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

Independent Jersey Care Inquiry (5) Not so Independent???

In my previous blog I wrote about the COI Panel’s decision to ban both me and Neil McMurray of the Voice for Children Blog from using the Media Room and had appealed to Frances Oldham. Having waited for over 2 weeks I can inform readers that the Panel has not allowed an appeal and has informed me that it is not going to alter its decision. It is not just the ban that leaves a nasty taste but the manner in which the decision was arrived at and the repercussions that is of real concern. If there is so little space to permit two local Bloggers then there cannot be room for any other applicant from wherever they come.

Also despite Frances Oldham stating that the Inquiry was exploring the provision of WiFi in the public areas, as far as I am aware no provision has yet been made. Therefore even when the Media Room is only half full, non accredited media personnel will not be able use it or have access to any other link facilities within the building. As interest in the Inquiry grows there will be applications from a number of the Media from outside the Island such as Sky, CNN and the UK and World’s Press but if the Inquiry Team has any integrity it will have to reject any future applications because there is no room.

The way the Inquiry Team has handled the accreditation is worth placing on record as it’s evident that from the outset the Panel did not know what to do when its first two applicants for accreditation were Bloggers.

On 3^rd April after Frances Oldham had opened proceedings a number of Protocols were distributed which can found on the COI website HERE. One of the Protocols covers arrangements for applying for Media accreditation which was not defined.

Applicants applying for accreditation were told they would be informed within 14 days as to whether their application was successful. This was not to be because it was not until 14^th May that Frances Oldham circulated a letter to the 5 applicants informing them that as only a small number of applications had been received no decision was necessary until it had received more applications. 

The letter included details of the applicants (for readers benefit I include the date of application) Voice for Children 3^rd April, Bob Hill 4^th April, BBC National Robert Hall, 9^th April, The Jersey Evening Post 14^th April and Channel TV 30^th April.

It seems odd that accreditation was not given within the stipulated 14 days because accreditation should not depend on the number of applications but on the credibility of the applicant, particularly as the Protocol had made it clear that there was limited space in the Media Room and access would be on a first come first served basis and local media would be prioritised.

It should be noted that after the 14^th May letter, Channel 103 applied on 15^th May and BBC Radio Jersey on 16^th June. Therefore why was there a further delay in giving accreditation? There were no further applications before the perceived overcrowding occurred on 12^th August when Stuart Syvret and a reporter from the Bailiwick Express were in the Room, neither of whom had applied for accreditation. If it was known that space was limited why were they allowed in the room, the same could be said of Robert Hall of the National BBC who was in the Island on holiday and could well have sat in the area set aside in the Hearing Room for the media?

Although the room was a little crowded it could hardly be likened to a rush hour London tube and I left the room just before 11am to keep a blood donation appointment. When I returned the same number of people were in the room and I was not refused re-entry because of lack of space.

Whilst recording and social media updates are not permitted in the Hearing Room the Protocol does not have the same provision for the Media Room therefore there was no reason why anyone could not “tweet” or for anyone to submit live reports. Surely that is the purpose of it being there in the first place. It is apparent that the Panel and Media Team are still living in the Ark and are unaware that social media means tweeting, face book and blogging and are now very much the modern form of instant communication, therefore banning Bloggers from the Media Room is either through ignorance or prejudice.

After lunch a person entered the Media Room to inform everyone that tweeting was not permitted, again I ask why because the Protocol does not say that tweeting is prohibited and it has not been amended since.

It is evident that what went on in the Media Room on the 12^th was discussed soon afterwards and a reason had to be found to ban the Bloggers. Without consulting us to identify our needs it was decided to ban us on the grounds that we did not require the electronic facilities listed. How could it make that assumption without enquiring of our needs. Did it ask the other applicants of their needs? However before anyone was informed Anna Averkiou of the Media Team contacted the Bailiwick Express the next day making it aware that it had not applied for accreditation and it was advisable to do so ASAP.

This is a copy of the relevant email.

From: James Filleul  Sent: 13 August 2014 14:59 To: Jersey Care Inquiry Press

Subject: Accreditation for Bailiwick Express

Hi Anna,

Thanks for your calls today. To confirm, we would like to be accredited to cover the Care Inquiry. The journalists involved will be either myself, Ben Queree, Natalie Jardine, Guy Le Maistre (freelance) or Julia Hunt (freelance). It’s most likely to be Guy. I am the main point of contact, and my number is xxxx or with my e-mail. My news editor is Ben Queree, on the same number or I will ask Guy to bring photo ID with him when he attends, as will any of the others names above. Please do let me know if you need any further info at all.

Best,

James Filleul,

If the “not so” independent Media Team had been even handed it would have also contacted Stuart Syvret offering the same advice however it is evident that the decision to ban Bloggers had been taken and the friendly call to the Bailiwick Express was to ensure that its application was safely in place before the letter from Frances Oldham was circulated the next day.

Whilst I am not happy at the way the Bailiwick Express was contacted the fact that it has been given accreditation lends support to claims of bias and discrimination.  This is because the Bailiwick Express can best be described as a Blog with adverts therefore if it can be given accreditation why can't other Bloggers? Blogs are very much part of daily life and read the world over and the likes ours and the Bailiwick Express are now seen as a threat to mainstream hard copy newspapers.

Regretfully, although I have again asked to meet Frances Oldham I don't expect a reply and the ban will remain in place. However it is evident that the mechanism used and the reason given to ban Bloggers does little to enhance the Inquiry's reputation. And before anyone accuses me of not giving the COI a chance to get going they should be reminded that the Inquiry is costing in the region of £6 million so taxpayers are entitled to receive value for money and an Inquiry Team which is efficient, transparent and fair minded in all its deliberations.