Monday 23 September 2013

Senator Sir Philip Bailhache---A Man of Influence--- Part 3



In my previous Blogs on Senator Bailhache in part 1 to view(click here) I reported how Bailiff and now Senator Bailhache was able to jump the law drafting queue thus ensuring that the “Loi 1960 au sujet du College Victoria.” was amended to cater for an independent governing board, where he was to be it’s first Chairman.

In part 2 to view (click here) I reported how Senator Bailhache although conflicted denied the right to lodge amendments to the proposition on the re-organisation of the Island’s Secondary Education. The debate was acrimonious; the proposition was defeated and led to the resignation of the Education President Connetable Iris le Feuvre who was succeeded by Deputy Evelyn Pullin.

Deputy Pullin had considerable experience in education having previously been head teacher at Vauxhall Manor Girls School near the Kennington Oval in London and later head at the Girls College. I had got to know Evelyn on my return to Jersey and offered to help in her election for Deputy, she accepted and I ran her campaign. Interestingly she told me that a young student living nearby would like to get involved. He joined me, proved to be a quick learner and a very useful and enthusiastic member. That student is the now Senator Ozouf. Deputy Pullin was elected and defeated a couple of young aspiring candidates who are now States Members, (Senator Alan Breckon and Deputy Rob Duhamel.)

Deputy Pullin had two main issues to address; attempting to solve the problems following the Secondary Education Debate and the Victoria College’s independence issue. In fairness to Deputy Pullen I don’t think she was politically astute for the task. A watchdog group had been formed and known as Equal Opportunities in Education (EOE), its Chairman was the late Christopher Lakeman. The Group had been quite vociferous prior and after the Secondary School debate and also raised a number of questions in relation Victoria College’s legal status, the lease of its premises, its financing and its affect on the Girls’ College. There was also the issue of the non payment of fees by its sixth form students.

 I had written to the Solicitor General Stephanie Nicolle re the payment of Rates and she was of the view that as Victoria College was independent it was liable. This would have further financial implications because the College would have to raise the revenue to meet its obligations which I doubt if any consideration was given to the matter prior to amending the College Loi.

In October 1995 I lodged a proposition requesting the Education Committee to prepare legislation – (a) (i) to repeal the Loi (1994)(Amendement No. 3) sur le Collège Victoria;
(ii) to provide for the Board of Governors of Victoria College to be constituted on the same basis as the four non fee paying secondary schools, Hautlieu and the Jersey College for Girls;
(b) request the Policy and Resources Committee to cause the necessary evaluations to be undertaken to determine whether the preparation of the necessary legislation might be added to the 1995/96 States Law Drafting Programme.

Initially my proposition was supported by the Education Committee but it intimated that it wished to make a minor amendment in relation to Her Majesty having Right of Attendance. This was an issue which did not trouble me. To allow for drafting I agreed to delay the date set aside for the debate. However further requests for deferment were requested to allow for consultation between the Governors and the Committee.

I reluctantly agreed and eventually a date for debate was set or 30th January 1996. What I was unaware of was that the Education Committee and the Governors were drafting a “Memorandum of Understanding.” This was akin to Neville Chamberlain’s letter of appeasement and it was patently obvious that Deputy Pullin and her Committee had allowed itself to be swayed by the Governing Body. However the Memorandum provided a cop out for many States Members who were Old Victorians or had offspring’s attending the College.

Prior to the debate the Board of Governors circulated a three page document stating its good a working relationship with the Education Committee and how it had invited the Education President and Vice President, (Deputies Pullin and Norman to represent the Committee on the Board. The letter made it pretty clear that although it valued its new found independence it still expected the States to continue providing the funds.

Over half a page was devoted to the Head teacher’s membership of the Headmaster’s Conference (HMC) in which it was claimed that if the States approved my proposition the Headmaster would be asked to resign from the HMC. This was a red herring because the reason for amending the College Loi was because it was claimed that the current Headmaster’s application to the HMC had been rejected.

The last page is published below and as one can see the signatories which included the Bailiff and his Deputy Francis Hamon (although their titles are omitted) were urging the Members to reject the proposition of the Deputy of St Martin, which was me.  At the foot of the page one can see that neither Deputy Pullin nor Norman was asked to sign the letter. If they were supposed to be Board Members one may ask why they were not asked?


The result was as anticipated with my proposition being rejected by 37 votes to 10, but it was a hollow victory because too many questions remained unanswered. Deputy Pullin soon ran into any number of problems including the possible relocation of the Girls College onto land and premises which were now “owned” by Victoria College. Whilst there was considerable open debate on the Board’s status what was conveniently kept under wraps were the allegations of abuse by staff member Jervis- Dykes which is well documented in a report by Stephen Sharp to the Board of Governors and the Education Committee. 
 

The report record that concerns relating to Jervis-Dykes were known to the headmaster and senior staff but conveniently omit to say whether those concerns were known to the Board of Governors. It will be for readers to determine whether the Board was aware but by the time the report was published Bailiff Bailhache was no longer Chairman.

Jervis-Dykes was accused and sentenced for 6 counts of indecent assault and one count of possession of an indecent photograph of a child. The headmaster resigned as a result of the issue. Stephen Sharp was quite scathing about the College’s handling of the complaint and stated the handling of the complaint was “more consistent with protecting a member of staff and the college’s reputation in the short-time than safeguarding the best interests of the pupil.”

That statement does not surprise me as I was the recipient of considerable verbal and written abuse from people with Victoria College connections who appeared to follow the principle of “my college right or wrong.”

I find it difficult to accept that concerns about Jervis-Dykes did not reach the ears of the Governing Body or Education Committee, but one wonders where the buck stopped. Deputy Pullin’s tenure as President was short lived, as mentioned above, I don’t think she was politically astute and in trying to please everyone, pleased no-one.Below is another Al Thomas cartoon which was published in the JEP which sadly was appropriate.

My proposition was debated on 30th January 1996 the Deputy Bailiff Francis Hamon who was due to preside retired from the Chamber to allow for the Greffier of the States, Geoffrey Coppock to take over the Presidency. Presumably as a Board Member Mr Hamon felt conflicted, however, if that was the case why did he and Philip Bailhache sign the letter above? As Crown Officers should they be urging States Members to reject a fellow Member’s proposition?  
Deputy Pullin resigned and was succeeded by Deputy and now Connetable Len Norman who was made of sterner stuff. As a former De La Salle student he was well aware of the different nature of Victoria College and De la Salle which was a private school which owned its own property and assumed full responsibility for its capital development. It was evident that the Victoria College Governors wanted independence from the States but still wanted it to assume responsibly for meeting all the Colleges running costs.

Under Len Norman’s presidency he successfully lodged a proposition on similar lines to mine. Peace was restored but there were a number of casualties including the sixth form students who are now required to pay fees. The Victoria College Governing Body is now the same as the other Secondary Schools including the Girls College.


It will be interesting to read what historians will make of Senator Bailhache’s short excursion into Victoria College affairs. Had he succeeded who knows whether it would have continued to provide a traditional type of education at modest expense for parents or would it have become an exclusive public school? 


What is evident is that Senator Bailhache was able to able to influence a number of people who acquiesced apparently without questioning his motives or the fact that he was abusing his Office.

36 comments:

  1. Bob, from memory I recall the last part of Steven Sharps report. It went something like this. The management and administration of Victoria College is the responsibility of the board of governors.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes your memory is sound but the report is silent as to what the Governors knew.

      Delete
  2. Isn't Philip Bailhahce going to be a Minister for Foreign Affairs, he needs to sort out his Affairs at 'home' first as far as I am concerned.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes the ordination is tomorrow.

      Delete
    2. It went ahead almost as planned. Tadier and Baudains stood too, to ensure there were speeches and questions. Mysteriously, the live internet audio feed failed for PB's speech and questions, but came back online for the other two.

      Delete
  3. The sooner people realize Bailhache is Jersey's problem and not its solution the sooner the island can move forward and hold its head high. Why is it every time pedophilia is mentioned or covered up the name Bailhache always turns up?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A good question and don't forget he was on a " walk about" when the vote was taken to establish a Committee of Inquiry re the Historic Child Abuse.

      Delete
  4. No wait a minute here, are you saying that Pullin and Norman were not asked to sign the letter, is this legal? why were they not allowed to sign it? this is extremely important point, Philip can't stand as Foreign Affairs if this issue is not sorted out now, it will only follow him......and if there is any doubt that Philip was in charge during the Child abuse time, this also needs to be addressed and now! not later now!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was evident that the Education Members was to give the Governing Body some legitimacy, but in reality the members were there to be seen but not heard.

      Delete
  5. Chris Lakeman Iris Le Feuvre Stephanie Nicolle reads like a ruddy rap sheet or a wanted poster.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was an interesting time with many hidden agendas.

      Delete
  6. I see Philip's signature at the top of the letter, he has a responsibility to explain himself. During the child abuse cases at Victoria College he was at the helm! he must explain himself and now. We can't have a Foreign Minister with the above history staring us in the face and not act! it's now or never.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you read the Sharp Report it is evident that Sir Philip jumped ship otherwise he would have walked the plank.

      Delete
  7. When is Bailhache ever going to get arrested as he should be?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Trying looking at Hubris Syndrome. I think this is what Philip has.

    ReplyDelete
  9. If "Bailhache was as easy to spell and pronounce as "hubris" it would be an ideal synonym. he is the personification of hubris, and yes- Teflon coated! For now.

    He has miscalculated the intelligence, determination and sheer numbers of the people who know they are being lied to.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Note: Deputy E.M Pullin and Deputy I J Norman the representatives of the Education Committee on the board of Governors, have not been asked to sign this letter.? Memorandum of misunderstanding.

    Perhaps the good working relationship was not so good after all how do the Education President and vice president, represent anything if invited, then excluded as Governors on the board of Governors in all but name only.

    (What is the reason they never signed and specifically noted they were not even asked to sign?)

    How could all Governors have pledged themselves to work in co-operation with the education committee for the good of the School,( Given two did not sign) It would be a sad blow for Victoria College if the independence of its board of Governors were to be removed of its board of Governors only a year or so after the States had voted to confer it. (The two that did not sign were effectively removed weren't they what a blow for independence of the board of Governors.?)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Memorandum of Understanding was a charade. The Board held the Committee in contempt which made the President’s position untenable. Al Thomas’ cartoon was so appropriate

      Delete
  11. Bob.

    Cost Of Failed, Taxpayer Funded, Super Injunction remains A SECRET

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I listened to session live, as usual the only questions being asked were from the usual suspects, the rest just sat back and wished they were elsewhere.

      Delete
    2. What did you think about the non-answers given to those few who did ask questions?

      Delete
    3. Not a lot but Ministers get away with it due to the inertia of the majority of States Members.

      There should always be a reason why questions are asked and generally the questioner will or should have researched the matter so that he/she is aware of the sort of answer to expect. All too often satisfactory answers are not given but apart from having a second attempt there is very little a member can do even when it is evident that the Minister is deliberately misleading the Chamber.

      Question time should be an opportunity for ALL members to make Ministers accountable but unfortunately too many members choose to say nothing or sit in the coffee room until the Question Time period is concluded.

      It is not difficult to check on which Members ask questions, some never ever do. It is down to the electorate ask their representatives why questions are not being asked.

      If you are local do you know how often your representative participates in Question Time?

      Delete
  12. Its the same people all the time asking questions Why do the rest receive a wage as they sit quietly in the States chamber making no attempt at contributing to the good governance of this Island with the occasional self promotion when needed.?



    How do they justify to themselves and those who voted them in when they remain silent on the majority of issues.

    It appears once certain members get elected the only use they serve is their voting power service to the establishment.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Replies
    1. An important speech by Trevor!

      Delete
    2. I heard it live and it was a brave speech, probably made a few people squirm but regretfully will have generally fallen on deaf ears.

      I wonder how Members were in the Coffee Room at the time.

      Delete
  14. This bears repeating; from the 2nd page of comments (#215) at

    http://stuartsyvret.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/the-crown-and-newspeak-justice-part-1.html?commentPage=2

    2 October 2013 15:02
    "A civilised Jersey conservative" said...

    Mr Syvret, the magnitude of what you have done may well be lost on most of your readers. It isn't lost on the legal profession nor intelligent observers further afield. You have, as you correctly observed, 'faced down' the Jersey courts. People never, and I mean 'never', 'face down' a court. At least, not if the society is respectable and the person not a tyrant with an army at his back. Or, of course, in the case of an ordinary person like yourself, no court confident of its respectability would be 'faced down'. Our society is not respectable. And alas our courts even less so. As some 'higher external power' has finally had the good sense to recognise, it would seem. There can be no other explanation for you not being in prison. I am, incidentally, glad that you are not, and relieved, and deeply saddened at the same time. I've savoured a certain schadenfreude when discussing the situation with other lawyers & saying 'I told you so' when reminding them of the innumerable times I said 'no good would ever come of the folly of the actions against you, and it could only end in lasting damage to the island'. So it has come to pass. It saddens me that so many colleagues have been too fearful & foolish to have moved to stop this madness (and that is not an inappropriate word)when our Crown Officers embarked on the lunacy several years ago.

    Will you be a candidate in the next elections?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Can someone remind me please, why did Stuart Syvret go into prison? what did he do wrong? I am at a loss as to what he is supposed to have done......The Establishment should be ashamed of themselves....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From memory I believe it was for failing to comply with a Court Order which is often a device to bring people to heel when the State has no legal power to instigate for the original concern.

      Delete
  16. Was it enough for Stuart to go to prison, another waste of tax payers money! would the same have happened to Stuart if he was in the UK?

    ReplyDelete
  17. no, it only happens in Jersey! HG

    ReplyDelete
  18. Stuart Syvret, the former Jersey Health Minister and Ex-Political Prisoner speaks on journalism being made illegal in the British dependency of Jersey by the hijack of the Jersey Data Protection Law:

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvwJGXGt79I&feature=youtu.be

    Perhaps CTV could cut and paste this and pick up another of those 'Royal Society' television award thingies?

    Does anyone remember their last one ????? PMSL

    Does "CTV" stand for Coverup-TV ? -it seems so.

    ReplyDelete