Jersey's Black Hole--We are all in it together????

“

We are all in this together” said the Chief Minister Gorst when explaining how Jersey is to get out of the fiscal “black hole” which is some £145m deep.  Or in simple terms every Jersey resident needs to pay £1,438 to get out of the hole- according to a draft financial plan presented to States Members.

But not to worry we are all in this together says Chief Minister Gorst, but hang on, how did we get in the hole in the first place and what role did Joe Public play in getting into it? We elect States Members to ensure good governance so we don't get into holes. It would seem that Senator Gorst or should I say Senator Ozouf got us into the hole and expects us to get out of it.

It reminded me of the lecturer who was being disturbed by a student’s snoring. He asked the student next to him to wake him up. The student replied; “With respect Sir, you sent him to sleep so you wake him.”

Wouldn't it be great if we could tell Chief Minister Gorst to get out the hole he created but life is not that simple. In fact along with other Ministers he does not accept that we are in hole but the money is needed to maintain the life style we have grown used to and for some to continue, some must make sacrifices.

The sacrificial lambs are the sick, aged and vulnerable who will lose their Christmas bonus and will have to pay for their TV licences. If you have the misfortune to be ill not only will you continue to pay the £40 plus fee to see your doctor but you can be pretty sure that you are going to be charged for any medicine prescribed. If you are in hospital you will be given less on your plate at meal times. It is also ironic that an Island that flush with money now intends is to establish a toilet tax. It could be said that we are really going down the pan.

The Government owned Jersey Telecoms is joining in the kicking and the subsidy that allowed pensioners to get cheaper phone calls and line rentals are next in line for the chop. I should add that the above proposed cuts require States approval but with its inbuilt majority the Council of Ministers should have no difficulty in achieving its goal.

It has been mentioned that apart from taking from the sick, aged and vulnerable there must be belt tightening, greater efficiency, accountability and monitoring of expenditure. Sadly we have heard that message all too often in the past and to bring it out again is just adding salt to the wounds.

However with that in mind perhaps Senator Gorst will explain why four months after the States approved the extra funding for the Committee of Inquiry, neither he nor the COI have complied with paragraph (c) (iii) of the proposition which required the Inquiry and the States to publish jointly on their websites details of their expenditure on a monthly basis. We are already aware of money wasted on lawyers fees and duplication yet there seems to be no haste to rectify the problem. 

Chief Minister Gorst and his Ministers must set examples and practice what they preach. There is still too much fat on too many bones and still too many sacred cows. “If we are all in this together” and pensioners are to be subjected to a belt tightening exercise it will be interesting to see what belt tightening individual States Members will be exercising?

                    

Jersey's Dean--- More Questions Without Answers

Last week saw the historic handshake between Prince Charles and Gerry Adams which led to a reader leaving a comment on my previous blog stating that if those two people could shake hands why can’t the Dean and Bishop?

It was a good question and on last Friday’s BBC Radio Jersey’s Questions to the Chief Minister Hour I was able to ask our Chief Minister Senator Ian Gorst if he would agree to arrange a meeting with the Dean and Bishop and as a gesture of peace and reconciliation they too could shake hands which would not only set a fine example but would restore Jersey’s 500 year link with Winchester.

As is often the case when there are family disputes and parties go off in a huff it requires some one to bring them together. One of course would hope that when people aspire to positions of high office they would see service before self as the path to follow. Sadly this is not the case with our Dean or Bishop. Therefore to avoid further harm and embarrassment to our Island and the Church of England someone of the standing of our Chief Minister should be taking the lead to end the impasse.

The Jersey Dean’s appointment with Letters Patent and a seat in our States Assembly (Parliament) is well past its sell buy date. However as the Dean is in receipt of a States allowance of £26k in addition to his clergy salary and rent free accommodation he should be accountable to those he has the privilege of representing. There will be many who question the Dean’s position and whether it is becoming untenable because how can he lead our Members of the States which includes our Lt Governor, Bailiff, and Crown Officers in prayers when he himself is incapable of forgiving those who trespass against him. I don’t know what “trespass” the Bishop has inflicted but I doubt if it’s bodily harm or anything more than harsh words. How can he ask others to seek peace and reconciliation when he is oblivious to his own shortcomings?

The same could be said of the Bishop and we should not have to wait for Reports to find out who is responsible for the unseemly dispute. I mention Reports because in a rather disappointing answer the only way our Chief Minister could find a way forward was to wait for the publication of the Gladwin, Steel and the Archbishop’s pending review which could take some years before being published. Sitting on the fence is not an option.

Those who have closely watched events unfold will have no difficulty in finding faults on both sides and possibly the two men have been hurt by words and actions. But surely both men should be capable of privately settling their differences or being replaced by people with thicker skins and smaller egos.

I am grateful to BBC Radio Jersey for allowing me to ask the question and for Team Voice for supplying the video below which will enable Readers to listen to the questions and “answers.”  

  

Independent Jersey Care Inquiry (8) ---- A Licence to Bill?

Next Tuesday the States is due to debate a proposition lodged by Chief Minister Gorst seeking approval for additional funding to enable the Committee of Inquiry (COI) to complete its review which is just about to enter its second year. Trying to come up with a figure for any Inquiry is not just difficult but almost impossible because no one knows how many witnesses will come forward or what evidence will come to light. The Jersey Inquiry is proving to be no different.

It was anticipated that around £6 million would be suffice but 12 months on not only has that figure been spent but a further £13.7m is being asked for. Senator Gorst has repeatedly proclaimed his support for the COI and although his proposition (see below) is well meaning I believe it is flawed so it's pleasing to see that Deputy Tadier has lodged amendments seeking to delete 3 of Senator Gorst's proposals.

The Amendments can be read below but in summary they seek to delete the sub-paragraphs which will cap the £13m, impose a time limit and interfere with the way the COI is conducting its Inquiry. All 3 sub-paragraphs have a single theme and that is to save money. That is a theme I don't have a problem with but Senator Gorst and the Panel Chairman Frances Oldham should be keeping a close check on how the money is being spent and whether it is justified. From the payments made to date it is evident that there is little monitoring particularly of the legal fees incurred by States Departments which appear to be obscene.

Although the proposition and amendments have been lodged there is no certainty they will be supported as there is a school of thought that much of the extra funding will go into the pockets of the Island's Lawyers. There may be more than a whiff of truth in that claim as can be seen from the answers given to a set of questions asked by Deputy Mike Higgins at the last States Sitting.

The full set of questions and answers can be accessed below and readers will see how the money has been spent to date. As anticipated a fair chunk of the money has been spent on set up costs, accommodation, travel and other expenses some of which will not be recurring. However one will note that several millions have already been spent on legal fees with over £1.8million paid to lawyers representing States departments and individuals. Who approved the appointment of the lawyers, why were they appointed, who are the individuals, do they include former staff and/or State Members, why is the money coming out of the Inquiry fund and not from the departments and individuals concerned? Perhaps if it came from Department funds they might be more than circumspect about spending it.

If £1.8m has been spent during the stage when only the victims have given evidence, how many more millions will be spent when the COI starts looking into the Departments (in)actions and Operation Rectangle. In football parlance we have only had the pre match warm up, the match is only about to begin.

It is also worth noting that on top of the £7m a further £4.6million has been spent in relation to the Redress Scheme. Ex-gratia payments totalling £1.8million have been made to 116 victims. The victims would have been entitled to compensation much earlier had the climate which prevails today been open to them in the past but the legal fees need an explanation. The legal fees incurred by lawyers representing the Care Leavers (Compensation Scheme) amount to £408k. However the lawyers representing the States have been paid over £2 million. Why is there such a discrepancy in the fees, who has authorised the payment and were the fees justified?

Whilst I have expressed concerns over fees paid to local lawyers it would be remiss of me not to comment on the £2.7million paid to the Inquiry Lawyers. I understand that there is a fee structure similar to that paid to those representing the Care Leavers and victims. It should be recalled that legal teams have travelled far and wide taking statements from witnesses. They have also spent a great many hours at the Hearings. Can that be said of the lawyers engaged by States Departments?

I want the COI to continue and whilst I accept there will be occasions when lawyers will be required they should not be given a licence to bill for work that is not justified and at exorbitant rates. Sub paragraph (iii) of paragraph C of Senator Gorst's proposition will require the Inquiry and the States to jointly publish on their websites details of expenditure on a monthly basis.  This is much welcomed and I look forward to a much more detailed breakdown of the expenditure incurred by States Department along with reasons as to why legal assistance was required.

Deputy Higgin's Questions can be read HERE
Senator Gorst's Proposition can be read HERE
Deputy Tadier's Amendments can be read HERE

Senator Gorst And His Double Headed Coin.

Deputy Duhamel and Senator Gorst.

On Wednesday 8th January the Chief Minister Senator Ian Gorst lodged a proposition which can be read here P2/2014 seeking States approval to dismiss Deputy Rob Duhamel his Minister for Planning and Environment.

In his report he says "I do not bring this Proposition lightly. To call for the dismissal of a Minster is a serious
matter, but I do so because it is the right course of action." His report then sets out examples of the ways in which the Deputy had failed to discharge his Ministerial duties and obligations. Senator Gorst claims to have explored these issues in depth and has ensured that the Minister has been provided with opportunities to be heard and to respond.

However Senator Gorst was not satisfied with the Deputy's account and neither he nor his fellow Ministers believed that Deputy Duhamel should continue to hold office, but what is the substance to that claim and does the evidence justify the allegation let alone a verdict.

The issues Senator Gorst claims to have explored are in summary Deputy Luce's asbestos concerns which led him to lodge his vote of no confidence in Deputy Duhamel P148/2013 and can be read HERE .The Co-op and JEC Planning applications and failing to conduct a timely review of the Island Plan. However Senator Gorst really twists the knife by accusing Deputy Duhamel of failing to be open and honest with the Council of Ministers, States Members and the public. If Deputy Duhamel is in the dock why is he alone?

It is no secret that Senator Gorst and other Ministers have been travelling the world in their endeavours to portray Jersey as a paradise and a paragon of virtue. It would appear that on their travels they have trodden on the road to Damascus and have been converted to honourable, virtuous and upstanding fellows who will no longer be economical with the truth and will only give straight and honest answers to questions. I can hardly wait for next Tuesday's Question Time.

Senator Gorst and his Ministers are so squeaky-clean that they cannot work with some one like Deputy Duhamel whom it can be said has often ploughed a lone furrow and is not one of the greatest of team players, however does that make him a bad Minister? From a personal view I think his decision to permit a new school to be built on its existing playing field was illogical because there was a better alternative site. However it is the system that is wrong and one that Deputy Duhamel inherited from former Minister Freddie Cohen.

One could ask why the Chief Minister has not sought to change a practice which allows one Minister so much control/power in Planning matters with little or no affordable appeal system. To an outsider it could be perceived that the Co-op and the JEC are using their influence to remove Deputy Duhamel so he can be replaced by a Minister who will give consent to their planning applications. Deputy Duhamel's failure to support Senator Corst's Plemont proposition must also grate.

It is all very well for Deputy Steve Luce to seek Brownie points over the long standing asbestos concerns. but most people are unaware of the asbestos and that can only been down to the failure of the Trappist States Members who have failed to raise the matter during question time. If the matter was so serious why has so little been done to raise awareness? Had Deputy Luce the courage of his convictions he would not have withdrawn his proposition at Senator Gorst's behest.

The asbestos matter is in hand but can that be said of the extending waiting list at the General Hospital or a malfunctioning incinerator purchased at exorbitant cost, the re-location of the police station, tenancy legislation, updating Jersey's Licensing Law and many other long standing issues?

It can be said that the pot is calling the kettle black as far as the review of the Island Plan is concerned. Senator Gorst and many fellow Ministers opposed my amendments to establish a Committee of Inquiry into Jersey's Child Abuse. They have been dragged kicking and screaming to the wire and it has taken three years for the Inquiry to get under way..

Senator Gorst is feeling hard done by in that he does not have the power to hire and fire Ministers. If he feels that way why has he not sought to change the Law to give him that right. However I doubt whether enough States Members would be that stupid to give so much power to one person. It has been reported that the Chief Minister cannot select his Ministers, that is incorrect, he can select but it is down to fellow Members to approve his nominations. It should be remembered that Senator Gorst nominated Deputy Duhamel warts and all but only narrowly defeated Deputy Eddie Noel who opposed him for the position.

I was present on 11th September 2007 when the States debated P117/2007 which was the proposition lodged by the former Chief Minister Senator Frank Walker seeking support to dismiss the former Senator Stuart Syvret. The proposition contained 82 pages compared to the 39 paged Gorst proposition. Interestingly on page 22 of the Walker proposition is a letter signed by all the Ministers with the exception of Senator Kinnard who abstained, calling for Senator Syvret's dismissal. Senator Gorst's proposition does not contain a similar letter.

I was one of the 19 who voted against the proposition with 30 members in support in what was a very acrimonious debate. When comparing the 2 propositions, the latest is pretty flimsy and certainly not worthy of success. However the States like God moves in mysterious ways and some Members are likely to support the proposition to enhance their political position rather than consider it on its merits. Very importantly they should also compare Deputy Duhamel's overall performance with other Ministers including the Chief Minister's.

As mentioned above I believe that Deputy Duhamel's decision to approve the application to build on St Martin's School Field was illogical but that is not one cited by the Chief Minister who could have quite easily have saved the field had he accepted my nomination for it to be Jersey's Diamond Jubilee's Playing Field. Unfortunately Senator Gorst not only ignored my nomination but he failed to conduct the selection process in a proper and timely manner where not only was the playing field lost but Jersey does not have a Diamond Jubilee field.

Senator Gorst has accused Deputy Duhamel of dishonesty and by implication being dishonourable but is he being hypercritical? It is apparent that he wants his cake and eat it too. He is tossing a double headed coin so that what ever way it falls will result in him remaining as Chief Minister. This is because it has been reported that he will not resign if Members do not support his proposition. Surely if his relationship and confidence in Deputy Duhamel is so strained that he wants him removed, how can he work with him should his proposition fail?

Dismissing a Minister is a very serious and divisive matter but should be the last and not as in this case the first option. Senator Gorst has pressed the nuclear button but his report does not provide any evidence of relationships being so bad that the end of the road has been reached which clearly it has not. This is evident by the fact that Senator Gorst does not have unanimous Council of Minister's support and is prepared to work with the Deputy if his proposition fails.

This being the case Senator Gorst should show Leadership by withdrawing his proposition thus preventing a debate which will leave only losers, will weaken his position and the credibility of an already lack lustre Council of Ministers, will bring the Island into disrepute and at the cost of valuable States time and public expense.

Post Script

On the day before the debate Senator Gorst withdrew his proposition because he claimed that he and Deputy Duhamel had met and in affect had kissed and made up after Deputy Duhamel had apologised. At the States Sitting next day Senator Gorst would not get drawn into explaining when or where the meetings were held and/or witnessed. Given that he had accused Deputy Duhamel of being dishonest no one knows why he was still willing to work with him.

Deputy Duhamel has not made a statement or publicly commented on the reason for the u turn, however according to Senator Gorst, Deputy Duhamel will not meet applicants unless accompanied.