Independent Jersey Care Inquiry (7) Mounting Cost-- The Cost of Success?

The Independent Panel enquiring into child abuse in Jersey is coming to the end of its first year and it is quite clear that it is far exceeding the estimated cost. It is now evident that the estimated cost of £6 millIon was very much a poor guesstimate and Panel Chairman Frances Oldham made the Council of Ministers aware of the potential costs in May last year. Please see pages 24/25 of proposition 20/2015 which can be opened by clicking HERE.

It is evident that little attention has been given to the COI’s progress or resultant cost and it is only now that Chief Minister Senator Gorst has lodged a proposition asking the States to agree that up to a further £14 million should be made available in order to provide additional funding to allow for the Committee of Inquiry to complete its task.

One of the difficulties in setting a cost for the Inquiry was that no one really knew of the extent of the abuse or of its covering up. What is becoming abundantly clear is that as confidence in the Panel has grown further witnesses have come forward. That in itself is a success; however it comes at a cost.

What should be noted is that the Committee of Inquiry (COI) has yet to get its teeth into the Terms of Reference relating to Operation Rectangle whose spiralling costs were so heavily but unfairly criticized and was one of the excuses given for the unprecedented suspension of our police chief. As confidence in the police grew more witnesses, information and evidence became available and like the COI is now experiencing, this led to spiralling costs.

Sadly certain irresponsible and mischievous sectors of our community took pleasure in ridiculing the police investigations by questioning the cost of flights and menus of some of the inquiry team rather than expending their energy on supporting the police and encouraging witnesses to come forward. Fortunately the COI has not yet suffered that indignity however it does not mean that it has a licence to print money.

In her response to Senator McLean’s concerns about the spiralling cost Mrs Oldham quite rightly reminded him “of the extremely serious matters relating to the history for care of children in Jersey which must be explored and addressed if the victims and indeed the whole Island is to move on from what has been a very negative experience over recent years.” Mrs Oldham is clearly not enamoured by the Minister’s protestations nor will she be diverted from her goal. 

Goodness knows how much money was spent on covering up allegations of abuse and malpractice and those costs are now coming to haunt us. Whilst I abhor wanton waste and a tight reign must be kept on expenditure, particularly legal fees it is not acceptable for the Chief Minister to attempt to put a cap on the cost of establishing the truth.

It is interesting to note that Senator Bailhache who did not vote in support of the Committee of Inquiry is now suggesting that the final bill could be in the region of £50 million. Whilst I don’t have a crystal ball, I don’t have a hidden agenda either and to curtail the Inquiry or to pull the plug on it because it’s getting expensive would be nonsense. There are some who might think that citing cost and putting caps on expenditure is not only scare mongering but another attempt to stop getting to the truth.

I note that the Chief Minister is proposing that the Inquiry and the States publish jointly on their websites details of their expenditure on a monthly basis. It was my understanding that that proposal had been agreed at the outset so the sooner more sets of eyes are looking at the costs the better.  

As mentioned above the proposition relating to the request for future funding is P20/2115 which also be reading by clicking HERE.

Voiceforchildren has recently published a blog on the funding and can be read by clicking HERE

Independent Jersey Care Inquiry (6)----- Another Unhappy Anniversary

In my previous blog I wrote about the first anniversary of my meeting with Heather Steel who hardly acted like a Dame when breaking a promise to give me the transcript of our meeting. In that blog I also mentioned that we were approaching what will now be the 6^th anniversary of the suspension of Jersey’s former Police Chief Graham Power.

I apologise if this blog is a little longer than usual but there is so much documentation to hand which has been collated to eke out the truth in what has been a disgraceful display of abuse at the highest level of government. This blog is intended to give an insight into the events leading up to and after the suspension and although lengthy there is still more which could have been included. 

Nothing can be done to undo the hurt inflicted on the former police chief and his family or to recover the million pounds plus incurred by Home Affairs and the States in paying for futile court cases and pointless one sided investigations whilst attempting to justify an unjust act. However those involved with the decision to suspend in the first place and those who did their utmost to cover up the truth and to deny the Chief Officer his natural right to answer the spurious allegation against him should not be forgotten.

The police investigation into the child abuse allegations came as a rude awakening to many Islanders who smugly believed that Jersey was immune from such claims. It is not disputed that the decision to implement Operation Rectangle was only taken after all the available evidence had been examined and was supported by senior officers from outside the Island. Given the weight of the information to hand, not to conduct a thorough search of Haut de Garenne would certainly have led to claims of cover ups. The police would be damned if they did not dig and certainly damned because they did, particularly as no bodies were found, although no explanation has been given for the collection of teeth that were found.

In recent months the Portuguese Police conducted a similar dig in the full glare of the world’s media for Madeleine McCann which apparently did not discover any evidence but I have not heard of the relevant police chief being suspended. What is evident is that it was the leadership of Jersey’ s senior politicians that was found wanting and having had their shortcomings publicly exposed some one’s head had to roll and it certainly was not going to be theirs.

I was a States Member at the time of the suspension which came as a complete surprise. I had been aware of concerns regarding the expense of the investigations but not of the professionalism of the police involved. I was surprised how quickly a Church Service was arranged for the victims when none had been identified. However the service was not at the behest of the police. I was also surprised at how quickly the investigation attracted the attention of the world’s media. However once in contact with several journalists it soon became evident that the principle of why let the truth get in the way of a good story prevailed. I was a serving police officer in Lambeth during the Brixton riots and there were times when I questioned the motives and integrity of the media who similarly sought to make mountains out of molehills.

The police chief was suspended on 12^th November 2008 but because of the election the matter via a Minister’s statement could not be addressed until 2^nd December. The Minister Andrew Lewis said it gave him no pleasure to read it. Given the evidence of Ministerial and Civil Servant collusion that later came to light it is not surprising it gave him no pleasure.

During the next three years there were well over a hundred written and oral questions asked by the likes of, Deputies Higgins, Tadier, Pitman, Wimberley and me as we sought answers from Ian Le Marquand, Terry Le Sueur and Philip Ozouf. Connetable Crowcroft in December 2008 lodged a proposition P182/2008 HERE requesting the Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand to commission a compliance check on the suspension and report to the States no later than 1st March 2009.

It seemed such an obvious yet simple request, particularly as Ian Le Marquand was new to the States and should have stood back and given his support. Unfortunately it was not to be possibly because he had been briefed by his acting Chief Officer David Warcup who was heavily involved and conflicted as he would have taken his boss's job and salary. His participation in the suspension not only led to criticism from Bryan Napier but rendered him unfit to replace Graham Power. He resigned prior to seeking States approval for his appointment.

Having failed to accept Connetable Crowcroft’s proposition in 2010 I lodged P9/2010. HERE which sought approval to establish an independent panel to review the suspension. Again the States rejected that proposition but accepted Chief Minister Le Sueur’s proposal to appoint an independent commissioner to conduct an “in house Review.”

Senator Le Sueur sought my support but I would only give it if I was to be party to the appointment of the Commissioner and able to have sight of the draft report(s), this was agreed as were were the terms of reference. However they were altered by the Deputy Chief Executive Officer without consulting me or Senator Le Sueur. It is known that at least two drafts were produced without me having sight of them as was the “final” version which I don’t believe was as written by the Commissioner Bryan Napier. His Report can be read HERE.  Whilst Napier found people at fault it is difficult to understand how he could find no evidence of a conspiracy when his report provides so much evidence.

One person not interviewed was Wendy Kinnard who was the Minister for Home Affairs until mid October 2008. She would never have been party to disciplinary action therefore she was never party to any of the secret discussions which took place between Senator Frank Walker, Andrew Lewis who was Assistant Minister of Home Affairs, Chief Executive Officer Bill Ogley, David Warcup and the Law Officers so how could it be said there was no evidence of conspiracy?

During the in camera question period after Andrew Lewis had read his statement and before I was privy to any of the facts that later emerged, I said there was a nasty smell about the suspension. Knowing what I now know it is evident that Graham Power was “stitched up.”  Deputy Lewis had replaced Wendy Kinnard and like Kinnard and Walker he too was retiring from the States in early December. Therefore having been given a window of opportunity it called for swift action. The action taken was akin to "planting" which was a despicable act undertaken by "bent coppers" and did so much harm to the reputation of all police officers.

It was known that Graham Power was to take a short break over the week end of 7/10th November. It is evident that David Warcup had a "friend" in the Met Police who was attempting to obtain a report into the Jersey Police Force's handling of the child abuse allegation. The Report was never intended for disciplinary action and neither was it complete because important witnesses had not been interviewed. It is also evident that the "friend" could not provide the report until Monday 10th November. However letters relating to the pending suspension were typed on the morning of Saturday 8th November which made reference to the Met Interim Report which was still not in Warcup's hands. The letters were dated 12th November which was the day that Graham Power was to be suspended

The Interim Report without the Met Police logo was received by Warcup during Monday 10th and was deemed to be so sensitive that they were for police eyes only, therefore it was not seen by Lewis, Walker or Ogley, Yet this was the damning evidence which used to justify suspending a police officer with over 40 years distinguished service.

There is no longer any dispute about the drafting of the letters because having had his request for evidence to support that fact denied by the Chief Minister, Senator Terry Le Sueur, Graham Power made a successful application to the States Complaint's Board which found in his favour. The Board's finding via R115/2009 can be read HERE

The suspension was deemed to be a neutral act which was farcical claim because despite the evidence that came to hand the matter was allowed to simmer for almost two years at the cost of over a million pounds much of which was paid to the Wiltshire Constabulary whose officers made dozens of trips to Jersey trying to find evidence to level disciplinary charges. Although their report was submitted to Minister Le Marquand before Christmas it remained on his desk until Graham Power had retired the following summer. 

Bryan Napier presented his final Report on 10^th September but Senator Le Sueur would not circulate it. He was minded to take disciplinary proceedings against the Chief Executive Officer Bill Ogley, but no doubt was advised not do so being fearful of what Bill Ogley would have made public. Somehow a way out was found whereby he was able to retire with a £500k parachute. The Napier Report was eventually published two months later but only after I had made it clear that I would publish my copy.

Napier made a number of recommendations such as to ensure that statements are preserved and not torn up as was the case with Bill Ogley. Therefore I lodged a proposition P166/2010 HERE which sought States approval to implement them. Also as Napier had found that Graham Power had been unfairly suspended I asked that he be given a formal States apology.

As with other propositions P166 was rejected and disgracefully the States rejected my proposal to apologize to Graham Power. In March 2011 after the former Senator Le Gresley had lodged P19/2011 requesting the Council of Ministers to reconsider its decision not to establish a Committee of Inquiry into Jersey’s historic abuse, I lodged amendments HERE seeking States approval to establish a Committee of Inquiry if the issues raised in R27/2008 HERE had not been not been resolved.

It is said that everything comes to he who waits and thanks to a U turn by some hard liners my amendment along with one from Deputy Tadier was approved. Paragraph 12 of the Committee of Inquiry’s terms of Reference is to determine whether the concerns in 2007 were sufficient to justify the States of Jersey Police setting in train ‘Operation Rectangle’. Not only must the concerns be reviewed but also the repercussions of that decision. 

The suspension was totally unjustified as was the cost incurred in to prevent the truth being disclosed. The Committee of Inquiry now has the opportunity of right a wrong. The Inquiry Chair, Frances Oldham QC, has promised a "robust and fearless" examination of what went wrong and to find answers for people who suffered abuse as children. In seeking answers to those issues she must also seek answers from those who abused their positions when suspending Graham Power because without his leadership there would be no investigation, no Committee of Inquiry and those abused and neglected would still be unheard.

P182/2008 Connetable Simon Crowcroft's request for a compliance check can be read HERE
R115/2009 The Complaint's Board Finding re date of drafting of suspension letters can be read HERE
P 9/2010 My proposition to request an independent public review of the suspension can be read  HERE
R.132/2010 The Napier Report can be read  HERE
P166/2008 which also contains Graham Power's Affidavit can be read HERE
P19/2011 amendment to establish Committee of Inquiry can be read HERE
R27/2008 Council of Ministers Report re possible of Inquiry can be read HERE

Independent Jersey Care Inquiry (4) Questionable tactics??

Those who have read the Voice for Children’s latest Blog (if not please click HERE) will know that we have been banned from using the facilities in the Media Room which has been set up at Seaton Place in relation to the Committee of Inquiry into abuse in Jersey.  

Fortunately as I did not attend the Hearing on Thursday 14th August I did not suffer the ignominy of being ejected from the Media Room which was experienced by Neil McMurray of the Voice for Children Blog therefore I am not as upset as he understandably is. 

Late on Thursday afternoon 14th August I received a communication from the COI Chairman Frances Oldham QC informing me that her Panel had reconsidered the applications received for media accreditation. She then listed the 6 applications which were to receive media accreditation and the 2 applicants which were rejected.

The 6 were; BBC National, Jersey Evening Post, ITV Channel TV, Channel 103, BBC Jersey and Bailiwick Express. Media Accreditation was not granted to Neil Mc Murray of the Voice for Children Blog and Bob Hill of the Jersey Blog Spot.

The “spurious” reasons given for accreditation was the perceived need for the 6 successful applicants to have access to electronic facilities in the Media Room so as to be able to file stories promptly. On busy days there has been considerable pressure on space. 

If space is so precious that there is only sufficient room for the Panel to grant 6 media accreditations then it must follow that should the UK or world media wish to access the room they will be out of luck because of the lack of space. They like Neil and I will not be able to access any other electronic facilities at Seaton Place because Frances Oldham has made that clear in her communication to me. However the Panel's decision does not restrict the number of journalist/reporters/camera people that the 6 accredited media may wish to have in the Media Room.

I do not believe that Frances Oldham has been informed of all the circumstances because she would not have made a decision which is not only irrational but discriminatory. That evening I wrote apprising her of the facts and asked that we could appeal against her decision. I received a response from a member of the Inquiry Team telling me of the difficulties in making contact with Ms Oldham and her Panel but I was not given a date to meet Frances Oldham.

This morning because of further information coming to hand I again emailed Frances Oldham informing her of it and that she should investigate my concerns before we meet, hopefully before the COI reconvenes next week.

As a matter of courtesy and because I am waiting to meet Frances Oldham I will not share the information which questions the integrity of members of the Inquiry Media Team until I have met Frances Oldham or have been informed that she does not want to meet Neil and me.

The decision taken about accreditation is disappointing and petty which should not have arisen in the first place and can only harm the COI’s impartiality and credibility at a time when it badly needs to establish the trust and confidence of the survivors/victims and potential witnesses. 

I have devoted countless hours, not only as a States Member and since leaving the States to ensure there is a COI and encouraging witnesses to come forward. 

I hope I can continue to give the COI my support therefore it is essential that the matter is dealt with more urgency than at present and before a mountain is made out of a mole hill by those who have opposed the establishment of the COI because it could not be trusted to act in an impartial manner and without fear or favour.

Independent Jersey Care Inquiry (2) ---- A Breath of Fresh Air?

The Independent Jersey Care Inquiry kicked off yesterday which is some 3 years and 4 months after the States grudgingly gave approval to establishing one. It was not established at the behest of the Council of Ministers but as a result of stubborn prodding by a handful of "dissident" backbenchers and bloggers.

Although some attention will be given to the manner in which the police handled the abuse investigation. (Operation Rectangle), hopefully enough victims and witnesses will come forward to explain what really happened to them,  why were so many young people abused, why did the abuse go unreported and who was responsible?

The Inquiry Team has started with a blank piece of paper and over the past months members has been taking statements from a diverse number of witnesses. As reported in a blog published on 10th June I have been interviewed and my statement eventually contained 38 pages along with 30 supporting exhibits. 

Like many other witnesses I don't know whether I will be called to give oral evidence and feel in limbo, that is a view shared by other witnesses. I would like to take this opportunity of offering the Inquiry Team some constructive criticism; not only must it keep witnesses updated but it must provide answers to valid questions asked by a number of interested parties. Also it must ensure that its  Website which is a vital conduit is constantly updated.

Yesterday I attended the first Hearing in which the COI Chairman Frances Oldham again called for witnesses to come forward and making it abundantly clear that witnesses will be given time to give their statements and be under no pressure as a priority for the Inquiry team is the well being of those who recount, possibly for the first time, their experiences in childhood. Very importantly she added that COI will conduct its work independently of the States of Jersey, the Police, any other organisation or individual in Jersey.

There followed a lengthy, well researched, informative and very professional presentation by the Council to the Inquiry Patrick Sadd and Harriet Jerram of Outer Temple Chambers in London who outlined the many issues that the COI will encounter and set out details of Phase 1 of the Inquiry.

 
Patrick Sadd compared the way in which the UK legislation had evolved and had to be updated at regular intervals to safe guard the interests of the child rather than those in authority. He reported that a constant theme in most Inquiries had shown that problems had arisen because of poor management, lack of training and poor staffing arrangements.

When Mr Sadd outlined the Jersey legislation it was evident that for a very long time there had been little statutory legislation and when new laws were drafted they were often out dated by the time they were approved.  I will be most surprised if the COI does not find evidence of poor management, lack of training and staffing problems in our Jersey Homes.

I was pleased to hear that the way in which the Honorary Police deal with juveniles at Parish Hall Inquiries will not be ignored. From my experience it is evident that there is little consistency and often young people have been prosecuted when pre-court action would have been preferable.

                                   

Ms Jerram in her excellent presentation included a definition of abuse which covered every conceivable aspect of abuse.She also took the opportunity to ask again for anyone who has evidence to come forward and tell their story- including senior managers, police officers, support staff, doctors, teachers and anyone who had contact with children or young people. I can only echo that view and remind those who are hesitant that there will not be another opportunity so take it. If in doubt contact the Inquiry Team who will advise you as to the value of your information. Its website can be accessed HERE

Speaking with passion and empathy Allan Collins, on behalf of the Jersey Care Leavers' Association said that he was encouraged from what he had heard so far. The range of breadth of the Terms of Reference is demanding; many children in Jersey over many years were sexually and physically abused. That fact has to be grasped and accepted. The COI will have to examine the culture, practices and ethics of those entrusted with the care system in Jersey.

He added that many children in Haut du la Garenne were made to feel like second class citizens by sections of the public and begs the question why?  

I felt what was being said yesterday was a breath of fresh air whereby intelligent people had quickly learnt of the inadequacies and shortcomings of those tasked with the welfare of young people and witnesses would be produced to substantiate that view. 

These are early days and the rest of this week will be devoted to opening addresses from those people representing the public bodies. However I came away from yesterday's Hearing with a feeling that the COI is business like and thorough and will not weaken at the knees when encountering those who for far too long have been oblivious to the welfare of the young and vulnerable in Jersey.

 

Independent Jersey Care Inquiry-- Preliminary Hearing

Three years after the States approved P19/2011 as amended to establish a Committee of Inquiry into allegations of abuse by young people in States care, a Preliminary Hearing was held at the St Paul's Centre this morning.

The fifty plus attendees received a very slick and professional 50 minute presentation from the Chair of the Inquiry, Frances Oldham QC who was accompanied by fellow members Alyson Leslie and Professor Sandy Cameron along with their legal team and administrators.

The presentation was filmed and it can seen on HERE  along with the transcript. The website also displays a number of documents including Inquiry Protocols relating to Legal Representation, General Procedure, Media Conduct, Providing Evidence to Inquiry and Protective Measures. Would be witnesses and other interested people are recommended to read the protocols because there are time restrictions for those wishing to partake in the Inquiry.

Given the lengthy presentation which included going through the Terms of Reference one would have hoped that Mrs Oldham would have allowed for a short time to answer questions, however it was not to be. Much was made of the Inquiry being truly independent and that it had been set up to establish what went wrong in the care system over many years and to find answers for people who suffered abuse as children. I hope that the inquiry will interpret the care system as including educational establishments such as Victoria College.

The Inquiry will be known as “Independent Jersey Care Inquiry,” had there been time allowed for questions I would have like to have asked how independent the Committee was going to be. It is hoped that unlike those involved with the Bishop of Winchester’s Visitation the Panel will not be having coffee with the Chief Minister, biscuits with the Bailiff and cocktails at Government House.

Who is the Committee accountable to, who will it present its report to, will be the report be published without redactions and when presented will it be in the public arena and time allow for questions?

During the 50 minute presentation I was interested to hear that in 1970 Haut de la Garenne was inspected by two UK Home Office Children’s Department Inspectors. Later in 1981 a similar inspection took place into other child care establishments. This is the first time I had learnt of the visits and one wonders why they were not mentioned by Ministers during the States debate to establish a Committee of Inquiry when they worked so hard to oppose the proposition.

Mrs Oldham said that the panel will examine the visits and establish whether recommendations were in fact implemented. Given that many allegations were made from victims who were in care during that time, one wonders whether the recommendations were implemented and was this why no reference was made to the visits during the debate.

It is as a result of a lot of hard and persistent work by a small but dedicated group of people that the Committee of Inquiry has been established. This morning was just the beginning and it is evident that the Panel has already started its work.

The Terms of Reference will give the Panel the power to require Departments to provide documents and to account for them and their acts or omissions. The Panel has the tools to do the job, it is independent and this morning it certainly gave the impression of being professional and efficient. It is now down to those who have a tale to tell to come forward. There might never be another chance so I really hope that the opportunity is not lost.

I have previously published blogs on the Establishment of the Committee of Inquiry and related matters which can be found below;

30th October 2010 Savile, Skeletons in the cupboard

6th November 2012 Jersey Historic abuse Inquiry  One small step

28th November 2012 Jersey Historic Abuse Inquiry  Possible Amendments

1st March 2013 No stone left unturned.

15th March 2013 The Nelson Touch