Where are your chickens?

Yesterday Helen spotted a ferret while she was out tending to the pullets.  They are lethal to poultry, often killing small flocks of birds for no clear reason. It put me in mind of various chicken related aphorisms, and how they seems very appropriate to the state  Jersey is in today.



In the past few days we have had headlines about our water quality, the ridiculously high levels of contaminants in tests at the waterfront, the Environment Minister saying we need a law on air pollution, and the OECD report that makes it clear we are still at the bottom of the league in civil engagement, our disposable income per capita is lower than the average and our overall quality of life ranking is slipping.


None of this should really be news.  Many ecologically minded activists from the former group Concern to  Stuart Syvret  predicted this since the 1990's.    The origins go back further of course to an obsession in the Island that growing the economy is the magic solution to  political problems.  And growing the economy meant growing the population. But we did that without any due planning for the impacts or acknowledgement of the problems that would inevitably ensue once the benefits wore and the ponzi  nature took dominance.  Those headlines they are the chickens coming home to roost....


Jersey is not alone in that live for today and hang the future consequences is far from uncommon.   You can find evidence all over the place, from pitiful household savings and pension provision to the dubious yield chasing strategies of big agi business. 


For thirty years  those of us who campaigned and tried to use the given political structures and tools to avert the growing ecological crisis have failed.  At practically every turn the economic growth argument has trumped the debate.  Yes there have been changes, but not I would say where it matters.  People and businesses  have been persuaded to make substitutional changes.  But no fundamental changes.  So they replace their light bulbs with low energy ones , maybe cut down a bit on meat consumption, and perhaps look to an electric car when they next come to change vehicle.  But they (we) are still consuming and polluting and destroying beyond what is bearable. 





As the odds and risks grow, particularly in respect to climate change and its impacts, the  approach to campaigning has shifted.  Today across 20 or so of the 'advanced' countries of the world, activists will be taking part in events under the banner of Extinction Rebellion

 

Some readers will be aware I was one of the founders and for some year chair of the Jersey Climate Action Network.  I stepped down as chair a couple of years ago  largely for some of the same reasons the founders of Extinction Rebellion started their set up.  Traditional campaigning wasn't working and the response from governments and businesses in particular wasn't up to speed.  Purely coincidence, but of course their campaign caught my attention.


Clearly they have adopted an emotive and controversial title for themselves.  There is evidence the rate of species loss is much greater than normally expected. So yes extinction in the widest sense.  Rebellion is a bit trickier.  I don't have a problem with non violent direct action, but I wouldn't call that rebellion.  Most dictionary definitions of rebellion specifically cite it as armed or violent. I 'd argue for disobedience.


Another thing that worries me a little about the events I have read of planned in London is that they aim to close streets. I get it  -road traffic is a major contributor to green house gases emissions.   But the target isn't the ordinary people , it is the government , possibly big polluting businesses, not ordinary citizens.   Indeed of the actions are to inconvenient to the public yo might well find it losses support rather than garners it, though you probably will get some news coverage.


My one other niggle is that what they are calling for is a mechanism , and a target, but there is no sense of how it is achieved, or even is achievable.  To my mind the time for talking has passed.  We can keep setting  tighter targets, but targets aren't the problem. It is lack of urgent action to meet the targets that is the problem, and nothing here resolves that. 


The local event today in the Royal Square differs a little.  Because there is already a proposition going to the States to step up its act on climate change the meeting at lunchtime is more a lobby in support of that. That I can support without qualms.  However I certainly will not be wearing black as requested by local organisers.  I can see that might work as a sort of mourning for the habitats and species already lost.  But black at a political/public lobbying event is the signature of fascists and I will not do that. 









https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2019/04/13/quality-of-life-in-jersey-has-dropped-oecd-index-shows/

https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2019/04/14/minister-we-need-law-to-tackle-air-pollution/

https://www.bailiwickexpress.com/jsy/news/horizon-pollution-criminal-investigation/


https://xrebellion.org/

Three wrongs don't make a democracy

My last posting was entitled the law the legislators like to ignore.  Events suggest my mind was in the right place.  The title would have suited better here though.  If you havent I recommend reading the AG's statement on the election expenses.    


My synopsis:   a large proportion of elected candidates (possibly 18) failed to meet the requirments of the law updated 2014, the Judicial Greffier exercised powers not granted them in the law, and the AG has used his unchallengable right to declare that prosection is not in the public interest.  In all three cases they were wrong.


This isn't the first instance where I am aware the AG has used this unique power to 'disappear' a political problem.  When the then constables of St Peter and St Brelade decided to declare that camper vans could park  in one or two designated spots, notable Le Port, contrary to the explicit requirements of the law, it got referred to the AG.  As constables they had the opportunity to bring a proposition to the States to amend the law to facilitate what they wanted to do.  But instead they simply took unilateral action.  Quite disgraceful in my mind that the head the parish honorary police and  someone who sits in the legislature should openly break the law , and overtly breach their responsibilities (and oath of office?)  to uphold it.  I am told when it was referred to the AG that the decision was made that any case bought to him in respect of camper vans at Le Port would  not be in the public interest .  He decided a priori to any case, evidence or facts!  


This time we do have a sort of  justification given by the AG.   "bearing in mind the consequences to good government of investigating and prosecuting these alleged offences, it is not in my view in the public interest to proceed against all these individuals. The States and Government of Jersey would be significantly impaired at an important time for the Island."  I find that hard to swallow.


For starters we are only talking a most one third of the Assembly.  There are plenty of places in the world where whole govenments  are gone in an instance, unplanned and new elections held.  It might have happened in the UK just the other day if Mrs may had lost the vote of confidence.  It was only relatively recently under Cameron that fixed term elections became the standard for the UK. In 2010/11 Belgium functioned well enough despite not having a government for two thirds of a year (http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2052843,00.html ) There is no evidence to support the AG's assertion, indeed what evidence there is seems to point the other way.


Lay that against the alternative we now have.  Up to a third of a legislature aren't competent enough to get a declaration of expenses submitted in time, despite the consequences being  loss of their new seat. How is that going for good governance? And that is the chartable view of their actions.  A cynical observer might well conclude that the actions of the 18 members, the Judicial Greffier and the AG  is typical of a self serving introspective  systesm that will do anything to preserve its power and the outward appearance of functionaing democracy and rule of law. That, in other places, would be called corruption.

The law the legislators like to ignore.

Next week the States are to debate a proposition which has the potential to be up there in the top five worst pieces of legislation the States have adopted see:  Draft Taxation (Companies - Economic Substance). Like one of other pieces in my top 5 - the introduction of 0/10 - it is a response to 'defend ' the finance industry from external  actors.   As the Intro puts it the law provides the means by which commitments of the States of Jersey to address the concerns of the EU Code of Conduct Group (Business taxation) ("COCG") regarding economic substance are met.



I've no problem with them addressing that.  But it is the impact on quite legitimate business that really concerns me.  Like the 0/10  it the law of unintended consequences that the legislators are ignoring. I became aware of it when a few weeks ago an acquaintance who runs a perfectly legitimate non finance business told me he was preparing to wind up his company if this proposition were passsed as it stands.  (There are no amendments and no alternatives on the table as yet so it is all or nothing).


But it is worse than  that because it seems to be  built upon a fundamentally flawed concept too.


The intention , again quoting the  report of the proposition is to  deal with " The jurisdiction should not facilitate offshore structures or arrangements aimed at attracting profits which do not reflect real economic activity in the jurisdiction".  It should be obvious  there are three elements involved here - attracting profits, offshore structures and arrangements, and real economic activity in the jurisdiction.  The proposition only addresses the last item.  Profits are only mentioned twice - in the report, not the body of the proposed law. Offshore is similarly only mentioned once  - in the quote I gave above. 


As I read it, and I am certainly not alone in this, the proposed law applies to all Jersey companies, not just those that need to be addressed in the COCG objective.  Most established companies won't actually have any difficulty in passing the economic substance test, but some most definitely will.  There is a list in section 3 that identifies the relevant activites.  they include most finance activities of course, but also intellectual property holding business.  That's where my acquaintance is  caught.  It would equally cover software developers, playwrights, artists, authors, plant breedrs who retain breeders rights, patent holders etc etc.

There is  a sort of get out clause in the introduction.

A "high risk IP company” is a company which carries on an intellectual property holding business and –(a) the company
– (i) did not create the intellectual property in an intellectual property asset which it holds for the purposes of its business,
(ii) acquiredcthe intellectual property asset–(A) from a connected person, or
(B)in considerationfor funding research and development by another person situated in a country or territory other than Jersey; and
(iii) licences the intellectual property asset to one or more connected persons or otherwise generates income from the asset in consequence of activities (such as facilitating sale agreements) performed by foreign connected persons; or
(b) the company does not carry out research and development, branding or distribution as part of its Jersey core-income generating activities;




The part I would draw your attention to is the first bit of paragraph 5 . 

5 Requirement to meet economic substance test

(1)

Subject to paragraph(8), a resident company must satisfy the economic substance test in relation to any relevant activity carried on by it.

(2)

A resident company meets the economic substance test in relation to a

relevant activity if –

(a)

the company is directed and managed in Jersey in relation to that activity;

(b)

having regard to the level of relevant activity carried on in Jersey

–(i) there are an adequate number of employees in relation to that activity who are physically present in Jersey (whether or not employed by the resident company or by another entity and whether on temporary or long – term contracts),

(ii)

there is adequate expenditure incurred in Jersey, and

(iii)

there are adequate physical assets in Jersey;

(c)

the company conducts Jersey core-income generating activity; and

(d)

in the case of Jersey core-income generating activity carried out for

the relevant company by another entity, it is able to monitor and

control the carrying out of that activity by the other entity.

Anyone who has ever run a start up business, especially in software development or research will be laughing their heads off. Such entities start in one of two ways - the owners working  unpaid hours to develop product, or they get a large dollop of investment  cash  . 90% of the time it is the former.  And if you are developing software you are like playwrights and authors and artists producing intellectual property - something that is licensed rather than sold.  It is a shoe string operation usually there are no employees (directors are office holders that are not necessarily employees - if they are unpaid they cannot be!).   There' s no income initially in development, and of course much of what you need to buy , if anything, is likely to be software tools  not available locally.  Assets are minimal , possibly don't even belong to the business, but are the personal proporty of the owners.  Not much chance of meeting the economic substance test. 


Now if I can go back to the key error.  It arises in  the item quoted above 
i) did not create the intellectual property in an intellectual property asset which it holds for the purposes of its business.   That is always true!  For much the same reason companies cannot go to prison - they are legal structures.  A structure cannot create intellectual property.  You need a sentient being for that - almost always a human, put I guess art created by elephants or dogs might qualify.  It is the reason anyone who works in research or software development will always find their employment conditions  stipulate they assign their employer all rights to intellectual property created. It is troubling that the law seem to be so  ignirant of the realities of  the creation of intellectual property.


The penalties for falling foul of this all encompassing law are steep if you are a minnow start up, potentially £100,000 pounds.  Peanuts to the biggest players who may  make  huge gains from doing exactly what the COCG want to stop, but disasterous for small legitimate businesses.  There is a form of appeal set out in articles 12/13.  First to the Comptroller (the one who raises the penalties and presumably whose department benefits from the fines !) .  After that to a Commission.

4)A Commission of Appeal shall be constituted for the purpose of hearing an appeal under Article12 as it would be constituted  from the Commissioners of Appeal appointed under Article 10(1) of the 1961 Law for the purpose of hearing appeals under the 1961 Law.

That's all well and good, but what is this Law - it isn't named or titled. I am guessing it is the 1961 Income Tax (Jersey) Law.  That Law doesn't give commissioners  powers over fines, only assessments of income tax. Just because it happens to be administered by the same office doesn't give rise to addiitonal powers.  And I doubt thos commssioners are any better qualified than the Comptroller to know what is an appropriate number of employees for an IP busienss, or indeed the necessary local expenditure to be of economic substance.


Hopefully you will have already identified the other open goal in this whole charade.  This proposed law explicitly and only refers to companies.  There is no provision for sole traders, partnerships, trusts or foundations that undertake the exact same activities.  It is quite implausible that the legal advisors to the States (the AG or SG) did not see this.  Of course those other mechanisms are excellent business for some  parts of Jersey' legal fraternity.  What a strange and quite unfathomable coincidence !!

A lost decade

Ten years ago we had an election in Jersey.  The senatorial contest was notable for having  three declared groupings - JDA, TimeForChange and Jersey2020.  I was a candidate alongside Daniel Wimberley and Nick Palmer as the 2020 group.  It felt as though some organised politics might actually arise from  that.  It was also of course run in the backdrop of revelations and investigations concerning child abuse in the care system. 


The saddest thing for me is just how much those topics we were raising then  are still relevant today, many more so. And how so little has been achieved by the States since on those issues. Despite the intervening  Committee of Inquiry  we still have  repeated reports of various parts of the care system not adequate, needing  change and failing  children.


It will be hard for some to credit that back then we didn't have  an energy policy and there was no position on climate change. Energy if it was considered was a matter of the Treasury Minister as  shareholder  dropping round for a cup of coffee to Jersey Electricity and informing the chief exec what level of dividend they expected to receive. The difference that election was the revelations concerning the  new incinerator , since it does produce a spot of electricty  from the burned waste.


It took the  formation of the JCAN on the back of our campaigning that election, and a few more years  to finally get an energy policy and a commitment on climate change.  In classic Jersey fashion that was based on two decades old material - the Kyoto protocol.  And it hasn't been updated since despite the rest of  the world (arguably absenting the USA)  having agreed the more ambitious Paris agreement.


An area I was almost alone in raising was food security, waste and the role of allotments.  At that time the only proper site was at Grouville and that only because the land had been in the same hands since before the planning law was introduced and hence not controlled by it.  We do now have a number of other allotment sites , but that is much more due to the work of JALGA than any assistance from the States.  And all that before food banks became a big thing in the UK  and almost a decade before Brexit talks of needing food and medicine stockpiles.   It is a forgotten truth in politics that the best time to tackle a problem is when most cannot yet see it is going to be a problem.


No one would be surprised to hear that a former software developer like me was arguing for diversifying into a tech sector, especially software development, and for online voting.  We have a sort of tech sector now, but it is far too intertwined with finance to be a proper diversification.  One small step  which I did call for back in 2008 came to pass in the last couple of years  - putting  official notices on the States own web site.


Naturally some of those big items were never going to get much progress unless there was a significant change in States members and their political priorities as a group.  Of course that didn't (hasn't) happen.  And the small victories.  Easy really when you know how the highly personalised and individualistic system works.  Make a fuss in an election , and then go relatively quiet.  At some point the info seeps into the consciousness of the elected members and you let them think they dreamed it up all by themselves.  It only takes 7 to 10 years!  The frightening thing is we don't have that long to get properly on top of the big issues from a decade ago - climate change, sustainability and  living within our means.

UN declaration on peasant rights

The UN  Human Rights Council has passed the Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas.

"In a resolution adopted by a vote of 33 in favour, three against and 11 abstentions, the Council adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas, and it recommended that the General Assembly adopt the United Nations Declaration. It invited Governments, agencies and organizations of the United Nations system and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations to disseminate the Declaration and to promote universal respect and understanding thereof."

The UK has consistently voted against the declaration at previous stages of its evolution. It did so again today. The other two no votes were Hungary and Australia.




It will now go forward to the General Assembly.

Among the key rights are :

The right to land, access, use and management of land, necessary for the realization of the rights to an adequate standard of living, to health and to participate

The right to seeds and biodiversity, includes right to use, grow, reuse, store, develop, exchange, transport, give and sell seeds. By developing their seeds, peasants build more resilient and sustainable farming systems, able to feed others in spite of climate change.

The right of food sovereignty, referring  to the right to a development model in which peasants can not only choose but also develop their own means of production, processing,distribution and consumption, in such a way that it valuesand improves the social and working conditions within agricultural and food systems.

The right to decent income and means of subsistence

Worldwide there are 2 billion peasants and other people working in rural areas who would be coverd by these rights if adopted.

To my mind this declaration is almost diametrically opposed to the  current situation in Jersey. That 1974 law was designed and works to ensure land is available to commercial farmers. Here we have no land occupation  rights.  You can own land, but the right to work agricultural land is  tightly controlled by the States.  To be a bona fide agriculturalist as they put it you have to have a margin profit of £40,000 per year and meet other restrictions.  As a smallholder the amount of land you can occupy is limited but you still have to have £5,000 margin.  The law intentionaly  denies subsistence and self supporting occupation - legally I guess its illegal to be a peasant in Jersey!  A synopsis of the law is at https://www.gov.je/Industry/FarmingFishing/PlantsProduce/Pages/LandControl.aspx

Food soverignty is a concept that seems unknown to Jersey policy makers.  Our approach is to corral all producers into a one managed scheme. You only have to look at the struggle Darren Quenault had to set up his own dairy to see how this right isn't supported locally.

The right to a decent income certainly doesn't exist in Jersey for self employed and seasonal workers. For starters if you own your land, those fields are counted as assets against you for income support.

The States need to do some serious policy revision thinking before this declaration gets to the UN General Assembly if it has any intention to be compliant.