The Spokesperson has Spoken
The States of Jersey released this statement in response the news of the strike:
"We are disappointed at the unions’ decision to call for limited strike action among civil servants..... etc etc"
-- States of Jersey Spokesperson
There's a curious semantic fuzziness about the term "States of Jersey". On the one hand, it is the Assembly, voting on issues, but in instances like this, it is actually the Executive within the States of Jersey... and possibly not even all of them, if you count Reform members in the Council of Ministers and Assistant Ministers.
So who is exactly "speaking here". The ITV report, no doubt looking at the Gov.Je website, says just "Spokesperson". But on whose behalf are they speaking? There's a cloak of anonymity here which really doesn't fit well with open and transparent government. If it is the COM it should be "Council of Ministers Spokesperson" (if it is a civil servant saying what has been decided by the COM). It is not the whole States unless there is a vote.
Language and politics, as Orwell noted, lends itself to obfuscation and deceit, and I'd prefer some real clarity as to who the "we" of "we are disappointed...." is.
Review of the Circumstances around the Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority’s Decision On ATF Fuels
The Chief Minister presented this to the States in December and I've just been reviewing it. The introduction says:
“The Government’s responsibility is to ensure that the competition system as a whole is operating properly, and that the JCRA is exercising its powers reasonably. My predecessor therefore commissioned a review of the circumstances leading up to the decision of the JCRA and its handling of the case.”
The review was conducted by Kassie Smith Q.C., who is a leading barrister in competition and regulation within the EU.
The conclusion seems to be that the JCRA is exercising its powers reasonably, although it needs to make the process more transparent – “In future, the JCRA should specifically record and explain (perhaps in its Annual Reports)25 how it has applied its prioritisation principles to its decisions whether or not to commence investigations under the 2005 Law.”
The chief weaknesses in the report appear to me to be:
1) It appears to second-guess or by implication suggest the Royal Court did not have proper expertise in its decision making (para 82) – “appeals under Article 53 of the 2005 Law are to the Royal Court which is a non-specialist court”. While note stating the position explicitly, it suggests (to the layman) that the Royal Court may have go its decision wrong!
In this area, it also notes “There should be a way for the Royal Court to gain access to, and appoint specialists, to help it deal with technically complex matters.” Perhaps, one cannot help but think, someone like Kassie Smith Q.C!
2) It seems to take the view that as JCRA didn’t appeal against the Royal Court in its own statement on grounds of cost, that the States should effectively provide a blank cheque for JCRA! (para 78 “Oxera recommended that the Government should “provide an explicit commitment that it will fund the JCRA as necessary if the Authority faces a legal challenge”). That would hardly be “equality of arms”!
The argument is that there “are incentives for those disadvantaged by a JCRA decision to appeal that decision in the expectation that the Authority will decide not to defend it given the risks and costs involved”
But it seems wrong to me that almost unlimited funds should be available to the States, when such is not the case for a private company, which has to be able to finance its own defence, with no guarantees that it will win or get costs awarded. While the current situation may not be perfect, tipping the balance in favour of the State is hardly an improvement.
Bailliwick Express notes that:
“The QC, whose salary sum has not yet been disclosed, is expected to complete her draft report by summer.”
There is as yet no indication how much this report has cost, but costs of reports are probably something lawyers are not too bothered about as long as they get paid well.
Meanwhile, the Chief Minister, Senator John Le Fondré, has now said he is committed to releasing funding for court appeals for CICRA under the next Medium Term Financial Plan.
It’s a pity the same commitment hasn’t been made in the next MTFP to rectify the long term below cost of living pay for civil servants, nurses and teachers, which is certainly far more urgent. Why not come out and make that commitment now?
The States of Jersey released this statement in response the news of the strike:
"We are disappointed at the unions’ decision to call for limited strike action among civil servants..... etc etc"
-- States of Jersey Spokesperson
There's a curious semantic fuzziness about the term "States of Jersey". On the one hand, it is the Assembly, voting on issues, but in instances like this, it is actually the Executive within the States of Jersey... and possibly not even all of them, if you count Reform members in the Council of Ministers and Assistant Ministers.
So who is exactly "speaking here". The ITV report, no doubt looking at the Gov.Je website, says just "Spokesperson". But on whose behalf are they speaking? There's a cloak of anonymity here which really doesn't fit well with open and transparent government. If it is the COM it should be "Council of Ministers Spokesperson" (if it is a civil servant saying what has been decided by the COM). It is not the whole States unless there is a vote.
Language and politics, as Orwell noted, lends itself to obfuscation and deceit, and I'd prefer some real clarity as to who the "we" of "we are disappointed...." is.
Review of the Circumstances around the Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority’s Decision On ATF Fuels
The Chief Minister presented this to the States in December and I've just been reviewing it. The introduction says:
“The Government’s responsibility is to ensure that the competition system as a whole is operating properly, and that the JCRA is exercising its powers reasonably. My predecessor therefore commissioned a review of the circumstances leading up to the decision of the JCRA and its handling of the case.”
The review was conducted by Kassie Smith Q.C., who is a leading barrister in competition and regulation within the EU.
The conclusion seems to be that the JCRA is exercising its powers reasonably, although it needs to make the process more transparent – “In future, the JCRA should specifically record and explain (perhaps in its Annual Reports)25 how it has applied its prioritisation principles to its decisions whether or not to commence investigations under the 2005 Law.”
The chief weaknesses in the report appear to me to be:
1) It appears to second-guess or by implication suggest the Royal Court did not have proper expertise in its decision making (para 82) – “appeals under Article 53 of the 2005 Law are to the Royal Court which is a non-specialist court”. While note stating the position explicitly, it suggests (to the layman) that the Royal Court may have go its decision wrong!
In this area, it also notes “There should be a way for the Royal Court to gain access to, and appoint specialists, to help it deal with technically complex matters.” Perhaps, one cannot help but think, someone like Kassie Smith Q.C!
2) It seems to take the view that as JCRA didn’t appeal against the Royal Court in its own statement on grounds of cost, that the States should effectively provide a blank cheque for JCRA! (para 78 “Oxera recommended that the Government should “provide an explicit commitment that it will fund the JCRA as necessary if the Authority faces a legal challenge”). That would hardly be “equality of arms”!
The argument is that there “are incentives for those disadvantaged by a JCRA decision to appeal that decision in the expectation that the Authority will decide not to defend it given the risks and costs involved”
But it seems wrong to me that almost unlimited funds should be available to the States, when such is not the case for a private company, which has to be able to finance its own defence, with no guarantees that it will win or get costs awarded. While the current situation may not be perfect, tipping the balance in favour of the State is hardly an improvement.
Bailliwick Express notes that:
“The QC, whose salary sum has not yet been disclosed, is expected to complete her draft report by summer.”
There is as yet no indication how much this report has cost, but costs of reports are probably something lawyers are not too bothered about as long as they get paid well.
Meanwhile, the Chief Minister, Senator John Le Fondré, has now said he is committed to releasing funding for court appeals for CICRA under the next Medium Term Financial Plan.
It’s a pity the same commitment hasn’t been made in the next MTFP to rectify the long term below cost of living pay for civil servants, nurses and teachers, which is certainly far more urgent. Why not come out and make that commitment now?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment