Richard Teather and, if so, why;

(b) how much did the report cost, and

(c) to what extent, if any, is Jersey involved in the practice of transfer pricing (or mispricing) of goods and services?”

Answer

Jersey Finance Limited is charged with the role of promoting Jersey's financial services industry in a positive and accurate light. This includes, but is not limited to, addressing potentially inaccurate and unsubstantiated opinion that could, if unchallenged, have a significant negative impact on the Island's finance industry that employs 14,000 workers and, as a consequence of its collective tax contribution, funds the majority of the cost of the Island's public services.
Recent reports published by Christian Aid directly linked child mortality in the third world to transfer pricing and in doing so dressed up opinion as fact. It is self evident that the Jersey finance industry has been attacked both directly and implicitly in these campaigns and reports and that they will, in all probability, have a corrosive effect if left unchallenged. It is the role of Jersey Finance to promote and defend the reputation of Jersey’s Finance industry and given the unfounded allegations and misleading information which have been widely disseminated as a result of these reports, it is entirely legitimate and indeed important and necessary that the body charged with promoting the Island's key sector makes informed comment on these matters.
JFL management sought approval for the report through their board approval process. The cost of the report is c.£6,000. The report's author, Richard Teather, is one of the very few Professors in the UK who teaches a pure tax degree, is an Oxford graduate, is both qualified in law and accountancy, and associated with eminent think tanks such as the Institute for Economic Affairs and the Adam Smith Institute, and is widely respected as a tax expert on both domestic and international tax matters.
Professor Teather's report clearly and accurately answers the question regarding the role of transfer pricing in international finance.
I believe that Jersey Finance Limited has acted to ensure the reputation of our finance industry is accurately reported.

Geoff's Written Questions to Chief Minister 11 May 2010

2010-05-17T09:28:00.000-07:00

Will the minister inform members of the terms of the Voluntary Redundancy (VR) package currently in place for public sector workers?

Will he further agree to release the terms of reference for the review of terms and conditions to be conducted as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review when they are finalised along with the person appointed to conduct the review?

Will he assure members that any changes to terms and conditions, including VR will be subject to full negotiations with employee representatives and not imposed on public sector workers as the pay freeze was?

Will he also explain to members why he considers that “it would not be appropriate” to bring any changes to terms and conditions to the States for ratification?

Does he not consider that the SEB acts on behalf of the States in employment matters and that it is accountable to the States through the chief minister for its actions?

TREVOR’S ORAL QUESTIONS FOR TUESDAY 11th MAY 2010

2010-05-08T06:06:00.000-07:00

Trevor’s two oral questions for next week’s States sitting are published below. Already clearly an issue of some public interest given the comments his written question regarding the subject of ‘part-time’ politicians has attracted, Trevor tells us that he felt following up with an oral was: “the best way to get this problem the serious attention that it merits”.

He explained that in his view – a view he says is supported by a number of backbenchers who regularly witness certain States Members disappearing, not just from the Chamber, but from the States building itself during sittings – politicians who behave in such a way should face some kind of sanction and the matter be brought to the attention of the public who effectively pay their wages.
“If we had ‘live streaming’ on TV this simply wouldn’t happen because members of the public would very quickly note that instead of Senator X all they were seeing for hours was a distinctly empty seat.”

Trevor added that whilst he fully expects some Members to try and dismiss the matter as unimportant it is something that PPC really need to take some action on quickly. “Personally, I actually believe that it is high-time we moved to bring in legislation meaning that anyone considering standing for election knows that he or she has a stark choice. They either commit to serving the public on a full-time, professional basis, dropping all other employment, careers for the duration of their time in office – I make it clear that I am not targeting the holding of directorships or shares that some Members have here – or understand that they will be prevented from standing at all. Being a States Member simply cannot be a part-time job if you are serious about serving the people who elected you. To pretend otherwise is an insult to those people.”

ORAL QUESTION TO CHAIRMAN OF PPC

Given that the issue of ‘part-time’ MPs with second jobs was highlighted in the recent United Kingdom elections, will the Chairman advise the Assembly which reforms, if any, the Privileges and Procedures Committee has considered or will be considering relating to States Members with second jobs and who withdraw from the Chamber after roll call and leave the States building for long periods of time during States sittings.”

The second oral question Trevor has lodged for next week is another follow-up, this time in relation to answers given by the Home Affairs Minister in April regarding the state of prosecutions within the Historic Abuse Inquiry. Trevor says that in his view this subject will continue to be raised by Members again and again until politicians get a full independent inquiry the matter demands. “There continues to be more questions than answers” Trevor states. However, rather than writing any comment at length for the site at this point Trevor says that he will be writing something on this issue at length once he has heard what the Minister has to say next Tuesday

ORAL QUESTION TO MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS

“Would the Minister advise the Assembly how many of the 30 alleged abuse cases relating to the cellars at Haut de la Garenne are still part of the ongoing historic abuse investigations; how many, if any, are not being pursued, when it was decided to discontinue their investigation and for what reason?”

TREVOR’S WRITTEN QUESTIONS FOR 11TH MAY 2010

2010-05-03T21:03:00.001-07:00

Trevor has the following written questions lodged for the 11th May States sitting. Unusually for him he has only three lodged this time around rather than the normal full quota of five. Trevor tells us that this is the direct result of the current exceptionally busy period of constituent work he has on. :

“Unfortunately, with the lodging deadline times having been brought forward due to the holiday weekend, whilst right in the middle of finalising these I was contacted regarding some very urgent constituent issues. As a result I was unable to get my final two questions accepted before the 9.30am deadline - the Greffier’s office being understandably very strict about anything being even a minute late!”

Once again the three questions form a mixture of wider political issues and Trevor’s constituent work, the first question being a follow-up to his question to the Planning & Environment Minister on 20th April. This is in reference to the unsafe ‘listed’ building in La Motte Street in St. Helier No. 1 District, where obtrusive scaffolding and makeshift wooden screening are having a damaging impact on nearby businesses.

The second question Trevor tells us he feels very strongly about. Put to the Chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee this asks about the issue of some States Members regularly leaving the Chamber having registered their ‘presence’ at Roll Call to disappear to their day jobs.

‘This shouldn’t be allowed to happen. And what I, and a number of other backbenchers, find particularly galling is that one of the worst offenders is regularly to be heard droning on to the media about ‘States efficiency’ and how much Members cost the public.” Given his strong feelings on the matter Trevor tells us that he will be writing a post specifically about this issue in the very near future.

The third question is another to the Planning & Environment Minister, Senator Freddie Cohen. With the upcoming debate on the Town Park this asks the question on most people’s lips. Will the Council of Ministers, for once, support the wishes of the public and proceed with the development of the Town Park this year? Or attempt to reduce the much-needed ‘green lung’ in the middle of St. Helier to the size of a postage stamp by building expensive town houses all around its parameter under the guise of needing to ‘frame it’? We can only hope that for once commonsense and respect for the wishes of the public sway the day!

*Note. We will have the oral questions for 11th May from Trevor, Shona, Debbie and Geoff up on the website late on Thursday once they have been officially approved.

QUESTION ONE: TO THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT

“Further to my written question of 20th April 2010, in relation to scaffolding at a building in La Motte Street, when the Minister stated that one of the problems delaying the removal of the scaffolding was the death of the owner, would the Minister state if he has information regarding the ownership of the building and, if so, disclose this to members?

Would the Minister further advise whether the detrimental effect of the scaffolding to other businesses in the vicinity has featured in his department's discussions with the owners of the property and outline what pressures, if any, can be applied to bring ensure that the scaffolding is removed as swiftly as possible?”

QUESTION TWO: TO THE CHAIRMAN OF PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE

“Given growing public concern about various aspects of States efficiency -will the Chairman advise what measures, if any, the Committee has at its disposal to monitor and ensure that those members also having second jobs/careers give adequate commitment to carrying out their public duties? Further still, what sanctions, if any, can be put in place to prevent members simply leaving the Assembly after roll call to go to their second place of work?”

QUESTION THREE: TO THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT

“Will the Minister confirm whether he intends to allow work to begin on the Talman area of the Town Park, but to oppose the development of a park on the rest of the designated area, if it is to be without buildings, and, if so, does he not consider that this would be contrary to the public’s expectations for the site?”

Debbie's Questions for 11th May

2010-05-01T08:31:00.000-07:00

Deputy Debbie de Sousa has tabled the following written questions:-

WRITTEN QUESTIONS TO THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING
BY DEPUTY D.J. DE SOUSA OF ST. HELIER
ANSWERS TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 11th MAY 2010

“Would the Minister provide the Assembly with details of the instances where issues have arisen between the Housing Department and housing trusts, as mentioned in his response to my oral question of 23rd of February 2010, in relation the elimination of price wars over land acquisition with housing trusts?”

“In light of the Minister’s commitment in the Strategic Plan to Social Rented Housing, what measures, if any, has he taken in the last 4 years to regulate housing trusts?”

WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES
BY DEPUTY D.J. DE SOUSA OF ST. HELIER
ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 11th MAY 2010

“Can the Minister, as representative of the shareholder state whether he is satisfied that the redundancies at the Jersey New Waterworks Company were justified when the company has announced a profit margin to the value of £4,085,000?”

WRITTEN QUESTION TO CHAIRMAN OF PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE
BY DEPUTY D.J. DE SOUSA OF ST. HELIER
ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 11th MAY 2010

“Will the Chairman inform the Assembly what steps, if any, the Privileges and Procedures Committee have taken toward a single date for the 2011 elections and would she also advise whether the Committee is continuing to look at bringing proposals forward to reform the constitution of the States Assembly and, if not, why not and will the Committee consider these issues?”

Geoff's Written Questions to Ministers May 11 2010

2010-04-30T07:42:00.000-07:00

1. To ED minister

Following his promise at the last session, will the minister inform members what request he has made to JCRA over the consultation timescale concerning the granting of class 1 postal licences to two competitors to Jersey Post and inform members what the new timescale for the process now is?

Will he state what meetings he has had with stakeholders to address the concerns expressed by Jersey Post and the CWU and inform members and if not why not?

What steps has he taken to ensure that the consequences of the introduction of new competitors in this sector will have on the maintenance of postal Universal Service Obligations are made clear to the Jersey public, and if none, when will he do so?

2. To T & R Min

Will the minister inform members of the terms of the new Voluntary Redundancy (VR) package to be applied to public sector workers and state how it differs from the previous scheme and how it compares with the new statutory redundancy terms soon to come into force in the island?

Will the minister state why public sector union representatives have not been consulted over the drafting of the VR terms and at what stage does he intend to consult them? Does he not accept that the absence so far of such consultation constitutes bad employee relations practice?

When he comes to investigate public sector terms and conditions as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review at what stage does he intend to consult with union representatives? Will he assure members that he will properly seek agreement with employee representatives before bringing any proposals to the States for ratification?

3. To ED min

Will the minister inform members:

a) why Jersey Finance commissioned the report “Transfer mispricing and child mortality” by Richard Teather;

b) how much the report cost, and

c) the extent to which Jersey is involved in the practice of transfer pricing (or mispricing) of goods and services?

4. Notwithstanding the response he gave to question 5289 on 20th April, when he stated that over 1,000 civil servants (over one sixth of the workforce) have access to “livelink”, will the minister advise members how many of these are senior management above grade 10?

Further can he state how many officers, and at what grades, are involved in the process of producing a single Ministerial Decision to appear on the government website?

Can he explain to members why there has been a massive reduction in the number of decisions published on the website compared with the old committee system of “acts” published along with the accompanying reasons or briefing papers? Does he not accept that “livelink” has reduced the information available to scrutiny and the public rather than, as it was designed to do, increase accessibility and accountability?

Does he not accept that with set up and hardware costs at over £2m and annual running costs of £131,000 (the cost of 3 committee clerks it replaced) “livelink” has been an expensive and inefficient failure?

5. T & R min

Can the minister explain to members when he felt able to confirm on the 20th April that he had comprehensive information on the first stage of the CSR as follows:

“I have now received proposals from all ministers detailing how they would save 2% of their gross budgets along with user pays initiatives, growth bids and invest to save schemes.”

Why he was unable to release this data to union reps and to scrutiny on 23rd April?

Will he now detail for members his new schedule for releasing this information to all stakeholders and ensuring that all proposals get the most thorough debate and scrutiny before coming to the States in the Business Plan 2011?

NUT COVERAGE OF MARCH

2010-04-27T21:03:00.000-07:00

Report and pictures on the website.

http://www.teachers.org.uk/node/11420#a

DEFEND OUR PUBLIC SERVICES FIGHT THE CUTS

2010-04-27T20:56:00.000-07:00

The JDA believes that Jersey’s public services are a vital bedrock in sustaining the local economy and the community both in good times and now, during the worst economic recession in living memory. They ensure essential investment in infrastructure and support for business, and can mitigate the worst social and economic consequences of the downturn. As public services come under increasing pressure to cut costs and jobs, we believe that the Treasury Miniter’s view that spending cuts are the only option needs to be robustly challenged. For Jersey to emerge successfully from the current recession in a strong position for the future, we need to strengthen and sustain our public services.
We believe that that before we can decide on any measures, the public and the States must be in a position to fully understand the first year (2%) cuts in the context of :

a) the full (10%) cuts to be applied over 3 years, and
b) the possible tax changes that that might mitigate the cuts

Deputy Southern has called for such an open debate. The Treasury minister has refused to take part.

Public sector workers know that 10% cuts cannot be forced through without major disruption to services to the vulnerable and large-scale redundancies. This in turn will make the recession worse and further delay any recovery.

The Council of Ministers of ministers appears to be hell-bent on cutting services. Those services that are not scrapped will be subject to outsourcing or outright privatisation. This will result in lower standards of delivery and reductions in terms and conditions for workers as it has in the UK and elsewhere.

The first cut has already taken place: the arbitrary, unilateral and perverse decision to impose a pay freeze, and thereby an effective cut in public sector pay, removing at a stroke some £7m from circulation in an already depressed economy.

The teachers may have led the way in opposing the reactionary and oppressive tactics of the ministers, but this is just the start of a long campaign. We call on all workers, private and public, to oppose these drastic cuts.

JERSEY NEEDS JOBS - NOT REDUNDANCIES

March and Rally, April 24th

2010-04-22T10:04:00.000-07:00

There will be a March and Rally in St Helier on 24th April 2010, led by Jersey's teachers, and supported by other public sector workers and their families, to protest at the abrogation of normal pay negotiation by the Council of Ministers and the States of Jersey Employment Board.

The March will begin at Howard Davis Park, gathering at 11am for a 12 noon start, and proceed to a Rally at The Opera House, with a possible secondary Rally in Parade Gardens, should the crowd exceed The Opera House's capacity.

Below is an abridged version of the final confirmation document from the organisers' legal advisors to the organisers and authorities, to clarify arrangements.

PLEASE GIVE THE MARCH YOUR SUPPORT, IF YOU ARE ABLE TO COME.

Stewards will be present at the entrances of Howard Davis Park to count the number of participants entering the park. Once the march starts, stewards will count the number of participants leaving the park
…
Announcements will be made in respect of the contingency plan in Howard Davis Park prior to the march starting. Participants are not to walk more than 4 persons abreast along the march route, particularly through the centre of town (Queen Street / King Street). Stewards will monitor this and direct people along the route as necessary. Announcements will also be made about safe dispersal from either the Opera House / Parade Gardens.

The march is to begin at approximately 12 noon. Local Radio Stations have been advised to warn road users and the public to stay clear of Howard Davis Park around this time.

Howard Davis Park MUST be vacated by 1.30pm at the latest.
The March

Honorary Police will be located along the march route closing roads / diverting traffic. An officer will be available to spearhead the march. …
Stewards will be located at key points along the march, directing participants to keep a smooth flow. Stewards will be positioned at Snow Hill to carry out a further people count. Once approximately 650 people have passed, a steward will form a marker to alert the stewards at the junction of York Street / Seale street to direct any overflow toward Parade Gardens.

Stewards will be located along the march route with megaphones to direct participants and make sure there are no blockages, or disturbances. ...
Stewards will be at the spearhead of the march and at the rear of the march, and as discussed above, at key points along the march.

Contingency Plan

In the event of the contingency plan i.e. that more than approximately 650 participants are in attendance, provision is made to direct any overflow at the junction of York Street / Seale Street to Parade Gardens
Stewards / Legal Observers

The NASUWT / NUT are to provide approximately 20 stewards (hopefully more) comprising of locals and non-locals.

There will also be 4 legal advisors present from Viberts, with a contingency plan of more should there be larger numbers than expected.

A full briefing will be given to the stewards at 10am regarding health and safety, and the march route and contingency plan.

Vacating Opera House / Parade Gardens

Stewards and Honorary Police will be positioned at the Opera House / Parade Gardens to ensure a smooth dispersal of people and to ensure the public traffic and road users are not overly disrupted. Special provision will be made outside of The Opera House to ensure the participants / public are not forced onto the actual road. There will be a States Police attendance also.

When are you going to start working for us?

2010-04-19T21:00:00.000-07:00

This was a genuine constituent's email! To which Shona replied in detail, worth quoting here for anyone else who has not noticed her four-and-a-half years of hard work.
Dear JDA

I am a resident of the Val Plaisant area an area which am informed has two JDA deputies. For a, and i use this term loosely, party, which is meant to represent its people i have yet to see any evidence. Im not talking about historic abuse of gst im talking about the everyday issues. For example the fact bins keep being removed, the fact you have to avoid dogs mess walking around the union rd val plaisant and st marks area. The fact that both the pavements and roads are in terrible condition the list goes on.

I am disgusted at the fact none of these long running issues have been resolved. I also believe that as elected members you should stop your Arthur Skargill impressions crawl out of the unions backside stop antagonising the senators who DO represent the people and put your parishoners first.

You attitudes would not be accepted anywhere else and as a voting tax payer i am bitterly dissapointed.

Thank you for your email. I have to firstly say that if a concerned resident does not contact one of us Deputies (there are 3), then how do we know that we should be acting on such problems - we simply can not spend our time walking around St Helier looking for dog poo on pavements and moving bins. So as you have now brought them to our attention, I would be happy to meet with you so you can show me.

Secondly, if you were to ask in your email what have we done or are doing in the District, then you would not have come to the conclusion and presumed that we do nothing.

Deputy Southern has brought more propositions and questions to the States than any other States Member in the last four years; he was Chair of the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel for 3 years in the first 3 years of government scrutiny, which produced more reviews each year than any other Panel. He is now on 5 different reviews. He is also on the Town Park Working Group, and successfully won a proposition to maintain the £10 million to work on and construct the Town Park - I am surprised that you think this means nothing to you as a resident near the proposed park site. Deputy Southern is also well known for his work with constituents and the high number that he manages to sort out.

Deputy de Sousa is on the Housing, Health and Social Security Scrutiny Panel and is also a member of 3 other sub-panels (Chairing a review into dental practise and cost). She also has the largest amount of constituent work of all the new States Members, and is on several Parish Committees, including the Battle of Flowers Committee, which she Chairs - she feels very strongly that this Jersey tradition should not cease - pretty impressive as a non-local and the only St Helier Deputy on the Committee.

As to me, well I invite you to spend a day with me so you can see how much I do. However, firstly I feel I have to brag a little to you: I am currently on the Economic Affairs Panel, and 2 other sub-panels. I have 33 live cases (most now in my district), which range from individual income support and incapacity benefit issues; to damp states housing and poor maintainance, inadequate housing and getting people moved, and poor insulation; and planning issues; child protection issues; fighting for people's housing qualis; anti-social behaviour; helping people with financial problems; parish utilities; maintenance of States sporting facilities. Since I have been in office, I have helped in my district people living in:

- Convent and caesarea courts- informing them of intentions of Housing's property plan.
- Convent and caesarea courts - a number of individuals
- Windsor road - provision of adequate bins
- Dorset street - a number of different individuals
- Oak tree gardens - provision of heating in houses
- Clos du Mon Sejour - got residents speed humps and helped them with issue with Bartletts potatoe packing factory
- Vauxhall Gardens - a number of individuals.
- Vauxhall Street - a number of indiduals.
- Hue Court - a number of individuals
- Val Plaisant - a number of individuals
- Springfield - a number of residents who live in and around the stadium
- Grands Vaux Estate - a number of residents
- Nicholson Close on Grands Vaux estate - the recent floods
- Victoria Road - a shop owner
- Journeaux Court - several residents
- Clearview Place - several residents insulation problems
- Clarendon Road - group of residents concerned at airtel mast
- Clarendon Road - a number of individuals
- Devonia Close (Devonshire Place - a number of individuals

and this is only what I can remember, and not to mention the people outside of my district. I have also brought propositions to the States: trying to get a direct public vote for the Chief Minister; exemptions on GST; ceasing the dual role of the Bailff; a vote of no confidence in a Bailiff (then Attorney General)who allowed a known paedophile to work as an honorary policeman and who subsequently, went on to abuse young women whilst in this role; GST exemptions; and tried to overturn the unnecessary pay-freeze on states workers, many of whom have had below inflation pay-rises for a number of years running up to the last pay-freeze without complaining.

Other tasks that I have not included that we undertake: attending all sorts of presentations; Parish Assemblies; preparation for States sittings; attendance on independant bodies and Parish bodies; and giving an ear to those who just want someone to talk to.

It is unwise to make presumptions when you know nothing about the subject you are complaining about!

As I said earlier, I would be quite happy to meet with you, to discuss and get the ball rolling on the issues you have raised. I am not free until about Thursday afternoon or Friday, as am in the States from tomorrow. Notwithstanding this, if you text me on: 07797 778561, I will answer it during lunch times.

Yours truly,

Deputy Shona Pitman

TREVOR’S ORAL QUESTIONS FOR TUESDAY 20th APRIL 2010

2010-04-18T00:24:00.000-07:00

“Funny how ‘investigative’ journalists and ‘political’ correspondents sometimes seem to be anything other than what most of us would see as remotely ‘investigative’ at all. Indeed, I was tempted to say the same with regard to being ‘political’.

But like so many members of the public who contact me from all over the island, becoming increasingly cynical, I too have to come to wonder that such apparently staggering diversions from what surely must be outlined in some professional’s job description is in fact all too ‘political’ in origin after all; perhaps entirely so.

Of course, another possibility that I suppose one has to consider is that such journalistic anomalies arise from nothing more than a spectacular shortage of good old ‘testicular fortitude’ faced with the dilemma of digging out and reporting something that might not sit at all well with many in positions of great power.

Whatever the reason next Tuesday could be very… interesting…”

Deputy Trevor Pitman

Oral Question to the Minister for Home Affairs

“Following analysis of the sworn affidavit of the suspended Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police will the Minister advise the Assembly whether he has fully investigated every possible allegation of a conspiracy existing to remove the Chief Officer from office, further still, is the Minister wholly satisfied that no such conspiracy to remove the Chief Officer or to try to discredit him to justify his removal existed?"

Oral Question to the Minister for Economic Development

“Having worked in support of residents at Albert Quay for over ten months, and residents having been promised that a solution was imminent before last Christmas, would the Minister advise the Assembly when he will finally be in a position to put an end to this anti-social behaviour by installing the agreed security barrier to control late night access to the areas directly under residents’ apartment balconies and bedrooms?”

Speaking up for Public Services

2010-04-15T09:38:00.000-07:00

Geoff Southern writes:-

A JEP editorial recently pointed to the irony of the States spending two days debating cycle helmets and only minutes on the so-called structural deficit of £64 m now facing us as “lacking a sense of proportion”. In the same edition of the paper the Business Editor, Peter Body, described our financial problems as needing, or about to get, “outright butchery”. As Jersey faces up to a public finance crisis of perhaps unprecedented proportions, public spending has become the key political battleground. Very little has been heard so far to counter the approach taken by the Treasury Minister which proposes deep cuts in public spending and thereby in public services. This paper seeks to open up the political and economic arguments that need to be debated at this time of economic turbulence, and to lay the grounds for rational decisions for solutions to the problems we face.

I start from the position, shared by many politicians and others, that Jersey’s public services are a vital bedrock in sustaining the local economy and the community both in good times and now, during what we are told is the worst economic recession in living memory. They ensure essential investment in infrastructure and support for business, and can mitigate the worst social and economic consequences of the downturn. But as public services come under increasing pressure to cut costs and jobs, I believe that the view that spending cuts are the only option needs to be robustly challenged. For Jersey to emerge successfully from the current recession in a strong position for the future, we need to strengthen and sustain our public services.

Cuts or Investment?

The recent Budget saw the welcome confirmation of Fiscal Stimulus spending amounting to some £44 m for 2009. Unfortunately only about a quarter of these funds have made it through the bureaucracy in 2009; the greater part of these funds have yet to be spent. We also saw the announcement of two major reviews over the coming months:
Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR)
Fiscal Strategy Review (FSR)
Underlying these major reviews however is a general principle held by the Treasury Minister that there should be, and will be, substantial cuts in public spending and services. This has seemingly taken place without a full discussion of the alternatives or the implications of cuts to public services.

The first cut has already taken place: the arbitrary, unilateral and perverse decision to impose a pay freeze, and thereby an effective cut in public sector pay, removing at a stroke some £7m from circulation in an already depressed economy. In both the short and long term this will come to be seen as a serious error. It will worsen recruitment and retention problems in essential sectors such as nursing and social work; it has further depressed employee morale and the trust in the ability of our ministers to protect hard pressed public sector employees; it will see the return of above inflation pay claims as the economy recovers.

Senator Ozouf boldly assumes that spending cuts are the answer. He is actively pursuing 10% reductions in public spending by 2013. This will entail “radical changes to service provision and some reduction in staffing levels”. What does this mean? The JEP business editor has tried to put this in real terms. It means massive job cuts in the public sector are likely. His pro-rata estimate of 600 jobs lost is close to my own estimate of 400. Examination of previous lay-offs at Jersey Post, JT and JNWW with the associated cost savings suggests that redundancies on this scale may come about.

Recovery delayed

The first thing to recognise is that, according to the Chief Minister’s own figures, this number of redundancies will immediately impose a further negative impact on States revenues of up to £14 million annually, in lost income tax and additional Income Support payments. One might add to this, redundancy payments of around £3 million and an unknown sum in indirect taxes, as spending is curtailed. Let us say a further £20 million added to the so-called structural deficit. The net effect of this sort of cut would inevitably be a worsening of the recession, perhaps producing a “double dip” as the recovery is further delayed. Unemployment has hit 1,300 including some 300 “actively seeking work” on Income Support. The bill for Income Support is already running at £76 million annually. Do we really want to further increase that with another 400 public sector workers thrown on the scrapheap? I believe it is the last thing we should do.

As the Minister so clearly puts it, there are only 2 options to address what he calls the structural deficit - either raising taxes or cutting public spending. He has set his face firmly against raising taxation on many occasions. By announcing his twin comprehensive reviews last year in the Budget debate, the Treasury Minister cleverly avoided any major debate on the correct way to deal with public spending and the recession. This has put off any real discussion until the Annual Business Plan (ABP) in September 2010. The quality of this debate is also likely to be less than adequate since whilst details of the 2011 CSR will be revealed in April and lodged in July for September debate of the Business Plan, the level of overall cuts stretching into 2013 will not be known. Neither will the results of the Financial Strategy Review be clearly known. States members will be asked to choose between spending cuts and taxes without seeing the full picture.
Impartial Review?

That the content of these reviews is in any way likely to be impartial, fair and comprehensive must also be questioned. Despite several assurances given to the States that the Fiscal Review Steering group would contain members who favoured progressive tax measures, the Minister has failed to keep his word. The ministers of Economic Development, Treasury and Social Security along with the Chief Minister and the two Assistant Treasury ministers cannot be said to represent a good cross-section of economic thinking even when joined by the Constable of St Peter. The review will undoubtedly follow the tired old low-tax, low-spend free market approach that has already let us down.

In a superficial exercise which has nothing to do with the economic realities but merely exposed States members’ political prejudices, members were recently asked to say what “balance” they would find acceptable to address the £50m deficit between cuts on the one hand and tax increases on the other. Unsurprisingly figures like 70/30 or 60/40 in favour of cuts predominated.

This article seeks to provide a different context, to question the urgency of calls to cut the public sector deficit, and to set out the case for the vital role played by the public sector during the current recession and beyond. Our premise is that sustaining public services is vital to economic recovery and the future prosperity of the island.

Recovery is the best way to tackle the public deficit in the long term, and that means planning for a budget deficit in the short term until the recovery is firmly under way. Cuts in public spending would only have an effect on future competitiveness and would impact on the most vulnerable and needy in society. As argued by David Blanchflower, respected economist and former member of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee:

'Lesson one in a deep recession is you don't cut public spending until you are into the boom phase.'

We know from history that, without effective government intervention, the cost of recession is borne hardest by those who lose their jobs and by the vulnerable and poor that depend most on public services. We also know the big mistake made in the late 1980s and early 1990s was to give priority to macro-economic policy to fight inflation over employment and welfare policies. The words of David Blanchflower must be taken seriously. We must be sure that we are well into recovery before we make spending cuts. The proposal from PAC to make cuts earlier is even more dangerous and must be firmly rejected.

Jersey is a wealthy jurisdiction. Average pay is among the highest in the world, while marginal personal tax rates for the highest earners are low for a country with fully developed public services. We have been for many years, and still are, a low-tax, low-spend jurisdiction. The time has surely come to abandon the concept that we can continue to apply the same low-tax business model to the Jersey economy. Tax increases for the better off will not be popular but will be necessary and preferable to slashing those services on which the poorest and most vulnerable rely.
The time has surely come to start to address the gap between the rich and poor. The commitment to do so was reluctantly accepted by the Council of Ministers in amendments to the Strategic Plan. This must involve due consideration of truly progressive tax and social security policies as part of the Fiscal Strategy Review. However given the make up of the review panel a fair and honest assessment of progressive policies looks extremely unlikely.

How did we get here?

Frank Walker was often prone to repeat his adage “We are where we are” to preclude debate on how we got here. Today we are told that the recessionary position we find ourselves in is the result of hidden and uncontrollable market forces – almost a force of nature. We are the innocent victims of the world economy. This is not so. The worldwide recession has been caused by over-reliance on a single industry, banking, and the worst hit have been the most dependent, and with the lightest regulation. Does that fit Jersey? I believe it does. We are certainly way ahead of our competitors in terms of our dependance on financial services according to the Foot Review of British offshore financial centres.

So we are the most dependent of the offshore centres on the finance industry. We are a monoculture. Are we equally the innocent victims of market forces or have we contributed to the position we find ourselves in today?

Who is to blame?

No one would deny that we have a serious problem with the state of the island’s economy. The recession has resulted in a halt to the recent economic growth we have experienced and as a consequence, we are faced, according to the Treasury minister, with a large “structural deficit”. Discussed below is the extent to which we can describe the deficit as “structural” or “cyclical” and examine a number of decisions made by our government to determine to what extent our ministers have added to the problem of the deficit.

Zero/ten

Examination of the 2010 Business Plan figures (June 2009) show the dominant influence of two negative elements:

Mistake 1 The single largest contibutor to the defecits we face is the decision to adopt the “zero/ten” company tax policy. This was a conscious decision taken by the current Chief Minister and supported by the current Treasury minister to give up £80 to £100 million tax revenue from companies. A 10% rate for non-finance companies effectively allows foreign companies to trade in Jersey for free. The 10% rate for finance companies reduced their contibution by half. The aim was to compete with the Isle of Man and satisfy the EU Directive on Business Taxation. The policy was a failure. We threw away £100m in tax revenue only for the EU to reject the scheme. We have to think again.

Mistake 2 The introduction of the regressive GST on all goods and services (including essentials) effectively transferred half the tax burden from companies to ordinary residents, especially the least well off. Further tax revenues (£10m) were to come from “20 means 20” on middle earners; £5m or so from IT IS and the remainder (£20m) was to be found from growth in the economy. The ministers gambled on the continuance of the rampant growth in finance sector GVA (up by 20% over the years 2005 to 2008) and in profits (up by a massive 35% in those years). This proved to be an expensive gamble; it has also failed. Negative growth is now predicted at -4% in 2009 and -2% in 2010 following the world banking crisis.

Mistake 3 At the end of 2008 the States exhausted itself in a long and bitter debate over the replacement of the EFW plant. I do not wish to revive the debate over the pros and cons of this decision here. However, the Treasury minister immediately brought a new proposal before the exhausted Assembly to pay for the EFW plant all in one go, in a single payment of £110m, instead of over a period of years. This had the effect of emptying the Consolidated Fund at a stroke. In addition to the £150 m we have in the Stabilisation Fund to contribute to assisting with the effects of the recession, how much better it would be to also have the £110 m to help cushion the blow.

The Treasury Minister repeatedly refers to the deficit as structural and not cyclical. A structural deficit is more serious and requires drastic action according to him. The fact is that the “structural” change to our economy and tax generation was the choice to adopt zero/ten. The blame for this lies entirely in the court of Senators Ozouf and Le Sueur. The economic downturn losses above are absolutely and clearly cyclical. They result from the “automatic stabilisers” of reduced tax revenues and increased expenditure on benefits during the recession. This situation will improve as the economy recovers. It should not be used as an excuse to launch massive ideologically driven cuts to the public sector.

The cyclical nature of the economy is clearly illustrated by Figure 1.3 above. The downturn in the economy over the years 2001 to 2004 showed similar reductions in GVA to those predicted for this recession. There was no panic then to slash the public sector workforce and thereby make the downturn worse. There should not be now.

How big is the problem? - 1

There is no doubt we are in a mess over the economy. The questions which need to be answered are how big is the mess and how do we set about clearing it up? Indeed first we have to ask which mess are we talking about? Well, there is the mess made by the recession and the mess we were already in (the £90 m revenue deficit caused by the mistaken move to zero/ten) that the recession has simply brought to the surface. The first thing to do in attempting to deal with the issues is put the situation in context. We remain a wealthy juristiction as shown here (Jersey Economic Trends, 2009).

Not only that, but we are undoubtedly a low-tax low-spend economy (T & R minister may 19th 2009).

Not only do we have a much lower spend overall than the OECD average , we have a lower “social” spend as well. I include Luxembourg in the comparison for those who wish to argue that our lower spend is a merely a product of our high GNI. If further proof were needed we need only consider the comparison made by Peter Body in Business Brief of March 2010, entitled “Who’s better off” summarised here:

The Business Editor of the JEP, an experienced observer of local economic issues describes the initiatives of the Treasury Minister and the PAC to slash 10% from public spending over 3 years or 2 years, respectively, in the following terms:
“Now they (PAC) propose immediate butchery in public services… Personally I believe it is simply crazy to expect a large complex organisation like the States to be dramatically restructured over three years let alone two. The obvious danger is that services the public have said they want and value will be damaged irreparably. Now we have PAC, panicking even more (than the Treasury minister) …. Certainly if you look at government spending elsewhere as a proportion of GDP, Jersey’s figure is very much lower than just about anywhere else.”

Public services are major employers and purchasers of goods and services. UK studies suggest that for every £1 spent on public services a further 64p is generated in the local economy. They create jobs, provide decent pay and pensions and set a benchmark in terms of equal opportunities. The imposition of a public sector pay freeze in 2009 may appear to be a popular short-term expedient, but it has fostered a deep resentment amongst public sector employees which will have long-term negative implications. The public sector pay target has been below inflation for the last three years. Further attacks on terms and conditions would not only reduce spending power in a key part of the economy, but also lead to recruitment and retention problems already evident in the nursing and social service sectors.

Siren calls for a deflationary package of public spending cuts in order to 'balance the books' are just ‘knee-jerk’ reaction and show no real understanding of the impact on front-line public services or indeed the potential to plunge the island into a 'double dip' recession. There is strong evidence, as Peter Body points out, that suggests the public is against such a strategy in any event. Senator Ozouf has set his mind firmly against any tax rises, and uses misleading figures to frighten the public into accepting massive cuts in public services which will harm the least well off and put recovery at risk.

The Treasury minister makes much play of the prospect of GST rates up to 12% by 2014, a figure produced by the CAG in response to a request from the Corporate Services scrutiny panel. This figure is however totally without any grounding in reality. It was produced on the two unlikely conditions that:
a)the States takes no steps to reduce increases in spending to below 6% annually, and
b)no other taxes are raised to meet potential deficits.
Such a scenario is completely unreal. Nonetheless Senator Ozouf is content to use this specious figure to bolster his one sided arguments for his failed Thatcherite policies.

He is equally unashamed by his repeated partial use of the facts and figures. For example he states accurately that States spending has risen by 30% over the past 5 years. He conveniently fails to put this apparently shocking fact in its proper perspective. He pointedly fails to mention the following significant changes in the economy over the same period:

Put into the context of an economy in growth mode with banking profits and overall GVA on the rise a growth in public spending is to be expected. As John Clennett (a previous Comptroller of Income Tax) stated in his recent contribution to the tax and spend debate: “States revenues and expenditure have been broadly in line and budgets have been balanced”. Interestingly the 21% growth in income tax revenues over the period 2003 – 2007 is made up of a 51% increase in personal tax and zero growth of company tax. In 2008, GST, most of which is paid by individuals,was added to further exacerbate this shift away from company tax on to the individual resident.

How Big is the problem? - 2

We have all been immersed in tales of total doom and gloom in the UK media regarding the size of projected deficits in the UK and elsewhere. These are given for selected economies below. Note that the UK leads the way with nearly 12% of GDP in 2010. Whilst Philip Ozouf concentrates on the misleading 30% increase in spending and the spectre of 12% GST, the reality is far different. Far from being 12% or even 6% in terms of GDP our deficit, taking the latest projection of £64 million and GNI around £4,000m, is running at 1.6% of GNI. This is hardly the stuff of catastrophe that others are undergoing, requiring massive reductions in the public sector. No wonder the treasury minister alternates between describing our position as “serious” and “fantastic”.

If we are in a “fantastic” position as the minister says, then why does he insist that draconian cuts to spending are the only way forward? He says to a sympathetic gathering of businessmen “I am not afraid to make bold moves to cut spending and keep Jersey working.” The problem is that his cuts may well stop the recovery and worsen the recession.

Borrowing unashamedly from David Blachflower, I have a question for Philip Ozouf, Terry Le Sueur and Alan Maclean. What plans do you have to get unemployment down any time soon? If you want to transform a recession into a depression, go ahead and cut public spending. I would advise against it and so, I believe, would John Maynard Keynes.
Voters want jobs.

GEOFF FOLLOWS UP ON MINIMUM WAGES

2010-04-14T07:53:00.000-07:00

Further to the recent unsuccessful attempts by JDA Deputies to set a more reasonable rate for the minimum wage, Deputy Geoff Southern will bring this proposition to firm up the good intentions expressed by the Social Security Minister during the debate:-

The States are asked to decide whether they are of the opinion:

a). that the minimum wage should be set at 45% of average earnings, to be achieved over a period of not less than 5 years and not greater than 15 years from April 2011 ; and

(b) to request the Employment Forum to have regard to this objective when making its recommendation on the level of the minimum wage to the Minister for Social Security.

Deputy G P Southern

REPORT

In summing up the debate of P212 / 2009 which followed extensive debate on P14 /2010, the Minister of Social Security had the following to say:

“.. it has been difficult for me to bring forward a recommendation… because it has been a slight step back from the percentage of the previous year, and I strongly believe that they (Employment Forum)should be bringing forward recommendations which increase the level towards the 45%”.

Minimum wage level - principles

The Employment Forum recommended in 2006 that the minimum wage for April 2008 should be set by reference to 40% of the overall average weekly earnings, as released in the June 2007 average earnings statistics. This was based on evidence that minimum wages in other jurisdictions are generally around 40% of the average wage of those jurisdictions.

In making its recommendation, the Forum had been influenced by the Economic Advisers advice regarding the States inflation policy and caution regarding the competitiveness of export driven industries. The Forum emphasized that if the States of Jersey wished to raise the bottom end of earnings, the minimum wage must equate to more than 40% of the average wage in future. Ideally, the Forum would aim to gradually increase the percentage of the average wage used in the formula towards 45% in the future. For example, 40.5% of the average wage would have given a minimum wage of £5.47 for April 2007. The Forum intends to take this into account in its 2007 internal review of the proposed uprating mechanism.

By 2008 the principle of raising the relative purchasing power of the minimum wage to over 40% of the average had been adopted.

“The Institute of Directors suggested that the minimum wage should be £6.08 per hour, based on a formula of 40.5% of the June 2008 average weekly earnings. Although a number of respondents said that the formula should not be increased beyond 40%, the Forum considers that this is based on an expectation that the 40% figure itself will be significantly above the average earnings figure.”

They concluded as follows –
“The Forum unanimously agreed to show a commitment to very gradually increasing the minimum wage above 40% of weekly average earnings (half a percent increase for 2009).
The Forum recommends a minimum wage of £6.08 to apply from 1st April 2009.”

Recent debate

On 25th March the States decided that it would not support either my proposition P14 / 2010 or Deputy Trevor Pitman’s amendment which maintained the 40.5% standard and raised the level to 41%, respectively. Given the impact of the recession, the Assembly decided instead chose to go along with the recommendation of the Forum.

The Social Security Minister, despite supporting the recommendation, appeared to lend his support to the principles outlined by the Forum above when he stated in his summing up on P212 / 2009:

“… I believe that there should be (a formula) and we should over time see it moving up”.

In the debate on this issue I pointed out that the level of the minimum wage, whilst clearly being an economic decision, was also one which was legitimately also a political one. In establishing a minimum wage the States have quite properly committed themselves to the protection of our lowest paid employees. I argued that this protection must be at least maintained and when possible raised along the lines suggested by the Forum. The Social Security Minister appeared to give support to this approach when he said:

“Sometimes this Assembly has not always felt itself able to make difficult decisions in times of good when we should have done … part of the role of government is to put pressure on business to do the right thing.”

As the minister made clear, politics (though not “politicking”) has a role to play in setting the minimum wage rate. He finally made his personal position on the minimum wage crystal clear, when he stated:

“I have made it clear to the Employment Forum that when we are out of recession, they should have the courage to come forward with increases because it is only right and proper that they do so.”

This proposition, I believe, allows the Assembly to put its weight behind the Minister’s obvious support for the principled approach adopted by the Forum, and sets the right political framework within which the Employment can feel supported in judging the pace at which the minimum wage rate can be improved.

There are no manpower or financial implications for the States in this proposition.

GEOFF CALLS FOR TIME TO THINK ABOUT POST OFFICE CARVE-UP

2010-04-14T07:43:00.000-07:00

Deputy Geoff Southern will be challenging the potentially disastrous proposal to destroy the viability of our postal service in the name of free-market dogma, initially with this proposal to delay a decision until the consequences have been properly assessed.:-

The States are asked if they are of the opinion

To request the Minister for Economic Development to extend the period of consultation over the granting of postal licences to Citipost and HubEurope so that members may be fully informed of the consequences of such action by the JCRA

Report

On Wednesday 31st March 2010 the JCRA placed an advert in the JEP (see over) of its proposal to grant a Postal Operator’s licence to Citipost and HubEurope to convey large letters and packets, which includes CD and DVD fulfilment post. The closing date for comment is midnight 30th April 2010.

Jersey Post’s managing director has accused the JCRA of “failing in its duty to properly assess the impact on the traditional postal business.” Mr Carr stated that the decision to open the whole of the bulk business mailings market could result in substantial cuts to future services including a reduction of deliveries to every other day and the existing Post Office network being halved.

Despite being assessed in 2006 by the JCRA as an efficient operator, and recently agreeing a 4-year modernisation deal with the Communication Workers’ Union (CWU) which included the loss of 80 jobs, the Post Office see this as an “attack” on the only profitable part of the business leaving losses to be picked up by Jersey Post or the taxpayer.

The CWU agrees that the long-term viability of Jersey Post is seriously threatened by the introduction of competition to this market. They state that they “will not sit back and watch the decimation of this very valuable social service carved up and destroyed through the introduction of phoney competition designed for the benefit of a few at the expense of the many”. They are calling for urgent talks with all stakeholders including States members.

It is my opinion that such a radical move cannot just be allowed to proceed in such a timescale without full consideration by the Assembly of the potential impact on the infrastructure of the island.

There are no manpower and financial implications to this proposition.

PEOPLE, POLICY & PUBLIC CONCERNS – TREVOR’S WRITTEN QUESTIONS FOR THE STATES SITTING ON APRIL 20TH

2010-04-14T07:30:00.000-07:00

[From the main JDA website; www,jdajersey.co.uk ]

Once again Trevor’s written questions for the forthcoming States sitting arise from a mixture of his St. Helier No. 1 District constituent work, further contact from individual islanders relating to on-going issues of wider public concern, and matters linked to established JDA policy commitments.

The recent JCRA proposals, not to mention the distinct lack of adequate political information, has left a lot of people from all political perspectives scratching their heads, Trevor told www.jdajersey.co.uk.

‘If we are serious about maintaining a proper daily delivery service for standard letters, keeping costs as low as is practical linked in with protecting jobs – not to forget the hugely important ‘social’ aspect of many older and/or disabled people actually having that contact with ‘the postie’ – then the competition for competition’s sake approach makes no sense at all. Hopefully,’ Trevor adds, ‘the States will see sense and agree to Deputy Southern’s proposition to ensure a far more in-depth analysis of all of this is implemented before any decisions are taken that could have disastrous long-term implications.’

Trevor tells us that his question relating to the unsafe ‘listed’ building in La Motte Street in St. Helier No. 1 District is also essentially about protecting jobs.

‘Letting people who have worked hard at developing their businesses suffer, due to an inadequate approach to ensuring ugly and obtrusive scaffolding such as this - deterring many shoppers, particularly visitors unfamiliar with the town – are erected and removed in the most rapid of timescales possible is simply not acceptable. The paving in the area has just been upgraded so this just makes a complete mockery of what we are trying to achieve at significant financial outlay.’

Ensuring adequate postal voting facilities are in place is a key aspect of all modern democracies committed to social inclusion, and with the commitments to building a more equal, fairer society featuring so strongly in the Strategic Plan it will be interesting to see if such statements really are little more than words. ‘Is it any wonder that so few turn out to vote in elections,’ Trevor observes, ‘when contrary to every modern democracy you look at Jersey has gone out of its way to make that as difficult as possible for many of those who already struggle to have their political voice heard.’

As to the questions to the Attorney General and the Minister for Home Affairs, Trevor feels these speak for themselves, being related to issues that understandably continue to strike a cord of intense interest with large numbers of the public.

Nevertheless, Trevor did tell us that with regard to the question to the Attorney General he had been contacted by a number of people from across the island expressing concern about material that has recently been made available via the internet and believing that there is a need for further answers to be provided publicly. To this regard Trevor also revealed that he had had a request within his original question for official confirmation that a death certificate had been made available to the Jersey authorities (in relation to developments in the case reported last year) turned down by the Bailiff on the grounds that this was not the responsibility of the Attorney General…

Here at www.jdajersey.co.uk we think the answers to all the questions below will make interesting reading. We will, of course, do our best to publish anything of particular interest in due course. For those readers wanting access to the answers to all written questions from States Members we would remind you that these are eventually available on the States own website.

WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

“a) Given that Jersey Post has worked hard at improving efficiency, including the use of voluntary redundancy packages, and is only 4 months into a four-year plan, what action, if any, will the Minister be taking following the decision of the Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority (JCRA) to advise the public of its proposal to issue a Class 1 Postal Operator’s Licence to convey Large Letters and Packets to Citipost DSA Ltd and Hub Europe Ltd?

b) Would the Minister set out the impact that the grant of such licences will have for Jersey Post and confirm that the bulk mailing represents the core profit-making aspect of its operations? Would he further state whether the introduction of competition will lead to job losses and increased long-term costs for the public and would he state whether or not he supports the introduction of competition in this area?

c) Would the Minister state how both Jersey Post and competitors can survive and thrive financially in the years ahead within such a limited market where the comparatively unprofitable but socially essential daily mail delivery to domestic and business customers alike is intrinsically dependent on the more profitable side of the business?”

WRITTEN QUESTION TO H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL

In view of the detailed States of Jersey Police ‘Sequence of Events: Macguire investigation’ timeline published on the internet recently together with the content of the Report by the Manager, Mental Health Services dated 23rd February 1999 and other material including the 26th July 1990 letter from the then Education Committee President, is the Attorney General satisfied that the decision of his predecessor (as summarised in e-mail correspondence from the now Deputy Bailiff copied to all States Members on 8th April 2010) not to pursue the case against Mr. and Mrs. Macguire was both wholly justifiable and correct and, if so, will he state why? Will the Attorney General also clarify whether the issue of Mr. Macguire’s stated terminal illness at the time was ever discussed in any shape or form as a potential justification/reason for not pursuing the case in the 1990’s?

WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT

Scaffolding surrounding a ‘listed’ but empty and unsafe business premises in La Motte Street is having a hugely damaging impact on retailers whose businesses are hidden from view from shoppers which is particularly damaging to potential business in relation from visitors to the island who will not know the hidden shops are there; what measures is the Minister taking to ensure that this eyesore is rectified and what assurances, if any, in terms of timescales can he give the proprietors of the retailers being negatively impacted upon as to when this scaffolding will be removed?
WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE CHAIRMAN OF PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE

As access to a postal voting mechanism is a fundamental part of all modern, fully functioning, inclusive democracies, will the Chairman inform members what consideration, if any, her Committee has given to ensuring that those who wish to do so, especially the elderly and those with mobility problems or other disabilities, can easily vote by post in the coming elections in line with priorities 6, 8 and 15 of the Strategic Plan 2009 – 14?

WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS

"Further to the written and oral answer given on 9th March 2010 relating to the suspension of 2 officers from the States of Jersey Police for just less than 18 months would the Minister advise -

a) which person within the States of Jersey Police was responsible for taking the decision that resulted in the suspension of two police officers and whether the individual responsible for the original decision to suspend them was the same person who made the decision to re-instate them without charge? If so, does the Minister believe that this shows sound judgement?

b) that the costs listed in the answers of 23rd March 2010 showed the total cost to the States of Jersey Police of these suspensions and included all ancillary matters such as staff costs and overtime to cover the suspended officers?"

FACT: WHETHER A PROPOSITION SUCCEEDS OR FAILS...

2010-03-27T14:35:00.000-07:00

FACT: WHETHER A PROPOSITION SUCCEEDS OR FAILS REGULARLY HAS VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH THE QUALITY OR RIGHTNESS OF THE ARGUMENT BEING MADE...

Below you will find an internal e-mail that was sent to all States Members from Senator Alan Breckon, who was Chairman of the Scrutiny sub-panel further made up of myself and Deputies Geoff Southern and Roy Le Herissier. As some readers might recollect the four of us, along with our excellent Scrutiny officer, Sam Le Quesne, worked flat out right through last summer - a period of some 18 + weeks overall as I recall - producing a review that concluded quite unequivocally that a fully independent Committee of Inquiry into the Management of the Health & Social Services Department was urgently needed. It was, of course, rejected by most of the usual crew as the attached States vote demonstrates.

The content of Senator Breckon's email was written in the aftermath of the final report revelations at yesterday's press conference. A press conference and later statement from the Minister where we hear yet again that regardless of the horrific findings in this particular case no-one will be held accountable. Once again it is apparently all about 'learning lessons for the future'. according to the Minister  Incredible but true. Still, having been a member of the Scrutiny sub-panel that put so much work into the review that had concluded an independent Committee of Inquiry was essential I did initially feel that I should make some observations on this issue. But reading Alan's e-mail last night I came to the opinion that actually, by and large, he had said just about everything of importance that needed to be said. Thus, rather than simply risk repeating his words I obtained Alan's permission to make his thoughts publicly available on the JDA's website.

I believe the content of the e-mail speaks for itself; as does the original proposition and States Assembly vote attached. I will leave readers to make up their own mind and ask the questions that result. Comments on the website are welcome as always. Equally, maybe these questions should be directed to the 30 States Members who chose not to support the proposition that Alan, Geoff, Roy and myself worked so very hard on in coming to our conclusions.

All I would add personally is the following. Until propositions - ALL propositions - are debated and voted upon according to their need and merit, rather than which States Members are behind them, or what damage to the image of Corporate Brand Jersey might occur if they were supported and passed government will never do the job that it should within a so-called democracy. Senior civil servants and employees who get things wrong, fail or simply do not do their jobs will never be made accountable as they should be. More serious than either of these two points, of course, in instances of this nature some of the most vulnerable within our society will never have the protection and security that should be theirs by right.

As for the Chapman Report...maybe we should be asking for a refund.

Deputy Trevor Pitman

From: Alan Breckon
Sent: 26 March 2010 17:35
To: All States Members (including ex officio members)
Subject:
Dear Colleague FYI I have attached the Proposition & Vote on whether to hold a Committee of Inquiry Into the Management of the Health & Social Services Department this is self explanatory.

All the existing Ministers + two former Health Ministers voted against!

However I wish Members to be mindful of the following;
on one hand I was accused of being mates with Civil Servants and therefore willing to move on without proper attention to detail where faults may have been found;
on the other hand I was accused of making mischief and not having any evidence of any malpractice;
if you re-read the short Report attached you will see that neither of the above is true;
I did not have another agenda, however I knew there were issues that went beyond the scope of the Panel's ability to investigate fully - hence the Committee of Inquiry;
In the Chapman Report Into Health & Safety issues on bullying, harassment, blogs etc he says this at para 10.19
"As it was put to me on more than one occasion: "people are keeping their heads down." To an outsider that is a critical concern as if action is not taken to address the problem it will firstly lead to inertia in the decision making process and ultimately a potential breakdown in normal day to day government. For example I understand that the States will in due course be required to decide whether to set up a Committee of Inquiry to investigate allegations of misconduct and incompetence within the management of Health & Social Services. I am aware from my own research for the purposes of this investigation that there have already been seven independent investigations and reviews covering much of the same ground. In the course of my research I read four of those documents either in whole or in part. It was quite clear that no evidence had been found in any of those reviews to justify any of the allegations made and the call for a further Inquiry appeared to me as an external observer to indicate an inability to move on and manage the present." (my emphasis)

so this Chapman bloke was telling us to "move on manage the present" - wonder who told him that? (the extract is attached below) How much was he paid for these little gems of wisdom? "wool" & "eyes" are words that spring to mind!
the Scrutiny Panel became aware, through family situations with the Court that children had been returned to abusive situations over long periods of time.
this is proven by PUBLISHED case judgements and prosecutions - one for rape of a child
the Jersey Child Protection Committee (until most recently) had never held one Serious Case Review - we wondered how this could be? - we got 10 years of their minutes?

I hope this clarifies the situation for those 30 of you who voted against a Committee of Inquiry - this was not a point scoring exercise it came from an uneasy feeling that the Sub Panel of Roy, Geoff, Trevor and myself had for the situation we found.

So while the recent Report on the JCPC may be uncomfortable for some it was where sadly the Sub Panel knew somebody had to go - so well done to the JCPC.

Finally The Sub Panel & Officers worked very hard over about a 20 week period to produce a significant Report in a very sensitive area with lots to commend it - the cost - although I do not have figures to hand was about £15,000 and we did get some outside advice, however the Report was our own - the only lesson is that we all must learn is to open our minds to some of this stuff and NOT adopt the opposition stance or personalise issues - its too important for that!

Regards
Alan

View Vote P145/2009/(re-issue)

Committee of Inquiry into the management of the Health and Social Services Department.   05 November 2009

POUR: 20    CONTRE: 30    ABSTAINED: 1   ILL: 1    EN DEFAUT: 1

Senator Alan Breckon
POUR

Senator Sarah Craig Ferguson
POUR

Connétable Alan Simon Crowcroft
POUR

Connétable Silvanus Arthur Yates
POUR

Deputy Frederick John Hill, B.E.M.
POUR

Deputy Roy George Le Hérissier
POUR

Deputy Geoffrey Peter Southern
POUR

Deputy Carolyn Fiona Labey
POUR

Deputy Collin Hedley Egré
POUR

Deputy Jacqueline Ann Hilton
POUR

Deputy Paul Vincent Francis Le Claire
POUR

Deputy Shona Pitman
POUR

Deputy Montfort Tadier
POUR

Deputy Angela Elizabeth Jeune
POUR

Deputy Trevor Mark Pitman
POUR

Deputy Tracey Anne Vallois
POUR

Deputy Michael Roderick Higgins
POUR

Deputy Andrew Kenneth Francis Green M.B.E.
POUR

Deputy Deborah Jane De Sousa
POUR

Deputy Jeremy Martin Maçon
POUR

Senator Terence Augustine Le Sueur
CONTRE

Senator Paul Francis Routier
CONTRE

Senator Philip Francis Cyril Ozouf
CONTRE

Senator Terence John Le Main
CONTRE

Senator Ben Edward Shenton
CONTRE

Senator Frederick Ellyer Cohen
CONTRE

Senator James Leslie Perchard
CONTRE

Senator Alan John Henry Maclean
CONTRE

Senator Bryan Ian Le Marquand
CONTRE

Connétable Kenneth Priaulx Vibert
CONTRE

Connétable John Le Sueur Gallichan
CONTRE

Connétable Daniel Joseph Murphy
CONTRE

Connétable Michael Keith Jackson
CONTRE

Connétable Graeme Frank Butcher
CONTRE

Connétable Peter Frederick Maurice Hanning
CONTRE

Connétable Leonard Norman
CONTRE

Connétable John Martin Refault
CONTRE

Connétable Juliette Gallichan
CONTRE

Deputy Robert Charles Duhamel
CONTRE

Deputy John Benjamin Fox
CONTRE

Deputy Judith Ann Martin
CONTRE

Deputy James Gordon Reed
CONTRE

Deputy John Alexander Nicholas Le Fondré
CONTRE

Deputy Anne Enid Pryke
CONTRE

Deputy Sean Power
CONTRE

Deputy Kevin Charles Lewis
CONTRE

Deputy Ian Joseph Gorst
CONTRE

Deputy Philip John Rondel
CONTRE

Deputy Daniel John Arabin Wimberley
CONTRE

Deputy Edward James Noel
CONTRE

Connétable Deidre Wendy Mezbourian
ABSTAINED

Deputy Anne Teresa Dupre
ILL

Senator Stuart Syvret
EN DEFAUT

SHONA'S ORAL QUESTIONS FOR MARCH 23rd 2010.

2010-03-21T03:47:00.000-07:00

Question One: to The Chief Minister

"Following on from the rejection of P9/2010 on 23rd of February 2010, when he stated that he would be appointing an independent expert in the shortest possible timeframe to undertake a review as to whether procedures with the suspension of the Chief (Police) Officer were correctly followed, will the Chief Minister inform Members whether the expert has been appointed and when the findings will be published?"

Question Two: To the Minister for Social Security

"Would the Minister inform Members, since the implementation of Income Support, how many recipients under 25 have applied for the Housing Component and how many have been refused?"

TREVOR’S ORAL QUESTIONS FOR TUESDAY 23rd MARCH 2010

2010-03-18T09:22:00.000-07:00

Always at the forefront of endeavouring to ensure the losses of ordinary workers’ jobs – public sector or private - really are the last resort after all other possibilities have been explored, Trevor’s oral question to the Minister for Economic Development raises this issue once again. Readers of the website will have their own views, of course, but as the JDA ask here, laudable though it is, viewed within the present economic climate is the maintenance of the ‘top 500 banks only’ mantra really more important than protecting 30 finance jobs that could have been saved?

Trevor’s oral question to the Home Affairs Minister, reference the spectacularly invisible Metropolitan Police ‘Interim Report’ raise issues that anyone remotely committed to ensuring transparency and natural justice surely agree must be answered – and without further delay.

Just who did produce it? What is really in it? Who has actually seen it – and more to the point who can verify this? Not surprisingly, given what with the best will in the world can only be described as the truly shambolic, strung-out process by which the island’s Chief Police Officer has found himself suspended (for what is now rapidly approaching 18 months), the question really can even understandably be asked: does the Metropolitan Police ‘Interim Report’ actually exist as a physical, written document at all?

Hopefully come next Tuesday we might actually begin to get some answers. If not then suspicions that all really isn’t as it should be can only be given more credence.

Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Minister for Economic Development

“With 30 jobs being lost at Kleinwort Benson due to the Regulator's refusal to grant a licence to a non-top 500 bank, will the Minister advise what support, if any, is being offered by his Department to the staff affected to try and help them find other employment in the sector; further still, does the Minister concede that the Regulator’s decision may actually be counter-productive?”

Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Minister for Home Affairs

“Will the Minister inform Members on what date in 2008 the Metropolitan Police were requested to forward an Interim Report, who requested it, whether it was used in connection with the suspension of the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police and whether the Minister will make the report available to States Members?”

Cuts must be Surgery, not Butchery.

2010-03-17T08:53:00.000-07:00

The JDA have always taken the position that there is more that could be done to fill the looming “black hole” in Jersey's public finances by a range of fairly gentle alternative taxes, each raising a few million towards the necessary total. However, alternative taxation may no longer be enough, and it is time to look at expenditure, as well as revenue. The ordinary Jersey people we formed to represent are becoming increasingly concerned by the conspicuous bloat and the rising tax bills to pay for it, and, if we are to stay in touch and relevant as a party, we need to be turning our thinking to the subject. Most of the current JDA Council have worked in the public sector for at least part of our working lives, and should know the score. Speaking for myself, I would like to add my general agreement to the various calls for some trimming of public sector spending, to suit the harsh reality that we are both locally and globally entering the backstroke of the boom-bust cycle.

I also share the suspicion with others, that there is more dispensable surplus to be found at the shoulders of the States organisation than at the base. Thus, I would not endorse crude, untargetted pro-rata cuts across the board, but I would like to see our elected representatives defending the effective provision of public services, facilities and benefits, and letting go of otiose fripperies and side-tracks. Therefore, I would point out something that seems to have been overlooked, so far.

There is a balance to be struck in the administrative burden on front-line staff. It is plainly unacceptable for the operational workers of all types to be left to carry on without any supervision of how they work, nor accounting for what they have worked on. However, the insidious big inefficiencies are to introduce excessive supervision that makes no useful contribution to the task, and to collect unnecessary information on the off-chance that someone wants to know. (The latter is a personal bugbear of mine, as I used to be a UK Civil Servant spending around 45% of my time compiling statistics about our actual work, just in case some MP ever asked a question.) Before middle-management can be reduced, there must be a radical culture change in the public sector. If we are not to have unproductive support clerks churning out sheaves of never-to-be-read paperwork, then the front-line staff have to do it themselves. And if the front-line staff are taking time out of their real work to do their own admin, then that admin needs to be reduced to the bare minimum. Both private business and public service alike use “Due Diligence” as an excuse to waste time and money on unthinkingly gathering all sorts of useless data, these days. If shareholders of private businesses are content to let their management do this, that is their privilege. We are all shareholders of the state, though, and we should be demanding that judgement be applied with diligence, not just filing.

So, we need to develop a general policy of evaluating all procedures and structures by the question “Does this help or hinder getting the job done?”. The obvious targets are Assistant Directors and Managers. In some cases, I would expect that they actually do assist with an otherwise impossible workload. But, it can so easily happen that supervisors nearer the front line report in detail to them, for the Assistant to report in summary to the Chief Director or Manager, when the supervisors could have spent less time reporting in summary directly to the Chief, freeing 100% of the Assistant Manager's time for a more productive alternative position. Then there are forms with ill-considered boxes, that time must be spent completing and processing, to supply irrelevant information. If it is not something that needs to be known to manage effectively, it is not worth the bother.

There is a part for opposition politicians in this, too. When asking ministers to admit embarrassing statistics, they should give a thought to how much Civil Service time is going to be absorbed in compiling those figures, and how much more is going to be absorbed in future as the civil servants prepare for the chance of being asked again next year. Is it always worth £100 of clerical time to score a little point, that doesn't make the news anyway, at Question Time.

To sum up, we can fairly painlessly trim a lot of waste through a case-by-case examination of which management posts are effectively side-tracks, and an end to amassing statistics from habit instead of to a purpose. Only then, if still necessary, should we be scaling back the services and facilities that it is government's purpose to provide, and that in a prioritised way, not slashing by numbers.

David Rotherham

TREVOR’S WRITTEN QUESTIONS FOR 23RD MARCH 2010

2010-03-15T22:04:00.000-07:00

Trevor’s written questions for next week’s States sitting take in three different ministries – Treasury & Resources, Home Affairs and Social Security. The first question to Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand relates to the timescale for setting up an Independent Jersey Police Authority. The second relates to a proposition Trevor lodged late last year regarding the need to formulise an all-encompassing strategy to finally tackle youth offending.

Having agreed to put this on hold until 20th April to allow time for the unfolding of work being undertaken by Professor Andrew Williamson, Trevor tells us that with just a month to go he hopes the answer will give an adequate ‘progress report’ which will indicate whether to proceed with the debate or delay a little longer.

Trevor says that his questions to the Ministers for both Social Security and Treasury & Resources have their root in the need to identify any individuals ‘playing the system, whether this be at the top or bottom of the economic ladder’.

The question to the Minister for Social Security follows on from Deputy Gorst’s statement, quoted in the media last week, about benefit fraud. Given the department’s spend of £93.8 million, specifically it seeks clarification of the total amount of monies involved with the nine cases prosecuted by the department in 2009.

Finally, Trevor states that his questions to the Treasury & Resources Minister will provide further detailed background information in support of on-going discussions on taxation between the JDA and a number of other progressive politicians. He added:

‘Like the question to Social Services, the question put to T& R about the very lowest levels of tax payment amongst 1.1.K residents will help build up the true overall picture in order to achieve a full and fair perspective. With provision of both sets of figures it will enable us to move away from spin and hearsay in two, highly emotive areas of politics to examine cold, hard fact.’

WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS
BY DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER
ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 23rd MARCH 2010

Question

“Having agreed to defer my proposition P.201/2009 ('Strategy for dealing with young offenders: establishment of a working group') to await any developments arising from related work being undertaken under Mr. Andrew Williamson relating to the creation of a ‘Children’s Plan for Jersey’, will the Minister advise as to what stage this work has now reached and when he expects it to be concluded?”

WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES
BY DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER
ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 23rd MARCH 2010

Question

“Given that with 123 such residents there is no possibility whatsoever of any individual being able to be identified will the Minister clarify the number of 1(1)(k) residents, if any, by year for the period 2005 to 2008 inclusive, who paid tax within the following brackets:

(a) less than £5,000

(b) between £5,000 and £10,000”

WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY
BY DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER
ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 23rd MARCH 2010

Question

“Given that Social Security recently highlighted the fact that there had been just nine prosecutions for benefit fraud in 2009 would the Minister clarify the collective total amount of the de-frauded monies involved?”

WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS
BY DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER
ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 23rd MARCH 2010

Question

“Will the Minister advise what progress has been made regarding plans for the creation of an Independent Jersey Police Authority and further still, at what date does he believe the necessary preparation work will be completed and the Authority launched?”

WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES
BY DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER
ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 23rd MARCH 2010

Question

“At present those 1(1)(k) residents granted such status after 1st January 2005 are taxed at the following rates:

The first £1m of foreign income at 20%
The next £500,000 of foreign income at 10%
The balance of foreign income at 1%
All Jersey source income at 20%

The Minister has further advised the Assembly recently that the taxation percentage of all 1(1)(k) residents can be legally increased/enhanced. This being accepted, will the Minister advise what increase in tax revenues could be expected if all 1(1)(k) residents were to be taxed instead at:

the increased rates of 25%, 12.5%, 2% and 25% respectively; or (b) alternatively by a straight-forward 1% increase in all four categories?”

Geoff's Written Questions for 23rd March 2010

2010-03-15T08:03:00.000-07:00

1.to Treasury and Resources Minister

When the minister points out that public spending has risen by 30% over the past 5 years as evidence for the need to make drastic cuts in public services will he confirm that during this period:

a)half of that increase has come in the last 2 years, under his stewardship of the public purse;
b)when the control of inflation was his, and his predecessor’s, number 1 target, RPI(X) a measure of non-staff inflation totalled 17.7%;
c)wage increases, according to the AEI, totalled 22%, and
d)these figures do not include the decision to spend £103m on the EFW plant in 2008

Will the minister also give members details of the additional 190 public sector posts employed during this period, so that members can assess how many were front-line employees directly concerned with service delivery?

Will the minister also give members details of the 10 positions, along with the salaries, that he wishes to create to better monitor spending in his department?

2.to Treasury and Resources Minister

Will the minister condemn the approach taken by the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel in requesting the CAG to produce figures for prospective GST rates required to eliminate budget deficits on the unlikely assumptions that:

a)no action was to be taken to curb public spending to below 6% annual increases, and
b)no attempt was to be made to raise further income from other taxes?

Does the minister accept that to project a 12% GST rate by 2014 is unnecessary scaremongering, and will he confirm that he has no intention of following any such misguided strategy.

Will he further confirm that he has no intention of raising the GST rate in the short term?

3.to Social Security Minister

Does the minister accept that the 3 levels of impairment component in Income Support are there to compensate those with an illness or disability for the increased costs of their condition and that successful applicants for these components should not have their benefits reduced through consequent reductions in other components?
What actions, if any, and in what timescale, will he take to correct this anomaly in the system which does not act in the best interests of those with a disability and, if none, why not ?

4. to Social Security Minister
In response to question 5133 about the Education Allowance (approximately around £30 per week available to less well off families of 16-19 year olds to encourage them to stay in education) the ESC minister had the following to say:

“It is my understanding that the form and extent of support available is unchanged, despite the fact that it is now available via Social Security rather than Education.”

Will the Minister inform members whether this allowance is still directed to 16-19 year olds in education and, if not, how and to whom is it now directed?

What structural differences currently exist in IS for 16-19 year olds in work and in education?

What action, if any, and in what timescale, will the minister take to create incentives to 16-19 year olds to stay in education, and if none, why not?

5. To Health and Social Services Minister

Will the minister inform members what budget provision, if any, she has made, or has under consideration, to fund payments for unpaid overtime or other additional hours to cover for understaffed services for:

4.nurses, and
5.other medical staff?

Will she further inform members of the extent to which any such payments are required for each of these groups by giving:

6.the number of staff affected
7.the total of additional days (or shifts) worked
the total sums required?

SHONA'S ORAL QUESTIONS FOR TUESDAY 9th MARCH 2010

2010-03-05T21:12:00.000-08:00

Deputy Shona Pitman will ask the following question of the Minister for Housing

“In view of the heavy rainfall during the last weekend of February, would the Minister inform Members what action, if any, his Department have taken to prevent the regular flooding of houses at Nicholson Close?”

And she will ask the following question of the Minister for Economic Development

“Would the Minister inform Members whether any funding has been allocated to the tourism industry as part of the Economic Stimulus Package and, if so, how much and to what specific projects?”

DEBBIE'S ORAL QUESTION FOR TUESDAY 9th MARCH 2010

2010-03-04T21:20:00.000-08:00

Deputy D. de Sousa of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Minister for Economic Development

“Can the Minister inform members what steps, if any, the Economic Development Department is taking to address the buy-out of Kleinwort Benson, in view of the fact that Jersey prides itself on only allowing the top 500 banks on the Island?”

TREVOR’S ORAL QUESTIONS FOR MARCH 9TH 2010

2010-03-04T21:18:00.000-08:00

The first of Trevor’s two oral questions for next week’s States sitting has been necessary due to “the not unexpected” move by the Chief Minister, Senator Terry Le Sueur to keep details of any additional payments outside of contractual entitlements relating to the recently resigned Chief Officer of Health & Social Services out of the public domain.

Trevor says that whilst the obvious response for the Chief Minister should have been to simply either confirm or deny that any such payments had been included, Senator Le Sueur had instead attempted to hide behind claimed ‘confidentiality’ and effectively refused to answer.

‘Any additional payments of taxpayers’ money outside of contractual agreements – agreements that all States employees must have under law – are not covered under blanket confidentiality’ says Trevor. ‘The response last month was, as I say, not unexpected, but it does once again show complete contempt for both transparency and the general public who are fully entitled to know what went on here.’

As a consequence Trevor says he decided to take advice from the Data Protection office before attempting to lodge a re-worded oral version of the question in order that he didn’t fall foul of getting it knocked back by the Bailiff due to any ‘loopholes’ as he says has happened before.

‘I’m pleased to say that Data Protection confirmed that in their view the entitlement in the ‘public interest’ that details of any possible payments outside of contractual ones should be made available was very strong. As was said, this was a top civil servant and any monies would come directly from the public purse. If politicians are not to be able to get answers on such fundamental issues then we really should drop any pretence to claiming that we are a democracy, let alone a government that is accountable to its people. It really is that black and white.’

Question One - Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Chief Minister –

“Given that any additional monies/severance payments outside of the contractual entitlement paid to the former Chief Officer of Health and Social Services would have been made from public funds, what justification can the Chief Minister give for not divulging the contents of the agreement to the Assembly in his written response on 23rd February, particularly in the interests of accountability and transparency (as outlined in the Ministerial Code of Conduct)?

Question Two of Trevor’s follows on from his written question on the 23rd of February that revealed the remarkable and eye-opening figures relating to the real amounts of tax actually paid by some of the island’s 1.1.(K) residents (details of which can be viewed on this site in an article below).

Given that Assistant Minister for Treasury & Resources, Deputy Eddie Noel had previously told the States that he was of the opinion that 1.1.(K) residents could not have their tax rates re-evaluated, and possibly increased like the general public, Trevor says it is absolutely essential that this be clarified.

‘With the much-trumpeted review of taxation being promised by the Treasury & Resources Minister this issue cannot simply be left to later be used as an excuse to actually do nothing at all in this area,’ Trevor told us; ‘worse, to actually use this as an excuse to instead increase taxation levels on ordinary working people. Not just so-called ‘middle Jersey’ residents, but those who can afford any increase, whether this be via increased GST or anything else, the least. Hence my question as to the legal standing of agreements made; particularly those dating back to before the current regulations from 2005.

Question Two - Deputy T. Pitman of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Minister for Treasury and Resources

“Would the Minister clarify under which aspect of Jersey’s tax legislation individuals were deemed able to be legally granted 1(1)(k) status and thus negotiate their own tax contributions with the Comptroller of Income Tax prior to 2005; and advise whether 1(1)(k) status also means individual tax rates cannot be increased by government in line with a changing economic climate?”

We all look forward to hearing the answers…

Geoff's Proposal for a Long-term Improvement in Relative Minmum Wage Levels

2010-03-04T09:23:00.000-08:00

The States are asked to decide whether they are of the opinion:

a). that the minimum wage should be set at 45% of average earnings, to be achieved over a period of not less than 5 years and not greater than 15 years from April 2011 ; and

(b) to request the Employment Forum to have regard to this objective when making its recommendation on the level of the minimum wage to the Minister for Social Security.

Deputy G P Southern

REPORT

In summing up the debate of P212 / 2009 which followed extensive debate on P14 /2010, the Minister of Social Security had the following to say:

“.. it has been difficult for me to bring forward a recommendation… because it has been a slight step back from the percentage of the previous year, and I strongly believe that they (Employment Forum)should be bringing forward recommendations which increase the level towards the 45%”.

Minimum wage level - principles

The Employment Forum recommended in 2006 that the minimum wage for April 2008 should be set by reference to 40% of the overall average weekly earnings, as released in the June 2007 average earnings statistics. This was based on evidence that minimum wages in other jurisdictions are generally around 40% of the average wage of those jurisdictions.

In making its recommendation, the Forum had been influenced by the Economic Advisers advice regarding the States inflation policy and caution regarding the competitiveness of export driven industries. The Forum emphasized that if the States of Jersey wished to raise the bottom end of earnings, the minimum wage must equate to more than 40% of the average wage in future. Ideally, the Forum would aim to gradually increase the percentage of the average wage used in the formula towards 45% in the future. For example, 40.5% of the average wage would have given a minimum wage of £5.47 for April 2007. The Forum intends to take this into account in its 2007 internal review of the proposed uprating mechanism.

By 2008 the principle of raising the relative purchasing power of the minimum wage to over 40% of the average had been adopted.

“The Institute of Directors suggested that the minimum wage should be £6.08 per hour, based on a formula of 40.5% of the June 2008 average weekly earnings. Although a number of respondents said that the formula should not be increased beyond 40%, the Forum considers that this is based on an expectation that the 40% figure itself will be significantly above the average earnings figure.”

They concluded as follows –
“The Forum unanimously agreed to show a commitment to very gradually increasing the minimum wage above 40% of weekly average earnings (half a percent increase for 2009).
The Forum recommends a minimum wage of £6.08 to apply from 1st April 2009.”

Recent debate

On 25th March the States decided that it would not support either my proposition P14 / 2010 or Deputy Trevor Pitman’s amendment which maintained the 40.5% standard and raised the level to 41%, respectively. Given the impact of the recession, the Assembly decided instead chose to go along with the recommendation of the Forum.

The Social Security Minister, despite supporting the recommendation, appeared to lend his support to the principles outlined by the Forum above when he stated in his summing up on P212 / 2009:

“… I believe that there should be (a formula) and we should over time see it moving up”.

In the debate on this issue I pointed out that the level of the minimum wage, whilst clearly being an economic decision, was also one which was legitimately also a political one. In establishing a minimum wage the States have quite properly committed themselves to the protection of our lowest paid employees. I argued that this protection must be at least maintained and when possible raised along the lines suggested by the Forum. The Social Security Minister appeared to give support to this approach when he said:

“Sometimes this Assembly has not always felt itself able to make difficult decisions in times of good when we should have done … part of the role of government is to put pressure on business to do the right thing.”

As the minister made clear, politics (though not “politicking”) has a role to play in setting the minimum wage rate. He finally made his personal position on the minimum wage crystal clear, when he stated:

“I have made it clear to the Employment Forum that when we are out of recession, they should have the courage to come forward with increases because it is only right and proper that they do so.”

This proposition, I believe, allows the Assembly to put its weight behind the Minister’s obvious support for the principled approach adopted by the Forum, and sets the right political framework within which the Employment can feel supported in judging the pace at which the minimum wage rate can be improved.

There are no manpower or financial implications for the States in this proposition.

Geoff's Oral Questions - 9th March

2010-03-04T09:17:00.000-08:00

Deputy Geoff Southern will be asking the following Oral Questions on 9th March, both to the Social Security Minister:

Given that his departmental budget consist overwhelmingly of benefit payments, will the minister assure members that in attempting to deliver up to 10% cuts required by the Comprehensive Spending Review by 2013, he will not reduce the index linking or otherwise cut the levels of individual benefits administered by his department, and if not will he state here which benefits may be targeted?

Will the minister identify which of how many the 118 IS recipients identified following review as losing over £90 from their weekly income were on transitional protection (TP) along with which element of TP was removed, the reasons for doing so and whether the phased protection designed to alleviate financial hardship outlined in the IS (TP) (Jersey) Order 2008 applies?

Geoff's Questions for 9th March

2010-03-01T09:37:00.000-08:00

Deputy Geoff Southern will be submitting these written questions for the 9th March:-

1.To the Chairman of the Constables Committee:

Will the chairman inform members of the following figures relating to the electoral register:

the total number of those registered, by parish and overall

a). at the time of the October/November 2008 elections
b). in early 2009 following the elimination of those not registered for 3 years
c). currently

and state what measures if any have been considered in conjunction with PPC to improve these figures in time for a potential election this year?

2.To the Chief Minister:

Will the Chief Minister inform members of the estimated costs to States revenues over a 6-month period in lost income tax and indirect taxes, social security contributions, and Income Support payments of the redundancy of an employee on the average wage, in the absence of any redundancy payments, if that employee is:

a). single
b). married with 2 children, wife not working, and

i)in appropriate States social rental accommodation
ii)Owner/occupation with a mortgage of £200,000

3.To the Social Security Minister:

Following his answer to wq 5130 on 23rd February, will the minister now give the results of the losses and gains in the ranges requested of the “just over 800 reviews” of Income Support conducted this year and state how many of the 393 applicants whose payments were reduced were on Transitional Protection and have seen their payments reduced without the phasing provided by the IS (TP) (Jersey) Order 2008?

Will the minister explain under what circumstances such a reduction in income at short notice can be justified in the light of the clear intention of the IS (TP) Order to protect benefit recipients from such financial shocks?

4 to the Treasury and Resources Minister

Can the minister confirm that the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) has a target to deliver savings in States expenditure across departments through gross expenditure savings targets of 2% by 2011, 5% by 2012 and 10% by 2013?

Can the minister state how such large targets can be met without cuts in services and job losses?

Does the minister not accept that these large targets, if met, may endanger any recovery from the economic recession?

In particular, how will he manage to achieve such targets in terms and conditions at a time when many services in the public sector such as medical and social work services are struggling with recruitment and retention rates?

5. Will the minister explain to members what measures are in place to protect those with severe disability, whether child or adult, previously eligible for Attendance Allowance, after July 2011 from any reduction in benefit under IS designed to cater for the additional living costs attached to such disability?

TOP & BOTTOM – ALL A QUESTION OF ‘BALANCE’…

2010-02-26T21:02:00.000-08:00

In the same States sitting that government debated – and rejected – proposals from JDA Deputies Trevor Pitman and Geoff Southern, that would have brought increases to the minimum wage of between either 16 or 8 pence respectively above the proposal from the Social Security Minister, we were interested to also note the answer to Trevor’s written question No. 17 on 1.1.K taxation as indicated below.

“Given that 1(1)(k) classified residents fall into two categories; namely those who were granted residence before current regulations were put in place, and those who have been granted residency since, will the Minister list the number of individuals by year for the period 2005 to 2008 inclusive, who paid tax within the following brackets –

(a) less than £20,000;
(b) between £20,000 and £50,000;
(c) between £50,000 and £70,000; and,
(d) between £70,000 and £99,000?

If any 1(1)(k) classified residents do fall into these categories, would the Minister advise how this fits into the framework outlined within the relevant income tax legislation?”

Trevor has promised to write an article relating specifically to this subject in the next week or two.

In the meantime we publish the figures below for people’s comments. Whether one supports the concept of 1.1.K residents or not, the actual figures below teased out by Trevor’s question to the Minister for Treasury & Resources make interesting reading. Not least being that somehow the Minister managed to overlook answering the crucial aspect of just how some of these surprising figures actually fitted into what is written into the legislation.

For reference
the current regulations to which Trevor’s question refers are that of Article 135A of the Income Tax (Jersey) Law, 1961. It should also be noted, of course, that this Article applies only from 1st January 2005 to any person who is given consent under 1(1)( k) housing rules to acquire and occupy property in the Island.

Under this Legislation, those individuals granted 1(1)(k) status are meant to be taxed at the following rates:

The first £1m of foreign income at 20%
The next £500,000 of foreign income at 10%
The balance of foreign income at 1%
All Jersey source income at 20%

Those individuals who were granted such ‘status’ prior to the above date are not subject to the provision; but rather were able to arrange a ‘negotiated’ tax contribution. This presents a number of questions in itself as it has been argued that it is debatable whether or not any such possibilities actually existed within Jersey’s law at the time. One further question we know Trevor will be pursuing is whether there is any truth in the rumours of a small number of ‘high value’ residents actually paying tax that actually falls beneath the figure of £10.000.

With regular re-assurances that all 1.1.K residents contribute at least £100.000 in tax, many people in so-called ‘middle Jersey’, not to mention those on a minimum wage justified from within the likes of the Hospitality Association as being ‘offset by cheap food and accommodation’ (quoted on Channel Television) will be interested to say the least. After all, as so many States Members were happy to suggest during the debate on the minimum wage: it really is all a question of achieving ‘balance’…

Debbie's Questions for 23rd February

2010-02-21T13:36:00.000-08:00

Deputy Debbie de Sousa has lodged this batch of related questions:

WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES
BY DEPUTY D.J. DE SOUSA OF ST. HELIER
ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 23rd FEBRUARY 2010

“Can the Minister inform members how many vehicles, if any, are hired annually from Motor Mall by the Treasury and Resources Department and the cost per annum?”

WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

“Can the Minister inform members how many vehicles, if any, are hired annually from Motor Mall by the Economic Development Department and the cost per annum?”

WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE

“Can the Minister inform members how many vehicles, if any, are hired annually from Motor Mall by the Education, Sport and Culture Department and the cost per annum?”

WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE CHIEF MINISTER

“Can the Chief Minister inform members how many vehicles, if any, are hired annually from Motor Mall by his department and the cost per annum?”

Debbie has also lodged this one:

WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING
BY DEPUTY D.J. DE SOUSA OF ST. HELIER
ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 23rd FEBRUARY 2010

“Can the Minister state why, after over 10 years as President or Minister of Housing, and 4 years after Housing Trust Regulation appeared as an aim in the States Strategic Plan, the States are still waiting for action to be taken on this matter.

And she will be asking this one:

ORAL QUESTION FOR TUESDAY 23rd FEBRUARY 2010

Deputy D.J. de Sousa of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Minister for Economic Development –

“What action, if any, has the Minister taken to combat ‘gazumping’ within the property market and will he be bringing proposals forward to regulate estate agents?”

A Different Angle On Minimum Wages

2010-02-16T16:06:00.000-08:00

There is a consensus in modern Western civilisation, that there should be a minimum wage that anyone can reasonably be expected to work for. Moreover, there is generally a consistency of approach from place to place on how to calculate it. The benchmark is the national average wage. The fraction of that average that is taken as the minimum very much reflects the respective societies. In fairly egalitarian parts of the world, such as North-West Europe and Australasia it is around half, while nations more comfortable with extreme contrasts between rich and poor may set it at a third or a quarter.

Jersey takes a slightly lower fraction than the mainland UK as its chosen level. This is not unreasonable, as the average is not only skewed upwards by the relatively high proportion of well-paid professional jobs, but also inflated by the use of the mathematically inappropriate mean for the official average, instead of the usual median. However, there was a long-term strategy to progressively increase from 40% to 45%. The proposals from Deputies Pitman and Southern previously posted on this blog seek to insert suitable figures into the formula to continue, or at least defend the progress.

Personally, however, I am unconvinced that the methodology really approaches the issue from the right direction. There is a strand of left-wing thought that holds wealth distribution to be an end in itself, but it is too rooted in the primitive psychology of envy to lay credible claim to the moral high ground. Surely, the proper and decent basis of any scheme for minimum incomes is to apply our equally primitive, but far more decent human urge for looking after our weak and needy to the alleviation and preferable elimination of poverty.

The basic costs of an austerely sufficient lifestyle in our local economy are already calculated with some care for the purposes of Income Support and Old Age Pensions. Income Support then provides benefit to make earned income, if any, up to a minimum acceptable for the individual's general circumstances and responsibilities. A single adult will receive £92.12 to live on, for example, plus £106.75 for renting a bedsit. A total of £198.87 is therefore reckoned to be the bare minimum for independent existence without undue poverty, at current local cost of living.

Guaranteeing that minimum does bring the catch, that a £199pw full-time wage would attract no help, and yet bring in only 13p more for a whole week's work than sitting idle at home on benefits. Therefore it would not be worthwhile. The solution to this “poverty trap” is to give the minimum wage a significant premium to the benefit rate. I would suggest that working full-time needs to bring in at least a third as much again as total unemployment to be a viable choice. This would be 1/30 of the basic Income Support rate, assuming as usual a 40 hour working week. ( Obviously, benefit claimants with extra claims, such as dependent children, would still receive Income Support to cover their extra entitlements.)

1/30 of £198.87 comes to £6.63. This turns out to be a larger percentage of average wages than the direct calculation from them, a sign that the high local pay rates are more than offset by the even higher local cost of living.

There is a trade-off in all this: To be an economically viable job, the output must add more value than the pay rate. There is a ceiling to the market values of all goods, services and “solutions”, and if the pay rates of the providers rise too high, they simply price themselves out of work, whether the employer downsizes earlier or goes broke later. In hard times, the gap between the minimum legal wage and the maximum viable wage may become critically small, or even negative. However, to keep poor and demoralised workers from clogging and bleeding the benefit system, and more importantly, to maintain a just and prosperous society, the minimum wage must be upheld, even if it costs a few already marginal and insecure jobs.

David Rotherham

2010-02-16T16:01:00.000-08:00

TREVOR'S WRITTEN QUESTIONS FOR 23RD FEBRUARY

2010-02-15T08:53:00.000-08:00

Trevor's written questions for next week's States sitting focus on a number of different areas. Question One arises directly from concerns already expressed within the JDA Blog, that really the Chief Minister should play no role in the debate around the proposition being brought to the Assembly by Deputy Bob Hill of St. Martin.

Question Two poses issues that have been troubling many political observers recently and which really should warrant clear answers in the public interest following on from the Verita Report.

Question Three, Trevor tells us, is an issue that a number of the 'progressives' in the States have been discussing due to the regular disappearance/non-appearance of a number of senior politicians during sittings - not just from the Chamber but from the States building. Having rejected Trevor's move to increase the quorum from 27 to 35 we would have to say that it is surely only fair and proper that all unexplained absences from sittings are highlighted for the public.

In many ways Question Four follows on natuarally from the first. Given that we are consistently told that suspensions such as that of Mr. Power and Mr. Day are simply necessary 'nuetral acts' whilst serious allegations are investigated the fact that the same approach has not been applied to the States CEO cannot but help to raise eyebrows. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty but the States simply must have consistency in their approach. Following on from the still unresolved questions around the responsibility for setting up Operation Blast, the release into the public domain of the sworn affidavit from Mr. Power by Deputy Hill really does make this a question that demands an answer.

Finally, Question Five to the Minister for Treasury & Resources poses a question that should be answered fully in the light of the prmised review of taxation in the island; not to mention the storied now doing the rounds that GST may have to be rasied to 12%. Our 1.1.K system is in need of a complete overhaul not least because of the two tier structure that has been allowed to develop with individuals being accepted as residents either side of the current legislation. Having heard from the Chief Minister last year that taxing 1.1.K's would be 'immoral' and the claim from Assistant Treasury Minister Deputy Eddie Noel that individual tax agreements could not be renogiated, clarification of the sort Trevor is seeking will be interesting to say the least.

To Chief Minister

“Given that he is a central figure within the suspension of the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, does the Chief Minister consider that he is conflicted in the matter and should therefore declare an interest and withdraw from the debate of the Deputy of St. Martin’s proposition to set up an independent Committee of Inquiry into the suspension and the way that it has been handled (P.9/2010)?”

To Chief Minister(as responsible for staffing matters -

“Will the Chief Minister clarify whether the recently departed Chief Officer of Health and Social Services received any additional monies/severance bonus payments outside of his contractual entitlement, and, if any such payments were made, did this come from the public purse and what was the total amount?

Would the Chief Minister also clarify whether the former Chief Officer of Health and Social Services resigned, was invited to resign, was dismissed or left by ‘mutual agreement’ in the light of the Verita Report findings?”

To Chairman oF PPC

“Given the fact that the requirement for a Member to attend meetings of the States is set out within the Oath found in Schedule 2 to the States of Jersey Law 2005 and paragraph 2 of the Code of Conduct in Schedule 3 of Standing Orders, will the Chairman advise what disciplinary measures, if any, exist to ensure Members carry out their duties as required?

Would the Chairman advise whether Members leaving the Chamber and indeed the States Building entirely after roll call to pursue non-States matters and to conduct private business is in breach of the above legislation; further still, if none exist will the Committee consider developing disciplinary sanctions to put a stop to this practice?”

To Chief Minister

“In the light of the serious and detailed allegations against the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers outlined in the sworn affidavit, signed by the suspended Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, recently released into the public domain by the Deputy of St. Martin, will the Chief Minister clarify why he has not, as a ‘neutral act’, suspended the Chief Executive until the allegations of engaging in political activity wholly outside of his remit can be fully investigated?”

To Minister for T&R

“Given that 1(1)(k) classified residents fall into two categories; namely those who were granted residence before current regulations were put in place, and those who have been granted residency since, will the Minister list the number of individuals by year for the period 2005 to 2008 inclusive, who paid tax within the following brackets –

(a) less than £20,000;

(b) between £20,000 and £50,000;

(c) between £50,000 and £70,000; and,

(d) between £70,000 and £99,000?

If any 1(1)(k) classified residents do fall into these categories, would the Minister advise how this fits into the framework outlined within the relevant income tax legislation?”

Public Sector Pay Is Not The Problem

2010-02-11T21:48:00.000-08:00

The headline 'Adapt or Die' over the article on Ben Shenton's views was sufficiently alarmist to cast doubt on the integrity of what he was reported to be saying, but I was even more concerned when I read the details.He appears to say that the solution to the Island's problems lies in public sector pay, which must be reduced. I fail to see why he targets the public sector employees in this way, as they are in no way responsible for the current recession nor even for the 40% spending rises. In the period from 2005 to 2009, inflation has risen by 16%, and average earnings in the public sector have risen by 22% - the same as the average earnings in the private sector.

If we go back to the beginning of this economic cycle in 2002, the cost of living has risen by 31%. In this period average earnings in the public sector have risen by 33% and in the private sector by 38%. In 2009, due to the pay freeze, average earnings in the public sector have again fallen behind the private sector. So bringing public sector pay into line with private sector pay would involve a pay rise for most public sector workers. For example there is at least one private school in Jersey that pays its teachers 5% more than those in States' schools.

The 40% rise in spending mentioned by Senator Shenton may be due such projects as the incinerator, and the mismanagement demonstrated by senior officers but pay levels are not the cause of overspends. It seems that in any economic difficulties the public sector is targeted. When the economy overheats these employees are asked to show restraint. In times of recession, when they could help to boost the economy if their spending power were to be maintained they suffer a pay freeze. Let us not forget that these employees are not just faceless bureaucrats, but groups such as teachers, nurses, firefighters and paramedics who provide vital services.

Senator Shenton refers to the pensions 'black hole' but employees have paid contributions over their working lives and the employer's contributions have been part of their terms and conditions. These conditions and the job security that he also wishes to remove are part of what attracts well educated people into the public sector when they could earn more elsewhere. But these benefits are currently being eroded. For example, new entrants to the teaching profession will have much reduced pensions, and not until they are 65 rather than 60. As this is worse than is on offer in the UK we are likely to see further recruitment problems. There is currently a severe shortage of nurses due to the fact that the pay in Jersey is not high enough to compensate for the high cost of living.

Senator Shenton must know that Jersey is, contrary to the current spin, a low tax, low spend economy. Progressive taxation - not an increase in GST - could continue to deliver the services we have enjoyed up to now. Perhaps his emotive 'adapt or die' has some truth in it after all. Jersey must adapt to paying the appropriate rate for its services, or a cancer sufferer who has to wait for treatment because of a shortage of health professionals may well die.

Anne Southern

Trevor's Alternative Minimum Wage Amendment

2010-02-11T21:31:00.000-08:00

<

MINIMUM WAGE: REVISED HOURLY RATE FROM 1st APRIL 2010 (P.14/2010) - AMENDMENT

PAGE 2

For the figure of ‘£6.28’ substitute the figure ‘£6.36’

DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER

Report

As States Members will appreciate it is hardly surprising that I agree whole-heartedly with the contention outlined within the proposition of my JDA colleague, Deputy Geoff Southern that the 2010 increase to the Minimum Wage proposed by the Minister for Social Security does not go quite as far as it should. Where Deputy Southern and I disagree is simply upon the extent of that increase. The Deputy sets his proposal at a rate of £6.28; or 40.5% of weekly average earnings.

I am proposing that the rate should in fact be based on 41% of weekly average earnings i.e. a new Minimum Wage hourly rate of £6.36. This would take us precisely to the 2010 position targeted by the Employment Forum some two years ago within a framework of aiming for gradual incremental increases of .5%.

It should be noted here that both the original proposition from the Minister for Social Security and that of Deputy Southern already provide excellent background material; drawing at length on data provided by the work of the Employment Forum. In particular I would draw members’ attention to the graph contained in Deputy Southern’s proposition outlining percentages within individual business sectors. Given this material I obviously have no wish to duplicate any information - other than that which I deem to be absolutely essential for the purpose of understanding the justification for the proposition – so will keep my observations as brief as is practical.

The principle underlying a rate set at 41%

As Deputy Southern highlights within his proposition, in 2007, the Employment Forum, in making its recommendations for the minimum wage and in looking to the future advocated a figure of 40% of average weekly earnings following comparisons with minimum wage rates of a number of other countries. These are set out in the table below. Here I would draw Members’ particular attention to the average figure based on all of the countries utilised for comparison highlighted in yellow – 41.14%.

Minimum wages as a percentage of average wage in other jurisdictions

An amendment that simply brings us to the point where we should now be

Though the average percentage figure indicated in the comparison chart above is compelling in itself; in his proposition Deputy Southern reminds us how the Employment Forum emphasised the fact that if government wished to raise the bottom end of earnings the minimum wage must equate to more than 40% of the average wage in future. As already highlighted, the ideal being stated that the Employment Forum would strive to gradually increase the percentage of the average wage used in the formula towards 45% in the future.

Though I personally believe that in Jersey we should actually be aiming, long-term, to ultimately reach a figure of 50%; with regard to the proposed figure for 2010 we need to bear in mind that the Employment Forum unanimously agreed to show a commitment to very gradually increase the minimum wage above 40% of weekly average earnings (half a percent for 2009). Significantly:

The 2009 figure was set at 40.5% of average earnings

Viewed within this context it is my belief that 2010 should therefore have seen us naturally implement a rate of 41%. However, as Deputy Southern highlights, in targeting the minimum wage rate for 2010 the Employment Forum has taken both a backward step from its own established benchmark figure of 40.5%; and also abandoned its previously stated aim of incrementally raising over time the relative value of Jersey’s minimum wage.

The consequence – particularly viewed in the light of significant recent hikes in electricity and domestic fuel costs, the impact of GST etc – is that the position of those at the very bottom of the pay ladder have not been protected. Indeed, it will essentially have been worsened and at the very time such employees need governmental resolution the most!

Of course, though it must be acknowledged that the Forum does offer limited comment in attempting to justify this retreat, to the effect that they felt the need for caution given the economic downturn, the fact is that an equally compelling case can be made for adhering to the Forum’s earlier position.

After all, as we stand in spring 2010 pay awards for the year relating to a number of major pay groups are still being negotiated. Both private and public sectors will now be looking to the future based on fairness and sustainability. We can be quite certain that this proposed incremental increase to 41% with regard to the minimum wage will not be out of step when these awards are finalised. I would also draw Members attention to the fact that the Minister’s proposed rate of just £6.20 is, to the surprise of many I have spoken to, actually even set at below the RPI (X). Please see the table below.

We must ensure a ‘living wage’ is available to all

Considering all of the above I feel that I must conclude with an observation arising from a public seminar I attended late last year relating to the North Town Master Plan. The incident really emphasizes the need for us to keep our sight fixed firmly on reality. At the seminar, like a number of other people present, I was shocked to hear the owner of a St. Helier business complain bitterly about how the States really should be LOWERING the minimum wage if politicians wished to help businesses like his thrive.

Indeed, the gentleman went on to state quite specifically that if we (the States) would only allow him to pay people £3.00 an hour his business and many others would be so much more profitable. Why do I mention this now? Only because I feel – like so many of my constituents working in this bracket who find it necessary to approach me for help – that there are far too many people in Jersey who, perhaps because they have never had the misfortune to find themselves there, have no real conception at all of how difficult it is to make ends meet on Jersey’s present minimum wage.

As I believe most Members will be all too aware, a great many people at the lowest end of the earnings market work very hard indeed. There reward – a reward that we as the island’s government should ensure with vigour and courage given the reality of our highly expensive island – is a rate of minimum pay that is not an ‘existence’ wage but a ‘living’ wage. Setting that rate at £6.36 will do just that. Though an increase form the Minister’s proposed £6.20 per hour of 16 pence may seem, at first glance, a big difference let us keep this in perspective: set against an assumed working week of 40 hours this actually breaks down at an increased salary of just £6.40 per week.

Financial and manpower implications

I believe that there are no direct financial or manpower implications for the States.

Geoff's Minimum Wage Amendment

2010-02-11T13:21:00.000-08:00

Deputy Geoff Southern will be proposing the following thoroughly reasoned amendment to the new Minimum Wage Order:-

‘to request the Minister for Social Security, having sought the views of the Employment Forum as required by Article 18(1) of the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003, to make an Order fixing the minimum wage at £6.28 per hour and, as this figure is different from the £6.20 rate recommended by the Forum, to report to the States as required by Article 18(4) of the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003'

The recommendations of the Employment Forum on the minimum wage rates for 2010 are summed up as follows:-

The States are asked if they are of the opinion –

In arriving at this figure for 2010, the Employment Forum examined a wide range of factors. The table below illustrates their impact on the minimum wage rate.

In 2007, the Employment Forum, in its recommendations for the minimum wage had the following to say, in establishing the principle of setting the minimum wage at 40% of average earnings:

“The Forum considers that it is logical to take the June figure of the preceding year and intends to use this formula each year to recommend rates for the following April, subject to consideration, only where necessary, of factors which have had a major impact on the economy, for example an exceptionally good or bad year in the finance industry.

Taking the assumed working week of 40 hours, 40% of the average earnings across all sectors of £540 per week, equates to £5.40 per hour.”

This figure of 40% of average earnings was adopted following comparison with other countries’ minimum wage rate given in the chart and table below.

Minimum wages as a percentage of average wage in other jurisdictions

The minimum wage rate
The Forum recommended in 2006 that the minimum wage for April 2008 should be set by reference to 40% of the overall average weekly earnings, as released in the June 2007 average earnings statistics. This was based on evidence that minimum wages in other jurisdictions are generally around 40% of the average wage of those jurisdictions.

In making its recommendation, the Forum had been influenced by the Economic Advisers advice regarding the States inflation policy and caution regarding the competitiveness of export driven industries. The Forum emphasized that if the States of Jersey wished to raise the bottom end of earnings, the minimum wage must equate to more than 40% of the average wage in future. Ideally, the Forum would aim to gradually increase the percentage of the average wage used in the formula towards 45% in the future. For example, 40.5% of the average wage would have given a minimum wage of £5.47 for April 2007. The Forum intends to take this into account in its 2007 internal review of the proposed uprating mechanism.

By 2008 the principle of raising the relative purchasing power of the minimum wage to over 40% of the average had been adopted.

“The Institute of Directors suggested that the minimum wage should be £6.08 per hour, based on a formula of 40.5% of the June 2008 average weekly earnings. Although a number of respondents said that the formula should not be increased beyond 40%, the Forum considers that this is based on an expectation that the 40% figure itself will be significantly above the average earnings figure.”
They concluded as follows:
“The Forum unanimously agreed to show a commitment to very gradually increasing the minimum wage above 40% of weekly average earnings (half a percent increase for 2009).
The Forum recommends a minimum wage of £6.08 to apply from 1st April 2009.”

The 2009 figure was set at 40.5% of average earnings. In establishing the level for 2010 the Employment Forum has retreated not only from its own 40.5% benchmark figure, but it has also abandoned its stated aim of gradually raising the relative value of the minimum wage. Worse still the Forum has reverted to the 40% mark and thereby failed to protect the position of the low paid.
The June 2009 figure for the rise in the Average Earnings Index (AEI) was 3% overall. The figure for the private sector was 3.3%. These overall figures however mask the trends in the low paid sectors. The sectoral figures are given here:

Individual Business Sectors

Figure 3 - Annual percentage change in average earnings by sector

The traditional low-paid areas of employment, agriculture, retail and hospitality, saw average earnings rise markedly. The award of only a 2% rise to those on the minimum wage to the hourly rate of £6.20 for 2010 actually reduces the protection offered to these lowest paid; it makes their relative position worse. This proposition simply restores the 40.5% benchmark set the previous year. It produces an extra 8 pence per hour and raises the minimum wage to £6.28.

In percentage terms, the rise in the minimum wage proposed in this report amounts to 3.3%, coincidentally identical with the AEI in the private sector. It also matches the RPI (Low Earnings) figure for December 2009.

What this proposal does is to restore those on the minimum wage to the position established in 2009. Any figure below this effectively reduces the protection offered by the States to our lowest earning workers. Especially in times of hardship I believe we must maintain this protection. We should not allow the lowest paid to bear the brunt of the recession.

Graham Power's Own Account Of His Suspension - In Full

2010-02-11T09:36:00.000-08:00

Deputy Bob Hill has circulated to all States Members and media Graham Power's full affidavit regarding his disputed suspension, with a covering statement.. Most or all of both items are also available elsewhere, but we are happy to assist Bob in his pursuit of open justice by publishing them in full here, too. The affidavit runs to 20 pages of A4 in the original Word document, and even Bob's covering note is a whole page of small print so we are not expecting everybody to read it in its entirety. However, the definitive version of Mr Power's side of things is here for those who take an interest:-

From: Bob Hill
Sent: 10 February 2010 18:56
To: All States Members (including ex officio members)
Cc: voiceforchildren voiceforchildren; Channel 103; Channel TV; Channel TV; JEP Editorial; JEP Newsdesk; BBC Radio Jersey & Spotlight TV; Spotlight (Spotlight)
Subject: FW: P9/2010 Committee of Inquiry--Suspension of Chief Officer of Police. Additional Information
Dear Colleagues,

On Tuesday 23rd February 2010 the States will be asked to decide by what means the suspension of the Chief Officer of Police should be reviewed. That such a review is called for is now no longer the subject of significant dispute. I believe that there should be a formal committee of enquiry and have lodged a proposition to that effect. The Chief Minister believes that a less formal review by a suitably qualified expert apparently selected and appointed by him, is the right way forward. It will be for you to decide which of these alternatives will be the most effective in restoring confidence in the integrity of our government and the ability of those in senior office to conduct them in an appropriate manner on our behalf. Whatever way forward is decided upon, the review will be examining an action which is unprecedented in the history of the island. The decision to suspend was taken by the then Minister for Home Affairs. It appears to be the only recorded decision he took during his short period in office as a Minister. He took it within days of his appointment and a few days later he left office and left politics. This has inevitably raised questions as to why he appeared to act in such indecent haste, what were his motives, who was really making the decisions, why did the former and current Chief Ministers apparently conceal the truth from Mr Power and was there a conspiracy as outlined in my email to the Chief Minister which can be found on pages 22 and 23 of P9/2010?

Although the former Minister is no longer a member of the States the consequences of his decision have had far reaching repercussions which have caused grave concern in our community, resulted in two public hearings before both the Royal Court and an Administrative Appeals tribunal, an investigation whose costs are now approaching one million pounds and has yet to produce a final report, and constant media attention both on and off island. Since the date of the suspension Ministers have repeatedly resisted requests for information with the consequence that new facts have effectively been "drip fed" into the public domain, either as a result of disclosure in consequence of legal action, or through the inevitable leaks and briefings. Meanwhile, the Chief Officer decided last month to give notice of his retirement. His stated reason is that he had concluded that the suspension had reached a length which made a return to work impossible. In this context the decision to suspend has effectively evolved into a dismissal, which adds to its gravity and significance.

I believe that in considering the way forward Members should be as fully informed as possible regarding the circumstances of the suspension. I believe that you will be aware that as part of his Judicial Review proceedings, the Chief Officer swore an affidavit setting out his account of events. A copy was provided to the current Minister for Home Affairs in early 2009 and it is believed that other States members have subsequently seen a copy. I believe that it is in the interests of fair play and balance that the information in the affidavit should now be available to States Members in order that the debate and final decision on 23rd February can be as well informed as the circumstances allow. Equally, given the significant media and public interest, I have also decided that a more general release of the document is now appropriate. I had hoped to include the affidavit in my Proposition P9/2010 so as to enable Members sufficient time to read it in conjunction with my report before the debate on the 23rd February which will be held in camera, however I was informed that as the affidavit was not in the public domain it could not be included. Since then it has become clear that some members have seen the document in its entirety and that a significant part of what is said in the content has reached the public domain by other means.

There is also speculation, some of it inaccurate, as to what it may contain. Against this background and with Mr Power's consent I have decided that it is in the best interests of all parties to end this speculation by making the document more widely available. The document consists of 20 pages and it would be unreasonable to give it to you on the morning of the debate, by circulating it now will enable you to approach the debate on 23rd February with a fuller picture of the background to these events.

PS. To make it possible to circulate the Affidavit it has been necessary to re-type it to "Word" format.

Regards,

Deputy Bob Hill BEM.,
Deputy of St Martin.

IN THE ROYAL COURT OF JERSEY
(Samedi Division)
In the matter of the application of Mr. Graham Power, Q.P.M., Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police (hereinafter called “the Applicant”) for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Minister for Home Affairs to suspend the Applicant from office.
1. I, Graham Power, Q.P.M., (address) make oath and say that the contents of this my affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge information and belief.
I am the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police. I am currently suspended from duty and seek leave to apply to the court for a review of my suspension. My feelings of grievance in this matter are summarised as follows:

The suspension is an unjustified and unwarranted scar on the latter stages of a long and occasionally distinguished career. I would like to see that scar removed.

In my suspension a disturbing precedent has been set which I believe needs to be challenged in the public interest. If it remains unchallenged there are potentially serious consequences for the independence and integrity of law enforcement in the island and an additional risk that future police actions will be subject to inappropriate political pressure and intimidation.

2.My professional background is that I have 42 years police service and have served in the senior ranks of four police forces. Prior to my current appointment I was Deputy to H.M. Chief Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland. I have been decorated by the Queen for distinguished service. My contract as head of the islands police has been extended twice, the most recent extension being in 2007 following as assessment of my performance in post. Successive reports by H.M. Inspectorate of Constabulary have described the force under my leadership as a progressive and high performing organisation with a well motivated workforce. I have been vetted by the relevant U.K. authorities to “top secret” level and have access to security material of extreme sensitivity. In addition to my local duties, I sit on a U.K. committee which addresses sensitive policy issues relating to security matters and I am an assessor for the body which selects potential Chief Officers for U.K. police forces.

3.During my period in office, crime levels have repeatedly fallen and public satisfaction surveys show confidence ratings which are exceptionally high by any recognised standard. I am in possession of letters and reports from political leaders and others which praise me professionalism and commitment. I am physically fit and regularly perform front line operational duties in the island, including nightshifts at weekends. There is no history whatsoever of poor performance or public confidence issues relating to my command preceding the events described in this application. Indeed, all of the recorded evidence points to outstanding performance in the discharge of my duties. Independent evidence to confirm this picture can be produced should any of it be disputed. Since my suspension I have received many messages of encouragement. I am regularly stopped in the street by complete strangers who want to express their support for me and their condemnation of what has occurred. I am one of a handful of the most senior appointed public figures in Jersey. My suspension is seen by many as an event of major significance with far reaching implications. It cannot be described by any fair means as a neutral act. My suspension made world news. My daughter heard of it while listening to her car radio in Australia. The damage to my professional standing and reputation has been considerable. I will now attempt to explain briefly the legal and constitutional background to my position and how it may have affected events.

4.As Chief of Police I am directly accountable to the Minister for Home Affairs on a day to day basis. This was not always the case. Prior to the relatively recent introduction of Ministerial Government I was accountable to the Home Affairs Committee. While this arrangement was far from perfect, the inevitable differences of view and political perspective within the Committee, or even the requirement for the Committee to arrange meetings as a corporate body, created a loose system of checks and balances which presented a barrier to arbitrary action by the Committee President. This arrangement changed on the introduction of Ministerial Government. The Minister for Home Affairs now has sole initial decision making responsibility in respect of any disciplinary issues and can act without any obligation to consult with political colleagues or any other person. As illustrated in my case, this power also has some potential for retrospective use. In this instance a Minister has initiated suspension and disciplinary proceedings in respect of matters which occurred during the tenure of the previous Minister, and has done so apparently without consulting with the previous Minister and in the probable knowledge that the Minister in power when the alleged acts or omissions took place would have taken a different view. This has now been continued by a third Minister.

5. Police Officers of less senior ranks have the protection of the Police (Complaints and Discipline) (Jersey) Law 1999 and the Police (Complaints and Discipline Procedure) (Jersey) order 2000 both of which are held to be compliant with the islands human rights obligations. The interpretation section of the order specifies that it shall not apply to the Chief Officer, and unlike other jurisdictions, Ministers have not created a corresponding set of “Senior Officer Disciplinary Regulations” or similar legislation to provide comparable process and protections for more senior ranks. The document used to justify the suspension was the non-statutory Disciplinary Code for the Chief Officer of Police (appendix “A”.) This document was apparently produced within the hours preceding my suspension and is based on an earlier code approved by the former Home Affairs Committee some time in the years before my appointment in 2000. On the face of it the changes from the earlier code consist entirely of a translation into the language of Ministerial Government. However, a practical effect of these changes is that the decision-making responsibility moves from a corporate body to a single individual, namely the Minister, with no obligation to consult with any other party. In that respect this is a significant change. The original code was produced before the adoption of the Human Rights Law and has not been amended in consequence of that law. No claim is made by the Minister that the translation from the old code to the new code was accompanied by any form of consultation or human rights audit. The code contains no statutory protections, and no provisions for appeal or review in the event of suspension. As events have shown is it capable of creative interpretation by a minister who is so minded.

6.I am therefore now in a situation in which a Minister, on his own individual authority, is seeking disciplinary action against the Chief Officer in respect of matters which took place under the political oversight of the Minister before last, using a code written just hours before the event and based on a document produced in a previous political era with none of statutory provisions and protections afforded the more junior officers.

7.The Jersey legal system does not have a position equivalent to a Procurator Fiscal or an Investigating Judge or Magistrate. For all but a fraction of cases the police service, under the command of its Chief Officer, is the single point of entry for cases into the Criminal Justice System. A court may wish to consider whether, in those circumstances, such close individual political control of the leadership of the force provides for the independence of justice, and is consistent with the principles of Human Rights.

8.In 1996 a committee appointed by the States under the Chairmanship of Sir Cecil Clothier published a report which recommended the establishment of a Police Authority for Jersey. In the twelve years which have followed nothing of substance has been delivered by those in government. Other small jurisdictions have recognised the need to preserve the independence of policing and a number of measures have either been put in place or are under active consideration. For example in Gibraltar there is a Police Authority charged with maintaining the independence of policing and in Guernsey there are draft proposals for the establishment of an Independent Law Enforcement Commission. While these developments have been taking place elsewhere, the movement in Jersey has been in the opposite direction with the removal of the committee structure and a focus on a direct line of accountability to a single politician. It is my contention that this places the Chief Officer of Police at a structural disadvantage in any situation in which the proper requirements of law enforcement and the interests of political expediency collide and is contrary to the principles of Human Rights and Good Governance. This is particularly the case when a new Minister takes a different view from that taken by his or her predecessor.

9.In spite of this background I have attempted to ensure that at all times the force operates “without fear or favour” particularly when investigating matters affecting the interests of politicians, other senior figures, their families and associates. Such investigations are not rare. It is customary for at least one such enquiry to be live at any one time. I cannot remember the last time when the force did not have at least one enquiry of that nature. In an environment in which Ministers and others are accustomed to a more direct control over public services I have found it necessary to make the point that the police are not a department of government, and to assert the independence of the force from direct political control. Ideally these assertions should be founded on some established and widely accepted principles of law and good practice. In the current circumstances they have more often been founded on the determination and strength of personality of the Chief Officer and the former Deputy Chief Officer. No Chief Officer of Police should be required to operate under such arrangements.

10.The events which gave rise to this application did not begin with the suspension meeting on 12th November 2008. Their roots lay in a series of events associated with the historic abuse enquiry. This enquiry, known as “Operation Rectangle” began over a year before it became publicly known and long before the crime scene work at Haute De La Garenne. The investigation took place against a background of widespread rumor, speculation and political controversy. The establishments which the police were investigating were owned and run by the States of Jersey, and for which members of the Council of Ministers had political responsibility. In the early stages a significant number of people were named as “suspects”, either of abuse or of covering up abuse in a way which may have constituted a perversion of the course of justice. Although the suspect list was later refined as the evidential picture became clearer it was extensive in the early stages and, significantly, included a number of people who, currently or recently, held positions of seniority or influence in public services. This provided further grounds for tension and prevented the adoption of a partnership working model common elsewhere for enquiries of this nature. Maintaining the independence of police operations, difficult enough in ordinary times under the accountability arrangements described above, became a full time challenge as the enquiry unfolded.

11. Against this background there followed a series of events and confrontations in which the leadership of the force became isolated from an inner group of politicians and civil servants loyal to the then Chief Minister and hostile to the independent line taken by the police. By way of illustration I will give examples of three events which typify this developing state of affairs.

12. In July 2007 a case came to public notice following a Serious Case Review (S.C.R.) carried out by an independent person appointed by the States. The review concerned the completed criminal case of a (removed for anonymity) who had been subject of sexual abuse by two local men. The matter had been investigated by the police and the two men were convicted. Following the circulation of the review report the then Health Minister, Senator Stuart Syvret, was critical of the depth of the report and asked a number of questions of all of the agencies involved, including the police. I agreed with the Health Ministers assessment of the report. I thought that it avoided some of the more difficult questions and lacked challenge. I did not think that the Ministers criticism of the police was well founded but I arranged for him to be provided with a full reply in response to whatever he asked. I did not see this as a particularly unusual thing to do. In any healthy environment it is open to politicians to challenge the heads of public services and only right that they should get a full reply. As I see it that is how the system is supposed to work. I had assumed that others would see things the same way. On the afternoon of Wednesday 25th July 2007 I discovered that this was not the case. I attended a meeting of the Corporate Management Board (C.M.B.) this is a body which brings together the heads of the islands public services to discuss policy issues and provide collective advice to Ministers.

13.T he feeling in the room was tense and there was general talk about the questions asked by the Health Minister and the need for some sort of action in response. I had the feeling that “something was going on” to which I was not a party. After the meeting the Chief Executive, Bill Ogley, asked me to stay behind. Also remaining were the head of States H.R., Ian Crich, the Chief Officer of Health, Mike Pollard and the then Chief Officer of Education, (Tom McKeon who has since retired.) The Chief Executive said that it was anticipated that the Council of Ministers would tomorrow be asked by the then Chief Minister, Senator Frank Walker, to pass a vote of “no confidence” in the Health Minister and that this could result in his removal from office. I was then told of measures that had apparently been put in place to facilitate this. I was told that the islands Child Protection Committee (C.P.C.) was due to meet at the same time as we were meeting and that arrangements had been made for it to pass a vote of “no confidence” in the Minister. It was then suggested that as the heads of the relevant public services we should do something similar and that this would give support to the proposal that the Chief Minister would bring forward the next day.

14.I was shocked by this and initially did not know what to say. I eventually made two points. Firstly I said that the Minister was entitled to ask difficult questions. As I saw things that was his role and it was our role to provide a response, and secondly, even if that was not agreed, what was being proposed was civil servant and police engagement in political activity. I stated clearly that I did not see that as acceptable and that I would have nothing to do with it. At this point the Chief Executive asked me to leave the meeting which I did. I then made contact with a police colleague who had been at the C.PC. and discovered that this colleague had also had left their meeting for similar reasons. Shortly afterwards we both made brief notes in relation to what had happened. This was my first noteworthy experience of the formation of an “inner circle” of politicised senior civil servants loyal to the Chief Minister. The Chief Executive and the head of H.R. subsequently played a significant role in my suspension.

15.Further indications of an gulf between the Chief Minister and his associates, on one hand, and the force, supported by the then Home Affairs Minister, Senator Wendy Kinnard, on the other, emerged the day on which it was decided that Senator Kinnard was no longer able to maintain political oversight of the Historic Abuse Enquiry. This was because a few days previously she had made a witness statement which created a conflict of interest. At the time of writing I do not have access to my diary and notebooks and cannot be sure of the exact date. A meeting was arranged to discuss how this would be managed. The meeting was attended by me, Senator Kinnard, The Chief Executive and the then Chief Minister. The Chief Minister entered the room and immediately began a verbal attack on the historic abuse enquiry claiming that it was causing damaging publicity for the island. Senator Kinnard, who was the Minister to whom I was actually accountable, attempted to defend the enquiry but she was effectively shouted down.

16.I knew that the views being expressed by the Chief Minister were not the views of the Home Affairs Minister. She had been regularly briefed on the enquiry by members of the force and by senior advisors appointed by the Association of Chief Police Officers and had expressed her strong support for the conduct of the investigation. The Chief Minister said that he was “under pressure to suspend both the Chief and the Deputy Chief”. He did not say where the pressure was coming from but he said this in a way which gave the impression that he was not hostile to that pressure. The heat of the exchanges rose and the Chief Minister spoke to Senator Kinnard in a way which I found offensive and I saw that she was clearly becoming upset. She was the only woman present and I was her only friend in the room. I intervened forcefully and told the Chief Minister that from my management experience, I considered that he was behaving in a way which, in a workplace, could be classed as bullying and lead to a claim or constructive dismissal.

17.After a while things calmed down and the options for re-allocating Ministerial responsibility for the enquiry were discussed. I later learned that Deputy Andrew Lewis, who was the Assistant Home Affairs Minister, had been asked to take the Ministerial lead in respect of the enquiry. (On a later date, when Senator Kinnard resigned as Minister, Deputy Lewis was briefly appointed as Minister for a few weeks before he left politics.) I left the meeting in no doubt that the then Chief Minister was actively seeking a justification to use the power of suspension in a punitive way against either myself or the then Deputy Chief Officer or both. At no stage did he mention any substantive allegations which might justify suspension. He gave the impression of regarding suspension as a weapon in itself. The Chief Executive, who was present throughout, played a significant role in my suspension, and during the suspension meeting the Chief Minister was in the next room. The Chief Minister presided alongside the new Minister for Home Affairs (Deputy Lewis) at the press briefing at which my suspension was announced.

18.Since my suspension a member of the States who is otherwise unconnected to any of these events, has come forward and offered evidence. The States member speaks of overhearing a conversation in the corridors of the State building between the then Chief Minister and Deputy Lewis. This discussion appears to have occurred in the weeks following the meeting mentioned above. During that discussion the possibility of suspending or dismissing the Deputy Chief Officer was being actively discussed. It might be useful to add at this stage that if Minister had taken legal advice concerning their suspension powers in relation to police officers (which they presumably have at some stage) they would have been told that in an apparently unintended consequence of the way that the law is drafted, they have no powers whatsoever in relation to the Deputy Chief Officer. That authority rests entirely with the Chief Officer. If suspension is on their mind then the only target within their range is the Chief Officer. There is nobody else that they are able to suspend.

19.The third example I have chosen relates to a Strategic Planning Workshop held at the St Pauls Centre on Friday 24th October 2008. The Workshop was attended by a number of senior public servants including myself and the Chief Executive. At the commencement of the workshop the Chief Executive asked for silence and said that he had an announcement to make. He named a senior civil servant who was present. The person named is a suspect in the abuse investigation but has not been suspended. The Chief Executive said that the suspect had his total support and that “if anyone wants to get…….(the suspect)…….they would have to get me first”. This announcement was applauded by some but not all of the persons present. I took it as a further indication of the “in crowd” closing ranks against the “threat” of the abuse enquiry. The Chief Executive later played a significant role in my suspension.

20.I now turn to the events more directly related to my suspension on Wednesday 12th November 2008. There was no long “run up” to what occurred. It was all very quick and unexpected. On the evening on Tuesday 11th November 2008 I was on holiday having returned from the U.K. earlier that day. I was unexpectedly telephoned at home by the then Home Affairs Minister, Deputy Andrew Lewis. Given the nature of my professional responsibilities telephone calls during leave and other “off duty” periods are not uncommon, although it was unusual to be contacted by a Minister. The Minister sounded anxious. He told me that he wished to see me in the office of the Chief Executive at 11 a.m. the following day. He said that the meeting was to discuss the content of a presentation and meeting which had taken place that evening, attended by himself other Ministers and the new Deputy Chief Officer. He said that those present at the meeting had seen reports and documents relating to the Historic Abuse Enquiry. I was surprised by this. I did not know that such a meeting had been planned and if I had known I would have attended. In a telephone conversation with the Deputy Chief Officer a few days previously we had discussed forthcoming events and I had been told that there would be a press conference on the historic abuse enquiry on Wednesday 12th November but no mention had been made of any briefing to the Ministers on the evening of 11th.

21.I attended the following morning as requested and was asked to wait in the area outside of the Chief Executives office. I had been there for a few minutes when I sensed a movement and on looking up I saw the Chief Minister apparently leaving the Chief Executives office and return to his own office which was next door. I then saw the Head OF Human Resources, who seemed “flustered” enter the Chief Executives office carrying papers, and leave shortly afterwards. I noted at this stage the time was 11-10a.m. but I did not think to note any times thereafter. Shortly afterwards I was invited into the Chief Executives office. He and Deputy Lewis were seated together and I was invited to sit opposite. They were in possession of documents. It later emerged that these documents were as follows:

21.1.A copy of the disciplinary code for the Chief Officer of Police which I attach at Appendix “a”

21.2.A letter headed “Disciplinary Code” which was addressed to me. Appendix “b”

21.3.A letter headed “Suspension from Duty” which was also addressed to me. Appendix “C”

21.4.Also, two days later I received through the post a copy of a letter headed “Disciplinary Code” signed by the Minister and addressed to the Chief Executive. I attach this at Appendix “D”.

22.The Minister read out to me some of the content of the letter at “B” and showed it to me. This was the first indication that I had been given that the meeting was of a disciplinary nature. I had been given no notice, no time to prepare, and was not offered any representation. The Chief Executive said that in view of the content of the letter I would be allowed up to one hour to “consider my position.” With hindsight I recognise that the Chief Executive may have chosen his words carefully. However, at the time neither myself, nor I believe anyone else in the room, had any doubt that this was an invitation to resign. I treated it as such and said that I was rejecting the opportunity and denied any wrong-doing. I also protested at the unfairness of what was happening, the fact that I had not seen the documents to which the letter referred, and had been given no chance to offer representations or a respond to their content. These comments were noted but nothing was done.

23.It was at around this point that I became aware that the Chief Executive was taking handwritten notes. These appeared to be detailed and I saw him turn an A4 or similar sized page at least once. At one point I slowed down what I was saying in order that he could capture the words. The Minister then said that he had decided to suspend me with immediate effect and I was handed the letter “C.” This was the first indication I had been given that suspension was a possibility. Suspension had not been discussed until seconds before it was actually invoked. A short conversation followed during which I made representations on the manner of any enquiry and for “equality of arms” by means of legal representation. It was during these exchanges that further information emerged from the Minister, who made a number of unscripted comments which continued in spite of interruptions and other attempts by the Chief Executive to get him to be quiet. It was stated by the Minister that the press briefing to announce my suspension had already been arranged for that afternoon, and that Ministers had already agreed “lines to take” on such matters as confidentiality during any enquiry and that it would be claimed that the suspension was a “neutral act”.

24.The Minister then appeared to have an attack of guilt. He told me that he had always admired my commitment and professionalism and that he regarded me as an outstanding Chief Officer. He offered me his best wishes and sincere hopes that I would be successful in defending myself against these allegations. He did not seem to see any contradiction between what he was saying and his actions of a few minutes previously. It was on this surreal note that the meeting ended. According to my recollection it all happened very quickly although I did not think to note the time. It was subsequently said on behalf of the Minister that the meeting lasted less than 35 minutes but how much less was not stated. (The Ministers account of the meeting will be referred to again in this application and is set out in Appendix “h” to follow)

25.I have subsequently had an opportunity to study the documents provided to me in more detail. Based on the documents I have been given, and my long experience in operating similar procedures from a management perspective, I offer the following observations. The letter from the Minister to the Chief Executive (Appendix “D”) requires the Chief Executive to “conduct a preliminary investigation under paragraph 2 of the discipline code” Paragraph 2 of the code describes the process for a preliminary investigation. The Chief Executive is required to establish the “relevant facts” These will include “statements from the available witnesses and the Chief Officer.” Paragraph 2.3 of the code is headed “continued or serious breach of discipline/poor performance/capability.” It begins in paragraph 2.3.1. by stating “if the preliminary investigation indicates that a more serious breach of discipline … has occurred … the issue will be considered by the Home Affairs Minister.” Paragraph 2.3.2. describes how a hearing in consequence of paragraph 2.3.1. will be established. Paragraph 2.3.3. states “In more serious circumstances the Chief Officer may be suspended from duty…pending the outcome of this procedure.” I submit that there can be no reasonable doubt that the Discipline Code for the Chief Officer of Police creates a legitimate expectation that the suspension will be preceded by a period of preliminary investigation, assessment of evidence, a right of response, and an appropriate level of consideration and reflection. I submit that this is not only an expectation created by the code but a requirement of fair play and natural justice. No such entitlements were provided in my case.

26.As I understand it, the Minister may attempt to argue that he was entitled to conclude, without any preliminary investigation, that “more serious circumstances” had arisen and that he was thereby entitled to suspend without any preliminary process. It is agreed that the circumstances could conceivably arise in which the procedure may need to be condensed. For example the Chief Officer being arrested while committing a crime might be one such circumstance which could possibly justify a shortening of the expected process, although even in those circumstances some form of preliminary consideration and representation might be appropriate. In such an event it would be for the Minister to record and justify why such extreme action had been taken. “more serious circumstances” should not be used as a “get out clause” Which allows the Minister to by-pass the legitimate expectations of process created by the code, and act without warning, without offering representation and without providing a fair opportunity of response. In this paragraph, and some to follow, I have argued that the Minister has not complied with his obligations under the disciplinary code for the Chief Officer of Police. I would nevertheless ask that all of these comments be viewed in context of paragraphs 5 to 7 of this application which raise questions regarding the appropriateness and Human Rights compliance of the code itself.

27.I will now set out some of the reasons why I consider that it would have been fair and reasonable for the Minister to consider the issues before him at greater length and in accordance with the prescribed procedure, and hoe he has failed to take into account matters which it was his duty to consider. In some cases I have asked the Minister to provide further information relevant to this application. At the time of writing this has not been provided. I do however have copies of the original letters from the suspension meeting which form part of the appendices and I have since received the proposed terms of reference for the Investigating Officer. These are attached at Appendix “E”. The reasons which, in my submission, provide grounds for overturning the decision of the Minister in addition to those already stated include the following:

27.1.So far as is known, whatever is alleged (and over six weeks after the event I have still not been shown the documents containing the allegations which gave rise to my suspension) relates to management processes and structures in the early part of the investigation. I understand that nothing relates to the current management of the force and that there is support for the management structures which I have either put in place personally, or have been put in place by others acting on my instructions.

27.2.On the 12th November 2008 I was part way through a holiday, was not in command of the force, and did not intend to return to work for several days. There was ample time to apply proper process and to allow representations.

27.3.The Minister appears to have placed high emphasis on reports to the effect that the early part of the investigation was not conducted in accordance with the multi-agency model more common in such investigations. He has failed to take into account the strong impediments to partnership working set out in paragraph 10 of this application.

27.4.In seeking to determine my culpability the Minister appears to be relying on an assessment of compliance with policing guidelines which apply in much of (but not all of) the U.K. He has failed to address the question of whether he or his predecessors have ever approved the application of those guidelines to this jurisdiction.

27.5.The Minister places heavy reliance on a document which purports to set out the interim findings of a review by the “Metropolitan Police” into the early staged of the investigation. This review was carried out on my authority. He does not appear to have taken into account that the actual authors of the report are understood to be one police officer, who. In the context of these allegations, is of relatively junior rank, and one civilian assistant. It is believed that neither has ever exercised strategic oversight of a major crime enquiry from the rank of Chief Officer or equivalent. (At the time of writing more details relating to this have been requested and are awaited.)

27.6.The Minister has failed to take into account the reports and verbal briefings provided to him and others during the relevant stages of the enquiry by a team of senior expert advisors appointed by the Association of Chief Police Officers.

27.7.He has failed to take into account the prompt and full response of the force to all of the issues raised during the process described at 27.6 above and the fact that at no stage did he or any other political representative express any dissatisfaction in the consequence of the high level briefings given by the senior A.C.P.O. team.

27.8.He has failed to take into account the fact that the senior A.C.P.O. advisors referred to above were internationally recognised for their expertise and were led by a person with many years experience in the strategic oversight of major crime enquiries from a rank equivalent to that of Chief Officer.

27.9.So far as is known he failed to give due weight to the fact that none of the alleged events took places during his tenure as Minister and he failed to take reasonable steps to establish whether the person who was Minister at the time had any views on the matter.

27.10.The Minister failed to take into proper account the fact that prior to his retirement the former Deputy Chief Officer was awarded a certificate of commendation by the previous Minister for outstanding leadership and media management in the investigation. The Minister has failed to reconcile this award with the retrospective view of events which he has now chosen to take.

27.11.The Minister has failed to take into account the frequently expressed wishes of political leaders and others that the policing of the island should be developed along the principles of local solutions to local issues and that the creation of excessive bureaucracy, processes, and management structures should be avoided. In seeking to hold the Chief Officer to account for allegedly failing to comply with U.K. policing guidelines the impact of such a precedent on the wider agenda of protecting the independence of law enforcement in Jersey has not been given due weight.

27.12.The Minister has failed to take proper account of the 2008 report by H.M. Inspectorate of Constabulary which states “At the time of the Inspection the force was investigating a series of criminal allegations relating to a children’s home spanning a number of decades. In addition to committing substantial local resources, the force sought and was receiving specialist operational assistance from forces on the U.K. mainland to allow the force to effectively investigate these allegations whilst maintaining core business. The investigation was being led by the deputy chief officer and was of a very high profile.” The Inspectorate made no critical comment concerning this arrangement.

27.13.The Minister has failed to fully address the question of whether, against all of the background, and the known performance of the force under my leadership, the action taken was a necessary and proportionate measure.

27.14.The suspension occurred on 12th November 2008 and on 2nd December the Minister made a report to the States. In that statement, and in subsequent exchanges, he makes no claim to have sought any further information, or considered ant representations since the original suspension. He refused to provide members with a copy of the Disciplinary Code under which he had acted. By his actions the Minister prevented members from engaging in proper scrutiny of what had occurred and has sought to defeat the apparent intention of the law that, although initially accountable to the Minister, the Chief Officer is ultimately accountable to the States as a whole.

28.While guidelines approved by the U.K. H OME Office do not have a direct application to Jersey, they can sometimes provide background information as to what is seen as appropriate elsewhere. For this purpose I attach at Appendix “F” a copy of the current guidelines which are applicable in most of the U.K. It can be seen from the document that suspension is positioned as part of an incremental process, usually associated with a history of poor performance and public concerns. The procedure of addressing these issues typically involves a partnership between the Home Secretary, The Inspectorate, and the Police Authority. Suspension may be invoked when the relevant parties have concluded that a point has been reached in which a requirement to resign or dismissal is appropriate and there are significant public concerns. The guidelines state “suspension is a grave matter and the authority or the secretary of State will need to make a judgement about whether suspension would enhance or diminish public confidence. While it is accepted that these guidelines are of marginal relevance to my case, they nevertheless give some support to a legitimate expectation that the suspension of the head of a police service will be seen as a last-resort option, preceded by careful consideration and assessment involving a number of parties. It should also be noted that under U.K. guidelines any suspension needs to be subject to a monthly review.

29.I now turn to some associated issues which may be seen as undermining any argument by the Minister that some form of due process or proper consideration was applied in my case. The first concerns the text of the letter of suspension which is at Appendix “C”. This letter was handed to me at the conclusion of my discipline meeting. I had received no prior warning of this possibility. The final paragraph of page 1 states “At our meeting earlier today, I informed you that I was considering whether you should be suspended from duty. I now write to inform you that I have decided, in accordance with the terms of the Police Force (Jersey) Law, 1974, to suspend you from duty, on full pay, pending the outcome of the investigation and any subsequent hearings.” I do not believe that it is disputed that there was no meeting “earlier today.” I have challenged this and other aspects of the process and received a letter sent on behalf of the Minister dated 19th November 2008 which I attach at Appendix “G”. The letter refers to the discipline meeting on 12th November 2008 and makes the following claim. “the Minister, having outlined his concerns about the command and control structures in place as regards the Historic Abuse Enquiry and your role within that, informed you that he was minded to invoke the disciplinary code and suspend you. You were offered a period of time (up to an hour) to consider matters and you were offered unsigned copies of the letters it was intended to give you should the process be subsequently activated. The purpose of this was for you to have access to the matters that would be subject of possible investigation and to give you the opportunity to consider those and comment back to the Minister before any decision to commence the process was taken.

30.Taken as a whole this statement is almost entirely untrue. Firstly it seeks to explain the offer of up to an hour to “consider my position” as not an offer to resign but an opportunity to have “access to the matters that would be subject of investigation.” Given that both the discipline letter and the suspension letter make it clear that these “matters” are set out in documents which, over six weeks later, I have still not been shown, and relate to an enquiry which had been running for around two years, I suggested that this claim is transparently false, as is any suggestion that a period of up to one hour, with no notice and no representation, constituted anything approaching a fair opportunity for to make a reasonable submission. If this is doubted then I refer to the initial comments of the Chief Constable of Wiltshire who has been appointed Investigating Officer into the allegations made by the Minister. In seeking to agree the initial process for the enquiry he states in a letter dated 11th December 2008 that “Based on what I know now, I do envisage that relevant inquiries will probably take a number of months to complete.” Even if a period of “up to an hour” had been offered to comment upon the allegations (which it was not) then it could not be seen as fair in the circumstances.

31.Also relevant to the conduct of the Minister is his claim in the letter that the possibility of suspension was mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, and that he informed me that he was “minded.” To suspend me. On reading his letter, I saw this as an attempt on his part to handle the issue of the reference in the suspension letter to the meeting “earlier today.” I anticipated that this may be the beginning of an attempt to argue that the meeting in some way had two parts and that some form of consideration took place in the middle. This might be somewhat implausible in a meeting which, by the Ministers own account lasted less than 35 minutes and by my recollection was rushed and quickly concluded. However, this position changed a few days later when, on 29th November 2008 I received a typed document signed by the Minister. (Appendix “H”) This purported to be a record of the disciplinary meeting. This at least makes it clear that no mention of suspension was made until the Minister handed me the suspension letter thereby putting the process into effect. I wrote and challenged the typed record of the meeting on the basis that it claimed things which were not true and omitted things which were in my favour. In order to clarify matters I asked for a true copy of the handwritten record made by the Chief Executive during the meeting.

32.On 5th December 2008 I received a further letter on behalf of the Minister (Appendix “I”). This informed me that the original notes of the meeting had been destroyed. It is my belief that, in the sequence of events, this destruction took place at a time when the Minister and his civil servants were on clear notice that I was preparing a legal challenge to my suspension, and may have been done because the notes contained evidence which was in my favour. I have made a separate formal complaint in respect of this.

33.Taking all of the evidence into account I consider that I am entitled to believe that the decision to suspend me was in fact taken by the Chief Minister and the Home Affairs Minister, probably in collusion with others, on the evening of Tuesday 11th November 2008. Civil Servants were then tasked with producing paperwork and a procedure for use the following morning. This was done with the intention of creating an impression that some form of due process and consideration had taken place. This latter task was however performed in a rush with the consequence that mistakes in procedure and the attempted deceptions are evident.

34.On 3rd December 2008 I received a copy of the proposed terms of reference for the Investigating Officer in respect of the allegations against me (Appendix “E”). The Investigation has been given the title of “Operation Haven” and is headed by the Chief Constable of Wiltshire. The Investigating Officer has since made it clear that he does not regard matters relating to my suspension as falling within his remit and consequently he will make no enquiries in respect of what occurred. On my reading, the terms of reference invite an investigation into the extent of my compliance with guidelines applicable to police services in England and Wales. No evidence is offered as to why these guidelines should be deemed to be applicable to Jersey I have made separate representations to the Investigating Officer in respect of this and other aspects of the proposed terms of reference for “Operation Haven.”

35.In summary, I suggest that the following are some of, but not all of, the matters in respect of which the court may wish to take a view.

Whether the actions of the Minister, and the structures of accountability, legislation and process on which he founded those actions, are consistent with the general principles of fairness and compliance with Human Rights.
Whether the actions of the Minister were consistent with legitimate expectations of process, representation, proper notice, and the right of response created by the disciplinary code and the general expectations of proper procedure relating to the suspension from duty of the Chief Officer of Police.

Whether the Minister took into account all of the things which he had an obligation to consider before taking the serious step of suspension.

The public interest issues arising from the creation of a precedent and the possibility of the future abuse of that precedent by a Minister who is inconvenienced by the proper execution of police duties, and of the wider implications for public confidence in the independence and integrity of the police service and of the Criminal Justice System as a whole.

Signed…………………..Graham Power.

TREVOR AGREES TO PUT P201 - ‘STRATEGY FOR DEALING WITH YOUNG OFFENDERS’ WORKING GROUP PROPOSITION ON HOLD

2010-02-01T21:25:00.000-08:00

Trevor has just informed us that following discussions with Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand he has agreed to put his proposition to establish a working group to develop a strategy for dealing with young offenders ‘on hold’ until April.

Trevor explains: ‘Having been one of the politicians who called for the urgent construction of an all-encompassing ‘Children’s Plan for Jersey’ (whilst Vice-Chairman of the Vulnerable Children’s Services Scrutiny Review), I’ve taken this decision to allow us to see if all that is needed can come out of the work recently commissioned with Andrew Williamson. Similarly, to establish if the claimed ‘reactivation’ of the Corporate Parent which failed so dismally in the past can now live up to its responsibilities. It’s no good just having a new name – it has to deliver.’

Nevertheless, Trevor is keen to stress that at this stage he is certainly not pulling or abandoning the proposition.

‘Like the Minister I obviously do not wish to see any work unnecessarily duplicated,’ he told us. ‘But one of the pleasing outcomes of my earlier proposition, P148, was that the debate around it in November 2009 has really contributed to focussing people’s minds on the urgent need to get to grips with the issue of young offenders.

Thus, given that things have finally begun to move somewhat I’m happy to put the proposition on hold for a couple of months to see what develops. But I will be watching the situation closely. This is not just about sorting out the Youth Justice system. Far from it!

We need a root and branch look at everything that underlies and contributes to young people ‘going off the rails’ and offending. If the work initiated by the Home Affairs Minister and his colleagues fails to deliver in terms of the necessary depth then come April I will bring the proposition back to the States for debate. This is just too important to risk not getting right.

Trevor also told us of his real frustration with the failure of Ministerial government to utilise the many different skills and work experiences of Members existent within the States.

‘I obviously have very real concerns about how the Chief Minister has consistently told us he is committed to ‘inclusive’ government - yet time-after-time has acted to implement the exact opposite. Setting up this style of strategy group would have been an example of precisely the way the States should be making use of individual Members professional experience and skills to get the best results for the community.

This is an area of work I am passionate about coming from the background that I do; and where I would like to play a part. Many other ‘backbenchers’ feel exactly the same about other areas. We appear to have taken a step in the right direction with the recent acceptance by the States of the Fort Regent working group advocated by Scrutiny. And if we are not to forever be a ‘them’ and ‘us’ government then this is surely the way forward that we must be willing to follow. Unfortunately, I admit I can’t help feeling that for many within the COM ‘inclusion’ is just a convenient sound-byte for the spin-doctors’.

Trevor's Written Questions

2010-01-27T00:34:00.000-08:00

Trevor tells us that his written questions for the States sitting of February 2nd arise from a mixture of his current constituent work; unresolved issues arising from the last States sitting; and some developing work on a review of taxation. The question to the Home Affairs Minister relates to many months work supporting residents of Albert Quay to get the authorities to finally tackle long-standing problems with anti-social behaviour. The question to the Attorney General follows on from a question on the use of independent lawyers during the Historic Abuse Inquiry that went unanswered at the last sitting due to States 'Question Time' over-running. The question to the Treasury Minister arises from work Trevor is analyzing with regard to progressive taxation possibilities. Finally, the question for the Chairman of the Privileges & Procedures Committee relates to the dissatisfaction a number of Members felt with the manner in which the complaint to PPC from Jersey's suspended Police Chief was dealt with.

WRITTEN QUESTION TO H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER
ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 2nd FEBRUARY 2010

"Will H.M. Attorney General please clarify whether any of the three former members of 7 Bedford Row Chambers subsequently employed within or by the Attorney General’s office, as mentioned in an answer to a written question on 19th January 2009, were involved in any way in work relating to the Historic Abuse Inquiry; and if so, would he advise what form this involvement took?"

WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS
BY DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER
ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 2nd FEBRUARY 2010

"Will the Minister advise how many complaints, if any, have been received by the States of Jersey Police over the past twelve months relating to anti-social behaviour emanating from the area around the Albert Quay Apartments and surrounding land, particularly problems involving cars and motor bikes; further still, how many arrests have been made and how many charges have been brought against those involved in such anti-social behaviour?

Given the number of complaints from residents concerning anti-social behaviour involving cars and motorbikes outside the Albert Quay Apartments, will the Minister advise whether it is the responsibility of the States of Jersey Police or the Harbours Department to deal with this; and whether speed limits and Island-wide restrictions on the sounding of horns within certain hours can be enforced by the States of Jersey Police?"

WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES
BY DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER
ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 2nd FEBRUARY 2010

"Given that taxation rates are in line for review, based on current figures, would the Minister advise what increase in revenue would be achieved by the introduction of a progressive tax rate of either 25% or 30% being implemented for those earning more than £100,000 per annum?"

WRITTEN QUESTION TO CHAIRMAN OF PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE
BY DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER
ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 2nd FEBRUARY 2010

Following her response to a question on 19th January 2009, concerning the letter of complaint to the Privileges and Procedures Committee made by the suspended Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, when the Chairman stated that she had intended to mention the letter to the rest of the Committee but that it had not been done , whilst also stating that she often did not inform the Committee of such contacts, would the Chairman advise whether she feels that such comments are consistent; and whether she feels that such practice does not undermine confidence in the Committee to do its job?"

Geoff to Quiz Ministers About Post Office

2010-01-24T21:35:00.000-08:00

Following the news that Jersey's Post office plans extensive downsizing in the near future, Deputy Geoff Southern has prepared the following questions to ministers:

Economic Development Minister

To what extent has the ED department been in consultation with the management of Jersey Post, either directly or through the JCRA or other bodies over the recently announced restructuring plan for Jersey Post?

In particular, will the minister explain to members the meaning of the following statements from Jersey Post:

1.“the redundancies at Jersey Post are not a reduction in jobs…”
Will the minister inform members how many employees are there now and how many at the end of the process in 2013?

2.There is to be a “re-alignment of pay to market rates for particular skill sets and activities”
Does this re-alignment mean pay cuts for any employees, and if so which grades and how many? Further, will the minister outline for members the depth of any such pay cuts?

3.Can the minister assure members that this process will not result in deterioration to the Universal Service Provision, including collection and delivery provision?

4.In particular, has the minister received any assurances that Post Offices or sub post offices will not be closed or otherwise affected by this process?

Social Security Minister

Will the minister detail for members of the extent that his department has been involved in discussions over the impact that the restructuring plan recently announced by Jersey Post will have on redundancies and reduced wages and hence on his departments expenditure on Income Support and supplementation? Will he give members an estimate of these projected costs?

Setting Short-term objectives: Our Deputies Meet and Discuss

2010-01-24T07:25:00.000-08:00

The JDA's four Deputies regularly meet to discuss and co-ordinate their work. They have decided to start publishing the minutes of their meetings online, to give the public a better understanding of their work. Here, then is this year's first:

MEETING OF THE JDA PARLIAMENTARY MEMBERS
22.01.10

At today’s meeting, Geoff, Shona, Trevor and Debbie discussed their priorities over what propositions to bring in the next few months. They focus on the key policy areas of fair taxation, electoral reform and population.

TAXATION
Geoff will conduct a further investigation into land value tax. He will ask a question about how much revenue would be generated by a higher tax rate for high earners. There will be a proposition (possibly brought by Trevor) to remove GST from essential items and raise it on luxury goods. Debbie will focus on the removal of GST from winter fuel payments, and Shona on the removal of GST from healthy food items.

MINIMUM WAGE
This is an opportune time to raise it to 45% of the average wage. This needs to be dealt with (by Geoff) by March.

ELECTORAL REFORM
Shona is working on a proposition re the method by which the Chief Minister is elected. Debbie is proposing that Ministers should be unable to vote for Scrutiny chairmen. Geoff or Trevor will propose a rolling electoral register.

There is a hope that 39A (the law that prohibits helping people to apply to get registered for a postal vote) will be rescinded, brought forward by a States member who is not in the JDA. Having discussed this with a number of members of the general public deeply concerned about the disenfranchisement of many who are elderly or disabled etc, Geoff is also looking at the possibility of challenging it in the Royal Court on the basis that it is not Human Rights compliant.

Trevor will try to establish the right to lodge propositions in the name of the party.

POPULATION
The migration and population policy is being restructured. The JDA needs to discuss the line it will take.

ADVOCACY
As Scrutiny has now stalled on establishing an advocacy service, members favour the holding of regular surgeries with a rota of town deputies. There could be a buddy system, with experienced deputies training less experienced ones, and lay members to take on cases.

POLITICAL EDUCATION IN SCHOOLS
This was discussed but it was agreed that no policy will be brought forward for the time being given that the issue is set to be a forthcoming Scrutiny topic.

MINISTERS AND THEIR BLACKBERRIES – TO PLAY OR STAY?

2010-01-17T21:20:00.000-08:00

My proposition focusing on the eighteen Ministers and Assistant Ministers now not just claiming their expenses, but also getting their Blackberry bills paid at the taxpayers’ expense is up for debate next week. Followed rapidly by my attempt to get more States Members to do what they are actually paid for by the taxpayer during States sitting weeks i.e. stay in the Chamber to listen, make informed decisions and vote accordingly.

Like many ‘backbenchers’, not to mention a good few members of the public who have observed the constant fiddling and message sending to each other (including telling at least one hapless Assistant Minister which way to vote!) from the Public Gallery, I am sick of a practice that is already banned in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Eire and the Isle of Man - and seems quite likely to become so at Westminster too, where as recently as November 2009 the Deputy Speaker made it quite clear that their use in the House was ‘to be discouraged’.

I’ll probably try and write something in more detail on all of this after the debate itself. But in the meantime, it is worth flagging up this little gem from Chief Minister, Terry Le Sueur for consideration. Within his comments – or the Council of Ministers’ (you take your pick as to the true author) - attempting to justify all of this states:

“Ministers are required to stay in contact during Sittings of the States. Part B of Deputy Pitman’s proposition cites that there is ‘no justification’ for Blackberries inside the States Chamber, but it remains important for Ministers to receive messages and information from their departments when inside the Chamber. Prohibiting Blackberries inside the Chamber would thus be a retrograde action, forcing Ministers to leave and go elsewhere to perform their duties”

All very impressive on the face of it I have to concede. Only problem is when you start to dwell on the last line “Prohibiting Blackberries… (would result in)… forcing Ministers to leave and go elsewhere to perform their duties” Why? Because if more than a few members of the Executive - even with the wonderful, 21st Century technology of Blackberry instant communication – spent much less time in the Chamber than they do already it really wouldn’t be worth them coming in at all.

Still, I suppose the good thing is that such a statement really does mean that it will be fascinating to observe the two debates i.e. see how these members of the Executive will try to argue both that they must be allowed to keep their Blackberries to prevent them having to leave the Chamber – and that the States shouldn’t support my proposition to increase the quorum to keep them in the building. Yes, look out for some true Orwellian 1984 double-speak!

Deputy Trevor Pitman

A GOVERNMENT WITHIN A GOVERNMENT?

2010-01-15T21:31:00.000-08:00

Following on from questions raised by Deputy Bob Hill – this being with regard to the decision of the Chairman of PPC to refuse to investigate the concerns of the suspended Chief Police Officer over the actions of some involved in his suspension - at next week’s States sitting the I shall ask the following question of the Chief Minister:

“Did a meeting led by the Chief Executive take place after the CMB (Corporate Management Board) meeting of 25th July 2007 to discus matters relating to the Minister for Health and Social Services and, if so, who was present at the meeting, was the possible removal from office of the Minister discussed and, if so, would the Chief Minister suspend all those present from their duties pending a full investigation into this matter”.

These concerns have rumbled on for far too long. Having already personally asked questions last year about the alleged political and senior civil service involvement in the ‘Operation Blast’ case; and only last week seen serious concerned again expressed over the suspension of the Chief Police Officer, the allegations that attempts were made to remove a Minister from position in 2007 must finally be answered and a full independent investigation take place.

Having now been shown a copy of the original file note document where the suspended Chief Police Officer states that he felt an attempt was made to draw him ‘into a civil service led attempt to remove a Minister from office’ I have to ask the question as to how those allegedly involved can not have been suspended while this is independently investigated.

We are told that suspension is ‘a neutral act’ yet Mr. Power has now been suspended for some 14 months. Until such time as he is ever found guilty of any charge he is an innocent man. Thus to any self-respecting democratic government the concerns he expressed back in 2007 must be taken seriously and the matter acted upon. If not, then we can only conclude that the concerns raised by Deputy Hill are well founded. The fact that the Minister at the centre of this happens to be Senator Syvret; and the rights or wrongs of any of his subsequent actions are wholly irrelevant.

Deputy Trevor Pitman

OBSERVATIONS ON QUESTIONS RAISED BY ‘TEAM VOICE’ – POSTING TWO

2010-01-13T21:56:00.000-08:00

Apologies, but due to Saturday’s constituent work and visits ending up being far more protracted then anticipated, courtesy of the weather and the nature of one or two of the problems some people had; and another very busy day of constituent work Monday there will be a slight detour in this second posting. The intended response to Team Voice’s questions about the propositions and amendments that I have lodged will now hopefully be completed for posting three later this week.

Instead, tonight I will cover some of the questions sent to Members newly elected to their positions in 2008 about various aspects of their working practices etc. Though its all basic ‘nuts and bolts’ stuff which many may well find wholly boring (hey, its your fault, guys, you did ask!) there are still some interesting issues arising from these questions. So, if Team Voice will bear with me on this occasion, I may come back to one or two of these at a later date. Thanks again for taking the interest.

Other employment

Firstly, Team Voice asked whether Members had any other employment. The answer to that is no, I do not have any external business distractions and am a full-time politician. Nor, in all honesty, do I think that it is particularly desirable to have what for some Members certainly appear to be the clear conflict and pressure/distraction of another ‘job’. Why? Like a number of other Members I am increasingly concerned as to the time some ‘senior’ – and not so senior for that matter - politicians appear to devote to other business interests.

Of course, I fully support the principle that what one does outside of the States is a Member’s own concern. But – particularly in the case of politicians sitting on the Executive as Ministers – if this external commitment appears to be undermining someone’s political work, an issue that has already been raised in the States this year by Shona in relation to the quite ridiculous lengths of time one Minister was taking to respond to members of the public and the backbencher representing them, then that has to be a legitimate concern.

When you also consider the issues I raised in my initial post you also have to question the link to some politicians regularly disappearing from the States building during States sittings – and disappearing for hours at a time. Indeed, these disappearances are something PPC really should be doing something about.

Secretarial assistance and office rental

I don’t employ any secretarial support. I actually prefer to do my own typing (even if it is often based on four fingers and the occasional thumb!), filing etc and in all honesty the expenses limit set for States Members also doesn’t really make this a realistic prospect anyway for those without other income. There is also the issue of the confidential nature of many of the problems we are dealing with to consider. I don’t rent an office either. I work from an office I’ve set up in the spare room at home and on occasion make use of the very limited facilities room at the States. It is worth noting here that, as has now been recognised by PPC this year, the issue of facilities generally and the unevenness of how this pans out for Members is something that needs to be looked at.

For example, Ministers have an office and significant admin/facilities support which I certainly have no quibble with - other than when viewed against some of the appallingly inept reports and answers to questions that have become increasingly regular lately. How this can happen with so many officers at their disposal is a question that many within the Assembly have been asking. Connétables also obviously have access to offices etc by simple nature of their post through their parish hall.

For any Deputy not having a department facility to work within, however, deciding to rent an office means this cost must come from within the expenses limit – which under the States of Jersey Law is meant to be the same for all of us. The reality of this - and for an example I will use Shona who has rented an office in the heart of her district since being elected in 2005 - is that the resultant rental costs will wipe out the vast majority of those expenses meant to also cover everything from phone calls to office equipment, electricity, stationary, postage, printing and materials etc in one stroke.

A fact that takes on a further significance when one considers that this year, in a deliberate ‘loophole’ flouting of the States of Jersey Law (don’t believe the Establishment Party spin that claims otherwise!), we have seen 18 States Members of the Executive, many already with access to offices and support also claiming both their expenses and now getting Blackberry bills paid: effectively increasing/stretching their expenses limit by another three, four figures and beyond! All at the taxpayers’ expense. Why can’t they just stay within expenses limits or foot the surplus themselves like those in Scrutiny?

Have I travelled off-island on States business?

With the others members of the ESC/Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel in November 2009 I visited Westminster and the Welsh Assembly to meet with, and to view our counterparts at work. This was over two days and certainly from my perspective was very useful.

Letters, e-mails and telephone calls etc

Team Voice also asked about the volume of contacts Members received from members of the public. I would imagine that all Members would state that this can vary hugely and is affected by a number of things. For example, in the lead up to the debate on my ‘naming of youth offenders’ proposition I received over 180 contacts on this one issue over three to four weeks. Why? This was clearly an issue that a lot of people felt very strongly about, but the number was still a rarity. On other issues that you also anticipate you will be bombarded with calls you may not get a single one.

I would say that if you happen to have been in the media regarding a particular issue this also has an impact. As for more general contacts (I’m taking this question as not meaning actual cases to take up) this varies hugely too. It is possible to actually get a week on very rare occasions where you don’t get a single contact about anything and start to worry as to why. The next week you will suddenly find yourself with a dozen or more constituent contacts and possibly half as many fully blown new cases to take on as a result.

Maybe this is linked to the type of constituency a politician represents, but most people definitely seem to prefer to phone. This is wholly understandable I suppose because most will want that ‘personal’ contact in order to explain the problem.

A related point to this is the question raised by Team Voice about holding ‘surgeries’. I don’t do this for the simple reason that people who approach me for help want me there when they need that assistance; and really appreciate the fact that a politician is willing and able to come to them. For many elderly constituents, of course, taking this approach is absolutely essential. I’ve also questioned many people about this going right back to before the election and the message is overwhelmingly the same. That’s not to say they can’t work in the right circumstances

One final point under this heading. Perhaps it is partly because as a member of the JDA people are used to seeing me at the information stalls we have run regularly in the High Street over the past few years during the warmer months, but I am also really pleased that so many people seem quite happy to come up to me in the street and talk about issues. For all the faults with our system, this is one area where I think Jersey’s small size really does offer something to the democratic process that you would be highly unlikely to get in far larger jurisdictions.

‘Average’ hours and the different aspects of a States Members work

I obviously can’t speak for other Members questioned, but for me, if there is such a thing as an ‘average’ week it will generally fall between 45 – 60 hours. I must admit, as yet I have never sat down and created a week-by-week diary sheet to break this down into segments. Maybe this is something else for the coming year. Weeks with extended sittings and/or periods when Scrutiny work on an intense schedule (such as the Vulnerable Children’s review for example) can obviously increase this figure as it can have a ‘knock on’ effect. Similarly, as I indicated above, constituent work is something that you simply cannot predict and which can increase your workload significantly.

As for the different aspects of work themselves from my own experience these can be broken down into the following areas. The truth is that many of these actually overlap.

Scrutiny: As outlined in my last post, if one is committed to trying to do this to the best of his/her ability then its one of the most time consuming aspects of the job; not least because of the huge amount of background reading/research that is necessary. Of course, viewed in its present form, I also have to acknowledge that Scrutiny work may well also currently be seen to be one of the least effective usages of time in relation to ensuring effective government. This is why we need to improve it urgently.

As I touched on in posting one, it does not have sufficient teeth; is hamstrung by the limits within which it has been developed; and is viewed with total contempt by all too many of those who it is meant to help hold accountable. A further example is that the Scrutiny Chairmen’s Committee hasn’t been able to sort out the Citizens Media issue over the past year – something which I fully believe could, and should, have been sorted out long before now. But more on this last particular issue in a dedicated post.

I am aware that I have been very critical of a number of politicians who played no part, or next to none in either Scrutiny or the Executive during 2009. Yet maybe Members like Deputy Bob Hill are right? Maybe those not on the Executive can be far more effective in holding the COM to account in a different way? Sorry if that upsets any of my fellow Scrutiny members – I am just being honest. Again, more on this issue in a future post…

Propositions: In my first year following election I lodged six propositions and a further three amendments. More detail about this issue in my next posting as promised. Suffice to say for now that for a ‘backbencher’ without any support this can also be very time consuming – particularly for those members who also play a full role in all other areas I outline.

As far as I am concerned, however, it is also a very important part of the democratic process; often being the only way a Member can ensure government debates an issue that the Executive of the day simply may not want to touch with a barge pole. Personally, whether I share another Member’s political perspective or not, if they are prepared to develop propositions and follow them through (whatever the result) they have my respect for it because some Members will probably never lodge a proposition in their whole political career.

Constituent work: I am pleased to say that like each of my JDA colleagues I have a very busy portfolio of constituent work. I say pleased because it is an area of political work that I really enjoy. Which is not really surprising I suppose given a background in Youth and Community Development. Like the previous headings it too is also very time consuming, not just due to the number of cases but because the complexity of sorting problems out can vary hugely. It’s been a sharp learning curve in many areas.

Constituent work is also one area of our work that I think is definitely impacted upon according to whether a politician gets a good name for helping (or at least trying to help) people as word definitely seems to get around pretty fast. The other key factor affecting the volume of this work is obviously the type of constituency a politician represents i.e. urban or country.

I can briefly illustrate this very neatly with an example from last October. Chatting to a Deputy from a country parish – a very good Deputy too I might add – he let slip that he had just one constituent case. This must have drawn a wry smile because that particular Thursday I had happened to pick up not one, but a record (for me) seven new cases over the one afternoon. Fortunately that day has been a one off so far! As I say, it’s just the nature of different constituencies.

Finally, and I accept that some might want to criticise me for taking this approach. But though the majority of my ‘constituent’ work is obviously in my district, and is my key priority, I have also regularly taken on cases for individuals who have contacted me from other parishes over the course of the last year. Why? Though a parish Deputy I feel it is right to do this because I did initially stand in the Senatorials. So if someone feels, for whatever reason, that they are able to trust me with their problem then I think it is only right that I do my best to assist – not that you always can. It doesn’t detract from my district work in any way and personally I am happy to put in whatever additional time might be necessary to do so.

Parish work: As well as things like attending Parish Assemblies and our regular St. Helier Deputies meetings with the Connétable; helping serve food at the parish parties for elderly residents etc, constituent work obviously also overlaps this heading significantly. For example, all four JDA Deputies were recently heavily involved in supporting the residents around Ann Court to collect signatures for the petition against building a multi-story car park there.

Other aspects of work also overlap too, of course. Such as my involvement in initiatives such as the St. Helier North Town Master Plan group. I’ll talk more about this in the posting on propositions, but I also have an amendment to try and ensure that there is such representation from St. Helier No. 1 (hopefully me!) on the Fort Regent Strategy Working Group, as I think it is important that local Deputies are directly involved wherever a project or development is being planned.

Arising directly from Deputy Southern’s successful amendment to finally get the Town Park project kick-started the Connétable, Simon Crowcroft, is similarly now chairing a Working Group to push this forward.. This was finalised shortly before Christmas at one of our regular St. Helier Deputies meetings. And, whilst I did not put my name forward to be a full member of this group as both Geoff and Shona are already, like other Deputies not directly on the group I will still attend and do whatever is necessary in 2010 to help progress this long overdue project as and when I am needed.

Other aspects also come to mind in thinking about Team Voice’s questions that it is also important to support even if a politician is not directly on a group. A good example is supporting the links with Funchal and Madeira. Similarly, the new St. Helier Battle of Flowers Committee initiative that is being chaired by Debbie de Sousa. Whilst I would certainly not wish to claim it as ‘work’ as all you had to do was chip in £30 - all four JDA Deputies along with Deputy Judy Martin and Connétable Crowcroft recently attended a fundraising event featuring some traditional musicians from Madeira that was absolutely brilliant.

I would emphasise that though such things may seem unimportant at first glance they really are hugely valuable in terms of developing the community positively. Whatever some people might view his other faults I would also state here that this is one area where Simon Crowcroft has done a truly excellent job as St. Helier Connétable. .

Reports, presentations and preparation work for the States: The fact that we regularly hear members of the public moaning along the lines that all States Members do is turn up at the States once a fortnight ‘to vote yay or nay’ is, in many ways, not surprising in my view. Though I had followed local politics since I was in my late teens it was not until Shona was elected in 2005 that even I began to see the true extent of the work involved. The amount of reports and paperwork alone that arrives every week needing to be read as background to legislation, propositions etc is simply incredible and takes up (or should if you are serious about trying to understand issues that might be completely outside your sphere of knowledge or even interest) many hours every week.

Could a politician get away with not trying to do so? Undoubtedly – if he or she is really happy to just turn up at sittings and vote blindly or as they are told. I’m pleased to say that I am not one of them. On top of this there are also regularly linked ‘presentations’ to attend on some issues. Like many other Members, however, I’m afraid to say that far too many of those organised by the Council of Ministers are a complete waste of time. Why? They frequently descend into spin aimed at promoting a particular angle. Reading may take far longer but I would suggest that is far more beneficial to making an informed decision.

States sittings: This obviously overlaps directly with what I have said above so I will limit myself to the following observations. This is the only part of a politician’s ‘work’ that most people see via reporting in the media, unless you are a constituent approaching one for help. Yet actually attending States sittings are - trust me - a real eye-opener and I would encourage anyone with a high pain threshold to come along to the public gallery to watch.

If nothing else, you might get to know how misleading it can be when you are informed that someone is ‘present’ according to newspaper and radio. Likewise which politicians rarely or never ask questions? Who rarely or never plays any part in a debate by making a case for or against? Who actually tries to keep their election promises by presenting a proposition – or sells out their election promises made to you the voter at the very first turn? A really interesting one this - who always vote together and against who? Hey, if you happen to have really sharp eyesight you might even get to note who is being told how to vote via Blackberry!

I think I’ll leave it there.

Deputy Trevor Pitman

Some observations on questions raised by Citizen’s Media ‘Team Voice’

2010-01-07T21:25:00.000-08:00

Before Christmas ‘Team Voice’ – one off-shoot of what has become increasingly known as ‘Citizen’s Media’ over the past couple of years - contacted all those politicians who had been elected to new positions at the 2008 elections. This was to ask if they would consider responding to a number of questions relating to their experiences of the past year. With the Christmas/New Year festivities now out of the way, I respond to some of their key questions in what will be the first of three or possibly even four postings covering a number of different issues.

Some questions Team Voice asked about, such as how many oral/written questions a new Member might have asked during the 2008 States sittings, are really best answered by simply pointing anyone significantly interested to the appropriate areas of the States website where this information can quite easily be found. But I felt that some responses really demanded a little more detail be given: hence the decision to split the comments over a number of postings.

I would add that what is written below and within the posts that will follow will be far from a full account of the past twelve months in politics as I have experienced it. But I would nevertheless genuinely like to thank Team Voice for taking the trouble to ask their questions. I certainly don’t agree with them on every single issue but the reality is that the more people who take a deeper interest in local politics like those behind Team Voice the better it is for democracy. And that should be true regardless of whether one is left, right, centre or green. In my experience the only politicians who don’t like such interest are those who also don’t like accountability.

Posting One

In this first response to Team Voice’s questions I will outline the main Scrutiny work that I have sat on this year, and also offer some thoughts on the fascinating (honest!) issue of States sittings. The second posting in a few days time will look at the issue of the propositions/amendments that I have brought; along with discussing the different areas of a States Member’s workload.

Scrutiny work - panels and sub-panels

Like a number of politicians I firmly believe that there is a good deal that needs to be done to finally make Scrutiny what it should be i.e. the key check and balance by which the Executive is held accountable. Put in a nutshell Scrutiny needs to develop real teeth; whilst Ministers need to recognise the absolutely crucial need for adequate checks and balances to the functioning of all democracies. I would even go as far as to say that it is also quite possible that Scrutiny may not even be the best way forward to achieve this - given the general contempt that it, and those politicians who put so many hours into the work in good faith, are viewed with by so many members of the Executive. But more about that in a future posting. For now let’s get back to Team Voice’s question about panel/sub-panels I have been involved with.

Since elected I have been the Vice-Chairman of the Education, Sport & Culture and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel. This is chaired by Deputy Roy Le Herissier and also includes Deputy Montford Tadier and Connétable Graeme Butcher of St. John. Other States Members have also been co-opted for various sub-panel reviews. Full reviews are only one aspect of the Scrutiny process; but our most recently published report was an investigation into Fort Regent. Arising directly from this the panel has a proposition to establish a working party to try and finally kick-start some much-needed, co-ordinated re-development of this sadly neglected community facility up for debate in January 2010. I also have an amendment to this proposition – which I’m pleased to say has been accepted by the ESC Minister – lodged in my own name. Again, more about that next time.

During 2009 I also served as Vice-Chairman on the Vulnerable Children’s Services Review (a Health, Social Security & Housing Scrutiny sub-panel) arising from the Williamson Report. This was a very intense and time-consuming piece of work due to the very tight deadline constraints. It was chaired by Senator Alan Breckon, who I have to say put in a truly incredible amount of hours, and also included Deputies Geoff Southern and Roy Le Herissier.

I could say a great deal on this particular review, but for now will simply observe that having been the politician who persuaded the other members to lodge the proposition calling for an independent Committee of Inquiry I was truly appalled that this was subsequently rejected by the States. Why? It offered the one clear opportunity to ‘de-personalise’ (politically speaking) the whole issue and finally, however painful, ensure that the States could eventually draw a line under the issue. As it is I think this will now take many, many years.

Further still, along with being a member of the sub-panel chaired by Deputy Tadier that examined the Prison Board of Visitors system I am currently Chairman of the ESC/Home Affairs sub-panel investigating the issue of School Suspensions. The report on this issue – which is bringing to light some areas of real challenge for government to try and find means to adequately support our teachers in 2010, - should be completed by the end of February.

Finally I would also point out that a major consequence of Deputy Le Herissier and my self needing to be pulled off work to assist with the Vulnerable Children’s Services Review was that some other planned work for the later part of 2009 will now be undertaken in the coming months. This will include looking at Higher Education fees and the delivery of political education following on from the recent lowering of the voting age to 16.

States sittings – When being ‘present’ is not all it appears

Team Voice also asked how many States sittings new Members have missed. The answer to that in my case is none. Though most of us will have been unwell on occasions; or had something serious come up leading to them missing the odd thing as a result some people have not been so lucky. Here I would just pay tribute to my JDA colleague Deputy Debbie De Sousa. Debbie has endured a terrible year of bad fortune in 2009 including losing both her mother and father; her grandmother and the awful blow of her daughter losing a baby. She even ended up in hospital herself just days after the last States sitting. The fact that Debbie has soldiered on, contributed fully and still managed to serve so many constituents so well in St. Helier No.2 along with Shona and Geoff is a real credit to her strength as a person.
However, with reference to the issue of attendance at States sittings I actually think that interested ‘politicos’ like Team Voice should probably be asking slightly different questions.

Such as with regard to the number of ‘part-time’ politicians we appear to have for example. Politicians like those who squeal to the media about having to ’listen’ to long, boring speeches/propositions. Yet who all too often, having come in to say ‘present’ for the marking of the school register actually then disappear to their external business offices or to who knows where. Disappear in fact regularly not to be seen again for the rest of the day; or possibly just hurry back in to vote on debates they will often have never even heard!

I honestly think members of the public who have never observed a full States session would be quite intrigued by just how many of the ‘great and the good’ regularly contribute nothing whatsoever to debates or question time or very close to it. Just how these Members can subsequently claim to have been able to make an informed decision on which way to vote I’ll leave to readers to fathom.

When you consider the flak that Senator Syvret has received for very publicly not being present in the Chamber you also surely have to ask those Members who often only appear to be there ‘in name’ if they are really in any position to criticise? Maybe they all keep in touch via taxpayer-funded Blackberries instead? Of course, in January I have a proposition to try and combat this disappearing trick by forcing more people to stay in the Chamber by upping the quorum from 27 to 35. I wonder who will support it.

Another directly related problem that needs sorting out is the regular mass exodus. Everyone needs a quick ‘comfort break’ at some point during the morning/afternoon as I have said. But the regular, quite deliberate contempt for some Members every time they rise to speak – and Deputy Southern and the Deputy of St. Mary are two prime examples of Members being treated in this way – is both disrespectful and quite frankly wholly pathetic. What makes the behaviour all the worse is that the two Members I mention above regularly give some of the most informative and best researched speeches anyone is ever likely to hear in the States! This Establishment Party tactic has certainly become far more blatant as the year progressed. As I say…if only more of the general public would come along and watch for themselves.

To conclude? I openly acknowledge that I came into politics with very strong views. Yet the fact is that I can nevertheless say quite honestly that I have still always been willing to support and vote for another Member’s proposition on merit of the argument as I see it. Those who simply don’t/won’t vote or listen to a Member just because it happens to be the JDA; a Deputy Wimberley; Senator Breckon; Deputy Higgins or Tadier etc really aren’t fit to be in government. Unfortunately, this type of ‘politician’ is still in the majority.

But if we do really want listening, accountable and effective government; government willing to work together for the benefit of all we can change all of this very easily. Just take the same kind of interest displayed by those at ‘Team Voice’ for example and then in 2011 - vote!

Trevor Pitman

Happy New Year

2010-01-02T08:13:00.000-08:00

For the Jersey Democratic Alliance, 2010 will be the year to lay the groundwork for the 2011 General Election.

The first issue to resolve is whether we set our sights on merely being a party of opposition and protest, as we have been obliged to become for the time being, or whether we return to the original idea of being a serious alternative party of government. My personal preference is for the latter, but as our politicians become more experienced and skilled in the tactical game-play of systematic opposition, so, it seems to me, some of them are coming to see it as an end in itself. As the DEMOCRATIC Alliance, though, it will be the collective will of our membership that ultimately settles our direction.

If the alternative government vision does prevail, that will then open a second issue of what our policies should be. Our 2008 Policy Document has been overtaken by events in many places. There will be hard work to be done to overhaul it, and rebuild it into a raft of credible, practical and more attractive options to give voters a real choice.

Another challenge will be to make contingency plans for what our policies would be, in the event of a major economic setback. Dark clouds continue to hang over the international finance industry. It would be good for Jersey's economy, if our little piece of that industry continued to thrive. However, it would be somewhat foolhardy to assume that it definitely will. Should there be a substantial contraction, the JDA's principled support for a strong public sector, to provide the standard of infrastructure and services that Jersey deserves, will become incompatible with the island's traditional abhorrence of government debt. I foresee some heated debate about where the compromise should lie, so 2010 should be an interesting year for those of us who are concerned about policies. Although, should the JDA have accepted the role of perpetual opposition, it may be enough to just leave the dirty work to others, and then castigate them for it.

We have until Nomination Night in the Autumn of 2011 to find our candidates for the next election. On the other hand, it would be better to spend a year or more preparing them, than to send forth raw recruits whom we do not really know and cannot rely upon. It would be unkind to mention names, but some readers may recall that we have sampled failure in the past, from giving our backing to the unready. Perhaps one of my few readers may be secretly nursing a desire to represent their fellow islanders; come forth and tell us now, not when it is too late.

Probably the greatest challenge will be just to keep people interested. The last election is over a year gone, and the next still further away. This may be the time when politicians can concentrate on doing their best and most serious work, but that is because it is also the time when the general public are least engaged. We cannot keep using old mailing lists; that would offend against common sense and common courtesy as much as it would the Data Protection Law. Thus, we can only make general invitations to supporters to come or return to us.

2005 was an unduly rushed campaign, and 2008 even more so, despite having had years in which we could have prepared. Therefore, to apply the hard-learned lessons, Election 2011 needs to start right now.

David Rotherham

Geoff Challenges Water Redundancies

2009-11-18T07:01:00.000-08:00

Deputy Geoff Southern has sent this self-explanatory open letter to Senator Alan Maclean, the Economic Development Minister:-

To: Economic Development Minister

18th November 2009

I was invited yesterday to put in writing my complaint as a consumer of the services of the JNWW Co Ltd about the actions of this States owned monopoly utility. You suggest that the receipt of a complaint is a necessary requisite for you to request under Article 6 (4) of the Competition Regulatory Authority (Jersey) Law 2001 a report from the JCRA.

My complaint rests on the following issues, which I believe fall within the remit of the JCRA in its role as regulator of utilities and a requirement to report to the States through you as the minister responsible:

1.Is a profit of over £4 million on a turnover of only £14.3 million an appropriate return from its monopoly position or could it be excessive?

2.Is the decision to outsource or privatize this mains engineering activity, with the loss of 20 jobs, solely to further increase profits and dividends in the best interests of the island and the economy overall?

3.What skill levels exist among the JAYEN employees by comparison with the current highly skilled and experienced workforce? Is there a risk to standards of service provision?

4.Is the States conflicted? Many would consider that is acting against its own best interests and against its policies in allowing these redundancies, which will further depress the economy at a time when the Economic Stimulus policy attempts to maintain and stimulate the economy through the recession.

5.Is the States fundamentally conflicted as majority and controlling shareholder in balancing its interest in pursuing higher dividend (currently £1.6 million) against its interest in reducing prices to residents?

I look forward to your prompt response.

Deputy Geoff Southern
La Rochelle
St Helier

Geoff holds ministers to account on Water redundancies et al

2009-11-09T08:14:00.000-08:00

Deputy Geoff Southern has hatched a whole clutch of written questions regarding the implications of the proposed redundancies at Jersey Water. He also will be challenging Terry le Sueur's complacency about the Foot Report.
Here is a preview of his questions:-

To Treasury & Resources min

1. As the representative of the States majority and controlling shareholding in the JNWCo ltd (holding 100% of the issued “A” ordinary shares, 50% of the issued ordinary shares and 100% of the 7.5 – 10% cumulative fifth preference shares), will the minister inform members of his position on the following aspects of the JNWC ltd announcement of the company’s intention to make 20 of its employees redundant?

Given that the company announced a profit of £4,034,000 for 2008, an increase of 14% on the previous year, and a dividend of 194 pence per share (up by 15%) on the ordinary and “A” ordinary shares of the company, does the minister accept that the States in condoning the actions of the company, appears to put potential increased dividend above its support for employment?

Will the minister inform members how much the States received in dividend on its shareholding in 2008 and what additional dividend might be generated by these redundancies in 2009? Will he further produce an estimate of the likely impact of these redundancies on States revenues in lost tax and social security collected and additional Income Support payments?

T&R
2. Will the Minister use his powers to act in the public interest contained in article 23 of the Water (Jersey) Law 1972 to reduce water rates across the island in the light of the Water company’s actions in exploiting its monopoly position to pursue increased profits and dividends at any cost?

Economic Development
3. Will the minister use his powers under the competition law to request the JCRA to investigate the level water rates and charges of the JNWC ltd and to act to reduce the level of profits produced by its monopoly position?

Social Security
4. Will the minister inform members whether the “redundancies” recently announced by JNWC ltd fail to meet the conditions set out in Article 2 of the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003?

Chief Minister
5. Will the CM accept that the Deloitte estimate of lost tax to HMRC through the activities of offshore centres given in the Foot Report as £2 billion is a gross underestimate which cannot be relied on, differing as is does from the figure of over £11 billion derived from the TUC investigation, for the following reasons:

The Deloitte estimate:
a) used one amazingly aberrant year - 2008 - as their sample base when a lot of companies - especially banks made losses

b) Used a different definition of profit

c) On some occasions used a different definition of tax

d) Consciously turned a blind eye to a lot of avoidance saying it was 'officially sanctioned' ?

Not Enough Birds of the Right Feather

2009-11-06T07:15:00.000-08:00

Today, our old friend Monty Tadier was on the radio announcing the formation of a Reform group amongst the States Members – a long-held tactical objective of the JDA, too.

Disappointingly, though, he put the number at a maximum of fifteen. Fifteen swallows do not a summer make, when there are still nearly forty turkeys not wanting to vote for Christmas.

To achieve anything, the aspiring reformers must convince as many more again that they will be able to deliver their political objectives better in a reformed House. And the catch to that will be that some of them seem to have political objectives that are best served by a dysfunctional institution.

Anyway, good on them for trying. I just think the odds of success are very poor, and so we must not judge the probable failure harshly.

David Rotherham

The C-Word: Don't read this if of a Sensitive Disposition

2009-10-30T10:52:00.000-07:00

Already, it is time for the JDA to be looking through our 2008 policies and scrapping the many things that have been overtaken by events, and then to be shaping a new raft of policies to take us into the 2011 elections.

The hard thing with looking two years ahead though, is that the short-term future is looking exceptionally unpredictable right now. Will our economy return to growth? Will it continue to gently decline? Will something spook the finance industry and leave our economy with bricks where the wheels were? All three possibilities are two-figure percentage chances from where I am looking.

If growth returns, then it will be easy to write a nice manifesto. There is a need for some alternative taxation to fill the “Black Hole” that is Terry le Sueur's legacy, but with more money about, it would not need to bite too hard. All we have to do is firmly outvote any expensive pet projects that anyone might put forward for the party, and we should be all right.

The tougher parts will be to prepare for further decline and outright crash. One senior member of the JDA was appalled that I even mentioned cuts at a recent Council meeting, but if the money is not appearing in the income column of the ledger, it should not be in the expenditure column, either.

The only eager votes for a manifesto of cut this, slash that and snatch the other are going to come from the hard-right wingers we exist to oppose, so we can't be shouting too loudly about intentions to do it. However, if things are grim by 2011, and the old guard are the scapegoats in the General election, then the erstwhile opposition are going to be faced with a dirty job that someone has got to do, and we really ought to have a clear idea of how we are going to go about it.

A fall of a few percent in revenue can largely be made up in the traditional manner, by corresponding rises in the rates of existing taxes and duties. However, these have already been jacked up faster than many people can easily adjust to in recent years, and any government doing much more of that will rapidly lose public confidence. Therefore, the C-word does have to be bandied about:

CUTS!

In a diverse career, I have been an established officer in the UK Civil Service for a spell, and I get a little irritated at attacks made on a stereotype sixty years or more gone in real life. I think the popular image of the idle and arrogant man in a pinstripe suit and bowler hat leisurely making arbitrary decisions about the affairs of the hoi-polloi may have been true to life once, but not in my lifetime, or at least not at the levels that commonly interact with the general public.

However, any organisation will tend to gather dead wood over a few decades, and a thorough audit, once in a generation, on the principles Leslie Chapman laid down in the 1960's, will inevitably show up a few jobs that are there because they have been done, rather than because they still need to be done. I know that the States of Jersey do already have an Audit Department that does these kind of surveys, due to a small quango that I used to be involved with receiving their attention, but they don't get the publicity they deserve.

So, the first level of cutting should be a rolling out of this thinking on a broad front. If a few percent of public sector jobs can be identified as dispensable, then their holders can be transferred to other more essential posts as they fall vacant through natural wastage, and the overall size reduced. A key factor will have to be the independence of the audit, though. If senior management are challenged to produce plans for reducing their own empires, then, humans being human, they tend to select those who would be most sorely missed as the priority for cuts, so making the plans unacceptable.

The big challenge, though, is how we would cope with a big fall in the size of Jersey's economy, say a quarter or a third. There would need to be expenditure on helping the unexpectedly destitute, on top of all the usual business, so even more of the latter would have to be stopped. Law and order, and sanitation infrastructure would remain essential, and nobody would want to see medical care or education shaved too closely. But what of the rest? Opinions will be shaped by individual circumstances, but where would the consensus be found? No more roadworks, save essential utility repairs? Close the States Communication Unit, that just produces derided propaganda, and the Statistics Unit that only publishes useless and misleading “information”? Refreeze the Town Park, and halve the gardening in the existing parks? Across-the-board culls of Civil Servants? Whatever you look at, there would be more losers,than winners, but don't forget I am not asking how do we want Jersey 2012 to be, but how would we cope if the bottom had fallen out by 2011?

I am writing this to open a debate, not have a rant, so I beg you to consider what your idea of the “least-worst” cuts in a collapsing economy would be, and submit them by clicking the Comments option. (Tip: If you have never commented on a website before; if your answer is more than a few words, then draft in a word processor, copy and paste, because blogs don't reliably save at the first try.)

David Rotherham

We Told You So!

2009-10-15T02:17:00.000-07:00

The JDA have never had any confidence in the Zero-ten tax scheme, especially after our expert, Preston Hobbs, submitted the damning report, which we published over two years ago.

http://www.esnips.com/doc/56d9e7b6-fe27-462b-924f-efc5511ab2b2/JDA-Zero-ten-Statement

Now, it seems that we were right, and the EU have seen through it. Terry le Sueur's position as Chief Minister will no longer really be tenable after the inevitable questions are asked, and Geoff Southern will ask them, if noone beats him in the queue. However, the man has more than enough brass neck to make up for any shortcomings in his abilities, so I suppose we can look forward to two more years of his "leadership"

David Rotherham

Geoff responds to Kevin Keen on Pay Freeze

2009-10-12T01:59:00.000-07:00

The letter from Kevin Keen, until recently the manager of the Dairy, “Sorry, States workers” (JEP, 9 Oct), demonstrated not only a deep prejudice against the public sector workers but also a fundamental misunderstanding of basic economics and industrial relations. It also gave a less than accurate picture of the state of the economy.

To suggest that they should feel lucky not to be made redundant or be forced to take a pay cut is simply offensive. The first draft of the Health Business Plan did indeed threaten redundancies for some staff. Thankfully these were later withdrawn. Whilst, regrettably, there have been some redundancies in the private sector, their numbers have been fewer than many anticipated.

As to pay, whilst some employers have taken the opportunity to cut or to freeze their employees pay, this has not been the rule, but the exception. Cost of living pay rises have been awarded by many companies and bonuses have continued to be paid, especially in the finance sector.

The difference is one of representation. Where employees are represented by a trade union or strong employee association, they have been better treated. I have a list of 14 private sector groups where the workers are represented by Unite, whose representatives have negotiated pay awards at or above the March RPI of 2.1% through the normal process of collective bargaining. The public sector has similar representation, but they have had their rights to bargain removed by the arbitrary, unilateral and late decision to impose a pay freeze.

In the meantime the details of the Fiscal Stimulus Plan have been announced, with some £26 million going into building and renovation projects and a further £6 million on infrastructure. The vast majority of this money will be pumped into local private sector companies. This is exactly what government should be doing in a recession; spending money to keep the economy going and save jobs. This is £32 m to support the private sector. Does Mr Keen and the Chamber of Commerce object to this? Of course they do not. But in the same breath, he objects to some £3.5 m going to the public sector to stimulate the economy. This is sheer hypocrisy.

The need for government to maintain spending through a recession is a basic tenet of economics. As David Blanchflower, until recently a member of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee recently commented “Lesson one in a deep recession is you don’t cut public spending until you are in the boom phase”. Commenting on the Tory party proposals to cut public spending and freeze pay, he said that they would “push the economy into a death spiral”.

All the public sector representatives are asking for is the restoration of their collective bargaining rights. The Chief Minister, along with his supporters should recognise the justice of the public sector workers’case and step back from the confrontation with their employees that they have provoked.

Geoff Southern

Missing Sin

2009-09-19T01:58:00.000-07:00

The missing sin from the list of 7 deadly sins is:
Knowledge without character.
Thanks to our alert follower who drew my attention to the ommission.

Pandora

Hidden Proposals

2009-09-14T02:50:00.000-07:00

The Health department have rapidly created new proposals for their spending cuts following public outrage at the original plans.They have not been formally announced but we should be ready to act now.

Buried in the list of new proposals is a £43,000 cut from mental health service efficiencies and reprioritisations. Are people aware that the psychiatric service is already collapsing due to lack of funding? In the last 18 months ,3 different consultants have been recruited from the UK.They all left after 3 months after finding it impossible to work within the bureaucratic shambles this Island has become. Community Psychiatric Nurses are pushed to the limit and seem unable to attract new recruits.

Statistics show that 1 in 4 people will suffer from mental health problems at some point in their lives; Jersey has a population of about 96,000 and there are less than 20 beds available in Orchard House ! Citizens Advice group are currently campaigning for more volunteers to cope with the large increase in people needing help
Where are vulnerable people to go for help? Jersey already has a higher number of suicides per head of population than the UK and with rising job losses, relationship problems etc this figure will increase.
We must lobby against these proposed cuts before the States Business Plan is accepted. Pandora

Seven Deadly Sins

2009-09-05T04:58:00.000-07:00

Mahatma Gandhi devised his own list of 7 deadly sins:

Wealth without work
Pleasure without conscience
Science without humanity
Politics without principle
Commerce without morality
Worship without sacrifice

These words should be nailed to the door of the States Building for all to read as they enter.

Pandora

Give up Apathy

2009-08-21T03:41:00.000-07:00

We all need to become 'active' citizens instead of paper members.Everyone can play a part to help make this Island a better place to live in. You really can make a difference.

First identify the problems which you believe are really important. What do you want changed?
Share your ideas and possible solutions and together we can make it happen.

Decide to give up apathy,become active.
Change can come if enough people demand it.

Pandora

Economics lesson

2009-08-17T20:20:00.000-07:00

My father-in-law forwarded us this email, that is doing the rounds. It looks like a joke, but it is actually a neat and nail-on-the-head explanation of credit-based economics:-

It is the month of June, on the shores of Britain . It is raining, and the little town looks totally deserted. It is tough times, everybody is in debt, and everybody lives on credit.

Suddenly, a rich tourist comes to town.

He enters the only hotel, lays a £100 note on the reception counter, and goes to inspect the rooms upstairs in order to pick one.

The hotel proprietor takes the £100 note and runs to pay his debt to the butcher.

The Butcher takes the £100 note and runs to pay his debt to the pig grower.

The pig grower takes the £100 note, and runs to pay his debt to the supplier of his feed and fuel.

The supplier of feed and fuel takes the £100 note and runs to pay his debt to the town's prostitute that in these hard times, gave her "services" on credit.

The hooker runs to the hotel, and pays off her debt with the £100 note to the hotel proprietor to pay for the rooms that she rented when she brought her clients there.

The hotel proprietor then lays the £100 note back on the counter so that the rich tourist will not suspect anything.

At that moment, the rich tourist comes down after inspecting the rooms, and takes his £100 note, after saying that he did not like any of the rooms, and leaves town.

No one earned anything. However, the whole town is now without debt, and looks to the future with a lot of optimism.......

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how the British Government is doing business today.

Modern day economics

Dave Rotherham

Geoff dismantles Ferguson's defence of Ozouf

2009-08-16T12:46:00.000-07:00

When I pointed out last week that the Treasury Minister’s new initiatives to centralise powers under his control looked like a dangerous bid to create one-person government, I did not expect the head of the Corporate Affairs Scrutiny Panel, Senator Sarah Ferguson, the person charged with holding him to account, to rush to his defence. But in the weird world that passes for politics in Jersey, I suppose I should not have been surprised. After all they share very similar political views on most subjects apart from climate change.

I was not surprised in the least however by the loose way in which she marshalled the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) in support. After all her election platform was almost entirely based on a misrepresentation of the CAG’s report into the potential for £35 million of further budget cuts. He said they were extremely difficult and many would result in service Business Plan cuts surely indicate who was right.

Worse still in her defence of Senator Ozouf was her use of selective quoting from the CAG: “… the lack of discipline in financial recording has assisted departments in obscuring cost profiles and this has been regarded by some as convenient.” The fact is that the past master of “convenient lack of discipline” is none other than Senator Ozouf himself, in his time in charge of Economic Development. He it was who restructured the ED budget under large generic titles such as “Promotion” and “Marketing” to hide subsidies of the order of £1m to prop up airline routes, many of which have now ceased.

That policy may have been right or wrong. Who knows? Whatever it was, it was not transparent, and it certainly lacked accountability.

To obscure costs in the larger budgets of Health and of Education is one thing; to do so in the ED budget of only £14 m requires rare talent and dedication. Senator Ozouf managed it. Apparently, the poacher has now turned gamekeeper, and according to Senator Ferguson we should now place our trust in him. I hope she will understand if I withhold mine.

Geoff Southern

ACTION AGAINST ISLANDS

2009-08-15T03:05:00.000-07:00

Those who chose to ridicule the views of Lord Wallace of Saltaire should take more notice of the following report in today's newspapers :

Britain assumed day-to-day control of the Turks and Caicos Islands amid allegations of corruption.Local government in the islands will be suspended for up to 2 years while the overseas territory's are put back in 'good order' according to the Foreign Office.

Jersey could be next!

Pandora

Geoff Lambasts Terry's Slippery and Misleading Tactics

2009-08-14T08:46:00.000-07:00

How clever and slippery is our Chief Minister. He appears to have convinced representatives of States employees that he has reopened negotiations over 2009 pay and public sector cuts, when nothing could be further from the truth. In the words of the report (JEP 12th August) “they won’t budge over £4m cuts and the pay freeze”.

Negotiations may take place, but they will be “within policy”. That policy, decided not by the States, but imposed by the States Employment Board (SEB) and sanctioned by the Council of Ministers, is simple: there will be a pay freeze and service cuts. These are not negotiable; the Chief Minister is just playing for time.

It will surely not take long for union representatives to realise that they have again been misled by Senators Le Sueur and Ozouf. It is highly unlikely that a meeting between representatives and SEB can take place before the first week of September and yet the Business Plan will be in place and set in concrete by the 22nd. Such a timescale makes real negotiation impossible.

Earlier in the year, whilst the Treasury Minister presented zero pay awards as the norm on the basis of zero evidence, the Chief Minister was equally slippery with the facts in debate over the pay freeze in the States. He presented comparisons which purported to show not only that public sector workers were better off than their counterparts in the UK, but that they were also better paid than those in the private sector in Jersey. His figures were designed to mislead.

To start with, he failed to compare the cost of living in Jersey and the UK before comparing wages. The best data can be obtained from the Jersey Household Expenditure Survey (HES) 2004-5. This reveals that the cost of living in Jersey is a massive 46% higher than the UK. This is the benchmark for any real comparison of wages, and yet it was not mentioned in the report to the States.

Figures presented by the Chief Minister suggested that public sector workers were far better off than their colleagues in the UK. On average Jersey States workers were 39% better paid. This does not make them 39% better off. To be better off, Jersey workers would have to be paid at least the benchmark figure of 46% more to match the cost of living here. They are in fact 7% worse off.

Similar remarks could be made about the figures presented for comparison of Jersey public and private sectors in order to justify a pay freeze. For example, public sector nurses are supposed to be 1% better off than their private sector colleagues. The data reveal that they are in fact 6% worse off. In the meantime recruitment and retention rates for nurses are hitting all-time lows, an entire ward has been closed because of staff shortages, and a waiting list is looming for cancer treatment.

The Chief Minister may sit back and think he has got away with his handling of a pay freeze for the moment, but he is merely storing up long-term pain as a result of his short -term political gain.

Geoff Southern

Migrating jobs

2009-08-14T05:49:00.000-07:00

The Minister of the Inferior has stamped his foot and told local unemployed people they will be forced to take low paid jobs normally reserved for immigrant workers.

At the same time,the Big Plan boasts that at least 325 immigrants a year will be allowed into the Island for the next 5 years. Meanwhile the economic downturn is causing job losses for immigrants who have been here for less than 5 years.

What does the Minister intend to do with the resulting cheap labour force...build a pyramid on the Waterfront?

Pandora

Jersey Discussion, Argument, Comment and Message Blog

A Real Party Here At Last?

Syvret petiton

roll on 2014

Senatorial Voting??

JRA Survey

Mark Forskitt For Senator

Big Trev's Back Online

Notice

Interesting Meeting Next Week

Facing It!

JRA Apology

2 Meetings

Disclaimer

Just an "Accident" of Timing, of Course.

Anyone for a Bring-A-Policy Party?

Nothing More To Say

New Package, Same Goods

Reader Feedback Needed Urgently

NAPIER – WHEN WILL WE GET IT AND WILL WE GET IT ALL?

The Wiltshire Report. And Yet Another Abuse of Process

They Missed A Trick - Let's Not Give It To Them

TREVOR’S ORAL & WRITTEN QUESTIONS FOR TUESDAY 6th JULY 2010 OR SORRY, SENATOR LE MARQUAND…GROUNDHOG DAY PART 86…

Geoff's Written Questions for 6th July

TREVOR’S ORAL QUESTIONS FOR JUNE 22ND

"No Damage Done"???????

NO DAMAGE DONE

Geoff's Written Questions 15th June 2010

Geoff Answers Ben Queree

Debbie's Questions for 8th June

You Asked - Geoff Answers

NEW! Ted Vibert's Election Blog

TREVOR’S ORAL QUESTION FOR TUESDAY 25th MAY

TREVOR’S WRITTEN QUESTIONS FOR 25TH MAY 2010

2Out Of 3 Ain't Bad. Or is it?

Geoff's Written Questions to Chief Minister 11 May 2010

TREVOR’S ORAL QUESTIONS FOR TUESDAY 11th MAY 2010

TREVOR’S WRITTEN QUESTIONS FOR 11TH MAY 2010

Debbie's Questions for 11th May

Geoff's Written Questions to Ministers May 11 2010

NUT COVERAGE OF MARCH

DEFEND OUR PUBLIC SERVICES FIGHT THE CUTS

March and Rally, April 24th

When are you going to start working for us?

TREVOR’S ORAL QUESTIONS FOR TUESDAY 20th APRIL 2010

Speaking up for Public Services

GEOFF FOLLOWS UP ON MINIMUM WAGES

GEOFF CALLS FOR TIME TO THINK ABOUT POST OFFICE CARVE-UP

PEOPLE, POLICY & PUBLIC CONCERNS – TREVOR’S WRITTEN QUESTIONS FOR THE STATES SITTING ON APRIL 20TH

FACT: WHETHER A PROPOSITION SUCCEEDS OR FAILS...

SHONA'S ORAL QUESTIONS FOR MARCH 23rd 2010.

TREVOR’S ORAL QUESTIONS FOR TUESDAY 23rd MARCH 2010

Cuts must be Surgery, not Butchery.

TREVOR’S WRITTEN QUESTIONS FOR 23RD MARCH 2010

Geoff's Written Questions for 23rd March 2010

SHONA'S ORAL QUESTIONS FOR TUESDAY 9th MARCH 2010

DEBBIE'S ORAL QUESTION FOR TUESDAY 9th MARCH 2010

TREVOR’S ORAL QUESTIONS FOR MARCH 9TH 2010

Geoff's Proposal for a Long-term Improvement in Relative Minmum Wage Levels

Geoff's Oral Questions - 9th March

Geoff's Questions for 9th March

TOP & BOTTOM – ALL A QUESTION OF ‘BALANCE’…

Debbie's Questions for 23rd February

A Different Angle On Minimum Wages

TREVOR'S WRITTEN QUESTIONS FOR 23RD FEBRUARY

Public Sector Pay Is Not The Problem

Trevor's Alternative Minimum Wage Amendment

Geoff's Minimum Wage Amendment

Graham Power's Own Account Of His Suspension - In Full

TREVOR AGREES TO PUT P201 - ‘STRATEGY FOR DEALING WITH YOUNG OFFENDERS’ WORKING GROUP PROPOSITION ON HOLD

Trevor's Written Questions

More Questions Coming From Geoff

Geoff to Quiz Ministers About Post Office

Setting Short-term objectives: Our Deputies Meet and Discuss

MINISTERS AND THEIR BLACKBERRIES – TO PLAY OR STAY?

A GOVERNMENT WITHIN A GOVERNMENT?

OBSERVATIONS ON QUESTIONS RAISED BY ‘TEAM VOICE’ – POSTING TWO

Some observations on questions raised by Citizen’s Media ‘Team Voice’

Happy New Year

Geoff Challenges Water Redundancies