The Children X Case: Some Background History

The Children X Case: Some Background History 

The case before the Royal Court today is about two children and the neglect of the States in respect of how to care for them. As the JEP reported earlier in June:

“Plaintiff Two, who is currently sectioned in a UK facility, and Plaintiff Three, who lives in a ‘highly supported’ environment, are suing the Health Minister for a total of £238 million in what is believed to be the largest personal injury claim in British legal history. The siblings claim that they will never recover from the abuse they sustained while living in the family home.

The Health Minister has accepted that the pair should have been placed into care sooner, but disputes the amount in damages the plaintiffs are seeking and instead believes a total of £14.5 million should be awarded.”

Before looking back to the origins of the case, for which publically available documentary evidence is sparse anyway, it is worth taking a look at the more immediate past, and in particular what happened around the end of 2008 and 2009, under the two Health Ministers at the time, Senator Ben Shenton and Senator Jim Perchard, and under the aegis of Chief Office Mike Pollard.

The Court Judgement is in the public domain for 27 March 2009 and paints a sorry picture in which considerations of finance seem to have played their part, and in which also too much optimism was placed on Jersey being able to supply similar support - and thereby also save money, even though that structure was not actually in place at the time. There also is an extraordinary matter of a Minister delegating a decision to his Chief Officer, and not as one might expect, an Assistant Minister.

The Ministers - and in particular the first Minister involved - as well as his Chief Officer and the other members of the top echelon making decisions do not, in my view, come out of this at all well, and the only person who seems to have had the children's welfare at heart in Social Services was Tony Le Sueur, whose work to try and secure a UK placement was dismissed in a manner that seems almost out of hand.

While this does not form the original grounds for the action being taken today, it almost certainly contributed to further delays in a proper placement, which must surely be taken into account today.

The History of the Matter

On 27th March 2009, the case was heard of The X Children (by their Guardian ad litem Advocate Timothy Hanson) and The Minister for Health and Social Services, who was Senator Jim Perchard. This was the history of events which was unfolded before the Court.

On 2nd October 2008 a meeting took place between Ms Jemma Waugh, a social worker who had recently taken over responsibility for the family, Mr Butterfield and Dr Bryn Williams, Consultant Clinical Psychologist, to discuss placement options for the X Children. The unanimous view of the group was that each child required a highly specialised therapeutic package of residential care that was not currently available in Jersey.

Although it is clear that the brakes were applied to the planning activities of the professional team in early November 2008, it is not easy to ascertain how or by whom that deceleration was directed. It seems that on 5th November 2008 the Head of the Children’s Service, Mr Anthony Le Sueur, was notified by e-mail from the Finance Director of the H&SS Department that:-

“the level of funding to place these children into a UK placement as is being proposed is not available”.

The Finance Director warned that the Department must live within the resources allocated to it, or risk breaching the Public Finances (Jersey) Law 2005.

On 7th November a meeting took place at which the Minister, then Senator Shenton, was informed that the money for the placements could not be found from within existing resources, but that the Department supported the move threatened by Mr Hanson to seek a Judicial Review of the decision not to provide resources for the placements. The minute records that the Minister was concerned that the court might have power to instruct an action that would lead to a major departmental overspend.

Efforts were subsequently made by Mr Hanson to meet the Minister in order to discuss the difficulties. On 13th November an application for Judicial Review was filed with the Bailiff’s Chambers. On 17th November Senator Shenton agreed to a meeting which was scheduled for the following day. A full note was prepared for him by Mr Hanson’s office. On 18th November the Minister cancelled the meeting.

On 20th November Mr Anthony Le Sueur filed a statement in the proceedings before the Family Division. Mr Le Sueur explained that, if the Children’s Service did not have sufficient funds available in their budget for particular placements (as was the case here) he would make a submission to the Health and Social Services Placement Panel. His submission would be accompanied by a business case. The Placement Panel, if minded to support it, would refer the submission on to the senior management team (“SMT”) consisting of the Chief Executive, Deputy Chief Executive, Executive Directors and Directorate Managers. If the decision was favourable, the Minister would be informed, and he would request the Treasury and Resources Minister to lodge a proposal before the States seeking additional funding.

It is important to note that the professional team (i.e. those working for and within the Children’s Service) remained convinced that the best and only suitable placements for the X Children lay outside the Island. A business case in support of that aim was developed and was to be considered by the Placement Panel on 15th December.

The Assistant Legal Adviser replied immediately to state that neither the Guardian nor his legal advisers were invited to attend the meeting of the Placement Panel. The opportunity given was only to make written representations. Mr Hanson’s firm protested, but to no avail

The meeting of the Placement Panel duly took place. Those present were Mr Richard Jouault (Deputy Chief Executive), Mrs Marnie Baudains (Directorate Manager for Social Services), Mr Ian Dyer (Directorate Manager for Mental Health Services), Dr Richard Lane (Medical Director), Ms Rose Naylor (Director of Nursing Governance), Mr John Cox (Service Manager, Adult Services), and Ms Sarah Purgal (Deputy Finance Director). Mr Anthony Le Sueur, Manager of the Childrens Service, made his presentation.

The recommendation of the business plan presented by Mr Le Sueur was that the only option able to meet the needs of the X Children within a reasonable time scale was that involving placements outside the Island.

“After deliberation, and giving due regard to the needs of each individual child, the views expressed by professionals including the Guardian, the risks imposed by both alternatives, and the costs involved IT WAS RESOLVED that the Panel would make a recommendation to SMT that local provision be established for the 3 eldest children, it being determined that this is the most sustainable long term solution. “

On 16th December 2008 the SMT of twelve senior departmental officials convened under the chairmanship of Mr Pollard, Chief Executive. Mr Jouault, who had chaired the meeting of the Placement Panel on 15th December was amongst those present. The opening part of the minutes record:-

“The background of the case was summarised and the consideration of the most appropriate placement of the 3 older children from this family along with the outcome of the Placement Panel Meeting of 15th December 2008. One option recommended by the Guardian ad Litem, is the placement of each child for therapy in UK specialist centres.

This option would cost approximately £750,000 per annum, which, if paid for by HSSD, would represent a significant overspend for the Department. MP pointed that this would be an illegal action. The Royal Court has requested that HSSD agree an appropriately funded care plan for each child by Friday 19th December 2008. Failure to produce a plan which is acceptable to the court may lead to a Judicial Review.”

The meeting discussed the issues for thirty minutes (according to the minutes) and agreed with the conclusions of the Placement Panel.

Later the same day, 16th December 2008, the newly appointed Minister of Health and Social Services, Senator Perchard received a briefing from Mr Jouault on the outcome of the meeting of the Placement Panel which had been endorsed by the SMT. In the light of his impending departure from the Island on holiday, the Minister delegated his powers to make a final decision to Mr Pollard, the Chief Executive.

On 19th December Mr Pollard considered the whole matter in the exercise of the powers delegated by the Minister. His initial consideration involved a reading of the Ministers brief which included the relevant provisions of the Children Law, a letter from Mr Robert Tucker, an independent social work consultant dated 31st March 2008, the report of Dr Silver dated 6th June 2008, the report of Mr Butterfield dated 22nd July 2008, and the report of Ms Carol Milnes, chartered educational psychologist dated 3rd July 2008, together with other documents placed before the Placement Panel on 15th December.

 Mr Pollard met with a number of officials during the morning and then retired to read or to re-read the report of the Guardian. Later that day the meeting reconvened, and Mr Pollard made his decision. The decision summary records the reasons for the decision as being:-

“After due consideration of all information and opinion outlined in the report and in particular the submission of the Guardian ad Litem, the Chief Officer supports the opinion that the development and provision of local services as recommended by the Placement Panel at its meeting of the 15th December 2008, is in the best long term interests of the family”.

The initial application by Mr Hanson was made on 25th November 2008 to the Bailiff sitting in Chambers. Notice of the application was given to the Minister. After an inter partes hearing the Bailiff adjourned the application to 23rd December 2008 on the ground that he was not satisfied that there had been a decision which was amendable to judicial review. He indicated that the Minister should make a definitive decision no later than 19th December 2008 in default of which he would be likely to assume that funding for placements in the United Kingdom had been refused, and proceed accordingly.

The Minister did make a definitive decision on 19th December refusing to approve the specialist residential placements for the children.

Court Case:

Mr Hanson submitted that the Minister, acting through Mr Pollard, had acted unfairly by excluding the Guardian and his legal adviser from the meeting on 19th December 2008 at which the decision was ultimately taken. Mr Pollard gave evidence that he did not want to be lobbied by the Guardian; he was prepared to take, and did take, the written representations of the Guardian into account but he was not willing to offer an oral hearing. He had many such difficult decisions to take, and it was not practical, in effect, to contemplate an oral quasi-judicial hearing on every such occasion.

If the court were being asked to determine whether or not the Guardian should have been permitted to attend the meeting of the Placement Panel on 15th December 2008, we should have been inclined to the view that he should. The Guardian is appointed to protect the interests of the children and the Minister has a duty under Article 19 to give due consideration to the Guardian’s views. The notice of a few hours given to the Guardian to make written representations was impossibly short and wholly inadequate.

There seems to be no good reason why the Guardian and his legal adviser should not have been permitted to articulate their views to the Panel as they considered the different available options. Indeed Mr Pollard told us that if the matter had been brought to his attention, he would have over-ruled objections from the Panel and permitted the Guardian to attend. We think that Mr Pollard was entirely right to make that concession.

This element of the Minister’s actions in relation to the decision making process did trouble us greatly. The Department was considering, in the context of how best to deal with the problems of the X Children, wider issues of child protection policy following a report dated June 2008 prepared by Mr William Andrew Williamson. A plan has been drawn up (“the Williamson Implementation Plan”) to implement a number of the report’s recommendations. A degree of unnecessary secrecy seems to have enveloped this plan, certainly prior to the decision of 19th December 2008. The minutes of the SMT meeting early on 19th December record:-

“MP [Mr Pollard] asked whether any of the professionals who had been asked to submit comment regarding the case were aware of the detail of the Williamson Implementation Plan particularly with regard to recommendations 7 and 8. It was confirmed that only the Minister, very senior members of the H&SS and independent experts such as Professor June Thoburn and Andrew Williamson himself had seen the report to date”.

Mr Pollard was cross examined as to why he had not taken greater note of the views of Dr Silver and the other professionals. He replied that he was “aware of a number of significant investments that were likely to be made in Children’s Services... The Andrew Williamson recommendations, which were known to me but were not known to either Dr Silver or to the professionals that you mentioned at the time. Those were pieces of important information that were kept very close to myself and a number of other very senior [officials]”.

We appreciate that the evolving plan to implement the Williamson Report constituted confidential information which it would not have been helpful to place in the public domain at that time. We see no reason, however, why the information could not have been shared in confidence with the Guardian and his legal adviser. It was important to the decision-making process in relation to which the guardian should have been permitted to contribute informed views. We considered whether we should strike down the decision of 19th December 2008 on this basis but have concluded on balance that it would not be in the interests of the X Children to do so for all the reasons that follow.

However, as we shall see, this was not the end of the matter, and Advocate Hanson was not minded to let the matter rest.

The Outcast

The Outcast

Having a gay character in a TV show is one way of dealing with the prejudices that surround society, but it is not the only way.

A Star Trek Next Generation Episode I have been watching recently – “The Outcast” looks at issues of sexuality and being considered an outcast in a very different way. By doing this, it gets under the radar of inherent cultural prejudices and hidden biases which most people have in some form or another.

The Enterprise comes to the assistance of the Genai, a race that has no gender, to help retrieve the crew of a shuttle that went missing in a mysterious void of "null space."

The Genai once had male and female sexes but have evolved into asexual beings with some kind of external insemination used to propagate the species – “Our foetuses are incubated in fibrous husks, which the parents inseminate “

But occasionally there are some Genai who identify with one gender or the other and are considered throwbacks, evolutionary sports. These identifications are forbidden and those individuals are subject to a psychological "treatment" that eradicates those "abnormal" feelings.

Here is Soren, one of the Genai, explaining how they have evolved into a genderless society and the difficulty in finding personal pronouns to use.

Soren:. My parents were pilots. I was flying with them before I could walk. And as soon as I was old enough, I entered flight school. Krite was my instructor.

Riker: He had a good student.

Soren: He? Commander, there are no he's or she's in a species without gender.

Riker: Okay. For two days I've been trying to construct sentences without personal pronouns. Now I give up. What should I use? It? To us, that's rude.

Soren: We use a pronoun which is neutral. I do not think there is really a translation.

Riker: Then I'll just have to muddle through. So forgive me if a stray he or she slips by, okay?

And in some later exchanges, they discuss the notion of gender:

Soren: We are puzzling to you, aren't we?

Riker: A little. It's hard to grasp the idea of no gender.

Soren: It's just as hard for us to understand the strange division in your species. Males and females. You are male. Tell me about males. What is it that makes you different from females?

Gender is offensive to the Genai, it is considered an aberration.

Soren: The idea of gender. It is offensive to my people. You see, long ago we had two sexes, as you do. But we evolved into a higher form. I don't mean to sound insulting, but on my planet we have been taught that gender is primitive.

Riker: Primitive?

Soren: Less evolved.

Soren and Riker are attracted to each other, but Soren has to tell Riker how people of their race who take up a gender are considered outcasts.

Soren: Commander, I'd like to tell you something. Something that's not easy to say.

Riker: What's that?

Soren: I find you attractive. I'm taking a terrible risk telling you that. It means revealing something to you, something that, if it were known on my planet, would be very dangerous for me. Occasionally, among my people, there are a few who are born different, who are throwbacks from the era when we all had gender. Some have strong inclinations to maleness, and some have urges to be female. I am one of the latter.

Riker: I have to admit I had a feeling you were different.

Soren: I was hoping you would. But in front of Krite and the others, I must be careful not to reveal myself.

Riker: Why?

Soren: On our world these feelings are forbidden. Those who are discovered are shamed and ridiculed, and only by undergoing psychotectic therapy and having all elements of gender eliminated can they become accepted into society again. Those of us who have these urges live secret and guarded lives. We seek each other out, always hiding, always terrified of being discovered.

A later exchange goes into greater depth about “psychotectic treatment” which is in Genoi society, seen as a “cure” for gender:

Soren: I remember when I was very young, before I knew what I was, there was a rumour in my school that one of the students preferred a gender, in that case, male. The children started making fun of him, and every day they were more cruel They could tell he was afraid and somehow that seemed to encourage them. One morning in class, he appeared, bleeding and in ripped clothes. He said he had fallen down. And of course the school authorities found out and took him away, and gave him psychotectic treatments. When he came back, he stood in front of the whole school and told us how happy he was now that he had been cured. After that, I realised how dangerous it was to be different. And once I got older, and knew what I was, I was terrified. I have had to live with that fear ever since.

Riker: Do you have relationships with others?

Soren: Yes, with those who have discovered they are male. I have had to live a life of pretence and lies, but with you I can be honest. Please, don't say anything. Just think about it.

Soren’s relationship with Riker is discovered after they are observed kissing, and Soren is put on trial. This is the impassioned speech made at the trial and it is wonderful.

Soren: I am tired of lies. I am female. I was born that way. I have had those feelings, those longings, all of my life. It is not unnatural. I am not sick because I feel this way. I do not need to be helped. I do not need to be cured. What I need, and what all of those who are like me need, is your understanding and your compassion. We have not injured you in any way. And yet, we are scorned and attacked. And all because we are different. What we do is no different from what you do. We talk and laugh. We complain about work and we wonder about growing old. We talk about our families, and we worry about the future. And we cry with each other when things seem hopeless. All of the loving things that you do with each other, that is what we do. And for that we are called misfits and deviants and criminals. What right do you have to punish us? What right do you have to change us? What makes you think you can dictate how people love each other?

Unfortunately it falls on deaf ears, and Noor, the judge, sees this as sickness speaking, which needs to be cured.

Noor: I congratulate you, Soren. Your decision to admit your perversion makes it much more likely that we can help you.

Riker: Wait, wait, wait. You don't have to do this.

Noor: Commander?

Riker: Let me take her with me. She can go back to the Enterprise. We would give her asylum. You would never have to see her again. That would solve the problem, wouldn't it? You'd be rid of her. She would never be able to influence anyone again.

Noor: Commander, after Soren's diatribe, you must think that we are a cruel, repressive people. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Riker: I'm just trying to find a solution that would satisfy everyone.

Noor: We are concerned about our citizens. We take our obligations to them seriously. Soren is sick, and sick people want to get well.

Riker: Did it occur to you that she might like to stay the way she is?

Noor: You don't understand. We have a very high success rate in treating deviants like this. And without exception, they become happier people after their treatment, and grateful that we care enough to cure them. You see, Commander, on this world, everyone wants to be normal.

Riker: She is.

"The Outcast" is, on one level, a treatise about how horrifying it is when a culture decides a certain portion of its population is "sick" and takes steps to punish them for being outside the norm.

Specifically, it's about how the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered are often badly treated by the so-called mainstream, viewed as unhealthy abberations that are "sick" and need to be "cured" through psychological conditioning.

Sadly there are still those who regard members of the LGBT community as somehow disordered, and who should, as in some countries be imprisoned or killed, or just as bad in some ways, “cured” of their affliction.

There is no happy ending for Riker. By the time he returns with a rescue party, Soren has been “cured”. It is perhaps a reflection of how there are not always happy endings, and the struggle for acceptance and tolerance is something that still needs to continue, as long as there is intolerance and a desire to stamp out that which is seen as threatening.

Grenfell Lamentations

My poem today is a lament, mourning those who lost their lives in the Grenfell Tower fire just over a year ago.

Grenfell Lamentations

O weep, weep in sorrow song
Mourn the dead in candlelight
Cladding blazing up to height
Fire burning fierce and long

Money saving, ever so wrong
Cladding turning into blight
O weep, weep in sorrow song
Mourn the dead in candlelight

Burning, burning, all day long
Dying, trapped, a dreadful plight
No escape, no means of flight
Falling, falling, down headlong
O weep, weep in sorrow song

Jersey Airport - Part 1

My history blog today comes from the 1980 edition of Aircraft Illustrated.

British Isles 'Airports: No 10: Jersey
by David H. Kirkman
(Flightlines International)

IT WOULD appear inconsistent to the casual observer that a small island could have the third busiest airport in the British Isles in terms of aircraft air transport movements. But Jersey is. to say the very least, somewhat unique in the general structure of the United Kingdom, and it is this individuality that results in the importance of its airport.

The Channel Islands, with the three major islands of Jersey, Guernsey and Alderney, represent the southernmost extremity of the British Isles. Jersey has discrete and particular laws - occasioning fiscal advantages in personal and corporate residence, and an extremely agreeable climate: both well suited to the weary Briton. It is probably the latter factor which first directed the inhabitants towards the possibilities of air transport as a rapid means of facilitating an increasing tourist industry, and realising new markets for a thriving horticultural business borne out of the early seasons. Today the mainland enjoys the harvest of early tomatoes, new potatoes and cut flowers air freighted from Jersey.

The efforts to open air facilities to the Island, however, did not meet with universal approval. As is often the case, local resistance to any form of technological progress held up the development of air traffic and it was not until 18 December 1933 that a company registered as 'Jersey Airways Ltd' was able to commence a scheduled service from Jersey to the mainland.

Nevertheless, this first operation was not conducted on true terra firma; the 'airfield' being a stretch of tidal beach situated between West Park and First Tower in St Aubin's Bay. The service, operated to Portsmouth using a DH94 Dragon Rapide was highly dependent upon suitable weather and tides.

The same in part is true today - Jersey is known for its fogs or 'sea frets'. With a pilot and seven passengers, trade in the early days was brisk but a far cry to the annual 1 .5 million or so passengers using the airport today.

Despite the scoffing of many of the locals, albeit very understandable considering the operational conditions, the daily beach service thrived. Passenger handling could be likened to the nightmarish - if it wasn't the tide or the wind, it would be the rain. All passenger processing and documentation was conducted in the open in a true pioneer spirit but the outcome was an upsurge in interest towards air travel and better things were to come, with a remarkably high degree of punctuality and reliability.

It was obvious therefore that the strip on the sands had to be moved inshore. Almost at once, in the same year as the inaugural service, the Jersey Chamber of Commerce completed their preliminary investigation and made recommendations for a variety of airfield sites throughout the island. With the aid of a number of notable aviation experts from the UK, the present site - some 5 miles north-west of St Helier off the A 12 Beaumont to St Peters road - was declared `most suitable'. The controlling authority for the beach strip was the Piers and Harbours Committee and this same body was authorised by the States of Jersey to continue with the aerodrome administration on the new land site.

So it has remained to the present, though with a subtle name change to the Harbours and Airports Committee.

The culmination of this activity came on 10 March 1937 when the `States of Jersey Airport' commenced regular operations. Many facilities were provided including a terminal building with a control tower, waiting room, passenger handling areas, a restaurant, and a customs area. The tower itself was equipped with the most up to date communications available including an Adcock D/F system; and with the incorporation of powerful floodlights to illuminate the entire landing area plus boundary and obstruction lighting, the airport was claimed as being 'the most completely equipped of any in the British Isles apart from Croydon'.

Jersey Airways rapidly became established, operating DH86 Express aircraft. By April 1937 the first newspapers had been airfreighted into the island and airmail services commenced two months later. Initially, routes to London, Southampton and Exeter were introduced, but in the ensuing two years several more were added including Dinard and Shoreham, and air traffic became a regular feature of the transport pattern within the Channel Islands.

But the prospect of more immediate development was interrupted by the outbreak of World War 2: military aviation began to replace the civil operations and by February 1940 a Fleet Air Arm training squadron had moved in with Fairey Swordfish torpedo bombers and Albacores.

The outlook for Jersey, far removed from the UK mainland, was perilous and indeed it was not long before the Channel Islands fell to German Occupation on 30 June- 1 July 1940.

States Employment Board and the Police Chief

Below is a letter published by the JEP last night by Senator Kristina Moore. I’m putting it here because it puts the record straight, and that may be lost in the pages of the JEP, which not everyone may read anyway.

The following points I think are important to note:

States Employment Board and the Police Chief

Kristina Moore had no say in the employment and retirement arrangements of the former Chief Officer of Police – these were the result of decisions taken by the States Employment Board chaired by former Senator Andrew Green.

It was the same SEB which also commissioned an independent consultants report at the cost of £3,321 on Rod Bryans when there was already a paid Commissioner of Standards tasked with carrying out that kind of investigation. The other members of the board at that time were Treasury Minister Alan Maclean, St Mary Constable Juliette Gallichan and St Martin Constable Michel Le Troquer and Housing Minister Anne Pryke.

The States Complaints Board said in a recent report that the termination of eye surgeon’s Dr Alwitry's contract by the SEB was 'one of the worst examples' of a public authority 'disregarding' contract law.

Clearly the SEB had acted in a fashion which on occasions seems to have been cavalier and almost like a petty fiefdom. But as the letter notes quite correctly – these were not Kristina Moore’s decisions to make, and unfortunately none of the members of the SEB remains in the States to be called to account for their actions.

Personal Attacks

“I think it is unfortunate that I am also having to respond to personal comments or observations that involve my family”

A lot of what goes on with Social Media is related to discussion and argument, and perhaps also opinions on Ministers. There is a certain degree of flack which public office will always attract. I myself have seen a change from arguments on political matters to trading insults in political forums online.

But I regard it as beyond the pale for this to extend to a politicians family, and I hope that highlighting this part of the letter that moderators may keep a tighter grip on groups they administer, and those who make these kind of attacks may be shamed into reconsidering their actions. They may not – there are thick-skinned people out there who removed from face to face encounters can lose any moral compass in the way they behave. But where families of politicians are concerned, there is the crossing of a line, and that kind of harassment should be called out.

There is one other mention of a conflict of interest in the public domain. Ben Shenton wrote:

"She is married to a practising lawyer, as openly disclosed during her election campaign, and the interaction between a lawyer and elements of the Homes Affairs portfolio can be immense. To be clear, I’m not making any accusations, as there are none to make. These are just observations based on my experience of public perception. I am also acutely aware that not everyone shares this view regarding her perceived conflict of interest"

This is tackled at the end of her letter. While he is just pointing out perceived conflicts of interest - did he ever make such a mention of Frank Walker and the Guiton Group when he was Health Minister? - the manner in which he does so suggests some kind of collusion. It's not as blatant as the kind of remarks made by Sir Joseph Donaldson Cantley, but there are elements of that.


Role of Home Affairs Minister in police and fire chiefs' retirements
A letter from Senator Kristina Moore.

I wish to provide some clarification on recent comments regarding the retirement of the former chief officer of police and other matters relating to the Home Affairs portfolio.

The terms and conditions of employment for the chief of police do not fall within the remit of the Minister for Home Affairs - these are a responsibility of the States Employment Board. Accordingly, the former chief of police communicated his decision to retire through the States Employment Board.

When I was informed of the former chief's intention to retire, and the arrangements that had been made for his notice period, I had a duty as the minister to ensure the force could continue to operate effectively. This included the maintenance of a robust command structure. I therefore made the necessary interim appointments in July 2017, the details of which were published via ministerial decisions at the time.

All financial implications were resultant from the arrangements agreed between the former chief and the States Employment Board, with which I did not have any involvement. The former chief’s full retirement took effect from the end of October 2017 and he has not received a salary since that date.

In announcing his retirement, the former chief stated that, having reached normal retirement age and the 20th anniversary of his appointment as a chief officer, he was the longest-serving chief in the British Isles and felt that e had met all the goals and challenges he had set on his appointment in 2011.

Comment has also been made regarding the retirement of the chief officer of the Fire and Rescue Service. The current chief has retired and has publicly set out his reasons for this decision. It is a very straightforward matter. The chief has led the Jersey Fire and Rescue Service superbly since 2007, also undertaking the role of Emergency Planning Officer since 2015.

There is an excellent succession plan in place at the Fire and Rescue Service indeed it was stipulated in the contract of the current chief that he must train a successor. The current deputy chief has been in the role for ten years and is perfectly capable of ensuring a seamless transition can take place until a permanent recruitment process is undertaken.

While I am more than content to correct misguided and somewhat ill-informed speculation regarding developments within my current ministerial remit, and am happy to be challenged on policy, I think it is unfortunate that I am also having to respond to personal comments or observations that involve my family. The public can be assured that, throughout my time as Minister for Home Affairs, I have been conscious of occasions where I potentially face a conflict of interest and have undertaken my ministerial duties accordingly.

On the rare occasions where there may have been a conflict of interests or a perceived conflict of interests, the Assistant Minister has taken any necessary decisions.

May I take this opportunity to again warmly thank the 15,292 people who voted for me on 16 May. I am most grateful for their support and looking forward to representing them to the best of my ability.

The Little Figures that aren’t there.

The Little Figures that aren’t there.

103 FM reports

A £2,500 deposit has been put down on the £80,000 Sir Max Aitken III, which is coming over from Great Yarmouth. Chairman of the charity Ben Shenton says it will be months before it can be used in rescues though

“We’ve done quite a lot of work on the boat. When it arrives it will have a new radio and will have had a full going over. But there is still a lot of work to do. We have got to make sure everything is absolutely ship-shape. When it arrives in Jersey it will be taken out of the water for the work to be done.”

The JLA hopes its new vessel will be operational before the end of the year.

The JEP reported

Mr Shenton added that it would be months before the vessel was fully certified for search and rescue operations. And he said that the organisation still needed to buy insurance and crew equipment.

‘It is not just a case of buying a vessel and away you go. We need to have health-and-safety certificates, rescue codes, a training regime and a list of procedures, which can take a massive amount of time,’ he said.

‘Then there is the boat. We need to prove that it is being maintained regularly, our equipment is sufficient, our radio equipment is up to standard – it is just everything you can think of.’ 

In fact it arrived Tuesday night.

Good luck to the JLA with their new venture. If I may be casting a slightly critical eye, it is just that I would like a bit more information,

For instance, there have been fund raising drives, fund raising events, but where are we with the fund raising to date?

There have been a lot of fund raising events, but very few reports on funds raised. I’ve gleaned two from Facebook but surely funds raised should be a news item on the JLA website too.

“Our Float our Boat lunch raised over £1,400 today towards the JLA funds - Thanks to all who attended and thanks also to all who attended the Bingo evening at St Peter's Community Centre last night which raised over £800.”

“Thanks, to Pub Manager Trevor Curtis, all the staff, and customers at the Wellington Pub, St Saviours Road for raising the amazing amount of £2,200 and to Connétable Sadie Le Sueur-Rennard - for coming along to support us as she has done all the way along on our journey.”

But there have been other events, and no mention of funds raised to date.

When St Aubin on the Hill Church was raising money for new toilets, they put up on the railings outside the church a “fund raising thermometer”. This is a helpful way to keep everybody motivated towards a common goal. Instead of saying ‘we have another £70,000 to raise before we can purchase the boat, a picture not only speak a thousand words, but makes us all motivated to make sure that red line is filled all the way to the top!

But what we don’t know is how far the fund raising towards the £80,000 has gone.

So how have they got the boat coming to Jersey? It is not, I would guess, usual business practice to have an asset used by another party unless they pay the full amount? The only options I can see are (1) a phased payment scheme (2) some kind of loan either bank or private. Or will it be simply the case that it will still be owned by the current owner, but just kept in Jersey until they can pay for it.

Do they actually own the boat yet? If so, how are they paying for it?

And of the extra costs – insurance, crew equipment, annual maintenance – how much are they? Have they a budget?

The UK Charity Commission's guidelines are that a responsible charity (such as the RNLI) has to have enough in the bank to ensure that if all fundraising stopped today they could keep running our crucial service for between 6-12 months. This is prudent. Will the JLA aim towards the same, and if so, how much would they need when their service is up and running to keep going for six months? Do we have any figures yet, even estimates? As there are other independent lifeboat stations, they could probably advise on those costs.

Going back to the St Aubin on the Hill Church Toilets, at every stage the total cost was given, including cost of wheelchair access to the church at the same time, and the funds raised to date were noted on a "thermometer".

I would like to see a fund raising “thermometer” on the JLA website so everyone can see how much has been raised, and how much is still needed.

I have no problem with the JLA having an independent boat, but I would like some better transparency with regard to their finance costs. At the moment, there are too many figures that are missing. There's a lot of good people fundraising for them. Let's have their contribution appreciated.

Postscript:

They are paying for the boat in phased payments

John Baker, Fundraising Manager, The Jersey Lifeboat Association, told me:

"We have plans to put a fundraising thermometer on the web page and also some exciting plans to extend our membership program. A lot of our plans are based on actually getting the Max Aitken III and the crew and backup facilities into service. Considering we first started the JLA charity in February this year I think we have done pretty well, in fact, we have raised over £30,000 so far but now we have the boat we think that donors will be happier to donate to our cause now that they can see something substantial happening. I think to get the boat over here in less than 4 months is quite an achievement for a group of unpaid volunteers"

"We have in fact made a number of substantial payments on the boat but we do need to raise more substantial funds initially not only to complete the purchase but also to fit out the crew and to put more up to date equipment on the boat ."

Propositions Coming Up – Part 1

Propositions Coming Up – Part 1 

Propositions coming up may be new ones, as that lodged by Jeremy Macon, or one proposed by former members who are no longer members of the present assembly, or by members by virtue of their office (as Ministers) who may no longer hold that office.

According to the Greffier, if brought by a member who is no longer a member of the States, they will have fallen away. If, however, they were brought by a former Minister who may or may not be a member of the States, the new incumbent of that office can propose them, or propose them with amendments, or withdraw them, or withdraw and reissue in a different form more preferable to the Minister and new Council of Ministers.

The really weird scenario would where a proposition was lodged by a former Minister who is now part or head of a Scrutiny panel tasked with examining that legislation. Presumably in that case the Scrutiny member would recuse themselves. However that hasn’t happened yet.

All this is unlike the UK and many other jurisdictions, where propositions not brought before parliament is dissolved just fall away as out of time.

It is also interesting to note that many propositions state:

“Collective responsibility under Standing Order 21(3A): The Council of Ministers has a single policy position on this proposition, and as such, all Ministers, and the Assistant Minister for Home Affairs, are bound by the principle of collective responsibility to support the proposition”

But of course, they are no longer bound in that way, having given up Collective responsibility!

Here is a list of propositions, many of which were brought by Ministers who are no longer in office or in the States, and my notes on whether they will remain.

Propositions in June – Part 1

Proposition: La Route de St. Aubin: installation of Pedestrian Crossings and reduction of speed limit Reference: P.68/2018
Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier

Proposition: La Route de St. Aubin: installation of Pedestrian Crossings and reduction of speed limit (P.68/2018) – comments Reference: P.68/2018(Com)
by the Minister for Infrastructure

“The normal process for the new crossings would be to carry out a review of the proposal, and then any recommended engineering interventions would be included in the Autumn 2018 budget prioritisation process, to potentially be included in the 2019 programme. This ensures that both staff resources and funding are available at the right time to deliver schemes, which can often take more than a year to develop, consult, review and implement.”

“There is currently no staff resource or funding available to implement the 4 new crossings. Staff resource is available to review the request and include any engineering interventions in the Autumn prioritisation; this prioritisation process will then allocate appropriate funding and staff resources for implementation in a future year. As stated above, any decision to fast-track these crossings and construct them in 2018 could impact on current schemes to a greater value than the cost of the 4 new crossings.”

“Funding and staff resources are available to work with the Parish of St. Helier to review speed limits in the remainder of the Parish, including La Route de St. Aubin, and implement any changes by the end of 2019 at the latest.”

My Notes: Proposition brought by Eddie Noel to delay it because it would fast-track ahead of other planned and budgeted work. That is unlikely to have changed, so most probably Kevin Lewis will follow the stance of his predecessor.

Proposition: Draft Explosives (Amendment) (Jersey) Law 201- Reference: P.38/2018 by the Minister for Home Affairs

“...improved and more robust Regulations for fireworks should be established, under the primary Law, in order to exercise control over their type, amount, storage, transport and use, similar to arrangements already in existence elsewhere in the British Isles.”

My Notes: Nothing controversial there. Very likely that Len Norman will bring in Kristina Moore’s proposition.

Proposition: Draft Armed Forces (Offences and Jurisdiction) (Jersey) Law 2017 (Appointed Day) Act 201- Reference: P.39/2018 by the Minister for Home Affairs

“Subject to the agreement of the Assembly, it is proposed that the Regulations come into force, and the Law is brought into force by this Appointed Day Act, on 30th June 2018, which Members will note is Armed Forces Day”

My Notes: Appointed day acts simply bring in legislation that has already been voted in. It is highly unlikely that it would be the subject of debate, although that has happened at least twice before. In this case, there is nothing controversial. Len Norman will bring in Kristina Moore’s proposition.

Proposition: Draft Armed Forces (Vehicles and Roads – Amendments) (Jersey) Regulations 201- Reference: P.40/2018 by the Minister for Home Affairs

Proposition: Draft Armed Forces (Vehicles and Roads – Amendments) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.40/2018): comments Reference: P.40/2018(Com)
by the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel - supporting

My Notes: Nothing controversial there. Len Norman will bring in Kristina Moore’s proposition.

Proposition: Draft Access to Justice (Jersey) Law 201- Reference: P.50/2018 by the Chief Minister

“improve access to justice by establishing, for the first time, a legislative basis for legal aid in Jersey”

My Notes: I can’t see that John Le Fondre would reject Ian Gorst’s proposition, so it is likely he will propose it.

Proposition: Draft International Co-operation (Protection from Liability) (Jersey) Law 201- Reference: P.54/2018 by the Chief Minister

”protect public authorities in Jersey against claims for costs, damages or consequential losses when acting in matters of international assistance”

My Notes: I can’t see that John Le Fondre would reject Ian Gorst’s proposition, so it is likely he will propose it.

Proposition: Draft The Law Society of Jersey (Amendment No. 4) Law 2017 (Appointed Day) Act 201- Reference: P.58/2018 by the Chief Minister

My Notes: Appointed day acts simply bring in legislation that has already been voted in. It is highly unlikely that it would be the subject of debate.

Proposition: Draft Companies (Demerger) (Jersey) Regulations 201- Reference: P.59/2018 by the Chief Minister

My Notes: I can’t see that John Le Fondre would reject Ian Gorst’s proposition, so it is likely he will propose it.

Proposition: Ratification of the Agreement and Exchange of Letters for the Exchange of Information Relating to Tax Matters between the Government of Jersey and the Kingdom of Spain Reference: P.60/2018 by the Minister for External Relations

My Notes: I can’t see that Ian Gorst would reject Sir Philip Bailhache’s proposition, so it is likely he will propose it.

Proposition: Pedestrian Crossing outside La Moye School: petition Reference: P.61/2018 by Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade

“to request the Minister for Infrastructure to take the steps necessary to ensure that a pedestrian crossing is installed outside the entrance to La Moye School before 1st September 2018.”

Proposition: Pedestrian Crossing outside La Moye School: petition (P.61/2018): amendment Reference: P.61/2018(Amd)
by the Minister for Infrastructure

“For the words “1st September 2018”, substitute the words “1st September 2019”.”

“La Moye School has an effective crossing patrol, and there is no road safety evidence that could justify promoting this project ahead of those crossings already planned for 2018; such as, for example, the Longueville Road, the pedestrian refuge on Route du Fort, or outside the Janvrin Road Nursery School, in favour of this project.”

My Notes: Proposition brought by Eddie Noel to delay it because it would fast-track ahead of other planned and budgeted work. That is unlikely to have changed, so most probably Kevin Lewis will follow the stance of his predecessor.

Assistant Ministers: In Their Own Words

I’d like to try and explain how the role of Assistant Minister works on my blog to the general public especially as new Assistant Ministers will shortly be selected.

I was hoping to do this before the election but time ran out. This was the question I sent out:

What do Assistant Ministers do? How much to they get to have a say in policy and confer with their Minister? Is it purely a top down delegated job, or is there any opportunity for feedback and shaping policy? Do Ministers ever listen to suggestions coming up from Assistant Ministers? Do Assistant Ministers have any say on the area of delegated responsibility, and are they restricted to that once in place, unable to comment on other areas under the Ministerial umbrella?

Perhaps you could enlighten me from your experience, and I could enlighten the public. It seems to be a very dark area, where AM’s have clearly some delegated responsibility, but presumably on implementing policy, not shaping policy. And how you think the system could be improved.

This was sent to:

Deputy Tracy Valois
Deputy Richard Rondel
Constable Deidre Mezbourian
Deputy Scott Wickenden
Deputy Graham Truscott
Constable Steve Pallett

All replied and my thanks to all for taking time and trouble, especially while campaigning for re-election, and for agreeing to share their replies on my blog.

Reply to Questions
by Deputy Tracy Valois

An assistant minister role is very much a grey area within the political arena.  It is very dependent on the minister and department and has no real clearly defined role.  Deputy Judy Martin brought a proposition to the states a while ago for the chief ministers to carry out work on this area and produce a new way or working, unfortunately by the end of the term the most we got out of machinery of government changes was giving more power to the chief minister and the chief executive officer.

Assistant ministers will usually be invited to ministerial meetings, sometimes to the council of ministers (depending on subject being discussed), some have delegated responsibility others have none.  I’m not sure whether ministers listen to their assistant ministers as they’re all tucked away behind closed doors in each of their departments.  From my experience, I was listened to but the minister never followed through on some of the big issues that I suggested change for.

There is no automatic right to attend the same meetings as your minister and sometimes the department itself will not invite you.

Although collective responsibility was usually used as a tool to make excuses the purpose of it was to ensure proper debate was had before a proposition was taken to the states assembly.  It was rather disorganised and mismanaged.  From what I saw, I would say it depended on who you were and how much you were liked by the minister.  Some ministers supported and worked closely with their assistant ministers, some just let them get on with things and then offer no support at crunch time.

Because it was all behind closed doors it was much harder to push policies, so it was more enlightening going back to scrutiny because it is a more open and transparent process.

In terms of improving the system, I would suggest that a hybrid system has to be formed where there is a board type system that works it’s the ministers and provides cross functioning roles for board members.  Scrutiny of legislation would have to be in place, possibly shared on a rota basis and without any conflict of interest.  More items being discussed in an a agenda rather than just b at the council of ministers and a better understanding of how green and white papers are supposed to work.

Reply to Questions
by Richard Rondel

My own view is that Assistant Minister is an important role especially with a large portfolio like infrastructure. There is the opportunity for delegated responsibly and you receive all the information as per the Minister. Also should the Minister be away or ill the role falls to the Assistant Minister. With a large portfolio I believe that two people can assist each other and give their own views and opinions.

The Minister has the final say in decisions but the question as to whether a Minister will listen to his Assistant Minister depends very much on the individual and the personality of the Minister. Everyone is different!

Reply to Questions:
by Deidre Mezbourian

My understanding is that the only thing an Assistant Minister is not able to do is to take an Order to the States.

My own experience is that AMs step up as and when necessary (sickness/absence from Island), making any decisions that the Minister may have been required to make/attending/chairing meetings etc).

The approach at Home Affairs with Kristina and myself has been to hold weekly meetings to consider all aspects of HA matters (we do not have operational responsibility for front line services), and to hold regular meetings with the Heads of Service pertaining to our specific areas of responsibility.

I have delegated responsibility for Jersey Fire and Rescue, Jersey Customs and Immigration and the Office of the Superintendent Registrar; any ministerial decisions needed in those areas have been made by me.

We have worked closely together on all matters of policy, considering matters in all areas of Home Affairs (Police, Prison, Jersey Field Squadron and my own areas).

Collective responsibility has meant that I have had to support propositions taken to the States by the Minister; I have always made it clear that if I did not agree with something she was taking, I would not support it. Had that meant my resignation, then I would not have hesitated. Working closely and well together, it never came to that.

Of course, it is down to the Ministers and their AMs to decide how they want to manage things but I expect that with the recently agreed changes, things will be different moving forward

I hope that goes some way to answering your questions.

Reply to Questions
by Scott Wickenden

As you know in June 2016 Ian Gorst asked me to take on ministerial responsibility for the eGovernment programme as he was concerned about how the programme was being run and with my background working in the Tech industry for over 15 years, I was uniquely skilled in the assembly to oversee the programme.

It was a very unique assistant minister role as I was to oversee a budgeted programme of work not a department/service as is the usual.

As far as your questions, I believe that each assistant minister will have a different experience depending on the person who is their minister.

I was very lucky to report in the Ian Gorst, I was invited to weekly meetings to get updates from myself and discuss propositions and questions in the upcoming states assembly.

Ian would also invite me to many meetings so I could better learn what was involved in his role as Chief Minister.

I was fortunate to be given an open invite to attend any of the weekly Council of Minister meetings, I was able to attend the meetings and could give my input in to the discussions however of course I would not have a vote.

I hope this helps.

Reply to Questions
by Graham Truscott

Assistant Ministers support Ministers across the whole of Government and take an active part in policy decisions. In some areas, Assistant Ministers also hold delegated responsibility for a specific operational area. For example, as Assistant Minister for Social Security, I have had specific oversight of the Back to Work function and policy development over the last 3 1/2 years.

Assistant Ministers play a valuable role in helping to shape new policies and provide feedback on existing policies. Most departments have a weekly ministerial meeting attended by both the Minister and the Assistant Minister(s). This is an opportunity for the whole ministerial team to discuss the development of new policies with senior departmental officers and to exchange views and provide feedback on any current issues. Assistant Ministers also attend the Council of Ministers meetings when major departmental issues are being discussed and attend and take an active role in formal Scrutiny Panel hearings.

Under the current rules, ministerial collective responsibility extends to Assistant Minsters in respect of areas of direct departmental responsibility. However, Assistant Ministers are not bound by collective responsibility in other government areas.

Reply to Questions
by Steve Pallett

The role of an Assistant Minister will be different from department to department depending on the level of delegation given to the respective Assistant Ministers .I can only really talk about my own experiences which cover all degrees of involvement from an AM point of view.

Starting with my role as AM at the Environment Department.I have no delegated functions at the department with the Minister Deputy Steve Luce having control in all areas of the department.The decision not to delegate any functions was one that was taken jointly and based on the level of commitment I had within the Parish of St. Brelade and both the Education and Economic Development departments at the time.

I have had the opportunity to discuss and provide feedback into all policy decisions and have made my thoughts known to the Minister when I felt necessary.I did not wish to take on any delegated responsibility in Environment although the Minster had made it clear to me early on that he would have been happy to delegate areas that I had an interest in should I have indicated a willingness to commit further time to the department.I have been fully involved in Ministerial meetings and have on a couple of occasions made decisions on planning applications that had been subject to a Public Inquiry.

During two spells as AM at the Education Department I have played a full role in Ministerial meetings and been delegated various responsibilities by the Minister. More recently I was given delegated responsibility for Primary Schools and have in the past been responsible for chairing appeals for various areas including schools admissions and Higher Education.I was involved in all policy making decisions and contributed where I felt that an issue needed highlighting.I did not request any delegated function,any given were as a result of a discussion between myself and the Minister.I felt I was a full part of the Ministerial team and that my views were taken seriously

My role as AM at Economic Develoement, Tourism,Sport and Culture was my main role within government and the one that took up the bulk of my time outside of my parish commitments.As am,I had delegated responsibility for Sport ,the RNLI Lifeguards and Liquor Licensing ,all areas that allowed me to set and deliver policy .In regards to the Sports Division,I had a substantial budget running into millions along with a vast portfolio of property that made up sports provision in the island.With delegated responsibility for Sport I had the opportunity to represent Jersey both at the home Island Games

Within my role in Sport I have set policy such as implementing the new independent body for sport in jersey, ‘Jersey Sport ‘ and have been able to set new policy direction for Sport Facilty provision and many other internal policies that have looked to improve efficiency and services within the department.I have done this working closely with the other members of the Ministerial team but have had the necessary responsibility to get things done.

With the RNLI Lifeguards I have had delegated responsibility to both oversee and renew the contract for a service that improves year on year.There has been a huge financial commitment made by the RNLI to lifeguard services in the island over recent years that I am pleased to have been a part of.

With delegated responsibility for liquor licensing matters I have overseen the development of a new Liquor Licensing Law that included the lodging of the law.I was heavily involved in its development and laws - deeply disappointed when I had to withdraw the law due to failures in process that run it out of time.Nevertheless as an AM I was given the necessary responsibility and resources to develop a fully workable new law.

I have had ample opportunity to both shape and implement policy within EDTSC and moving forward under Ministerial government would encourage future Ministers to give more delegated responsibility to their AM’s to both widen accountability and inclusivity and make more use of the specific skills of some members .

Every Minister will have a different view if how his Ministerial team should operate but Ministers should not just pay lip service to their AM’s as this will alienate certain members unnecessarily which has been a complaint from some AM’s in the past.I do not wish to go back to the committee style of government but more members should be involved in important policy making decisions and not just a select few that sit on the Council of Ministers.There does though have to be clear rules to when Scrutiny becomes involved in new draft policy or legislation .Too early and Scrutiny can be seen to be setting policy but too late and it will not have the opportunity to contribute or influence poorly constructed policy or legislation.

I do though believe Minsterial government can and does work if Minsterial teams work collaboratively

Kind Regards Steve

Faith of Our Fathers – Part 5

The local historian G.R. Balleine was also a clergyman, and in 1940, at the outbreak of the Second World War, he penned a series of 52 lessons around the Apostle’s Creed. Balleine being first a foremost a historian, there’s a lot of history there that I’ve never come across before, and I have studied church history quite a lot.

He’s also master of the pithy anecdote or illustration to bring something to life, which is why Frank Falle says the original history, flowing freely, is a better book to read that its more worthy revisions. Joan Stevens was a fair historian, but she could not write nearly as well as Balleine, who has an almost intimate chatty style.

Hi ideas of the druids don't really stand up to modern study though. The druids were accused of human sacrifice, but no sources have child sacrifice. Of course, like most ancient peoples, they would have had animal sacrifice.

Ronald Hutton's study can be seen summarised here:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/5323383/Blood-and-Mistletoe-The-History-of-the-Druids-in-Britain-By-Ronald-Hutton-review.html.

I’m hoping to put some or all of Balleine's book online on Sundays.

Faith of Our Fathers – Part 5: I believe in God.
By GR Balleine

GETTING TO KNOW GOD

I believe in God.

PASSAGE TO BE READ Acts xvii. 16-34.

TEXT TO BE LEARNT " Now set your heart and your soul to seek the Lord your God " (1 Chron. xxix. 19).

Aim: To make the class realize the need of getting rid of false ideas of God.

HYMNS : " As pants the hart," and " And now the wants are told."

APPARATUS : View of Stonehenge. Pictures of Sacrifice of Isaac and St. Paul at Athens.

HOMEWORK: Make a list of false ideas that men have held about God.

THOUGHT FOR TEACHERS : The value of a religion depends on the truth and sufficiency of its idea of God.-W. P. Paterson.

PREHISTORIC RELIGION.

(a) Last week we saw the importance of Belief in God. This was no late development. Men began very early to believe in a God. About the time when Abraham was building altars in Palestine, thousands of round-headed dark-haired savages were busy on Salisbury Plain dragging immense blocks of stone on wooden rollers. These were the Builders of Stonehenge. Why such enormous toil ? They were erecting a Temple to their God, a Temple so magnificent that its ruins remain to the present day. (Show postcard.)

(b) But Stonehenge is quite a modern sanctuary. We can visit a Temple at least ten thousand years older than Stonehenge or Abraham. At .Niaux in the south of France there is a hole in a mountain-side looking like a large rat-hole. If we crawl through, we find ourselves in a narrow winding tunnel, leading more than half a mile into the heart of the mountain. This ends at last in a vast cavern, the walls of which are covered with paintings of human hands. Hundreds of prehistoric savages have groped their way through the awe-inspiring darkness, and by the light of a moss wick in the grease of a hollowed pebble have traced their hands on the walls of their sacred cave, as they registered a vow to their God.

(c) As soon as we find man upon earth, we find traces of a belief in God ; but it took a long time to get to know God properly. It is so with our knowledge of one another. As soon as we meet a man, we believe in his existence. But we know very little about him. Probably some of our first impressions prove to be utterly mistaken. Gradually we get to understand him better. At last we become friends. It was just like this with man's beliefs about God. All sorts of false impressions had to be outgrown.

HOW MANY GODS?

(a) The-first false impression that man formed was that there were many Gods. He heard thunder, and he said, " There is a God in the sky." He watched the tides, and he said, " There is a God in the sea." He saw corn grow, and he said, " There is a God in the earth." And so he began to worship dozens of different Gods.

When Moses was a boy, the Egyptians round him worshipped more than a thousand Gods, a God of the Nile, a God of the Desert, and a God of the Sea, a God of the Sun, a God of the Moon, and a God of Darkness, a God of Growth, a God of Death, and a God of Time. Every thing that happened had its own God. And this is still the belief of half mankind. The Japanese Government lately took a census of the shrines in Japan, and found that the number of Gods worshipped was 190,436.

(b) The Jews were the nation that taught the world better. Moses led them out of Egypt, the land of a thousand Gods, into the Wilderness to the awful solitude of Sinai. While the thunder rolled round the mountain peak, he taught them to believe in the One Great God, Jehovah, Whom he had learnt to know in his exile. He pledged them to worship Jehovah and no other. " Thou shalt have none other Gods but Me."

(c) But for centuries they were slow to grasp that the other gods were nothing. While worshipping Jehovah, they had a sneaking feeling that Baal, God of the Canaanites and Chemosh, God of Moab, were real Gods too, who might make themselves unpleasant.

(Some teachers may like to remember three technical words : Polytheism is believing in many gods. Monolatry is believing that other gods exist, but worshipping only one. Monotheism is believing in and worshipping one Only God. For centuries the religion of the average Israelite was Monolatry not Monotheism.)

It was the Prophets who taught Israel that there was no other God but Jehovah. How scornfully Elijah mocked at Baal ! " Either he is talking, or out hunting, or on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep, and must be awaked " (1 Kings xviii. 27). The Prophets taught that Jehovah was not merely God of Israel, but God of the whole earth, God of the stars and sun. "I am the Lord and there is none else " (Isa. xlv. 6). It was those Jewish Prophets who taught us to say, " I believe in God," not " Gods." The Nicene Creed begins emphatically, " I believe in One God."

(d) This is a very great and steadying belief. The Universe is not all at sixes and sevens with a dozen different spiritual forces pulling different ways. One Mind and one Will is working its purpose out. There is only one Captain on this vessel, and everything is under His control. -

WHAT KIND OF GOD ?

(a) Men made another mistake. Because God was so great, they thought He must be very stern and exacting. They thought that, if they were to win His help, they must surrender to Him what they loved best. Hence arose everywhere the horrible practice of human sacrifice.

Before the Greeks sailed for Troy, Agamemnon their leader sacrificed his daughter Iphigenia to win the favour of the Gods. Mesha, King of Moab, when besieged by the Israelites, " took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt offering upon the wall " (2 Kings iii. 7).

Among the Druids in ancient Britain the same idea is found : the best way to make friends with God is to sacrifice one's child !

(b) Even the early Israelites were not free from this horrible idea. Remember the sacrifice of Isaac. Abraham had come from Ur of the Chaldees, and the Chaldeans practised human sacrifice. He sprang from a heathen family (Jos. xxiv. 2), and may have witnessed human sacrifices in his own home. He came to Canaan, where human sacrifices were very common. One day he felt that his religion ought to cost him more ; that he ought to make as big a sacrifice as his heathen neighbours ; that God was expecting him to surrender his son.

(He must have been mistaken. If human sacrifice is wrong to-day, it can never have been right in the eyes of Him Who is the same yesterday, to-day and for ever. Even as a test a God of Righteousness could never have commanded a sin.)

He cut wood for the burnt offering. He took the boy into a lonely mountain. He built an altar with large stones. He laid the wood upon it. He was just going to kill the child ; when suddenly there flashed across his mind a strong conviction which he knew to be the Voice of God : "Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou anything to him." He had made a great religious discovery. Human sacrifice was not the will of God.

(c) Here again it was the Prophets who broke down this widespread notion. " Shall I give my first-born for my transgression ? " asked Micah (vi. 7) ; and he replied, " God hath shown thee, O man, what is good, and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God." We cannot please God by bloodshed. We please Him by being good.

WAITING FOR A FULLER REVELATION.

(a) Thus step by step, as ages passed, men got to know God better. First one and then another barbarous and ignorant idea about Him was outgrown. But the Old Testament writers all felt that they did not know enough. The Book of Job is one of the latest in the Old Testament, yet Job complained : " Oh, that I knew where I might find Him ! Behold, I go forward, but He is not there, and backward, but I cannot perceive Him " (xxiii. 3, 8). One of the greatest Old Testament prophets complained, " Verily Thou art a God that hidest Thyself " (Isa. xlv. 15). A fuller and completer revelation was needed than any the Old Testament could offer.

(b) So in the fullness of time God sent His Son to make Him known to man. This brings us to the second clause of our Creed which we shall begin to study next week. For the moment let us remember that when a Christian says " I believe in God," he means, " I believe in God as Jesus Christ revealed Him." When a Christian missionary, like St. Paul at Athens, found that the heathen  themselves confessed that they were puzzled about God, and dedicated an altar " To the Unknown God," he was able to assert : "Whom ye ignorantly worship, Him declare I unto you." (Read and explain Passage.) We can know God far better than any heathen or Jew. Let us use our opportunities. (All repeat Text.)

Primeval

This form ABBAABBA CDCCDC is an Italian Sonnet, one I had not tried before, so I thought I'd experiment. 

The subject of the poem came out as I was writing it, and it seems to belong to something dark, almost mythological, from ancestral race memory, hence the title. It is in two parts, but both are a journey of the mind to "the dark places of the inside".

Primeval

Gather darkness, here the night

Deep within the limestone cave

Under the earth, in this enclave

Flickers the tallow, palest light

And on the walls, I paint a sight

With ochres, charcoal I engrave

Hunt, and death, and early grave

Home the hunter from the fight

A wave is breaking on the shore

I climb the rocky crags of pain

Seeking opening, find the door

Come back where I was before

Now I feel my strength to wane

But I break free, amidst the rain

Jersey Our Island: Sentiment and Smells – Part 2

Published in 1950, this is an interesting snapshot of the Island and its customs as it was in the immediate post-war period, and not without humour. Most guide books of the time give the tourist information, or give the impressions of an outsider to the Island, but this is in "inside view", which is rarer.

Jersey Our Island: Sentiment and Smells – Part 2By Sidney Bisson

Instead of renewing my acquaintance with the devil I went off in search of what the maps and guide books term Les Mouriers Waterfall. Now you would think that a waterfall would be a local `beauty spot,' a place for picnics and pilgrimages. Yet I have never come across anyone in Jersey who has seen it. Not even Godfrey. I asked him the reason for its unpopularity. Was it haunted? Or inaccessible? Or just not worth seeing?

His eyes seemed to twinkle more mischievously than usual as he smiled his pitying smile at my ignorance.

`It's not that,' he said with a shake of the head. `It's the smell. You can't get to within half a mile of it without a respirator.'

More than that he refused to say, bolstering his obstinacy with the old adage about remembering something better if you found out for yourself.

I've come across stagnant waters that smelt, though not quite half a mile away. A stinking waterfall was something new. I simply had to go and find it, trusting that a damp handkerchief would serve the office of a respirator if the smell got really bad.

My search started promisingly. A winding road brought me into a valley, down which a bridle path meandered between slopes carpeted with gorse and bracken. Below the path a brook gurgled merrily. There was no smell except the indescribable scent of lush vegetation. I began to wonder if Godfrey had been pulling my leg.

Then as I approached the last bend something assailed not my nose but my ears. I stopped and listened. It was not the sound of the sea breaking against the rocks. Nor of a waterfall tumbling into the sea. There was no mistaking the rhythmic chugging. It must come from some kind of engine.

I saw what it was as soon as I rounded the bend. A dam has been built to collect the waters of the brook, and the noise came from a pumping station that pushes them back to the top of the hill. It spoils a valley which I found charming by the very simplicity of its scenery, but I am told it is a necessity. The original collecting grounds in the southern valleys have not been able to cope with a rising demand for water, so the Waterworks Company has had to seek its waters further afield. And of course it has destroyed the waterfall that once tumbled into the sea over a perpendicular granite cliff. Today there is a mere trickle, which you can hear rather than see.

The smell? A great heap of whitened bones outside a ruined building near the pumping station gave the answer. Before the war this was a knacker's yard, and you cannot obtain by-products from dead horses without considerably polluting the atmosphere. It is a pity that the waterfall has disappeared now that you can approach it without fear of asphyxiation. But it was pleasant to sit awhile on the thrift-covered rocks and listen to the rumble of the sea.

The upper part of Le Mourier Valley reminded me irresistibly of a scene from one of Balzac's novels of country life. The quiet sunny slopes dotted with age-old cottages; the velvet-eyed cows in tiny meadows munching the lush grass; old, old women in black sun-bonnets tending their little plots; a pair of lustreless eyes in a bearded face, peering over the hedge to see what stranger dared to intrude on this life of a hundred years ago. I felt sadly out of place in sports jacket and flannels. A swallow- tailed coat and pegtop trousers would have been more appropriate to a scene that has changed as little in a century as the song of the brook that waters it.

What a place to spend the evening of one's life. Only ... when one has been spoilt by a multitude of switches, hot and cold taps and lavatory chains, could one bear the prospect of lamps that have to be cleaned and filled each day, water that must be drawn from the well, and an earth closet that has to . . . Enough. There is no sentiment without smells. Far better sweep every- thing away and fill the valley with hideous bungalows, pull up the trees and plant electric pylons, bury the brook in the bowels of a modern sewer.

I shook myself and went on to look for something new the grand-sounding North Marine Drive, which was built to provide work for the workless during the German occupation. When I first heard of this road that had been driven for three-quarters of a mile along the wild north coast, I shuddered at the sacrilege. Cliffs demand footpaths on which to scramble, not roads for speeding motorists. I was prepared never to visit that part of the island again.

I am glad that my curiosity overcame my loathing. Either by glorious accident or a triumph of design, the new road fits snugly into its surroundings. And even if it does tempt a char-a-banc or two on a summer's afternoon, it has opened up a series of breath- taking vistas to those whom age or ill-health debars from scrambling. I publicly take back all the hard words I have privately uttered against those who planned it.

John Le Fondré's Team: A Review

An interesting combination and probably some compromises along the way.

External Relations

External relations is playing to strength, with Ian Gorst easily the most capable candidate, and also the one who has already built relationships with MPs and Mandarins in Whitehall. It was notable that when I was delivering leaflets for Ian, I did get a lot of resistance to his getting in and being re-elected Chief Minister, but when I said it was more likely he would end up with External Relations, I actually swayed some of the more hard line doubters.

Possible Challengers: None
Previous Experience: Social Security Minister, Chief Minister
Result: Elected Unapposed.

Treasury

I have heard it rumoured that part of the deal for Ian Gorst to be External Relations was for Susie Pinel to be nominated for Treasury and Resources.

Susie certainly has shown an ability to prioritise budgets while at Social Security, indeed one of the criticisms leveied at her during the last election was prioritising budgets over people! But in a department like Treasury, this will not be such a conflict.

Interestingly, she said in an election Q&A: “SoJDC has a very competent and cohesive Board of Trustees and should be permitted the commercial freedom to act as a business in a competitive fashion.” It will be interesting to see how she gets on with John Le Fondré, who has had several run-ins with SoJDC as a Chair of Scrutiny about lack of transparency and the kind of “sweeteners” offered to developments.

This move is not without precedent. Terry Le Sueur was at Social Security before making the move to Treasury. And she must have some experience of managing difficult budgets and making hard decisions. Treasury is not always popular, and if Alan Maclean is to be believed, taxes may have to rise – funny how he said that after he decided not to stand, and kept on about a buoyant economy before!

Will we see more stealth taxes, which John Le Fondré did not like, or a more radical change to the main system of taxation, with a higher base rate instead? Will GST increase as an offset against reducing the retail tax to 10%? Difficult decisions ahead, and while I don’t always agree with her decisions at Social Security, making difficult decisions, as the late Don Filleuil told me, is what government is about.

Possible Challengers: None
Previous Experience: Social Security Assistant Minister, Social Security Minister
Result: Elected Unapposed.

Education

Tracey Valois was where promised by both sides. Always thorough and competent, one of the main planks of her election campaign was to address the population problem by identifying skills shortages and addressing that via the education system. I think she’ll do a good job.

Possible Challengers: Rob Ward
Previous Experience: Assistant Minister, Education, Sport and Culture

Health and Social Services

Sarah Ferguson is the only States member to have created an organisation chart for Health and Social Services, entirely on her own, when she was informed that they didn’t have one! Always thorough she is also someone who will not be content with the status quo, although what happens with the hospital site remains to be seen.

That is the biggest challenge, but the day to day demands of health are also important. Will she move for a health charge? Both she and John le Fondré have opposed this kind of stealth tax so it will be interesting to see if being in charge will change matters.

Possible Challengers: Potential, but no clear candidates. Perhaps Richard Renouf
Previous Experience: Scrutiny
Result: Defeated by Richard Renouf, 27 to 21.

Social Security

Judy Martin has criticised Social Security and a proposition of hers gave under 16s with severe disabilities their “care component” back through Social Security. This debate lead to an overall strategy for people with a disability in Jersey. I think she will be more like Francis Le Gresley as a Minister than Susie Pinel in having a more visibly people centred approach.

Previous Experience: Assistant Minister for Health and Social Services
Possible Challengers: Geoff Southern
Result: Elected Unapposed.

Infrastructure

Kevin Lewis was also not a surprise. He was annoyed to be taken off as Minister for what was then TTS and is now Infrastructure, and was a firm Le Fondré supporter. As someone with experience of the role, he is an ideal candidate. When he was last there, he continued the good work began by Mike Jackson.

At that time, however, Property Holdings was not in the remit of the Department so this is something new for him to get to grips with, especially with its involvement with the Les Quennevais School site, and possible compulsory purchase, and the Hospital site plans. Any proposed waste charge is still on the table, but John Le Fondré has stated he doesn’t like these piecemeal stealth tax add-ons so it may be dropped.

Previous Experience: Minister for TTS (before the rebranding)
Possible Challengers: None
Actual Challengers: Steve Pallett (breaking news)
Result: Deputy Kevin Lewis has been elected as the new Infrastructure Minister, defeating challenger Senator Steve Pallett by 25 votes to 23.

Economic Development

Lyndon Farnham has stayed in position, although it is now a much smaller department as most of the tourism functions have been hived off to Visit Jersey and Events Jersey, and Jersey Sport has taken most of the sporting functions. Culture and some economic development remain. 

Will culture now receive more attention? Recent news has shown a sorry neglect by politicians, so will Lyndon step up to the mark? The Innovation Fund could also be relaunched, but along the lines suggested by Tony Moretta  of Digital Jersey (a consummate professional who unfortunately was not there when it was first set up)

Question to ponder: was part of the deal of keeping his seat taking on Monty Tadier as Assistant Minister for Culture?

Previous Experience: Economic Development Minister
Possible Challengers: Steve Pallett, especially regarding sports and healthy lifestyles. Montfort Tadier regarding culture.
Result: Elected Unapposed.

Environment

John Young is an ideal candidate. Despite John Henwood’s comments that he is too close to members of the Department, it is around 17 years since he was Chief Officer at Planning and while he knows about how the Department works from the inside, there will be no conflict with former senior colleagues because they will have left by now. John has made some strong criticisms of Planning decisions under Steve Luce's leadership, so expect some changes, particularly with regard to ugly shoreline development.

Previous Experience, Chief Officer at Planning, Planning Officer for States of Alderney
Possible Challengers: Steve Luce
Deputy John Young is the new Environment Minister, defeating Deputy Steve Luce by 24 votes to 23, with 1 abstention.

Housing

Sam Mezec inherits a rump of a Department, clinging onto life originally so there was somewhere to place Ann Pryke when Andrew Green got Health in place of her. The civil servants all became part of Andium, and it has civil servant support as required on an ad hoc basis from the Chief Minister. The Children’s Minister forthcoming is the real deal here. In the meantime, there is a seat at the Council of Ministers table.

Previous Experience: None
Possible Challengers: None (who wants a rump of a Department!)
Result: Elected Unapposed.

Home Affairs

Taken from Kristina Moore, and given to Len Norman. Supremely capable and confident and thorough, and responsible for forging ahead with eGov initiatives on registering to vote and streaming States sessions, there is no doubt that Len would be able to do the job.

Previous Experience: Assistant Minister Treasury, President of PPC, President of the Harbours and Airport Committee, and Vice-President of the Special Committee on the Composition and Election of the States, a past president of the Social Security, Harbours and Airport, Housing, and Education Committees.
Possible Challengers: Kristina Moore (late news, she has just said she will not challenge for this role)
Result: Elected Unapposed.

Conclusion:

Roy Le Hérissier, as a “political commentator” on the BBC, said there was a lack of experience in the new line up. He is mistaken. In fact, apart from Sam Mezec and Sarah Ferguson, every one proposed has experience either as a Minister or Assistant Minister or as a Chief Officer (John Young) and has some inside knowledge of how departments work.

When I began this, I didn’t think the team was that strong, but having looked at it in more depth, I think it is probably more experienced in terms of Ministerial Government than it looked at first sight.

The interesting thing now will be the challengers!