Friday 15 March 2013

Jersey’s Historical Abuse Inquiry—the Nelson Touch?



It has been said that a week in politics is a long time, I don’t know if it was for those actively involved in politics but last week was certainly one of interest as I picked up news from afar in Tenerife. A few months ago my wife and I decided that we would take a 10 day break in early March to find some sun. We are pleased to say we found plenty but were disappointed to find that Jersey was still deep in the throes of winter on our return. The snow was that deep that we could not return to our home and spent the night in a hotel.

I knew little of Tenerife’s history and visited the site where a fort once stood and from where the musket ball was fired shattering Lord Horatio Nelson’s right arm when attempting what turned out to be a futile invasion in 1799. I will return to Lord Nelson later.

Whilst away the Child Abuse debate was successfully concluded and there was also the revelation of the Dean’s alleged failure to satisfactorily deal with a complaint from a lady who claimed to be an abuse victim. This is a matter which has been well covered by Voice for Children Blog.

I had hoped to be present when the States debated the long awaited proposition but because it was twice deferred it clashed with our pre-planned holiday. However in my Blog which I published a couple of days prior to my holiday, I said I was hopeful that all the amendments, including Deputy Tadier’s would be unanimously approved. I also said that the eyes of the world would be looking on and in particular on those Members who had previously unsuccessfully opposed the proposition to establish a Committee of Inquiry.

To get back to Lord Nelson, prior to the Battle of Trafalgar he sent a message to all under his command that “England expects that every man will do his duty” On Wednesday 6th March the Jersey taxpayers and in particular those who had in any way been subjected to abuse were expecting that every States Member would do their duty. Although I had hoped that all Members would give their support it was perfectly in order for those with opposing views to express them and vote accordingly.

Unfortunately not every States Member did their duty, and when asked to support Midshipman Tadier’s amendment to provide the Committee of Inquiry with balls for their muskets Admiral Gorst and Rear Admiral Le Gresley declined to do so and before any one could say “kiss me Hardy” 11 members of various ranks jumped ship and retreated no doubt to the safety of the Members’ tea room.

Fortunately following several broadsides from the lower ranks both Messrs Gorst and Le Gresley remembered that they were supposed to be at the helm and agreed to provide the musket balls. However it was apparent that neither could persuade the 11 deserters to return to their posts. There are times when Members do get out caught short and because the toilets are some distance they may not be able to return to vote if suddenly called upon to do so. Given that Deputy Tadier had to sum up that should have provided ample  opportunity for every Member to return to their seats not only to listen to the summing up but also to vote. It is hard to believe that all 11 were stuck in the toilet so why were they not present to vote?

It is now on record that Deputy Tadier’s amendment was approved by 38 votes with no one voting “Contre.” However no one will ever know how many of the 11 absentees would have voted against had they been present.

What is known is that 4 of the absentees were also among the 6 absent when the vote was taken on the proposition as amended. The 4 were Senator’s Bailhache and Ozouf along with Connetable Rondel and Deputy Rondel. No doubt each will have their own reasons for not being present but given the importance of the vote one would have expected each to have given reasons for their absence, particularly as they could have been valid.

I don’t want to speculate on the reasons for their absence or pick on any one particular member but I was disappointed to note Senator Bailhache’s lack of involvement. Had he asked to be excused from participating in the debate due to the fact that as a former Crown Officer he was conflicted one could have accepted his absence.

As he chose not to declare an interest one would have assumed that given his position as Assistant Chief Minister and with responsibility for affairs outside the Island he would have spoken and voted in favour of both parts of the proposition. It should also be recalled that as Bailiff in 2008 he strongly condemned the World’s Press for publishing what he considered to be misleading and derogatory information about the Historic Abuse Investigation and the Island in particular. So why was the Senator absent and why was he not doing his duty to the Island’s electorate?

Now that the mechanism for appointing the Committee of Inquiry and its Terms of Reference have been approved it will be for the Chief Minister to ensure that there is no further procrastination and the wheels are kept turning. Not that anyone should be thinking of erecting a Gorst Column in the Royal Square, but due credit should be given to Senator Gorst for the manner in which he eventually accepted amendments to the original proposition and by proposing them it certainly ensured a smoother passage through the States.

It is to be hoped that he is now a wiser man and his performance in the debate will have done much to enhance his leadership whereas the colours of the other would be Chief Ministers were badly shredded and are irreparable.

There is still a long way to go and no doubt there will be much soul searching along the way because it is almost inevitable that some unsavoury acts or omissions will come to light during the Inquiry. However I am confident that Senator Gorst will have now realised that it much better to be true to his beliefs and of his duty to the public he serves than be swayed by the views of some Ministers close to him. Who knows he too may develop the “Nelson Touch.”

23 comments:

  1. It seems Philip Bailhache lacks moral fortitude.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. States Members must be accountable for their actions, and Senator Bailhache is no exception. He will be judged by his actions. Not participating in the Debate was not a wise decision.

      Delete
  2. Philip Bailhache is a coward! pure and simple. A man who can't face his mistakes and walks away when it gets too hot to face! He is no leader! and never will be! welcome back Bob. I hope he can sleep at night!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As mentioned above Senator Bailhache will be judged by their actions and people will have their own opinions about his failure to participate.

      I do believe that he has blotted his copybook as far as ever being considered for Chief Minister but I am not sure whether he will lose any sleep over the matter.

      Delete
  3. Mr Gorst showed leadership and I for one thank him for his leadership! he dealt with this very difficult position with grace but of course it's people like you Bob, Tadier, Wimberley and Syvret we must not never forget. it's people like you that keep up the pressure and continue to ensure people like Mr Gorst are on track! thank you

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the compliment and I agree with your comment about Senator Gorst, it was a good day for him, but he must not rest on his laurels.

      Delete
  4. The fact that one of the other absentees for the final vote was Ian Le Marquand speaks volumes.

    Incidentally, you may not have seen that someone has been attempting to stir it over the Dean's suspension, claiming that senior Jersey politicians had had emergency meetings over the Diocese allegedly provoking a constitutional crisis by its actions. Glad to see that Gorst appears to have slapped that one down.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I did note that Senator Le Marquand voted in favour of Deputy Tadier's amendment but have no idea why he was not present for the second vote.

      I am not aware of any meetings to discuss the Dean's suspension but there is a proper course to run and it must be allowed to do so unhindered.

      Delete
  5. I was saddened to hear that the Dean was suspended, however, two things, 1) he was a man of power and if his actions are what the lady has claimed then he must be made accountable for those actions. 2) he is also innocent until proven guilty. The lady I am sure has and will continue to suffer for the rest of her life, I don't think the lady who made the complaint is doing it other than the fact that it happened, people don't do these things unless they are true. I should know, as I will fight until the child abuse enquiry is done in the correct way and I would not keep pushing for it if it was not something that affected me! and also it's made me a very angry person and that has to come from somewhere also, so I pray the lady who made the complaint is not alone and has good friends to get to the bottom of this issue so she can find justice, I admire her for not giving up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. I too am saddened by the suspension, but on reading the independent report there are some serious questions to answer.

      It is apparent that the lady has been a victim on two occasions, one of the abuse and then being a victim of a failed process. Our thoughts should also be with the lady.

      There some questions being asked on the matter in the States on Tuesday and I am minded to publish a Blog on the matter.


      Delete
  6. The Dean gave a speech on the Child abuse enquiry and then the next day he is to be suspended, was this just a co-incidence? or bad timing? we may never know....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A good question and is open to much speculation. I think the “Powers That Be” knew what they were doing and intentionally timed the Report’s release so that it was after the Abuse debate.


      Delete
  7. Beautifully written Bob, your blog speaks volumes is most certainly one of the most informative and clear blogs out there, welcome back! I expect Politicians are reading it! if they are not, well they should be, they may learn something...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Bob, I was told by Carrie Modral that Deputy Richard Rondel had to attend another meeting which was urgent, and rushed back, but didn't quite manage to make the vote. He was very upset about that, and I'm sure he was intending to be there. He would have voted POUR.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thanks Tony,

    Like you I am pretty sure that Richard would have voted Pour.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I am very glad you wrote this, I was very surprised that Deputy Richard Rondel was not there, any reason why Philip Bailhache did not bother to attend! Please list those that did not, I won't be voting for them! great blog Bob. We missed you!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The 4 Members who were absent for both votes were, Senator Bailhache who like Deputy Richard Rondel who were not States Members when the original proposition was debated 2 years ago.

      Connetable Phil Rondel of St John and Senator Ozouf were the other two. Two years ago Connetable Rondel voted in favour but Senator Ozouf voted against.

      Delete
  11. So why did Senator, Assistant Minister Sir Philip Bailhache and Senator Ozouf not bother to turn up? I would like to know the reason why, wouldn't you? Especially when Sir Philip is after all an Assistant Chief Minister!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. As I mentioned in my Blog above, Members do get caught out from time to time and are absent when a vote is being taken.

      However there are occasions when it does appear that some Members intentionally absent themselves which leaves the door open to speculation.

      Given the importance of the vote I believe all Members should have been present for the vote.

      There were 6 Members absent for the second vote the other two in addition to the 4 already mentioned above were Senator Le Marquand and Connetable Murphy who a few minutes earlier had voted in favour of Deputy Tadier’s amendment. There may be nothing sinister re their absence, but the bottom line is that they were not in the Chamber and did not vote.

      Given the importance of the vote, I believe every Member should have ensured that they were present. The fact that senior Members like Senator’s Bailhache, Ozouf and Le Marquand were absent, leads to speculation at a time when the Island and States Members in particular should be displaying a united front by giving its support to establish a Committee of Inquiry along with tools to do its job.

      Delete
  12. Totally agreed, now I know the names, they will not be getting my vote! and I hope they are reading this blog, it was a time in history to see 'most' agree. A turning point, may this agreement of States Members prevail when it comes to such important issues as the Enquiry! thanks Bob for clarifying.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Bob.

    The Jersey Establishment closes ranks AGAIN

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks and well done on another informative Blog. I just wonder at times whether some people who should know better rally understand the meaning of justice.

      Delete