Savile-- Skeletons in the cupboard

It is a year ago that Jimmy Savile died but it is only recently that his evil deeds have emerged. It is interesting reading the comments from people who are currently holding senior positions in establishments where Savile worked such as at the BBC. In summary I quote some of the comments attributed to Lord Patten, Chairman of the BBC Trust who said;

“The filth piles up. As the Savile story continues to unfold, threatening and destroying reputations, three issues particularly trouble me. Above all else, I think of the victims of abuse – women and men – marooned for decades with terrible memories of physical and mental torment which, even when they had the courage to report them, no one apparently believed. Not the police. Not the newspapers. Not the BBC.

Did some turn a blind eye to criminality? Did some prefer not to follow up their suspicions because of this criminal’s popularity and place in the schedules? Were reports of criminality put aside or buried? Even those of us who were not there at the time are inheritors of the shame.”

Powerful stuff and one gets the feeling that he is trying to ensure that “no stone will be left unturned.” To this end the BBC Trust has established its own independent investigations which will run in parallel with the Police. Its purpose is to establish whether senior executives leaned on people to drop certain programmes and were false reports published to justify certain actions. BBC’s culture and practices will also be examined along with its child protection and whistle blowing polices.

Lord Patten has promised that the independent inquiries will not be a smokescreen behind which the BBC can hide. He added “They must and will get to the truth of what happened. The BBC must tell the truth and face up to the truth about itself, however terrible.”

Somehow the comments above are on pretty similar lines with those uttered in Jersey in 2008. By coincidence it is also a year ago that Verita published its Report along with proposals for and recommendations about commissioning a Committee of Inquiry into Jersey’s historical child abuse.

It should be noted that the Report only came about because on March 2nd last year following a 5 hour debate the States, by 37 votes to 11, with 1 abstention approved P19/2011 as amended. For the benefit of those who not acquainted with the reasons why Verita and more recently the Andrew Williamson Report have been published I will go back to March 2008. It was then when not only Jersey but the world became aware of the allegations of abuse to children in care in our “States run Institutions” with Haut de La Garenne in particular becoming the focus of world attention.

Like Lord Patten, the Chief Minister at that time Senator Walker, called for the truth to be exposed, no stone would be left unturned and no expense spared when seeking to achieve that goal. Quite understandably there were calls for an investigation or inquiry to run in parallel with the police to establish how such abuse could occur within the States’ run institutions. Unlike the BBC Trust, it was decided not to hold an independent investigation but the Chief Minister made a promise on 28th March 2008 to hold an inquiry if answers to 6 particular questions published in R27/2008 remained unanswered at the conclusion of the Police investigation.

When the police investigation got underway in March 2008 a whole catalogue of mishaps occurred along the way, including the unsavoury suspension of the Police Chief Officer and the dismissal of the former Health Minister which are well documented.

In December 2010 the Police announced that its investigation had ended however it was evident that there are still many unanswered questions. Although well over 150 individuals came forward alleging crimes against them, only 4 people have been prosecuted and no one in any capacity for the oversight of the children’s well being has been brought to task. Now that Jimmy Savile’s evil deeds have come to notice, what secrets are hidden in Jersey?

On 6th December 2010 a few days after the police announcement the Chief Minister of the day, Senator Le Sueur made an official apology and acknowledged that the care system that operated historically in the Island had failed some children in States’ residential care in a serious way.

In February 2011 the Council of Ministers published R8/2011 in which it set out the Council’s position in relation to a Committee of Inquiry into the historical child abuse. In simple terms it was of the view that nothing would be served by an inquiry, a line should be drawn and everyone should get on with their lives as if nothing had happened because lessons had been learnt.

There were a number of people including some States Members who like me were dissatisfied with the Council of Ministers conclusions. Soon afterwards Senator Le Gresley lodged P19/2011 which sought Members' support to request the Council of Ministers to reconsider its decision not to hold a Committee of Inquiry. Whilst I thought it was a commendable gesture, I felt it was a win, win proposition for the Council of Ministers. If Members voted against the proposition that would be the end of the matter. If they voted in favour and no matter how well supported, the Council of Ministers only had to consider its original decision but with no obligation to establish a Committee of Inquiry.

To enable Members to have the opportunity of a full debate and to consider the promise made by Senator Walker in March 2008 I lodged an amendment which asked members to consider whether they were content that the 6 questions posed in R27/2008 had been answered. If they were not then the questions should be considered by a Committee of Inquiry. Deputy Tadier added an amendment asking whether there was a consistent and impartial approach taken when deciding on which cases to prosecute; and was the process free from political influence or interference at any level?

When it came to voting on all 7 amendments, Deputy Tadier’s and 3 of mine were approved. Very importantly when it came to vote on Senator Le Gresley’s amended proposition, as mentioned above it was approved by 37 votes to 11.

It should be noted that among the 11 members who voted against the proposition were Senators Ozouf, Le Marquand and Maclean and Deputies Duhamel, Pryke and Gorst all are now current Ministers and I believe are obligated to carry out the wishes of the States. In the words of Lord Patten even though they were not there at the time they are the inheritors of the shame. That shame extends to each and every States Member for a promise made is a promise to be kept.

Following the States' decision, in September the Council of Ministers commissioned Verita to seek the views of interested parties about the purpose, manner and conduct of a Committee of Inquiry. Its report was submitted to the former Council of Ministers in November last year. Verita's report appears to tick all the boxes, it has been welcomed by the Care Leavers and other interested bodies. Unfortunately the Council of Ministers then commissioned Andrew Williamson to comment on Verita's Report which has not only caused further delay but was deemed by many to be a waste of money and an attempt to water down Verita's Recommendations.

It is now some 20 months since P19/2011 as amended was approved so why the procrastination, who are States Members protecting? Are there skeletons in the cupboards? Can't Members like Lord Patten "think of the victims of abuse – women and men – marooned for decades with terrible memories of physical and mental torment which, even when they had the courage to report them, no one apparently believed?" Don't our States Members have any feelings for those men and woman?

Chief Minister Gorst has stated that he wants to be sure that he gets it right and is shortly to lodge a proposition,. So far like his two predecessors he has failed to display the leadership expected of him. However he now has an opportunity to reclaim a few Brownie points by lodging a proposition in line with Verita's proposals. He must also produce a time line to ensure that the Committee of Inquiry is up and running by March next year.

Like the BBC our States must do its utmost to regain the public's trust and respect, justice delayed is justice denied. The promises made in March 2008 and the apology given in December 2010 are meaningless unless a full and open Committee of Inquiry is established without further delay. Again like the BBC the States must tell the truth and face up to the truth about itself, however terrible.

Paedophiles like Jimmy Savile only exist because people choose to turn a blind eye and in my book they are as guilty as the perpetrators and they too should be exposed and taken to task. I also believe that if States Members fail to establish a transparent Committee of Inquiry then they too are like the perpetrators.

Curtis Warren----More Questions Than Answers

My last week’s Blog on the Curtis Warren case (below) has certainly aroused interest and although not many Comments were submitted one in particular led me to look up the Court Judgements and a couple in particular are worth looking at.

As one can see in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council’s Press Summary which I referred to in last week’s Blog, the UK Court was very critical of the Police’s role in the events leading to the arrest. The Press Summary makes reference to  [2008] JRC 050). (AG v Warren and others) which is the Ruling issued on 20th March 2008 on an application for a stay of proceedings on the grounds of abuse of process?

On reading both reports it becomes apparent that there were a number of questions asked and advice sought before the police operation actually got underway. It would seem that the best intentions of the Jersey police officers were being frustrated by red tape and/or lack of co-operation from other agencies. The clock was ticking away and swift action was required however should one lie or withhold the truth to justify arresting someone? Did the ends justify the means? Red tape is often in place for a purpose; some times that red tape is actually a law which is intended to prevent abuse.

One thing certain is that as a result of one group of people breaking the law it led to another group of people, a team of traffickers hell bent on breaking another law, that of importing around one million pounds worth of drugs to Jersey being foiled, arrested and convicted.

It may well be that it is in the public’s interest that the convictions should stand. However was it a Pyrrhic victory? In the Jersey Royal Court’s Judgement there is a quotation from Lord Bridge who said “no principle is more basic to any proper system of law than the maintenance of the rule of law.” That is a powerful quotation which should be to the forefront of all those tasked with the maintenance of the rule of law, that includes Crown Officers.

It is to the role of the Crown Officers in the case that is worth a second glance.When reading the Judge’s comments on role played by Crown Advocate Jowitt a senior member of the Law Officer’s Department I had difficulty understanding his logic. The Judge found him to to be an honest witness and deemed him to be an Advocate of integrity. It appears that the Judge based his claim on the premise that he gave evidence before him for some considerable time was subjected to rigorous cross-examination.

However in the next paragraph the Judge states that the advice the Advocate gave to the Police Officers with hind sight may have been more carefully and felicitously expressed and he should have considered and researched the law more carefully than he did. However as the Judge considered the Advocate to be honest and well intentioned, he acquitted the Advocate of any impropriety or criminality or of acting recklessly or in disregard of the law.

That’s all very well but the Judge was not so generous with remarks about the Police Officers for whom I hold no brief but it does take two to tango and it is apparent that there are three versions of the truth, that of the police, the Advocate and the actual truth which is probably somewhere in between.

The Advocate must have known what the Officers were trying to achieve and were seeking advice not from someone at the Citizen’s Advice Bureau (no offence intended) but from a Senior Crown Officer. In my book the advice should have been clear, precise and in writing. As it is we now have the situation where it is the word of one officer against another officer, with the Crown Officer’s word apparently having more weight than the Police Officers even though the advice given was personal and not to be relied on.

The Attorney General does not come out the affair with flying colours either. It is apparent that he mis-led the Dutch authorities in a letter and he also gave them an undertaking not to proceed with the case without their clear consent.

Fortunately for the AG, the Judge also believes him to be a man of integrity, so even if they make the odd mistake or two the Crown Officers are jolly good fellows and no blame should be apportioned to them. But hang on, the Crown Officers are also the people who give consent to prosecute, so how does that square with the Judge? Were the Crown Officer’s mistakes simple or were they intentional? Whatever the answer it will never be convincing and will be further ammunition to those who have called for a separate Crown Prosecution Service.

From the evidence to hand it is pretty obvious that Warren and his team were up to no good and had they succeeded with their plans they would have received a nice pay day and Jersey would have been awash with illegal drugs. So perhaps they deserve to be behind bars. But life is not that simple and one can be sure that Curtis Warren will be spending a great deal of his time and money appealing against his conviction. I understand he is claiming that his Human Rights were violated and it will be interesting to see whether he is successful. Should he succeed he could be in for a nice compensation killing and Jersey’s Police and Crown Officers will be left with all mighty egg on face.

We know that the Hampshire Police have been investigating the police actions and its report is due in the near future. However if we are going to get to the bottom of the affair then the role of the Crown Officers should also be subject to an investigation and the outcome made known to the public.

As one can imagine I shall not be holding my breath as there is little likely hood of any investigation taking place into their role in the affair. However one would hope that the Crown Officers now have a system in place whereby any advice given is accurate and in writing.

Curtis Warren---Rough Justice or Just Desserts?

It was 3 years ago this week that the Jersey Royal Court found “Drug Baron” Curtis Warren and his accomplices guilty of attempting to import drugs into the Island. The trial had taken two years to get to court because of the legal arguments that preceded it. Therefore for the benefit of readers it might be helpful to go back to the beginning of the saga which began in the summer of 2007.

Whatever Curtis Warren’s business dealings were, he was successful, so much so that he appeared on the 1997 Sunday Times Rich List. Although he was described as a property developer it is apparent that he had outside interests and drug trafficking was one of them. However he was not successful at evading the law authorities because by the early summer of 2007 Warren was coming to the end of a prison sentence he was serving in Holland for a drug plot which had been lengthened following a conviction for killing a fellow prisoner during a fight.

However within 5 weeks of being released from prison he was arrested by the Jersey police and accused of being the ringleader of a six-man gang who were trying to import 180kg of cannabis into the island from Holland via boat from France.

He had denied leading a £1 million plot, but in October 2009 after a two week trial a jury found him and his team guilty of conspiracy to import a controlled drug.

One of the key elements which led to the conviction was the claim that the Jersey Police for surveillance purposes, “bugged” a vehicle being used by Warren’s team. It is claimed that the officers’ action were not only unauthorised but they knew it to be. I am pretty sure that the officer’s will have their version of events so no blame should be apportioned at this stage. However it is very apparent that had the vehicle not been “bugged” it is unlikely that it would have been located and the team arrested.

One can understand the officer’s dileama do they “ break the law” to gather information to assist in arresting a team of criminals in the process of committing a serious crime or do they allow the team to get away? No doubt we all have a view but what is pertinent is that arresting someone is only one part of the legal process. There are other bodies with responsibility for determing whether those arrested should be charged and then referred to the court and tried.

It should be noted that Jersey’s own version of a prosecution service gave approval for the matter to be referred to court. (Jersey does not have independent prosecution service) What is pertinent is that body must have been aware of the Police officer’s actions so why was the matter allowed to go to trial?

The Judge also had the opportunity of kicking the case into touch but did not do so and as mentioned above after a two week trial the Jury returned a guilty verdict. Warren and his team received sentences of varying lengths but soon lodged an appeal which took a further 15 months before being heard.

Warren had built his case at London's Supreme Court around the fact that Jersey Police gathered their evidence against him illegally, which meant he could have been released thanks to their errors. However the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the application. In their unanimous judgement the court, led by Lord Dyson, called Jersey Police's actions a "sustained and deliberate act of law breaking".

They said: "The Board stresses its condemnation of the police misconduct in this case. It was a sustained and deliberate act of law breaking."

They added: "The outcome of this appeal should not be seen to condone or overlook such behaviour. It should not be taken by Jersey police as any kind of signal that they can repeat this kind of conduct with impunity".

Such comments seem hypercritical in the extreme because they could have found in favour of Warren who was understandably aggrieved because he felt he was on the receiving end of rough justice. Warren who is not known as “Teflon” for nothing soon set about further appeals.

What is also of interest is that following the 2009 trial the then acting Police Chief, David Warcup was reported to have said "We hope that the conviction of the men sends out a clear message to others that we will continue to tackle those responsible for the importation of drugs into the island.”

Given Mr Warcup (mis) handling of his former boss’s suspension (Graham Power) it is not surprising that he would make such comments because he is very familiar with unauthorised activity.

Following the Judges’ comments the matter was refferred to the Hampshire Police who are apparently investigating the actions taken by the Jersey Police Officers involved with the process leading to Warren’s arrest. The officer responsible for managing the operation was Chief Inspector David Minty.

No doubt Curtis Warren will be hoping that he will have more success when his appeal goes before a higher authority who might not be minded to ignore “a sustained and deliberate act of law breaking."

It is also evident that the Hants Police report will soon be published and given the court’s comments it is apparent that some one will be found wanting and I would put good money that it wont be anyone responsible for the process that followed Warren’s arrest.

Last week it was announced that Chief Inspector Minty was suspended from duty, not apparently for his handling of the Warren case, but for failing a lawful order to attend a meeting being called by the new Police Chief.

In 2008 during the first States debate on Graham Power’s suspension I said the matter had a nasty smell about it. At the time I was not aware of the shenanigans behind Graham Power’s suspension, nor am I conversant with Mr Minty’s suspension but when I think about it I do not smell roses.

I have a feeling that we shall be hearing a lot more about Mr Warren and Mr Minty, so watch this space.

Moving the goal posts-- Literally

Those who have been following my Blogs relating to the application to build a new St Martin’s School on its playing field rather than refurbish/redevelop on its existing site will no doubt be interested in an update.

There appears to be a presumption that building on the playing field is a done deal. Fortunately the Planning Law requires all planning applications to be published and for the public to comment on the application. As mentioned in a previous Blog there were 60 Comments submitted with only two in favour but one of those was submitted via a false name and address.

I have heard, but nothing is confirmed, that the Planning Minister will be considering the application in public next month. Once a date is known I will publish the details via another Blog.

Regular readers will know that for many years the playing field has had two football pitches marked out between the cricket pitch. One pitch is for the Parish football team and the other for the school which because of FA Rules must be a lot smaller than the adult pitch.

Instead of allowing both pitches to be used until the planning decision is known, the Parish football club was given the order of the boot and told to find a pitch elsewhere. The feasibility study carried out in 2009 was quite specific in that it stated that if it was decided to build on the playing field, assistance had to be given to the Parish Club to find an alternative pitch.

One would have assumed that those tasked with that responsibility would have ensured that the Parish team at least played in St Martin, but no, that is not the case. What has been arranged is a temporary ground share in a neighbouring parish which does not have any training facilities.

To overcome the problem the club has been allowed to train on the playing field which has floodlighting. One could say that half a point is better than no points at all, but that is poor compensation for the loss of its home pitch.

A couple of week ends ago whilst on my usual weekend bike ride I happened to pass the playing field and almost fell off when I saw that the adult pitch had been marked out. I thought that a bout of sanity had broken out at the Education Department and that the pitch was being marked so that the Parish club could use the pitch whilst waiting for the planning decision. However when I went on to the pitch I realised that it had been marked out for a junior pitch which is much smaller than the adult pitch.

I did notice that the holes had not been dug to insert the junior sized goal posts. I therefore immediately emailed the Education Minister who also happens to be the Sports Minister and copied the email to his two assistant Ministers and to the Education Chief Officer. I pointed out what I had seen and said that if it had been decided to allow the school to play on the field until the planning decision was known then the parish football team should be allowed to continue using their pitch.

Very importantly I said that as the holes had not been dug to insert the goal posts, whoever was responsible for digging them should be told not do so, but told to mark out both pitches and insert the goal posts in the holes which are already in place.

Unfortunately my email was ignored, the holes have been dug and the goal posts erected. There is now the ludicrous situation where the adults can use the junior pitch to train on but cannot play matches on it as it is too small.

I did ask the Minister if he would tell me who was responsible for deciding to literally move the goal posts as the decision was childish and vindictive. I know that those at the Education Department are not happy that their plans may have been thwarted but they should not have counted their chickens until they are hatched. Neither should they be taking their displeasure out on the Parish Football Club who is not responsible for the planning process.

No doubt those responsible for moving the goal posts and those who have let it happen will be glowing with satisfaction at what they have achieved. However in my book they have acted dishonourably and are not fit to fill the positions they occupy.

Electoral Commission---Old Chestnuts revisited

The closing date for submissions to the Electoral Commission was 31st August and I gather that some 300 submissions were received. The last round of public hearings was held yesterday 10th September where I was one of 7 people who gave evidence. Apart from the Chairman the other 5 Commission members were present when I gave my evidence. There were about half a dozen members of the public in attendance but the hearing could not excite any members of the media to attend.

As one will see from my submission below I believe that whilst the decision relating to change rests in the hands of States Members, any meaningful change will be difficult to achieve. The Commission consists of 3 States Members and even though I have no reason to doubt the integrity of the 3 non States Members there will always be the perception that the Panel is so weighted in favour of retaining the status quo that any change is unlikely.

One point I thought worth raising was the fact that the Commission has an even number of Members and what arrangement is in hand should there be a three way split when votes are taken. Does the Chairman have a casting vote? It was evident that the issue had not been addressed so it will be interesting to see what will happen should the issue arise.

Unfortunately the Commission’s Terms of Reference are very narrow and did not include a question such as: is the current system working, if not why not and what is going to be done about it? Having had 18 years experience it is evident that the States is not functioning in an efficient manner, Ministerial government has created a division in the House.

With the benefit of hindsight and possibly because the States cherry picked the recommendations, the Scrutiny system as envisaged by the Clothier Panel has not worked and will not work because it was designed to be solely manned by non Executive members who are expected to be a “critical friend.” As such it is neither fish nor fowl. The UK’s equivalent of scrutiny is the select committee which comprises of members from all Parties.

Scrutiny has now been in operation for 6 years, it has achieved very little, Panels have rarely lodged propositions or amendment and when they have, they have seldom been successful. As an example when the Home Affairs Panel lodged a proposition to establish a Prison Visitors' Panel because the current system was deemed not to be Human Right compliant, not only did it encounter opposition from the Executive but also from fellow scrutiny members. It is not surprising that enterprising States Members no longer want to waste their time on Scrutiny. However by so doing they become marginalised and deemed to be left wingers. Addressing a divided House should be seen as a priority and to be far more important than revisiting old chestnuts.

However as the old adage goes “we are where we are” and my submission is based on experience and along with other like minded members of the public should not be deemed to be a member of the “vociferous minority” because I have a different view from the author the JEP’s editorial of 3rd September.

As can be seen in my submission apart from now favouring a district system rather than a Parish based system, I have been consistent with my support for the Clothier recommendations. It is hoped that my submission may go some way in persuading the Electoral Commission that the time for change has arrived.

    *******************************************************************
Bob Hill submission
I was the Deputy of St Martin’s from November 1993 to November 2011. I have been an active supporter for change in our Machinery of Government and made a written submission to the Clothier Panel and appeared before it in 1999.

When the debate was held to establish Ministerial Government I regretfully voted in favour. I say regretfully because when I voted I had anticipated that my fellow States Members would have been honourable and would have taken positive steps to lodge and support the remaining Clothier recommendations; however vested interests prevented this from happening.

One reason/excuse given for not proceeding with the remaining recommendations was that it would be best to wait and see how Ministerial Government worked. However I believe the reason was because Clothier was recommending that the role of the Connetables and Senators should end.

In 2004 as no action had been taken to address the remaining Clothier recommendations, I believe I was the first Member to lodge a proposition, P115/2004 asking that the States,

(a) Agree that –

(i) the rôle of Senator in its present form shall be abolished from December 2005;

(ii) the 12 Parish Connétables shall cease to be members of the States by virtue of their office from December 2005;

(iii) the number of members shall be reduced from 53 to 42 with effect from December 2005;

(iv) all members of the States shall be known by the same title, namely ‘Senator’, with effect from December 2005;

(v) the 42 Senators shall, from December 2005, be elected in the following constituencies –

(A) S t. Helier – 12 Senators (4 for each of the present electoral districts);

(B) S t. Saviour – 6 Senators (2 for each of the current electoral districts);

(C) S t. Brelade – 4 Senators;

(D) S t. Clement – 4 Senators;

(E) All other Parishes – 2 Senators each;

(vi) all members of the States and the 12 Parish Connétables shall be elected on a single
General Election Day;

(vii) the term of office for members of the States and Parish Connétables shall be 4 years with exception of the first term, which shall run until May 2009;

(viii) the first general election shall be in November 2005 but thereafter it will be held during the third week in May.

(b) to charge the Privileges and Procedures Committee to bring forward for approval the necessary legislation to give effect to the proposals.

After lodging my proposition I held public meetings in St Lawrence and St Martin but just prior to debating my proposition the Special Committee on the Composition and Election of the States Assembly lodged its proposition P151/2004 with a set of proposals which ran on similar lines to mine, as such I had to withdraw my proposition and lodge amendments to P151/2004. Other Members lodged further amendments which along with the Special Committee’s proposals were subsequently rejected.

Since 2004 a number of similar propositions, including some of mine, have been lodged, but with little success. My last proposition related to a request that a referendum be conducted to determine whether the role of Senator should continue, but was rejected following opposition from the Senators. A year or so later and after the States had agreed to reduce the number of Senators, a now former Senator lodged a similar proposition. As one can see vested interests always have a part to play and whilst the decision relating to change rests in the hands of States Members, any meaningful change will be difficult to achieve.

I have always been of opinion that States Membership should be reduced and with one class of Member. I have no objection to Connetables seeking election to the States but they should do so by standing side by side with other candidates so the electorate has the opportunity of deciding whether they want their Connetable to fulfil a dual function.

When the States was first established, the principle of an elected Chamber was in its infancy. When Deputies were introduced in 1856 they became the only elected Members of the States. The Jurats, Rectors and the Connetables all had dual roles. Connetables are elected to run their Parish; as such attention to Parish Affairs takes precedence. They are subject to a different law from the Senators and Deputies whose first duty is to the States. I believe that States membership should be equal which at present it is not. Connetables should be elected to the States on ability not sentiment or tradition.

The days when it was perceived that Connetables knew all their parishioners have long gone. Parish meetings or Assembles are often poorly attended with very few Connetables ever calling parish meetings seeking parishioner’s views on Island matters and very few ever lodge questions or Propositions. During my 18 years, I served with 3 Connetables, to the best of my knowledge I don’t think any one them ever lodged a question and apart from the Island Plan debate last year when the Connetable lodged a proposition relating to the parish rectory, I am struggling to recall any other propositions being lodged in their name.

The Connetables are a political grouping which meets regularly with a member attending Council of Minister’s meetings. Even if it is argued that Connetables are independent of each other and the Council of Ministers, there is a perception that they are not and their voting pattern supports this view. If Connetables are perceived to be so important to the States, then they have no fear of not being elected should they have to stand along side other candidates seeking election to the States.

I am not suggesting that Connetables are not hard working or committed but they are not paid by their parish but by Island taxpayers who are entitled to expect all of its States Members to be fully committed to the States and not with half an eye on their parish.

In 2004 I was of the view that it might be premature to suggest that Members should have initials such as MSJ after their name I therefore proposed that if Members were to have title it should be Senator however I was quite relaxed and would have supported a more appropriate title had one been proposed. If it is decided to have a single class of member consideration will have to be given as to what to call them. It could be said with some justification that as Guernsey appears to cope with the title of Deputy that might also be appropriate for Jersey.

In 2004 I was of the view that membership should be reduced to 42 and along Parish lines, however given the success in Guernsey I am now of the view that perhaps dividing the Island into districts would lead to the introduction of more broad minded members who were not susceptible to falling foul of narrow minded electors who see any questioning of the role of the Bailiff, the Connetable and Honorary system, supporting gay marriages or living on the wrong side of the brook as a hanging offence. It would allow for greater representation with the electorate having 8 representatives. It would also mean that no States Member would be elected unopposed. If it was decided to go via a district setup with possibly 5 districts, membership could be reduced to 40.

I will add that during one of the many Machinery of Government debates, I did lodge a proposition seeking approval for the district format, but it was rejected.

There has been much discussion relating to the merits of the Island mandate, like the role of the Connetable and even the Parish Deputy, I believe the Senators days are numbered. It has been suggested that Senators were introduced because they were intended to be senior members who due to longevity and perceived wisdom would fill the role of Committee Presidents. Again life has changed and although some Senators may be under the illusion of being more important they only have one vote and being a Senator is no guarantee to high office. The one positive note in their favour is that it is rare that any are elected unopposed.

I have always been of the view that elections should be held on one day in spring and members serving a four year term which at long last has been achieved.

In summary, Jersey should adopt the Guernsey district system with a Chamber consisting of 40 members. There should be no ex officio Members; all should have the same title and all being elected on the same day every four years.

If the Electoral Commission feels that it would be of any value, I would be content to appear before it.

St Martin's Playing Field--- Thank you

The closing date for submissions to the Planning Department has arrived and I would like to thank the many people who not only attended my public meeting but those who made submissions to the Planning Department and to my Blog.

At the time of publishing this Blog there are 57 submissions published on the Planning Website which for convenience can be located here Planning website readers will note that no public comments were submitted until after the public meeting held on 1st August which was a day after the initial closing date for submissions. At the Public Meeting it was agreed to extend the deadline to 28th August.

It is quite apparent that very few people were aware of the planning application let alone of its implications. It is also apparent that many of the public and also those submitting the application thought it was a done deal. Fortunately the public are now more enlightened and more importantly have taken steps to question the application and ask that those behind the application account for their actions.

Among the many questions that need to be addressed before the application can even be considered is why States Members were not made aware of the Field’s status as a Protected Open Space before it was included on the list of fields safeguarded for educational use in the 2011 Island Plan?

The former Planning and Education Ministers must have been aware of the Field’s protected status so why was that fact withheld? Given that States Members were misled is the decision lawful?

As a result of the public meeting held on 1st August it was agreed that the Feasibility Study on the future of St Martin’s School would be made available to the public.

For reader’s convenience it is can be accessed by opening here; Feasibility Study It should be noted that the study was not subjected to any scrutiny. No mention is made of the people involved in the consultation and I who, at the time was the Parish Deputy, was not consulted nor even made aware that a Study was being conducted let alone informed that one had been completed.

It should also be noted that concerns were expressed about the perceived lack of space. There were a number of options considered but one option not included was to demolish the existing school which at the time was not a listed building. Why was that option omitted?

Anyone who knows the school will be aware that there is considerable frontage to school which is taken up with staff parking and a garden area, that area seems to have been left out of the equation, why?

It is reported that the school is a poor state and a considerable sum of money will be required for annual maintenance. If the school is in such a state what use will it be to the Parish who will become its owners should a new school be built on the field.

Surely one option to be considered is to demolish the existing school and rebuild a modern school with a Victorian façade. It should be noted that the school was “conveniently” added to the Sites of Local interest list well after the Feasibility Study. I submit it was added to list to give weight to building on the field.

If one reads the officer’s report relating to the listing he/she states that the school is one of 8 existing schools build around the same period. Demolition may seem a drastic measure but so too is losing a seven vergee playing field.

What is now evident is thanks to the public’s participation more evidence has come to hand which cannot be ignored. As such it is evident that there will be a delay in the planning process. However the delay should not be apportioned to those who exercised their right to raise concerns but to those who by their acts and omissions were hell bent on building on the playing field and naively believed that consent would be granted without questions being asked.

Although the Planning Minister will be busy sifting through the submissions and seeking answers to the many questions which are now posed, the public should not sit back and wait for his decision.

My public meeting, the submissions and the Feasibility Study have raised a number of issues which are Parish related and it is hoped that those issues will be raised via the Parish Connetable and Deputy.

On an entirely separate note: I have made a submission to the Electoral Commission and will be appearing before it at 1130am at the Town Hall next Monday 10th September. I will publish my submission and a report on my appearance some time next week.

Wanted--Your Help to Save Your Field

Last March the JEP published my first letter and I published my first Blog expressing my opposition to the application to build a new St Martin’s School on its playing field (327A). Since then the JEP has published a number of my letters and a number from other concerned people. I have also published further Blogs. However no letters have been published in support of the application. Also and very importantly apart from not being represented at my public meeting, no one from Education, Sport and Culture has attempted to defend its application. One may ask why, is it because it is difficult defending the indefensible?

As a result of the publicity the public have become better informed and are becoming aware of the knock on affect it will have not only for St Martin Parishioners but also for residents Island wide if consent is given to build on the field. The Parish will lose its football pitch with no provision made for a replacement. The pupils will lose their cricket pitch although it is proposed to ask the Parish if it will allow Education to install a cricket pitch on its Village Green. The existing school will be transferred to the Parish. To cater for staff parking consent will need to be sought to purchase part of Field 720A on the opposite side of the road, which is a good agricultural field.

These are important matters but none have been subjected to any public consultation yet there is an application before the Minister to build on the existing playing field.

The application is based on the presumption that there is no further capacity on the site to extend the facilities. That is simply untrue; the existing school is standing on a three vergee site which was provided by the parish of St Martin way back in 1897.

It is not disputed that the present school needs major refurbishment for which around £8million has been provided. Other parish schools, such as Trinity, St John and St Peter all built of similar size and around the same period have been re-developed on site and during that period pupils occupied port-a- cabins. Unlike many other schools, St Martin’s stands on a larger footprint and is blessed with having a 7 vergee (about 3 acres) playing field right next to it. The field was acquired in 1947 and has been a valued and focal point ever since.

It should be noted that prior to July last year the playing field was a protected site under the 2002 Island Plan Policy BE8 “Important Open Space.” The purpose of this policy is similar to the “Listed Site Policy” where there is a presumption against development. I say the field was protected because somehow the field was conveniently removed from the list during the Island Plan debate last year when the States (unwittingly) voted for the field to be included in the fields to be “safeguarded for educational use.” Thus by a stroke of the pen the field was thrown open to development and a foot in the door for an application to build on it. However the fact that the field was a "Protected Open Site" was with held from Members.

The playing field had been protected for a number of years and way before late 2009 when by pure co-incidence St Martin’s School is added to the “Sites of Local Interest” list thus by protecting that building it would add weight to the application to build on the field. All clever stuff one may say, however others may see it as a bit of sharp practice.

However there are vital questions which need answers such as if both the field and school were listed, what criteria was adopted to determine which would be the greater loss, a building deemed to be no longer fit for purpose which can be replaced by a modern fit for purpose school or a longstanding recreation field which when built on is lost for ever? Also who took the decision and was it ever recorded? Even more importantly why was the public not consulted and invited to comment and why cannot they be asked for an opinion before the application is considered?

At my public meeting two weeks ago a comment was made that the public should have been aware of what was going on; however when the facts are withheld or couched in such a way as to confuse the public one can hardly blame them for questioning the application once they have been informed of the facts.

On page 4 of Planning’s Supplementary Planning Guidance, Draft Development Brief, which was published as part of the consultation Brief in February this year, the following can be found, The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture made a representation to the 2011 Island Plan review explaining that the existing school was no longer fit for purpose and there was no space on site for expansion and requested that Field 327A be safeguarded for educational use.

The States approved the Island Plan and Field 327A was duly safeguarded in Policy SCO1. Although the Minister has made a compelling case for a new school, the Minister for Planning and Environment will require confirmation that the proposed school is in a sustainable location in respect of its catchment area and expects that confirmation to come out of the consultation process.”

It is apparent that the former Planning Minister must have been reading the Education Minister's application with “Nelson’s blind eye” and was a soft touch because on closer scrutiny the application is without substance and certainly runs foul of a number of Planning’s own policies.

Apart from being the less expensive option, there is ample room on the existing site to allow for redevelopment even if the current school is retained; those buildings which are not listed can easily be demolished. If space is deemed to be tight there is absolutely no reason why a two storey building cannot be built for year 5 and 6 pupils who would enjoy viewing the French coast from across Field 327 which is to the north of the school. Where is the vision, where is the will?

As can be seen above, although there is an application to build on the field which has apparently lost its protected status, it certainly does not mean that the current Minister, who is also Minister for the Environment and certainly not a soft touch will approve Education’s application. The case must be made and the jury is still out. He is mindful of the serious implications of building a new school on its playing field and has wisely extended the time for forwarding comments to 28th August.

Although the field is now listed for educational use it does not mean that it should be built on. It has been in educational use for over 60 years and has created opportunities for generations of children to learn about the importance sports participation and social skills. It has also been a valuable environmental and nature classroom. The field is irreplaceable and once lost is lost forever.

People have asked why I have bothered to continue fighting to save the field when many believe that consent is a done deal. I have continued because I do not believe it is a done deal and our environment is worth fighting for.

I have done my bit and I ask that if readers really want to save the field they too can do their bit by submitting their comments to the Planning and Building Services, South Hill, St Helier, JE24US or via THIS WEBSITE , This is the main Application website.

Please click to open and then click onto the Comment on Application section where a pro forma can be found. Your comments need not be lengthy but could help to save the field.

As a guide Readers may wish to submit something like " I am opposed to building on the St Martin's School playing field and any replacement should be constructed on its present site."