A View from the Gallery: Jersey Politics
It’s getting drafty in the States Chamber!
One of the strangest items to come before the States was the “Draft Commissioner for Children and Young People (Jersey) Law 201”. When it was proposed last month, changes had been made to Article 8 of the law reducing the powers of the Commissioner for Children's ability to get obtain evidence pretty much to that of an ordinary citizen.
The law was called in by Scrutiny, who made amendments, reinstating a good deal of Article 8. A further amendment was made by the Children’s Minister, taking away, after consultation and agreement with the Commissioner for Children, a fgew of those powers when it came to client lawyer confidentiality.
That raises all sorts of questions, especially as the Minister, Senator Sam Mezec, was in favour of some reinstatement of Article 8, namely why did he propose it in the form which the Commissioner for Children and other interested parties were highly critical of? He evidently wanted Scrutiny to put a lot of that back, but then he introduced a few extra tweaks after that.
Clearly the way in which the law drafting process is done leads much to be desired and no explanation has been forthcoming as to why the law was eviscerating from the form which had been initially discussed and approved by the Commissioner for Children. When it appeared in that form, why on earth didn’t the Minister send it back for redrafting? Or was he hoodwinked by someone in charge of drafting the law, that those changes were needed?
How to Trial a Road Closure
Question by Deputy Lindsay Ash:
Question by Deputy Lindsay Ash:
"Will the Minister explain the rationale for the closure of Rue de Maupertuis as an experiment and state the reason the experiment needs to be for a period of 12 months; and will he provide an assurance that local residents will be fully consulted on the future use of the road after the 12-month period is completed?"
Answer by the Minister for Infrastructure, Deputy Kevin Lewis
"The appended appraisal methodology statement to this response outlines the rationale for the closure of Rue de Maupertuis, and the general approach that will be undertaken for the trial. Closing the road for a period of twelve months allows traffic patterns to settle down and become established, enable the organisation and collection of surveys in a traffic-neutral month and to carry out any analysis and consultation following the results of the trial closure "
I’d like you to focus your attention on that part of the sentence – “for a period of twelve months allows traffic patterns to settle down and become established, enable the organisation and collection of surveys in a traffic-neutral month”
It is something that should be borne in mind with any proposed “trial closure” of the road by Liberation Square. This trial has been postponed. But this was how the trial was reported:
“A link road, which will disappear if Liberation Square and the Weighbridge are merged, will be temporarily closed to assess impact of its potential removal ahead of a vote on the controversial £3million plans.”
“The temporary closure will take place from 09:00 on Monday 29 April until Thursday 9 May, during which time the Growth, Housing and the Environment (GHE) Department will carry out surveys to study traffic patterns.”
If the closer of Rue de Maupertuis requires a trial closure because “a period of twelve months allows traffic patterns to settle down and become established, enabling the organisation and collection of surveys in a traffic-neutral month”, then how on earth can a trial take place on the link road over a period of a few short days (and one in which the Tunnel is closed at night, schools are shut because of teaching strikes, and there is a bank holiday)??
On the other hand, if the engineers can brilliantly extrapolate the results of a “trial closure” over only a week, why on earth do they need a whole 12 months for Rue de Maupertuis?
Surely there needs to be some consistency here, and I suspect the Rue de Maupertuis trial follows standard scientific protocols for gathering data, whereas the proposed and now postponed trial was a quick fix to try and justify, on the basis of bogus statistics, that the closure could go ahead ready for next year, when it could be unveiled officially for the special Liberation celebrations.
Answer by the Minister for Infrastructure, Deputy Kevin Lewis
"The appended appraisal methodology statement to this response outlines the rationale for the closure of Rue de Maupertuis, and the general approach that will be undertaken for the trial. Closing the road for a period of twelve months allows traffic patterns to settle down and become established, enable the organisation and collection of surveys in a traffic-neutral month and to carry out any analysis and consultation following the results of the trial closure "
I’d like you to focus your attention on that part of the sentence – “for a period of twelve months allows traffic patterns to settle down and become established, enable the organisation and collection of surveys in a traffic-neutral month”
It is something that should be borne in mind with any proposed “trial closure” of the road by Liberation Square. This trial has been postponed. But this was how the trial was reported:
“A link road, which will disappear if Liberation Square and the Weighbridge are merged, will be temporarily closed to assess impact of its potential removal ahead of a vote on the controversial £3million plans.”
“The temporary closure will take place from 09:00 on Monday 29 April until Thursday 9 May, during which time the Growth, Housing and the Environment (GHE) Department will carry out surveys to study traffic patterns.”
If the closer of Rue de Maupertuis requires a trial closure because “a period of twelve months allows traffic patterns to settle down and become established, enabling the organisation and collection of surveys in a traffic-neutral month”, then how on earth can a trial take place on the link road over a period of a few short days (and one in which the Tunnel is closed at night, schools are shut because of teaching strikes, and there is a bank holiday)??
On the other hand, if the engineers can brilliantly extrapolate the results of a “trial closure” over only a week, why on earth do they need a whole 12 months for Rue de Maupertuis?
Surely there needs to be some consistency here, and I suspect the Rue de Maupertuis trial follows standard scientific protocols for gathering data, whereas the proposed and now postponed trial was a quick fix to try and justify, on the basis of bogus statistics, that the closure could go ahead ready for next year, when it could be unveiled officially for the special Liberation celebrations.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment