Return to Contents
The Jersey Law Review - June 2003
EDITORIAL MISCELLANY
JERSEY LEGAL INFORMATION BOARD
One of the significant projects of the Jersey Legal Information Board (JLIB) is the planned consolidation and revision of the statute law of Jersey. The first stage of the project, viz to convert all the legislation, both primary and secondary, into electronic format, has been completed. All Jersey’s statute law from 1771 onwards is now accessible on the internet at www.jerseylegalinfo.je. The material, even in its relatively raw form, is proving a useful tool for lawyers and others. Amendments to the principal legislation are listed in the index, together with a note indicating the principal provision which is subject to amendment.
The second stage, that is to consolidate and revise all the legislation, is programmed to be on-line during the autumn of 2004. Once the revised edition has been completed, it will be kept up-to-date by periodic further revisions which are likely to be published every three months. The process of revision goes beyond the consolidation to be found, for example, in Halsbury’s Statutes. A law revision involves the excision of spent and otiose provisions, as well as minor changes to ensure consistency of presentation and style.
A Law Revision Law is shortly to be presented to the States to give legal effect to the revised version of Jersey’s Statute Law. The Law will establish the Law Revision Board, which has been shadowing the process thus far. It will also make it clear that the Law Revision Board will not have power to make any substantive change to any legislative provision.
Once the project has been completed, Jersey will be one of the few jurisdictions to make available, on-line and free of charge, its entire body of statute law.
THE PARISHES AND THE EXECUTIVE
The second report of the Steering Group reviewing the relationship between the Parishes and the Executive was published at the beginning of April 2003. It contains very important and far-reaching recommendations affecting the twelve Parishes, the contribution made by ratepayers towards the cost of public services, and the role of the Parishes and their Constables in the new world of ministerial government. It is unfortunate, therefore, that wholly unrealistic and impractical timescales have been suggested by the Steering Group. The consultation period is limited to eight weeks following which it is proposed that the Policy & Resources Committee will, within three weeks, formulate and lodge a report and proposition for debate in the States. The Committee could only do so if it adopted all the recommendations of the report without any serious critical analysis. It is to be hoped that this will not happen.
Space does not permit detailed analysis of the report here. In a nutshell it proposes that the cost of funding welfare, including the cost of residential care of elderly people unable to support themselves, should be transferred from the Parishes to the States. The cost of welfare is already met in part by the States. The Parishes pay the welfare costs of ‘natives’ (i.e. persons born in the Island and ordinarily resident in their Parish), estimated for 2003 at £6.4 million. The States pay the welfare costs of ‘non-natives’ which are estimated for the same year at £4.1 million. The report draws attention to the fact that costs have risen during the last few years and to the expectation that they will rise dramatically in the next five years. These predictions are not explained by any hard evidence, but there seems to be a general assumption that with greater longevity comes a greater number of elderly people needing financial assistance. The proposal that the States should carry the risk associated with these higher costs can be expected to be generally approved by the Parishes.
The real questions surround the price to be exacted for this transfer of responsibility. The working party suggests that ratepayers should be expected to assume other financial responsibilities, including the maintenance of main roads, parks and gardens, public toilets, the emptying of litter bins, and display and flood lighting. The point is fairly made that rate payers benefit from all these services.
One of the difficulties lies, as the Steering Group concedes, in allocating these charges fairly amongst ratepayers. The recommended solution is that commercial ratepayers should pay a new Island-wide Commercial Rate, to be set by the Comité des Connétables. Seventy percent of the funds generated by the Commercial Rate would be paid into a central fund to finance the transferred services described above. Thirty percent would be retained by the Parishes to part-fund their parochial expenditure. Domestic rate-payers would pay an Island wide Service Rate, set by the Comité des Connétables, to be paid into the same central fund for the same purposes. Domestic rate-payers would also pay a Parish rate to their respective Parishes to fund core parochial expenditure. 30% of the Commercial Rate and the domestic Parish Rate would therefore fund parochial expenditure. 70% of the Commercial Rate and the Service Rate would fund the transferred responsibilities.
Notwithstanding the transfer of the cost of funding welfare to the States, the administration of welfare payments would continue to be the responsibility of the parishes. A service level agreement between the Employment & Social Security Committee and the twelve parishes would set out service standards and general requirements to be met by the parishes.
So far as the actual maintenance of main roads is concerned, the work would continue to be done by the Public Services Department but would be authorised and “controlled” by the Comité des Connétables. Again there would be a service level agreement between the Comité des Connétables and, in this context, the Environment and Public Services Committee. It is proposed that the routine management of these arrangements would be delegated to a Management Board composed of the Connétable of St Helier and the connétables of another urban and one rural parish. The Board would include an independent adviser such as an engineer.
The fundamental problem with these proposals lies with the Comité des Connétables. The Steering Group recommends that this body be incorporated by law into a Conseil des Connétables. This Conseil would clearly have very important fiscal responsibilities. It would set the Commercial Rate and the Service Rate. But to whom would it be politically accountable? The essence of political accountability is the power to dismiss or remove the individual or body in question. Committees of the States can be removed by the States. Ministers will be accountable in this sense either to the Chief Minister or to the States. Connétables can be removed by their parishioners. But who would have power to remove the Conseil des Connétables should they set wholly unreasonable rating levels? The answer seems to be no-one. The Steering Group’s answer to this problem might be that the Conseil will be required to consult with the Finance and Economics Committee or the Council of Ministers and that, if there were “fundamental disagreement”, the issue would be referred to the States for a decision. At the end of the day therefore it seems to be suggested, albeit very obliquely, that the power to tax ratepayers should rest with the States. This would be a fundamental change, and would remove significant control from the parishes. The Island’s ratepayers could find themselves shouldering considerable financial burdens without any means of compelling the Conseil des Connétables to review their budget as, for example, the ratepayers of St Helier were able very recently to do. This democratic deficit needs careful consideration.
AND IS THERE HONEY STILL FOR TEA?
One of the first acts of the newly constituted Economic Development Committee has been a sensible move to moderate the absolute prohibition hitherto in force in relation to the importation of honey bees. The Diseases of Animals (Bees) (Jersey) Order 2003, which came into force on January 29th 2003, empowers the Committee to issue licences permitting the importation of Queen bees and the semen of drone bees, in both cases of the species Apis Melifera (sic). It may be noted en passant that the Order reflects the truth of Mark Twain’s observations that “Bee scientists always speak of the bee as she. It is because all the important bees are of that sex”.
It is indeed true that the male bee counts for little once his biological function has been performed. There are three classes of bee in the hive, viz the Queen, the workers, which are undeveloped females, and the males or drones which are present only in the early summer after which they are removed. Both the Queen and the workers lay eggs, but only the Queen’s are fertilised by the drones and develop into females. Eggs of the workers develop as males. Queens develop from females if they are fed royal jelly, a substance produced by the salivary glands of the worker bees. It may also be noted that only the females have stings; the males are entirely harmless. One can understand Kipling’s observation (admittedly in relation to the Himalayan she-bear) that “the female of the species is more deadly than the male”.
But returning to the Order made by the Committee, there is now official recognition that there is no separate sub-species of Jersey honey bee. Local research has shown that Jersey bees are a very mixed stock, with races from France, Italy and other countries represented. It seems highly likely that French drones regularly make the flight across from Normandy, and perhaps even from Brittany. There is little point, therefore, in maintaining a ban on the importation of bees when nature has equipped French drones with the ability to cross our borders at will.
Whether or not these invaders have been responsible for the spread of varroa, it seems that in 2002 some 45% of the Island’s Queens failed to breed or deserted their colonies. Stories abounded of an impending serious shortage of Jersey honey. Local efforts to breed Queens have not been successful. However, in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, there are now specialist breeders who can produce Queens with characteristics, including temper, productivity and hygiene, which are important in controlling diseases such as varroa. The battle against varroa has not, therefore, been lost. Scientists are confident that honey bees will in due course become resistant to varroa mites. The ability to import Queens will therefore do much to strengthen the local stock of honey bees.
In the meantime, the statutory requirement on Jersey bee keepers to treat hives against varroasis annually will be abandoned. The requirement was difficult and expensive to enforce, and probably ignored by some. Bee keepers who employ good husbandry will continue to look after the health of their hives; varroasis is now present in the Island and conscientious apiculturists have learned to cope with it. If colonies of bees are left untreated, they will eventually die out.
The number of hives in Jersey may fall, but the happy prospect is that the quality and quantity of locally produced honey will be more than adequate for the Island’s needs.
Return to Contents