To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
A suitable case for Scrutiny
Share this:
This is most certainly true in principle, and a recent case has shown that can also be true in practice.
The findings of a sub-panel of the Corporate Services Scrutiny panel which investigated the proposed establishment of the Jersey Enterprise Board prove that our political scrutineers must not be dismissed as the also-rans of Island government.
Through its refusal to support the proposition that the Enterprise Board should be set up, the sub-panel undoubtedly played a role in forestalling a major policy decision that might have proved hasty, ill-considered and at odds with the public good.
The Harcourt affair, which has thrown plans for the next stage of the development of the St Helier Waterfront into disarray and has cast further doubt on the Waterfront Enterprise Board’s fitness for purpose, undoubtedly threw a spanner in the works intended to have produced the Jersey Enterprise Board.
Even so, the sub-panel, chaired by Deputy Collin Egré, highlighted fundamental shortcomings of the grandiose JEB plan with no connection to Harcourt and its difficulties involving major lawsuits in Las Vegas and Dublin.
In particular, the scrutiny process revealed that the structure of JEB could lead to unacceptable levels of risk that could be detrimental to the Island and to Islanders. It also noted that JEB would have much in common with WEB, a body that has not exactly covered itself in glory recently or during much of the genesis of the Waterfront.
The sub-panel’s report was couched in the diplomatic language employed in such documents, but it might have asked why on earth anyone would want to create a successor to WEB with even more power and potential to do damage than the present body.
Other sub-panel objections included concern about special-purpose companies JEB would have been entitled to spawn for ring-fenced projects. It was rightly suggested that these would move activities undertaken by JEB even further away from States supervision.
For the moment – and, it is to be hoped, for the immediately foreseeable future too – the hulk of JEB lies dead in the water, disabled, if not quite sunk, by a combination of events and scrutineers who did their job skilfully and diligently. This is most certainly true in principle, and a recent case has shown that can also be true in practice.
The findings of a sub-panel of the Corporate Services Scrutiny panel which investigated the proposed establishment of the Jersey Enterprise Board prove that our political scrutineers must not be dismissed as the also-rans of Island government.
Through its refusal to support the proposition that the Enterprise Board should be set up, the sub-panel undoubtedly played a role in forestalling a major policy decision that might have proved hasty, ill-considered and at odds with the public good.
The Harcourt affair, which has thrown plans for the next stage of the development of the St Helier Waterfront into disarray and has cast further doubt on the Waterfront Enterprise Board’s fitness for purpose, undoubtedly threw a spanner in the works intended to have produced the Jersey Enterprise Board.
Even so, the sub-panel, chaired by Deputy Collin Egré, highlighted fundamental shortcomings of the grandiose JEB plan with no connection to Harcourt and its difficulties involving major lawsuits in Las Vegas and Dublin.
In particular, the scrutiny process revealed that the structure of JEB could lead to unacceptable levels of risk that could be detrimental to the Island and to Islanders. It also noted that JEB would have much in common with WEB, a body that has not exactly covered itself in glory recently or during much of the genesis of the Waterfront.
The sub-panel’s report was couched in the diplomatic language employed in such documents, but it might have asked why on earth anyone would want to create a successor to WEB with even more power and potential to do damage than the present body.
Other sub-panel objections included concern about special-purpose companies JEB would have been entitled to spawn for ring-fenced projects. It was rightly suggested that these would move activities undertaken by JEB even further away from States supervision.
For the moment – and, it is to be hoped, for the immediately foreseeable future too – the hulk of JEB lies dead in the water, disabled, if not quite sunk, by a combination of events and scrutineers who did their job skilfully and diligently.
Related