Independent Jersey Care Inquiry (11)----Jersey Social Services " Out on a Limb"

It has been a good week for supporters of the Committee of Inquiry (COI) and after weeks of hearing evidence from those abused, the COI is continuing to question those people who held positions of responsibility when the abuse and neglect was taking place. As each witness is questioned it is becoming abundantly clear that not only were some staff incompetent but they used their positions to cover up their incompetence and in so doing covered up allegations of abuse.

Whilst it has been disturbing listening to evidence from the abused it was also disturbing listening to the answers given by Anton Skinner who rose through the ranks to become the acting Chief Executive of the Health and Community Services. This blog will comment on some of his evidence and Marnie Baudains comments about Stuart Syvret.

What I found disturbing about Anton Skinner’s evidence was that he knew the Jersey Care system was working in total isolation and years behind UK good practice. Mr Skinner admitted that Haut de la Garenne was “a total situation of crisis” yet it remained open for years after the publication of the Lambert/Wilkinson Report, why and who was responsible?

The Lambert/Wilkinson 1981 Report highlighted the lack of training and of Child Care Officers in Jersey feeling "out on a limb from colleagues in the UK and working in isolation." However Mr Skinner said that if anyone wanted to attend courses in the UK money was not a problem but from what he went on to say there seemed to be no encouragement given to those who should have been attending courses not only for their own professional enhancement but to share the knowledge gained with their colleagues.

Mr Skinner held senior positions for a number of years so why did he allow the “out on a limb and working in isolation” to continue? I don’t know whether the Panel understood the isolation issue. It was not just that our Children’s Service was working in isolation from the UK but it was more serious than that, because it was working in isolation in Jersey whereby unlike in the UK where there was an inter agency approach, this was not the case in Jersey.

Each Department was working in silos and there was no sharing of information or joint case conferences held when problems arose with children and/or within the family. The welfare of a child with problems should have been paramount but from my experience a child with problems seemed to be an inconvenience. 

If Mr Skinner could not see the need for training himself then it not surprising that he failed to see the need for training for the lower ranks. It is also apparent that there was no appraisal system in place which would have identified the personnel’s strengths and weaknesses. That absence allowed for the incompetent to remain in office and worse still some getting promoted beyond their levels of competence.

When asked how he kept abreast of the fast moving changes in child care outside Jersey Mr Skinner said he read Care related magazines. It could be said that when it came to leadership in our Care system it was a case of the blind leading the blind. It was not that those in authority planned to fail, but they simply failed to plan because they were either out of their depth or blinkered.

Social justice is a long way down the list of most of those who can do some something about it. Guilt by association is still very much a way of life and I was amused by the former Head at Le Rocquier School complaining about having to accept 'grossly disturbed children' from Haut de la Garenne at his school inferring that it lowered its image.

I attended St Martin’s School for all of my 9 years education and during that time I sat alongside boys from Haut de la Garenne. At no time did I ever hear my former Head Teacher Mr Anthony or any of my fellow pupils complain. I would say that the boys' presence enhanced my education and I have a greater understanding of the difficulties young people in care have to endure. 

It was interesting to see that Mr Skinner had amended his original statement; no doubt some amendments were required following evidence given by some of his former colleagues. I thought his written apology was too little and too late and was more of an apology for his shortcomings than for the harm caused by his incompetence. It was not surprising that one of the abused felt the apology was insincere and an insult.

I noted with amusement that an officer who smacked the bottoms of two mischievous boys had the book thrown at him yet a blind eye approach was adopted when dealing with real abusers.

It was also interesting hearing why the Maguires were not prosecuted. To claim it was in the victim's best interest not to prosecute adds salt to the wounds. The prosecution would have highlighted the shortcomings of a Service that was leaderless, incompetent and in parts uncaring and probably that had more to do with the decision not to prosecute.

It should be noted that the Children’s Service was under the remit of the Education Department until 1995 when it was transferred to the Health Department. It is now evident that concerns about the Maguire’s were made known to the Health Committee soon after the transfer. However it was not until May 1999 that the Committee of the day was misled when being told that the Maguires were leaving because of poor health.

I was a member of the Committee and present at that meeting but was denied the full facts. The decision to deceive my colleagues was not just Mr Skinner's so it begs the question as to who else was part of the deception.

Having been a Member of the Health Committee for around 5 years I found Mr Skinner to be very pleasant but felt was too laid back to hold senior positions. Counsel for the COI Patrick Sadd had certainly done his homework and did a fine job in exposing Mr Skinner’s shortcomings. It is evident that the Panel was struggling to accept some of Mr Skinner’s answers and selective memory and from time to time sought clarification. The transcript of Mr Skinner’s lengthy time answering Mr Sadd’s searching questions are well worth reading and can be found on the COI’s website by clicking HERE.

Marnie Baudains had worked in the UK where she began her career in various child care and supervisory roles before taking up similar employment in Jersey in 1985. She retired as Directorate Manager of Social Services in 2011. She said that Stuart Syvret’s criticisms of services and individuals were erroneous and his actions increased the risk to those who required protection from abuse. It was not the content but the manner in which Stuart had raised the issues.

Methinks that Ms Baudains should be reminded that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Whilst she was may not have been party to the abuse, she worked for Jersey Social Services for over 25 years and her eyes would not have closed for all that time, therefore she must accept responsibility for some of the failings that are now coming to light.

It is apparent that Stuart does not have a degree in diplomacy and often his message is lost because of his direct style. However evidence now coming to light is proving that his criticism was not erroneous and there is still more evidence to come.

Jersey's Freedom of Information Law--A Lucky Break !!!

Last Tuesday the States debated an amendment to the Freedom of Information Jersey Law which will come into force in January next year. Before covering that matter I believe it would be helpful to mention that the States has taken almost 20 years to bring the Law to fruition.

The seeds to the Law were sown by former Senator Stuart Syvret who in early 1994 was appointed as President of the newly constituted Special Committee on Freedom of Information to examine the issues involved in establishing by law, a general right of access to official information by members of the public.The members of Stuart's committee were Senator's Nigel Quérée and Vernon Tomes, and Deputies Robin Rumboll, Jimmy Johns, Gary Matthews and me.

It has been a torturous route with every opportunity taken by those with vested interests finding every possible excuse to deny the public of information they are entitled to. If it had not been for Stuart's initial initiative, drive and persistence one wonders whether there would be a Law today.

I have lost track of the number of States Members who before being elected supported the principle of openness yet have failed to keep their promises. In the attached Comments the Council of Ministers/COM claims to strongly support openness and transparency in government yet could not give its support to a common sense set of amendments from Deputy Carolyn Labey of Grouville which sought to extend the Law to States-owned bodies. 

It is only in recent years that States-owned bodies such as Jersey Telecoms and Jersey Post have Boards comprising of non-States Members. It is only months ago that the States transferred the running of its housing stock to Andium Homes which will come within the Law's remit. Yet the COM opposed Deputy Labey's amendments which were in two parts/paragraphs. The first two which sought approval to extend the Law to include such bodies as Jersey Telecoms and secondly for law drafting to be completed as soon as practicable. 

Part/Paragraph (c) was even less testing because all it asked was for the Chief Minister to investigate the feasibility and desirability of further extending the scope of the Law to other entities that receive a majority of their funding from the States, and to report back to the States with recommendations within 6 months.

Unfortunately the same COM which claims to strongly support openness and transparency in government wasn't even prepared to investigate extending the Law. The usual red herrings of confidentiality intruding in business were recycled, however the Law will rightly have clauses to prevent such eventualities. 

I have attached Deputy Labey's proposition and her Report along with the COM 's Comments which are below. I have also attached the details of the two sets of votes which are worth reading.

The Chief Minister who is to be likened to a Dictator in that he now requires all his Ministers to fall into line and vote as he does was left with egg on his face. When one looks at the way Members voted it will be noted that all Ministers in Lemming fashion obeyed the call to duty. However the Chief Minister will have to do something about the dining habits and travel arrangements of Senators Bailhache, Farnham and Ozouf. 

The first two were unable to complete their lunch within the 90 minute luncheon break whereby they missed the vote which was taken soon after the luncheon break. Senator Ozouf's absence was because he was out of the Island on States business which turned out to be a blessing. This is because their absence meant that parts (a) and (b) of Deputy Labey's amendments were approved by 3 votes, 22/19 with 8 Members out of the Chamber. Had the Ministers been present the Deputy would lost because if a vote is tied the amendment/proposition is lost. 

When it came to voting for part/paragraph (c) even though it was opposed by the COM, Deputy Labey increased her majority to 28/12 with 9 Members absent. If one looks carefully at that vote it will be seen that the Education Minister, Deputy Rob Bryans broke ranks and actually voted according to his conscience.  One wonders whether he has been ordered to produce 100 lines promising to obey in future, or given a yellow card. 

Tuesday may have been a bad day for Chief Minister Gorst and his Ministers but it was a good day for the general public who will benefit from greater openness and transparency.  

Deputy Labey's amendment and the COM Comments can be read in full by clicking on to the links below. The two votes can also be read by clicking onto the relevant links.

Freedom of Information amendment P149/2014

Freedom of Information Council of Minister's Comments

Votes for Paragraphs  A and B

 Votes for paragraph C

Tuesday's States business was all over before 3pm. However I doubt whether it will end by 3pm when it next sits on Tuesday 9th December. On the Order Paper are 3 cannabis related propositions which were lodged last July by Deputy Monty Tadier. He is seeking approval for sufferers of multiple sclerosis to be prescribed Sativex Spray which is cannabis based, He is also requesting the Minister to use his discretionary powers under the Misuse of Drugs (General Provisions) (Jersey) Order 2009; to permit Bedrocan BV to be prescribed and thirdly to allow cannabis to be smoked for medicinal purposes.

There should be some lively debates.

Independent Jersey Care Inquiry (5) Not so Independent???

In my previous blog I wrote about the COI Panel’s decision to ban both me and Neil McMurray of the Voice for Children Blog from using the Media Room and had appealed to Frances Oldham. Having waited for over 2 weeks I can inform readers that the Panel has not allowed an appeal and has informed me that it is not going to alter its decision. It is not just the ban that leaves a nasty taste but the manner in which the decision was arrived at and the repercussions that is of real concern. If there is so little space to permit two local Bloggers then there cannot be room for any other applicant from wherever they come.

Also despite Frances Oldham stating that the Inquiry was exploring the provision of WiFi in the public areas, as far as I am aware no provision has yet been made. Therefore even when the Media Room is only half full, non accredited media personnel will not be able use it or have access to any other link facilities within the building. As interest in the Inquiry grows there will be applications from a number of the Media from outside the Island such as Sky, CNN and the UK and World’s Press but if the Inquiry Team has any integrity it will have to reject any future applications because there is no room.

The way the Inquiry Team has handled the accreditation is worth placing on record as it’s evident that from the outset the Panel did not know what to do when its first two applicants for accreditation were Bloggers.

On 3^rd April after Frances Oldham had opened proceedings a number of Protocols were distributed which can found on the COI website HERE. One of the Protocols covers arrangements for applying for Media accreditation which was not defined.

Applicants applying for accreditation were told they would be informed within 14 days as to whether their application was successful. This was not to be because it was not until 14^th May that Frances Oldham circulated a letter to the 5 applicants informing them that as only a small number of applications had been received no decision was necessary until it had received more applications. 

The letter included details of the applicants (for readers benefit I include the date of application) Voice for Children 3^rd April, Bob Hill 4^th April, BBC National Robert Hall, 9^th April, The Jersey Evening Post 14^th April and Channel TV 30^th April.

It seems odd that accreditation was not given within the stipulated 14 days because accreditation should not depend on the number of applications but on the credibility of the applicant, particularly as the Protocol had made it clear that there was limited space in the Media Room and access would be on a first come first served basis and local media would be prioritised.

It should be noted that after the 14^th May letter, Channel 103 applied on 15^th May and BBC Radio Jersey on 16^th June. Therefore why was there a further delay in giving accreditation? There were no further applications before the perceived overcrowding occurred on 12^th August when Stuart Syvret and a reporter from the Bailiwick Express were in the Room, neither of whom had applied for accreditation. If it was known that space was limited why were they allowed in the room, the same could be said of Robert Hall of the National BBC who was in the Island on holiday and could well have sat in the area set aside in the Hearing Room for the media?

Although the room was a little crowded it could hardly be likened to a rush hour London tube and I left the room just before 11am to keep a blood donation appointment. When I returned the same number of people were in the room and I was not refused re-entry because of lack of space.

Whilst recording and social media updates are not permitted in the Hearing Room the Protocol does not have the same provision for the Media Room therefore there was no reason why anyone could not “tweet” or for anyone to submit live reports. Surely that is the purpose of it being there in the first place. It is apparent that the Panel and Media Team are still living in the Ark and are unaware that social media means tweeting, face book and blogging and are now very much the modern form of instant communication, therefore banning Bloggers from the Media Room is either through ignorance or prejudice.

After lunch a person entered the Media Room to inform everyone that tweeting was not permitted, again I ask why because the Protocol does not say that tweeting is prohibited and it has not been amended since.

It is evident that what went on in the Media Room on the 12^th was discussed soon afterwards and a reason had to be found to ban the Bloggers. Without consulting us to identify our needs it was decided to ban us on the grounds that we did not require the electronic facilities listed. How could it make that assumption without enquiring of our needs. Did it ask the other applicants of their needs? However before anyone was informed Anna Averkiou of the Media Team contacted the Bailiwick Express the next day making it aware that it had not applied for accreditation and it was advisable to do so ASAP.

This is a copy of the relevant email.

From: James Filleul  Sent: 13 August 2014 14:59 To: Jersey Care Inquiry Press

Subject: Accreditation for Bailiwick Express

Hi Anna,

Thanks for your calls today. To confirm, we would like to be accredited to cover the Care Inquiry. The journalists involved will be either myself, Ben Queree, Natalie Jardine, Guy Le Maistre (freelance) or Julia Hunt (freelance). It’s most likely to be Guy. I am the main point of contact, and my number is xxxx or with my e-mail. My news editor is Ben Queree, on the same number or I will ask Guy to bring photo ID with him when he attends, as will any of the others names above. Please do let me know if you need any further info at all.

Best,

James Filleul,

If the “not so” independent Media Team had been even handed it would have also contacted Stuart Syvret offering the same advice however it is evident that the decision to ban Bloggers had been taken and the friendly call to the Bailiwick Express was to ensure that its application was safely in place before the letter from Frances Oldham was circulated the next day.

Whilst I am not happy at the way the Bailiwick Express was contacted the fact that it has been given accreditation lends support to claims of bias and discrimination.  This is because the Bailiwick Express can best be described as a Blog with adverts therefore if it can be given accreditation why can't other Bloggers? Blogs are very much part of daily life and read the world over and the likes ours and the Bailiwick Express are now seen as a threat to mainstream hard copy newspapers.

Regretfully, although I have again asked to meet Frances Oldham I don't expect a reply and the ban will remain in place. However it is evident that the mechanism used and the reason given to ban Bloggers does little to enhance the Inquiry's reputation. And before anyone accuses me of not giving the COI a chance to get going they should be reminded that the Inquiry is costing in the region of £6 million so taxpayers are entitled to receive value for money and an Inquiry Team which is efficient, transparent and fair minded in all its deliberations. 

Senator Gorst And His Double Headed Coin.

Deputy Duhamel and Senator Gorst.

On Wednesday 8th January the Chief Minister Senator Ian Gorst lodged a proposition which can be read here P2/2014 seeking States approval to dismiss Deputy Rob Duhamel his Minister for Planning and Environment.

In his report he says "I do not bring this Proposition lightly. To call for the dismissal of a Minster is a serious
matter, but I do so because it is the right course of action." His report then sets out examples of the ways in which the Deputy had failed to discharge his Ministerial duties and obligations. Senator Gorst claims to have explored these issues in depth and has ensured that the Minister has been provided with opportunities to be heard and to respond.

However Senator Gorst was not satisfied with the Deputy's account and neither he nor his fellow Ministers believed that Deputy Duhamel should continue to hold office, but what is the substance to that claim and does the evidence justify the allegation let alone a verdict.

The issues Senator Gorst claims to have explored are in summary Deputy Luce's asbestos concerns which led him to lodge his vote of no confidence in Deputy Duhamel P148/2013 and can be read HERE .The Co-op and JEC Planning applications and failing to conduct a timely review of the Island Plan. However Senator Gorst really twists the knife by accusing Deputy Duhamel of failing to be open and honest with the Council of Ministers, States Members and the public. If Deputy Duhamel is in the dock why is he alone?

It is no secret that Senator Gorst and other Ministers have been travelling the world in their endeavours to portray Jersey as a paradise and a paragon of virtue. It would appear that on their travels they have trodden on the road to Damascus and have been converted to honourable, virtuous and upstanding fellows who will no longer be economical with the truth and will only give straight and honest answers to questions. I can hardly wait for next Tuesday's Question Time.

Senator Gorst and his Ministers are so squeaky-clean that they cannot work with some one like Deputy Duhamel whom it can be said has often ploughed a lone furrow and is not one of the greatest of team players, however does that make him a bad Minister? From a personal view I think his decision to permit a new school to be built on its existing playing field was illogical because there was a better alternative site. However it is the system that is wrong and one that Deputy Duhamel inherited from former Minister Freddie Cohen.

One could ask why the Chief Minister has not sought to change a practice which allows one Minister so much control/power in Planning matters with little or no affordable appeal system. To an outsider it could be perceived that the Co-op and the JEC are using their influence to remove Deputy Duhamel so he can be replaced by a Minister who will give consent to their planning applications. Deputy Duhamel's failure to support Senator Corst's Plemont proposition must also grate.

It is all very well for Deputy Steve Luce to seek Brownie points over the long standing asbestos concerns. but most people are unaware of the asbestos and that can only been down to the failure of the Trappist States Members who have failed to raise the matter during question time. If the matter was so serious why has so little been done to raise awareness? Had Deputy Luce the courage of his convictions he would not have withdrawn his proposition at Senator Gorst's behest.

The asbestos matter is in hand but can that be said of the extending waiting list at the General Hospital or a malfunctioning incinerator purchased at exorbitant cost, the re-location of the police station, tenancy legislation, updating Jersey's Licensing Law and many other long standing issues?

It can be said that the pot is calling the kettle black as far as the review of the Island Plan is concerned. Senator Gorst and many fellow Ministers opposed my amendments to establish a Committee of Inquiry into Jersey's Child Abuse. They have been dragged kicking and screaming to the wire and it has taken three years for the Inquiry to get under way..

Senator Gorst is feeling hard done by in that he does not have the power to hire and fire Ministers. If he feels that way why has he not sought to change the Law to give him that right. However I doubt whether enough States Members would be that stupid to give so much power to one person. It has been reported that the Chief Minister cannot select his Ministers, that is incorrect, he can select but it is down to fellow Members to approve his nominations. It should be remembered that Senator Gorst nominated Deputy Duhamel warts and all but only narrowly defeated Deputy Eddie Noel who opposed him for the position.

I was present on 11th September 2007 when the States debated P117/2007 which was the proposition lodged by the former Chief Minister Senator Frank Walker seeking support to dismiss the former Senator Stuart Syvret. The proposition contained 82 pages compared to the 39 paged Gorst proposition. Interestingly on page 22 of the Walker proposition is a letter signed by all the Ministers with the exception of Senator Kinnard who abstained, calling for Senator Syvret's dismissal. Senator Gorst's proposition does not contain a similar letter.

I was one of the 19 who voted against the proposition with 30 members in support in what was a very acrimonious debate. When comparing the 2 propositions, the latest is pretty flimsy and certainly not worthy of success. However the States like God moves in mysterious ways and some Members are likely to support the proposition to enhance their political position rather than consider it on its merits. Very importantly they should also compare Deputy Duhamel's overall performance with other Ministers including the Chief Minister's.

As mentioned above I believe that Deputy Duhamel's decision to approve the application to build on St Martin's School Field was illogical but that is not one cited by the Chief Minister who could have quite easily have saved the field had he accepted my nomination for it to be Jersey's Diamond Jubilee's Playing Field. Unfortunately Senator Gorst not only ignored my nomination but he failed to conduct the selection process in a proper and timely manner where not only was the playing field lost but Jersey does not have a Diamond Jubilee field.

Senator Gorst has accused Deputy Duhamel of dishonesty and by implication being dishonourable but is he being hypercritical? It is apparent that he wants his cake and eat it too. He is tossing a double headed coin so that what ever way it falls will result in him remaining as Chief Minister. This is because it has been reported that he will not resign if Members do not support his proposition. Surely if his relationship and confidence in Deputy Duhamel is so strained that he wants him removed, how can he work with him should his proposition fail?

Dismissing a Minister is a very serious and divisive matter but should be the last and not as in this case the first option. Senator Gorst has pressed the nuclear button but his report does not provide any evidence of relationships being so bad that the end of the road has been reached which clearly it has not. This is evident by the fact that Senator Gorst does not have unanimous Council of Minister's support and is prepared to work with the Deputy if his proposition fails.

This being the case Senator Gorst should show Leadership by withdrawing his proposition thus preventing a debate which will leave only losers, will weaken his position and the credibility of an already lack lustre Council of Ministers, will bring the Island into disrepute and at the cost of valuable States time and public expense.

Post Script

On the day before the debate Senator Gorst withdrew his proposition because he claimed that he and Deputy Duhamel had met and in affect had kissed and made up after Deputy Duhamel had apologised. At the States Sitting next day Senator Gorst would not get drawn into explaining when or where the meetings were held and/or witnessed. Given that he had accused Deputy Duhamel of being dishonest no one knows why he was still willing to work with him.

Deputy Duhamel has not made a statement or publicly commented on the reason for the u turn, however according to Senator Gorst, Deputy Duhamel will not meet applicants unless accompanied.