Monday, 10 July 2017
Rather an interesting comment from Alexis Jay of the UK child sex abuse inquiry. Powerful want us to fail
I haven't seen anything to clarify who are the powerful who want to derail the inquiry. There are some obvious candidates. Well connected politicans? Mandarins at the Civil Service? The Church? The judiciary? The Monarchy?
Of course we had some 'senior politicians' here who wanted to see our recently reported inquiry fail even to happen. One cannot help but wonder if the carefully incised terms of reference of our inquiry weren't done to protect the same interests and prevent the really problematic questions being asked.
All of those on the list above have either influence or responsibility for important parts of Jersey governance. Form the Appeal Court to the Privy Council to the apppointment of Crown Officers they all have influence here.
If any of them is a vested interest wanting to see the UK inquiry implode, and given the role each has in Jersey's governance, one has to consider why our inquiry wasn't more closely connected to the CSA in the UK. And isn't it revealing that they have asked for the report to be forwarded to them. Why would they need that if there were no connexion? It seems a good bet that there are unresolved trans-jurisdictional issues here.
One obvious reason to have kept the inquiries separate of course is the age old tactic of divide and conquer.
Friday, 7 July 2017
I heard the Chief Minister's summing up speech in the States of the debate on the committee of inquiry report and I have to say I am totally perplexed.
After decades of abuse of children in care as evidenced in the report the proposal is to have a a new Children's Commissioner, set up yet more panels and boards of States members and produce a new strategy document. That's it. More talking shops, more bits of paper, one person - a Children's Commissioner - to change everything!
According to some this is the most damning report from an inquiry they have seen. With the exception of the Connetable of St John who argued against one item, no one contested the Chief Minister's prescription of signing up to all the recommendations. Yet many of those same recommendations are exactly the opposite of the States policy and the programme of the Council of Ministers since ministerial government started. Overnight they collectively volte face and start being the best to implement policies that last month they collectively opposed?
We now have ministers in the CoM who opposed the very set up of the committee of enquiry, ministers who opposed the creation of a Children's Minister in 2009. We have ministers who have derailed or opposed every significant move to reform the States who are now it seems going to support the exhortation in the report to adopt Clothier and Carswell. Ministers who have spent a decade or more in the Assembly gleefully pushing every opportunity to adopt laws facilitating the finance industry are overnight going to now prioritise social justice measures as the report indicates.
To quote Jim Royle , My Arse!
Where else in the world would you receive such a damning report and wake up the day after a debate on it to find exactly the same ministers and assistant ministers in office. No one accountable, no one taking responsibility in any way that matters.
The Chief Minister quoted Deputy Bree in saying something like nothing can be the same again. To me it looks like if you are in the magic circle everything is still exactly the same.
Plus ça change.....
Tuesday, 4 July 2017
The Chief Minister did a decently statesman like job in his response to the publication of the care inquiry report. He apologised to survivors and victims up front and accepted all the recommendations. Chief minister shocked saddened sorry
In reality he could do little else. The findings of the inquiry were critical of pretty much every aspect they looked into. There were no straws to clutch at. Even the fig leaf of the Williamson report that has been used before to claim progress is being made was holed.
But that isn't the challenge I had in mind. His immediate problem is what to do about deputy Andrew Lewis. He is currently chair of the Public Accounts committee and a member of the Chairman's committee The purpose and role of the commitee can be seen at Public Accounts It is not trivial body having reported on such things as e-gov, the innovation fund, financial management and internal audit.
From the care inqury: "We find that Andrew Lewis lied to the States Assembly about the Metropolitan Police Service report, stating that he had sight of it when he had not. We can readily see why these acts have given rise to public suspicion that all or some of those involved were acting improperly and that they were motivated by a wish to discredit or close down investigations into child abuse.”
It simply isn't possible for him to continue as chair of the Public Accounts committee. A vote of no confidence could be brought to remove him, but I don't think that can happen before the in committee debate on the care inquiry report. And it surely isn't appropriate for him to participate in that given the statement made by the inquiry. Actually it goes further .
The phrase "these acts have given rise to public suspicion that all or some of those involved were acting improperly" is referring to States members and very senior cvil servants . Prima facie evidence that his actions have brought the Assembly and the States into disrepute. That is a suspension issue.
If the Chief Minister's words in response to the publication of the care inquiry report are to mean anything I can see no other option. If he does not act on that finding then he undermines the report and the inquiry. No confidence in Deputy Lewis as chair of the Public Accounts committee does not address the issues relating to the care inquiry and where he lied - to the Assembly and effectively to the public of the Island. If we had a recall mechanism I think this is exactly the sort of scenario it would be applicable. But we dont so it has to be immediate suspension.
Monday, 3 July 2017
A quick scan of the care inquiry report released today. Of course it will take time to analyse the detail, unpick the cautious language in places and spot the omissions. One or two online comments describe it as the most damning report they have seen. I wouldn't go that far, least not until I've read it thoroughly. But for today, it does one important job. In the fight between on the one hand victims, survivors and campaigners and on the other the powerful, the conflicted, the deceiving, and those who tried to avoid having an inquiry at all , it is the former who are clearly vindicated.
So here are a few pertinent clips that stood out to me.
On Skinner and Jouault
On political structure. Clothier and Carswell
On past failures
A couple of bits from others.
Lewis Lied Bailhache political error Andrew Lewis lied and the former Bailiff's Liberation Day speech was 'a grave political error'
As the intersted parties are locked in to hear the Chair's statement of the report of the Independent Care Inquiry, the ever reliable JEP manages to get its retaliation in first with a front page never mind the damaged lives, dodgy practices, likely illegal activities and decades of abuse, just look at the money story.
Bravo JEP, ever the reliable tool of the mercantile establishment.