A WEEK, according to former British Prime Minister Harold Wilson, is a long time in politics. But when the inmates of Charlie Chuckle’s Laughter Factory are at their navel-contemplating best, an hour can seem like a lifetime.

Apply Wilson’s theory to last week’s two-day debate on the merits of cycling helmets and it equated to a century.

It is said that once you learn to ride a bike you never forget, and boy, were our beloved politicians determined to share their experiences and expert advice with each other and with those who really should get a life but who still tune in to listen to debates.

The end result was the latest fudge to produce yet another law that will be impossible to police.

Adults are supposed to set a good example to children, so what message does the decision taken by our beloved politicians – that cycle helmets are to be compulsory for those under the age of 18 but not for everyone else – send out to minors?

As the Constable of St Helier, Simon Crowcroft, pointed out in a rare interjection of common sense, why burden the Island’s police with yet more legislation when they are already too busy to deal with speeding and other misdemeanours?

We have not heard the last on this subject, as the man behind the move to make the wearing of cycle helmets compulsory for all, Deputy Andrew Green, lost by just one vote. The closeness of that result has spawned another political boomerang that will keep coming back to the House.

The irony of a recruitment advertisement that appeared in this esteemed newspaper on the same day as the report on the cycle helmet debate was not lost on yours truly. Health and Social Services were looking for a support worker – brain injury services. I wonder how many more poor souls the successful applicant will have to work with as a result of the States’ decision?

St Mary Deputy and avid cyclist Daniel Wimberley led the faction of politicians who argued that forcing adults to wear helmets would act as a deterrent to getting more people to cycle – a move that would be not only good for health, but also for the environment.

One could extrapolate this argument to the extreme to expose the ludicrous nature of such a proposition. Does having to wear seat belts discourage driving? And if bungees were made optional, would thrill seekers be quite so inclined to throw themselves off high bridges?

I am all for freedom of choice, but there have to be limits if we are to live in a well-ordered and safe environment. That is why societies agree to laws, regulations and standards in exchange for law-abiding citizens sacrificing the right to de exactly what they want with no consideration to the community or their fellows.

Drink-driving is dangerous, so it is against the law; smoking has been proven to be harmful to health, ergo this activity is banned in public places; and falling off a bike and hitting your head on a hard surface can cause brain injury, which is why informed professional opinion advises that all cyclists wear helmets. These cumbersome items may not be foolproof, but they do offer protection.

Ignoring expert advice is something States Members do rather well, especially since the introduction of ministerial government concentrated too much power and responsibility in a single politician’s hands. Take, for example, the role of the
Environment Minister, who, it was confirmed in the Laughter Factory last week, is entitled by the powers invested the position to go against planning officers’ advice.

The reason for this ministerial privilege is that although planning officers are qualified professionals in their chosen field – and are fully conversant with the laws and policies they must work within – they do not apparently represent the public interest, unlike politicians, who are elected by the popular vote.

When it comes to making the final decision on developments that have the potential to change the face of our Island (and not for the better), a lay person who may only spend three years as a minister can go against professional advice.

Planning officers are public servants, appointed because they are qualified for the task to be performed and paid from the public purse.

When it comes to deciding whether developments should be approved or rejected, then give me expert opinion, based on laws approved by the body politic, over political judgment any day. I am seriously troubled with Jersey’s form of ministerial government where, in the absence of party politics and a clear and coherent set of policies on which a party will govern, there is a danger that ‘political judgment’ is in reality personal whim.

THE taxpayers of Jersey know from bitter experience that those entrusted to oil the wheels of the public sector can make monumental cock-ups. Last May, as the world ignored the sound advice on the front cover of the Hitch Hiker’s Guide the Galaxy, I voiced my opinion that swine flu was not going to be such a big deal.

I remain convinced to this day that health authorities worldwide were pressured into acting in what they believed to be the ‘public interest’ by drug companies and scaremongering media headlines.

Our local health authority and the Medical Officer of Health, Dr Rosemary Geller, are now facing mounting criticism from inside the Island, and in the UK, that they over-reacted by acquiring vaccine for every member of the population for a virus which, notwithstanding the tragic death toll the world over, was in the long run no worse than the common flu that strikes every winter.

Dr Geller has defended her actions by saying she would rather be criticised for being well prepared than pilloried for not being. Such an approach is commendable, but when it comes at a public financial cost, then we have to right to question her position.

This Island is steaming full speed ahead, Titanic fashion, on collision course with a deficit of at least £64 million, so the last thing we need are government departments spending our cash to prepare for scenarios that may never happen, no matter the public interest, political judgment or the best of intentions.