Mark Thomas - Light Relief

On 30th November the States will be debating their policy on who can or can't film official States proceedings. At the moment, no-one is allowed to film States sittings. BBC Jersey have the exclusive right to broadcast live, and this is now also streamed on the Channel TV website. The JEP, the island's only newspaper also gets use of the other 'box' (the Radio gets the one on the right).

As the States proceed with what will be no doubt a long, tedious and generally ill-informed (prejudiced) debate, you may get bored. If so you may want to check out this video instead.

The bit at the end when he asks the Senior Officer a very straightforward question, but gets no straight answer made me think of States Question Time with certain Ministers! Enjoy



I have the good fortune of meeting Mark tomorrow, at the BBC. I will make inquiries as to whether he can come to Jersey to bring some of his unique brand of political commentary/comedy to us.

GST Increase: 'Predicatable, but not Inevitable'

Dear Reader,

The following is a press release that I have just sent to the media. There have been one or two stylistic amendments, but the body of content remains unchanged. Comments appreciated.

Montfort

PRESS RELEASE ON BEHALF OF DEPUTY MONTFORT TADIER

23^rd October 2010, for immediate publication.

Rise in GST is NOT inevitable

The proposed budget plan to increase GST from 3 to 5% as of next June is not inevitable, according to Deputy Montfort Tadier.

‘The budget must be ratified by the States and is subject to amendments. As we saw last year, it is not a given that the Treasury Minister will get what he wants.’

‘While the treasury proposals for GST were entirely predictable, the increase is not inevitable.’

Deputy Tadier is calling for likeminded politicians and members of the public to come together to resist the proposals to increase GST which he says will hit low and middle earners the most and threaten economic recovery at a time when retail sales are already fragile.

‘It will be interesting to see just to what extent the public and retailers have accepted GST and whether, in these times of widespread austerity, this will be one increase too far for the public of Jersey.’

‘Islanders are already having to deal with financial assaults on all sides: A reduction in allowances under ‘20 means 20’; a rise in University Fees  - and private school fees; Utility bills will increase significantly, on top of an already high cost of living, not helped by the fact that we are often paying GST on top of VAT.’

'Promises that those on income support will not be affected will provide little comfort for the many others who are still struggling to make ends meet.'

Deputy Tadier is calling for likeminded politicians and members of the public to come together to resist the proposals to increase GST which he says will hit low and middle earners the most and threaten economic recovery at a time when retail sales are already badly hit.

'Consideration should be given to use a small percentage of the ‘rainy day fund’ to cover (part of) the deficit until we are in a better position to know if and when we are coming out of global recession. Increasing GST in these uncertain times is both foolhardy and risk increased hardship.'

END

Branching Out for Economic and Cultural Diversity

Branchage International Film Festival

In these times of doom and gloom, where politics and politicians seem to be held universally in an all-time low esteem, and many workers in all sectors are worrying about the precariousness of their jobs, it is good to hear a bit of genuine good news.

Last month the Chief Minister, in response to a question from a St Brelade's deputy, praised the Branchage for its contribution to island life. And on this occasion I agree with him.

Here is the relevant excerpt from the States Hansard* of Tuesday 28th September:

Deputy M. Tadier:

Will the Minister join me in congratulating the organisers of the Branchage Film Festival, which is in its third year, [and] ... all those who organised it for putting on a splendid show.  Does the Chief Minister also acknowledge its cultural impact for good in Jersey as well as its role in promoting Jersey positively abroad and contributing to diversity in the economy?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

'Absolutely, Sir, I am more than willing, and indeed, welcome the question from Deputy Tadier.  Branchage is a good example of an innovative idea which is growing all the time and is also growing in quality as well as quantity.  I think it is also a good indication that what perhaps started off with a bit of seed corn capital ultimately is able to stand on its own 2 feet, and in fact I am sure continues to grow, particularly with the enthusiasm of all concerned, both on the Island and outside the Island.  So I thank all those who contributed to the success of this year’s Branchage - and indeed, the previous one - and I hope this will continue for many more years to come and grow further.'

*Footnote: The States Hansard is the official transcript of all proceeding of States sittings, and can be viewed at www.statesassembly.je. 

Conflict of Interest or Business as Usual?

The Problems Faced by Whistleblowers

The issue of whistle blowers in the public sector - or in either sector - remains problematic. How can one have the courage and security to follow one's conscience in highlighting (potential) problems, without fear or prejudice?

It is more or less universally agreed that in order for issues, improvements, inefficiencies and injustices to be flagged up it is necessary for 'ordinary workers', indeed, all workers to dispose of a clear, non-discriminatory and, preferably, anonymous system by which they can raise systemic failures which would otherwise go unnoticed and unchecked. But this ideal is often very different from practice.

And even when an issue has been raised, how does one ensure that it is dealt with in a fair and thorough matter?

This post deals with this very subject. It deals with a recent example of a whilsteblower - this time in the private sector - in the specialist area or residential care for the vulnerable, some old and some young.

Chronology

Between the 17th and 22nd June, a job was advertised in the J.E.P. for the position of Manager of a residential care home, which we will (very originally) call 'x'. 

X is a private care home which takes in a wide range of individuals, including of all ages, with various and wide ranging needs. It is of particular interest to me, as a States Member, as x is a care home into which the States are moving many individuals currently in the care of Health and Social Services. 

Whilst it is not the job of this post to explore the pros and cons of public vs private care, it is incumbent on any right minded individual to want to know that vulnerable members of the community are being given the best care, or at least treated with basic dignity.

At the end of June, I was contacted by friend who was aware of a particular individual employed in a care home who was uneasy about some of the practices/conditions in the home in which he worked.

I arranged to meet the carer, who was accompanied by the friend, to hear his concerns; the issues were various, and whilst they did not relate to abuse, per se, the criticisms did relate to '(benign) neglect' - a lack of suitable tailored provision for the social, physical and emotional needs of the residents, in addition to the absence of adequate training, induction and background checks being given and carried out on new members of staff. This list is by no means exhaustive, but explains some of the issues that our whislteblower wanted to bring to the fore.

On 2nd July, we both attended Le Bas Centre, to lodge an official statement with officer 'A', who is an inspector for care homes in the island. He seemed to take the complaints seriously, and recorded a statement which was approved by the whistleblower and witnessed by me.

An investigation took place which, according to the H & SS Minister, was completed on 23rd July, although the first draft, also completed by officer A,  was 'presented to the Team Leader of Registration and Inspection on the 4th August'. 

Meanwhile, officer A, applied for the post of manager of X, the same care home for which he was still drafting his report); 

On 26th July, he was interviewed for the position on 29th July and received written confirmation offering him the post on 5th August. He tendered his resignation the same day. 

A copy of the final draft was sent to our whilstleblower on 20th August .

When asked in a written question whether she was 'satisfied that there was no conflict of interest on the part of the officer who carried out the inquiry and that there was no risk of the report not being objective or impartial?' (written question 12 October 2010)  -she replied:

I am satisfied that the utmost probity has been undertaken by the officers of the Health Protection Service. In the course of the investigation, an interagency approach was used with evidence being presented directly by social workers and other allied professionals via the home’s records. The investigation was not conducted solely by one officer.  The head of the service has as part of overseeing the process ensured that the appropriate level of investigation has been undertaken, the process has ensured that the report and its findings have been scrutinised by the investigating officer’s line managers as part of due diligence.

But the real question that needs to be asked, but sadly which is difficult to verify, is at whether Officer A knew that he was going to apply for the advertised job whilst he was conducting the investigation.

He certainly knew, whilst writing the report, that he might be taking the job.

But questions still remain.

What is certain, is that the whistleblower is to be commended for his actions. Irrespective of whether the report was a whitewash or not, the issues have been flagged up and are now being acted upon.

I wish officer  A Bon Courage and bonne chancein his new position. We will be following progress in the home with interest.

Answers to Written Question on Tuesday 28th September 2010

Question 1

To the Minister for Home Affairs:

“In the context of the recent situation where a diagnosed schizophrenic was 'reluctantly' sent to prison by the court because no other suitable facility was available, will the Minister advise where the individual, in this particular case, should have been sent, why he was not and whether the Minister considers that this is satisfactory?

Will he also advise what steps, if any, he is taking to resolve this situation and/or similar situations happening again?”

Answer


Sentencing policy is a matter for the courts.


There are difficulties in Jersey in this area, which are caused by the familiar problem of a small jurisdiction not being able to provide the full range of services which would be provided in a larger jurisdiction. This particularly applies in the area of secure accommodation for psychiatrically ill offenders. In the UK there are a number of levels of security for such people from Rampton and Broadmoor down to low levels of security.

The situation is further complicated by the fact that prisoners who are suffering from mental illness and are taking medication may be well for long periods of time. If they become ill then arrangements are made for them to be temporarily transferred to a psychiatric hospital under prison guard. The big area of difficulty arises in relation to psychiatric prisoners who are ill for most of the time. In recent years the position has improved with a number of these having been transferred to secure psychiatric hospitals in the UK. In recent years there has also been an improvement in services within the prison.

The prison has a Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist who visits the prison on a weekly basis to carry out assessments and provide professional care and support. The prison also benefits from the services of a Community Psychiatric Nurse who attends one day per week to manage a prisoner case load and three of the Prison’s nurse officers are Registered Psychiatric Nurses. Most prisoners with a history of mental illness are kept stable by the administration of appropriate medication.

I have, in the past, held meetings with the Minister for Health and Social Services to discuss this issue and it is the subject of ongoing discussions. Although the current situation is not ideal, I accept that it is the best which can be provided within the available resources.


Question 2

To the Minsiter for Health and Social Services:

“Will the Minister advise how the lack of suitable care and respite units for vulnerable and/or chronically disabled children (e.g. Oakwell) is being addressed?

Will she advise how many beds there are at Oakwell; confirm that these are meant for short term 'respite' care and advise how many of these beds are currently being used for non-respite purposes (i.e., Monday-Friday or longer periods)?”

Answer

Under normal circumstances there is no lack of suitable care and respite units for vulnerable and/or chronically disabled children. In comparison with many UK authorities Jersey, as a small jurisdiction, provides a good level of residential beds offering such residential respite care. We currently have Oakwell and Eden House, run by H&SS Special Needs Service, and Maison Allo, run by Les Amis on behalf of Jersey Mencap.


All of our services used for children’s residential respite have historically been used on a flexible basis and this remains so. Oakwell currently has four beds at its disposal and this unit has a primary role of providing short term respite care. It is regularly used for planned breaks, holiday breaks, shared care arrangements, and has on several occasions been used as a long term home for individual children.

It remains essential that H&SS is able to respond to statutory responsibilities to safeguard the welfare of children. This means we have to be flexible to respond to any prioritised need, on behalf of children and their families.


Question 3

To the Minister for Health and Social Services

Will the Minister advise the age of the child suffering with ‘serious’ liver damage from alcohol abuse who has not been to school for 18 months and is the alleged victim of years of sexual abuse has had to be ‘locked up’ because no suitable accommodation is available?'
 
Will she advise where this child would have been admitted to under normal circumstances and explain - in detail- why this was not possible on this occasion?

Answer

States Members are reminded of the following requirement which appears in paragraph 8 of the Code of Conduct -.

“… members should not disclose publicly, or to any third party, personal information about named individuals which they receive in the course of their duties unless it is clearly in the wider public interest to do so. Elected members must at all times have regard to all relevant data protection, human rights and privacy legislation when dealing with confidential information and be aware of the consequences of breaching confidentiality.”

It is my opinion that any further disclosure of information in relation to this case or the individual concerned serves no public interest and indeed would only increase the risk of causing significant damage to the individual in addition to adding to the potential for their personal identification.

Whilst matters of policy should quite rightly be exercised in the public domain, it is unhelpful for individual cases of such sensitivity and complexity to be the subject of a public running commentary.

If I were to provide the information requested I would, in my opinion, be acting contrary to the Code of Conduct and would risk breaching the duty of care owed to this individual to promote their welfare and as such I am not prepared to release the information requested.


I am however, pleased to provide Members with confirmation of the range of accommodation available to vulnerable young people in need. In terms of children’s homes La Preference provides for older young people 14 plus, whilst Heathfield focuses on a small number in the younger age group and the White House is a small therapeutic unit. Added to this is the availability of supported accommodation at St Mark’s Hostel and through our partner agency the Jersey Association for Youth and Friendship. In addition we have access to rented accommodation in the public and private sector for young people supported by the Care Leaving Team or other community based staff. These services are complemented by a range of foster placements, used primarily though not exclusively for younger children.

In terms of plans for the future, the Brig-y-Don premises will shortly be re-designed and re-furbished to create a new fit for purpose setting, facilitating the closure of one of the existing homes which is no longer appropriate for the provision of residential care to modern day standards. In addition, the old Les Chenes building is shortly to be developed into 6 purpose built bed sit units for young people moving towards independence.

As members will see, there is a substantial range of accommodation available now, with further improvements coming on line in the near future. However, that accommodation needs to be carefully matched to the child who requires it, taking into account not only their own needs but those of existing residents. The risk of unjustifiable disruption to the hard won stability of an existing resident group must be weighed in the balance, as must the risk to the new resident of exposure to adverse influence if joining a group of residents whose behaviours remain challenging and unstable. The specific vulnerabilities, wishes and feelings of all the individuals involved and the capacity of the care team to meet any specialist needs identified, must be carefully assessed and where necessary mitigated before a placement can be made. It is for this reason that, notwithstanding the good and growing range of placement alternatives which exist, it is not always possible to immediately access an appropriate setting, and there are equally times when an identified setting suddenly becomes unavailable because of the greater need of another child. I can assure members that when such difficulties arise, my officers work swiftly and creatively to promptly identify and put in place appropriate alternatives.

Question 4

To the Minister for Health and Social Services


“Is the Minister satisfied that the Highlands Residential Home or its parent company, the Four Seasons Group are in a secure financial situation to fulfil their obligations to the Health and Social Services Department and what enquiries, if any, has the Minister made to determine this is the case?”

Answer

In order to provide some context to the Deputy of St Brelade’s question, it is important to note that the Four Seasons Health Care Group is the third largest commercial provider of care homes in the United Kingdom (UK).

The Group operates approximately 16,730 beds within 420 care homes. 80% of their clients are funded by UK Local Health Authorities and the National Health Service. This provides a solid business base. In addition, the Group owns 68% of the homes it operates which gives it a strong asset base. The Group also enjoys a reputation better than the industry average for the quality of its homes, where 84.5% of the homes are classified as good or excellent.


As far as Jersey is concerned the Group operates three homes namely Silver Springs, La Haule and Highlands, all of which enjoy a good reputation for the quality of care provided and they continue to fulfil their obligations to the Health and Social Services Department.

The department is fully aware of the financial situation of Four Seasons Health Care Group as a result of its financial due diligence processes. This is a staged process whereby a financial picture of a third party organisation is built up through review of local accounts to group accounts and if felt necessary the purchase of an independent Dunn & Bradstreet (D&B) comprehensive finance risk report.

In the case of the Four Seasons healthcare group the D&B report indicated a high risk of business failure which led to exchanges with the group’s Commercial Director and ultimately to a meeting with him and senior officers of my department in May 2010.

I would want to assure the Deputy and the House that my Department has and will continue to monitor the financial situation facing the Group balanced against the risk of delayed discharge in the hospital and the lack of suitable alternative provision for this client group on the Island.

Question 5

To the Minister for Treasury and Resources


“Will the Minister state whether anything was officially given in writing from the European Union and/or the UK Government that lead to his belief that 'zero-ten', in its current form, would be EU compliant and, if so, will he provide the relevant text?

With regard to zero-ten, will he advise whether he has received any feedback from the Jersey public in relation to the policy’s apparent inequity (where local companies pay tax locally and non-local ones, trading in Jersey, do not)?

Will the Minister advise if and how he is planning to amend zero-ten as it currently stands? If there are no amendments, will he say if and by what mechanisms he is planning to recapture lost revenue from non-resident companies trading in the Island?”

Answer

Jersey’s 0/10 regime has not yet been formally assessed by the Code Group and as a result no formal communication has been received. However during the design and implementation of the regime public assurance was given that a 0/10 regime would not be harmful.

As set out in the consultation document, public reports from ECOFIN and the Code Group issued in 2003 and 2006 respectively made it clear that Jersey’s proposed replacement regime was not considered to be harmful by the Code Group.

Specifically, in the report of the ECOFIN meeting dated 3rd June 2003 it states:

‘…the Code Group has considered the proposed revised or replacement measures….and…has found that none of these are harmful within the meaning of the Code.’

This report refers to a Code Group report which shows clearly that Jersey’s 0/10 regime was included as one of the proposed replacement measures.

The relevant wording in the Code Group’s report to ECOFIN dated 28th November 2006 is set out in the consultation document. Although this report specifically referred to the IOM’s regime, the concept is the same and so it was clear that even in 2006 there was support for the 0/10 regime. There has been no subsequent statements by ECOFIN or the Code Group to suggest that this view has changed.

There were a number of comments in the responses to the public consultation that refer to the apparent inequity of the 0/10 regime. A summary of responses to the consultation will be published in due course.

As set out in the public consultation document, the review is investigating whether it is possible to recoup any of the loss from business that resulted from the introduction of 0/10. This inequity is recognised and if possible it will be addressed but only if there is a solution which will not result in the net decrease in tax contributed by business. It is important that there is a full understanding of the impact of any alternative regime before any decision is made to make any changes. Also given the fact that the Code Group is about to assess the regime, it would be imprudent to make any changes at this time. In fact the EU Commission advised Government officials directly that making changes to the regime during the assessment process can cause confusion and may affect the outcome.

Submitted Questions for Tuesday 28th September 2010

For those who like to keep an eye on States business, here are the questions that I have submitted to be answered (though not necessarily in a meaningful way) this Tuesday. Question Time starts after roll call and prayers on at 9:30am and goes on till Lunchtime.

If you have a chance, come down to the Chamber to watch. Question Time tends to be a lot more interesting than open debate, certainly more dynamic, and it will give you a chance to put names (and voices) to faces. The public entrance is just opposite Morier House. Alternatively you can listen in on 1026am.

Written Questions

1)      The Minister for Health and Social Services will table an answer to the following question asked by Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade –

          “Will the Minister advise the age of the child suffering with ‘serious’ liver damage from alcohol abuse who has not been to school for 18 months and is the alleged victim of years of sexual abuse has had to be ‘locked up’ because no suitable accommodation is available?'

          Will she advise where this child would have been admitted to under normal circumstances and explain - in detail- why this was not possible on this occasion?”

2)     The Minister for Health and Social Services will table an answer to the following question asked by Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade –

          “Is the Minister satisfied that the Highlands Residential Home or its parent company, the Four Seasons Group are in a secure financial situation to fulfil their obligations to the Health and Social Services Department and what enquiries, if any, has the Minister made to determine this is the case?”

3)     The Minister for Home Affairs will table an answer to the following question asked by Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade –

          “In the context of the recent situation where a diagnosed schizophrenic was 'reluctantly' sent to prison by the court because no other suitable facility was available, will the Minister advise where the individual, in this particular case, should have been sent, why he was not and whether the Minister considers that this is satisfactory?

          Will he also advise what steps, if any, he is taking to resolve this situation and/or similar situations happening again?”

4)     The Minister for Treasury and Resources will table an answer to the following question asked by Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade –

          “Will the Minister state whether anything was officially given in writing from the European Union and/or the UK Government that lead to his belief that 'zero-ten', in its current form, would be EU compliant and, if so, will he provide the relevant text?

          With regard to zero-ten, will he advise whether he has received any feedback from the Jersey public in relation to the policy’s apparent inequity (where local companies pay tax locally and non-local ones, trading in Jersey, do not)?

          Will the Minister advise if and how he is planning to amend zero-ten as it currently stands? If there are no amendments, will he say if and by what mechanisms he is planning to recapture lost revenue from non-resident companies trading in the Island?”

Oral Questions


1)      Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade will ask the following question of the Minister for Health and Social Services –

       “Will the Minister inform members if there are any plans to increase the amount of bed space and/or the level of staffing at Oakwell respite home and, if not, what guarantees can she give that in future children who need long term care outside the home will not be put into this facility which currently caters for short-term respite care?”

2)      Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade will ask the following question of the Minister for Health and Social Services –

       “Following the news that a child with liver damage from alcohol abuse who had not attended school for 18 months and was also the alleged victim of sexual abuse had to be ‘locked up’ because no appropriate accommodation was available, will the Minister inform members whether she considers this situation satisfactory and what steps, if any, she has already taken to ensure this does not happen again?”

The Comprehensive Spending Review - Nothing of the Sort

It has been an eventful few weeks, indeed months in the States, with the first round of cuts coming thick and fast in last week's business plan. I will hopefully blog on this subject in more detail in coming weeks, but I do want to say that whilst I doubt there is any States Member who does not believe that there are genuine efficiency savings to be made across the board, it must also be said that the 'Comprehensive Spending Review' is flawed in its inception for three reasons:

1) It was rushed. In their haste to meet deadlines, many Ministries have clearly had to make cuts that they were reluctant to - two prime examples being a reduction in the number of staff manning the borders at Immigration and Customs, something that was a step too far for the loyal Assistant Minister of Home Affairs, Jackie Hilton. In an impassioned and compelling speech she outlined her fears that the cutting of these posts could likely represent a false economy in the long run, as drugs and criminals were allowed to enter the island, with the very real social and economic costs that would ensue.

Similarly, Assistant Minister of Health and Social Services, Judy Martin, also felt unable to support her Minister in the removal of a Child Psychologist post at a time when suicides and social issues relating to the young and vulnerable are acutely high.

2) The cuts are arbitrary and presume that there are net savings to be made in all departments and at the same levels. Even if it is taken as fact that the overall budget can be reduced without affecting front line services, which I doubt is the case (indeed, some of the cuts have already passed are service cuts), it is completely unfounded to think that pro-rata cuts, that is to say a 2, 5 or 10% cut to each department's budget is either possible or sensible. Certainly some departments will be leaner than others, some not so. This leads to my third criticism that:

3) The Comprehensive Spending Review is nothing of the sort. The CSR is a complete misnomer: it is not comprehensive at all, because it is simply looking for areas of saving and not areas which are currently underfunded. The Treasury Minister, in his haste to make cuts to expenditure, is ignoring these areas (notwithstanding that funding for certain necessary health department spending, have been allocated). By ignoring these areas - some of which will equate to greater social misery and long-term false economies - he has ensured that the CSR is little more than a slash and burn exercise; an insidious exercise hidden behind a reasonable sounding title.

True, the spending Review does look at what areas can be cut and which areas can, or might, but it does not take into account the areas that actually need more money. But then like a law or a document, it is always much easier to point out sins of commission than sins of omission.