Jersey Reform Day.
This site is dedicated to the day, now officially recognised annually by the States of Jersey, to mark the anniversary of the events of 28 September 1769.
Jersey's own Independence or Bastille Day.
Extremely interesting/educational discussion. Equally interesting to learn that Jersey can't pass its own laws in that they (laws made in Jersey) have to be sanctioned by the Privy Council.
I haven't watched the video but I can tell you that obtaining Privy Council sanction these days is a mere formality. Even the most controversial legislation is just rubber stamped through without comment.
An islander has the ancient right to petition the Council but nowhere in Jersey is there any printed or online advice informing you that you have this right, or how you go about writing such a petition. Obviously it is not in the interests of the States Assembly to let you have this information, even though they know that ultimately the Privy Council will never refuse Royal Assent, petition or no petition.
So the States has de facto legislative independence from the UK now. None of the major UK parties have any interest whatsoever in interfering with our laws despite what the recent publicity may suggest.
The States also abuses the legislative process by giving itself almost unlimited powers to pass subordinate legislation, which doesn't then have to go before the Privy Council.
Subordinate legislation is supposed to be for the minor, mundane, administrative aspects of law-making, with the most controversial and important elements reserved for the primary legislation that has to receive Royal Assent.
However, Jersey law drafters have increasingly been allowed to get away with turning the structure of our draft laws upside down and this is done with the full approval of the Law Officers Department, whose head later gets promoted to Chief Judge, enabling him to then uphold those same dodgy law drafting practices that he might well have been responsible for authorising himself some years earlier.
One example is the Income Support (Jersey) Law 2007. The primary legislation is fairly short and seemingly uncontroversial. For example, it contains no obvious powers allowing benefit claimants to be sanctioned. Indeed the word 'sanction' is nowhere included in it. Nor is there any obvious clause allowing the States to make Regulations (subordinate legislation) which in turn would allow, for example, Determining Officers to issue sanctions for giving up work without good cause or failing to actively seek work. It only allows them to make Regulations setting out the criteria for judging whether a person is actively seeking work or not and what groups of people are exempted from the requirement to be actively seeking work.
So on the face of the law, the Regulations adopted in Oct 2013 and amended in June 2015 which introduced a new sanction for giving up work and tougher new sanctions for failing to actively seek work were unlawful as there was nothing in the primary legislation that allowed those Regulations to be made.
However, when the Minister and the Attorney General were forced to defend the legality of the sanctions policy in a 2016 court case, they cited a very vague and (on the face of it) uncontroversial clause that had been quietly included in the primary legislation. In fact this same clause is also included in many other Jersey laws, which should worry all of us. It is regarded as of so little importance that States Members never even bother to ask what powers are potentially contained within the clause and the Minister never tries to explain it.
3 of 3: In Article 18 of the Income Support Law, this clause allows the States to make Regulations which "may contain such incidental, supplemental or transitional provisions as appear to the States...to be expedient for the purposes of the Regulations..."
Comprendo? Well believe it or not, those few words in Article 18 are the only legal justification for the current benefit sanctions regime which can stop 100% of Income Support (including housing rental subsidy) to every member of the household for up to a year. The States gave itself these potentially unlimited powers by including this innocent clause in the primary legislation, which the Privy Council then happily sanctioned.
So no - the States need not worry at all about the Privy Council because its secret innocent little clauses inserted into primary laws gives it all the powers it wants.
I am in a tolerant mood today so have allowed Jerry's 3 posts - which are really one post chopped up to meet the word limit - although they are not very relevant to the subject of the discussion Besides which he has not watched the video! But he raises some interesting matters about Social Security and the legislation process.
Extremely interesting/educational discussion. Equally interesting to learn that Jersey can't pass its own laws in that they (laws made in Jersey) have to be sanctioned by the Privy Council.
ReplyDeleteI haven't watched the video but I can tell you that obtaining Privy Council sanction these days is a mere formality. Even the most controversial legislation is just rubber stamped through without comment.
DeleteAn islander has the ancient right to petition the Council but nowhere in Jersey is there any printed or online advice informing you that you have this right, or how you go about writing such a petition. Obviously it is not in the interests of the States Assembly to let you have this information, even though they know that ultimately the Privy Council will never refuse Royal Assent, petition or no petition.
So the States has de facto legislative independence from the UK now. None of the major UK parties have any interest whatsoever in interfering with our laws despite what the recent publicity may suggest.
The States also abuses the legislative process by giving itself almost unlimited powers to pass subordinate legislation, which doesn't then have to go before the Privy Council.
Subordinate legislation is supposed to be for the minor, mundane, administrative aspects of law-making, with the most controversial and important elements reserved for the primary legislation that has to receive Royal Assent.
However, Jersey law drafters have increasingly been allowed to get away with turning the structure of our draft laws upside down and this is done with the full approval of the Law Officers Department, whose head later gets promoted to Chief Judge, enabling him to then uphold those same dodgy law drafting practices that he might well have been responsible for authorising himself some years earlier.
One example is the Income Support (Jersey) Law 2007. The primary legislation is fairly short and seemingly uncontroversial. For example, it contains no obvious powers allowing benefit claimants to be sanctioned. Indeed the word 'sanction' is nowhere included in it. Nor is there any obvious clause allowing the States to make Regulations (subordinate legislation) which in turn would allow, for example, Determining Officers to issue sanctions for giving up work without good cause or failing to actively seek work. It only allows them to make Regulations setting out the criteria for judging whether a person is actively seeking work or not and what groups of people are exempted from the requirement to be actively seeking work.
DeleteSo on the face of the law, the Regulations adopted in Oct 2013 and amended in June 2015 which introduced a new sanction for giving up work and tougher new sanctions for failing to actively seek work were unlawful as there was nothing in the primary legislation that allowed those Regulations to be made.
However, when the Minister and the Attorney General were forced to defend the legality of the sanctions policy in a 2016 court case, they cited a very vague and (on the face of it) uncontroversial clause that had been quietly included in the primary legislation. In fact this same clause is also included in many other Jersey laws, which should worry all of us. It is regarded as of so little importance that States Members never even bother to ask what powers are potentially contained within the clause and the Minister never tries to explain it.
3 of 3:
DeleteIn Article 18 of the Income Support Law, this clause allows the States to make Regulations which "may contain such incidental, supplemental or transitional provisions as appear to the States...to be expedient for the purposes of the Regulations..."
Comprendo? Well believe it or not, those few words in Article 18 are the only legal justification for the current benefit sanctions regime which can stop 100% of Income Support (including housing rental subsidy) to every member of the household for up to a year. The States gave itself these potentially unlimited powers by including this innocent clause in the primary legislation, which the Privy Council then happily sanctioned.
So no - the States need not worry at all about the Privy Council because its secret innocent little clauses inserted into primary laws gives it all the powers it wants.
I am in a tolerant mood today so have allowed Jerry's 3 posts - which are really one post chopped up to meet the word limit - although they are not very relevant to the subject of the discussion
ReplyDeleteBesides which he has not watched the video! But he raises some interesting matters about Social Security and the legislation process.