Hypocrisy, Smugness and Scrutiny

There was a certain frissance of expectation this morning as around 14 members of the public crammed into a small meeting room in Morier House, together with the accredited media, including CTV, BBC Radio Jersey and the JEP, to listen to a teleconference with Lenny Harper.

The Home Affairs and Education Scrutiny panel have achieved a certain notoriety with their decision, via a sub panel, to investigate the BDO report into the financial affairs of the child abuse enquiry. Former investigating officer Lenny Harper considers the report to be a simple attempt to discredit the management of the enquiry conducted by he and the former Chief of Police, Graham Power. BDO produced the report without ever discussing expenditure with Lenny Harper, even though he had been the principle commissioning officer.

Innovation

For the first time, bloggers and internet journalists (Democracy activists) were welcomed to the sub panel meeting, allowed to film and the public permitted to ask questions of Lenny Harper after he had given his evidence. This was a real step forward and precedent for future public involvement. Greater public participation may be the way to ensure that Scrutiny revives as a counterweight to Ministerial government.

Establishment opposition to the sub-panel investigation had been implacable, with Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand, doing his all to prevent the review. Deputy Trevor Pitman is chairing the sub-panel and relishing the publicity for his re-election as Deputy in St Helier. Senator Sarah Ferguson, Chair of the Scrutiny panel Chairman’s group attended to keep an eye on events.

There was good discussion and Lenny Harper was able to make clear that BDO had failed to interview him regarding the expenditure and that had they done so he would have been able to account for each item and refute allegations of extravagance and profligacy. He believes BDO were instructed not to speak to him.

Lenny Harper confirmed that it was Senator Jim Perchard who had leaked information contained in a Minister’s email to David Rose, a Daily Mail journalist with a reputation for discrediting enquiries into child abuse. Perchard denied leaking the email.

Public questions

The meeting began at 11 a.m. and finished at 12.30 a.m., after which the public were invited by Deputy Pitman to ask questions of Lenny Harper, who had agreed in advance to answer.

At this point panel members Deputies Roy Le Herissier and Daniel Wimberly together with Deputy Shona Pitman and Senator Sarah Ferguson, stood up and departed the meeting room. This left two politicians remaining; the chair Deputy Trevor Pitman and Deputy Montfort Tadier. Even though some Deputies later claimed they had other meetings to attend, the early departure of so many elected politicians was a clear effrontery and disrespect to the public questions section of the meeting.

Stuart Syvret snubbed

The first person to ask a question was blogger “Voiceforchilden”. This was followed by blogger “Tom Gruchy”.

The third member of the pubic seeking to ask a question was former Senator Stuart Syvret. Initially the chair of the meeting, Deputy Trevor Pitman would not let him speak saying he was not a journalist. Syvret stood his ground and said he was a “freelance journalist”. Syvret got to ask his question. Quite why the most famous Channel Island blogger was not worthy of a question seems bizarre

None of the accredited media availed themselves of the opportunity to ask Lenny Harper a question about his evidence.

Positives and negatives

Overall this was an innovative Scrutiny meeting that broke ground in terms of public participation in terms of being allowed to film and to ask questions of the interviewee. It was marred by the decision of nearly all States Members present to walk out, clearly indicating they had no interest to stay and listen to anything the public might ask.  The innate arrogance and authoritarianism of elected politicians dies hard, as was evident in the initial reluctance to allow Syvret to ask a question.

The unprecedented number of atendees at this particular Scrutiny meeting indicates that a more open format can engage the public.  The sky did not fall because the event was filmed and the public got to ask a few questions. The event is a rebuke to those States Members who have restricted bloggers filming at Scrutiny meetings and for whom the presence of the public is anyway a mild irritant. Democracy in Jersey is enemic, as is evident by the high levels of voter abstention and politicians' indifference to this malaise. Innovative forms of democratic engagement are urgently needed.