WHO pays the for States chief officers?

Is it not the case that these States employees are paid for from the public purse?
Yet according to a report published this week it appears that these workers (albeit higher up the pecking order than most) are above the codes of practice relating to freedom of information.

Indeed, it appears that a humble Deputy of the States who asked for information about these chief officers’ salaries was told to go away and forget the idea – by our Chief Minister, no less. The same Chief Minister who is, indeed, elected by us, the population of the Island, and whose salary is also paid for from the public purse.

Moreover, it appears that the Deputy who requested the information is powerless to do anything about it because, as yet, there is no proper legislation in place to ensure that freedom of information is more than just a nice concept bandied about during election time. Currently we just have codes of practice – toothless ones at best.

And there’s more. For probably a decade or more a legal framework on freedom of information has been sitting around in dusty rooms while politicians paid occasional lip service to the idea. Now we learn that the current Council of Ministers is against the freedom of information law altogether on the grounds that it will ‘cost’.

Well, I’ve no doubt that the chief officers cost as well – but how much they do cost and whether that is too much we shall never find out because there is no freedom of information law that will open up the books.

Until there is, it seems that we, the public of the Island, will continue to pay these officers whatever they feel like asking, because we are powerless to find out what they earn.
Is this democracy? Or mockery?

A third supermarket: Not such a bad idea after all?
I MUST confess that I’m beginning to soften a little at the idea of a so-called ‘third’ supermarket opening in the Island.

I’m not sure whether it is the degree of protest coming from the existing two major operators. Both the supermarket groups, Sandpiper CI and the Channel Islands Co-operative Society are, of course, members of the retail sub-committee of the Jersey Chamber of Commerce which commissioned a UK academic to pick large holes in the latest advice provided by the States economics unit.

How truly independent such an analysis can be is debateable.

However, a recent experience of supermarket shopping in the UK is likely to have been a much stronger influence on my thinking. Choice, of course, I would expect to be much wider, given the larger population catchment area. But the prices of goods in the Morrisons hypermarket I visited were almost too good to be true. It was enough to make me want to scream ‘Why are we in Jersey paying so much more?’

What it boils down to is that however valid the Chamber’s critique of the States proposals in favour of a new supermarket, as a consumer I need to know that I am getting a fair deal. And sadly I really do feel that there is room for improvement that only a viable competitor could provide.

Of course it really does depend on the brand of the supermarket – no one wants to see a company with a reputation for takeovers and market domination stomping all over the place.
But let’s face it, we used to have three brands of supermarket before Safeway/Morrisons was bought out by the former CI Traders.

At the time no one complained that Safeway was causing smaller businesses to close. Why should things be any different, provided that the new entrant is sensitive to the local market (and has a reputation for being so elsewhere) and works with local producers and growers to stock their goods on the shelves, alongside betterknown brands?

The States economist, of course, has other reasons for promoting the idea of a new supermarket at this time – not least, the number of unemployed young people on the States’ books. The difficulty they have is that no existing sites are attractive enough for new entrants to the market.

Unfortunately, with both the politicians and the competing companies batting for their own sides, the poor old consumer is simply having to make the most of what there is – and feeling hard done by in the process.

On the trail of the ale
THE Ale Trails, the latest addition to the Jersey Tourism guides, cannot fail to appeal.
Admittedly, the tie-in with only one of the Island’s pub groups will limit the user of the walking guide to pubs within that group’s branding. But nevertheless the idea is a good one and should encourage visitors to seek out a few hostelries and not leave the Island with the idea that there is a paucity of good traditional pubs.

And full marks to the organisers for allowing walkers to leave their cars in the car parks.
Actually, I’ve always felt that our public houses leave something to be desired when it comes to atmosphere, particularly if you compare them with the south-west of England.

On countless occasions, I’ve been stopped in roads and lanes by parched visitors looking for a cosy oasis where they can rest and recuperate and all too often I’ve found myself embarrassed to point them in the direction of the nearest pub because it is too drab, grotty or unwelcoming – the nicer ones are much too far to walk to.

So now that they are listed in a visitor guide, perhaps more effort will be made to raise the general standard.
Another snippet of information has also surprised me. According to the information provided, around one-third of our tourists now come to the Island for the cheap booze and fags.

Wrong. OK, they come for the fancy spas and restaurants and swanky hotels. Wrong again.
Well, they must come for the beaches, then. Nope.
Actually, they come to walk.

Perhaps the tourism industry might remember that, next time they bang on about the Island needing more nightlife and a casino.