Jersey's Dean---Still More Questions--- BBC Radio Jersey Broadcast.

During Question Time at last Tuesday’s States sitting Deputy John Le Fondre asked Chief Minister Senator Gorst if he was able to update Members as to when the Steel Report would be released? The Chief Minister could not give a date but stated that he was greatly disappointed that the matter had not been brought to a swift conclusion.

Followers of my Dean Blogs will know that 2 years ago Dame Heather Steel was commissioned by Bishop Dakin to review the Dean’s handling of a complaint made by a young lady against a Church Warden in 2008.

Radio Jersey has maintained an interest in the matter and yesterday along with Bruce Willing I was invited to join Matthew Price to discuss the impasse between the Bishop of Winchester and Jersey’s Dean and the delay in the release of the Steel and Gladwin Reports.

Bruce Willing is a member of a small group of people which includes Senator Philip Bailhache who have been vociferously critical of Bishop Dakin’s handling of the “Dean Affair” and have been unstinting in their support for the Dean. I don’t have a problem with their stance but they seem oblivious of some of the Dean’s shortcomings and of  the resultant wedge that has now been securely lodged between Winchester and Jersey thus ending our 500 year old link.

Two years ago I published this BLOG which is well worth reading because it contains a letter from a Dean supporter and a set of questions posed by Bruce Willing. It also contains a quote from the Dean when apologising for mistakes made in his handling of the complaint in which he states “If Christians can’t put things like this behind them and move on then we are all in a mess.” 

Given the impasse it is evident that some Christians have not put things behind them or moved on. Not only do they want the Bishop’s blood but also his head. It is also now evident that following Bruce Willing’s concerns regarding the initial Terms of Reference (TOR) they were amended. This possibly accounts for why the Korris recommendation that the arrest and deportation of HG from Jersey be investigated was omitted from the final TOR.

It should also be recalled that Korris was heavily criticised for not interviewing the complainant, however neither has Steel yet the same criticism is not being levelled at her. After my 3 hour meeting with Dame Heather Steel in October 2013 I wrote to Bishop Dakin informing him of my concerns regarding Dame Heather’s partiality and later published a blog on the matter which can be read by clicking.HERE

Now that it is evident that the TOR were amended and the author's partiality questionable its not surprising that some people are keen for the Steel Report to be published. 

The broadcast may be heard by clicking HERE  Readers will note that there are disagreements between Bruce Willing and me. I don't have a problem with what I said but I disagree with some of Bruce's comments which I am pretty sure would also be refuted by Bishop Dakin who was certainly at the sharp end of Bruce's tongue 

It is interesting that the issue of the Dean's "exoneration" was again raised. In my book the fact that disciplinary action is not being taken does not mean that one is exonerated. What is evident is that mistakes have been made on both sides and no good will come by the publication of a Report which is already discredited and will do more harm than good.

I believe the public and the Church would be better served if both parties acted as Christians, put things behind them and moved on so everyone gets out of the mess that they have created.

If readers have difficulty in opening the links to my two blogs above should be able to access them by clicking HERE    and      HERE

I am grateful to Radio Jersey for providing the link to yesterday's broadcast which can also be accessed by clicking HERE

Jersey's Dean--- More Questions Without Answers

Last week saw the historic handshake between Prince Charles and Gerry Adams which led to a reader leaving a comment on my previous blog stating that if those two people could shake hands why can’t the Dean and Bishop?

It was a good question and on last Friday’s BBC Radio Jersey’s Questions to the Chief Minister Hour I was able to ask our Chief Minister Senator Ian Gorst if he would agree to arrange a meeting with the Dean and Bishop and as a gesture of peace and reconciliation they too could shake hands which would not only set a fine example but would restore Jersey’s 500 year link with Winchester.

As is often the case when there are family disputes and parties go off in a huff it requires some one to bring them together. One of course would hope that when people aspire to positions of high office they would see service before self as the path to follow. Sadly this is not the case with our Dean or Bishop. Therefore to avoid further harm and embarrassment to our Island and the Church of England someone of the standing of our Chief Minister should be taking the lead to end the impasse.

The Jersey Dean’s appointment with Letters Patent and a seat in our States Assembly (Parliament) is well past its sell buy date. However as the Dean is in receipt of a States allowance of £26k in addition to his clergy salary and rent free accommodation he should be accountable to those he has the privilege of representing. There will be many who question the Dean’s position and whether it is becoming untenable because how can he lead our Members of the States which includes our Lt Governor, Bailiff, and Crown Officers in prayers when he himself is incapable of forgiving those who trespass against him. I don’t know what “trespass” the Bishop has inflicted but I doubt if it’s bodily harm or anything more than harsh words. How can he ask others to seek peace and reconciliation when he is oblivious to his own shortcomings?

The same could be said of the Bishop and we should not have to wait for Reports to find out who is responsible for the unseemly dispute. I mention Reports because in a rather disappointing answer the only way our Chief Minister could find a way forward was to wait for the publication of the Gladwin, Steel and the Archbishop’s pending review which could take some years before being published. Sitting on the fence is not an option.

Those who have closely watched events unfold will have no difficulty in finding faults on both sides and possibly the two men have been hurt by words and actions. But surely both men should be capable of privately settling their differences or being replaced by people with thicker skins and smaller egos.

I am grateful to BBC Radio Jersey for allowing me to ask the question and for Team Voice for supplying the video below which will enable Readers to listen to the questions and “answers.”  

  

Jersey's Dean--All Quiet on the Winchester Front.

Jersey has just celebrated the 70^th anniversary of its Liberation from 5 years of Nazi Occupation. In many of the sermons espoused by our Island’s clergy at Services held celebrate the anniversary was the need for reconciliation. 

Unfortunately for some clergy it is easier to talk about the matter than practice it. The same can be said for honesty where not for the first time the Church of England has provided ample evidence of its “Do as I say and not as I do” approach to life.

As an example of its double standards I cite the Jersey Deans infamous handling of a complaint made by a vulnerable person whereby the promised outcome is still awaited.

Although the complaint was made 7 years ago the matter only came to light 2 years ago following a review by Jan Korris. This resulted in the Dean being suspended by Bishop Dakin who soon fell foul of the Dean’s supporters who claimed that because of the ancient practice of the Dean, on appointment, receiving Letters Patent from the Crown, the Bishop was acting outside his remit.

Although the matter is now two years old those appointed to address the matter have either acted as though it never occurred or have arrogantly abdicated their responsibility.

The Dean was hastily reinstated following his "apology" for “any” mistakes he “may” have made and promised to co-operate with any review that might ensue.

Two reviews were undertaken and their outcomes should have been made known at least 12 months ago. 

Two weeks ago in an attempt to seek an update I emailed Tim Dakin, the Bishop of Winchester with a request that the four issues below be addressed. Sadly, but not surprisingly I have not received a reply

This is a copy of the email dated May 4^th.

Dear Bishop Tim, 

It is now 2 years since you suspended and reinstated the Dean. It is also 2 years since you appointed Bishop Gladwin and Dame Heather Steel to review the Constitutional situation and the Dean’s handling of a complaint. To date no reports have been published.

It has been reported that a further review is to be undertaken in respect of the Constitutional issues. If that is the case please could you inform me what steps you are taking to publish Bishop Gladwin’s findings or are they to be incorporated into the new review?

Regarding Dame Heather's Report, you must be aware that there are a number of valid reasons why Dame Heather’s Report can never be published. Apart from the legal issues and Dame Heather’s flawed investigation, there is also the issue of the undertakings referred to in your letter to the former Bailiff last May and those submitted to Winchester Court last June.

My justification for claiming that Dame Heather’s investigation was flawed is because of her failure to interview the main witness, namely the complainant or review her arrest and deportation as recommended by Ms Korris in her Report. Concerns about Dame Heather’s conflict and unsuitability can be confirmed in the transcript of her 3 hour meeting with me in October 2013.

You will recall that before my meeting with Dame Heather it had been agreed that I would receive a copy of the transcript. After the meeting I was again promised a copy but despite numerous requests to you and Dame Heather the transcript has not been provided.

The Dean’s handling of the complaint has caused great distress to a number of people including the complainant, your self, the Dean and a large number of ordinary church goers who have seen their money wasted on flawed reviews and the ending of our 500 year association with Winchester.

The matter has dragged on and I believe it is incumbent on you as the instigator of the suspension, the Visitation, broken promises, distress, and the break from Winchester to come clean with the people you represent and make it known what you propose to do with the finding of the Gladwin Review and the Steel Report.

I know that sometimes it is difficult to accept that we are capable of making mistakes but the appointment of Dame Heather was a mistake as evidenced by the way she conducted her investigation and if her report was published it would cause even further distress. Therefore it should be shredded.

In summary I would be grateful if you would;

1 Update me on what you propose to do with the Gladwin findings. 

2 Confirm that you will not be publishing the Steel Report. 

3 Provide me with the copy of transcript of my meeting with Dame Heather. 

4 Advise me how much the Visitation has cost to date.

I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of this email and assure me that my requests above will be addressed within the next two weeks. 

It is disappointing that the Bishop has ignored a simple request.  

It is not surprising that Bishop Gladwin has found the constitutional issues to be complex and that is probably why another review is to be undertaken, so why the silence?

The appointment of Dame Heather Steel was a mistake and for reasons above her Report should be shredded. I should also be given the promised transcript. So why continue to withhold it?

It has been reported that no disciplinary action is being taken against the Dean, however no reasons have been given nor whether the Dean has been exonerated.  

It could be said that as the Bishop had no powers to suspend the Dean then he has no power to discipline him. Leaving the matter open to speculation is unsatisfactory.

What is also unsatisfactory is that Bishop Dakin has claimed there are serious Safeguarding concerns in Jersey. Given my recent involvement with another safeguarding matter, I have no problem in endorsing Bishop Tim’s concerns. However what are those concerns and who is addressing them?

Given the time taken and of the personal involved the cost of conducting the reviews/investigations are likely to be in excess of the original estimate. The costs are not being met from the Bishop's pocket so why are they being withheld?

When I met a senior member of the clergy two years ago he described the Jersey situation as a mess. Two years on it can be said that not only does confusion reign supreme but the mess is now a much bigger and more expensive.

The issue will not go away and the longer there is a denial of the truth the more harm will be inflicted on the Church of England. It does little for its integrity when its Ministers espouse the virtues of reconciliation yet the Dean of Jersey and Bishop of Winchester cannot bury their differences. It also does little to inspire confidence when it cannot honour promised made.

Sadly I doubt whether anyone at Canterbury really cares, because if they did they would not permit the matter to fester. 

The Great Escape---The Jersey Connection

On 9^th of May Jersey will be celebrating the 70^th year of its Liberation after almost 5 years of Nazi Occupation. Much has been written of the hardship encountered by those living through the Occupation years. However little has been written about those who were captured on the Island whilst serving in the armed forces and this blog is dedicated to one of them: P/O (Sous Lt) Bernard Scheidhauer who was a French Airmen.

I suspect that the many Readers will have seen the film "The Great Escape" but will not be aware of its loose connection with Jersey.

The film, which was made over 50 years ago has a pivotal scene where Roger Bartlett played by Richard Attenborough and Andy McDonald (Gordon Jackson) were about to get on to a bus after showing their papers to a Gestapo agent. McDonald fell for the same trick he warned his fellow POW’s earlier in the film by replying in English.

Athough the film shows McDonald saying “thank you” after being wished good luck by the Gestapo agent, no one can be certain that the “thank you” was said in real life but what ever led to the arrest it had tragic consequences for the real airmen the actors were portraying. Both were shot in cold blood soon after.

The characters in the film were based on real men, and in some cases were composites of several men. The character of Bartlett was modelled on RAF Squadron Leader Roger Bushell, a habitual escaper who spoke good German. In the real ‘Great Escape’ Bushell’s travelling companion was Free French Air Force pilot Bernard Scheidhauer who was captured in Jersey. 

Bernard Scheidhauer was born in August 1921 and was a French pilot before becoming a member of the Free French Air Force serving in the UK. On 18^th November 1942 he was returning to England following a raid in Bayeux France. He was flying his Spitfire over Jersey when he ran out of fuel and crash landed in a field a short distance from a farm owned by the Binet family and about half a mile from my present home. Lewis Binet was aged 18 at the time and had been with his father Philip at a neighbouring farm making “black butter.”  

I have known Lewis for almost 60 years when in my youth we played football for Rozel Rovers. He is still living on the farm where 73 years ago he met Bernard Scheidhauer. The meeting is still well remembered and the following is Lewis’s account of the incident.

Lewis said he left his father around 4pm to return to his farm to tend to the cattle, on the way back he saw a Spitfire circulating overhead with its engine misfiring as if running out of fuel. Lewis saw the Spitfire land in a neighbouring field of turnips and he ran towards to it. As he got closer he saw the pilot get out of the plane, was unhurt and was walking towards him. On meeting they shook hands and were having had a general chat in which Lewis wanted to know how the war was going. Lewis said that Bernard had a good understanding of English.

They were soon joined by a group of neighbouring farmers with everyone in high spirits as they gathered round the plane which was undamaged. Surprisingly it took some time before a German soldier appeared who Lewis said had a rifle and spoke good English. He told the group that they were free to talk but as soon as his senior officers came they would have to go and leave Bernard with him.

 Bob Hill with Lewis Binet in the field where the Spitfire landed.

Soon after a number of soldiers arrived and took Bernard away. Lewis never saw him again,

After his capture Bernard was sent to Stalag Luft 111 which was a high security prisoner of war camp for airmen and deemed to be escape proof. Of the 76 who escaped only 3 reached their destination. It could be said that Bernard was unfortunate to have been teamed up with Bushell who had been threatened with death should he again attempt to escape. However it is evident that who ever was captured with Bushell was likely to be shot with him. Hitler was so enraged by the escape and ordered that 50 of the escapees be rounded up and shot in total disregard of the Geneva Convention.

Bernard Scheidhauer’s landing and short stay in Jersey is recognised, with due thanks to Ian Le Sueur who was responsible for erecting a memorial dedicated to Bernard.  The Memorial which is some 300 yards away from the initial landing was unveiled by Bernard’s sister on September 17^th 1999. Over 300 people attended the Service which included Free French Air Force veterans.

It is believed that Bernard and Roger Bushell were taken to a quiet clearing in the woods and shot in the back of their heads whilst relieving themselves. Their bodies were cremated without dignity and all evidence of their existence obliterated. I don’t know if there is a memorial dedicated to Roger Bushell but Bernard’s is situated in a quiet corner of Trinity and serves as a poignant reminder of his short time in Jersey and the tragic loss of a brave young man.

Independent Jersey Care Inquiry (9)--- "The Magnificent Seven"???????

The debate relating to the additional funding for the Committee of Inquiry was concluded yesterday with a resounding victory for Chief Minister Gorst.  However his victory was sullied by the immature actions of five of his Ministers and two Assistant Ministers who let their personal feelings take precedence over those of the victims and the Island’s reputation.

Deputy Tadier’s three amendments were as anticipated kicked into touch, however his concerns over the capping of funding and time schedule should not be ignored by the Chief Minister or the Committee of Inquiry. Due diligence must be given to the money paid to Lawyers and all expenditure in that area must be heavily scrutinised. As mentioned in my previous blog the need for legal assistance should not be taken as a licence to bill. All legal expenses must be justified and not just met because of who is making the claim.

As with every debate there were some good, bad and hypercritical speeches and Senator Bailhache’s should not have been made. Senator Gorst’s opening speech was measured and he made some good points however I was hoping to hear that he was going to ask his Ministers to account for the £1.8m already spent on legal fees. Perhaps suitable words of advice had been given to his big spenders prior to the debate in exchange for their votes.

Senator Bailhache as the Island’s former Solicitor and Attorney Generals, Bailiff and Deputy Bailiff should have had the nous to know that because of his past positions he is heavily conflicted so should have declared an interest and left the Chamber. He made it clear from the outset of his speech that he was going to abstain yet took the opportunity to attack those who questioned his past positions and openly proclaimed that he had nothing to fear from any scrutiny. To abstain fooled no one and was a clear vote of contre.

It should be noted that the next issue the COI will be reviewing will be paragraph 13 of ifs Terms of Reference which is "Establish the process by which files were submitted by the States of Jersey Police to the prosecuting authorities for consideration, and establish –  Whether those responsible for deciding on which cases to prosecute took a professional approach;  Whether the process was free from political or other interference at any level. If, for these purposes, or as a result of evidence given under paragraph 7, in the opinion of the Chairman of the Committee, it would be of assistance that one or more of the prosecution files underpinning any prosecution decision may be examined in a manner to be determined by the Committee."

Jersey does not have an Independent Crown Prosecution Service and the decision to prosecute rests with the Attorney General who apart from being the Advisor to the States is also the Titular Head of the Island's Honorary Police Force whose Centeniers have the sole right to Charge. For a lengthy period for the past 25 years Senator Bailhache and his brother William have held the position of Attorney General so presumably will be key witnesses when the COI addresses paragraph 13.

William Bailhache who is now the Bailiff rightly stood down from chairing the debate because he recognised his conflict. Sadly his older brother did not.

For Senator Bailhache to abstain was a vote against his Chief Minister, the victims and the Island of which he is its External Minister. One is entitled to ask whether Senator Bailhache’s behaviour in the Chamber renders him fit to represent the Island. The Senator also appears to have forgotten the support he received from Senator Gorst after denying he had read confidential documents on an aircraft.

Deputy Tadier made an excellent speech; left no stone unturned and had the courage to challenge the actions of people holding key positions. His comments about the burden Sark residents have to carry with the Barclay brothers and Jersey’s burden with the Bailhache brothers was illuminating. I did however wonder whether a similarity with the Krays brothers was to be included but perhaps that would have been unkind to Ronnie and Reggie. 

If Senator Gorst’s opening speech was measured it was surpassed by his closing speech in which it hit the nail bang on its head. He spoke of the cost and how difficult it was for anyone to hazard a guess as to what would be the final bill, but the States had made a commitment and it would have been far better not to have made a start at all than to stop before its completion on the grounds of cost.

He spoke of the impact the stoppage would have on the victims who at last had a feeling that not only was someone listening to them but they are being believed. Do we not owe them the closure they deserve? The third point was of equal importance that being the Island’s reputation. How could we as an Island conclude an Inquiry because we claim not to have the funds? The repercussions world wide would be too horrendous to contemplate. The backlash would have far greater financial implications than the funds required for finishing the job.

Senator Gorst’s closing speech was one befitting his status. Although to those listening it was pretty clear that he was heading for a handsome victory it was therefore disappointing that his pleas for unity and a unanimous vote were ignored by Ministers who did not have the humility to think of the bigger picture and of its impact on the victims and the Island. I defend their right to speak and to oppose, however when the time came for the vote it was obvious that they were in a tiny minority and it called for Statesmanship and to act in a manner befitting of high office but alas it was sadly lacking.

The photographs of the “Magnificent Seven” are published below. Given their concerns over the impending costs I await their explanations regarding financial prudence particularly from Ministers Refault and Bryans as their Departments have already incurred in excess of £750,000 in legal fees.

The Magnificent Seven ----Senator Bailhache, Connetable Refault of St Peter, Deputy Pinel, Deputy Bryans, Deputy Luce, Deputy Noel and Deputy Truscott can to seen below.

Senator Philip Bailhache

Connetable John Refault

Deputy Pinel

Deputy Bryans

Deputy Luce

Deputy Noel

Deputy Truscott

Independent Jersey Care Inquiry (8) ---- A Licence to Bill?

Next Tuesday the States is due to debate a proposition lodged by Chief Minister Gorst seeking approval for additional funding to enable the Committee of Inquiry (COI) to complete its review which is just about to enter its second year. Trying to come up with a figure for any Inquiry is not just difficult but almost impossible because no one knows how many witnesses will come forward or what evidence will come to light. The Jersey Inquiry is proving to be no different.

It was anticipated that around £6 million would be suffice but 12 months on not only has that figure been spent but a further £13.7m is being asked for. Senator Gorst has repeatedly proclaimed his support for the COI and although his proposition (see below) is well meaning I believe it is flawed so it's pleasing to see that Deputy Tadier has lodged amendments seeking to delete 3 of Senator Gorst's proposals.

The Amendments can be read below but in summary they seek to delete the sub-paragraphs which will cap the £13m, impose a time limit and interfere with the way the COI is conducting its Inquiry. All 3 sub-paragraphs have a single theme and that is to save money. That is a theme I don't have a problem with but Senator Gorst and the Panel Chairman Frances Oldham should be keeping a close check on how the money is being spent and whether it is justified. From the payments made to date it is evident that there is little monitoring particularly of the legal fees incurred by States Departments which appear to be obscene.

Although the proposition and amendments have been lodged there is no certainty they will be supported as there is a school of thought that much of the extra funding will go into the pockets of the Island's Lawyers. There may be more than a whiff of truth in that claim as can be seen from the answers given to a set of questions asked by Deputy Mike Higgins at the last States Sitting.

The full set of questions and answers can be accessed below and readers will see how the money has been spent to date. As anticipated a fair chunk of the money has been spent on set up costs, accommodation, travel and other expenses some of which will not be recurring. However one will note that several millions have already been spent on legal fees with over £1.8million paid to lawyers representing States departments and individuals. Who approved the appointment of the lawyers, why were they appointed, who are the individuals, do they include former staff and/or State Members, why is the money coming out of the Inquiry fund and not from the departments and individuals concerned? Perhaps if it came from Department funds they might be more than circumspect about spending it.

If £1.8m has been spent during the stage when only the victims have given evidence, how many more millions will be spent when the COI starts looking into the Departments (in)actions and Operation Rectangle. In football parlance we have only had the pre match warm up, the match is only about to begin.

It is also worth noting that on top of the £7m a further £4.6million has been spent in relation to the Redress Scheme. Ex-gratia payments totalling £1.8million have been made to 116 victims. The victims would have been entitled to compensation much earlier had the climate which prevails today been open to them in the past but the legal fees need an explanation. The legal fees incurred by lawyers representing the Care Leavers (Compensation Scheme) amount to £408k. However the lawyers representing the States have been paid over £2 million. Why is there such a discrepancy in the fees, who has authorised the payment and were the fees justified?

Whilst I have expressed concerns over fees paid to local lawyers it would be remiss of me not to comment on the £2.7million paid to the Inquiry Lawyers. I understand that there is a fee structure similar to that paid to those representing the Care Leavers and victims. It should be recalled that legal teams have travelled far and wide taking statements from witnesses. They have also spent a great many hours at the Hearings. Can that be said of the lawyers engaged by States Departments?

I want the COI to continue and whilst I accept there will be occasions when lawyers will be required they should not be given a licence to bill for work that is not justified and at exorbitant rates. Sub paragraph (iii) of paragraph C of Senator Gorst's proposition will require the Inquiry and the States to jointly publish on their websites details of expenditure on a monthly basis.  This is much welcomed and I look forward to a much more detailed breakdown of the expenditure incurred by States Department along with reasons as to why legal assistance was required.

Deputy Higgin's Questions can be read HERE
Senator Gorst's Proposition can be read HERE
Deputy Tadier's Amendments can be read HERE

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