THE intervention of Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur and the House of Lords has meant that, in all probability, Jersey people will not face the inconvenience and possible embarrassment of having to show their passports and substantiate their nationality when entering the UK.

The passport issue arose in consequence of the UK’s drive to enhance border controls, but a letter of dissent from Senator Le Sueur appears to have been instrumental in encouraging their Lordships to cut the relevant clause from proposed legislation. During the debate, one of the peers opposed to the passport clause, Lord Goodlad, quoted frequently from the Senator’s letter.

It would still be possible for the House of Commons to press ahead with the passport measure, but this is thought to be unlikely.

However, welcome as the latest border control development might be, it raises uncomfortable questions for Islanders in general and for the States more particularly. Where, for example, were the extensive consultations and discussions that the UK government was expected to engage in before attempting to enact legislation which had a bearing on the Island’s constitutional position?

Another matter for even wider concern is the general lack of understanding of Jersey affairs and Jersey’s position that now appears to obtain in Whitehall. We have, in the past, been well served by members of government allotted special responsibility for the Crown dependencies, but there is at present little sign of our special relationship or its long and complex genesis being at the forefront of anyone’s mind in those corridors of power.

That said, the decision of the Lords does help to break a pattern that was looking increasingly ominous. Set against the background of the recent abrogation of the mutual UK-Jersey health agreement and question-marks over the status of university students from the Channel Islands, the proposed passport rules could be seen as a concerted effort to distance and marginalise the Island.

That these matters all arose at nearly the same time could easily be pure coincidence. Nevertheless, they serve to remind us that we should take nothing for granted on the constitutional front. If the UK is in danger of forgetting just who and what we are, they must be reminded — albeit in suitably diplomatic terms. Much has been made of enhancing our international personality. Effort expended in that area will be wasted if we are in danger of becoming a misunderstood enigma a mere 90 miles away on the other side of the Channel.