PFIs for Jersey Hospital Development: A Bad Idea

In the pre-amble talk before the main speaker at the Chamber of Commerce lunch yesterday, David Warr raised the spectre of PFI - Private Funding Initiatives - as part of a favourable suggestion that would be coming from the Chamber to the States; he particularly singled out the building of a new hospital. What is a PFI? And why is it in fact a bad idea?

A PFI is a partnership between State and the private sector, which Tom Clark explains:

The private finance initiative was devised to get schools, hospitals and roads built without swelling the government's overdraft. Critics discerned a conjuring trick. Instead of the state borrowing, private consortiums did, and then the public paid - at a premium rate. It has often been likened to sticking a mortgage on a credit card; but Whitehall always resisted that charge. (1)

I do hope that Jersey does not go down this route without serious thought. Private Eye is littered with examples, in almost any edition, of PFIs that have plunged hospital trusts or schools into long term debt. Basically, PFIs always seemed an idea too good to be true, and they were! In 2011, a committee headed by a Conservative chairman, Andrew Tyrie, and a coalition  majority investigated PFIs in detail to see how the extravagant claims made matched the reality. The results were devastating. Tom Clark notes:

Calmly and forensically, the committee weighs costs and claimed benefits to damning effect - and also confronts ministerial motives.

It finds the temptation to fiddle the figures alive and well. A loophole in European accounting standards keeps PFI liabilities out of the national debt figures the Treasury explicitly targets. Much has been made of the fact that public authorities must now declare PFI debt on their books, but they also have to live within capital budgets set for two to three years. A PFI that pushes costs out as far as 20-30 years is still often the only way to get something built.

Tyrie set his crunchers to work without fear or favour - with breathtaking results. Post-credit crunch, investors can demand higher returns, and so the financing costs of a typical PFI deal now exceed 8.5%, more than double the rate at which the government can borrow. For PFI to stack up, those claimed benefits around risk thus have to be not merely valid but overwhelming.

The committee dutifully details every risk management argument. Tackling cost overruns? PFI may help a little, but smarter conventional contracts would be just as good. Increased financial flexibility? Hardly, long-term contracts leave the taxpayer over a barrel. Encouraging innovative building that lasts for longer? In theory 20- to 30-year PFIs might help; in practice contractors play safe. (1)

The Spectator also looked at PFIs and the report.

'There were instances where PFI may have been used where there was no evidence that it was the best procurement route. Local authorities and health trusts used PFI because there was no realistic alternative, not because it represented best value for money.

The use of PFI and its alternatives should now be robustly evaluated. Looking back at PFI procurements, the government should also do more to find out where and why PFI works best and capture the lessons. Departments should also do more to ensure they get the best out of existing PFI contracts.' (2)

Richard Hellier, writing in the Yorkshire Post in March this year, was even more trenchard in his criticism:

PFI has been rudely described as the "biggest money-laundering scheme in the world." It pretends to transfer the cost of a new public asset from the public to the private sector. Under PFI (the Public Finance Initiative) of borrowing to pay for the asset itself, under PFI (the Private Finance Initiative) local or national government commissions the asset but asks a private company to borrow the money to build it. Government then pays back the company over a long period, usually adding guaranteed payments for maintenance.

Since government can borrow more cheaply than the private sector (UK public borrowing is now about half the cost of private) the Treasury traditionally frowned on PFI. This attitude changed in the economic crisis of 1992 and a resulting major squeeze on capital spending, when Norman Lamont was Chancellor (advised by a young David Cameron). PFI took off under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, who relaxed the rules early after taking office.

Under New Labour, the Treasury soon displayed a massive bias in favour of  PFI (later re-branded as PPP, Public-Private Partnerships). They produced more and more arcane calculations to claim that it was better value for money than conventional public borrowing. If the calculations did not come out right, they added new numbers to "correct" them. A public-spirited Yorkshireman, Mr J P Heawood, recently exposed one of the worst examples, the York Schools PFI project.

Early critics of PFI, led by Private Eye, seriously challenged its key assumptions. Risk was not being transferred to the private sector, and PFI companies were not always better at building or maintaining public assets than the maligned public sector. PFI often produced inferior design (such as the Yorkshire schools built with no light switches and non-opening windows) and service reductions.

Critics also denounced the secrecy of PFI deals, poor negotiating skills by government departments, and the expensive fees paid to lawyers, accountants and bankers to draw up deals. (The PPP contracts for the London Underground cost £500 million and were twice the length of War And Peace. They still failed.)

To adapt Winston Churchill, "never in the history of human finance has so much been paid to so few for doing so little." (3)

The main reason for going down the PFI route is because a government wants to spend money on a new initiative such as a hospital or school, but doesn't want to meet that either out of internal reserves and revenue streams or by borrowing. In other words, it is a fudge that gets round the government policy. Invariably, as the cliché has it, there's no such thing as a free lunch, so the money still has to be paid, but the PFI route is a way of legitimising that and bypassing existing government policy. That is why, of course, it is so beset with problems, because the risks and the payments still exist, they just are not often accounted for as part of the main accounting.

It's a bit like the practice, endemic in the 1980s, to cut civil service numbers by employing what were essentially permanent temporary staff, often with very similar conditions of service; the official numbers of staff employed by the States was reduced, but the real numbers often increased. Later, some of the same staff were made permanent at a time when the focus was on the high numbers of temporary staff, and that moved them off the books once more.

Conjuring tricks with figures may mask the underlying reality, but it remains there all the same. If a new hospital will cost £x amount, no deals with a Private Finance Initiative will reduce that sum; at best it will defray the cost over a number of years; at worst, the interest may be greater, and there may be a loss of amenity (and revenue stream) if some is taken for private health care for private profit by the PFI company. In the long term, it is often a lose, lose situation once stripped of rhetoric. PFI companies are not charities, out to benefit the public, they are businesses out to make a good return to shareholders.

The Audit Commission report exposed the reality of the situation in the UK:

How much are the country's 640 private finance initiative schools, hospitals and the like costing taxpayers..and what can be done to cut the bills? Sadly "a lot" and "nothing" are the answers. Non-negotiable payments under PFI contracts are running at more than £8bn on projects with a capital value of £63bn. But even these numbers mask the difficulties of coping with PFI in practice. Hardest hit are education and health. The latter's budget has £1.2bn in PFI costs to shoulder: and the effect in some trusts has been crippling. A new Audit Commission report shows six acute hospital trusts still burdened by huge deficits despite cuts and efforts at "turnaround". Much of this is put down to poor financial management, but five of the six operate from buildings built and financed through PFI, and so are saddled with massive extra costs too. By contrast, only one of 130 non-PFI acute trusts has a deficit. (4)

Writing in June 2011, Clare Sambrook, a journalist who had both the Paul Foot Award and the Bevins Prize for outstanding investigative journalism in 2010, commented on Radio 4's File on Four which exposed how PFIs represented bad value for money:

More excellent journalism on the almighty (and lawful) rip-off that is the UK Private Finance Initiative has come from BBC Radio 4's File on 4. The programme reveals gigantic profits made on the resale of PFI contracts, suggesting a lamentable failure of vigilance by those entrusted with fighting the taxpayer's corner in the original deals.

For two decades the Private Finance Initiative has been a risky way of funding new hospitals, schools, prisons and roads: companies build and maintain public facilities under contracts lasting as long as 35 years. File on 4 (broadcast last week, available here this week and on podcast indefinitely) identifies PFI hospital contracts that within a few years of being struck have been sold on, yielding profits for financiers averaging 66.7 per cent.

More than £250 billion of public money has been committed to PFI projects and we remain trapped in these contracts for decades to come. In Portsmouth alone paying for the Queen Alexandra Hospital means finding £44 million-a-year, rising with inflation, until 2040. Already under strain, in two years since opening the hospital has shed 700 jobs, with 90 more to go and the palliative care ward has been shut. (5)

The File on Four programme notes:

For two decades, the Private Finance Initiative has been a controversial way of building new hospitals, schools, roads and prisons. Well over £200bn of taxpayers' money has been committed to the companies managing these projects. The coalition government describes some PFI contracts as 'ghastly' and wants some of this cash back. One cabinet minister says 'the people on the other side must have been laughing all the way to the bank'.  But, while public services are facing cuts, PFI payments are guaranteed under watertight contracts. So experts say the government can win only small amounts in rebates. Much of the money has already gone offshore. Huge profits have been made by selling and reselling many contracts in a secretive 'secondary market' - with none of the proceeds returning to the taxpayer.(6) 

Jersey, of course, has had a PFI style initiative offered before by Mr Richard Brocken, and it will be interesting to see if his name surfaces with respect of any new hospital development. Stuart Syvret, in his usual uncompromising manner and purple prose, laid out the deficiencies of this kind of scheme:

His plan was to re-develop the site as a private hospital - a scheme which his own advisers said would only be viable if "the risk was shared" with the public hospital.

His plan was to be thus relived of having to bother with the inconvenience of building his private hospital with the full and necessary range of facilities and services a stand-alone medical centre would need.

Instead, the decades of investment by Jersey tax-payers in their health service would enable Mr. Brocken's scheme to piggy-back upon the public services of the Jersey General Hospital.

His private hospital would have siphoned-off the profitable private medical treatment provided in the General Hospital - and which generates an income for the public purse. This would have deprived Health & Social Services of an important source of income. (9)

Part of this almost exactly matches that noted by Jon Sussex,

In NHS PFI deals the private consortium takes on no demand risk. Whatever the future demand for the services of the hospital, the consortium's profits will be unaffected. This distinguishes PFI in the health service from transport infrastructure schemes such as roads, bridges and tunnels. (7)

Sussex also notes that the cost advantages of the PFI schemes are a chimera:

In aggregate, the cost advantages claimed in the official business cases for NHS PFI schemes, relative to their public sector comparators are small. Boyle & Harrison (2000b) report that for the first 11 major NHS PFI schemes in England, the average cost saving officially claimed for the PFI option relative to the public sector comparator was just 1.6 percent (range 0%-4.2%). These are the savings after adding to the public sector comparator's cost the estimated value of the risks that are transferred to the private sector in the PFI option, and have been calculated using the government's required 6 percent real annual discount rate. At a discount rate of 5 percent or less these calculated savings would disappear. (7)

The key factor in favour of a PFI is what is called "deliverability". As an article from 2003 notes:

PFI has already found favour with two different political administrations. This relative longevity, and the fact it has straddled the political divide, is perhaps both the reason for, and the result of, changing justifications for its use. So, what was originally seen as a way of extending public provision without extending public borrowing became justified as a way to achieve value for money in the provision of public services. More recently, the rhetoric has shifted again and PFI is now debated as a way to produce "deliverables".

In summary, the argument that PFI is justified by its ability to provide deliverables is the latest in a series of controversial justifications. Although there is evidence that PFI transfers the risk that building projects will go over budget and take longer than expected to the private sector, there is little evidence so far that it will provide ongoing deliverables in longer-term service delivery.(8)

Whatever PFI suggestions are made locally by the Chamber of Commerce, it is important that the kind of problems which have beset the UK are considered very carefully. It may seem like a neat way of bypassing Treasury policies, and raising cash in the short term, but in the longer term, there could well be - as in the UK - a staggering debt to be paid by future generations of taxpayers.

In June 2012 this year, the Telegraph reported on the failure of the PFI dream:

The near financial collapse of South London Healthcare Trust, which has a deficit of £150 million, serves as a stark warning for other NHS trusts, struggling to cope with the pressures of repaying costly PFI contracts. Financial failure leads to clinical failure, as cutbacks are made to try to plug financial gaps.

103 PFI deals were struck by Labour for the NHS with a combined value of £11.4 billion/ By the time that they are paid off, they will have cost more than £65 billion. These are the same schemes that Andy Burnham said in 2007 were "the right schemes and offer value for money." This profligacy with taxpayers' money was condemned as 'staggering' by Labour MP Margaret Hodge, the chairwoman of the Public Accounts Committee, when it was revealed last year as part of a report on Government use of PFI. These PFI contracts constitute a vast drain on the public finances. (10)

That should sound a warning note to local politicians not to be seduced by the possibilities opened to them by PFI style initiatives. Patents for famed water powered perpetual motion machines always required a tap to supply extra water which it is supposed would eventually be able to be turned off once the inventor had ironed out the kinks in the system. They are no longer accepted by the patent office, which realised that some schemes may never get the kinds taken out of the system, however cleverly the inventor presents his case. The PFI is very like that; it promises much, but will always require that public tap to feed into it.

 Links
(1) http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/21/pfi-conjuring-trick-mps
(2) http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2011/01/mps-turn-on-pfi/
(3) http://www.richardheller.co.uk/2012/03/journalism/yp-pfi-a-private-scourge-on-public-finances/
(4) http://www.auditnorthwest.co.uk/news_more.asp?news_id=13¤t_id=1
(5) http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/clare-sambrook/pfi-transferring-billions-from-uk-taxpayers-to-private-financiers
(6) http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b011vf2f
(7) Public-Private Partnerships in Hospital Development: Lessons from the UK's `Private Finance Initiative'., Jon Sussex, Research in Healthcare Financial Management, 2003
(8) PFI in the Sky: The Private Finance Initiative Has Caused Controversy in the NHS Ever since It Was First Introduced. Jane Broadbent, Jas Gill and Richard Laughlin Report the Findings of Their Research into the Changing Justifications for PFI and Ask Whether We Have Evidence Showing Its Success or Failure. (PFI in the NHS). Financial Management (UK), 2003
(9) http://stuartsyvret.blogspot.com/2008/03/of-chancers-and-spivs.html
(10) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9356622/Labours-PFI-landmines-continue-to-explode-in-the-NHS.html

Memories of the Great Storm

On Thursday night, 25 years ago, I had just finished help producing the first performance of A Grouville Pageant at Grouville Church, had a coffee and chat with my co-producer Rosemary Hampton over how it had gone, before heading back to St Brelade. No one thought of anything apart from strong winds.

It was around 11.00, and my small Mini was buffeted so much by the winds that I remember crawling along Victoria Avenue at around 10 miles per hour, hoping I could round Bel Royal and get out of the winds. There was no power steering in those days, and every so often a gust would push at the car so hard that I had trouble keeping the steering wheel firmly on course.

Eventually I got back home, after around a 45 minute journey, and had a troubled sleep because of the rattling of the windows. In the morning, I was woken by the phone. My sister had their wooden porch in front of their bungalow blown away, and she wondered how things were down in the Bay.

That was the first inkling that anything major had happened. I looked into the drive, and saw two elm trees snapped like twigs half way up, broken trunks in the drive. (They were later taken down for road widening; they never got Dutch elm disease). I tried to ring her back, but by now the phone system was out of action; it can collapsed from the weight of calls.

These were the days before the internet, or mobiles, so the one source of up to date information - and very good it was too - was BBC Radio Jersey, which amazingly was on the air, giving out details as the day went on. I think that was the day it really showed what a community based Radio station could do, and that's something they've done very well since, when snow has been causing havoc on roads a few years back, to bus strikes more recently.

Because of the play, I'd taken the day off work.  Of course, in the morning, I soon realised that with trees down everywhere, very few people would make it into work! I wandered down St Brelade's Bay, trees down everywhere, and at the toilets close to Mid-Bay, tree roots were sticking up in the air, water from broken pipes was gushing up into the road. The car park by the Winston Churchill park had a row of trees to the seaward side - you can now park there, because they all came up by the roots, completely, and into the road. Further round, by the church, a whole row of trees on the corner had gone. The whole bay looked as if someone had bombed it.

The skyline too had changed. It was as if suddenly a massive building project had taken place, and the President of Planning had gone off his rocker, because there were lots of houses on the hills above, looking down into the bay, that hadn't been seen before. They'd lost their trees, which of course, they had no permission to cut down. But they were never told to put them back, and the skyline has always been more cluttered above St Brelade's Bay ever since.

The trees were up in our driveway, but fortunately my mini was way back from the road. My next door neighbour, Joe Meade, came round with a chain-saw and by the end of a sweaty morning, they were clear. The roads in and out of the bay were still impassable until the next day.

That Friday, the Grouville Church play was canceled, and an extra performance put on Sunday evening instead. When the Saturday performance commenced, John Le Maistre and Alan Labey put an ad-lib about the storm in their scene about chopping up wood. In this scene, two soldiers from the Militia stack guns and berate the Methodists for not drilling on a Sunday.  I've inserted the ad-lib at the start:

Narrator: Throughout the island, there were quarrels over Church pews, people drunk in Church. The Rector of St Lawrence neglected his church services, and spent much of his time drinking in a tavern.

(enter soldiers, singing badly, pulling trolley on which are guns; carrying bottles of ale. )

Soldier 1: It's a good job we've got these (waving cutting edge of bayonet

Soldier 2: Yes, we needed them to chop our way through here tonight, with all those trees down.

Soldier 1: Stack the guns here, they said. Or was it here.

Soldier 2: There's no battle on at the moment.

Soldier 1: I reckon we should use our guns on those traitors, the Methodists. They're never in the Militia on Sundays.

Soldier 1: Well, that's as maybe. But I have heard tell of good works they do.

Soldier 2: Good? They never drink. Not a drop! A little wine never hurt no one - that's what the good book says.
(swigs from bottle)

Soldier 1: I don't says I agree with them. But they are good people. Their heart's in the right place.

Soldier 2: They're always preaching at you, Just like the Rector. I calls them killjoys! Killjoys! They takes all the fun out of life.

(they disappear to side, soldier 2 still muttering "Killjoys.")

Amazingly, no one was seriously hurt during the Great Storm. The winds were hurricane force at times, but largely I always thought as a face saving measure by the Met Office, "Great storm" rather than "hurricane" became the dominant narrative description. In fact, as the Met Office site itself makes clear, while the winds were not hurricane force everywhere, they were in particular localities:

"In the Beaufort scale of wind force, Hurricane Force (Force 12) is defined as a wind of 64 knots or more, sustained over a period of at least 10 minutes. Gusts, which are comparatively short-lived (but cause a lot of destruction) are not taken into account. By this definition, Hurricane Force winds occurred locally but were not widespread."

"The Great Storm of 1987 was not officially classified as a hurricane by meteorologists as is was gusts, not sustained winds that reached hurricane force....Although not defined technically as a hurricane, gusts up to 122 miles per hour caused havoc and extensive damage."

This allowed the following statement to be made:

"Media reports accused the Met Office of failing to forecast the storm correctly. Repeatedly, they returned to the statement by Michael Fish that there would be no hurricane - which there hadn't been."

That's getting away with a technicality; if you watch the famous forecast, you'll see he doesn't mention hurricane or storm force winds with a threat of widespread damage; rather, his whole demeanour suggests things are going to be very windy, gales, but that's all, no need to panic, folks!

The storm was declared to be a rare event, but in fact, the unsettled weather patterns we have today make that far less likely. Severe weather events have now become the norm. We live in worrying times.

HOLISTIC ANIMAL HEALTH CARE CONFERENCE 2012

I've been asked to publicise this by Linda Grave, and I'm happy to recommend it. She is a very gifted healer.

HOLISTIC ANIMAL HEALTH CARE CONFERENCE 2012
Jersey's First Conference on Holistic Animal Health Care

Taking place over the weekend of 20th/21st October 2012 at:
Communicare Centre, La Route des Quennevais, St Brelade.

Saturday/Sunday, 20 /21 October 2012
For all those interested in providing care and healing to all animals by complementary and mainstream veterinary therapies.

Moderator: Linda Grave (Linda Grave Healer).

Guest Speakers: Michael Noel (Clinical Hypnotherapist). (Universal Healing Group).
Emily Robinson (Principal, Asentia College of Animal Healing).
Yasmin Isaacs (HOWL).
Maria Van Day (HOWL).
Sally Ede (Animal Healing Practice/Horse and Rider Coaching).
Jane Vincent  (J.S.P.C.A.).
Dr Emma Hurst (Human and Veterinary Chiropractor).

The Conference will be supplemented by Workshops and Practical Healing Sessions and all delegates are invited to join the speakers and organisers for a Buffet at Giggles Café & Bar, St John's Sports Centre, on Saturday evening.

Tickets are available for the entire event or separate modules as follows:
Conference (Saturday 10.00am-5.00pm) - Only £20.00
Buffet (Saturday 07.30pm onwards) - Only  £ 20.00
Workshop/Practical Session (Sunday 09.30am-4.30pm)  -   £ 60.00

Tickets and further information about this unique event can be obtained from Linda Grave
Telephone 07797 825836
or email lgrave@jerseymail.co.uk

Linda will also act as Chair/Moderator for the Conference has recently launched her own business (LGH) offering Energy Therapy and Healing to both Human and Animal clients, following her graduation of a BTEC Professional Diploma in Animal Healing and as the culmination of a lifetime interest in healing and animal welfare.

Having been aware of her gift for healing and affinity for both people and animals from an early age, Linda has trained with (and is a full member of) The Universal Healing Group and has practiced as a Healer in Jersey and the mainland for some years.

All profits from the Conference day will be distributed between the Jersey Cat-Action Trust, Jersey Greyhound Rescue, JSPCA and St Ouen's Horse Haven.

There are a limited number of places for this event.

Heartland

Saturday poem this week is a quite reflective one, looking back over memories and feeling mellow...

Heartland
 
The boat glides along the sea
Into the harbour. Now to moor,
Alongside the jetty, wind to lea,
Tie up the ropes and make secure
 
Cobbled lanes beside the church
And waves lapping beside the wall
A seagull settles on gravestone perch
Bells ring out, come here, they call
 
Upon lofty height, the dolmen stands
Gorse and heather on rocky height
Above the sea, the shore, the sands
Caressed by moon with gentle light
 
These are my places, my heartland
Share, my love, and take my hand

Mrs Fidget

One of the most amusing miniature portraits by C.S. Lewis was in his book "The Four Loves". Lewis is here dealing with affection, and in this case, affection as a "gift love", and how it can go wrong. The "Four Loves" is a wonderful book, dealing with affection, friendship, eros and charity - the last being agape-love rather than that limited meaning the word has so often come to have.

As Lewis says of affection going wrong, "It is not only mothers who can do this. All those other Affections which,
whether by derivation from parental instinct or by similarity of function, need to be needed may fall into the same pit."

"The Four Loves" is full of small pen-sketches like this, homely illustrations to bring out the nature of different kind of love. It's not a dry academic tome, but rather an extremely readable, and enjoyable book; it is deep, but not in a ponderous way, more in the same way that his fiction - such as Narnia - has depth while being at the same time so accessible. Like Orwell, Lewis had a gift of communicating as if he was speaking to you, not as a lecture, but as a conversation, a chat between friends.

I also like what he says of friendship:

"I have no duty to be anyone's Friend and no man in the world has a duty to be mine. No claims, no shadow of necessity. Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art, like the universe itself (for God did not need to create). It has no survival value; rather it is one of those things which give value to survival."

But here is Mrs Fidget:

Mrs Fidget by C.S. Lewis (from "The Four Loves")

I am thinking of Mrs. Fidget, who died a few month ago. It is really astonishing how her family have brightened up. The drawn look has gone from her husband' face; he begins to be able to laugh. The younger boy whom I had always thought an embittered, peevish little creature, turns out to be quite human. The older, which was hardly ever at home except when he was in bed, is nearly always there now and has begun to reorganise the garden. The girl, who was always supposed to be "delicate " (though I never found out what exactly the trouble was), now has the riding lessons which were once out of the question, dances all night, and plays any amount of tennis. Even the dog who was never allowed out except on a lead is now a well-known member of the Lamp-post Club in their road.

Mrs. Fidget very often said that she lived for her family. And it was not untrue. Everyone in the neighbourhood knew it. "She lives for her family," they said; "what a wife and mother!" She did all the washing; true, she did it badly, and they could have afforded to send it out to laundry, and they frequently begged her not to do it. But she did. There was always a hot lunch for anyone who was at home and always a hot meal at night (even in mid-summer). They implored her not to provide this. They protested almost with tears in their eyes (and with truth) that they liked cold meals. It made no difference. She was living for her family. She always sat up to "welcome" you if you were out late at night; two or three in the morning, it made no odds; you would always find the frail, pale, weary face awaiting you, like a silent accusation. Which means of course that you couldn't with any decency go out very often.

She was always making things too; being in her own estimation (I'm no judge myself) an excellent amateur dressmaker and a great knitter. And of course, unless you were a heartless brute, you had to wear the things. (The Vicar tells me that, since her death, the contributions of that family alone to "sales of work" outweigh those of all his other parishioners put together).

And then her care for their health! She bore the whole burden of that daughter's "delicacy" alone. The Doctor - an old friend, and it was not being done on National Health - was never allowed to discuss matters with his patient. After the briefest examination of her, he was taken into another room by the mother. The girl was to have no worries, no responsibility for her own health. Only loving care; caresses, special foods, horrible tonic wines and breakfast in bed.

For Mrs. Fidget, as she so often said, would "work her fingers to the bone" for her family. They couldn't stop her. Nor could they - being decent people - quite sit still and watch her do it. They had to help. Indeed they were always having to help. That is, they did things for her to help her to do things for them which they didn't want done.

As for the dear dog, it was to her, she said, "just like one of the children". It was in fact as like one of them as she could make it. But since it had no scruples it got on rather better than they, and though vetted, dieted and guarded within an inch of its life, contrived sometimes to reach the dustbin or the dog next door.

The Vicar says Mrs. Fidget is now at rest. Let us hope she is. What's quite certain is that her family are.

Harbouring Heritage?

Harbours and Airports are both due to be incorporated. The States voted 42 to 5, with 1 abstention to pass the proposition "to approve the incorporation of Jersey Airport and Jersey Harbours as a single limited company wholly owned by the States of Jersey, to be known as 'Ports of Jersey' as set out in the attached Report"

The preamble is a very strange document, and I'm not wholly sure it makes sense.

"The primary goal in incorporating Jersey Harbours and Jersey Airport is to enable them to continue to be the provider of essential, lifeline public services to the Island, but to do so in a commercial and sustainable manner that will improve services for customers and generate a positive return to the States."

How are they to do this? Perhaps it came out in the debate, but it seems obvious that to raise extra money, they have to charge more. The suggestion, however, is that "efficiencies" - what a wonderful word - will also enable the harbours and airports to run much better than at present. Or that other word "diversification" comes into play.

We have, for instance, this paragraph:

"Attempts to apply the commercial disciplines referred to above without an incorporated structure and the governance processes that go with it have not, to date, had an effective impact, because management and control is too dissipated between various components of the States, such that commercial focus and consistent decisive action is often inhibited."

What this appears to be saying is that the present structure simply won't work well, and as a commercial entity, it will. This suggests that the present management structure is not fit for purpose - and indeed we are told "If the Harbours and Airport businesses were to continue to operate as they did before 2011, they would be unable to meet capital requirements from current cash-flows."

But if that's true of the unincorporated structure, is it also true of the rest of the States? Is the hospital being run badly, because it is not subject to proper management disciplines? Or the education department? The list goes on. Why should just the harbours and airports have problems because "management and control is too dissipated between various components of the States"? Maybe other departments have a lack of "consistent decisive action" for exactly the same reasons. How is that to be addressed?

On the other hand, if it is possible to ensure that other departments can be run with consistency and decisive action, why is there a need to incorporate harbours and airports? Can't they be run properly too?

So the whole preamble to the proposition opens a can of worms regarding the management and structure of the States departments in general, perhaps the more so because those are not commercial in nature, so are less likely to be pulled into line by the need to respond to market forces.

What do the departments do? The preamble again lists what is done:

"In addition to commercial port activity, Jersey Harbours provides marinas and moorings for local boat-owners and visitors - from the "Five Gold Anchor" marinas in St. Helier to moorings in the outlying harbours. Jersey Airport provides a comprehensive network of commercial routes, facilities for business aviation and for local and visiting private aircraft. Jersey Airport is contracted, through the Minister for Economic Development, to provide air traffic control for the Channel Islands Control Zone on behalf of the French and UK authorities. Importantly, Jersey Harbours also provides the coastguard service for our territorial waters; this essential public service, which in most jurisdictions is funded by taxpayers, is funded in Jersey entirely from the Harbours' revenues."

A shadow board of directors has already been appointed to "drive their commercial development, efficiency and effectiveness, to the point where incorporation represented a credible proposition."

"As Trading Operations, all current investments are met from the Trading Funds rather than general taxation and as such, in order to avoid raising tariffs to cover such public interest burdens, the cost base must be reduced or business growth must be achieved."

But when it comes to anything concrete, we are just presented with all kinds of waffle.

"Optimise the use of the asset base to generate greater revenues and diversify our income stream."

"Incorporation will allow the Ports to leverage their asset base for development and growth in a way not possible under current arrangements. By deriving incremental revenues from the assets, revenue streams will be diversified, with consequently reduced reliance on fees and tariffs from commercial customers"

"A significant work-stream for the incorporation project is to establish how the business will be regulated. The appropriate oversight will be established in conjunction with the JCRA to ensure that the consumers of the facilities continue to derive value for money."

As we are also told the Harbour and Airport will now pay Parish rates, I do wonder where this wonderful "optimisation" and "work-stream" will take place and business growth achieved.

This part of the preamble is rife with the vaguest, most incoherent and empty phrases, management gobbledygook which is devoid of any concrete targets or explanations of where the money is coming from. I suspect, as I am sure my readers do, that despite all assurances to the contrary, it will be by raising prices, either for rent of assets or for the use of facilities. There is no indication of how "revenue streams will be diversified"; it is just stated. It is sheer "Yes Minister", and I'm surprised that so many States members voted in its favour. Maybe the promise of income coming back to the States was a sufficient lure.

The document has some pretty graphs, but really very little of substance. On of the facts of substance, however are the assets:

"All relevant land and buildings owned by the public and under the operational control of Jersey Harbours and Jersey Airport at the point of incorporation will be transferred to the Ports on a basis to be negotiated and agreed with the Minister for Treasury and Resources."

Now one of those assets is the land occupied by the Maritime Museum, and in 2009, when there was a funding crisis for Jersey Heritage, it emerged that the Maritime Museum had to pay harbours around two-thirds to three-quarters of the moneys it raised in admissions to the Harbours department for rent.

It would seem a good moment to reflect about whether it is wise to transfer an asset to an incorporated entity, which may will increase its revenue stream by taking higher rents from the Maritime Museum, which will lessen Jersey Heritage's ability to pay its way. The last time that occurred, there were temporary closures of sites.

It seems inconsistent that the States should be funding Jersey heritage on the one hand, and taking away that funding with the another entity, but that's how States budgeting works. Yet the Waterfront Enterprise Board was ceded land from the States, not having to pay rental, so there is a good precedent for moving that land from the property portfolio of Harbours not to the incorporated entity but to Jersey Heritage instead. After all, it is all States property. And here is a golden opportunity, which won't come again.

Faults on both sides?

CT Plus have placed on their website their position regarding current terms and conditions with Connex.

It is not surprising they want these practices to change. What is also clear is that they are transparent about the terms and conditions they are offering - again all listed on their website - and we have very little information about current terms and conditions apart from those given below.

CT Plus are offering:

Monday - Friday: £13.50
Saturdays: £14.50
Sundays: £20.08
Bank Holidays: £27.00
Overtime rate: Rate as per day type (so weekday overtime at £13.50 etc)
Shift allowance (Mon - Sat): None
Performance allowance: (Mon - Sat): None
Attendance at disciplinaries: Basic pay
Health benefit: £6.53 per week
Pension: £1,312.34 per annum
Holiday entitlement: 25 days
Holiday pay: £539.29 per week
Sick pay per day: £74.62 per day
Sunday working: Rota basis for everyone
Bank holiday working: Rota basis for everyone
Bank holiday paid for hours not worked: 6.5 hours at basic
Bank holiday worked time off in lieu: 7.5 hours at basic rate
Numbers of standby duties: Rota'd as required for the service
Allocation to spare shift rota: Rota'd
Contractual working hours per week: 39
Working week: Monday - Sunday rotating shifts, 5 out of 7 days
Maximum hours permitted to be worked per week: 54

Notice period
Less than 26 weeks employment: 1 weeks' notice
26 - 2 years: 2 weeks' notice
2 - 5 years: 4 weeks' notice
5 years plus: 8 weeks' notice

Sickness entitlement

Waiting days: 2
Probationary period: None
Up to 1 year's service: 2 weeks basic pay
1 - 2 years: 3 weeks basic pay
2 - 3 years: 5 weeks basic pay
3 - 4 years: 6 weeks basic pay
4 year onwards: 8 weeks full basic pay, 6 weeks half basic pay
Staff travel passes: Self plus one other living at same address
Probationary period: 26 weeks

Sticky Points

I can see a few points which may raise legitimate problems with drivers being taken on:

Drivers may have been working for Jersey Bus, and then Connex for many years. Do the entitlements or notice period start or sickness entitlement start from scratch? The position above appears to wipes that experience and time employed out, and starts with a blank slate, so that rookie drivers and experienced hands are treated the same. I think that this point should be negotiable, especially with regard to sickness entitlement, and probably with regard to notice period as well.

Jim McCartan has said: "One of the strikers' complaints is that changes to their contracts do not take into account their length of service.". I think that's a fair complaint.

The compulsory working on Sundays is perhaps something which Ian Gorst, and the other Christians in the States might wish to consider. Perhaps an option whereby without clocking up more than 54 hours, the shifts can be reallocated to those who want extra money, and if that can be done, the driver would not need to work Sundays. I think that this point should be negotiable

Currently drivers are paid a shift allowance, but I don't know the basis for this. It could mean a compensation for having to work unsociable hours, e.g. evenings, but with same hours, just different time (from 9-5). This means that they don't get paid any different when they actually work the late shift, but that they have already been (and will continue to be) compensated for it via the shift allowance. Lots of bus companies in the UK do pay sift allowances. I think that this point should be negotiable

Unacceptable Practices

However, practices that are not acceptable are listed by Dai Powell below:

Who gets overtime: Our first shock was in the allocation of overtime. This is not controlled by management under the current working arrangements. Some drivers earn up to £70k per year by working up to 70 hours per week. Many other staff are stuck on part time contracts, struggling to support their families. This is patently unfair and worse, the needs of the service itself are left out of the picture. Under the new arrangements, overtime will be allocated fairly and by management.

Who gets what shift: Shift patterns are not controlled by management. For example, in a bus operation there are always some drivers on standby to ensure that the service can be covered in case of sickness or disruption. Traditionally considered an easy duty, this is paid at time and a half on Jersey. The decision about who gets these shifts is not taken by management. For reasons that pass our understanding, there are over 60 of these shifts per week.

In the future, we will control shift patterns, ensure that they are shared equitably and in the best interest of the service.

What isn't made clear here is who controls this, if it is not the management. Is it the Union? Is it a particular coterie of drivers?

Union permission to recruit: The employer needs union agreement before it is able to employ extra full-time staff.. We find this position repugnant when so many part time drivers want more, and when unemployment in Jersey is a real concern for everyone. Job creating is a very high priority for us as a social enterprise.

Clearly this restriction ensures that excessive overtime can be clocked up rather than employing new drivers.

Time and a half for disciplinaries: When staff do have a disciplinary hearing, (for example as the result of an accident), they are paid time and a half to attend a hearing. We believe that this is wrong.

They also note that:

However, we do believe that it is fair to protect livelihoods. In our new terms the hourly pay, the weekend pay, the holidays, pension, sickness are all comparable with or better than the current terms at tender. Staff will be protected for redundancy and unfair dismissal, as under their current terms. On the new terms drivers can earn 40k per year.

A Challenge

The time element raises the question of how much (for example) Union boss Jim McCartan, who is leading the protest, and responsible for the wildcat strike has to lose. He could quite easily request Connex to make all his hours public over, say, the last three months, so that we can see exactly how many hours he works each week. He need not give any details of pay, just the hours. Will he take on the challenge, or has he too much to lose by doing so?

Conclusion

It can be seen, I think, that the demand to just take on existing terms and conditions is in part a smokescreen for some very disreputable practices by some - those who organise overtime and shift allowances.

But on the other hand, there are some legitimate grievances, such as not respecting the length of service. The problem is bundling them together, the bad practices can be used as a stick to beat the drivers, while legitimate points get overlooked. It is clear that they are being overlooked by CT Plus, which makes no note of them in its press release, concentrating instead on bad practices, or by Deputy Kevin Lewis, who does much the same.

TTS (reported on CTV) say they have carried over the rights of drivers and other staff apart from overtime. But they don't specify the length of service provision explicitly, and haven't been challenged (as far as I am aware) in any interviews by the media; in short, they, and CT Plus, have managed to get away with a one sided narrative in which they can avoid legitimate questions about terms and conditions.

As they were given a take-it-or-leave it deadline by CT Plus of this Friday, there was clearly a frantic reason for a strike by the Union.  A deadline after which you lose your job if you don't capitulate can also be called a "climate of fear"; a matter overlooked by Kevin Lewis. It is also not clear how negotiations were proceeding, and they might have been optimistic regarding the legitimate points. In that case, setting a date for a strike a week ahead might have been sending out the wrong message, that they weren't prepared to negotiate. There's a lot of confusion in the reports from either sides, but it seems like a standoff with no party prepared to budge.

Jim McCartan, from Unison, said the strike action was indefinite and that staff "had been backed into a corner". The deadline from CT Plus and the lack of any statement or negotiated position (made public) on length of service was just as intransigent as the unions demand for taking over all existing practices. There are clearly faults on both sides, but CT Plus probably have the better PR, given the wildcat strike.

But clearly there was also a failure by the drivers to allow for the general public as well, and it would have been better to at least give at least one or two days notice rather than none at all, to allow for the news to filter through to those passengers who instead were waiting for buses that never came. That would still have been "illegal", but it would have gained more public sympathy, as would the retention of school buses. And was it not beyond the wit of the Unions or TTS to send out someone (on a motorbike perhaps) along bus routes to inform those passengers that they would be waiting for non-existent buses?

Ian Christmas: The Legal Background

I have asked Senator Ian Le Marquand for background information on the legal situation regarding Ian Christmas, the Magistrate jailed for fraud.

He has been happy to give permission for me to make his reply public, with the proviso (that I am happy to place here) as follows:

"you can make my response public provided that you make it clear that I am not a Justice Minister but have need dealing with responses on behalf of the Chief Minister because of my knowledge of the legal and constitutional issues."

I would like to thank him for making this information public.

To put our exchange in context, this was my email asking for clarification of what he had said on BBC Radio Jersey, as I had missed the interview:

I missed hearing you on the radio the other day about arrangements over the Crown Officers, and wonder if you could fill me in on what you said, and what you are proposing.

Obviously this has to do with Mr Christmas, and while I think that it is proper he should receive a salary while suspended before sentencing, it seems inequitable if he receives one after he has been found guilty. After all, a pensioner who is sent to prison will (as I understand it) cease to receive his pension once sent there.

I understand Mr Christmas is appealing, but if the appeal fails, then he will have been paid for the interim period with, apparently, no means for redeeming that back by the States of Jersey. This again does not seem equitable. It would surely be fairer for him to not be paid until his appeal is heard, or paid into a kind of escrow account, and paid a backlog if successful. That way, he does not lose out, but if still guilty as charged, the State does not lose either.

The mechanisms for removing Mr Christmas from office also seem exceedingly protracted. At what point - when sentenced to prison - when failing on appeal - is he removed from office? It seems that there should a point, certainly if his appeal fails, where removal from office becomes automatic.  I'm taking the appeal as the end point, because I think it is important that justice is also given to Mr Christmas as fairly as possible (unlike, perhaps, the media); on the other hand, if the appeal fails, given the time he has already been paid - including time in prison, there is surely no justice in him being continued to be paid from that point on.

Lastly, should there be a code of conduct and/or register of interests for magistrates? It appears that Mr Christmas was in effect using his office as magistrate to engender trust in a private business venture, and surely magistrates should not use their office as a kind of marketing endorsement? A magistrate is a position (I hope) of respect in the community, and I'm not sure they should engage in private schemes of the kind cited in Mr Christmas case, or if they do, shouldn't that be transparent with a register of judiciary interests?

This was his reply, which makes the situation very clear:

Tony, Mr. Christmas is a public office holder and the terms of his tenure of office are set out in the 1864 law on the Juge d'Instruction. There is no provision for his suspension from office and he can only be dismissed by the Privy Council upon petition by the Superior Number of the Royal Court. The Superior Number is the Bailiff, the Deputy Bailiff and all 12 Jurats who are usually assisted by the Attorney General, the Judicial Greffier and the Viscount.

There was a Press Release dated 25th September which explained the procedure which was being followed on behalf of the Royal Court, namely, a disciplinary investigation by a UK judge.

In my view, Mr. Christmas ought to have resigned at the point at which it became clear that he could not return to his former role. In my view that was when he was formally charged although some may think that he should have resigned earlier and you appear to think that he should have resigned when convicted.

In an ideal world, we would have in place a procedure by virtue of which a judge could be removed from office once there was such a public loss of confidence in the judge as to render it impossible for the judge to return. However, that is not without its difficulties. It is an important constitutional principle in a democracy that we have an independent judiciary. That is partly because the Government itself will be a party to court cases and partly as a safeguard against corruption. That therefore requires that a judge cannot be removed for political reasons. That in turn make the loss of public confidence test a difficult one to determine objectively.

It is my view that there now needs to be a review of the disciplinary arrangements for judges

Bus Strike Fatigue

In the Saint story, "The Sleepless Knight", a cyclist has been hit and killed by a truck driver, who explains he has been working under inhumane conditions -- he and his fellow drivers have been only allowed four hours sleep a week if they are to complete their routes on time for the boss, Sir Melvin Flagler. Reading this account of "modern slavery", the Saint takes it upon himself to show the smug managing director of the company a better way to run his business by strapping him to a driving simulator, and administering shocks if he falls asleep, while Sir Melvin has to undergo the same sleep regime as his drivers.

The current bus strike seems to be over retaining longer hours, as long - with overtime - as 70 hours, or possibly even more. Tristen Dodd, of Transport says there is a clause in the new bus contract that employees can only work a maximum of 54 hours per week - 15 hours more than their basic week but significantly less than some drivers are currently working in overtime.

You would think that bus drivers welcomed this. After all, this is an account given by a UK bus driver, saying that long working hours are a bad thing:

"We work on shifts consisting of mornings (days) and afternoons (afters). But the day shift could start from 4am up to 6am - that's our time starts on a weekly basis. This means we get a meal maybe 9am one day, it could be anything up to 12 noon the next day, then drop back 8 or 9am. On afters we sign on, say 2.30pm we might get a quick cup of tea at about 4 o'clock but we might and often do, have to wait until 7.30pm to 8.30pm before we get a proper meal break. So, no matter what shift we do, we never get the same meal break two or three days in a row."

There's a study called "Working Long Hours" by Health and Safety Laboratory Sheffield which was done in 2003, and notes that:

The 1993 European Directive on Working Time, which came into force in the UK through the Working Time Regulations in October 1998, was introduced to limit the number of hours worked because long or abnormal working hours were thought to be detrimental to health. The main features of the European Directive include working hours of no more than 48 hours a week averaged over a 17-week period, a minimum daily rest period of 11 consecutive hours, and a minimum weekly rest period of 1 day averaged over 14 days.(1)

And it also notes a study on bus drivers:

A quasi-experimental field study by Meijman (1997) utilized objective measures of fatigue with a sample of bus drivers and driving examiners in The Netherlands. The researchers noted that after seven hours of work and sleep loss (an early start), information processing broke down This was interpreted as a serious sign of mental fatigue. Performance could no longer be protected by extra effort on the part of the individual. (1)

In fact, the TUC also argues the case - for the workers - for shorter working hours on safety and health reasons. It notes that:

The UK tops the European long hours league. And is the only country that allows staff to opt out of the 48-hour working week ceiling introduced across the European Union as a health and safety measure. Those overworked are more stressed and less productive, liable to depression, strains and sprains and more exposed to the hazards of work. Working long hours makes for a work life imbalance that can wreck home life and personal relations. Working when tired can be dangerous and possibly fatal - studies have found driving tired can be as dangerous as driving drunk. (2)

While the Unite Union - the one which local bus drivers belong do, has this on its website:

British bus drivers work longer hours than their European counterparts.  The transport workers' union Unite, says "For safety's sake, cut bus drivers' hours". Under present regulations a bus driver can quite legally work a 16 hour day - 10 hours of which can be spent behind the wheel.

It seems strange that both the TUC and Unite campaign for lessening hours, for bringing the UK more in line with the rest of Europe, but the Jersey bus drivers are going in the opposite direction, wanting to keep the bad old practices of long working hours.

Another glaring fault lies in the regulations on the minimum rest period between working days which is set at only 10 hours, which can be reduced to just 8 and a half hours three times a week. In reality, what this means is that a driver can quite legally work until midnight on one- day and have to start again the next day at 8.30 am. After the time spent travelling home and then trying to relax from the stresses of the day, as you can imagine, it could easily be well into the early hours of the morning before the driver can actually get a few hours sleep before having to report back for work. Five hours sleep for a driver is not uncommon and obviously this leads to an accumulation of fatigue that can have a serious effect on driving skills and perhaps safety of the passengers also. (3)

Fatigue is a problem worldwide. In the USA, a study showed that the hours worked were again excessive:

Some Metrobus drivers are working more than 20 hours in a day, four more than allowed even under Metro's own rules, according to a new agency study on fatigue. A summary of the report, slated to be presented to board members on Thursday, shows Metro had 146 cases in which drivers worked from 16.25 to 20 hours a day in the July 2011 study month. It had another 50 cases of drivers logging more than 20 hours without the required eight hours off in a 24-hour period. And the study found some logged up to 10 consecutive days of work, while some employees logged more than 80 hours per week.(4)

And regulation is needed. Some people, given the opportunity to clock up huge overtime, and extra pay - which is certainly the case with some of the local bus drivers, will do so. One Facebook user said "if someone wants to work overtime, that is neither your nor my business. They can do what they like." But that's the real problem. Some bus drivers will ignore safety aspects and place material gain first, so it is important that these are regulated, not just left to individual choice:

James Benton said fatigue is the same safety issue on trains and buses. "Employees will work huge amounts of overtime if you let them based on their personal needs, their retirement," he said. "They don't know that their body is saying no in a lot of cases until it's too late."(4)

And returning to the TUC, here's a comment from the road safety website:

Despite the clear road safety and health risks associated with drivers working long hours, one in four bus drivers work more than 49.5 hours a week, while one in four van drivers work more than 48 hours a week.

The TUC submission recommends giving drivers of buses, coaches and some heavy vehicles that need a specialised operator's licence as much protection as HGV drivers, who are protected by the Road Transport Working Time Regulations 2005. (5)

It has been argued that there have been no fatalities on the roads caused by fatigue with Jersey bus drivers. But how many accidents have their been? I was once on a bus which was in a collision with a car by La Moye Garage, and I never remember reading about it in the paper. Of course, buses are built with solid plates, and I don't think it sustained much in the way of dents, unlike the car.

Moreover, is that a good argument? In the days before drink-driving regulations, I knew people who argued that they could "hold their drink", and had never had an accident driving. I don't think that's an acceptable argument against drink-driving regulations, and neither do I think that excessive hours should be ignored just because there has not been a fatality. Are we to wait until there is one before taking action?

Facebook users clearly don't like the idea:

"Who wants driver who's worked for 70 hours taking their kids home from school?"
"Would I want someone driving my child around, who has already worked 65 hours that week? End of the week, getting tired and miserable?"
"Are you actually defending people who want to drive for 70 hours a week just for the lucrative overtime money, and to hell with the safety aspect?

And finally, while striking is a basic right of employees, I would like to see some social responsibility as well. It may inconvenience adults, but does a strike really have to inconvenience school children as well? Can't the strikers consider - for the future - that they will still get their point across very clearly by a main passenger strike, but stopping school buses is not needed for that point. To strike is a basic workers right, but let's have some social responsibility as well. Do you really need to penalise school children to get your point across?

Links
(1) "Working Long Hours" (2003) Joanne White MSc, Johanna Beswick
(2) http://www.tuc.org.uk/workplace/index.cfm?mins=181&minors=124&majorsubjectid=2
(3) http://www.unitetheunion.org/pdf/Job%203327%20Safer%20Way%20booklet%20A4.pdf
(4) http://washingtonexaminer.com/metro-bus-drivers-fatigue-a-problem/article/2501709#.UHJ71phIg50
(5) http://www.roadsafe.com/news/article.aspx?article=1075

Strange Justice

You are doomed! You make unjust laws that oppress my people. That is how you keep the poor from having their rights and from getting justice. That is how you take the property that belongs to widows and orphans. (Isaiah 10:1-2)

Magistrate Ian Christmas, guilty, and sentenced to 15 months in prison - and he is still receiving pay, and still holds the office of magistrate, albeit suspended. A pensioner who is found guilty, and sent to prison, is not paid their pension with immediate effect. Justice should be fair for all, or it is not justice at all, but only a mechanism which there is exceptionalism for the privileged.

This seems quite wrong, unless presumably your name is Christmas. I can understand how he should be paid until he was found guilty; after all, had he be found innocent of charges, he would have been wrongly deprived of his pay. But he has been found guilty. It has been argued that he is appealing, and may yet be found innocent. But surely the more commonsense approach would have been to now stop his pay - he is, after all, provisionally guilty and in prison - and if he was innocent on appeal, pay the difference to him. After all, monies paid now, or so I understand, cannot be reclaimed, even though he is now in prison.

Moreover, he seems to have used his office as magistrate as a kind of celebrity endorsement for marketing. This isn't new - those of us with elephantine memories can recall Metropolitan Police commissioner Sir Robert Marks who featured in several tyre safety adverts shortly after quitting the force. But what is different is that he endorsed and sole schemes while he was still a magistrate, apparently using the badge of office as part of an brand image of trustworthiness. Anyone who does that is, quite honestly, not fit to be a magistrate, and whether innocent or not, he should not hold the office of magistrate again.

Justice is driven away, and right cannot come near. Truth stumbles in the public square, and honesty finds no place there. (Isaiah 59:14)

Exceptionalism, but American style, also can be seen recently in the extradition of terror suspect Abu Hamza al-Masri has been extradited from the U.K. and is now facing charges in a New York court. He appeared in the court, without his hooks, and  his lawyers asked for the return of these prosthetics, arguing that they were essential for him to "function in a civilised manner".

American prisons - from accounts of innocent people who have been remanded there and later freed - are ugly, unpleasant places. No spirit of prison reform, as begun by Quakers such as Elisabeth Fry, seems to have taken place over there. In the UK, there is a board of prison visitors who see what conditions are like in prisons, and the same oversight, if it exists in the USA, is failing. Worse, the Guantanamo Bay detention camp still exists despite promises to close it. It is basically a torture camp, outside even the scope of the American legal system, where prisoners can be tortured with impunity.

And extradition procedures are so quick now, that, as the JEP reported, Advocate Stephen Baker said Jersey citizens, if extradition is applied for, have little chance of successfully fighting off extradition requests from a host of nations including the USA. The evidence against the subject of the extradition request would not be tested in a Jersey court.

They utter empty words and make false promises and useless treaties. Justice has become injustice, growing like poisonous weeds in a plowed field.
(Hosea 10:4)

But it doesn't work both ways. It is extremely hard to extradite people from the USA. American exceptionalism is again in place. And as with exceptionalism, justice flies out of the window. The evidence against the subject of the extradition request would have to be tested in a Jersey court. If it is fair, it should be fair both ways, but it is not.

So it is not surprising that Julian Assange does not want to be extradited to Sweden, where he has been refused any guarantees that he won't be extradited and swiftly taken to the USA. If he had those assurances, he would let himself be extradited. The leaking of secret documents still rankles with the USA, and I am sure that that basest of motives, revenge plays a part. Sophistry suggests that it will be disguised in euphemistic terms such as "sending out a clear message" etc in such a way that it will seem legitimate. But it is a twisted justice, all the same.

God never twists justice; he never fails to do what is right. (Job 8:3 )

Autumnal

Earlier this week, Carrie Cooper announced on BBC Radio Jersey: ""We're looking for original poets from Jersey to be part of National Poetry Day tomorrow. Live reads in the studio or on the phone, or Sara Palmer will read them beautifully. Contact Carrie &/or Sara on 837 260 today or call 720 255 tomorrow from 10am."

I couldn't read it, because I was at work, but I penned this the night before. I hope their listeners liked it.

Autumnal
 
Fast sweeps the wind, leaves start falling on the land
The holiday makers packed up, departed now the sand
Puddles form in rutted road, last branchage of the lane
This is the time of change, of soft refreshing rain.
 
With tidal swell arising, brave fishing boats go far
Sailing the tempestuous sea beneath the evening star
The darkening mornings portent to be a time of dread
And poor harvests this year threaten daily bread
 
But warm soups, cheerful fires, make life still so good
These are the joys of autumn, of walking through a wood
Gold leaves underfoot, nature painting with her arts
Time for the Cider Fayre, rejoice with thankful hearts
 
The time has come for autumn days, to sing a harvest song
Keep inside by fireside, while outside wind blows strong.

Sifting Saville - Part 2

A plaque honouring the late DJ outside his flat in Scarborough, North Yorkshire, has been defaced with the words "pedophile" and "rapist".(Daily Express)

A statue of Jimmy Savile at a Glasgow Leisure Centre has been pulled down amidst allegations that the late entertainer raped and sexually abused young girls.  The operators of the leisure centre said they "felt it necessary" to remove the statue from the community centre, where it overlooked the children's swimming pool. (Huffington Post)

After watching the documentary, and reactions to it, one question which keeps resurfacing: Why have people not spoken out before.  One of the best answers I've seen was this: "I think people have not spoken publicly until after his death because it seems they were afraid they would not be believed as he was such a well known popular figure who did an immense amount for charity"

It is notable that he seemed to prey particularly on young girls at Duncroft boarding school, where it could almost be assumed that as "bad girls", they could be making up tales that would not be believed; hence the risk to Saville was far less.

There's also a Jersey connection.

Dee Coles told ITV News: "Myself and another girl I met on holiday were basically taken into his van by him on a couple of occasions and made to do sexual acts," Ms Cole said. (1)

At least six women have now alleged that Savile attacked them when they were young girls with Dee Coles claiming she and a fellow 14-year-old were both attacked by the personality in his camper van whilst on holiday in Jersey - where Savile regularly visited the notorious abuse-ridden children's home Haute de la Garenne.

She says: "I was taken into his van by him on a couple of occasions and made to do sexual acts. I suppose the compassionate side of me wants to say that he was a man who needed some help. The gut reaction is to say there was something really quite evil about him." (2)

Whether Saville pursued any children at Haut de La Garenne is not known. What can be confirmed is that he slapped an injunction on the Sun against making any allegations that he visited the home, and a photograph showed that he most definitely did.

But here is where the waters get muddy again, and we have to sift out falsehoods. One site on cover-ups notes that he visited the home, and was interviewed by police regarding that:

Jimmy Savile, star of children's television favourite Jim'll Fix It, sued  the Sun in 2008 over a series of articles linking him to Haut de la Garenne, the Jersey children's home where human remains were found and children were allegedly tortured and sexually abused. He initially denied ever visiting the home, despite photographic evidence to the contrary. Savile's reaction was to slap an injunction on The Sun who had to withdraw the picture. This was followed with a series of articles. One asserted that Savile was unwilling to assist with the police investigation and another that he admitted having visited the home. (3)

But then it brings in Edward Heath:

One of those who stood most to lose was Sir Edward Heath, the former prime minister from 1970-74, who was known to visit the Jersey care home the Haute Garenne among others to take young boys on boating weekends on his yacht  called  'Morning Cloud', or as his bodyguards referred to it, 'Morning Sickness'.

The person bringing children for him to abuse is Sir Jimmy Saville. He was seen by the witness, victim, taking young boys onboard Heaths yacht the morning cloud when they were at party conference. Allegedly Saville is known for supplying a number of high profile MP's with children for them to sexually abuse. (3)

As a writer on Fortean Times notes:

The sites which carried the Jersey picture usually segue into a very lurid mythos which has Savile pimping boys to Edward Heath for orgies on his yacht. We are just a few yards from the Twilight Zone of pedophile lizards . . (4)

The Disclosure Project site, which also has the same allegations about Heath, also notes:

Heath was warned on 4 occasions by the head of the Metropolitan police not to loiter in London's lavatories and not to try to pick up young boys. Nonetheless, he quickly fell prone blackmailers who insisted he dress up in a ridiculous Gestapo uniform in which he was photographed.

Under threat of exposure Heath was forced to enter Britain into the Common Market, now the European Union, under very unfavourable conditions. It is still a bone of contention among scholars how he became PM in front of the immensely popular and scholarly Enoch Powell who to all intents and purposes should have been Prime Minister. (5)

We are drifting very far from credible truth here, and I think the notion that Edward Heath had a hidden private life, dressed up in a Gestapo Uniform (and no photos have come to light) and was blackmailed into joining the Common Market is a complete fantasy. David Ike's site goes one step further, and has Heath not only involved in Satanic rituals, but also - according to an eyewitness - shape-shifting into a reptilian, during a ritual.

But the Heath story is interesting, because Heath is also linked to sexual abuse scandals regarding the Kincora boys' home in Ireland.

The earliest version of this in my lifetime was the Kincora boys' home affair in Northern Ireland in the 1970s. Then, three gay men working there had abused the boys in their care for almost 20 years. They had survived complaints from the boys, parents and other care workers, because one of them, the late William McGrath, was not only a senior figure in the Orange Order and a friend of the Reverend Ian Paisley, but also an informant for MI5. Rumours spread of boys being taken to big country houses to be used by public figures, including Lord Mountbatten, the former head of MI6, Maurice Oldfield, and Edward Heath. These rumours are still circulating on the Internet.' (6)

Where did these rumours come from? Colin Wallace, a former MI5 officer, revealed that they were part of a plan by MI5 to discredit Heath, so that he would have to give way to a Prime Minister more in keeping with a stronger security service. Colin Wallace, was an army intelligence officer attached to MI5 who resigned in 1976 protesting about MI5's anti-Wilson activities, but he says they also extended to Heath:

Wallace claims part of these covert psychological operations (known as 'psyops') were designed to prevent the election and re-election of a Labour regime. 'We also had a campaign going against Edward Heath and other prominent Tory MPs thought to be too liberal', says Wallace.

'The aim was to discredit them politically by planting smear stories against them in the press. ' For example, Heath and other bachelor politicians were wrongly 'linked' to homosexual scandals, such as the Kincora boys' home affair in Ulster. The ultimate aim, Wallace says, was to remove Heath as leader of the Conservative Party and replace him with someone of a more resolute approach to political and industrial unrest. (7)

Having started rumours about Heath, it is perhaps not surprising that the rumor mongers would start to take up the idea of a "gay Heath" and link it quite spuriously to the genuine information coming out about Jimmy Savilly. That's where we have to be very careful, because we are approaching the point where alongside genuine victims of his abuse, other people - not the victims, take note - are purveying wilder and more fantastical stories. The danger is that if the wilder stories are discredited, no one will believe the real victims of his abuse; it is a case of "cry wolf", and there clearly was a big bad wolf out there.

For those who are interested, there is a site at:
http://www.whale.to/c/ted_heath.html
which has a whole collection of bizarre and wildly improbably stories about Heath.

Another falsehood doing the rounds is a transcript which purports to be an unbroadcast segment of the quiz show "Have I Got News For You" in which guest panellist Sir Jimmy Savile is taunted with lurid allegations about his behaviour with underage girls.

As the Express notes:

It's actually fake. No such exchanges ever took place and the "transcript" is the work of a prankster. But the fact that it has been lurking on the internet for years shows how widespread the rumours about the flamboyant DJ and charity fundraiser really were. (8)

Ashley Pomeroy  comments on this:

Of transient interest in mid 2000 was an emailed meme, one which purported to be a transcription of out-takes from an episode of 'Have I Got News For You'.

Shortly thereafter an irresistible e-mail starting doing the rounds, a  supposed transcription of cut dialogue which cast Jimmy Savile in a poor light. There was mention of a scandal involving a young girl, and subsequent financial reparations in lieu of further media coverage.(9)

The full transcript is here
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rogerb/jokes/HIGNFY.txt
But I would warn readers that it contains very strong language.

Here's the segment which mentions Sarah Cornley:

DEAYTON: Here we go again...I'll be backstage if anyone wants me.
MERTON: (Indicating Saville) That's what you said to the kids on your show, wasn't it?
(Audience laugh)
SAVILLE: No, they never did want me.
HISLOP: Not even Sarah Cornley?
SAVILLE: She was an exception.
DEAYTON: Who's Sarah Cornley?
SAVILLE: Sarah Cornley is...
HISLOP: About fifteen grand in damages, wasn't she?
(Uncertain audience laugh)
SAVILLE: That's right.
HISLOP: So if I was going to mention that you threatened to break her arm if she said anything...
SAVILLE: You'd be very wrong. (Pause) I said I'd break both her arms.
(Audience unease)

Ashley Pomeroy  comments on this:

The one substantive fact which could be used to check the transcriptions accuracy - the name 'Sarah Cornley' - only returns links to pages which host the transcript, and indeed the node Sarah Cornley here on Everything is sourced entirely from the information contained in this very node.(9)

Someone claims on a site to have actually witnessed the outtake. I don't think for the moment that they did, or indeed could, but it shows how fantasists are starting to creep into and embellish the stories about Saville, with added verisimilitude of saying there are "witnesses". The danger is that it will lessen the impact of the very real stories that are also being told directly by his victims, and who may keep their anonymity, but have been seen in the TV interviews.

For more on Edward Heath in Jersey and the problems with recent stories, see:
http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2015/08/edward-heath-stories-so-far.html

Links
(1) http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/349558/How-did-Jimmy-Savile-get-away-with-it-for-so-long-/
(2) http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/349696/349696
(3) http://chris-ukorg.org/cover-ups/jimmy-saville-witch-hunt-or-paedophile/
(4) Fortean Times
(5) http://thedisclosureproject-steelmagnolia.blogspot.com/2011/11/pm-ted-heath-and-young-boys.html
(6) http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=12164&view=next
(7) http://winnowinghistory.blogspot.com/2009/12/insight-climate-of-treason.html
(8) http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/349558/How-did-Jimmy-Savile-get-away-with-it-for-so-long-/

Sifting Saville - Part 1

"I just don't understand the motives behind this. I just think it's very, very sad you can say these things after someone's died and the law says you can't defend yourself when you're dead." (Roger Foster, Jimmy Saville's nephew)

"The great shame is that Saville is not alive to face the allegations, but I firmly believe that we are right to allow these women to have a voice ...a voice that was not heard while they were children." ( Mark Williams-Thomas)

"There is a clip of him pushing a hospital trolley, part of the melange of clips put together for his obituary, and he isn't smiling, showing off for the camera, and his expression is quite sad, almost melancholy; it comes as something of a contrast. I was reminded of clowns behind the makeup."

There's a documentary on Jimmy Saville, claiming he molested young girls, which has thrown open all kinds of allegations across the internet. There are very muddy waters, and it is very difficult to sift what might be true, from the kind of wild allegation that spreads like a Chinese whisper. The internet is extremely good at spreading information, but extremely poor at performing any source-critical function on that information.

What appears to be the case is that historically, he was investigated for allegations made against him, and allegations have been made recently by various women, some preserving their anonymity, and some not. Allegations made against someone after their death, of course, invariably don't meet the same legal scrutiny; you cannot libel the dead.

But the allegations, on the other hand, may be true, but being made now because there is no fear of reprisals, and it is certainly the case that Jimmy Saville had considerable influence over the media. In this posting, I'll be looking at the allegations made, and in a later one, I'll be looking at the wilder rumours and their sources which I think actually harm the case made about Saville because of their falsehood.

Certainly, as can be seen from the Scotsman, we can say that allegations were leveled against Saville during his lifetime:

A POLICE investigation into sexual assault allegations levelled against former broadcaster Sir Jimmy Savile five years ago was dropped after the Crown Prosecution Service ruled there was insufficient evidence for a ­prosecution.
• Police dropped attempted prosecution of Sir Jimmy Saville on sexual assault allegations, citing insufficient evidence
• Surrey police had referred the case to the Crown Prosecution Service in 2007
• Allegations directed at late TV presenter date back to 1970s
The CPS confirmed yesterday the matter had been referred to it by Surrey police in 2007.

Surrey Police said in a statement: "In 2007, we received an historic allegation of indecent assault, which is alleged to have occurred at a children's home in Staines during the 1970s. 
The allegation was investigated and an individual was interviewed under caution." A CPS spokesman added: "Following an investigation by Surrey police, the CPS reviewing lawyer advised police that no further action should be taken due to lack of evidence." (1)

Now that doesn't actually tell us whether or not Saville was guilty of sexual assault, merely that he had been investigated regarding allegations. It indicates that scandal was associated with him, but high profile individuals can attract those who seek attention by making accusations, or who may want to settle a score against someone and who can do so by making an accusation. Because it is such an emotive subject, we have to be careful in marking out what the historical record can tell us, and where supposition fills in gaps. At the moment, the jury is deliberating.

Matthew Kelly is a case in point of someone who was investigated thoroughly by the police because of sexual abuse allegations in 2003, but was cleared of all charges (apart from a small quantity of Class a drugs found on his premises).

The film on tonight also shows an interview in which Jimmy Saville comes to the defence of Gary Glitter, who was convicted of downloading pornographic images of children as young as two in 1999:

In the interview Saville says: "Now Gary, all he did was take his computer into PC World to get it repaired…They went into his hard drive, saw all these dodgy pictures and told the police and the police then, 'Oh we've got a famous person ... Oh my goodness, yeah we'll have them'. "

But Gary has not sold 'em, has not tried to sell 'em, not tried to show them in public or anything like that. It were for his own gratification. Whether it was right or wrong is, of course, it's up to him as a person. But they didn't do anything wrong but they are then demonised."

"And of course, if you ever said to that copper, what's Gary Glitter done wrong? Well nothing really. He's just sat at home watching these dodgy ,dodgy films. He was like that but he wasn't public and he didn't do anything." (2)

What Saville doesn't seem to consider here is that someone makes those obscene pictures of young children, and because they have a market in those images, anyone who obtains (usually purchases) those images is aiding and abetting the abuse of children. There is a naivety here in his defense of Glitter that this is a private matter, and he is only looking at pictures, not abusing children. He doesn't see that it is wrong, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he thinks abusing children is right. In fact, the interview tells the opposite story - "he wasn't public and he didn't do anything". 

What is extraordinary, however, is that this comes from a previously unheard interview apparently from 2009, according to the papers, because in 2006, Gary Glitter was convicted in March 2006 for molesting two Vietnamese girls aged 10 and 11. Why didn't Saville appear aware of that, and why did the interviewer not bring such an obvious contradiction - "he didn't do anything" - up? I certainly would have! This lack of knowledge about Glitter's subsequent descent into actual abuse seems very strange, but perhaps the full interview will bring that out. It will also be interesting to know why the interview was pulled from being shown in 2009. Was that Saville's influence?

Other accusations have come from Paul Gambaccini:

Speaking on ITV1's Daybreak programme this morning, Gambaccini said he had been waiting 30-years for the allegations to come out. He alleged that at one point Saville was about to be exposed by a tabloid newspaper, but quickly arranged an interview with a rival tabloid which had the effect of stopping the negative article. Gambaccini went on: "On another occasion, and this cuts to the chase of the whole matter, he was called and he said 'well you could run that story, but if you do there goes the funds that come in to Stoke Mandeville - do you want to be responsible for the drying up of the charity donations'. And they backed down." (3)

Now that tells us a lot about how Saville reacted under pressure from threats, but it doesn't actually tell us if the "exposure" was accurate or not. Just because he met a threat of exposure with a threat about funding doesn't tell us that the accusations were true, so again we have to sift the history carefully.

Singer Coleen Nolan, who does not appear in the ITV programme, revealed four years ago that she was horrified when Savile intimately cuddled her in 1979 on Top Of The Pops when she was 14. She said: 'He was all over me. I could see my sisters glaring, "You touch her and we' ll kill you!" – and they would have done.' (4)

This is one that you can actually see on YouTube. And he certainly does seem to be holding the singer in a rather close and too intimate fashion. That doesn't again prove any allegations, but it builds a picture of a man who, in popular parlance, had a "pair of wandering hands".

Five women have branded Sir Jimmy Savile a sexual predator who allegedly raped and abused them when they were underage schoolgirls. The women, now in their fifties, claim Sir Jimmy was at the peak of his fame when he is said to have molested them in his Rolls-Royce, at a hospital, a school and the BBC Television centre  The woman who worked as Sir Jimmy's personal assistant for 40 years said yesterday she would be shocked if  the allegations were true. Janet Cope believes his accusers were star struck fantasists.

She said: 'Some of his female fans were attracted to him like bees to a honey pot.' Janet, now a 70-year-old widow, of Aylesbury, Bucks, added: 'I never had an inkling of him misbehaving or taking advantage of impressionable young girls. 'If there had been I would have seen it and tried to stop it. But if the documentary conclusively proves his guilt then I'd be really shocked.' (4)

This gives both sides - the accusers and those who defend Saville. As far as I understand, some of those accusing him have kept their identities secret, and to my mind, that's a powerful argument against them being a "star struck fantasist". Someone like that - and we've seen that kind of individual with real and imagined stories- sells their story to the newspapers for the largest amount of money they can make; anonymity is the last thing they want, and cash is high on the agenda. There seems to be no indication that any of those coming forward have any desire for monetary gain, or even personal publicity.

So why come forward now? It's a matter of closure, as much as anything else:

Mark Williams-Thomas, a former detective who presents the documentary, told ITV's Daybreak that the alleged victims had not come forward before because they "lived in fear for a very long time". He said: "We know that children don't disclose abuse straight away; sometimes that takes a long time, for many, many reasons - their whole life changes, the circumstances change... "And particularly talking out against Sir Jimmy Savile, who of course was a TV legend, (it is) very difficult to talk out about that, and they have been reassured of some confidence by talking now that he has died." (4)

Regarding other witnesses, there are not just those who were abused, but also those who saw it. This is solid evidence, and it gives the lie to Janet Cope's impression that the allegations are only coming from those abused.

The programme also interviews a number of Savile's former colleagues. One, former BBC production assistant Sue Thompson, told how she once walked into his dressing room while he was kissing and groping a girl. (5)

Williams-Thomas also notes that "I showed the evidence to a leading barrister, Ian Glen QC, who said that on the ­evidence he had seen it would amount to reasonable grounds for his arrest."

I'd agree with Esther Ranzten, that there is clear and sufficient evidence that Jimmy Saville did abuse children, and made use of his power within the BBC and media to ensure that no action was taken. The testimony of the women, especially because they keep their anonymity, suggest strongly that it is true. The eye-witness accounts of colleagues also cannot be dismissed summarily. And the testimony of those who heard rumours, but who also were frightened of losing their jobs if they enquired too deeply show a culture in which he could easily get away with this abuse. The accumulation of these different sources makes it almost certain that he was guilty as charged.

It is also interesting that in an interview he gave about the demise of "Jim'll Fix It", he alludes to a falling out with the BBC producers, of being out of fashion. Was this really because of a fear of publicity by the BBC if the truth came out? Were some people at the BBC trying to severe links and take action?

Links
(1) http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/uk/sir-jimmy-saville-was-questioned-by-police-over-sex-assault-at-children-s-home-1-2558300
(2) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/sir-jimmy-saville-defended-paedophile-pop-star-gary-glitter-saying-he-did-nothing-wrong-and-calling-child-porn-just-dodgy-films-8192715.html
(3) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2210592/Jimmy-Savile-accused-sexual-predator-women-claim-abused-underage-schoolgirls.html
(4) http://chris-ukorg.org/cover-ups/jimmy-saville-witch-hunt-or-paedophile/
(5) http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-savile-documentary-tv-star-1351439

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.

Sex Discrimination in Jersey

I was hearing with total astonishment that it is difficult for Jersey to bring sex discrimination into the new Discrimination Law, which will be a pared down version, concentrating primarily on race. Apparently, or so the BBC reports, sex discrimination legislation is much more complicated to bring in.

That is no doubt why Guernsey, wanting to get something difficult out of the way before Jersey, put in place "The Sex Discrimination (Employment) (Guernsey) Ordinance, 2005"

http://www.guernseylegalresources.gg/article/97229/Sex-Discrimination-Employment-Guernsey-Ordinance-2005

It's worth looking at the sections listed here, because these are what are obviously needed in Jersey, and are much, much too complicated to bring in, or so we are told. That would have a little bit more credibility if Guernsey hadn't managed it over five years ago.

On the matter of women and maternity leave, in February 2012, Guernsey's States approved maternity leave for mothers that will come into force in January 2014. Senator Francis Le Gresley said he was working hard on changing primary legislation in Jersey so a new maternity law could be introduced by 2014.

Curiously, The Jersey Advisory and Conciliation Service in their 2011 report note that:

"There has been much media comment during the year and in our previous reports about the lack of Discrimination Laws and we understand that draft legislation will be debated in 2012 with a view to its introduction in the following year. Initially it is thought that changes to the State pension age will mean that age discrimination is now likely to be the first area to be addressed, with sex discrimination closely following as this is considered necessary before the introduction of the proposed Maternity, Paternity and Family Friendly Law. Remaining areas of discrimination will be addressed subsequently"

So if Senator Le Gresley wants to introduce a maternity law, it looks likely that he'll have to return to extend the Discrimination Law first. It can been seen that maternity features (as one might expect) in the Guernsey Law.

And Guernsey too, can benefit from Jersey. Guernsey is working on race discrimination legislation, but has given sex discrimination laws priority. Guernsey has been resting on its laurels having approved sex discrimination legislation, and done nothing on race discrimination since that was passed.

Aren't the Islands looking to work better together? Perhaps Senator Le Gresley would do well to make a fact finding trip to Guernsey to discover how complicated matters which need careful consideration have been carefully considered and brought into law, and his Guernsey counterparts can look at race discrimination again.

The Sex Discrimination (Employment) (Guernsey) Ordinance, 2005

PART I
SEX DISCRIMINATION
 
1.      Direct and indirect discrimination against women.
2.      Sex discrimination against men.
3.      Discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment.
4.      Direct and indirect discrimination against married persons.
5.      Discrimination by way of victimisation.

PART II
DISCRIMINATION IN THE EMPLOYMENT FIELD
 
6.      Discrimination against applicants and employees.
7.      Exception where sex is a genuine occupational qualification.
8.      Corresponding exception relating to gender reassignment.
9.      Supplementary exceptions relating to gender reassignment.
10.      Discrimination against contract workers.
11.      Meaning of "employment at an establishment in Guernsey".
12.      Partnerships.
13.      Trade unions, etc.
14.      Qualifying bodies.
15.      Persons concerned with provision of vocational training.
16.      Employment agencies.
17.      Legal relationships which have come to an end.
18.      Police.
19.      Prison officers.
20.      Ministers of religion, etc.

PART III
OTHER PROHIBITED ACTS
 
21.      Discriminatory practices.
22.      Discriminatory advertisements.
23.      Instructions to discriminate.
24.      Pressure to discriminate.
25.      Liability of employers and principals.
26.      Aiding prohibited acts.
 
PART IV
GENERAL EXCEPTIONS FROM PARTS II & III
 
27.      Charities.
28.      Sport, etc.
29.      Insurance, etc.
30.      Communal accommodation.
31.      Discriminatory training by certain bodies.
32.      Other discriminatory training, etc.
33.      Trade unions, etc: elective bodies.
34.      Indirect access to benefits, etc.
35.      Acts done for the protection of women.
36.      Acts safeguarding national security.

There's also a very good briefing note by Carey Olsen, an extract from which I give below, but the whole is worth reading as well. It shows how the law works in Guernsey.

http://www.careyolsen.com/downloads/publications/sex_discrimination_guide_for_employers_in_guernsey.pdf

The Sex Discrimination (Employment) (Guernsey) Ordinance, 2005 came into force on 1 March 2006. The Ordinance outlaws all discrimination on grounds of:
. sex;
. gender reassignment; or
. marital status in employment.

The Ordinance also provides a procedure for complaints of discrimination to be made to the new Employment and Discrimination Tribunal.

The Ordinance defines the three types of sex-based discrimination, which are: direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and victimisation. It also defines gender reassignment-based discrimination and marital status-based discrimination. This paper focuses on sex-based discrimination.

Three Definitions
Direct Discrimination: the favourable or less favourable treatment of one person over another.
Indirect Discrimination: putting some sort of obstacle in the way of someone with which they find it difficult to comply because of their gender.
Victimisation of someone on account of their being involved in a sex discrimination complaint under the Ordinance is itself discrimination.

How might the employee show that they have been directly discriminated against?
The employee will have to show that:
. they have been treated less favourably than a person of a different gender; and
. the reason for the less favourable treatment is on the grounds of their gender, i.e. but for the fact she was a woman, she would not have received the less favourable treatment.

In order to prove that they have been discriminated against, the employee will have to find someone with whom to compare themselves. This person must be in the same or similar position to the person bringing the complaint. The employee will also have to show that their less favourable treatment was as a result of their
gender and not for other reasons such as poor performance or behaviour for the same job? Does sex discrimination need to be considered?

It is unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of gender in relation to the arrangements an employer makes for the purpose of determining who should be offered employment and any arrangements during employment. This means that an employer cannot discriminate against either sex when doing any of the following:
. drawing up job specifications;
. advertising positions available;
. instructing an employment agency;
. interviewing (e.g. do not ask the employee if they are married, it should not affect their ability to do their job!);
. deciding how much to pay someone;
. deciding on whether to promote someone;
. deciding on whether to offer a person a bonus;
. deciding on whether to give some employees access to better facilities or benefits;
. deciding to dismiss someone.