Confusion reigns in Innovation Fund debate

Thursday 22 June 2017

"Responsibility" was the word of the day yesterday as the States tried to get to the bottom of what exactly happened with Innovation Fund, which could lose the taxpayer up to £1.4million.

At the start of May, the first of three reviews into the Fund was published, showing confusion as to who was actually in charge of it, with no one wanting to officially take responsibility. It's not yet clear how much money will be lost - £1.4million is the total of overdue loan repayments at the end of last year, and one of the companies it supported has gone into liquidation.

Yesterday, Deputy Mike Higgins forced a special States debate to try and shed light on what happened. It lasted over five hours, and saw numerous States members speak on the matter. However, it seems that the only thing they could agree on was the extensive confusion surrounding who was actually responsible.  

The report, written by Jessica Simor QC of Matrix Chambers, shows that although it seemed to be understood that Senator Philip Ozouf was responsible for the Fund from late 2014, the actual process for transferring the legal responsibility wasn't finally completed until April 2016.

It seems that during that period, Senator Lyndon Farnham thought he had delegated responsibility for the Fund to Senator Ozouf, but this wasn't done properly.

Deputy Tracey Vallois voiced her frustration and said: “It worries me that there is so much confusion around responsibility,” adding, “…it seems to be that in the States, you can get away with anything.” 

The report published in May noted that Senator Ozouf thought he did have responsibility for the Fund from November 2014, and that that was the true intention of the Chief Minister, Senator Ian Gorst - even if the correct legal steps to implement it hadn't been taken.

Pictured: Senator Ozouf revealed during the debate that he had considered resigning three times throughout 2015 due to the Fund's failings, but, "...didn’t because I knew the job needed to be done and I thought it was going to be solved."

I considered resignging on three different occasions in 2015 but I didn’t because I knew the job needed to be done and I thought it was going to be solved

However, yesterday in the States, Senator Ozouf offered an interpretation of the word ‘responsibility’ that suggested being responsible for the Innovation Fund did not equate to being to blame for its failures. 

"I was responsible but not necessarily to blame,” he said.

But this line of defence was disputed by Deputy Montfort Tadier, who recalled a well-known proverb: “Success has a thousand fathers but failure is an orphan.”

According to Deputy Higgins, the purpose of the debate yesterday was to ensure the States members developed a more in depth understanding of exactly what happened to cause such confusion.

“I want to understand the process and understand how we got into the situation we were in,” said Deputy Higgins.

However, despite the Deputy seeking an explanation, rather than someone to blame,  Senator Ozouf used the opportunity to launch a staunch defence of his role in the fund, ignoring Deputy Higgins statement that the purpose of the debate was to, “...learn rather than criticise.” 

During his defence, Senator Ozouf described 2015 as “a nightmare” and said he was in “an impossible situation.” 

“I’m not sure whether I was a dead man walking but I was supposed to be in charge but not really in charge," he commented.

Senator Ozouf’s role as being responsible for the fund whilst not actually being in charge of it, was echoed by Senator Farnham who said: “I can’t see why there was any confusion. I was always mindful that, whilst I was pleased to delegate this to Senator Ozouf, all the practical aspects of this, I was mindful… that I am legally responsible and the buck usually does stop with the Minister.”

Referencing the Innovation Report, he added that, “…in her [the QC and author of the report] view, the difficulty arose not because of any lack of delegation but because Senator Ozouf believed that he should have been given full sole responsibility and the officers should have been answerable only to him in relation to JIF, and I can understand that confusion." 

The full debate can be viewed here.