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.

More Jersey Social Security appeal mysteries explained...

Social Security Appeals

We at SSTAG have posted before on the mysteries of the Social Security appeals process – mostly as it relates to income support applications.

Further enquiries are still proceeding and it is likely to be a long job but the ultimate aim would be for a guide book to the whole of the Social Security system written in plain language.

Of course it is patently wrong that income support appeals are initially dealt with anonymously by the same officers of the Social Security department that make the initial decisions. This cannot be considered to be a fair and impartial system and as we know only too well, the information actually given with decisions is often painfully inadequate.

Thus we hope that more applicants (YOU) will demand a fuller explanation of any decisions made and the supportive reasons, data or figures that have been used to support it.

Without this information it is often impossible for an applicant to know whether there are grounds to appeal at all. There are also time limits for making an appeal which can be impossible to satisfy if further explanations are sought by the applicant.

Unfortunately it is not unusual for Social Security staff to refuse to give their names over the counter, ‘phone or even on letters – so the applicant does not know who made an initial decision or whether a different person has reviewed it!

We have been asking questions about the appeals procedures. On a previous posting we explained that appeals from internal appeals of Social Security and Medical Board decisions are heard at special Appeals Panel Tribunal hearings run by the Employment Tribunal, 1st floor, Trinity House, Bath Street and are supposed to be OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

Unfortunately nobody except the appellants seem to know when they are taking place but we are hoping that changes will be made soon to publish details beforehand.

The responsibility for the administration of these appeals was taken over by the Judicial Greffe in 2010. Since then there have been a remarkably low number of appeals actually heard which suggests that either Social Security applicants are remarkably happy with the decisions made or do not know how to make an appeal….

This year (2012) there have been 22 appeal applications against Social Security decisions. Just 8 have so far resulted in hearings, 5 were resolved by Social Security, 3 withdrawn or rejected and 3 more are currently waiting for hearing dates.

We shall be asking for notice of those 3 or any other hearings that take place soon in order to attend and learn how they are conducted.

As a result of our enquiries so far we understand that the process of reviewing the procedures of the Appeals Panel is currently under way and the indexing of completed hearings is “one area that will be revised.”

This is especially necessary for any applicants trying to discover details of previous decisions appealed against and decisions made.

Of course, we at SSTAG do not expect to receive any acknowledgment or thanks from the Social Security Minister or Department for our efforts – but we are sure that improvements will be initiated soon in this archaic process. We shall keep on monitoring the position…

We have been assured that the procedures of the Appeal Panel are in line with a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights on accessibility of Tribunals to the general public.

To demonstrate compliance with the ECHR we have been previously advised that a plaque will be placed outside the Tribunal Offices listing the individual Tribunals that sit there and to use the Website to advise of forthcoming hearings…

Snail Mail

CICRA (the Channel Islands Competition and Regulatory Authorities) are proposing new quality of service targets for Jersey Post.Whilst it is admirable that CICRA want to ensure that 95% of local mail is delivered on the next working day, SSTAG believes that the actual time of the delivery is more important.

SSTAG has received many complaints about the late delivery of mail from the most vulnerable section of the community ie. those people whose only source of income is their weekly Social Security cheque. Pensioners and recipients of incapacity benefit have to survive on a very tight budget and even Mr. Micawber couldn't make their money stretch to an extra day because their cheque was not delivered until 3pm. These people are having to cancel medical appointments because it is impossible to guess what time of day their mail will arrive.

Any public service company must have contingency plans to cover staff sickness or any unforseen disruption to normal service. Unfortunately, Jersey Post has reduced staff levels to such a degree that their delivery service is no longer viable.

CICRA and Jersey Consumer Council are interested in views from the public on the service they receive from Jersey Post.

SSTAG would like to hear your comments and experiences with Snail Mail.

JT and IT and why so many in Jersey are being left behind

JT (Jersey Telephones) is supposed to be a publicly owned business run for the benefit of the Jersey public and the Social Security Department is supposed to be a department of the Jersey government run for the benefit of the very same public.

However it is becoming ever more obvious that there are many different views on what “benefit” actually means and the definition of the term “public” also seems to be obscure.

It seems that “profit” has now been substituted for benefit and consumer for public so far as these two entities are concerned…

The recent JT decision to switch off telephone system X and encourage the use of super powerful new fibre-optic options is all very well but the extra costs involved are being passed on to the public under the all embracing USER PAYS regime that now dominates every service provision – whether public or private.

Already one private Jersey user has launched a web-site or blog to address the costs implications because his IT bills have risen so steeply.

Imagine then the problems that are being caused to people on very low incomes, or without bank accounts – or no access to a telephone line of their own (yes – there are actually people who live in accommodation where a land line is not an option!) or having serious impairments etc etc.

Of course these tend to be people who as “consumers” will not generate much income or profit for JT and so they are not a priority sector.

Besides which, the cost of constantly up-dating or replacing IT equipment or learning new skills is beyond many people.

Yet IT and electronic communication is now an essential part of life. It is not a luxury to own a computer and more and more facilities and access to information can only be obtained “on-line.”

Listening to the likes of Treasury Minister Senator Ozouf with his enthusiasm for an all electronic IT future is especially worrying. He seems only to be able to consider the needs of business – the practical problems that arise for the general public do not seem to be “on his radar.”

Mobile phones, dongles and other cash paid up-front arrangements might be the preferred solutions for some with cash to spare and the ability to use them but for many these are neither accessible nor affordable.

As with the phasing out of cheque books, it seems that business efficiencies in pursuit of profit trump all other social needs or considerations.

We have contacted both JT and the Social Security Minister Senator Le Gresley and raised these problems but they have hardly responded with great enthusiasm or any offers to change the existing systems. Complacency seems to be the order of the day and we will next be contacting the JT Regulating body to see if anything might be done from there.

JT do offer reduced charges already for land-line use by some Pensioners. Why can’t these be extended to other users and for other services? Where is the social responsibility of JT?

As for the other States Members, as always, we would welcome any offers of help or suggestions about improving these matters.

For the record, we e-mailed Senator Le Gresley on 23 August and again on 18 September enclosing copies of our previous correspondence with JT;

“In view of the very poor general public take-up of the new enhanced Internet access options it is obvious that even people with ample cash and/or abilities are finding this not acceptable. I note that one consumer in this category has started some sort of on-line protest.

So far as those with very little cash, no bank accounts or limited IT knowledge are concerned, this ever increasing push for electronic communication is very worrying.

Senator Ozouf said at Scrutiny yesterday that he will be announcing a new push towards IT use soon but it will inevitably be intended primarily for businesses or people who have financial and other resources.

I repeat my previous concern that many people are being left behind and disadvantaged.

IT is no longer a luxury item – it is an integral part of everyday life and I suggest that your department must be prepared to assist those on Income Support etc to participate.

So what can you do about this?”

Senator Le Gresley, the former head of CAB (Citizens Advice Bureau) in Jersey but now the Minister at the Social Security Department responded;

“The household component, with income support benefit, is the component that we would have to consider increasing. We have just increased this component by 3.5% so the next review will not take place until June 2013.

I will take into consideration this exchange of e-mails at that time.”

We at SSTAG do not consider this to be a sufficient response and as already indicated we will be contacting the Regulator with regard to JTs social obligations.

If anybody has any practical suggestions with regard to Senator Le Gresley we shall be pleased to receive them.

JERSEY BUS PASSES - do we need them?

Bus Passes – what next?

We asked Deputy James Reed for an interview about the Interim Scrutiny Report on Housing Transformation but he has not responded. So here are some thoughts on Bus Passes to consider instead. If you have any further information on existing or proposed policies – please make contact with SSTAG

When Connex are replaced by the new Bus operator next spring – what will happen to bus (aka travel) passes?

Currently persons who have paid 40 years or more of Social Security contributions can apply for a free “Senior Citizens Travel Pass” which permits free travel on scheduled services. In practice this policy says that men must be 63 or older and women 60.

All residents of 65 or over are also entitled to a pass.

It is not proposed to change this policy at the present time – but there are plans to make the minimum age to be 65 for men and women (whether retired or not) “in about six years or so.”

Clearly the current age difference is discriminatory.

There is a further element of discrimination by virtue of the 1974 Social Security Law and an Act of the old Defence Committee in the 1980s which gives a slightly different status to persons “born in Jersey”. This is also considered as not compliant with Human Rights standards but neither the

Social Security Department  

President Senator Francis Le Gresley tel 445505  f.legresley@gov.je

nor the

Transport & Technical Services Department (TTS)

President Deputy Kevin Lewis tel 85723 or O7797 717982  k.lewis@gov.je

are keen to broadcast the facts.

Some Health Insurance Exception (HIE) travel passes are also issued on an annual basis.

This scheme is now closed to new entrants.

Passes can be issued to persons who held an HIE travel card on 27 January 2007

BUT

If an HIE pass was allowed to expire before 27 January 2008 and not renewed, it will not now be re-issued.

This policy was made at the time when Income Support was introduced by the Social Security Department. It had been intended that a “transport component” should be part of Income Support after 2008 but this was rejected by the States.

It is possible that HIE passes will be withdrawn when the new bus operator takes over in April 2008.

This also seems to be a discriminatory policy.

Jersey public transport is also falling behind standards that apply in the UK and elsewhere where many stroke victims and/or disabled persons receive transport passes, as do ex-service personnel.

The continuation of the HIE bus passes scheme will have to be fought for in the States.

There are other oddities in the Jersey system which may be also need to be lobbied about.

For example, children only travel free up to the age of three years (four year olds must pay) but the age is five years in the UK and disabled children are not to be free of charge until they reach the age of 65. Surely this cannot be right?

Seems that we might need test cases to challenge the Jersey system on several issues.

Any volunteers?

Homeless or home more in Jersey? Charity or right? Power or Green at the edges?

Deputy Power was Housing Minister briefly two years ago and he had announced virtually all the proposed reforms that Deputy Green has subsequently outlined.

So the reforms had been kicking around for some time and even Deputy Le Main was singing a similar song before he was removed from this same office and he had been there for years and years….

What is surprising about all this is that whilst everybody who has been in charge of housing for so long claim to have identified the problems and have come up with virtually the same solutions – NOTHING ever actually happens.

Thus we now have Deputy Power speaking on behalf of the hundreds of “homeless” people in Jersey in the name of Shelter or the Sanctuary Trust. But why did he not promise to solve the problem when he was Minister and why are his demands apparently different now from those of Deputy Green? Are they any different in fact?

When the Draft new Island Plan was being reviewed by the two UK Inspectors – Deputy Power was asking for the Housing Policy part to be removed until the Census statistics had been properly assessed. His request (and I asked for the whole Draft Plan to be withheld) was ignored and we are now stuck with an Island Plan that will never ever solve Jersey’s immense housing problems.

That cows are more deserving of land than people is still the basis of the Island Plan.

The needs of the homeless will never be addressed under the Plan – these are just to be left to charitable whims as always in the traditional “Jersey way”. Deputy Power seems to support that charitable response.

Unlike other countries – there is no legal obligation to house anybody in Jersey.

The 1949 Housing Law actually exists to prevent people from occupying or buying housing accommodation. It is this perverse policy that has underwritten all others for emotional reasons based upon a bogus “Jersey born first” idea. But in practice it just serves to starve the natural housing market of funds and suppress new house building.

Yet 20,000 people with housing quals live outside Jersey – what does that say about 60 years of the Housing Law in “action”?

Cows rule OK!

Deputy Power now complains that one of the reasons for so much homelessness is the high cost of homes to rent. So nothing very new there – yet the whole basis of the absurd revised Housing plan proposed by Le Main or Power or now by Green is to RAISE so called social housing rents to be as near as possible the same as already absurdly inflated “private rents”.

This problem does not just affect the homeless of course. It affects everybody who has to rent accommodation and it is now officially accepted that there is no such thing in Jersey as AFFORDABLE property to buy.

How on earth have we got into such a mess and why are our elected reps so incapable, decade after decade, of solving the problem?

It is not just the cost of property either. The standard of much States “social” housing is poor and it is part of the declared new plan to “regulate” to improve this. But MOST housing is in the private sector where rents are highest and standards often lowest besides which petty restriction are sill imposed against children or pets and there is lack of security of tenure for many.

WHY are we the public still waiting for basic reforms in these areas and why do we no longer have a Rent Control Tribunal?

Deputy Green keeps telling us that his Housing White Paper will appear soon.

It will no doubt be yet another PR opportunity for Senator Ozouf et al to say how well off we all are etc (whilst he continues to extract over £20 millions of “social” rents each year to squander at Lime Grove, Ogley’s pay off and suchlike) but it will certainly NOT offer any escape from Jersey’s housing problems for most residents of Jersey.

Make no mistake we are gripped by a User Pays, cost cutting obsessed government that has no motivation to house the whole population properly.

SSTAG will be continuing to investigate all these matters and more in the coming months. So stay tuned but most of all JOIN US! Give us your support and spread the word that such unfairness can and must be challenged.