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
For this mistake their local permission to operate was withdrawn at six minutes notice and this was Solent ’s appeal against that decision.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
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 15th 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 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
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).
(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
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 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.
.
