The Political and the Pastoral

“There are still no plans to publish a report into how the Jersey church handled an allegation of sexual abuse of a vulnerable person by a churchwarden, despite a delegation from Jersey meeting the Archbishop of Canterbury earlier this month.”

“Chief Minister Ian Gorst met the Archbishop along with Lieutenant-Governor General Sir John McColl and Bailiff William Bailhache in Canterbury at the start of the month to try to resolve the issue – Senator Gorst has previously said that he wants the Steel report to be published”

(Bailliwick Express)

My first thought on reading that story last week was incredulity that the Chief Minister – a political role – should be involved in Anglican Church politics. I know the Dean sits in the States (and is remunerated for his time in the Assembly), but I have disquiet that the Chief Minister seems to have gone on a private jaunt, not at the bequest of the States (no vote or proposition was made), and yet gone as Chief Minister, rather than in a private capacity as Mr Gorst.

Someone has to pay for that little jaunt, and I wonder who is. I have put in a request to find out, as it seems to be of interest to the taxpayer, who will probably pick up the tab.And now have the results

What the travel costs of this journey were? And how they were apportioned?:

Chief Minister Ian Gorst £251.34 (funded by the Chief Ministers Department)
Lieutenant Governor Sir John McColl £281.54 (funded by Office of the Lieutenant Governor)
Bailiff William Bailhache £281.54 (funded by the Bailiffs Chambers

So it was not funded privately by the individuals concerned in from their own purse. It does seem a rather casual attitude to departmental expenses which are, after all, for official States business, and this does not exactly seem to fit that remit.

Ian Gorst on BBC Radio Jersey was saying how the terms of reference included publishing the final version, suitably redacted, in the public domain. He suggested that all parties involved in drawing up the terms of reference had agreed to that.

However, he failed to mention that the lady at the centre of the report had not been privy to drawing up terms of reference, and did not wish to revisit a very traumatic time in her past by having it published.

That is very important, because it suggests that the Bishop of Winchester might have pastoral reasons for keeping the report under wraps, because it could damage a vulnerable adult. Even if he doesn't have those reasons, they are still good reasons for not publishing. The pastoral card should always trump the political one, at least if you read the New Testament, Jesus acts that way.

That is something also not mentioned by the Dean of Jersey when he was speaking on BBC Radio Jersey.

Church people in positions of authority – clergy, churchwardens, lay readers etc in Jersey have just finished safeguarding training, and are presently rolling out safeguarding materials to websites and church notice boards also mention this, and there and leaflets are also being put at the back of churches.

Just a few churches, the last time I checked, were somewhat dilatory about getting these notifications about safeguarding done, but many had done so, and more were due to, and almost certainly have done. Training has also been done. This is good news and should be welcomed.

Now one of the things mentioned in the safeguarding policy is the care which needs to be taken with vulnerable adults. This is quite an important section, and was carefully drafted.

And yet, despite the damage that the Steel report being made public could do to a vulnerable adult, the Dean seems determined to press ahead with the call for publication! It seems that double standards apply, or at the very least, that what putting safeguarding in practice has not been thoroughly thought through. It is not enough just to have the policy: it should be put into action, even if that means putting the Steel report aside. Church politics should not take precedence over pastoral care. Safeguarding must not just be tick-boxes.

Of course, reason for restricting publication would be legal matters or data protection issues. If the report was likely to face a legal challenge, for example, from the author of the Korris report, that might well delay publication until the legal issues could be resolved. After all, it could cause professional reputations to be damaged, and that is the sort of matter which could lead to a writ for libel – defamation of character.

And as it is a UK report commissioned by the Bishop of Winchester, it should be probably be subject to "Maxwellisation". This is a procedure in current British legal practice where individuals due to be criticised in an official report are sent details of the criticism in advance and permitted to respond prior to publication. It’s meant to stop any factual errors – or misinterpretations – getting into the public domain.

This means that in principle any interested parties should have been sent a copy of those parts concerning them for comments. And, of course, this has almost certainly not been done.

It was interesting that despite the case being pressed for the report going to the public domain, the Dean appeared to intimate, on BBC Radio Jersey, that he would at present be quite happy for the report to be just sent to a privileged number of people – the Chief Minister, the Bailiff, maybe one or two others - and of course himself.

“I’d rather like to read it”, he said, giving the impression in his tone that nothing he wanted more to do was to sit down with a mug of cocoa in an comfy armchair by the fireside one evening, and peruse it.

But the way in which reports have a very nasty habit of leaking out – a letter from the Bishop to the Dean being one example – shows that this approach is simply not safe. One senior layman - Sir Philip Baihache - (brother of the Bailiff) was criticised for reading confidential files on a plane trip in view of others on the plane, who were shocked by that lack of care. And leaks are selective: usually designed to damage. That's not good as an example of pastoral practice.

The Church in Jersey has shown in the past that it is not to be trusted with confidential information. I’m not saying the Dean would leak it, but in all likelihood be leaked by someone, probably believing they acted for the best intentions, but selectively. The road to hell may well be paved with well intentioned leaks.

And does it really matter? We are told that churchgoers are concerned, but I have yet to meet many who are. For most, the orderly routine of church services continues as before, and if the prayers now include the Bishop of Dover rather than Winchester, that is hardly a major or disruptive change.

I notice that Christenings, Weddings, Funerals, Family Services and Communion continue very much as they have done. It begs the question: is it really that important in the grand scheme of things? Isn't it time to just forget about it and move on? 

The Challenge

"It's far too early to give detailed proposals. The broad strategy is to cut ruthlessly at waste while leaving essential services intact." 

The word “challenge” and its variant “challenging” were dominant in Ian Gorst’s speech at the Chamber of Commerce. At times, the casual listener could have been mistaken for thinking that he was reading from a “Yes Minister” speech, as it was full of generalities, and it was hard to prize the substance from it. There are challenges ahead in education, health (with an ageing population), finance, tourism.

Part of the substance, we were told, would be revealed in detail next week, and more would come in the Medium Term Financial Plan.

That the States are no longer thinking “for the short term” seems, on paper, a good idea. How well it turns out in practice is another matter. The raid by means of a dividend from Jersey Telecoms to balance the books (according to their MD) was apparently not exactly planned, and may delay the speed of gigabit Jersey. The under the radar flogging off by Property Services of States properties all over the place, done by Ministerial decision – a wonderful way of keeping it out of States debates – does not seem to have been planned either, but helps balance the books.

The problem I have with the Medium Term Plan is that it is an administrative and financial programme. What it is not, except as a consequence, is a legislative programme. In most other jurisdictions, a legislative programme – the Queen’s speech, for example – comes first, and the administrative and financial consequences follow from that, with changes in legislation as well. We don’t have that in Jersey, and if anyone was expecting something of the sort for the Chamber speech, they will have been disappointed.

But there was fire in the question time. Asked about the proposed Jersey International Finance Centre at the Waterfront, Senator Gorst hit back sharply. It was like seeing those cuddly lemurs suddenly bare their teeth. He was strongly in favour of the plan. It would have pre-lets, and not cost the States a penny (although he didn’t mention who was paying for the tarmac on the temporary car park while it began).

The Island did not have enough Grade A Office space. But what is Grade A office space? We hear it often enough. According to Office Broker:

“The most prized and sought-after is Grade A or Class A office space. Typically, office buildings within the Grade A bracket are brand new or have been recently redeveloped, or experienced a thorough refurbishment. The properties are prestigious and usually occupy prime locations within major cities such as Central London, Manchester and Birmingham.”

“Along with the standard of the building itself, Grade A offices will also possess high-quality furnishings, state-of-the-art facilities, and excellent accessibility. The property will be finished in order to compete for premier office users, typically appealing to an international market, and will usually demand rents that are above average for the area.”

“The Urban Land Institute, an organisation committed to commercial land use policy and practice, provides examples of Grade A office space as: ‘the office buildings that you see in the heart of the financial district with lots of brass and glass fixtures and huge, expensive lobbies. These properties are also said to be ‘often occupied by banks, high-priced law firms, investment banking companies, and other high-profile companies with a need to provide the trappings of financial success.’””

You might also consider that Grade A office space is “show-off” office space, posh but often ugly big buildings, some like cubes, some like parts of giant pin-ball machines, that proclaim to the world that the company that is using them is important, like for instance the offshore divisions of the four main banks.

It is rather like the modern equivalent of a Georgian House, a wonderful façade, behind which may or may not be anything of substance. It needs to spell out the message: "we have arrived, we are important". Behind the scenes, of course, as we have seen in the past, there may be casino banking, interest rate fixing, selling dubious financial packages, and goodness knows what else.

It is interesting to note that the architecture of Grade A is the steel and glass style frontage, whereas earlier generations would have seen granite with ornamentation as giving an impression of Victorian solidity, and it shows the change of style which is valued so much in today’s culture.

The esplanade has become the new Financial Centre, so it is it that location that the glass fronted Grade A building must be sited, and it must be sited there because suburban buildings, good office space, but not at the heart of that district, would by definition be designated Grade B. In part, it is a geographical definition. Grade B falls below Grade A in terms of location.

But back to the talk itself,. Ian Gorst noted that a large business had nearly not come to the Island because of this, but by a States department moving, the business had been secured for a location in Jersey. He did not say which one. Now that is important. We do not want to turn business away. We depend on our finance industry. And despite what I have just said about banks, the regulatory framework is ensuring better and tighter controls on finance sector businesses, especially where tax evasion, aggressive tax avoidance, and money laundering are concerned. And as we heard from the regulator on BBC Radio this morning, the new EU assessment does not just look at the framework, but tests how well it works.

Regarding Grade A space, the Council of Ministers is in a quandary. If it admits there is not enough office space in the prestigious location of the esplanade, business may not relocate to Jersey, on the other hand, if that is kept quiet, the Waterfront scheme looks more like a gamble. The notion of pre-lets is a safeguard, but the absence of solid figures on the value of the pre-lets so that the public can see it is financially viable (and not, for instance, discounted in some fashion) is deemed to be commercially sensitive.

The message is more or less: trust us, but past records show that the public is more often right not to trust government to deliver as stated, rather than to change goal posts so it gives an appearance of success. By not giving a clear breakdown of how viable the scheme is in terms of projected return and cash flow, it is hard to gauge whether or not it will be a success. Expect, however, funding to be channelled in some ways to the Jersey Development Company, from that remarkable economical magicians hat called contingency funding.

Ian Gorst also stated that the Island needed the population to grow in a controlled fashion in order to grow the economy, while at the same time, talking of reducing public sector costs. The standard economic solution is to implement more stealth taxes, and threaten to reduce front line services, hence protecting administrative sinecures. I suspect we will see both of those as the demands of an increasing population threaten an infrastructure in education and health that is already creaking at the seams.

My own question was about the policy on agriculture and food security, neither of which had been addressed. Senator Gort’s reply was that they would be implementing the Rural Strategy policy, and in particular, look to target funding where it is needed rather than to large conglomerates.

Was this a reference to the fact that two of the largest agricultural businesses have recently been taken over by UK companies, and pay no profits locally? Should we still be subsidising them rather than individual growers, and locally based, and locally taxed growers? It was not spelt out in detail, but perhaps that is what was meant, that funds would not be given to non-tax paying businesses but to local tax paying growers where it is most needed. I certainly hope so.

And as to the States becoming more efficient, and the notion that reducing public spending will be the key to healthcare reform,  I leave you with this gem, which is probably not a million miles from the truth in Jersey...

Interviewer: I just wanted to confirm that you are now this country's chief bureaucrat.

Hacker: That's nonsense. This government believes in reducing bureaucracy.

Interviewer: Figures I have here say that your department's staff has risen by 10%.

Hacker: Certainly not.

Hacker: Interviewer: What figure do you have?

Hacker: I believe the figure is much more like 9.97.

Interviewer: Well, it has been suggested that your department is less interested in reducing bureaucracy than in increasing it.

Hacker: Well, yes, but that's because we've had to take on more staff in order to reduce staff.

Interviewer: I beg your pardon?

Hacker: It's common sense. We need more doctors to cure more patients, more firemen to extinguish more fires.

Interviewer: How will you extinguish local government bureaucracy?

Hacker: It's a challenge I'm looking forward to.

Interviewer: Would you agree there's even more bureaucratic waste there than in Whitehall?

Hacker: Yes, that's what makes it a challenge.

Interviewer: How will you meet the challenge?

Hacker: It's far too early to give detailed proposals. The broad strategy is to cut ruthlessly at waste while leaving essential services intact.

Interviewer: That's what your predecessor said. Did he fail?

Hacker: Let me finish. Because we must be absolutely clear and I'm going to be quite frank with you. The fact is that, at the end of the day, it is the right, the duty, of the elected government in the House of Commons to ensure government policy, the policies on which we were elected and for which we have a mandate, the policies for which the people voted, are the policies which, finally, when the national cake has been divided up... And may I remind you we, as a nation, don't have unlimited wealth? We can't pay ourselves more than we earn. ...are the policies... I'm sorry, what was the question again?

Interviewer: I was just asking you whether you would agree that your predecessor had failed.

Hacker: Certainly not. On the contrary. It's just that this job is an enormous...

Interviewer: Challenge?

Hacker: Exactly!

A study of conflict resolution in the case of Ian Gorst and Rob Duhamel

 "Chief Minister, Senator Ian Gorst, wanted the States to sack Deputy Rob Duhamel after claiming he could not work with him any more. He said he withdrew his proposition after "constructive dialogue" with Mr Duhamel meant they could find a way to work together. He said he "regretted" the way matters had escalated. Mr Gorst said earlier this month Mr Duhamel did not work well with other ministers who had "lost trust and confidence in him". But in a joint statement, the two men said they would work together to improve communication. " (1)

The resolution lacks the spectacle of a political punch-up, and let's be honest, it is pretty clear that there was a certain voyeuristic element in the impending vote of no confidence. How could it be otherwise, with a public weaned on the "Celebrity" game shows which thrive on sadism? Some of the comments I have seen suggest that the public feels cheated of the fight.

And so there has been a lot of talk lately with lurid headlines on Facebook and elsewhere of the kind that says "Gorst collapses", and the general feeling is that he decided that he could not win a vote of no confidence against the Planning Minister.

But I don't think that's the whole picture. Certainly there has been a groundswell of support for Deputy Duhamel, some of it, I understand, from within the Council of Ministers. And there has also been the feeling, expressed by Matthew Price on BBC Radio Jersey in an interview with Ian Gorst, that Senator Ozouf was given another chance, and made commitments to improved working practice, and why should the same consideration not been shown to Deputy Duhamel. I wouldn't be surprised if Deputy Gorst has taken those matters on board in reassessing the proposition.

Yet the most important part of the news has been overlooked. Senator Gorst met Deputy Duhamel. They talked together; they managed to take the heat out of the conflict, and actually issued a statement which was a constructive way forward.

The last time a Minister was "sacked" by a vote of no confidence was Senator Stuart Syvret, ousted by Senator Frank Walker. The two were at loggerheads. They would have needed some kind of referee to talk together, as it was clear there was a lot of animosity between the two. So far from politics being about issues, the distinct impression was that a lot of that conflict was a clash of personalities. It was unlikely that any common ground could be reached.

That happens a lot with political disputes. A lot of the phraseology betrays the kind of thinking behind the conflicts. One comment on Twitter asked whether Ian Gorst was "man enough to resign" if he lost the vote. This is the world of boys games, of schoolboy fights, and while these comments are being made by grown adults, they have not really left the playground that far behind.  

People prefer not to talk and sort out differences, especially men, where it is seen as a sign of weakness. "Man enough" itself is redolent of a particular kind of masculine posturing, where any compromise is seen as a sign of weakness. We don't say "woman enough". In fact, the far harder task is to step back, and talk, and defuse conflict.

It is not really a sign of weakness to negotiate for peace rather than lobby hand grenades over into the other trench. Do we really need this kind of "strong man" approach to politics in Jersey? Do we really need all the old ingrained patterns of defending, withdrawing, or attacking in the face of judgment and criticism? This is the way politics has been shaped, with blame, insults, put-downs, labels, criticisms, and comparisons - all forms of judgment which block out the ability to listen.

The "strong man" approach issues demands that implicitly or explicitly threaten the other with blame or punishment if they fail to comply. These are the patterns of control and power. Isn't it much better to really listen and negotiate instead?

Marshall Rosenberg, founder of "Non Violent Communication", commented on the psychological aspects of the desire for control that is so often toxic:

"In this type of system, only some people have the power of having their needs met, often at the expense of other people's needs not being met. Thus, this destructive mythology fuels moralistic judgments and sets the base for a domination system -expressed in a language that brings pain in relationships and violence in the world." He argues that what is needed in situations of conflict is to establish connection with other human beings.

There is a crucial difference between non-violence and passivity; the former is an act of compassion, of taking the trouble to speak and listen, whereas the latter is one of submission. Had the proposition just been withdrawn, that would have been a purely passive action, but instead, a joint statement was issued, which set forth methods to resolve future conflicts and work together better.

And language is critical in how we defuse conflicts and seek a peaceful resolution. As Rosenberg notes:

"We are unconsciously and habitually influenced by language processes that affect our choice making by distorting our perceptions. The language we use and the thoughts we have inform the kind of actions we take."

Talk of "weakness" or "cowardice" is the kind of language that can destroy any conflict resolution. It is the language which Nietzsche used to denigrate Christianity.

A non-violent approach means turning away from a mentality which sees opposition as trench warfare, and instead seeks not to defeat or humiliate the opponent, but to win his friendship and understanding. This, Rosenberg says, means taking responsibility for our actions in increasing conflict or seeking peaceful solutions:

"Taking responsibility for ourselves diminishes the probability that we will use coercion to get our needs met or submit to others who choose it as a strategy"

If we look at part of the joint statement, we can see an admission of faults on both sides, an apology from Deputy Duhamel, an expression of regret from Ian Gorst that there was an escalation of events which led to this point, and a joint commitment to work together in a constructive manner. There is also a commitment to work towards dialogue and mutual understanding between all Ministers.

That's a statement of taking responsibility for mistakes on both sides, and moving matters forward. It's what used to be called "consensus politics", and there once was a good deal more of it in Jersey politics.

When the old committee system ended, power was concentrated in a very few individuals, and the system was almost designed for bullying, intimidation, and all those patterns of control learned in the playground.

It was not helped by two Chief Ministers who did very little to build political consensus, preferring to have the Council of Ministers consisting of a narrow range of political viewpoints. That's something that comes again from school - team games, where the captain picks their favourites. Senator Gorst made a strong effort to buck that trend and have a more diverse range within the Council of Ministers, and the conflict with Deputy Duhamel demonstrates, as their joint statement shows, that more is needed to be done for that to work.

In the meantime, at least two politicians who were at loggerheads have managed to meet and thrash out a way forward to resolve the conflicts between them. That is something commendable, and a promising start. Some people don't seem to like peacemakers, but that's the only way we are going to improve politics in Jersey.

"Peace is not merely a distant goal we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal" - Martin Luther King Jr

"Peace cannot be kept by force, it can only be achieved by understanding"
- Albert Einstein

"If you want peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies"
- Archbishop Tutu

"I dream of an Africa which is in peace with itself"
- Nelson Mandela

References
(1)   http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-25751645
(2)  There are many books on Non-Violent Communication, but "Nonviolent Communciation: A Language of Life"(2003) by Marshall Rosenberg was the one recommended to me by Annie Parmeter, who introduced me to his ideas, as well as to the feminist critique of male power games.

Promises Kept, Vultures Keep Out

When I sent a letter to Chief Minister Senator Frank Walker in 2007, he passed it on to the Treasury Minister Senator Terry Le Sueur, who said

Thank you for your e-mail addressed to Senator Walker. I am sure that the latter is not being "simply left to rest" and I have urged all firms involved in international activities to be aware of, and refrain from, activities involving 'vulture funds'. I have been given an assurance that they will, and we all recognise the potential harm this could cause to Jersey' s reputation, as well as to the 'victims' of the vulture fund.

The details of the correspondence and background can be read here:
http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2011/06/vulture-funds-simply-led-to-rest.html

Frank Walker simply passed the buck to the Treasury Minister. Senator Le Sueur said the matter would not be "simply left to rest" and simply left it to rest. As was so often the case, Le Sueur did nothing.

In July 2012, however, Chief Minister Ian Gorst took up the matter as his responsibility

http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2012/07/chief-minister-commits-to-september.html

He said in the States:

The U.K. is currently the only jurisdiction/country in the world that has such legislation. We are proposing to be at the forefront as well of such legislation. Earlier this year in late January, I instructed the drafting of such legislation and I hope that I will be in a position to lodge during September.

Obviously this is a piece of legislation similar to the United Kingdom's in that the aim is to ensure that debt relief efforts for developing countries are not interrupted by those who are not abiding by the rules agreed upon by the Paris Club nations and are recovering debts outside of the Common Reduction and Decision Point factors, so it gets quite technical. That is what we are talking about and that is what I am committed to delivering.

On the 11th September, I asked Ian what was happening, as no propositions had appeared in the States:

You made a commitment in the States (which I was very pleased to see) about bringing in legislation or proposals in September regarding Vulture Funds. I've seen nothing in the States sittings regarding this, and do hope it is not slipping out of the net altogether

He replied a week or so later:

I am due to sign the decision this afternoon to lodge the vulture fund legislation for states debate this quarter.

And then a day later:

I have now signed the decision so the legislation should be lodged in the next few days.

So despite the delays caused by the failure of Frank Walker or Terry Le Sueur to act, which were in Churchill's memorable phrase ""the years that the locust hath eaten", we now have a Chief Minister who made a promise in July, and kept it in September.

That's a very notable change - to commit to deadlines, and to deliver, and it marks out, I think, a significant change from the Ancien Régime of his predecessors, who did not seem to think the matter was important enough to warrant legislation - that there was a moral imperative.

That it might be morally wrong for Jersey courts to be used in this way, and that the laws should be changed, simply did not appear on the radar. That no longer is the case. And it is also interesting that where Chief Minister Frank Walker simply passed the buck on that issue, Chief Minister Ian Gorst took it upon himself to promise change and deliver.

Of course, the businessmen using "Vulture funds" say they are pursuing legitimate debt legally. But slavery was legal once, and just because something is legal does not mean that it is moral. Now it seems that the message is filtering into the political arena that there is a case for using legislation to prevent the law being used by every shyster who wants to legally collect their "pound of flesh" like Shylock in the Merchant of Venice.

The legislation proposed can be seen at:
http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyPropositions/2012/P.091-2012.pdf

Draft Debt Relief (Developing Countries) (Jersey) Law

It is (as far as I can see) extremely similar to the UK law - the Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Act 2010

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmgeneral/deleg2/110516/110516s01.htm

The UK legislation notes that it doesn't cancel debt, it simply ensures that debt cannot be bought up by what are speculators, in effect international loan sharks, who apply punitive rates of interest, and use legal processes to enforce remittance of the debt and interest, hence wiping out any Government initiatives on debt cancelation or overseas aid programmes.

The HIPC (Heavily Indebted Poor Countries) initiative aims to ensure that no poor country faces a debt burden that it cannot manage. All creditors-multilateral, bilateral and commercial-are expected to provide the debt relief required to return HIPCs' external debts to a sustainable level. The majority of creditors provide debt relief consistent with the HIPC initiative.

The Act tackles the problem of a small minority of commercial creditors that free-ride on the relief, litigating and recovering the full value of their debts plus accumulated interest. Such behaviour is economically inefficient and inequitable. The resources implicitly siphoned off by such creditors include debt cancellation and development assistance funded by United Kingdom taxpayers.

The Act supports the legitimate interests of creditors and includes safeguards to protect against negative impacts on financial markets. It promotes a negotiated settlement of HIPC debts on terms consistent with the initiative by excluding from the scope of the legislation debts where the HIPC debtor does not offer to settle on such terms.

The Jersey legislation mirrors the UK one, and notes in the preamble:

The enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative (HIPC) seeks to provide debt relief to heavily indebted low income countries. Under this Initiative, the International Monetary Fund and World Bank calculate the reduction required in a country's external debts in order to return them to a level of debt that is considered to be sustainable. All creditors are expected to provide the proportionate reduction that will achieve this. This Law will, when enacted, prevent the Jersey Courts being used to seek to enforce in full, the debts of countries to which the governments of other countries, multilateral lenders and commercial creditors have provided relief under the Initiative.

Repayment of these creditors seeking to recover the full value of the debt is believed to divert resources which are intended to support development and the reduction of poverty in the country. The Law will prevent creditors from recovering an amount in excess of that consistent with the Initiative. The Law also encourages the negotiated settlement of these debts on terms compatible with the Initiative by excluding from the scope of the legislation debts where the country does not offer to settle on such terms.

The UK debate when the Act was made permanent noted the changes this had made internationally, giving the example of Liberia:

The recent case of Liberia illustrates the positive impact of the 2010 Act on HIPCs. Liberia received substantial debt relief under the HIPC initiative in June 2010, including 100% cancellation from the UK. The majority of its commercial creditors also provided debt relief, and that was assisted by a buy-back operation of commercial debt under the World Bank's development debt reduction facility in April 2011.

In November 2009, the High Court gave judgment for $20 million against Liberia in a claim brought by two commercial creditors that had not participated in the debt buy-back operation. That allowed them to seek to enforce repayment in the UK of an amount that was then equivalent to about 5% of Liberia's national budget. However, one year later, by which time the Act was in place, those two remaining commercial creditors agreed to a World Bank debt buy-back operation. Consequently, Liberia will have to pay back only 3% of the amount owed-an amount consistent with the HIPC initiative. It is clear that the Act was one factor prompting that settlement.

Jersey has now followed the UK, and is the first jurisdiction to do so. Senator Gorst commented: "This law will send a clear and positive message that Jersey is committed to supporting international debt relief efforts, and that ours is a well-regulated, co-operative and transparent jurisdiction."

It is good that Jersey is at the forefront of matters for once, and a strong message has been sent to the "Vulture funds" to go elsewhere. That's the sort of business we could well do without.

Order Matters

We don't just remember. We re-enact, eating matzah, the unleavened bread of affliction, tasting maror, the bitter herbs of oppression, and drinking four cups of wine, each a stage in what Nelson Mandela called the long walk to freedom. And it all begins with the question asked by a child: why is this night different? I can still picture in my mind those nights long ago when I was the child. They gave me my first induction into the ideals I've tried to carry with me into adult life, above all a sense of fellow feeling with others who suffer, eating their own bread of affliction. (Jonathan Sacks)

I have always held the opinion that any tax which taxes life's essentials is immoral, unfair and falls disproportionately on the less well-off....The argument that has always been used by successive Ministers for Treasury and Resources in regard to GST is "keep it simple", "it's only 3%". I sign up to keeping things simple, but not to an inequity; it was wrong to tax these items at 3% and to consider taxing food and heating at 5% is indefensible (Andrew Green)

Does order matter?

Freeze GST for 6 months?

Freeze GST for a year?

Keep GST at 3%?

GST rise to 4%

GST to 5%, but with exemptions

GST to 6%, but with exemptions?

GST to 5%

Does the order in which a debate is carried make a difference to the final outcome? Where there are so many amendments on the table to the final option (GST at 5%), I think it could well make a difference, and that the person controlling the order by which the choices are given (the agenda maker) has great control over the outcome. There is a considerable body of literature which has examined this phenomena, starting with Schwartz's groundbreaking study on "Agendas and Control of Political Outcomes".

Understanding amendment rules and voting methods is important for political analysis because it reflects the degree to which outcomes depend on structure rather than votes

After a bill is reported to the floor and amendments are offered, the voting method employed can have significant effects on the final collective choice. The method of choosing between mutually exclusive legislative proposals, and the position of the status quo (i.e., when it comes up in the decision sequence and when it is the default alternative), varies across countries.

The voting agendas in place to decide on the details of the bill vary cross-nationally. The two most studied procedures are the so-called amendment and the sequential-elimination procedures. The first is employed primarily in Great Britain and its former colonies including the U.S., and the latter is mainly used in Continental Europe and Latin America. The two archetypical methods have existed since at least the Roman Empire (Farquharson 1969) (1)

Jersey uses the "amendment procedure" rather than the "sequential-elimination procedure"

Under the amendment procedure, amending votes precede an enacting vote: a draft bill is pitted against amended versions until, at the end, a surviving version is pitted against the status quo. The winner is the alternative chosen in the last vote, after all other alternatives have been voted at least once

Under the sequential elimination method, mutually exclusive alternatives are voted up or down in a given order. If a majority chooses one alternative, it is the outcome; voting on that section stops, and all other mutually exclusive alternatives are considered rejected. (1)

How can this effect outcomes?

In the 1950s Duncan Black first noted that under the amendment procedure the later an alternative enters the voting stage, the greater its chance of adoption. Under sequential elimination agendas, it is the opposite: the sooner and amendment comes up for voting, the greater its chance of winning (Farquharson 1969). (1)

So the order in which matters are presented in Jersey, and the amendment system means that the likehood is that items such as a 4% rise on GST rather than a freeze would have stood a better chance. In fact, Senator Francis Le Gresley tried to boost support for the freeze by withdrawing his own suggestion to raise GST to 4% instead of five. Philip Ozouf then (citing the "mood of the house"!!) withdrew the amendment to GST of 6% but exemptions from the table, so the only choice was over exemptions - against which he could argue a revenue loss, rather than a tax neutral option.

But if the freeze options had come last, before the final 5% with no exemptions, it would have been a straightforward tussle between the two options. With no other options in the pipeline, such as GST at 6% but with exemptions, there was always a chance that those who were convinced of exemptions, such as Andrew Green, Brian Le Marquand, Jacqui Hilton and Ian Gorst, might have voted for a freeze, which might have given time, both for a changed economic outlook, and, of course, a changed political outlook as with even the 6 months option (taking the rise to December 2010), a new house would be sitting.

As it stands, it is a "win win" situation for some politicians who voted against exemptions, such as John le Fondré, because come the next election, they can say they had voted for a delay in GST, and they can even get off Montfort Tadier's "GST Party Win's Again" list, even though they were only voting for a delay, not a cancellation!

(http://mtadier.blogspot.com/2010/12/gst-party-win-again.html )

Francis Le Gresley's vote was surprising, especially as the Citizen's Advice Bureau took a completely different line. Clearly once he had withdrawn his 4% offer, there was nowhere else for him to go but 5%, as he didn't want exemptions.

Jersey's citizens advice bureau says people living there less than five years will be hit hardest by the rise in the goods and services tax (GST). Malcolm Ferey, from the bureau, said they may not be able to apply for income support. Jersey politicians voted to keep GST on food and fuel and to increase the tax to 5% from June 2011. Malcolm Ferey said he was disappointed the States did not allow goods and services tax (GST) exemptions. He said there was a portion of the community that falls into the gap and loses out on support (BBC News)

Here is the voting list - it can be seen that Ian Le Marquand, Jacqui Hilton, Ian Gorst - who have consistently been elected on a mandate of exemptions on GST have continued to honour their commitment. Ministers or Assistant Ministers they may be, but they still show an independent which is to be welcomed, and which derives from thinking ethically rather than managerially about the debate. There is, I think, too little discussion of ethics, and what would constitute a just society, in today's politics, and too much concentration on a "fixit" economics. While we need to have a budget that works, we should also be mindful of the poorer members of society, and not just look for an easy managerial solutions.

Anne Dupre had another change of mind, citing 5% as too high, although less generously minded commentators such as myself think that as she voted against exemptions just after the last elections, she needed to do something to boost her credibility before next year's elections.

The Constables are split by 9 parishes to 3.

POUR: 24 CONTRE: 26 ILL: 3

CONTRE
Senator Terence Augustine Le Sueur
Senator Paul Francis Routier
Senator Philip Francis Cyril Ozouf
Senator Terence John Le Main
Senator Frederick Ellyer Cohen
Senator James Leslie Perchard
Senator Sarah Craig Ferguson
Senator Alan John Henry Maclean
Senator Francis du Heaume Le Gresley, M.B.E.
Connétable John Le Sueur Gallichan
Connétable Daniel Joseph Murphy
Connétable Michael Keith Jackson
Connétable Silvanus Arthur Yates
Connétable Graeme Frank Butcher
Connétable Peter Frederick Maurice Hanning
Connétable Leonard Norman
Connétable John Martin Refault
Connétable Juliette Gallichan
Deputy Robert Charles Duhamel
Deputy John Benjamin Fox
Deputy James Gordon Reed
Deputy John Alexander Nicholas Le Fondré
Deputy Anne Enid Pryke
Deputy Angela Elizabeth Jeune
Deputy Edward James Noel
Deputy Tracey Anne Vallois

POUR
Senator Ben Edward Shenton
Senator Alan Breckon
Senator Bryan Ian Le Marquand
Connétable Kenneth Priaulx Vibert
Connétable Alan Simon Crowcroft
Connétable Deidre Wendy Mezbourian
Deputy Frederick John Hill, B.E.M.
Deputy Roy George Le Hérissier
Deputy Judith Ann Martin
Deputy Geoffrey Peter Southern
Deputy Carolyn Fiona Labey
Deputy Jacqueline Ann Hilton
Deputy Paul Vincent Francis Le Claire
Deputy Shona Pitman
Deputy Kevin Charles Lewis
Deputy Ian Joseph Gorst
Deputy Philip John Rondel
Deputy Montfort Tadier
Deputy Daniel John Arabin Wimberley
Deputy Trevor Mark Pitman
Deputy Anne Teresa Dupre
Deputy Michael Roderick Higgins
Deputy Andrew Kenneth Francis Green M.B.E.
Deputy Jeremy Martin Maçon

ILL
Deputy Collin Hedley Egré
Deputy Sean Power
Deputy Deborah Jane De Sousa

Links:
http://www.eduardoaleman.net/LRAPealeman.pdf

Health matters, A&E, GP Costs and Income Support

I see that Gerard Baudains is coming into the JDA fold, or at any rate has his own page on their website.

The latest wheeze is by Deputy Gorst of St Clement - the Social Security minister - who proposed raiding our pension fund to cover inefficiencies and poor management in another department. I thought only Robert Maxwell did things like that. (1)

Now this relates to the

DRAFT HEALTH INSURANCE FUND (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) (JERSEY) LAW 201-

and at first sight, it seems to be about taking money from social security to pay for health by raiding the social security pension fund.

But matters are not as simple as that. As I understand it, from reading the proposition, and looking at what has been suggested in detail, the pension fund is being kept well away from any transfer of funds.

There are two components to social security - the pension scheme and the health / medical side, which were accounted for separately, with a fixed percentage of the social security money going into the health / medical side. On the health side, the proposition notes that:

The Health Insurance Fund (the "Fund") was established when the Health Insurance (Jersey) Law 1967 (the "Law") came into force on 4th December 1967. The Fund receives a set percentage allocation of all social security contributions collected under the Social Security Law, which is currently 2% (made up of a 0.8% contribution from employees and a 1.2% contribution from employers) of the 12.5% total contributions collected. The Law specifies that the Fund is to use the contributions received to meet primary health care costs, which are currently limited to medical and pharmaceutical benefits. The level of medical benefit is set by the States by Regulation and was increased this May to assist in establishing General Practitioner governance arrangements. Currently the Fund subsidises patients to the tune of £19 for each G.P. visit and also covers the cost of prescriptions dispensed by Community Pharmacists. (2)

The proposition (and debate) makes it quite clear that the Health Fund and the Pension Fund are quite different entities, with quite separate sets of accounts.

The proposition would leave the pension side untouched, but as the health / medical side had actually been running at a surplus for a number of years, and as it was providing healthcare related funding, the decision had been made to use some of that surplus - and not in any way the pension scheme - to take over the health and social services, as it all came under the health care umbrella.

To some extent, the health care part of the fund has changed it scope over the years from when it was set up in 1967:

Since 1967, the scope of primary care has expanded greatly and many different healthcare professions are now involved in first-line medical and healthcare treatment and care. Typically, primary care is provided in a community setting, such as a G.P. surgery or a health centre. In Jersey, some primary care services are delivered from the General Hospital. (2)

So it is not irrational, or in any way a Robert Maxwell style pension raid, to move some of the Health Care Fund monies - and those alone - over to the Hospital budget.

But what should be looked at in more detail is perhaps the use of A&E rather than doctor's surgeries, or out of hours call-outs (which are incredibly expensive to young families). There are currently proposals coming in to limit that, or to force people to pay for the services if they are the kind of services that could be obtained from a GP. What is not being considered is why people use the casualty department service in that way - it is assumed they are spongers, trying to save money by working the system.

In the UK, the same kind of problem occurs, surprisingly, and one study from Barnsley notes that:

Participants provided the following comments to explain why some people used A&E for minor illnesses.
. Because its quicker (don't have to wait for an appointment with GP)
. Because of lack of knowledge of other facilities and services
. Some people are suicidal and attention seeking
. "You think you'll get better care - they've got all the equipment"
. Its easy
. All they have been educated to do is to use A&E. This is reinforced
through television programmes such as Casualty. The public know about
A&E. It was suggested that there are no dramas about out of hours
services. (3)

The "Doctor Foster" medical site said one key was making sure people knew they could get proper services from their GP, and it would not cost them anything to do so:

Certain messages were key for encouraging people to consider the out-of-hours service: patients could first get assessed on the phone, could easily make an emergency appointment and would always receive the treatment they needed. (4)

There's the rub. In Jersey, while going to the GP is subsidised, the patient also has to pay a share of the cost, and when it is a callout, perhaps to a young child who is unwell, the charges can rise rapidly over a very short time. And recently, when the potential of a swine flu epidemic was thought to be coming, patients were told - wisely enough - not to attend surgeries, and the cost of call outs in these special circumstances would not be for the patient to pay (to ensure compliance). Clearly this is a problem, which does not occur in the UK, where re-education into the use of alternative free facilities is the main problem.

If the Health Insurance Fund is running at a surplus, would it not be better to channel some of that into reducing the costs of going to the GP, especially perhaps when emergency out of hours calls are required? And rather than castigating Deputy Gorst on imaginary issues, would it not be better to ask questions about these very real issues?

Over-cautious parents are choosing to take their children to A&E with minor ailments such as coughs and colds instead of their GP. Under-pressure NHS staff are seeing youngsters with common illnesses which would usually be dealt with by their family doctor.(5)

Do we need some kind of out of hours community health care centre for minor ailments that is cheaper than call outs when they are not needed? The UK has quite a lot of those, and they reduce pressure on GPs. Might it not be a good idea to look at if something like that could be provided if A&E is closing its doors, so that alternatives are available? Even if there is still a charge - the same as that of going to the GP in daytime hours - that would still be a fraction of the cost of a call out.

The fact is that when a surgery closes (after 6 pm), any problems have to be dealt with by call-outs, and these cost a family (especially those trying to balance a budget) money that they can't afford, and I suspect this is one of the reasons why A&E gets people with more minor ailments.

In the 2008 Election, the JEP asked the prospective Senatorial candidates:

Question: Should the States pay more towards the cost of visits to the doctor? (6).

These were their replies. Perhaps we should ask them what has been done to improve matters since October 2008?

Mike Higgins: The cost of going to the doctor is crippling to some members of our society, so much so that they do not go and get the treatment they need and deserve. I believe in everyone receiving the health care they need, not based on what they can afford.

Montfort Tadier: Doctors' fees are prohibitively high for many people. There is currently an issue with those who are on limited means seeking treatment at A&E for this very reason, even though their sicknesses are not necessarily emergencies.

Philip Ozouf: The whole system of primary care needs reform. The Health Insurance Scheme is currently running with an annual surplus of £10 million with more than £60 million in the bank. Some of this fund should be used to subsidise visits to the doctor and also extend non-means-tested preventative care and screening, especially for senior citizens.

Sarah Ferguson: Why are the costs of going to the doctor so high? Perhaps the JCRA should investigate. Certainly those who were on HIE should be helped - but this is one of the areas where I think the forms required to apply for the various components of income support have been somewhat confusing, helped by the fact that it is a new system and the staff are not yet totally familiar with it.

Trevor Pitman: Affordable health care is surely one of the cornerstones of any true and modern democracy.

Alan Breckon: Paying doctors' costs for home or surgery visits is a concern to many people, especially those just above income support thresholds with children, or the elderly. Targeted support would be better than assistance for all. Prescription charges should not have been abolished. Assistance could have been focused on assisting others with medical, optical and dental treatment.

Alan Maclean: Those who can't afford to visit the doctor should have the necessary support to ensure that they can. Otherwise the hospital's A&E department faces an increased burden of non-emergencies, which is a false economy. In some cases, people will put off visits to their doctor, leading to more serious illness and ultimately greater cost to the health care system.

Ian le Marquand: Currently, drug prescriptions are free and £15 towards the cost of GP visits comes from Social Security. Income support is also meant to cover the cost of a reasonable number of visits to the doctor. This is an area in which the States should aim to gradually increase the £15, as the financial position allows. There is also an issue as to how well the new income support system is working. There appear to be cases in which people are having difficulty in obtaining the same level of medical support which they need and used to have.

Jeremy Macon: We should reintroduce HIE. This was an excellent system and currently low-income support only pays for four visits to the doctor. This is ridiculous for those on a low income who have to go to the doctor regularly for check-ups or tests. We were better off under the old system, where those who could not afford care did not have to worry about going to the doctor or calling him out if they had to.

Daniel Wimberley: The principle is clear: no-one should be barred from going to the doctor because they cannot afford it.

Links:
(1) jdajersey.co.uk/Gerard%20Baudains.htm
(2) www.statesassembly.gov.je/documents/propositions/28376-41910-1392010.pdf
(3) www.tcp-events.co.uk/wsmc/downloads/breakouts/Tuesday/1200/PCT/K%20Chaplin.pdf
(4) www.drfosterintelligence.co.uk/services/aande.asp
(5) www.theargus.co.uk/news/4424578.Brighton_parents_take_children_to_A_E_with_coughs_and_colds/
(6) www.thisisjersey.com/election/senators/issues/doctors-fees/#ixzz16f10TMbO

Woolworths and Statutory Obligations

http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/documents/statements/41235-8801-2012009.htm

The Viscount has advised of the steps he has already taken and anticipates taking to identify and best protect any legal rights of the employees, given that there remains property in the Island belonging to Woolworths plc., the sale or assignment of which will need the sanction of the Royal Court. The Minister for Social Security is satisfied that every effort is being made to protect the legal rights of the former Woolworths plc. employees....Whilst Jersey does not currently have legislation in respect of redundancy pay, legislation does make provision for minimum periods of notice that an employer is required to give an employee on termination of their employment. These notice periods are longer than those required in the UK. In addition to being briefed by the Viscount, the Minister for Social Security has written to the joint Administrators to express his disappointment and that of the Chief Minister in respect of the failure to meet their statutory obligations under Jersey Employment Law - in particular regarding the failure to make payments in lieu of notice. The Minister has further requested a meeting with the Joint Administrators to discuss these and related matters.

If I fail to meet my statutory obligations under the law, and neglect to return my income tax form, or pay my Parish rates, or renew my driving license, or ensure I have insurance to drive, or breach the Data Protection Law at work, then the Law would be down on me like a ton of bricks, with summons, fines and probably in some cases threatened imprisonment. For instance, if I fail to make an income tax return, or make a fraudulent one, the following applies:

Legal proceedings may be taken if you fail to submit a Return at all. The penalty for this is a fine up to £5,000. The penalty for negligently making an incorrect Income Tax Return is a fine of up to £5,000 PLUS twice the tax which would have been undercharged by reason of the negligence. If you fraudulently make an incorrect Tax Return you could face imprisonment up to a maximum of 15 years and a fine.

If you are Deloites, the administrator, however, with the Employment Law, apparently, what you get is a letter expressing "disappointment" at your failure to comply with the statutory obligations. The Viscount may be acting on this matter, but there is evidently no letter warning you about this, no summons to the court, no statutory fine which should be imposed on the administrators as soon as possible, and no threat of imprisonment. Why have a statutory obligation if it evidently is not statutory to some accountant firms!

In the words of Lewis Armstrong, "what a wonderful world"!