Life peer takes over responsibility for Bailiwick

A BARRISTER who is a life peer in the House of Lords has been named as the Bailiwick’s new man at Westminster.

Screen shot 2013-12-23 at 15.47.31

A BARRISTER who is a life peer in the House of Lords has been named as the Bailiwick’s new man at Westminster.

Edward Faulks QC, pictured, will take up responsibility for the Crown Dependencies following the recent resignation of Lord Tom McNally as Justice minister.

The Ministry of Justice confirmed that Lord Faulks will take on the role when he becomes Justice minister in the Lords on 20 January, as part of a government mini-reshuffle.

Lord McNally, who has taken a keen interest in Sark politics and ensuring its governance is strengthened, quit to become chairman of the Youth Justice Board.

He is being replaced directly by Liberal Democrat deputy leader Simon Hughes, although it will be Lord Faulks who will be the Bailiwick’s new representative at the ministry.

A MoJ spokesman confirmed the appointment in a brief statement, but said Lord Faulks would not be commenting until nearer his start date.

Comments for: "Life peer takes over responsibility for Bailiwick"

PB FALLA

Great Choice although i voted for Chubby Brown

Andy

One can only hope he is different to the rest.

BadDonkey

Life Peer , I dont think so. You can not represent our persons. We do not need representation in a foreign Govt. Without consent of the people! Who illegally allowed this ??

Tony Webber

We should obviously be courteous in congratulating and wishing well anyone who has been made responsible for the Crown Dependencies.

Whether we like it or not there are matters which are decided by the Crown ( in reality the UK government ).

Therefore we need the best possible people appointed where there is any responsibility for our affairs.

However, it is wrong that we, alongside Jersey and the Isle of Man have absolutely no say in this appointment.

As I have said in the local media recently, there is no reason at all why Guernsey and Jersey should not have Members of the House of Lords. This would not affect our constitutional position but enable us to have a voice in Crown Dependency matters.

We should have representation on the Privy Council Committees responsible for the affairs of Guernsey and Jersey.

With nearly 850 members, and many of not that good quality, there should be allowance for some good quality members from the Channel Islands.

Until they get around to reforming the House of Lords, we should not be excluded from it.

As for the House of Commons, there is also no reason why Guernsey and Jersey should not have an MP/s.

Are we not entitled to have a say in foreign affairs and defence, or are going to continue to put up with these matters being decided for us with no representation ?

We nearly bombed Syria, but unlike people in the UK, we had no MP's to lobby.

If even semi independent Greenland can send two representatives to the Danish parliament and if French overseas territories can have both representation in both their parliamentary houses, then there is no reason why we cannot have likewise.

Representation not only gives us rights in the full governance of our affairs, it also ensures our independent status is recognised, rather than being treated like some backwater colony.

I hope Edward Faulks will see why the current state of affairs cannot continue, and will use his good offices to do something about it.

Neil Shepherd

"We nearly Bombed Syria" ?

No , NATO nearly started WW3 , not us, we are not English!

Which news do you watch Tony , seriously , is it BBC or Fox News ?

If you were following the events leading up to the last chemical attack outside Homms you would understand that Russia and China had run out of patience with the west's funding of extremist insurgents of the likes of Jhabat El Nusra , Iraq Jihadis Front etc.

Watcher

Neil

I would complain if I were you as it appears you have been allocated the same avatar as Bad Donkey ......

Island Wide Voting

Well spotted Watcher

Neil Shepherd eh? I suppose that's a nice Christmassy name

Watcher

IWV

No, it would be more appropriate if he was Noel Shepherd - but it still made me laugh. ;-)

Davey Gilbert

Oh stunning, 2 pseudonyms strike again, your arguments are both invalid .

Island Wide Voting

What arguments? Who's arguing?

Happy New Year to you Davey Gilbert,and of course to Neil Shepherd

Waspy

This is an unusually relevant and important appointment for the CI (and all CDs) at last - and especially Sark.

Tony Webber is right to suggest that the CI has representation in Westminster - but please don't limit it to Jersey, Guernsey. As long as no one is subsidising them, then Sark and the IoM deserve a voice well ahead of those regions of the UK that are grotesquely over-represented in both the Commons and Lords, but that are subsidy money pits for English tax payers.

Remember that Carl Hester's Olympic Gold counted the same as Andy Murray's in the medal tally.

Lord Faulks has a pedigree in relevant legal issues - not least arbitration and constitutional affairs - with his work on the proposed Bill of Rights - designed to help the UK deal with the scope creep of the ECHR.

In his career, he has doubtless been able to observe first hand the way in which vexatious litigants can manipulate the law using specious arguments and money, and may be a tad more willing to face down these try-ons when appropriate.

Lord Faulks' appointment also reminds us of the upside of direct government appointments that allow for the best and most relevant people to be put straight into important government roles - as opposed to the downside of the usual process of cycling through political time servers - where persons of talent are deterred from participation. Frankly, because they have better things to do when developing a career and bringing up a family, than participate in the time-serving political charade that modern "democracy" so often represents.

His appointment does not take effect until January 20th., so the CDs remain without an official UK government "minder" for a few weeks. Now might be a good time to set out ideas for our very own Bill of Rights, based on the work already done by Edward Faulks and his colleagues.

jenny m

Lord McNally's "keen interest" in Sark politics was singularly undermined by his inability to recognise the elephant on the Island, and curtail its efforts to drive away all potential investors in pursuit of a domination policy.

And then he was incautious enough to try and blame the "retirement community" for the problems during a parliamentary session where no one from Sark was able to present their case or defend against such comments.

Lord Faulks will not be unaware of the parting controversy left behind by his predecessor, and it will be fascinating how he grasps the nettles that have been allowed to flourish.

Bee

Hear, Hear, Waspy and Tony Weber. Totally well said.

Tony Webber

Thanks for the supportive comments.

In respect of what Neil said, he perhaps unwittingly opened the door to a wider issue, and that is the subject of obtaining the real news from the media.

At the time of the war mongering by the BBC and other media to bomb Syria, I like many switched to other media such as RT and the internet to obtain the facts.

Yes, I am well aware that it wasn't the Syrian government who carried out the chemical attacks, and that we need to be extremely concerned about the extremist Islamists in Syria.

Britain and the USA have been arming and supporting these people, who haven't an ounce of moderation or tolerance in them. The Iraqi government has got fed up with it all, the constant bombings and sheer terrorism, and have asked for help in combating these murderers.

The facts are that despite all the disadvantages of the Syrian government, all faiths are allowed freedom of worship, which is seriously threatened by the Islamic extremists who want to replace them with a government with Sharia law.

The "Western " powers need to re-appraise policy in the Middle East. Support governments which allow religious freedom and which do not tolerate religious persecution.

Christianity is at threat in the very area of it first thrived, and in the past Christians lived in harmony with Muslims. This can happen again, it just needs the major powers to instead of funding terrorism, but to do everything possible to defeat it.

It took the Algerian government a Civil War lasting 20 years to defeat the Islamist fundamentalists, and we should learn from that. Once there is freedom from that extremism, the next step should to bring improved democracy, but not democracy which takes away people's freedoms, which is something all people should be on their guard against.

But back to the issue of having our voice heard in Westminster, it doesn't matter what I or anyone else in Guernsey or the other Crown Dependencies think, because the United Kingdom government can engage in whatever foreign policy they want which is in our name too, but without any reference to us.

This must change; numerically the Channel Islands should be entitled to up to 5 Members of the House of Lords, and up to two in the House of Commons.

zanetac

Time for Guernsey to clean up its act:

http://1chancerylane.co.uk/barristers/edward-faulks-qc/

GB

There appears to have been a real effort to find the right candidate for this technical, tricky and demanding job for once. I wonder if the blog-drubbing his well-meaning but ultimately bumbling predecessor got for ill judged remarks and feeble follow through with the "corporate island" issues facing Sark had anything to do with it?

If Lord Faulks can set the CI up with a (much needed) relevant Bill of Rights - then maybe that would be seen as a test bed for the UK's withdrawal from the ECHR ...and maybe even the EU itself?

Watcher

Zanatec

I agree the man has an impressive pedigree in many relevant fields but then again, he has not yet come up against the Sark establishment, I suggest that will open his eyes a bit.

Alan J

A barrister and a Lord probably deals in little else than "establishments" and vested interests. The one thing that will come as a pleasant surprise to him will be that this "establishment" is transparently and without doubt, democratically elected.

I realise that tends to stick in the craw of all those who those who feel that they lose out in a democracy. After all wasn't "democracy" supposed to provide free beer and skittles for all, paid for by someone else' cash? But asking for recounts until you get the result you want is a privilege reserved for the High Command of the EU.