Who Accounts For The Accounts ?

Does anyone check the States Tenants Rental Accounts before they are posted?  Are demanding / threatening  letters attached to all statements showing virtual arrears,even for the smallest amount?

Many tenants are unable to work out where discrepencies have occurred in the figures and will pay the amount demanded ;whilst this means their account will be in credit eventually,that money usually has to be taken from a diminishing weekly budget.

Help is not always available from the Housing Department, the staff are often unable to make sense of the figures and have a standard list of excuses ranging from tenant's error,computer error,Social Security Dept. error,to the desparate " It Wasn't Me! ".  When an error is proven apologies are not forthcoming.

In cases where a tenant is receiving an Income Support rental component (paid directly to the Housing Department) the amount being demanded is not the tenant's responsibility but due to the fact that the Social Security payment won't be received until a few days after the Rental Statement has been printed. There seems to be no communication between the two departments as to who is paying what to whom and when it will be paid.

What will happen next year when the Housing Department ceases to exist in its present form? Will confusion descend into complete chaos or will a sensible solution be found to stop tenants receiving worrying letters for money they do not owe?

Who will account for the accounts?

ASBESTOS WARNING!!! but Jersey law more dangerous to health and wealth

Public discipline for the plebs – but secrecy for the Jersey law professionals…the discrimination continues.

Strange how things happen together…this week there was the first ever Health and Safety Tribunal public hearing at the Employment Tribunal office below JACS and behind the Ann Summer shop in Bath Street…

This hearing concerned a UK based Asbestos Removal business (Solent) who had been stopped from operating in Jersey by the Health and Safety Inspectorate (HSI) of the Social Security Department.

The reason was that Solent – who have been in UK business for over 20 years – had the contract to remove asbestos from the flats at La Collette (15 floors of 4 flats per floor) but had made a simple mistake on their paperwork when the job was almost complete.

For this mistake their local permission to operate was withdrawn at six minutes notice and this was Solent’s appeal against that decision.

In fact Solent had already cleared the asbestos from several floors before they realised that it was simply not practical or safe to use 3 men and had reduced their team to 2 men only. That is, one man in the flat and one outside to monitor - as good practice usually allows in the UK.

As can be imagined, the space available within bathrooms especially was very restricted and for 2 men trying to operate wearing breathing gear and all the other protective apparatus and restrictive working methods, there just was no enough room. Often one of the men simply had to try to get out of the way whilst his workmate got on with the asbestos removal.

The mistake – for which Solent was to be struck off the local approved list – was that their revised plan of operation did not indicate two rather then three operatives on site as para 103 of the local regulations (as amended) indicated.

There had been no damage caused. Nobody was exposed to danger. The job had been completed to everybody’s satisfaction – but the bureaucracy had spotted a mistake and somebody had to be made an example of. As the chief inspector explained during the hearing, he took his regulatory and enforcement duties very seriously…and as Solent explained, they had reduced to two operatives for safety reasons!

In fact, the bureaucracy had failed to notice when the corrected plan as submitted by Solent indicated that two men only were to be used. Nobody had thought to censor the HSI for their own failure it seems….which was especially odd because their own inspector had written the very same  72 page Code and specifically drafted the amended paras 103 and 104 that uniquely required 3 operatives in Jersey.

Solent had made a mistake of course, but they were more used to UK practice and rules where two operatives would have been acceptable and where such on-site problems are easily resolved with the local HSI inspectors.

As the manager of Solent explained – conditions on a building site can be very different when the job is in progress to that which was presented at the “planning” stage. Thus for example, on the 15^th floor at La Collette they found all the windows had been removed before they commenced working and they had to try to ensure a draught free secure environment so that no dust escaped!

Doubly worrying was that the Jersey HSI revealed during the hearing that they would advise the UK Licensing body about the suspension of Solent’s local permission and this could well have an adverse affect upon their business in the UK. Solent could lose their licence to operate in the UK and since asbestos removal is their only activity, they would stop trading and their 30 employees would cease working….so the simple error on the Jersey paperwork could prove to be a very onerous one.

Coincidentally or otherwise, the JEP carried two articles on 13 November the (the day of the hearing) regarding asbestos in Jersey. The large article featured the annual report of the Director of Jersey HSI explaining how “asbestos is a killer” and how over 4,000 people died in the UK each year following asbestos exposure.

The other smaller item described how 250 containers are being held at La Collette (the quayside depot – not the flats) containing hazardous asbestos waste and that there is deadlock between States’ Departments over what to do with them. Nobody has been sacked or faces loss of employment for this extraordinary situation although Deputy Luce has lodged a “vote of no confidence” against Minister of Environment Deputy Duhamel.

The contrast with the treatment of Solent is evident.

The same JEP page also featured an article re “States debate on legal aid needed”. This explained how Deputy Tadier is pressing Chief Minister Gorst for widespread legal reform – not least on the question of legal aid provision in Jersey…

Of course, lawyers were very visible at the HSI Tribunal hearing. The Chair was Jersey lawyer Philip Syvret and his panel included Advocate Caroline Dorey (plus a Mr McCourt).

Solent was represented by Advocate Burns (?) of Le Gallais & Luce.

(Unfortunately this Tribunal like all others held here, refuses to uses a sound amplification system so that it is often difficult to hear everything – especially names – with clarity. Public engagement is not a strong point with these Tribunals as we have discussed on previous postings and the diary of proposed hearings is only stuck to JETs outside door weekly on a Friday afternoon…even case law and rules of procedure are difficult to determine!).

It occurred to this observer that such a hearing as this in public (as it should be) where expensive lawyers pick over every tiny detail trying to reveal the smallest imperfections in the lives of the general public – is in such contrast to their OWN treatment. After all, this hearing was really an appeal about a very arbitrary disciplinary process that threatened to remove the livelihoods of many people and was open to public gaze and reporting.

Yet Jersey lawyers – and other more privileged in this little community (such as the Police) – enjoy total privacy when they appear before a “disciplinary” panel. Why should this be?

This week too (Tuesday 12 November) also afforded an opportunity for Advocate Tim Hanson - President of the Jersey Law Society no less – to speak on Jersey’s Legal Aid system in the Institute of Law’s lunchtime lecture series.

Advocate Hanson (who does not reply to my telephone calls or emails) conceded (in a jokey sort of way) that lawyers are not very popular although he came - like Cicero – to praise rather than criticise the system. So the audience received more or less the usual PR statement with the supposed bonus that Jersey lawyers were currently looking at legal aid provision….

However, this President, just like all those who have gone before him, baulked at the suggestion that the public should be engaged NOW in these discussions… the Law Society  is not “club like” he protested and the public would have their chance to comment when the Chief Minister invited them….

Indeed we – the mere plebs – must know our place and wait until summoned.

It’s all part of the system of “class distinction” that has evolved over the years.

By the way…Perhaps somebody can tell me – for example – why the public stand up when this Tribunal enters or leaves the room (same as Employment Tribunals) but not at Social Security hearings (of which there is one scheduled for tomorrow Friday 15 November at 2.30pm).

And why does a Court “rise” when the Judge enters or leaves the courtroom but remains seated when the person who is being tried, does the same? ….And why do Courts of Law start their days with a prayer but not these Tribunals…?

The Tribunal re this HSI appeal will publish its decision in a couple of weeks…if I heard the Chair correctly.

.

Jersey Mental Health Dept - QUIZ - Spot the Difference

Below are two letters sent to a person by the Health Dept - regarding difficulties experienced with treatment for Mental Health.

One letter was written on 19 July 2010 the other  on 24 July 2013 by the same person - a "Patient and Client Liaison Officer".

The letters are - apart from their dates - identical and both claim that a "written response will follow from the Chief Executive."

The patient says that no such response has ever followed.

The Mental Health Departmnent is supposed recently to have introduced a new improved procedure for patients making complaints but this seems to indicate that nothing has changed in fact.

Whether there is anything wrong with using standard format letters is not really the issue unless it means that complaints are simply disregarded in practice.

If the quality of these copies is poor - well we have done our best to scan and reproduce them here...

Discrimination rules OK!

Well you cannot win them all - Discrimination (Jersey) Law latest has been approved by Her Majesty in Council and we can continue to house workers in portacabins and pay Ukrainians £2 per hour whilst proceeding to build the St Helier ghetto...

"Our" surveillance v "Their" transparency

Next week Charles Farrier of UK campaigning group NO-CCTV will be in Jersey to meet with the Scrutiny Panel looking at CCTV and Surveillance activities in this Island.

He will be speaking in public on Wednesday 18 September;

1)      CHOW discussion 1pm to 2pm at Church House, St Helier

2)      4pm at the Scrutiny hearing, Le Capelain room of the States Building

3)      From about 6pm until 8pm at Church House again to meet members of the Jersey Human Rights Group and for a public talk and discussion.

Although we are being watched and recorded more and more as we go about our various activities and the public and private Data files on us become ever more complex and far reaching – we have few rights to regulate or control the use of such information.

On the other hand, our government and other “official” organisations seem to maintain their own secrecy in spite of claims that “the public interest” might require greater clarity and transparency

Thus today for example “The Master of the Royal Court” (Advocate Thompson) refused to allow public access to a “directions hearing” being held and he relied upon the decision of Bailiff Bailhache in 2002 re JEP v Al Thani – that also featured this week in the court case decision re Stuart Syvret and the Data Protection Law etc.

The Judicial Greffe letter from “The Master” is copied below.

So Data and secrecy and our “right to know” are very live issues and the need for some local enlightenment was never more necessary.

Especially since there is a Jersey Law Society Disciplinary hearing taking place this week in private – whereas it is very likely that this will involve matters that are of great public interest and concern to many.

Yet contrarily, in the UK such “professional” disciplinary hearings are usually held in public and even those who belong to UK Professional bodies (such as nurses or veterinary surgeons etc) – but are employed in Jersey – are likely to be heard, in the UK, in public and to be fully reported (and discussed)  in the media.

As already flagged up on this site, Jersey Social Security Tribunals are usually kept private although they should be in public unless there is some pressing reason otherwise.

Scrutiny Panels have also retreated behind “Part A” secrecy standards during the current session of States government although the public were generally admitted to most of the “A” agenda in previous years and the world of politics did not seem to be harmed as a result. Why the need for secrecy now?

Complaints Boards hearings against the administration by States’ Departments are also generally supposed to be held in public although they do seem to slip by in private – especially if “a child” is in any way involved – on occasions.

Yet even UK Children’s Courts are now slowly being opened up to public scrutiny in some cases so that the public interest might be acknowledged and adhered to.

Furthermore, there is even a move now to televise some UK court cases alongside the proceedings of Parliament and Select Committees (similar to Scrutiny Panels)….

Bearing in mind too that so many “public” hearings in Jersey are held in buildings without adequate sound systems and minimal information to explain the proceedings to the general public (such as the names of judges) – so it is evident that REFORM has a long way yet to go in this Island.

No public money for the shirkers....

PRESS RELEASE States of Jersey Ministry for the Care of the Public Purse 27 August 2013 New proposals for States’ Members sanctions A new system of sanctions for States Members who fail to look for work while claiming States salaries has been proposed by the Minister for the Care of the Public Purse (CPP). The changes complement the increased help to find useful employment available through the ballot box and the significant investment made by the people to help locally elected politicians into creative work The new regulations will: • strengthen the public’s ability to reduce or remove States payments for those Members who repeatedly fail to look for work, or fail to fully respond to the voters’ needs or initiatives proposed by the paying public. They provide a new sanction to reduce the ability of States Members to freeload or to shirk from available work without good reason. The Minister for the Care of the Public Purse said that the vast majority of Members claiming salaries would be unaffected by the changes, which are designed to provide a strong deterrent to the minority who do not do enough work. Under the new proposals, any salary or expenses claimed by a Member as actively seeking to represent his or her electorate but failing to undertake meaningful representative activities will be issued with a written warning which will remain in force for a minimum of one year. Each further breach following that first warning will result in increasing financial penalties and the eventual loss of all salaries or expenses until the individual proves that they are genuinely looking for work. Any Member who leaves a voter unrepresented without a good reason will not be able to claim their salary or expenses component for 13 weeks. The Minister said: “There is an enormous amount of support available to help elected States Members increase their chances of useful employment, whether that is through training, seeking voter assistance, at the Department’s Scrutiny Panels or through direct engagement with local Parishioners in their constituencies. “Staying dormant and relying on the Media to call is not a lifestyle choice. The new regulations will send a clear message to the few who may be tempted to think it is. We will do everything we can to help them find work, but that failing to uphold their end of the bargain will result in a cut to their salary and expenses besides a likely final expulsion through the ballot box”. “The Department will not be penalising anyone who genuinely cannot find useful work, is exempt from doing so or has a good reason for leaving a ministry, such as being posted overseas temporarily on a jolly. Any Member who is thinking of leaving their post and may consequently need to claim the “Ogley Defence” should speak with our advisers about their options before making a decision to give up their duties.” The Minister said that States pay is an in-work benefit, designed to help Members in times of need and to encourage self-sufficiency. “The recent rises in unemployment among the general population have thrown into even sharper focus the need for increased penalties for all States Members who do not seek-out work. The intention of these changes is to protect public funds so that they can be properly targeted to people who are genuinely deserving of reward and recognition.” The new sanctions against States Members shirking employment are provided by regulations that were lodged with the States today. They are due to be debated on 8 October 2013. -ends-

Prove you exist...

That the Pensions Department of Ozouf's cost saving Treasury should have written to 4,000 Jersey people demanding that they prove their existence must be the Surrealist absurdity of this century. It certainly ranks with the "Can be Done film Company" phantasy for "most unlikely plot." How much it cost for the Treasury Mandarins to devise the lengthy form that was sent out to frighten the aged recipients is anybody's guess and they did not even have the courtesy to enclose a SAE either for the respondents' convenience. At least one known confused person attempted to deliver a completed form by hand to Cyril's Citidel aka Treasury HQ - only to be sent away with a flea in the ear for failing to read the small print that demanded proof in the shape of a personalised "utility bill". It will surely soon be necessary to show a gas bill in order to be allowed on a bus! But the most mysterious and worrying aspect of this silly episode must surely be the list of about 45 exclusive classes of "people of good standing in the community" who might be considered suitable (by farmer's son Pip and his comrades) to COUNTERSIGN the ridiculous form. If this motley "as listed" collection of pseudo respectables in Jersey society had a notion of good character they would surely refuse to have anything to do with this nonsense at all. But it just goes to show just how prejudiced is the thinking of those who run this government and its over egoed administration. Do they really think that in 2013 the character of a person might be judged just on the basis of the job they do or their rank! The range of inmates at La Moye Prison where the professional classes are as well represnted as any others ought to be enough to demonstrate the falacy. That Farmers are not included on the list whereas "Local States Members" are says a great deal in itself - but what a pity that the 4,000 or so recipients could not be organised to turn up on Senator Ozouf's doorstep, forming a not too orderly queue, seeking his "suitable signature." The exclusive list as sent out is published below - if your occupation is not inclded you must draw the obvious conclusion about your standing in Jersey society.... Accountant (CCAB recognised) Advocate, Airline Pilot, Assurance agent of a recognised company, Bank manager, Chairman/director of limited company, Chiropodist, Civil servant, Dentist/Doctor, Engineer (with professional qualification), Financial services intermediery (eg a stockbroker or insurance broker), Fire ervice official, Funeral director, Insurance agent of a recognised company, Journalist,Justice of the Peace, Lawyer, Legal secretary (fellow or associate member of the Institute of Legal Secretaries and PAs), L:icensee of a public house, Local States Mamber, Manager/personnel officer (of a limited company), Member, associate or fellow of a professional body, Merchant Navy Officer, Minister of a recognised religion (including Christian Science),Notary Public, Nurse/Midwife, Officer of the armed services (active or retired), Optician, Paralegal (certified paralegal, qualified paralegal or associate member of the Institute of Paralegals),Parish Official, Person with honours (eg an OBE or MBE). Pharmacist, Photographer (professional, Police Officer, Salvation Army Worker, Social Worker, Solicitor, Surveyor, Teacher/lecturer, Trade union official, Travel agent (qualified), valuer or auctioneer (fellows and assocate members of the incorporated society), Warrant Officer and Chief Petty Officer.... ...the countersignatory should be a professional person, or a person of good standing in the community....

Mr M's truly amazing Social Security Appeal Tribunal

Something very unusual and exciting happened upstairs behind the Ann Summers shop in Bath Street today, Wednesday 14 August 2013. In fact it was the first time that it had occurred in recently recorded history, was in public and yours truly was there to witness it! (along with a fellow SSTAG supporter) Amazing but true! Yes – you guessed – it was that very rare creature a SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL TRIBUNAL and was even more remarkable for some other reasons too…. Firstly, the person making the appeal – we shall call him Mr M – was not present (because he lives overseas) and was not even represented. Therefore he could not object to the public being present to observe the proceedings (dedicated readers of this page will know that the very few previous so called “public” hearings have been closed to the public (like us from SSTAG) on grounds of privacy. On this occasion we had reported at the JET desk at 9.15am in accordance with the instructions posted on the outside door and been told to wait... The three Appeal Panellists, Chair Advocate Thacker with Messrs Esnouf and Hall, entered the room at 9.30am precisely and proceeded, without making any introductions or clarifications, to discuss the contents of the applicant’s file with two officers from the Social Security Department. The officers gave their names but as is usual in such cases, they have been taught to mumble in a particularly skilful way at the SS Training Camp, so that it is impossible to hear who they are, from the public seats. One of the officers – the male one – as it later transpired - was the “deliberating officer” who had upheld the internal SS Departmental “reconsideration” of a fellow “deliberating officer’s” previous refusal of Mr M’s application for “invalidity benefit”. But it was the female officer who did most of the initial talking which was mainly answering questions from the Panel although she did read out a previously prepared “précis” of the case. It transpired that Mr M had lived overseas for many years and had long term health problems that included depression, heart problems and chronic fatigue syndrome. His overseas (foreign) doctor – a cardiologist – had consistently determined that Mr M was not capable of working and signed repeated certificates to say so. There was a reciprocal agreement in place between the government of Jersey and the foreign territory to accept each other’s medical certificates but the SS Determining officer wanted a foreign medical board assessment too. This was duly provided together with another one which hinted that Mr M might be capable of some light work – although it was disputed (in the correspondence) if the foreign Board doctors had ever (or properly) examined Mr M. According to the Jersey “invalidity law”, so the SS officer said, a medical certificate must state that the claimant is not fit for work. Anything less – such as might be fit for light work – negates any invalidity benefit claim. It is all or nothing, although there are OTHER benefits that might be applied for if appropriate… Listening from the public seats, a picture soon emerged of a determining officer who was determined to reject Mr M’s claim for benefit. The foreign cardiologist was dismissed as a mere “GP” and unsubstantial opinion, based upon little or no examination was to be preferred. To bolster up the rejection, no less than five Jersey doctors were subsequently employed to join the chorus that Mr M was fit for some light work, although not one of them had ever actually seen him! The SS determining officer’s final plea to the foreign administration to appoint yet another “medical board” fell on deaf ears – they had presumably grown tired of the Jersey SS Department, in spite of being paid to carry out the work. There was, in any case so it transpired, no provision within the Jersey law for yet another board at all but the officers considered it “practice” if necessary to call for one… Nevertheless, the determining officer persisted that “on a balance of probabilities” that Mr M was capable of some light work and upheld the previous decision to reject his invalidity claim. Fortunately, this tribunal was made of sterner stuff. At 10.20am the trio left the room to deliberate. They returned at 10.35am to announce that the appeal had been allowed. They would issue some written recommendations to the SS Department in due course. Presumably somebody would inform Mr M that he had won. But shall anybody inform Senator Le Gresley about this latest sad tale from his department’s failing administration?

Social housing and anti-social management

Why must the Housing Department behave in such a nasty way?
This is a copy letter recently sent to a "Social Housing Tenant".

We have redacted names - except for the Finance Administrator who has not learned yet to sign his or her name so that it can be read. What is the point of signing the letter at all if the name is not legible? Perhaps it is Donald Duck - who knows and who really cares....

Anyway the tenant is not in arrears. He assures SSTAG that there were some past difficulties due to illness and extra expenditure that could not be avoided. The Housing Department helpfully agreed a payment plan and that was fully complied with. There are no arrears of rent now. But even if this tenant did owe £60 - would that really warrant such a rude and threatening response?

Pay it (£60) within one week or else non-essential Maintenance Services will cease - any garage rental agreement or parking permit will be cancelled (the tenant has no garge or car of course), an UNANNOUNCED vist to your WORK ( the tenant cannot work) or home, reference to the PETTY DEBTS court, and wait for it... EXPULSION from "your home"......!!!!


We need to be aware that the Housing Department will soon cease to exist.  A new body ( to be known as the Housing Association or something similar) will become the effective "landlord" of all States' Social housing accommodation. Housing Minister Green will become the puppet of the Chief Minister's Office....

The States have already agreed that rentals will be increased to be something closer to those in the "private sector" ( in other words not affordable to people on lower incomes).
90% of private rentals for a smilar house or flat is the aim - although nobody has worked out yet which particular "private" accommodation will set the standards...

In fact, as we all know, "social" rents are effectively set by the Social Security Department in accordance with some weird formulae according to how much Income Support a person receives. It is disguised as the "Housing component".

Senator Le Gresley, Social Security Minister, recently refused (in the States) to publish his book of Income Support etc rules so that the public might study them. Too complicated he said, and as large as the "bible"....yes the same book that many people read and discuss every Sunday.


But suppose a "Private landlord" behaved like the Housing Dept Finance Administrator and made similar threats  - with or without £60 arrears -  what would the Royal Court have to say about such bullying behaviour? Can we really imagine that in 2013 the Judge would order immediate expulsion and/or the removal of rights and benefits over such a piddling amount of money?
(Only people without housing quals are supposed to receive such dreadful treatment in Jersey!)

And by the way - when did you last hear of the Housing Department actually REDUCING a rent because the maintenance of the property had been neglected (bearing in mind that the Treasury - now under Senator Ozouf's control - has been taking £25 millions out of the housing maintennac fund for decades), or the lifts were out of action, or the windows were ill-fitting, or the thermal insulation was inadequate or the properties were damp or the sound of people walking around above travelled through all the flats beneath...? Just suppose some tenants organised a "rent strike"...

So, is such a letter to this unfortunate tenant an indicator of the future? Is the screw tightening about to commence with even extra vigour...shall we soon see tenants forced out of their homes on the most frivolous pretexts. Shall the "Housing Association" be selling off housing stock at bargain prices to developers to put more cash into the kitty so that "new social homes" can be built to let to tanants at "realistic" market rents...?

As Senator Ozouf explained at a recent Scrutiny hearing - Jersey will only borrow money for projects such as new housing if there is a realistic expectation of a profitable return from rents - so we can all see in which direction those rents will be going....
He also explained that the financing of a super new hospital will also be similarly based - so stand by for yet more "User pays" projects and a public/private partnership health service where illness will be a very, very expensive luxury.....

Happy times are here again...you lucky people!

Jersey Registration Card Day One and concerns about Volunteering

Today is Jersey Registration Card Day One.

Or as the JEP more correctly describes it;

“A major new crackdown on people living and working illegally begins today in the biggest shake-up of immigration controls in a generation.”

So we are being ushered down to the Social Security aka SS Offices in La Motte Street to volunteer for prosecution under the welcoming “BENEFIT THIEVES LET’S STOP THEM” poster.

I called in at about 2pm today and found the extraordinary spectacle of no claimants or mystified members of the public at all queuing - but behind the front desk saw more grinning staff faces than a toothpaste advert on American TV.

What on earth was going on I wondered when I was beckoned over with a cheery wave – can this really be the same place that normally confronts enquirers with a barrage of empty chairs and just a few “I dare you” stares….?

Do you have any printed information? I asked.

Yes, what language would you prefer, English, Portuguese or Polish….Have you been busy? Yes and we have even had several lawyers in checking to see that we are doing things properly too…

Would anybody be prepared to give me an interview on video for my blog(s) I asked?

Leave your details and we will ‘phone back….

Whilst there, I called into the Work Zone to enquire about “Volunteering”.

Not for myself but we have received several “complaints” about things going wrong for volunteers who have been injured or incurred expense when giving their time for free.

Is there a written “Code of Standards” we wanted to know that protects the volunteers and the people they are helping?…

…after several onward referrals and a return to the front desk the verbal information was that…

In a word the answer is NO.

This is something that volunteers must sort out for themselves with the organisation or business that they have volunteered to work with.

Which seems a bit vague because the SS Department is very actively promoting voluntary, unpaid work for those out of work and these people can be school leavers (with little or no experience of the wicked world) or mature persons with very little money to spare and disabilities to contend with.

There seems to be an official reliance on “Registered Charities” and employers to act ethically but since there is no such thing as a “Register” in Jersey the whole system seems to be the usual, untested “Jersey way” of operating…and we are especially concerned that vulnerable people (either as volunteer helpers or those being helped) are adequately checked out and validated.

We shall of course be writing to Minister Le Gresley for clarification on these issues (assuming that the ‘phone remains silent re an interview) but we did also call in at the JACS office (behind the Ann Summers shop) to see what Employment or Social Security Tribunals are currently imminent.

In fact there has not been a Social Security Tribunal for months and none is planned which does surprise us at SSTAG since so many claimants complain to us about the treatment they receive at the SS office. What happens to all these unhappy people?

We did note that there is an Employment Tribunal scheduled for this Thursday according to the official note pinned to the external door…we have also learned through the grapevine that the electronic notification of such hearings might actually become a reality in the near future because an extra member of staff is being recruited!!!

Perhaps the official Jersey Delegation to China will be able to resource a cheap IT programme to help this come to fruition even sooner?

As always, we welcome any comments or information especially from users of the SS, Health or Housing Department systems.

Good or bad do tell us how you find the standards of service provided.

Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel

Review of Camera Surveillance in Jersey

Terms of reference

The Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel has agreed to undertake a review relating to the increasing prevalence of camera surveillance in the Island. The review will seek to ensure that the use of camera surveillance is reasonable, justifiable and transparent so that Islanders feel properly informed about and are able to support the security measures that are in place.

The Panel will

·    Consider the scale of usage of camera surveillance in Jersey by the States of Jersey, commercial and non-commercial  agencies

·    Explore the role played by camera surveillance in policing, community safety, transport and in the criminal justice system

·    Examine evidence for the effectiveness of camera surveillance in preventing and detecting crime and promoting public safety

·    Explore public awareness of camera surveillance in Jersey

·    Consider any concerns relating to the extent and purpose of intrusion into people’s lives

·    Establish the effectiveness of current guidelines/voluntary codes of best practice and their operation

·    Establish the rights of access to information and camera footage by citizens and what rights employees have in relation to camera surveillance by their employers.

·    Consider whether there is a need to develop the formal regulation of the use of camera surveillance.

The Panel will consult stakeholders and the public on what information should be available to any individual wishing to know more about overt surveillance cameras and how this information should be made available.

The Panel will report its findings to the States

Further explanatory note

The review will be concerned with the overt use of systems such as CCTV and ANPR (Automated Number Plate Recognition) in public and semi-public places where people can generally see a camera, or are informed about its presence. It will not deal with covert surveillance techniques which are legislated for through the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Jersey) Law 2005.

 

This (below) is my initial memorandum prepared for the consultant experts engaged by the Scrutiny Panel.

It is not intended as a complete or final submission but to flag up some of the differences that will be encouncountered in Jersey where, for example, privacy is all important in the finance industry but not so important on the streets of St Helier etc where CCTV cameras proliferate.

More discrimination is encountered in other aspects of the "Jersey way of life" and surveillance policies reflect this.

So far no expert adviser on Human Rights has been appointed by the Scrutiny Panel so far as I am aware and it is doubtful if anybody suitable will be found from among  local lawyers .

Public submissions will no doubt soon be invited by the Panel.

Jersey surveillance, scrutiny, serfs, servility and surfing…                 1 of 7

There are at least two distinct standards of privacy in Jersey.

For normal residents who move around the streets in the open, enter and leave buildings, catch buses etc there is constant CCTV surveillance which may in some instances, include audio recording.

On the other hand, the primary commercial activity of the Island – as a Finance Centre employing 12,000 people - is founded upon providing “secrecy” for thousands of wealthy individuals and companies.

Thus, although the 100,000 residents who live in Jersey enjoy only minimal standards of everyday privacy, those unknown numbers who simply exist here behind a business nameplate have their confidentiality vigorously protected – at least in theory - by an army of professionals and a whole governmental and political philosophy.

Of course, the 21^st century obsession with collecting information ensures that all our activities are now monitored in some way or other and data is extracted and stored about all aspects of our lives and even the very composition of our being.

We are spied upon from the sky whilst Google cameras follow us around the streets posting images of our homes and secure places across the world for all to see. Even if we wanted to curtail these intrusive activities we are powerless so to do and the business interests involved are just simply too big and powerful to challenge. Not just at an individuals rights’ level either – “too big” means even for the Jersey government to challenge in many cases.

Whilst mobile ‘phones ensure that our precise personal location is known day and night, wherever it might be, Jersey provides a safe “haven” for many corporations, trusts, foundations and other legal creations with world-wide interests and assets of £Billions…although Jersey’s total annual budget is less than £700 millions.

I have been lobbying for some years in Jersey for governmental examination of the “surveillance” activity in this Island.

The partial Scrutiny Inquiry that has now been announced (April 2013) is a start but remains a very incomplete response.

It is no longer appropriate to separate “camera” based surveillance from the myriad of data collection that takes place whenever we use a ‘phone, draw money from a bank, make a purchase, eat at a café,  travel, consult a doctor, borrow a book, watch TV…

Only last week the Jersey Minister of Health gave absolute assurances in the States about the security of Islanders’ medical files – but it was a particularly hollow undertaking since she had no idea where they were supposedly securely stored!

The sheds of many old Jersey farms are stuffed with the “secure files” of many Finance businesses but whether their world-wide clients would sleep so easily if they realised this is not obvious.

The recent escape of data files from the HSBC in Jersey to the UK Revenue is just the latest among many likely “whistle-blowing” incidents around the world.

No matter how wealthy or powerful, it seems that security cannot be assured or bought. So what chance that mere regulation might protect Joe or Jill Bloggs on an everyday basis? Is there even any point in trying…?

As a blogger (no pun intended) I am constantly rebuffed by government departments and refused the sight of “press releases” or to speak with officials etc because I am not “accredited media”. Yet, as we all know, it is the very same self-regulating “accredited” press and broadcasting organisations such as the late News of the World and the BBC that have dragged the reputation of journalism to its lowest ever levels through one ethical failure after another. Yet we are supposed to rely upon a healthy “free press” for so much of the information that we receive! It was a BBC Panorama TV team that undertook a “concealed camera” interview at a Jersey Bank to reveal potentially illegal money laundering a few years ago – was this a justified intrusion of privacy?

Self regulation – leaving it to the “professionals”- has been revealed as the total con-trick that GBS described decades ago…yet the several dozen “free spirited” bloggers in Jersey and many hundreds in the UK have behaved remarkably well in contrast.

Now we are promised some sort of new Royal Charter to beef-up a media regulatory framework (which may or may not include bloggers etc) – but how this might be applied to Jersey and the other Dependencies is not at all clear.

As usual, the government and administration of Jersey will almost certainly await the initiative of others and for costly and complicated legislation to be drafted elsewhere. Any local application will most likely be on an informal, non statutory basis and useless.

Unfortunately, Jersey has a very weak history so far as human rights and basic freedoms are concerned.

The Island’s own three hundreds or so locally grown lawyers are far too busy protecting their “tax dodging” clients’ interests to be concerned in such matters for the general population. There is no “Human Rights” committee in the commercially obsessed local Society of Lawyers - in an Island where there is no human rights’ compliant legal aid scheme in existence and a dire lack of published legal information on everyday matters.

It is wholly predictable that there is still no proper “Freedom of Information” legislation either – just a voluntary code.

Similarly, there is still no anti-discrimination legislation in place – and none actually planned to be implemented for years to come.

This is against a background of blatant disregard for international human rights standards. Those, such as the UN Conventions to eliminate discrimination against women, to protect the rights of the child or the rights of disabled people have still not even been ratified for Jersey…

                                                                                                                                         

Conversely, Human Rights treaties that have been ratified such as the European Convention (ECHR – enshrined since 2006 within Jersey Law) or the UN Covenants on Civil or Political Rights and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, are hardly made accessible or meaningful.

A complete and accurate statement of the treaties etc that do apply in Jersey does not exist in the public domain.

Although the Island Plan as prepared by the Planning and Environment Department commences with the claim that “over 350 International treaties” etc have to be considered in preparing this most “important” document – my request for a list of these has consistently fallen on deaf ears. Only a few treaties are actually even mentioned within the Plan’s many pages. It is just another facet of the misleading use of information or suppression by government and others of that which might actually be useful to the general public.

It is not just the ordinary Joe and Jill either that can be adversely affected by Jersey’s obscure or unusual practices.

Jersey’s Chief of Police – a very senior officer recruited from the UK- was suspended from his Jersey post in 2010 and subsequently retired. The only outstanding complaint seemed to be centred on the files of “Operation Blast” which was a supposed surveillance and information gathering project operated by the police against Jersey’s elected politicians. He has protested his unfair treatment ever since.

The Acting Chief-Officer who took over from him retired after a short period citing the unlikely excuse of “blogger interference” and left the Island, presumably with his pension assured.

During 2011 the Chief Executive Officer of the States Civil Service retired early taking a £500,000 pay off, the conditions of which he wrote for himself. He cited “bullying” by politicians.

A senior consultant surgeon at the Jersey General Hospital was suspended on full pay in 2006 for four years from active duties after the death of a nurse/patient following an operation.

He retired without returning fully to work but with nearly £½million compensation and he described himself as a “scapegoat.” Total cost of his suspension was £3millions and the subsequent enquiry revealed substantial management failures in the hospital and health service.

A supposed gang of drug smugglers was arrested, convicted and sentenced in 2007 to long periods in prison on conspiracy to import charges. The basis of the police case was surveillance operations in Jersey, the UK and on the Continent named “Operation Floss” and “Flare” which included illegal bugging of a vehicle and telephone conversations.                                                                                                             

Senior Judges in court described the illegal police activity as “a reprehensible and unlawful act” but the evidence was still accepted and the convictions stood. Most of the prisoners are now released.

One Senior Jersey Police officer only remains under suspension.

This case highlights the potential problem that arises under the terms of reference for the current Scrutiny Panel regarding “covert” police activities which are supposedly excluded. But how might illegal police surveillance be treated? Shall covert illegal monitoring be included – especially if the court determines (as they have in this case) that such evidence need not be rejected? For covert read overt?

One blogger has suggested that this whole case was a set-up with international communications corporations behind it. He argued that these large organisations are only present in Jersey (a very small market) because they use the jurisdiction as a base for testing new - sometimes dubious - surveillance products. It is a novel suggestion and makes a change from the usual “tax advantage” reasoning.

Jersey’s Comptroller and Auditor General was forced to resign in 2012 following an acrimonious Scrutiny Panel examination regarding the proposed Police HQ and an exchange of disputed  e-mails.

(Strangely, a telephonist still answers his office ‘phone in his name (April 2013) although another person has been appointed and works from the CM’s department)

The Jersey senior designate-Magistrate is currently in jail following conviction, with others, on fraud charges. He has protested his innocence.

The Jersey Dean’s commission is currently suspended by the Bishop of Winchester following allegations of his failure to follow Church of England “safeguarding procedures” regarding sexual abuse claims from a vulnerable adult.

There is now dispute over the constitutional relationships of the Church in Jersey, the Dean’s appointment and the appropriate disciplinary body with much political lobbying taking place.

International police bodies are currently searching for a former Jersey based accountant who is currently sought in connection with the alleged missing £20 millions investment of an Australian film-star cum confessed tax dodger.

The accountant’s former Jersey partner is already in an Australian jail following conviction for that country’s biggest ever tax evasion case.

Such huge international swindles arise regularly in the Finance Industry but are seldom initiated in Jersey. They mostly come to public notice in courts overseas and only revert to Jersey during the quest for hidden loot.

The use and mis-use of information runs throughout such cases as those listed briefly above. But where might Jersey Joe or Jill discover the truth?                                 

Accuracy, like beauty, is to some extent in the eye of the beholder but the means by which reliable facts might be made available to the general public has certainly not yet been discovered in Jersey.

It is important to consider such cases in the specific context of Jersey, where surveillance and data-gathering are intense activities, against a background of “official secrecy” in the Finance Industry. Added to this is the lack of investigative journalism and a government that is constantly filling the information void with “good news” PR statements through its “Communication Units” and other agencies.

No wonder then that Blogging has erupted in Jersey on such a scale to fill the information and “free speech” gap? There is nothing comparable in Guernsey or the Isle of Man.

Jersey now shares its Data Protection Commissioner with Guernsey and employs a very small staff to deal with the many potential issues that could arise in two distinct Bailiwicks, with differing laws and practices etc.

What happens in other places with regard to the “regulation” of data access is beyond the scope of this memorandum but suffice to point out that the avenues open for complaint or redress are very few in Jersey..

There is no Jersey Ombudsman – although it is often discussed as needed for all sorts of dispute resolutions matters.

The Complaints Board is a very inadequate tribunal that hears about a dozen disputes only each year against administrative decisions of the government. It is cumbersome, decisions cannot be enforced and costs are not awarded.

The Board does not initiate complaints, as happens in some other small jurisdictions.

Resort to the expensive courts and the employment of Jersey lawyers at exorbitant fees is the sole remedy for many whilst others must suffer in silence.

The Jersey Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) provides a helpful service but is severely restricted against giving advice on Jersey Law matters due to local professional constraints.

That there is only one “local” newspaper is not inevitable – there were several in the distant past – but falling advertising revenue is making traditional newspaper publication a world-wide problem. The Jersey Evening Post (JEP) and Guernsey Press are both owned by the same UK publishing group and have similar formats with ever-increasing “syndicated” content.

Since over £300,000 of JEP revenue p.a. derives from “Gazette” type official advertising from the Jersey government it is not surprising that the editorial content is seldom critical of government policy.

BBC Jersey provides a “local” radio and TV broadcasting service which is seldom politically challenging and caters mostly for a “mature” conservative audience. Much of the output is of a dismal “disc jockey” standard with presentation staff to suit.

Channel TV is the ITV outlet serving the Channel Islands. Its “local” and original content is the minimum that will satisfy UK licensing demands.                                             

Revenue appears to be generated largely upon a tax advantaged re-routing of UK programmes for national consumption.

Radio Channel 103 is a commercial radio station that caters for an audience with empty heads which are ideally filled with noise and advertising jingles.

As if the knowledge void was not already complete, Jersey has no political parties so that the 51 elected politicians are left largely to their own devices so far as research is concerned or to their own prejudices when making decisions.

There are very few Island NGOs and lobby groups tend to be one-subject orientated – often related to a specific disease or charitable cause.

Alcohol and drug abuse, mental illness and suicide are all at a high level of incidence so that the PR image of a wealthy, carefree holiday Island with pretty brown cows grazing in green pastures alongside fields of Royal potatoes may be considered as somewhat misleading.

Whilst not wanting to paint too bleak a picture – it is necessary to refer to the “discrimination” that is enshrined in Jersey law and social policies.

The UK government had the good sense to abandon its ID cards with photos plan some years ago – but the project lives on in Jersey. At least, the card does, although the “photo” and micro-chip part is currently on hold.

This “registration card” is an essential part of the new (2013), “improved” attempt to “limit population growth” through immigration controls coupled with housing and work restraints. All Islanders wanting work or moving home will soon have to produce a card proving their residential status.

There are to be four categories of residential and work qualification;

Registered (the non-qualified)

Entitled to work only (those with 5 years residence)

Licensed (those currently with J-category, essentially employed status)

Entitled (those who have lived in the Island for 10 years or more)

All those moving to Jersey must register when they apply for a job and pay a fee to the Social Security Department.

Employers need a licence to employ anyone who has lived in the Island for less than five years.

Clearly, such a system of control requires surveillance and enforcement.

There will be inspectors, spot checks, policing, arrests and prosecutions.

Data will be collected from all government and administrative departments such as Social Security, Health and Medical records, Income Tax, Driving and Car Licences, TV licences, Rates and Parish records, Electoral rolls, Telephone Directories, Libraries, Police and Criminal data resources, Courts, schools etc.

Inevitably there will be mission creep and leakage. Accuracy of stored information will be subject to keyboard and cognisance skills of staff in a community which has an ever  changing and international make-up. Many names will be entered incorrectly into the data base “register” which will take years to compile and need constant revision.

Qualifications and status for some people can be lost through absence from the Island.

On the plus side, those who have not achieved 10 years residence will enjoy the right to lease a property with security of tenure (a new right from 2013).

This package of restrictions is being applied already. Those without 5 years residence are being “eased” out of the job-market to make way for unemployed “locals.”

More tolerance is to be shown in the “Hospitality” and “Agriculture” sectors of employment where many vacancies are low paid, seasonal or temporary and not attractive to permanent residents.

A policy of revoking “licences” is already being implemented when workers without five years residence leave a job, in order to free up that vacancy for “locals” only.

Many people in Jersey resort to unofficial or not approved places to “live” such as sheds, garages, boats, camper-vans, a friend’s floor etc. These will have to be declared under this new improved plan since all workers will have to produce evidence of a bona fide address …

Since 1949 Jersey has had a Housing Law which has sought to limit population growth by making it more difficult (or impossible) for many people to rent or buy proper living accommodation. Since 1970, this has resulted in the perverse situation where 10,000 (ever changing) working adults (about one fifth of the working population) do not enjoy equitable housing and employment rights.

During this period Jersey has followed a policy of economic and population growth (from 70,000 to the present 100,000) but the community is divided by such discrimination policies and this is now to be subject to the surveillance and regulation of the “registration card” system. Although the official economic plan calls for further ”growth” the inevitable population expansion makes it impossible ever to satisfy the demand for housing accommodation or employment opportunities for all with equity.

Discrimination has therefore become the accepted control tool and is enshrined in law, policy and the Island’s mindset.

It is necessary to comprehend that Jersey is not just a slightly strange part of the UK.

The laws and policies here are substantially different although much information and some opinions arrive here (via the UK media) and there is a superficial appearance of “sameness”.

Many employers are UK based and may follow more or less UK standards on staff employment, voluntarily.

Businesses such as security providers (G4S employs 500 staff in Jersey) may follow UK guidelines and practices but this is not inevitable.

Any examination of something like “surveillance” must draw upon practices elsewhere but the Jersey difference has to be fully considered too. I offer these observations as an introduction to some of the differences that need to be considered.                       7 end