More information but learning less about Social Security decisions and procedures

This is the latest exchange of emails with the Judicial Greffe trying to establish the currect procedures to be followed with regard to Social Security ( and Employment) Tribunals that take place in the building behind the Ann Summers Shop in Bath Street.

As more and more people become unemployed it is essential that clarity and ease of access for the public must be paramount. There cannot be any secrets in making decisions.

Where confidential matters are discussed and the public has to be excluded then redacted written decisions must be made available so that we can all know that the laws and policies are properly administered.

SSTAG is not satisfied with the answers so far received and we have spoken with the Assistant Minister at Social Security - Deputy Pinel - about this and will continue to press for fuller disclosure of information - as we will with regard to ALL decisions made at the La Motte HQ of the Social Services Deprtment.

As always we invite anybody with experiences - good or bad-  to contact us so that we can build up a full picture and we also invite any States Members to make contact with us too. We are trying to solve problems - not create them.

The emails below start with the most recent reply  a few days ago from the Judicial Greffe (which deals with such matters for the Social Security Department and the Tribunal);

Dear Mr Dun

Further to our recent correspondence I have detailed below the procedure followed in the Social Security Tribunal and the Income Support Medical Appeal Tribunal for the publication of lists of hearings, sittings in public and the publication of decisions.  The procedure is the same for both Tribunals as although they are governed by separate Orders the Orders themselves are very similar.  I have hyperlinked these to enable you to refer to them as you go through this email

I have discussed this matter with and copied this email to the Depuy Judicial Greffier.

The relevant Orders for each Tribunal do not specify that the details of hearings should be published prior to the hearing taking place, only that the hearings are in public.  Up until the present time these details have not been published anywhere.  However, this is not to say that we will are not willing to publish the lists, only that it has not previously been done and with that in mind we are in the process of developing the Court Service website, part of which will be a section for the Tribunals Service, once this is up and running the lists of hearings will be available on this site. 

Looking now at the question of hearings in public or private both Part 7 of the  Income Support (General Provisions)(Jersey) Order 2008, which covers the Income Support Medical Appeal Tribunal, and Part 4 of the Social Security (Determination of Claims and Questions)(Jersey) Order 1974 which covers the Social Security Tribunal state that :

“The Tribunal shall sit in public unless the Tribunal considers it necessary to sit in private”

The presumption is that the hearing is in public and the decision on whether or not it is necessary for a hearing to be in private is in the hands of the Tribunal.  The Tribunal’s approach to applications for sitting in private are as follows:-

The Registrar will remind the appellant when they arrive that the hearing is in public.  If the appellant is concerned about this the Registrar will inform them that  they can, if they wish make an application to the Tribunal immediately prior to the start of proceedings for the matter to be heard in private.

If there is likely to be an application the Registrar will pass this information to the Tribunal panel in advance of the hearing in order that the panel are aware that such an application will or may be made. 

The Tribunal will convene the Chairman will ask if there are any applications to be made prior to the hearing commencing.  The application will be heard in open forum and the panel will decide on the basis of the reasons put before them by the applicant and the nature of the substantive matter whether or not to grant the application. Once the decision and if it is for a private hearing any members of the public and /or press present will be asked to leave the Tribunal room.

On the question of the publication of decisions; the relevant Orders for both Tribunals state that the decision of the majority of members of the Tribunal shall be the decision of the Tribunal and that a written record of the decision signed by the Chairman or Deputy Chairman,  which includes the names of the panel members, the reasons for the decision and records any dissenting opinion, shall be distributed by the Registrar to the parties as soon as is practicable after the hearing has taken place.  There is no statutory requirement for these decisions to be published and at the moment there are no plans to do so. 

If a case has been taken to the Royal Court on appeal on a point of law then the reasoned judgment for that appeal will be published on the Jersey Law website,

Finally the relevant Orders for each Tribunal contain the provision that each Tribunal may regulate its own procedure.  The information I have detailed above is the procedure followed by these Tribunals where public hearings and the publication of decisions and reasons are concerned.  These are not “make it up as we go along” procedures and they will be published on the website once it is up and running.

I hope I have answered your queries but if you require any further information please email me.

Yours sincerely

Assistant Judicial Greffier 

From: Mike Dun Sent: 09 January 2013 10:00
Subject: Re: re Social Security Tribunals

Dear Mrs .......Thanks for the preliminary further information but I think we are heading fior a very dark hole of secrecy here.

For the record it must be stated that such tribunals are outside the heirarchy of the courts system and have been subject to review and reform in other places such as the UK (notably following Legatt).

Even UK Family Court rules have been relaxed to allow public access and reporting in some cases.

Just because a matter involves children is not automatically a reason for hearings to be in secret. Access to decisions etc are also in this category.

Of course, we are not in the UK and I would want to receive clarification based upon rules, regulation or policies that specifically apply in and have been sanctioned within Jersey.

I do not expect to receive the usual "make it up as we go along" approach just borrowing bits of practice that seem to suit the moment.

I can only repeat that these tribunals should take place in public for very good reasons which have already been outlined.

I note that you do not anticipate responding fully before the next hearing but I can confirm my intention of attending tomorrow's hearing and if necessary will raise the matter directly with the tribunal's chairperson.

Regards

Mike Dun

----- Original Message -----

To: 'Mike Dun'

Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 9:13 AM

Subject: RE: re Social Security Tribunals

Dear Mr Dun

I have been informed by the Registrar that tomorrow’s hearing involves a minor – I am checking with the Chairman of the Tribunal but I expect this hearing to be held in private – it is Court policy that all hearings involving children are held in private and there is no reason for Tribunals to be different.

I will confirm by email as soon as I have a reply from the Chairman.  I will also be sending a detailed reply to your previous email in the next 48 hours.

Yours sincerely

Assistant Judicial Greffier 

From: Mike Dun Sent: 08 January 2013 23:57
Subject: re Social Security Tribunals

Further to my previous I write to confirm that I plan to attend as a member of the public for the scheduled hearing re ...... on Thursday 10 January.

I hope that this might proceed as planned in public.

Regards

Mike Dun 

PS
We have continued to try to attend as many Employment Tribunal Hearings as possible but several have been cancelled at very short notice and one very interesting one was put on without any notice at all. This hearing was duly adjourned and we have asked to be advised when it will resume because it raised some very important issues reaching way beyond Employment law and procedure.

Another hearing put on at short notice took place on Thursday so far as is known but details are awaited.
We called into the JET office (upstairs behind the Ann Summers shop) on Friday to ask if the list of hearings for February was available.
The answer was somewhat vague but it now transpires that a notice will be stuck on the JET door at midday on a Friday so that the general public might discover what hearings are due!

Could we have a copy - NO! we must look at the notice stuck on the door.
So we checked and there was a tiny notice advising of just two scheduled Employment hearings for the first week of February (Monday and Thursday). This is the new system until JET can update its IT system!
So there you are general public - if you want to know what is going on - then get yourself outside the JET after midday on a Friday...

The notice offers the tel number 630291 to 'phone for updates. Try it and let us know how you get on.

Of course, there is nothing at all about Social Security hearings, which according to the rules are also supposed to take place in public - although we have been thrown out of both those that we attempted to attend so far.
None are scheduled for February apparently - so all those thousands of people claiming Income Support etc at the Social Security Departnent must be content with their decisions. This is contrary to what we hear on the street so we find this puzzling...

PPS
We also hear that the Hospital is now demanding the most extraordinary information from seriously ill  and aged patients  before they will treat them!!!
If you have received one of the latest letters demanding that you prove whether you have paid your SS contributions, income tax etc and have housing quals or to produce copies of your bank statements - do let us know. We should very much like to publish a  suitably redacted copy on this SSTAG blog site...

More information - who needs to know....?

The New Year had started promisingly on the information front.

Not only did we have assurances that information about Court hearings would be put on the Internet – along with details of other tribunals – but other reforms were also to be implemented.

Most important was that the Judicial Greffe issued to us a list of Social Security and Employment Tribunal hearing planned for January 2013.

These are supposed to be public hearings but details have never previously been published beforehand – making it virtually impossible for the public or the press to attend and report on what happens.

Obviously, as with all tribunals and court hearing, it is not only important that justice is done but it must be seen (and heard) to be done.

True justice cannot be delivered in secret.

Obviously there are some matters which parties might prefer to keep confidential in any dispute that goes before a court or tribunal and some cases with regard to children are especially sensitive. But just because a litigant might not want to have their details made public – this is not a reason to hold hearings in secret as a general rule.

Social Security matters are of course especially sensitive for some people but this is usually about the administration of public funds or facilities and the need for the general public to know that such matters are handled properly is especially important.

It is also important that other applicants for Social Security benefits (such as Income Support) can know how other people have been treated. It is most important that the precedents of previous decisions are published and constantly monitored to ensure that fairness runs throughout the system for all.

What’s fit for the goose is fit for the gander etc….

So we ( two members of the public including this SSTAG supporter) duly attended at the Jersey Employment Tribunal offices (1st floor behind the Ann Summers shop in Bath Street) at 1.45pm in time (as advised in advance) for the Social Security Public hearing scheduled for 2.00pm on Monday 7 January.

We had e-mailed to confirm that we intended to attend

This was to be the first SS hearing so far as we know to be actually held “in public”.

The named applicant (a wheelchair user who we call Mrs X) her husband and Deputy Rod Bryans arrived in the meeting room at about 2.10pm and the Chairperson Advocate E. Miller introduced everybody present. Her panel consisted of a Mr Moullin and Doctor Loane.

There were two officers from the Social Security Department seated at a desk plus another seated in the public seats along with yours truly.

Unfortunately, the Chair then advised us that since the applicant wanted to raise personal matters she would prefer that members of the public were not present. Without any discussion on this point we the (two) members of the general public (and/or SSTAG) were then requested to leave - which we did.

Before departing I suggested to the Chair that such a decision should at least have been canvassed in advance so as to avoid wasting public time. Also that it seems to be a matter that needs a more thought out policy and that details of the eventual hearing and decision should be published in the public interest.

This is another matter previously raised.

Deputy Bryans said nothing.

We have contacted the Assistant Judicial Greffier following this experience and await her promised e-mail response. We will publish further details here.

Today, Tuesday 8 January, an Employment Tribunal Hearing is taking place in the same venue from 9.30am re Sonia Seijas v Planet Catering.

This is open to the public as such Employment hearings generally are (though not advertised) and we will report on any interesting matters that arise in due course.

So one step forward and one back on the information front and anybody wanting to have some of the mysteries of the Social Security Department bureaucracy revealed must wait a bit longer….

Perhaps a States Member will ask a few questions?

Information clampdown by States of Jersey...

One of the wonders of IT is that it is so easy to send information all over the world at little cost - just at the touch of a button.
It is truly amazing BUT it does not suit everybody.

The States of Jersey is, like governments everywhere putting more and more information on-line and that is all well and good so far as it goes. But of course WE the public have to have the right IT equipment and the ability to use it and that does not come cheap and the necessary skills are - for some - difficult to achieve.

It is becoming obvious that the States is on an Ozouf led economy drive and that the savings offered by putting stuff on-line rather than printing it on paper are initially attractive. But who does this really benefit? We have referred to the problem before on SSTAG and will continue to do so in future.

A recent example is detailed below regarding the Social Security Department and to our eternal sadness involves Senator Le Gresley who was until very recently the head of Jersey CAB where making information available is the name of the game.

To cut it short - we were recently told by the counter clerk at the SS office at La Motte that leaflets and booklets had been discontinued and once the current stock was gone there would be no  more printed.
We thought this must surely be a mistake - but when we wrote to Minister Le Gresley we duly received confirmation! The exchanged e-mails are attached to this posting.

Yet on BBC Radio Jersey this weekend - on the "phone-in where no phone calls are broadcast " Senator Le Gresely (appearing with Deputy Green the Minister for Housing) was heard to claim that anybody seeking more information could pop into La Motte HQ and pick up explanatory  printed leaflets!!!
Obviously  not correct Minister and we wonder if he even reads his own e-mails?

At the same time in the JEP (Monday 26 November) there appears an article promoting the wonders of on-line digital information and how the States can save "a great deal of money" according to a local IT expert with an obvious commercial interest. "This is the future of government as digital enables a leaner public sector" he says - and of course such claims are lapped up by Senator Ozo and his accountant friends.

On the other hand at a recent Scrutiny Panel hearing it was revealed that FOI (the long awaited Freedom of Information law) is bogged down in no-man's land and nobody knows when it will be funded or  implemented. So the actual ability of the public to access more and more information (bearing in mind that new policies and regulations are hitting the public from every angle on a daily basis) will become increasingly difficult because printed leaflets etc are already being scrapped.

We at SSTAG will do what little we can to fight for MORE printed information not LESS and we hope that just a few of our so called elected representatives will give us support.

The reply from Senator Le Gresley dated 23 November 2012 appears here with our initial e-mail following;

Thank you for your e-mail.

When leaflets have expired or need changing our approach is to consider what would now be appropriate and in what format. This has meant that some historic leaflets have been removed. It has also meant that some are now only available on-line – for example the contributions rate sheet for employers has been replaced by the on-line contributions calculator. The main income support benefit leaflet is currently being redrafted.

We have never produced leaflets in the Polish language and have no plans to do so. Historically there have been leaflets in Portuguese and French, relating to the reciprocal agreements between Jersey and these countries, but these are no longer available.

Yours sincerely

Senator Francis Le Gresley

Dear Senator/Minister,

Today I called into the La Motte offices to pick up any SS leaflets etc in the Polish language to assist somebody with relatively poor command of English.

To my amazement I discovered that your Department has introduced a policy to scrap written information published on paper  but now proposes that this will be available ONLY on-line for ALL persons.

The last printing of booklets/leaflets I was advised will not be replaced once the current - already depleted - stock is gone!

My amazement is enhanced in view of my previous recent communications to you regarding the inadequacy of so many aspects of "public hearings" and furthermore by the confusion over States employment vacancies.

So I really must protest that the creeping "non publication" policy of States Departments is just simply so unhelpful and discriminatory against so many.

This is all the more acute with Departments such as Social Security and Health where so many people needing access to vital infomation are sick, disabled or otherwise disadvantaged.

I am totally shocked and hope that there has been yet another mistake by your counter staff.

Surely this absurd alleged policy cannot be correct?

PS This a scanned leaflet picked up at the very same Social Security Department last week and unless my uncle is a Dutchman it is written in Polish

....no doubt Senator Le Gresley can explain further.

Here he does...

 

 

The leaflet you have found, printed in Polish, is produced by the Health and Safety Inspectorate who are an independent body, based in Philip Le Feuvre House, for which I have political responsibility. This leaflet is also available in English and Portuguese. Only the English version is available on-line.

http://www.gov.je/Industry/HealthSafetyWork/HSI/Legislation/LawRegulations/Pages/HealthSafetyLaw.aspx

Yours sincerely

Senator Francis Le Gresley

 

STOP THAT THIEF! Reform the Social Security Department.

As the leaflet above says (click on image to enlarge it) - this is a copy of an actual statement from the Social Security Department showing details of an Income Support claim award.

We have of course removed anything that might identify the claimant or the senior officer at the Income Support Unit that produced it.

WE have been asking for months that such  FULL statements should be produced by the Department in response to EVERY claim.

Without such full information it is impossible to know whether a claim decision is correct and without such information a claimant cannot know whether to seek a RECONSIDERATION or to make an Appeal against the decision.

Evenso, it is still very difficult to understand what the statement actually says. It is set out in a very confusing format and is a very strange way to present information to people with all sorts of illnesses and different levels of understanding and use of language.

As always, the Social Security Department  seems to be unable to present the most basic information in an easy to understand way and the claimant has had to ask and ask repeatedly for this statement to be produced.

As always too, we wonder just how many people are denied their full and proper benefits awards by the Social Security Department  because of the complexity of the process and do not know how to challenge decisions that have been made.

Indeed we do wonder who the "BENEFIT THIEVES" really are!?

In the UK an officer is appointed to ensure that applicants receive ALL the benefits that a claimant is entitled to without having to confront Social Security staff in a challenging way.

Of course, the confrontational attitude of the SS Department itself is everywhere.
Postal communications are endorsed with the "Benefits Thieves" message, posters are displayed and media artcicles are constantly labelling claimants as potential cheats or lazy crooks.
Every form or letter from the SS Department warns of prosecution and punishment for giving wrong information - claimants are made to feel like criminals just for making an application for benefits to which they are fully entitled.

The attitude of some staff towards claimants is not always helpful or polite yet it is the claimant who faces warning notices about bad behaviour.

The standard and accuracy of information given by this Department is dreadfully inadequate. WE at SSTAG are constantly hearing about lost files, missing data, conflicting advice, anynoymous staff who refuse to give their names, delays  and confusion.

For a Department that has to deal on a daily basis with people who are ill and stressed through  difficult personal circumstances, lack of language skills, inability to understand bureaucratic processes and so on we find that the service offered is so often just simply so unsympathetic and flawed.

Of course we understand that some staff do their best - but our members have been flagging up these problems for years and it seems that there is an institutional inability to reform or improve standards or attitudes.

This is especially sad since we had expected so much better from Senator Le Gresley as Minister for the Social Security Department in view of his background of many years with the Citizens Advice Bureau.