PERHAPS I’m in a minority of one, although somehow I doubt that very much, but I can’t fail to be seriously disturbed by the quite extraordinary claim by our Health Minister Anne Pryke that Jersey is ‘powerless’ to check (before they are accepted for employment) whether doctors they employ at the General Hospital can speak and understand English.

A while ago I was taken to task by the then Deputy Chief Officer of the States Police, one Lenny Harper (anyone remember him?), when they were looking to recruit police officers from those parts of the community for whom English was not the first language.

I had the temerity to point out that when an individual’s liberty might rest on what was said or allegedly said, it was important that nothing got lost in the translation, and for that reason I was uncomfortable with such a recruitment policy unless the standard of English of those recruited was high enough to allay my fears.

For my pains, I was called ‘a nasty little bigot’ by Mr Harper in his published letter of response to my comment – a letter which itself drew a couple of comments suggesting in so many words that he should concentrate on doing the job for which he was (by all accounts) very well paid.

At the risk of laying myself open to a similar and equally unfair accusation, I have no problem at all in repeating that in respect of doctors (and all other medical and nursing staff, if it comes to that) even more than police officers, the standard of English must be high enough to avoid errors in translation.

In fact, I’d go further and say that in relation to doctors and others charged with caring for the sick or injured, the standard should be even higher, simply because here we’re talking about a potential for loss of life rather than (although it’s mighty serious enough) simply a loss of liberty.

Quite frankly, if the minister believes that her department’s hands are indeed tied (I understand it’s because of yet another stupid European Union directive) then she should understand that she will lose neither respect nor votes if she tells that department to ignore the directive.

From what I can gather, the French have carried out their usual practice of signing up to the directive and then ignoring it. They apparently insist that locums from other European states must ‘come in for a chat’ before any job offer is made, and if the applicant’s French isn’t up to more than going to a restaurant and ordering a nice bit of fillet, medium rare, along with a vicious little Medoc and an Armagnac chaser, then they don’t get the job.

Deputy Pryke should really have the bottle to call a halt to this nonsense and spell out to the rest of Europe that these are the terms under which we place patient safety and well-being – and, as a consequence, the conditions under which we employ people. And if anyone wants to take it further, let them.

As The Reader is no doubt aware, ever since Herself printed out an idiot’s guide to looking at this newspaper’s online edition, I have taken a more than passing interest in the readers’ comments which are published under many of the published articles.

That said, I use the term ‘readers’ comments’ loosely, if only to point out that in many of the comments the standard of English (and this from those who, I presume, that language is the one they’ve spoken all their lives) suggests that the articles have in fact been read to them.

Anyhow, I was reading the other evening a perfectly innocuous little story about what people’s favourite Jersey landmark is, readers of a British magazine having voted Big Ben top of their list. Of course that didn’t stop some pedantic little Percy pointing out to this newspaper that Big Ben is only the bell – the landmark is called St Stephen’s tower. In response to that, I wonder how many people if asked would know the location of St Stephen’s tower.

While there were some really nice suggestions from readers who entered into the spirit of the thing, words fail me in respect of the rest. Most of them centred on the Harbour and the sea and such like – clearly inferring that the authors couldn’t wait to leave this place. Another said Jersey in the dark – so he didn’t have to look at the ‘bleedin place’ – while a couple of others referred to vomiting drunks in Mulcaster Street and alcoholics and drug addicts in the Parade Gardens.

It really does beg the question as to how many people there are who live here but don’t want to and, to answer it myself, why don’t they just go back from whence they came. Perhaps they can’t get the sort of money there that’s available here or perhaps they’re just a bunch of moaning minnies – as one correspondent put it – in which case those who voted for the Harbour should be reminded that there are several boats a day leaving these shores, many of them for places where the grass is quite obviously greener.

The tens of thousands of us who’ll remain when they’ve departed are those who realise that despite its faults – and few criticise more than I do – there are many worse places in this world in which to live. After all, look at those poor souls stranded in Guernsey, for heaven’s sake. It must be like a life sentence.

And finally, by my calculations, the 140 States jobs created or filled last year will carry with them an annual labour cost – including pension and social security bits and bobs – of not less than £5 million and probably a good deal more. Can anyone prove they were all what the Island needed, rather than what departments wanted?