Guest Comment on Population

Daniel Wimberley has been unable to comment on my blog, but has sent a comment, which I think deserves a degree of prominence. Daniel was a former Deputy of St Mary, and raised the subject of immigration during his term of office.
 
He was also responsible for getting the States to agree to an independent electoral commission, a decision which was later rescinded by the States after he had retired as Deputy, in favour of a States appointed commission, chaired by States members. Given the fiasco that Sir Philip Bailhache's electoral commission resulted in, it is clear than an independent committee couldn't have made a worse mess of the process. In fact, Daniel also predicted correctly that the States would be unable to reform themselves any more than the failed attempts of the past, hence the need for an independent commission.
 
My posting can be read here:
http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2014/01/ponzi-economics-immigration-and.html

Daniel Wimberley's Comment
 
Excellent post. It is a Ponzi scheme. Can we persuade the powers-that-be to change course and act sustainably?
 
Well yes, if they were rational, and fair-minded, and acting in "good faith." But unfortunately there is something else going on here.
 
Remember:
 
1)      there was no population estimate by the Statistics Unit in 2010 even though they normally carry out this estimate every year and it is not difficult or expensive to do. No figures from the census were published before the 2011 election, which would have turned population into the number 1 election issue.
 
2)      in the debate on population which I forced when the States in mid-2009 debated the 2009-2014 Strategic Plan, the Council of Ministers "vanished" 2,800 people by statistical sleight of hand.  It was blatant deception carried out by the ruling group. Its effect was to keep the maximum population which would arise as a result of the policy they were putting forward well below the totemic figure of 100,000.
 
3)      at Imagine Jersey 2035 those attending were told that if net inward migration were zero (no more people coming in then going out) then the population would fall dramatically with all kinds of ensuing problems. (At the time that was true as deaths exceeded births, at the time that Imagine Jersey 2035 took place). People faced with that said they were quite happy to have limited net inward migration of plus 150 households and that would have given us a steady population.  This was relayed to the public via the media as the people who attended want more population.  This was completely untrue.
 
In the States later, Terry le Sueur claimed that the public had agreed to a final population of 100,000 during consultation. He was forced to admit that the claim was false during questions in the house.
 
Readers might like to consider why, on this issue, what we get is not an honest debate but a succession of lies. It is almost as if the purpose is to ensure that the policy of increasing the population is so important to the ruling group that nothing will turn them from that course.
 
In which case the only way forward is to remove them from office. Putting forward rational arguments, pointing out that the whole thing is a Ponzi scheme, will have no effect whatsoever.

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.

Et Tu, Brute?

The knives are certainly out for Senator Ozouf, but is this of his own making or not?

A letter written by the Comptroller and Auditor General, Chris Swinson, said he thought the treasury minister was attempting to smear his review.

He reviewed the failed attempt to buy the Lime Grove building for the police. The minister, Senator Philip Ozouf, said the accusations were one-sided. He said:

"This is the second time the comptroller and auditor general has effectively published a report with one-sided accusations that somebody being held to account that they in their view are being harassed to do their job."(1)


The other time, of course, was Bill Ogley who accused Senator Ozouf of harassing him, and behaving in a manner ill befitting a politician; this was the cause of Mr Ogley's rapid departure, although the golden handshake itself was a mistake to be laid at the feet of former Senator Frank Walker - another politician who just doesn't seem capable of apologising, or seeing any need to do so.

I wonder if these reports had come out before Senator Ozouf tried and succeeded in keeping his position as Treasury Minister, whether he would have managed to get re-elected to that post. I somehow doubt it.

But this was part of the culture of the States. Senator Frank Walker led the way. First there was his angry "shafted" remark to Senator Stuart Syvret - when he thought the cameras and microphones were safely off, and he could be rude with impunity. Then there was his apparent bulling of Wendy Kinnard at a meeting witnessed by Graham Power, which would also have gone unremarked.

The Health Minister Jim Perchard told Stuart Syvret in a States session to slit his wrists, and denied it, before being forced into an embarrassing admission of guilt, because other States members had overheard. Stuart Syvret probably didn't help, with his tirade of invective that made me wonder if he was trying for the Jeremy Clarkeson award for rudeness, but like Clarkson, one rather expected it of him, and at least he was open and honest about his insults, not sly and underhand.

Meanwhile, Terry Le Main fired off letters as Housing Minister to try and influence a Court case in which the defendant was the man who provided him with election posters and leaflets at cost, and ranted that he had done nothing wrong.

With teachers like Senator Walker, is it any wonder that Senator Ozouf learnt to express himself forcefully, albeit never in the public sphere. The learned behaviour is as follows - don't ever apologise, go on the offensive.

Unfortunately, as we have seen, these things leak out eventually.

The report, published on Tuesday, catalogues accusations of harassment and bullying by Senator Ozouf and an attempt to smear the former chief executive of Jersey Property Holdings, David Flowers. (1)


Senator Ozouf was once the golden boy, the heir apparent of Frank Walker. When Ian Gorst was standing for Chief Minister, there was still a chance for him to challenge him for the post; once Philip Bailhache decided to stand, he must have realised that he would not stand a chance. His natural supporters, like John le Fondré once was, have now seen what he can be like and they wouldn't vote for him to be Treasury Minister. James Reed was effectively stabbed in the back by bringing forward education proposals that appear to have been rubbished by the Treasury Minister.

Channel Television kept showing a picture of him looking gaunt and jaundiced, alongside captions like "Bullying". The Jersey Evening Post has the headline "Ozouf 'prepared to ruin civil servant's reputation'" The BBC report is probably the least antagonistic, and does print something of his reply:

Senator Ozouf said: "It's very easy to say when someone is being challenged that that behaviour is too challenging, well we were at risk of purchasing the most expensive piece of property the States would have ever bought - I think the public expect me to ask questions. (1)


On Channel TV, the Senator also said he would be giving a full statement when he returns to Jersey. But the knives are definitely out, and with past allies like Frank Walker and Terry Le Sueur now gone from the scene, it will be interesting to see if there is pressure for him to resign from the Treasury. One thing is certain: he will need a lot of luck to remain in the States next election.

Of course, there are more than one side to a story; it can be told in different ways, and events can be open to different interpretations. Dunkirk, after all, can even be seen with positive spin as a "miracle", even though it was a retreat. When one looks at history, there is always a need to be aware of possible alternative interpretations, and how well they fit the available evidence. But the Auditor General has been doing this. He is an honest man, without an axe to grind.

It is noteworthy that the Auditor-General's report has taken great care to sift the evidence, to test what he is told by witnesses, including Senator Ozouf, and he is very careful not to make any political judgements. That task falls to the States, and in particular, the Council of Ministers. We shall have to wait and see.

Links(1) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-18147648

The Legacy of Terry Le Sueur

The matter of Vulture funds is something that Senator Terry Le Sueur said, in 2008, "would not be left to rest". Of course, like much of his time in office, there was a significant failure to live up to the promise; instead, that is precisely what happened; it was left to rest.

SENATOR Terry Le Sueur has promised a new era of consensus government after being elected as the next Chief Minister.

'If we are going to get the best results we are all going to have to work together as a team,' he said. 'At the moment there are polarised views - some Members think that ministers are too secretive, that they don't listen to Scrutiny, and some assistant ministers feel that they are out in the cold. We have not got an inclusive House. I have got to make sure that the team gets out and engage themselves with the rest of the States Members. I am determined that we have a government which puts the interests of the people first. And I want a States that listens, engages and talks.'(1)

Instead, as Chief Minister, he reappointed all the familiar faces, and ended with a Council of Ministers which was, if anything, more secretive than that of Frank Walker's regime. Sir Philip Bailhache had a trenchant criticism of both Frank Walker and Terry Le Sueur's inability to provide anything resembling consensus, speaking sharply of how "in the last 6 years where Ministers have felt free publicly to disagree with each other have not worked and have just spread discord to the rest of the Assembly.".

He sees the rot beginning at the top, and he notes that while Scrutiny may have been used for personal ends, it was aided and abetted by the attitude of Ministers, who "did not treat Scrutiny seriously and with respect", and having read the transcripts observed "sloppy behaviour by Ministers and their officials" where there was such a lackadaisical attitude they would "turn up without the proper documents and without properly preparing themselves". And of course, the lack of leadership particularly under Terry Le Sueur resulted in the resignation of a Health Minister who used foul language in the States Chamber. Standards were slipping, and there was no firm hand on the tiller.

There were also a small number of individuals - mostly the Council of Ministers alone - playing a role in policy development, and keeping others shut out until it was presented - invariably the Business Plan would be presented as a fait accompli with little or no prior consultation, leading to endless amendments which could have been easily avoided had a wider dialogue taken place; as Ian Gorst noted, what was needed as "a more inclusive approach to Government" and this, as he spelt it our, would mean "increasing the number of Members who play a role in policy development and subsequent implementation" That was another failure of the Le Sueur years.

One of the most notable failures was the absence of any control over the Chief Executive, Mr Bill Ogley, who both managed to negotiate a huge pay-off for his friend Mike Pollard, but also managed to secure a good early redundancy package for himself. No one seems to have bothered with doing more than rubber stamping those contracts, and the failure to do so must be, in part, at the Chief Minister's door. The word "sleaze" would probably be used by UK newspapers of these kind of self-service contracts, with apparently a complete lack of control by the Chief Minister.

There was also the strange case of Terry Le Main, who resigned as Housing Minister, and was subsequently given the mildest of reprimands, being told by Terry Le Sueur that he could return to office if he underwent a little training so he understood matters better. The political commentator for the JEP was aghast at this.

SO that's sorted then. In case anyone was in any doubt, it's essentially fine for a minister to pester the Law Officers to drop a prosecution against someone who has donated to his campaign costs for decades, and then to plead with the Royal Court to go easy when it comes to sentencing. And if this campaign contributor - not 'friend', dear me no - happens to have been caught breaking the law that the politician is meant to enforce as a minister, that's not a big deal either. These things are good to know. And it's probably good to know too that 'essentially fine' means that the rules were broken, but that it doesn't really matter - that the whole thing can be dealt with by a little 'training and education'. Try that one out next time you get a parking fine. Exactly what kind of 'training and education' Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur has in mind for his erstwhile Housing Minister Terry Le Main was left tantalisingly hanging in the report, released last week, into the whole sordid mess. Pointing out that the code of conduct exists might be a start. Or perhaps a slide show of some kind, or maybe using glove puppets to represent the distinction between the executive and judicial branches of government. Or possibly just sitting down in a little room while someone reads the ministerial code of conduct out loud. Very . slowly.'

And there was a broken promise from the Walker administration's time, to have an enquiry into the matter of child abuse in the Island, in the wake of the Haut de la Garenne court cases, which showed the kind of moral pragmatism which can cheerfully tear up any past commitments made by a previous Council of Ministers in which he was a member. In fact, having also promised he would liaise with Bob Hill on the related Napier report, he failed to do so, and the report was subject to endless delays "for legal reasons", which were resolved with the speed of light when it was apparent Bob Hill would release his copy to the public domain if matters where not expedited.

But there is even a legacy of failure from Terry Le Sueur dating from his time as Treasury Minister. In the rush to get the contract for the incinerator in the dying days of the Walker administration, there was a complete lack of oversight, so that Philip Ozouf, discovered, in his first day in office "that the euro contract for the incinerator had not been hedged." The signatories for that contract were Guy de Faye and Terry Le Sueur, and of course it was rushed extremely quickly in the gap between the Senatorial elections of 2008 and the Deputies elections.

And there was worse to come from Terry Le Sueur's time as Treasury Minister. As Philip Ozouf found out, in a matter of days, there were "revised estimates for public finances that showed a deficit, with no contingency." In fact, as he found out, matters had been left to drift, so that there was a "need to radically restructure the Treasury". If the Treasury was in such a mess, what had the previous incumbent - Terry Le Sueur - been doing during his time there?

So what can be seen as the legacy of the Le Sueur years? His final public act was to unveil a sculpture of a duck. I cannot help pondering whether the duck was lame. That would certainly have fitted his time in office.

Links
(1) http://www.thisisjersey.com/latest/2008/12/09/a-states-for-the-people/
(2) http://www.thisisjersey.com/2010/07/27/will-senator-le-mains-training-and-education-involve-a-slide-show-or-mayby-glove-puppets

Vulture Funds - "simply left to rest"

Third world debt role questioned

AN official inquiry has been launched into Jersey's role in forcing third world countries to pay millions of pounds in crippling debt. Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur has revealed that senior Law Officers, top-ranking civil servants and finance experts have met to look at whether so-called vulture funds should be allowed to use Island courts to chase debts. The funds buy up the debts of developing countries for a fraction of the amount owed and then aggressively pursue the debtors through the courts to recover as much as possible. Some of the debts date back to the 1980s, with nations having already paid back the original figure borrowed several times over. (1)

In October 2007, reading the Tablet Weekly magazine, I came across a UK campaign being mounted to stop Vulture Funds. A letter sent to Gordon Brown from the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund dealt with the issue:

Dear Prime Minister

Re: Stop the debt vultures profiting from poverty.

In the aftermath of a recent report by the International Development Association into the status of HIPC implementation and in advance of this weekend's World Bank and IMF autumn annual meetings, I am writing to draw your attention SCIAF's most recent campaign Stop the debt vultures profiting from poverty, launched in collaboration with Jubilee-Zambia.

With nearly a third of vulture funds based in the UK, vulture fund activity is of concern to citizens in developing countries and the UK alike. So far, over 2, 300 people have joined our postcard campaign Stop the debt vultures profiting from poverty with many more expected to join as the campaign continues to run. I am attaching the postcards received to date in order to evidence the current strength of feeling in the run up to the international financial institution's autumn meetings, with more to follow shortly.

The 2007 International Development Association - IMF report mentioned above Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative and Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative (MDRI): Status of Implementation confirms campaigners' worst fears; it shows that vultures are a real and growing concern--11 post-HIPC completion point countries are facing lawsuits and that 8 new legal actions have been reported in the last year alone-and that UK companies are heavily involved.

The report notes that 'litigating creditors are concentrated in the US and the UK.and the British Virgin Islands' and shows that companies based in the UK or in UK-dependent territories have collectively been awarded $264.4 million by various courts for original claims of $83.9 million. Moreover, lawsuits continue to this day. The report notes that a private, UK-based company called Annadale Associates is claiming $8.9 million from St Tome and Principe for an original claim of $3 million.

Our campaigners are calling for clear and decisive leadership from you to tackle this issue.

Action is needed in three key areas; introducing new laws, amending existing ones and working at the international level. Introducing new laws to combat harmful vulture fund activity could have far reaching practical impacts, as well as sending a powerful message about the UK's commitment to poverty alleviation. SCIAF would like to suggest the following as useful starting points when looking at potential new legislation:

· Applying international examples; the US has introduced legislation which prohibits the purchase of debts solely for the purpose of litigation and Belgium has enacted legislation which helps to combat a particular legal principle applied by vulture funds in the past. The 'Pari Passu' principle states that all creditors "should be treated on equal terms without discrimination" and is has been a key plank in vulture funds' legal cases. This principle has been used to argue that even when some creditors have forgiven their portion of the debt, there is no need for other creditors to make similar concessions. In the case of Elliot Associates vs Peru, the application of this principle resulted in the company being awarded $58 million for a debt they had procured for $11 million - but the Bank of England notes that 'a recent change to Belgian law means that it is no longer possible for litigants successfully to enforce judgements in this way.' See Bank of England (2005) Sovereign bond contracts: a workshop at the Bank of England - Financial Stability Review: June 2005 for more information.

· Extending national debt legislation; UK law also amends the application of the Pari Passu principle as it states that creditors must abide by any debt relief plan that is agreed by creditors representing 75% of the value of the debt.

Equally important is amending existing legislation. The 2006 Companies Act was historic in introducing, for the first time, a requirement that company directors have a legal responsibility not simply to maximise profit but also to 'have regard . (to) the impact of the company's operations on the community and the environment" (see Part 10, Chapter 2, 172, 1d). However, this crucial provision does not apply to private companies, and it is unclear whether it applies to corporations based in dependent UK territories. Such loopholes ensure that many vulture funds are exempt from the very legislation designed to ensure that companies behave responsibility and minimise the negative impact of their operations. We thus suggest that the scope of the Act be expanded to private companies and that the question of its geographical scope is clarified.

Third and finally, it is crucial that the UK government acts not in isolation but also works with other countries and actors to establish a fair, transparent international system to deal comprehensively with developing country debt, including the issue of vulture funds. A recent paper produced by the international Catholic network CIDSE (International Co-operation for Development and Solidarity; www.cidse.org) entitled A Human Development Approach To Preventing New Cycles of Debt provides more detail about what this system could look like in practice, and a copy is enclosed for your information. Action towards achieving this end could not prove more timely; as this weekend's World Bank and IMF autumn meetings provide the ideal opportunity for the UK government to discuss how best to take this initiative forward.

On behalf of our campaigners, let me thank you for your time and assure you we eagerly await your response.

Yours sincerely,

Chris Hegarty
SCIAF Advocacy Manager

And I read of Deputy Kevin Lewis, who had asked a question about a case "whereby a company operating out of the British Virgin Islands purchased a debt owed to Romania, I believe it was for agricultural equipment, owed by Zambia for a few million dollars and then went on to charge Zambia $48 million; thereby negating much of the good work done by our own Overseas Aid Committee."

I sent the following letter to our Chief Minister, Senator Frank Walker

Dear Senator Walker,

I read recently about the loopholes at present in place in the U.K. Companies legislation regarding "Vulture Funds" (see Tablet article below for more detail), and am writing to ask if there are any plans - as implemented in the USA and in Belgium, to prevent the purchase of debts solely for the purpose of litigation in this manner. I also see that France too is bringing in legal proposals regarding Vulture Funds.

I noticed that when the matter was brought up (19/06/2007) in the States, Senator Le Sueur said that "Any attempt to try to legislate against Vulture Funds" specifically would be extremely difficult without closing the door to a whole range of legitimate corporate debt restructuring."

With respect, if Belgium can also introduce legislation against such practices, surely it is not beyond the ability of Jersey to do likewise? What seems to be clear among the European countries, as well, is a general move to seek out ways and means of preventing vulture funds from operating from within their jurisdictions, and it seems that one of the main distinctions is whether the corporate debt relates specifically to the government of third world countries (and not private individuals or corporations).

I know that in the UK, as can be seen from their statement on May 2007, Hansard, are not prepared to just let the matter rest, but state that "The Chancellor raised this issue with his G8 colleagues at their meeting in Potsdam in 19 May, and set out the Government's proposals for action. G8 Ministers expressed their concern about the actions of some litigating creditors against heavily indebted poor countries, and agreed to work together to identify measures to tackle this problem"

Could I ask for your assurance that the matter will not simply be left to rest (as is suggested by my reading of the States session), but will be actively reviewed, particularly with regard to:

- introducing new laws to combat the problem, as has been done in the US and Belgium

- amending the Companies Act to close the loopholes that exclude vulture funds

The reply from Terry Le Sueur (Treasury Minister) - and not from the Chief Minister - was as follows:

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. As you probably know, we are shortly to have a visit from members of the International Monetary Fund looking into the quality and strength of our legislation and procedures, and I will also listen with interest to their views.

I am happy to listen to further advice, as I am sure are my colleague the Minister for Economic Development and officers of Jersey Finance Limited and the Jersey Financial Services Commission. One problem which I saw, and for which I should be interested to see if Belgium has solved, is how one defines a 'vulture fund'. It is relatively easy to see the outcome of vulture fund activity ; it is, I fear, much harder to legislate in advance for such activities without impinging on totally legitimate financial services.

I should welcome the views of those to whom I have copied this correspondence in case they have anything to add.

Terry Le Sueur

What has been happening in the meantime?

There are a number of unreported judgments which seem deal with Vulture funds over the last year. However, access to the details of these are only available to lawyers who have applied for a login and password - the normal layman can't get there. Nevertheless the indications are that the matter had "simply been left to rest", after all, despite assurances - in October 2007 - to the contrary by our present Chief Minister, then Treasury Minister. On the contrary, in reply to Daniel Wimberley, Senator Le Sueur replied that:

Although we have been aware of it for some time, we wanted to see what conclusions would be drawn from the review of the U.K's temporary legislation of last year before considering our position.

In other words - "simply left to rest"! As usual, what Senator le Sueur says (in 2007) and what Senator le Sueur did are totally at variance; he said the matter would not be left, but that appears to be exactly what happened. Jim Hacker, in "Yes Minister", surely could not have done better for dithering andf vacillating = I believe the phrase Sir Humphrey used of Jim Hacker was ""lots of activity but no actual achievement"

I sincerely hope that Deputy Wimberley can get the States to be more pro-active, rather than just seeing what the UK does and slavishly following it. I will be doing a follow up on his latest question shortly.

This is the most detailed item, which is confirmed by Senator Le Sueur in related to Deputy Wimberley's question to indeed be a case of Vulture activity:

2.14 The Deputy of St. Mary of the Chief Minister regarding the enforcement of debt repayments by the Democratic Republic of Congo:
Would the Chief Minister confirm whether FG Hemisphere is using the courts in Jersey to enforce debt repayments by the Democratic Republic of Congo in a way which has just been outlawed by the U.K. Parliament and, if so, does the Chief Minister think it is appropriate for the Jersey courts to be used in this way and what actions, if any, has he taken and does he propose to take on this matter

Like a magician producing a rabbit out of a hat, Senator Le Sueur said there was a "high level review board" looking into the matter. It's had a very long time to do so!

2.14.1 Deputy G.P. Southern:
Can the Minister tell Members who constitutes this high level-review board and is he content that the reputation of the Island is protected when it becomes obvious that we are a safe haven for these so called vulture funds?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

At this stage this has been a very hastily produced answer and I do not have details of the composition of that working party, other than to know it is in existence and it is working. In due course I hope to be able to present those details to the Members.

and the final answer to questions was:

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:
I will be happy to ensure that there is a balanced representation on that working party, including people with civil interests, as I am sure we all do. It is not fair to say that there are no members in the working group. I just do not have at the moment details of their names. Whether the discussions will lead to legislation or not is a matter which would be premature to say at this stage. I hope it does lead to legislation in some form or some other measure which will ensure that such activities are not permitted to take place in Jersey

Well, Senator Le Sueur has been hoping since 2007 that the matter would not "simply be left to rest". Now he tells us of a working group, but hasn't got any details of their names. The word "hopeless" rather than "hope" springs to mind. And in the meantime, while the UK Goverment has recently (and finally) passed legislation outlawing Vulture Funds, Jersey still has taken no action, with nothing prepared on the Statute books. The Jubilee Debt Campaign (in a public press release) notes that:

The Act has already made two vulture funds settle out-of-court with Liberia for a fraction of the $40 million they were claiming. No new vulture fund cases have been lodged in UK courts. However, the Act has not been extended to cover UK overseas territories such as Jersey. Vulture fund FG Hemisphere is suing the Democratic Republic of Congo $100 million through the Jersey courts

Congo's debt was due to be cut by $7,252 million based on creditors cancelling 80 per cent of debts owed. In addition, the IMF, World Bank and African Development Bank committed to cancel 100 per cent of pre-2004 debts, and some bilateral creditors such as the UK also committed to cancel 100 per cent.

However, a vulture fund called FG Hemisphere has been pursuing a debt claim for $100 million against DRC. If this amount is paid, DRC would have paid out $80 million more to these creditors than expected under the HIPC process, effectively transferring public money from debt relief to private claimants

England has a toxic reputation for so-called "libel tourism". If Jersey doesn't enact legislation (which despite Senator Le Sueur's 2007 remarks, is perfectly possible - the UK managed it), then we may well have the unenviable reputation of being a centre of "vulture tourism" as foreign companies pursue claims against third world countries in Jersey courts! While Senator Le Sueur cannot comment on a case under appeal, he can at least get the wheels in motion to pass legislation as soon as possible, even though it will probably now be beyond his tenure as Chief Minister. Let's hope not commenting is not another means of avoiding the matter, so that it is "simply left to rest"!

http://www.jerseylaw.je/Judgments/JerseyLawReports/display.aspx?cases/JLR2010/JLR10N015.htm

[2010 JLR Note 15]
FG HEMISPHERE ASSOCIATES LLC v. DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO, L'OFFICE DES MINES D'OR DE KILO-MOTO, KIBALI (JERSEY) LIMITED and RANDGOLD RESOURCES LIMITED
COURT OF APPEAL (William Bailhache, Deputy Bailiff): February 17th, 2010
Civil Procedure-execution-arrêt entre mains

An arrêt entre mains is a well-established procedure in Jersey law by which a plaintiff may, by way of a provisional order, restrain assets in the hands of third parties that are or might be those of a defendant, to satisfy a debt due by the defendant (e.g. Richardson v. Besnard, Royal Ct. (1894), 216 Ex. 371, unreported, considered; J.W. Huelin Ltd. v. Eloury, Royal Ct. (1935), 238 Ex. 326, unreported, considered). It is clear that the Royal Court has a discretion as to whether or not to grant the confirmation of such a provisional order. The process is not dissimilar to the garnishee process or Third Party Debt Orders under Part 72 of the English Civil Procedure Rules.

In the unreported judgments, which alas I can't access, the summary indicates these are probably relevant:

FG Hemisphere Associates 27-Oct-2010
... Jurats Tibbo and Kerley. BetweenFG Hemisphere Associates LLCRepresentorAnd(1) The Democratic ... proceedings launched by the
Representor ("Hemisphere") on 12th March, 2009, against ... the substantive issues raised by Hemisphere's Representation. 2. Hemisphere is the assignee of the ...

FG Hemisphere Associates 4-Oct-2010
... Tibbo and Kerley. Between FG Hemisphere Associates LLC Representor And (1) The ... informed by e-mail that settlement discussions between Hemisphere, Gecamines and the DRC were currently in progress ...

FG Hemisphere Associates 17-Feb-2010
... 17th February 2010 Before : W. J. Bailhache, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, sitting alone. Between FG Hemisphere Associates LLC Appellant And The Democratic Republic of the Congo First Respondent And L'Office ...17/02/2010

FG Hemisphere and Dem Rep Congo 15-Dec-2009
... J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq., Commissioner and Jurats de Veulle and Clapham. Between FG Hemisphere Associates LLC Representor And The Democratic Republic of Congo First Respondent And L'Office des ...

Part 2 | FG Hemisphere Associates 27-Oct-2010
C and China with the aim, on the one hand, of giving China access to a substantial stake in the DRC's mineral wealth and, on the other, the
generation of funding for a massive national programme of infrastructure ...

FG Hemisphere and Dem Rep Congo 15-Dec-2009
... J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq., Commissioner and Jurats de Veulle and Clapham. Between FG Hemisphere Associates LLC Representor And The Democratic Republic of Congo First Respondent And L'Office des ...


Links
(1) http://www.thisisjersey.com/2011/06/27/third-world-debt-role-questioned
(2) IMF and IDA. (2010). Congo: Enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative Completion Point Document and Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative (MDRI). International Development Association and the International Monetary Fund. Washington DC. 15/06/10.

The Culture of Doublethink

At an Institute of Directors lunch yesterday Senator Terry Le Sueur said: "Sadly, at the present time we have a culture within the States in which nobody wants to make a decision. Doing nothing, or passing the responsibility to a higher authority, means that one cannot get blamed" (1)

Doing nothing: so this is the man who would not hold have any committee of enquiry into the suspension of Graham Power, until his hand was forced by Deputy Bob Hill bringing a proposition. Then he finally took the decision to have Brian Napier compile a report (his preferred option), and then just sat on that report when it came back (citing "possible legal implications"" which never in fact emerged) until his hand was finally forced by Deputy Bob Hill.

Doing nothing: Senator Terry Le Main was told that he would need "training and education" after Senator Le Sueur admitted that the Minister should not have written to the Courts. When did this happen? Has Senator Le Main said that he now understands why he should not have taken that action?

Doing nothing: Senator Le Sueur tells the States that Bill Ogley has been "disciplined" but refuses to say what the nature of the discipline was. Given the "proven track record", it's probably very little. But citing confidentiality ("passing the responsibility to a higher authority") means he doesn't have to say.

Passing the responsibility to a higher authority? Does that mean that signing the contract for the incinerator without looking at hedging against price changes in the Euro is something he will now take responsibility for rather than heaping all the blame for it on the head of States Treasurer Ian Black?

I could go one, but as usual, Senator Le Sueur has a knack of saying one thing, and doing exactly the opposite, and hoping that if he bumbles along, no one will ever notice. And no one will blame him. After all, doing nothing, or passing the responsibility to a higher authority, means that one cannot get blamed.

The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them....To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth. (2)

Links
(1) http://www.thisisjersey.com/2010/12/15/states-caught-up-in-a-culture-of-blame-says-chief-minister/#ixzz18C2wjhP5
(2) Orwell, George (1949). Nineteen Eighty-Four. Martin Secker & Warburg Ltd, London, part 1, chapter 3, pp 32

Organisation charts give insight into government

The Cabinet Office has published new details about civil servants working at the heart of government.

Structure charts of government

Francis Maude, Minister for the Cabinet Office, has asked departments to publish for the first time structure charts. These set out details of the number and grade of staff working in different teams. In June the Cabinet Office published its chart showing the structure for senior staff, but this has now been updated to include team numbers.

The structure charts show:
- the names, job title and salary for all senior civil servants at director level and above
- the job title of all senior civil servants at deputy director level, along with the number of staff in their team and the breakdown of their grades
- More data will be added over the next few weeks including the total salary cost of each team reporting to deputy directors, job descriptions for senior roles and team functions.

Francis Maude, Minister for the Cabinet Office, who chairs the government's Public Sector Transparency Board, said that the announcement reaffirms the government's commitment to opening up unprecedented levels of data.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Nl1/Newsroom/DG_191581

The charts (on a preliminary look) are quite good. When will we get any?

I noticed that Senator Terry le Sueur (in answer to questions) repeatedly says he has given the information, and he refers to the existing charts in business plans, which are basically top layer sketches, and more of an organisational doodle. The only decent chart we have was done privately by Senator Sarah Ferguson, and she was not permitted to include the names, job title and salary for all senior civil servants at director level and above.

If the UK Government can quite cheerfully provide all this information, it is about time we did - note it shows salaries and not just salary bands for top civil servants. Clearly they have no problems with Data Protection, so that can't function as an excuse - our Data Protection Law is modelled on the UK.

On the lower levels (and they have lots of civil servants) it is more statistical, but still gives (a) number of staff (b) breakdown of grades. And it is going to be improved even more!

It's about time we followed suit, and Chief Ministers (or the Departmental heads) stopped saying it can't be done, or such information is private and cannot be revealed. That is a bluff, and the UK government has shown how hollow that excuse is now - it is providing a degree of real transparency beside which Jersey's approach is in the dark ages.

Is there any politician who would now like to ask the following question of the Chief Minister in the States:


Question:

Given the UK's commitment to transparency and organisation charts showing

- the names, job title and salary for all senior civil servants at director level and above
- the job title of all senior civil servants at deputy director level, along with the number of staff in their team and the breakdown of their grades

how long before we may expect Jersey to follow suit?

Climbing Mount Improbable

Voice For Children (despite the carping of one blog in particular), has pulled off a remarkable coup, not only in following the continual delay of the Napier report, but also in bringing out the reply from Terry Le Sueur, which confirms to Deputy Hill that "the Napier Report will be published in a full and unredacted form", unlike the Wiltshire report.

Dear colleague,
As you may be aware, I have now received the Report into the suspension on 12th November 2008 of the (former) Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police ("the Napier Report").
Having read this Report carefully, I am of the view that there could possibly be grounds for disciplinary action arising out of the report. I am taking advice on this and considering it as a matter of urgency and anticipate making a decision on this shortly.
I have also sought appropriate advice about the publication of the Napier Report prior to any disciplinary proceedings which may, after consideration, take place and I am advised that publication might prejudice any disciplinary process which may be required.
Although I have shared the Napier Report in confidence with the Deputy of St. Martin, he has acknowledged that it is important for any disciplinary process that may be required to be conducted properly so that there can be no question of any impropriety. The Deputy of St. Martin has therefore agreed to continue to hold the Report in confidence.
I am grateful to the Deputy for his understanding in this matter and I hope that all States members will similarly respect the need to conclude any disciplinary issues prior to publication.
I confirm that on the conclusion of any disciplinary issues, the Napier Report will be published in a full and unredacted form.
Yours sincerely,
Terry Le Sueur
Chief Minister

What is obviously the key matter for speculation is who would be subject to any disciplinary proceedings. Clearly, as Graham Power is no longer an employee of the States of Jersey, he is certainly out of the frame, and Deputy Andrew Lewis is no longer in the States, so no action by PPC can be taken against him. This means, of necessity, that if there are "grounds for disciplinary action" - and let's note that this is not absolutely clear-cut, it must be a civil servant. I'm not going to speculate on this, suffice it to say that those present at the first disciplinary meeting, or those giving poor advice, are obvious candidates.

Of course, the good Senator has yet to make up his mind about what to do - whether to proceed with disciplinary action; he's only had the report since 13th September, which is only just over three weeks, so at the snails pace at which he seems to dither along, it would be quite remarkable if he acted with any speed. Given the speed of disciplinary processes in Jersey, the phrase "it will all be over by Christmas", which was used in 1914 by hopeless optimists at the start of the Great War, seems horribly appropriate.

Meanwhile, despite Senator Le Marquand stating on the eviscerated Wiltshire that "The versions now on the States website are in pdf and if downloaded as a document will be searchable", whoever updates the website has not done so, nor have they appeared in less redacted form, as was also promised back in July. Tardiness appears to be a disease of Government, spreading out to afflict its many departments.

The bulk of the missing pages are now being redacted. This is a big task and the departments involved have many other things to do. I think that the rest of what I can properly put out should be available by early September 2010. There are sections of the Blast report which will not be redacted because that would reveal the identities of the officers involved.

I can fully understand that time and pressure of the States Business Plan and the Comprehensive Spending Review, along with general departmental business can consume available, and cause delays. That is entirely understandable. But surely it is not beyond the bounds of simple courtesy and politeness to the voting public to say as much, and apologise for the delay, and just not be like one of those annoying people whom you ring up - if they owe you money - they say "they'll get back to you", and they never do, hoping that you'll forget all about it. It seems that the less redacted Wiltshire Report, like the cheque in the post, is still to arrive. It's a pity there's not a Government Report chasing agency.

Links
(1) http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2010/10/napier-imminent-3put-upor-i-will.html

An Eye on Terry Le Sueur

"Private Eye" has another go at Terry Le Sueur in this week's "In the City". It notes how depositors in Jersey banks are told they can rely on the Island's regulators and politicians for "competence and integrity".

Then they go in for the kill - looking at the "fiasco surrounding the £106 million" incinerator whose cost may rise by up to £10 million "because the euro-bill was not 'hedged' against a fall in sterling". As they rightly point out, this is not exactly a glowing example of "competence".

But what of integrity? They comment that "it seems that as much as £4 million may have been spent without the necessary approval." They note that the current Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur is being called before a scrutiny committee to explain this - as he was Treasury minister when the contract was signed. About all they haven't noted is that it was signed with great haste - some call it indecent haste - in the dying days of the last Council of Ministers, barely weeks before a new States was elected - which might account for the lack of oversight.

And integrity gets a further battering from officials whom they say "claim they knew nothing about 'hedging' so sought advice from Royal London Asset Management." It seems that Private Eye has contacted RLAM, and reports that "RLAM says that it was never asked to advise on currency risk." It look as if the officials are being "economical with the truth".

It is often said that Senator Syvret's blog and invective does the Island's reputation no good. In fact, it is probably largely ignored, apart from any focus on Haut de la Garenne. It seems that far more damage is being done by the actions of the States Treasury and the Treasury Minister - because this shows how the Island's administration can fail in competence and intregity - and Private Eye rightly asks if this occurs here, why not elsewhere, with the regulation of financial services. It should be noted that they do not actually cite any examples of that kind of failure - yet!

It is to be hoped that Senator Ben Shenton leaves no stone unturned in exposing the misjudgments and mismanagement that caused this fiasco, so that it may not happen again - including the hasty way in which the contract was signed.

The danger is that only one or two individuals will be singled out as scapegoats, whereas the truth is probably more like that revealed in J.B. Priestley's "An Inspector Calls", where there is a chain of events leading to a disaster, and each person is a link in the chain who must accept their responsibility for the mistakes they made, including the Treasury Minister of the day.

April Fool?

I did enjoy the JEP April Fool - "Le Sueur Supports His Health Minister". Who would believe that? I can't believe Terry Le Sueur would be such an idiot; it is obviously a made up story!

Word and Act

http://www.channelonline.tv/channelonline/displayarticle.asp?id=380132

Jersey's new Council of Ministers has vowed to make spending cuts its top priority. Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur says they're determined to make all possible savings and efficiencies and won't approve any extra spending unless it's matched by savings or income. Ministers have just completed two days of talks to shape up a new three-year plan for government. It's not yet cut and dried - all States members will have a say later this month.

These two days of talks involved ministers alone. No assistant ministers were present. This despite the fact that Terry le Sueur has stated his objecting of getting a greater interaction and involvement in assistant ministers in his speeches when trying for the role of Chief Minister.

"One aspect of the first three years of Ministerial Government which might be improved upon is the role of Assistant Ministers.", he said in his nomination speech, and he later mentioned that a greater interaction between Ministers and Assistant Ministers would be his preferred way forward.

Unfortunately, his words and actions don't seem to tally very well at the moment. No assistant ministers were present at the two days of talks, which is not an auspicious start, I would have thought, to giving them greater involvement!

 

Tax Arrangements

A very good letter by Ed Le Quesne a few weeks ago. I've only just got round to commenting on it.

The only really strong point that could be mustered against it would be if there were actual legal contracts in place. If there were - like the contracts that existed with States Loans, which used to fix the upper rate of interest payable - contracts on income tax, signed by both parties, agreeing to a fix sum per annum, then it would be more difficult to break (although not impossible - just look at how covenants can be overturned by the States!).

But do such contracts exist? Or were the sums involved fixed by a "gentleman's agreement", over a handshake, and perhaps a glass of wine?

Perhaps John Christensen, who seemed to be privy to various haggling on the subject during the seventies and eighties, could let us know?


From Ed Le Quesne.

I DON'T accept Senator Le Sueur's statement that it is immoral to change the tax arrangements for wealthy residents.

It would be immoral to back-date any changes, but I am sure there would be strong support for him saying in his Budget speech in December something like: 'From 2009 the taxes paid by all wealthy 1(1)K residents will be assessed on the same basis, whatever may have happened in the past.'

It fits in with the 20% means 20% taxation of wealthy Jersey people which is being phased in, and may need a similar phasing-in period.

If Senator Le Sueur omits to say it, I hope another States Member will bring a Budget amendment to the same effect.

Untangling Chamber Statistics

Jersey's Chamber of Commerce has released the second set of results in their 2008 series of opinion polls. Designed to give business a say in election year, 154 members responded this time round, more than the previous poll. Treasury Minister Terry Le Sueur continues as the frontrunner for the Chief Minister's job, but the number of members who are still undecided has increased.

http://www5.channelonline.tv/news/templates/moneychannel.aspx?articleid=15636&zoneid=1

I heard this on BBC Radio Jersey, and it struck me as a much more balanced report.

This was mainly because they went into more details. They mentioned that Terry le Sueur was still in the lead of those named, but down from 25% in January to 21%, and that most members who responded did not want him as Chief Minister (up from 20% in January to 29% now). These were the "don't know answers" which the report said was a "significant rise". In this case, "don't know" meant none of the choices available - including Terry le Sueur.

Channel TV somehow forgot to mention that more didn't want him than did, just that "the number of members who are still undecided has increased." But those "don't knows" were in fact decided about one thing - they didn't want him. That was clear from the Chamber Report, and the BBC presentation.

A few caveats: This is only 154 responses from 550 members., a 28% reply rate of those who bothered enough to do the questionnaire, which means that all we know for certain is that about 6% of Chamber Members would like Terry to be Chief Minister. We can't assume the sample is representative, because it is self-selecting, not random. It could be anywhere between 6% and 78% in all. And we don't know how many businesses the Chamber represents as a percentage of the total either, and whether its representation is skewed in any way..

Incidentally, the one notable option was Guy de Faye, moving from 57% not wanting him to 78% and no "don't knows" there! I feel a bit sorry for him, even if he tends to be his own worst enemy.

P.S. For Nick Palmer (if he reads this), I don't see Channel TV's reporting as a conspiracy, simply that they were not good as the BBC as presenting the statistics unambiguously in this case.

Book of the Post:
Damned Lies and Statistics: Untangling Numbers from the Media, Politicians and Activists - Joel Best

Jersey in Ireland: Questions for Election Candidates

http://www.independent.ie/business/aibs-jersey-chief-sacked-from-his-role-in-waterfront-enterprise-board-1429470.html

I missed this a few days ago, dated July 08 2008.

The Irish Independent reported that:

THE chairman of Allied Irish Banks (AIB) in the Channel Islands (CI) has been sacked from his position as chairman of Jersey's Waterfront Enterprise Board (WEB) over his role in a property project involving Harcourt Developments. Gerald Voisin, a former Jersey politician, was removed from his role on WEB after 22 members of the Jersey parliament voted that he should go because he failed to declare that he was chairman of the CI branch of AIB -- a subsidiary of AIB which is backing Harcourt as a preferred bidder in the development of a £330m financial services centre in St Helier called the Esplanade Quarter.

Regarding their reporting of the case, Terry le Sueur really does not come out of it very well.

All sorts of accusations were asserted during the three-hour debate last week in Jersey with some 22 politicians speaking out against his role on WEB. Mr Voisin released a statement to the media last week stating that he had no involvement with AIB in Dublin and its transactions with Harcourt and refused to step down but he was later asked to resign his position. Last week Senator Jim Perchard also stepped down stating that he did not want to "swim in murky waters". He said he thought that Mr Voisin's chairmanship in both companies was too much of a "cosy relationship". Support for Mr Voisin came from Treasury Minister Terry Le Sueur, among others, who said the timing of the proposition was wrong and would not be good governance.

It also mentions that the Harcourt development is going to be on-hold at least until the Irish hearing in October 2008, which if it takes eight weeks (it may not) would take us to December 2008! That is not counting how long the Nevada case may go on for either.

That means that it will be a new States (post-elections) that will be looking at the results of the "due diligence checks", which should be interesting. Candidates therefore should expect to be asked questions about the Waterfront (and its 1/2 million sunken road running costs).

Harcourt is embroiled in a court action in Dublin with three businessmen claiming that they have an ownership on property deals with the company in Jersey and London. The details of lawsuits against Harcourt in Dublin and one in Nevada have caused a political row in Jersey. Further due diligence checks are being carried out on the firm headed by Pat Doherty, before any development agreement will be signed. Harcourt is strongly defending the allegations against it and an eight- week hearing has been set aside to hear the case in October in the Commercial High Court.

Breaking the Barriers of Tribal Kinship

I was thinking about overseas aid when reading an article in The Tablet about Africa by the Nigerian Paulinus Odozor (Associate professor of moral theology). On the African situation, and the way in which tribalism causes a form of community selfishness, he comments:

In most traditional African societies people had deep respect for the "other". They went out of their way to show hospitality to this other and to accord him or her the best protection possible. Often, however, the other in this case is a "known other" - someone who is either from one's family, clan or ethnic group. In other words, human rights were granted on the basis of kinship. African traditional societies had therefore no culture of universal human rights in which equal humanity was granted to the other either on the basis of common sonship and daughtership in God or on a universal recognition of the person's humanity.

Mention overseas aid from Jersey, and there is invariably a flurry of letters to the Jersey Evening Post on the subject, to say nothing of the way in which the two leading politicians have dealt with the matter. In each case, it is precisely along the same kind of lines as tribal societies in Africa that arguments are couched - we need to help the "known other", not those far-off people. Or as the phrase has it "charity begins at home." After all, they are not facing our problems, and if we don't think about it, they need not concern us.

Here is the disgraceful attempt by Frank Walker to grab money from overseas aid in September 2007

CHIEF Minister Frank Walker wants to raid the overseas aid budget to cover the cost of free nursery education for the Island's three- and four-year-olds. In a late amendment to Tuesday's Business Plan debate - when the States will decide next year's departmental spending - Senator Walker proposes reducing the overseas aid budget by £3.5m over three years to fund changes to nursery provision.

and here is Terry Le Sueur, the man who now says that GST will raise more than its targets, back in May 2007:

ISLANDERS would have to pay an extra £16m in taxes if Jersey is to hit the UN target of 0.7% of GDP for overseas aid, says Treasury Minister Terry Le Sueur.

In the same issue of the Tablet, Jon Sobrino criticised this kind of community selfishness:

What I want to talk about is how we can be human in this world, at this point in history. From where we can get hope in what I call the 'world of abundance' - Europe, the United States, other places too. Because the human spirit breathes an air today that is a little bit polluted. In the same way as the body suffers when we breathe polluted air, the same thing happens to the spirit... We want to live well. Of course we know - and I include myself because I was born in Bilbao - there is Africa, Iraq and so on. We know and we don't know. We tend to ignore the reality of two-thirds of human kind. We don't do it because we are evil people. No, but history has moved us to think that it is normal that we live fairly well. Therefore, we get surprised if we can't have a vacation in the summer. We think something has gone wrong metaphysically. Whereas with Africa in general, we look at them with some interest right now, with pity maybe, but if Africa suffers, it doesn't for us violate any metaphysical law, because it is somehow their historical destiny. For me this is a negative, a negative in the air that we now breathe.


Book of the blog:

The Eye of the Needle by Jon Sobrino SJ is published by Darton, Longman and Todd
at £9.99

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0232527393/ref=ord_cart_shr

Drains and Dictators

Ben Shenton recently brought a proposition to the States against Guy De Faye's unilateral ministerial decision to allow a developer to dig up people's gardens and lay sewer networks without their consent. The voting pattern revealed some interesting results - perhaps a psychologist might argue a case that it reveals States Members who may have a "Great Dictator" complex?

In the proposition he asked

to request the the Minister for Transport and Technical Services to rescind his Ministerial Decision made on 27th November 2007 in which he agreed to vary the policy on the service of notices under the Drainage (Jersey) Law 2005 and agreed that he would, from the date of the Ministerial Decision, consider serving a Notice on third party landowners for the benefit of private developers to enable those developers to lay sewers across the third party land if there was a demonstrable public gain, namely where a developer was able and willing to fund the connection of other surrounding properties to the public sewer network.

He noted that:

A fundamental issue is whether it can properly be said to be for the public benefit for the Minister to exercise these powers under the Drainage Law in circumstances where the neighbouring landowners are perfectly happy with their current drainage arrangements and those drainage arrangements are perfectly adequate for their current properties. Furthermore, the questions of future maintenance and the States liability to pay compensation following legal claims under the Drainage Law have not been answered.

How would you feel if a Minister passed a Ministerial Decision that allowed a private property developer to lay pipes through your land without your permission?

How would you feel if the Ministerial Decision was structured in such a way that you would receive no payment for going through your land and no compensation for inconvenience caused?

How would you feel if you and your neighbours were not consulted in any way about this and only found out through a third party?

How would you feel if you found out that you had no right of appeal as you only found out about it after the appeal date had passed?

How would you feel if the property developer stood to make a significant sum by obliterating your view and reducing the value of not only your own property, but also that of your neighbours?

Pretty fed up - I would think.

What is interesting is the States Members who agreed with Guy De Faye and opposed the motion. These were as follows:

Senator Terence Augustine Le Sueur
Senator Philip Francis Cyril Ozouf
Senator Terence John Le Main
Deputy Robert Charles Duhamel

and of course, the man himself, Deputy Guy William John de Faye.

Given the track record in ignoring the public over GST (Le Sueur) or done his own thing (Ozouf on the Battle of Flowers), or treated the public with disrespect (Le Main over Data Protection), it perhaps is not too surprising. I was rather disappointed to see Deputy Duhamel here though.

there were also a few vacillating members who didn't want to vote definitely one way or the other and who abstained:

Senator Frederick Ellyer Cohen
Deputy Jacqueline Jeannette Huet

So it seems likely that these are the kind of individuals who might like the opportunity for trampling over ordinary people's property rights and would like this sort of precedent, but don't want that to be part of their public record. As the recent Waterfront proposals include a forced compulsory purchase should a seller not be able to agree a satisfactory price (based on what?), it is hardly surprising to see these two suspects here.

The Blame Game

In the "Yes Minister" episode "One of Us", Sir Humphrey Appleby fails to check up on the security of the head of MI5. He protests that he was a busy man at the time and couldn't look into everything, and mentions that admits that government security inquiries are primarily designed to kill press speculation.

I was reminded of this when hearing the "blame game" about the recent news on the pending lawsuit against Harcourt.

No, says Jim Perchard, we did not knowingly deceive the States. We enquired about this from Harcourt, and were told there was no lawsuit, and it was a disgruntled ex-business partner stirring up trouble.

That little word "knowingly" is the key to why there will not be resignations.

The lawsuit was was formally filed on 30 April 2008.

According to the JEP, Frank Walker, Philip Ozouf, and Terry le Sueur all were emailed with details.

Frank Walker asked three times before the debate if there was any substance in the existence of a lawsuit, and apparently received three denials from Harcourt, that in addition to assurance from them on the 22nd of May 2008. He never thought to check that out elsewhere. Like Sir Humphrey, he didn't need to because he believed in their integrity.

Philip Ozouf could not read attachments on his Blackberry, and had only been "cc" in the email; he prioritised emails that are sent directly to him - voters take note. Presumable he also took advice from Frank Walker's direct check with Harcourt. He never thought to check that out either. Clearly - rather like Sir Humphrey - he was a busy man at the time and couldn't look into everything.

Terry Le Sueur presumably depended on Frank Walker checking matters out. I think he does use emails, even though he looks as if he belongs to the Victorian ledger era, when the telegraph system was the cutting edge of technology. He never thought to check that out either.

Jim Perchard again took his lead from information received by Frank Walker and Harcourt. As the Web representative, he said that Web were mislead by Harcourt. He never thought to check that out himself either.

Now consider this hypothetical case. I want to do a business deal with Enron, but I have heard that the SEC (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission), was now pursuing a formal investigation and got assurances from Kenneth Lay, the chairman at Enron, who reassured me by by affirming that there was "absolutely no accounting issue, no trading issue, no reserve issue, no previously unknown problem issues". Would I take Lay's word for that, or check with the SEC?

In the JEP tonight it says "the JEP has obtained court papers from the Clark County District Court in Nevada which show that the case was formally filed on 30 April - more than a month before the States debate." If the JEP could check up, couldn't someone do that on behalf of the States - if the ministers were too busy, what about delegating it to the invisible Bill Ogley or another civil servant?

I think that it would be a matter of gross incompetence not to check up elsewhere. If there was no collusion, there must be incompetence. The simplest way of deflecting attention from this, of course, is the "blame game".

But the blame game itself raises issues which will not go away, especially in an election year. Should we be doing business with someone who gave categorical assurances to our Chief Minister that were categorically wrong? If they can deceive the States over this, even if their financial integrity is sound (and that is now a big "if"), should we be doing business with people whose moral integrity seems to be rather suspect.