IT has been an unusually high-profile week for Economic Development Minister Alan Maclean.

Having decided to get off the supermarket fence and tell us what he really thinks should happen, many find themselves feeling dismayed at what that might mean for Jersey.

In essence, the Senator is following the path set down by the previous Economic Development Minister. At one stage, I believe, discussions with a French supermarket had reached a pretty advanced stage. The only barrier to trade, at that time, was the inability to identify a site that would suit both the supermarket hierarchy and be accepted by the public.

Now, in the midst of a recessionary period, Economic Development has once again decided to chance its arm to see if the majority view will weaken in its resolve to protect the environment. I suppose they must reason that if we are now pretty desperate to see our grocery bills lowered, we will accept almost any proposal, no matter how detrimental it may be in the longer term.

Indeed, in their latest retail report the Economic Development officers have gone further than any other department, proposing that no mere environmental precedent should stand in the way of a supermarket chain (which is, no doubt, twisting their hands behind their backs to get preferential treatment).

Question is, how much do we want another supermarket bulldozing (literally) its way around the Island? Supposing the deal was done with a large UK multiple, and not a French supermarket? Would that have the same appeal?

Furthermore, supposing this giant chain wanted to make other gains – for example, plying an online retail trade out of Jersey in cut-price CDs and the like?

Supposing it wanted to establish the company as an offshore entity, but in order to do so had to have some kind of permanent presence here? There are many and varied reasons why companies might opt to be visibly established here – and not all of them are about milking our relatively affluent core population.

I, for one, would say no thank you to any supermarket built on a site which should be protected. For years now I have not shopped in one particular supermarket because of a policy it established several years ago. And I am not the only one to dig my heels in.

WHAT kind of politician would try to conceal information about the identity of a public employee?

What kind of politician, indeed, would try to conceal such information even when asked in a public forum – ie, the States Assembly – which is broadcast on public service radio and published in Hansard form, let alone through local media sources?

Such a politician, it seems, is currently heading the Treasury department of Jersey’s government. And presumably – or he wouldn’t have refused to answer the questions in the States – Senator Philip Ozouf was of the opinion that he could get away with providing this lack of information, perhaps indefinitely.

It does appear that the probable reason for Senator Ozouf’s reticence is that UK accountant Hugh McGarel-Groves is in fact covering for the position of States Treasurer, because post holder Ian Black is too ill to carry out his duties.
In addition, Mr McGarel-Groves, who is on a nine-month contract, will also be heavily involved in a Treasury ‘restructuring plan’.

One thing that the communication unit has omitted to tell the public is how much the UK accountant will be taking home in financial remuneration. But given that the post of Treasurer is acknowledged to be a key role, the rewards will not be insignificant.

Several commentators have indicated that someone already resident in Jersey should have been asked to take on this role. But there are sometimes advantages in appointing someone with the objectivity to see the facts for what they are, and with no previous axes to grind and no predispositions in any direction.

In hindsight, the decision to appoint someone of Mr McGarel-Groves’ calibre to oversee the Island over the next nine months may be one of the best decisions made in recent months – but only if he proves capable enough to stand up to his political masters.

ARE parents of children of nursery school age justifiable in being angry about the lack of nursery school places at States schools?

On the one hand, those of us who had young children in the 1970s and 80s will be feeling envious at the facilities now available. Way back then the main options for pre-school education consisted of parent and toddler groups or private day care. Certainly there was no States subsidy, whereas these days parents receive up to 20 hours a week free of charge.

On the other hand, I can understand parents who live just around the corner from a States primary school with a nursery unit feeling that they have been short-changed if their child is one of the 190 or so who have been turned down.
There are, of course, distinct advantages to States nurseries, not least the continuity for the child when he or she transfers to ‘proper’ school.

Not only that, no expense has been spared to provide these units with the best available in equipment and facilities, with the teaching curriculum monitored in the same way as for older children and therefore guaranteed to be of a good quality. That is not to deride private facilities, but clearly parents will gain comfort from a tried and tested system.

However, the Education department is facing a dual problem. Firstly, the relatively recent increase in population – fuelled by the influx of essential J-category workers required by the finance industry, in particular – will have swollen the pre-school numbers considerably.

And secondly, there is the ongoing problem of children with special educational needs, which teachers have been identifying for some years now. In some primary schools, I have been told, the number of such children has risen to almost half of the school’s intake – and is noticeably higher in town schools.

The main reasons for this are not altogether clear, although it may be that as educational standards have improved the criteria for special needs are now more easily identifiable than they used to be.

These are problems which are not going to go away and, indeed, are likely to increase in the longer term if the States continues to pursue its policy of population increase.