Looking at the questions asked in the States today, I see that Jeremy Macon asked a question about the terms of reference for the committee of Inquiry into the historic child abuse. As is now known, especially from leaked segments online, this has been completed by VERITAS for some time, and nothing has yet been done about it:
Will the Chief Minister advise when the Terms of Reference of the Committee of Inquiry into historic child abuse will be lodged for consideration by the Assembly and advise what impediments, if any, there have been? Can the Chief Minister explain what consultation, if any, there has been with interested groups, such as the Jersey Care Leavers Association, regarding the formulation of the Terms of Reference of the Committee of Inquiry into Historic Child Abuse?
The reply by Chief Minister Ian Gorst was vague in the extreme:
I have undertaken to submit the Terms of Reference for the Committee of Inquiry into the Historic Childcare Abuse to the States. There is a clear commitment for a Committee of Inquiry to provide help with closure of this difficult and long- running period in the Island's history. It has been important to develop clear terms of reference that will be effective and provide help with closure, but not subjecting witnesses to the potential of undue cross examination in a Committee of Inquiry which would result in all parties having to receive legal representation. This has required careful consideration of the original terms of reference before being submitted to the States for approval.
In the light of requests I will be arranging to brief the Jersey Careleavers' Association and other interested parties on the final terms of reference and I will consider any feedback from those groups before submitting them to the Assembly for approval. This consultation will inevitably delay the date of a States debate.
In other words, the Terms of Reference submitted by VERITAS don't quite meet what is required, so more "expert advice" is required to tweak those, and I believe that Andrew Williamson has been brought on board to do this. No consultation is being made with the Jersey Careleavers Association during the formulation of the final terms of reference, but "feedback" will be "considered" after they are complete.
I'm afraid I don't have any confidence that the final terms of reference will actually do any good, once they have been altered in this way. It seems to be the old story of Yes Minister again. In the episode "The Greasy Pole", there is a section on "How to discredit an unwelcome report" which says "You are waiting for the results of a wider and more detailed report which is still in preparation. (If there isn't one, commission it; this gives you even more time)." This is obviously what is really meant by "careful consideration". Senator Gorst is obviously finding it a slippery business at the top of the Greasy Pole.
Much the same comes with the question about the "restructuring of the public sector". Remember that mantra that Ministerial government would lead to larger and more "joined up" departments, something that has been singularly lacking. Gerard Baudains has asked: "Further to the answer given to my written question of 15th May 2012 regarding the restructuring of the public sector, could the Chief Minister further advise who is presently carrying out this work and give details of progress to date?"
The Chief Minister seems to have been briefed by Sir Humphrey Appleby on this one:
The work on Public Sector Reform is being led jointly by the Council of Ministers and Corporate Management Board and is being resourced within the Chief Ministers department. It is still early in the programme but, to date, some high level scoping work has been developed and an engagement programme drafted for approval by the Council of Ministers with the aim of starting a dialogue with all interested parties but especially our staff, States Members and the Public.
Just look at the vague terms - "still early in the programme", but we do have "high level scoping work" (what in heaven's name does that mean?) and an "engagement programme" (another piece of nonsense which tells us absolutely nothing). Unhappily this is just "with the aim of starting a dialogue".
George Orwell wrote on bad political language, and what he says can be seen extremely clearly in the reply given by Senator Gorst:
Two qualities are common to all of them. The first is staleness of imagery; the other is lack of precision. The writer either has a meaning and cannot express it, or he inadvertently says something else, or he is almost indifferent as to whether his words mean anything or not. This mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose, and especially of any kind of political writing
What we can expect from Senator Gorst is that "it is intended that a States Members briefing will take place in the next two months." - note the phrase "it is intended". I'm surprised he didn't come out with "Government is a complex business. So many people have to have their say. These things take time. Rome wasn't built in a day.".
Clearly, the Spirit of Jim Hacker from Yes Prime Minister is alive and well - and has possessed our Chief Minister. Perhaps the Dean can perform an exorcism?
It is not surprising then, that Senator Gorst is becoming as wishy-washy as his predecessor Terry le Sueur. He is supporting Senator Philip Ozouf - "everyone makes mistakes. I want to end the blame culture that exists" but also wants to have it both ways: "I do not condone bullying'. Training will be given to avoid ministers putting officers under undue pressure."
Haven't we been here before? I have a feeling of extreme déjà vue? Wasn't it Terry Le Sueur who did something like that to try and rescue Terry Le Main? As Ben Queree memorably wrote in the JEP:
And it's probably good to know too that 'essentially fine' means that the rules were broken, but that it doesn't really matter - that the whole thing can be dealt with by a little 'training and education'. Try that one out next time you get a parking fine. Exactly what kind of 'training and education' Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur has in mind for his erstwhile Housing Minister Terry Le Main was left tantalisingly hanging in the report, released last week, into the whole sordid mess.
This could be brought up to date with just a few changes:
"And it's probably good to know too that 'essentially fine' means that the rules were broken, but that it doesn't really matter - that the whole thing can be dealt with by a little 'training and education'. Exactly what kind of 'training and education' Chief Minister Ian Gorst has in mind for his erstwhile Treasury Minister Philip Ozouf was left tantalisingly hanging in the air."
I can see a polarised States developing, just as it did under Terry Le Sueur, because it is clear that alignments are slotting into place once more between "us" and "them". The rot set in with the electoral commission, which was fatally compromised by putting it in the hands of States members who then decided who would be the non-States members.
And finally, Philip Ozouf has just tweeted "Powerful maiden speech by Deputy James Baker on what we should be focusing on in the States: economy, jobs & efficiency".
Now we know why Deputy Baker has had such long periods of absence from the States Chamber; he's been busy working on his speech. It's a hard life, being a politician!
Will the Chief Minister advise when the Terms of Reference of the Committee of Inquiry into historic child abuse will be lodged for consideration by the Assembly and advise what impediments, if any, there have been? Can the Chief Minister explain what consultation, if any, there has been with interested groups, such as the Jersey Care Leavers Association, regarding the formulation of the Terms of Reference of the Committee of Inquiry into Historic Child Abuse?
The reply by Chief Minister Ian Gorst was vague in the extreme:
I have undertaken to submit the Terms of Reference for the Committee of Inquiry into the Historic Childcare Abuse to the States. There is a clear commitment for a Committee of Inquiry to provide help with closure of this difficult and long- running period in the Island's history. It has been important to develop clear terms of reference that will be effective and provide help with closure, but not subjecting witnesses to the potential of undue cross examination in a Committee of Inquiry which would result in all parties having to receive legal representation. This has required careful consideration of the original terms of reference before being submitted to the States for approval.
In the light of requests I will be arranging to brief the Jersey Careleavers' Association and other interested parties on the final terms of reference and I will consider any feedback from those groups before submitting them to the Assembly for approval. This consultation will inevitably delay the date of a States debate.
In other words, the Terms of Reference submitted by VERITAS don't quite meet what is required, so more "expert advice" is required to tweak those, and I believe that Andrew Williamson has been brought on board to do this. No consultation is being made with the Jersey Careleavers Association during the formulation of the final terms of reference, but "feedback" will be "considered" after they are complete.
I'm afraid I don't have any confidence that the final terms of reference will actually do any good, once they have been altered in this way. It seems to be the old story of Yes Minister again. In the episode "The Greasy Pole", there is a section on "How to discredit an unwelcome report" which says "You are waiting for the results of a wider and more detailed report which is still in preparation. (If there isn't one, commission it; this gives you even more time)." This is obviously what is really meant by "careful consideration". Senator Gorst is obviously finding it a slippery business at the top of the Greasy Pole.
Much the same comes with the question about the "restructuring of the public sector". Remember that mantra that Ministerial government would lead to larger and more "joined up" departments, something that has been singularly lacking. Gerard Baudains has asked: "Further to the answer given to my written question of 15th May 2012 regarding the restructuring of the public sector, could the Chief Minister further advise who is presently carrying out this work and give details of progress to date?"
The Chief Minister seems to have been briefed by Sir Humphrey Appleby on this one:
The work on Public Sector Reform is being led jointly by the Council of Ministers and Corporate Management Board and is being resourced within the Chief Ministers department. It is still early in the programme but, to date, some high level scoping work has been developed and an engagement programme drafted for approval by the Council of Ministers with the aim of starting a dialogue with all interested parties but especially our staff, States Members and the Public.
Just look at the vague terms - "still early in the programme", but we do have "high level scoping work" (what in heaven's name does that mean?) and an "engagement programme" (another piece of nonsense which tells us absolutely nothing). Unhappily this is just "with the aim of starting a dialogue".
George Orwell wrote on bad political language, and what he says can be seen extremely clearly in the reply given by Senator Gorst:
Two qualities are common to all of them. The first is staleness of imagery; the other is lack of precision. The writer either has a meaning and cannot express it, or he inadvertently says something else, or he is almost indifferent as to whether his words mean anything or not. This mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose, and especially of any kind of political writing
What we can expect from Senator Gorst is that "it is intended that a States Members briefing will take place in the next two months." - note the phrase "it is intended". I'm surprised he didn't come out with "Government is a complex business. So many people have to have their say. These things take time. Rome wasn't built in a day.".
Clearly, the Spirit of Jim Hacker from Yes Prime Minister is alive and well - and has possessed our Chief Minister. Perhaps the Dean can perform an exorcism?
It is not surprising then, that Senator Gorst is becoming as wishy-washy as his predecessor Terry le Sueur. He is supporting Senator Philip Ozouf - "everyone makes mistakes. I want to end the blame culture that exists" but also wants to have it both ways: "I do not condone bullying'. Training will be given to avoid ministers putting officers under undue pressure."
Haven't we been here before? I have a feeling of extreme déjà vue? Wasn't it Terry Le Sueur who did something like that to try and rescue Terry Le Main? As Ben Queree memorably wrote in the JEP:
And it's probably good to know too that 'essentially fine' means that the rules were broken, but that it doesn't really matter - that the whole thing can be dealt with by a little 'training and education'. Try that one out next time you get a parking fine. Exactly what kind of 'training and education' Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur has in mind for his erstwhile Housing Minister Terry Le Main was left tantalisingly hanging in the report, released last week, into the whole sordid mess.
This could be brought up to date with just a few changes:
"And it's probably good to know too that 'essentially fine' means that the rules were broken, but that it doesn't really matter - that the whole thing can be dealt with by a little 'training and education'. Exactly what kind of 'training and education' Chief Minister Ian Gorst has in mind for his erstwhile Treasury Minister Philip Ozouf was left tantalisingly hanging in the air."
I can see a polarised States developing, just as it did under Terry Le Sueur, because it is clear that alignments are slotting into place once more between "us" and "them". The rot set in with the electoral commission, which was fatally compromised by putting it in the hands of States members who then decided who would be the non-States members.
And finally, Philip Ozouf has just tweeted "Powerful maiden speech by Deputy James Baker on what we should be focusing on in the States: economy, jobs & efficiency".
Now we know why Deputy Baker has had such long periods of absence from the States Chamber; he's been busy working on his speech. It's a hard life, being a politician!
.jpg)
Posts
2 comments:
This sentence deserves to be repeated:
"The rot set in with the electoral commission, which was fatally compromised by putting it in the hands of States members who then decided who would be the non-States members."
Instead of the famous Pseuds corner, perhaps you could start "Hacker's Corner" to catalogue for posterity (& the next election)these mumblings.
A clear deciphering of what they almost promise to do & then proceed to not deliver would be quite informative & entertaining.
Especially if these are forwarded to the culprits for a response pre-voting!
Post a Comment