Historical Child Abuse: Committee of Inquiry

STATES OF JERSEY

HISTORICAL CHILD ABUSE: COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY

Presented to the States on 1st February 2011 by the Chief Minister

STATES GREFFE

2011   Price code: C  R.8

REPORT

1. INTRODUCTION

On 6th December 2010, the Chief Minister made the following apology –

On behalf of the Island's government, I acknowledge that the care system that operated historically in the Island of Jersey failed some children in the  States'  residential  care  in  a  serious  way.  Such  abuse  has  been confirmed by the criminal cases that have been before Jersey's courts. To all those who suffered abuse, whether confirmed by criminal conviction or not, the Island's government offers its unreserved apology.

This report sets out the Council's position in relation to a Committee of Inquiry into  historical  child  abuse.  In  arriving  at  their  conclusion,  the  Council  have considered the number of investigations and reviews that have been undertaken around the issue.

2. THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS' COMMITMENT

On 31st March 2008 the previous Council of Ministers presented a report to the States (R.27/2008 – see Appendix A) announcing the intention of that Council to ask the States to establish a Committee of Inquiry to investigate any unresolved issues in relation to historic abuse in the Island at the conclusion of criminal investigations.

The report came in the wake of the announcement made in late February 2008 by the States of Jersey Police of the discovery of a fragment of what was initially described as partial human remains and later as part of a skull at Haut de la Garenne. These announcements led to massive public concern and international media attention and gave the appearance that Jersey had uncovered historic abuse on a scale far more serious than anywhere in the UK. The attention this generated included  allegations  that  Jersey  was  an  island  of  deep  secrets'  where  the authorities had been complicit for many years in covering up child abuse.

It was in this context that the previous Council of Ministers announced that a Committee  of  Inquiry  would  be  established  in  due  course  to  investigate  any unresolved issues.

3. THE CURRENT CONTEXT

There is no doubt that the context has changed considerably since the previous Council of Ministers made its public proposal for a Committee of Inquiry. The current Council believes that the actions that have taken place since, and the context in which we find ourselves today, are key considerations in deciding whether some form of inquiry should take place.

1. Police Investigation

On 12th November 2008 the States of Jersey Police announced that they had found no evidence of any murders having taken place at Haut de la Garenne.

In December 2010, it announced the end of the thorough and detailed enquiry into allegations of historical abuse within the childcare system in Jersey during the period  1941  to  2009.  On  its  conclusion,  8 people  had  been  charged,  with

7 successful prosecutions resulting from these cases. The States of Jersey Police has stated that, at this point in time, there is insufficient evidence from which it would be possible to mount any further prosecutions.

2. Current Childcare Arrangements

In an immediate response to concerns raised about the nature of childcare in the Island,  in  August  2007,  the  previous  Council  commissioned  Mr. Andrew Williamson to undertake a review of children's services in the Island. This report, which  was  published  in  July  2008,  concluded  that  current  services  were  not failing in the Island, but identified important improvements to be made. These improvements have been included within a comprehensive plan which is currently being implemented with significant additional annual revenue funding which will reach £3.3 million by 2012. It is expected that by the end of 2011, 80% of these recommendations will have been fully implemented.

As part of this plan, in December 2010 the Children's Policy Group launched a public consultation on the Children and Young People's Strategic Framework that will run until mid-February. It is expected that this will then be lodged for debate in March 2011. Amongst other things, the plan also includes regular reviews of children's services by the Scott ish Inspection Agency, the first of which began in January 2011.

3. Wiltshire Report

Shortly after the November 2008 announcement and following the suspension of the Chief of Police, the Wiltshire Police conducted an independent disciplinary investigation into the handling of the investigation. This work was completed in October 2009 and redacted versions of part of the main report, the financial report and the BDO audit were published in July 2010 and the rest of the main report will be published in redacted form very shortly.

The  Wiltshire  report  contained  8 recommendations,  7  of  which  related  to improvements to be made by the States of Jersey Police in how it manages future investigations (the eighth being a matter for ACPO in the UK). The States of Jersey Police have drawn up an action plan to fulfill these recommendations with good progress being made in all areas.

4. Governance of States of Jersey Police

The early phase of the Police investigation undoubtedly raised concerns over the governance arrangements for the States of Jersey Police.

On 21st December 2010, the Minister for Home Affairs lodged a Proposition and Report  (P.192/2010),  setting  out  the  principles  and  roles  of  a  Jersey  Police Authority and requesting States approval to develop draft legislation based on these principles. This proposition is expected to be debated in February 2011.

Central to this proposal is providing proper oversight through establishing a body which provides a buffer' between the Minister and the Police and is in a position to challenge how policing is delivered to the community without accusation of interference. The Council firmly believes such arrangements are crucial to the effective oversight of the States of Jersey Police in the future.

5. The prosecution service

A regrettable feature over the period of the inquiry has been the criticisms levelled by some against the prosecution and courts in the Island. The Council is in no doubt that fair and impartial justice has been delivered in the glare of what has been at times unprecedented publicity.

In June 2009, in conjunction with decisions relating to files received by the Law Officers' Department, the then Attorney General made a detailed public statement which  set  out  clearly  the  approach  taken  and  the  underlying  principles  and reasoning behind decisions of this nature. In July 2009, the then Attorney General also made a statement to the States Assembly in relation to cases where he had directed  that  there  should  be  no  further  action.  Amongst  other  things,  these statements identified the role played by independent lawyers in the process of considering files.

Also in 2009, the States commissioned an independent review of the role of the Crown Officers, including roles of the Attorney General and Solicitor General as legal  adviser  to  the  States  of  Jersey  and  chief  prosecutor.  This  report  was published as a report to the States in December 2010 and work is currently being undertaken to begin the process of progressing the recommendations.

6. Support for those affected

Throughout the historical abuse investigation, arrangements have been put in place to support those who have been affected by or been victims of abuse. This support is extremely important and the current Council of Ministers recognises this need and is putting in place measures for this to continue in the future on an independent basis for a specified period.

As a result of the investigation, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) Counsellor received 168 inquiries from alleged victims of physical, sexual and emotional abuse arising from their time in the care of the States of Jersey. Of these, 116 maintained regular contact and 25 received one-to- one counselling. In 7 of these cases, counselling occurred on a daily basis. A further  10 victims  were  serving  a  sentence  in  prison  and  required  some therapeutic service.

The Health and Social Services Department worked closely with the States of Jersey Police to ensure a smooth transition of care and support for these alleged victims to its Psychological Assessment and Therapy Service. A helpline was set up by the Critical Incident Support Team and manned for a period of several months with the Psychological Assessment and Therapy Team worked closely with  Victim  Support.  During  the  inquiry,  the  Psychological  Assessment  and Therapies Service worked with and offered consultation to the various multi- agencies involved in the inquiry process, including the police investigation team and Victim Support to meet the clients' needs.

The provision of a traumatic counselling service for those who have suffered complex post-traumatic syndrome (PTSD) is a fundamental contribution to the "recovery chances" of victims. Fifty individuals, many of whom are still in receipt of treatment, have been referred for such support as a direct consequence of events related to the historic abuse investigation. In addition, referral rates to the Psychology  Service  for  cases  relating  to  historic  abuse  more  generally  have increased by 20% over this period. In order to cope with the increased demand,

increased provision was made and in April 2009 a Counselling Psychologist was employed  on  a  full-time  basis  to  offer,  working  alongside  those  within  the department, trauma-focussed therapy to clients.

Working with the Jersey Care Leavers Association, it was recognised that there may be a number of people in the community who need help but who have not contacted the service because they see it as part of the system which permitted their abuse to occur. With the announcement of the closure of criminal cases, the Council will shortly be establishing an independent and confidential point of contact for any remaining individuals who feel that they have either not been heard or are seeking assistance from the States of Jersey as a result of their experiences. Andrew Williamson, CBE, has been asked to provide this point of contact, which would be established through the States Greffe, to be independent from  the  H&SS  Department.  These  arrangements  will  be  established  for  a specified period in 2011 and it is anticipated that Mr. Williamson would speak with individuals about their experiences and assist them to access the appropriate services to meet their needs.

7. Dealing with claims for financial compensation

As would be expected, claims for financial compensation have been received and these are being dealt with by the Health and Social Services Department. The current Council has, however, considered the matter of dealing with such claims on a number of occasions since late 2009 and lawyers have been appointed to act on behalf of the States of Jersey.

The  claims  themselves,  and  the  most  appropriate  approach  to  be  adopted  in managing those claims, are presently under review and are subject to detailed discussions between relevant parties. At this stage, the Council is unable to make any comment on this subject until this process has been completed.

8. Evidence of Conspiracy

The current Council is mindful of the claims of conspiracy and cover-up and therefore  believe  it  was  important  to  establish  whether  there  had  been  any substantive evidence of a high-level conspiracy. With this in mind, in December 2010, the States of Jersey Police and the Attorney General were asked –

1. In the course of the Police investigation had there been any evidence of any form of high level conspiracy?
2. If the answer was yes, to explain the potential nature of any possible conspiracy.

The Attorney General has confirmed that both he and prosecuting counsel are aware of no evidence to suggest any form of high level conspiracy, either to carry out abusive activities or to cover up such activities.

The former Acting Chief of Police also confirmed that had been advised that the police  enquiry  did  not  reveal  any  high  level  conspiracy  to  commit  offences against children in the childcare system. Nor was there evidence to indicate there had been any cover-ups of any such alleged activities. He also confirmed that no evidence was found of paedophile rings operating in the childcare system.

The current Council of Ministers have noted that there is no evidence of any conspiracy in the investigations and reviews on the issue of historic child abuse.

9. Summary of current context

In March 2008 the Island was in shock and mourning for those it was alleged had been murdered at Haut de la Garenne, particularly in the light of allegations of complicity and cover-up. When considering what has taken place since then, it is clear that the context within which the previous Council of Ministers made its public commitment to a Committee of Inquiry has changed beyond recognition, In particular –

1. The alleged abuse has not been of the scale and scope as it appeared early in 2008, when it appeared to be potentially the worst case of historic abuse ever discovered in the UK. In particular:
   1. There  is  no  evidence  that  murder  took  place  at  Haut  de  la Garenne.
   2. There have been fewer prosecutions than were envisaged at this time.
2. An in-depth  investigation  has  been  undertaken  into  current  childcare arrangements,  with  all  recommended  improvements  being comprehensively acted upon.
3. Concerns about how the police enquiry was conducted in the period leading  up  to  November  2008  have  been  addressed  through  the publication of the Wiltshire report and the implementation of key actions by the States of Jersey Police.
4. Associated concerns about the governance arrangements of the Police are being addressed by the Minister for Home Affairs through the current proposal to establish a Police Authority.
5. Criticisms  of  the  prosecution  service  have  no  firm  basis,  the  former Attorney General has publicly explained the principles and reasoning behind prosecution decisions and the role of the Attorney General is covered  within  the  Carswell  report  that  was  presented  to  the  States Assembly in December 2010.
6. Both the Attorney General and the States of Jersey Police have confirmed that the investigation has not revealed evidence of high level conspiracy or cover-up.
7. The Chief Minister has made an unreserved apology to all those who had suffered abuse in the Island's care system in the past.
8. Comprehensive arrangements to provide support to those affected have been in place since 2009 and the Council of Ministers will be putting in place  arrangements  to  strengthen  these  through  a  new  independent gateway via Mr. Andrew Williamson CBE to assist individuals' access to the services they need.
9. The approach to be adopted in dealing with civil claims for compensation is presently subject to review and detailed discussion between relevant parties.

4. A COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY

Public  Inquiries  are  generally  established  to  investigate  specific  and  often controversial events that have given rise to public concern and are followed by calls for a full and public inquiry'. The common factor in every Public Inquiry is the pressing public concern that something has happened that must be investigated openly and fairly by a body that is independent of the problem. In Jersey, the first test for a Committee of Inquiry, as set out in Standing Orders, is that it must be about a definite matter of public interest'.

Whilst it is difficult to generalise, it is also clear that some inquiries are the result of what could be described either as a flaw' in society or the systematic failure of the State to protect its citizens. The Ireland Commission of Inquiry, for example, was  the  result  of  serious  and  widespread  abuse  of  children  across c. 140 institutions, which lead to c. 15,000 individual applications to its Redress Board.

In general, there are 6 main objectives of a public inquiry –

1. Establishing  the  facts –  providing  a  full  and  fair  account  of  what happened.
2. Learning  from  events –  distilling  lessons  and  preventing  their recurrence through changing practice.
3. Therapeutic exposure – providing an opportunity for reconciliation and resolution between different parties.
4. Reassurance – rebuilding public confidence in whatever service or issue has been the subject of the inquiry.
5. Accountability –  holding  people  and  organisations  to  account, sometimes  indirectly  contributing  to  the  assignment  of  blame  and mechanisms for retribution.
6. Transparency  –  demonstrating  that  something  has  been  done'  or transparency in government.

As part of reviewing this matter, the Council has considered the characteristics, objectives  and  outcomes  of  a  range  of  inquiries,  including  the  North  Wales Waterhouse Inquiry, Edinburgh Children's Inquiry, Victoria Climbie Inquiry and the Ireland Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (see Appendix B).

A full Committee of Inquiry is a significant undertaking which would require the appointment of individuals of sufficient stature and experience to act impartially and judicially in order to safeguard the interests of all involved. Experience of other Inquiries, such as that of the Ireland Commission, is that all those who wish to  engage  with  it,  whether  as  witnesses,  those  named  by  witnesses  or  other organisations  would  require  legal  support.  This  would  be  in  addition  to  the significant  legal  support  provided  to  the  inquiry  team  itself.  All  legal representation would be paid for by the States.

Whilst cost should not be the deciding factor whether to commission a Committee of Inquiry it must be considered. As well as legal support, other main areas of cost would  include  the  Chair  and  Inquiry  team  for  the  duration  of  the  inquiry, secretarial support to that team, support for evidence-gathering and witnesses,

accommodation, media support and information technology systems for document management and transcription.

To illustrate the possible scale of such an approach, it has been estimated that on any one day of the 209 days that the North Wales Tribunal sat was regularly attended by c. 30 Counsel, plus solicitor advocates. It has also been estimated that a day of hearings (typically 3 per day) cost the Ireland Commission 103,000 euros per day.

Appendix C identifies some of the resource and practical issues in more detail.

5. OPTIONS CONSIDERED

With the above in mind, the Council has given serious consideration as to whether an inquiry is required and justified in the following areas –

• Historic childcare.
• Current childcare
• The prosecution process
• The police investigation.

1. Historic Childcare

A  historical  inquiry  as  described  by  the  Council  of  Ministers  in  R.27/2008, including what happened in different organisations (e.g. Children's Service and Children's homes), processes and policies, how complaints were dealt with and how those in authority reacted.

This would be predominantly backward-looking, and may serve to address the objectives of fact finding, transparency and providing victims with the chance to tell their story and understand what happened, but it is unlikely to contribute to learning or provide public reassurance that current systems are effective. Due to the time that has passed, the ability of such an inquiry to uncover additional evidence or to hold individuals or organisations to account is considered highly questionable.

It is clear that the circumstances are far less serious than they initially appeared and are certainly not, as initially thought, worse than many other such incidents in the UK. Consideration has been given to the main issues that have emerged from inquiries into residential child abuse that have been conducted in the UK. A number  of  key  findings  have  been  consistently  found  from  a  range  of  such inquiries,  including  poor  management  of  homes,  in  particular  the  level  of autonomy given to the heads of homes; lack of close inspection; inadequacies in handling of complaints and lack of clear policies on this issue; lack of sensitivity towards  children's  needs  and  a  failure  to  listen  to  them;  poorly  trained  and unqualified staff exacerbated by inadequate recruitment procedures. It is likely that an inquiry into historical abuse in Jersey would uncover similar findings or conclusions; and with the services now provided having changed and moved on, it is  at  present  difficult  to  imagine  any  lessons  from  the  past  leading  to improvements in current and future services.

The current Council cannot see how using an inquiry to hold organisations to account for past policies and practices would be beneficial, particularly when independent  external  advisors  have  been  engaged  and  we  know  that  current standards of child care are appropriate and are in the process of being further improved.  It  is  also  difficult  to  see  how  an  inquiry  could  be  used  to  bring

individuals in the system at the time to account when a thorough and detailed police investigation has resulted in convictions and has concluded that there is no evidence to justify further prosecutions.

The Council recognises that an inquiry in this area could provide those individuals who have suffered abuse to have their stories heard, understand what happened and to draw a line under their experience. Experience shows, however, that this is not always achieved though an inquiry; not only can some find the experience traumatic,  the  outcome  can  lead  to  immense  dissatisfaction  amongst  those affected,  as  was  notably  the  case  with  the  Ireland  Commission.  In  addition, through the services in place to support those affected and the implementation of additional independent gateway arrangements in 2011, it is hoped that individuals who have been affected will continue to be able to tell their story and access appropriate support.

The Council of Ministers is therefore of the view that a Committee of Inquiry in this area would be of questionable benefit and, in the current context, could not be justified.

2. Current Childcare

The examination of current childcare arrangements in the Island to assess whether the Island is discharging its responsibilities properly.

This would address objectives around providing reassurance that current childcare arrangements are satisfactory, provide transparency around these arrangements and would enable learning to take place for the future.

The current Council of Ministers believes that this aspect has been fully covered by the Williamson report. This provided an independent and rigorous review of the standard of child protection and care in the Island and has identified areas for improvement which are in the process of being implemented. Amongst other things, this work includes the current consultation on a Children's Plan and the independent  inspections  of  services  by  the   Scott ish  Social  Work  Inspection Agency, the first of which commenced recently.

For  this  reason,  the  Council  firmly  believes  there  would  be  little  benefit  in undertaking a Committee of Inquiry in this area.

3. The Prosecution Process

The examination of issues relating to the performance of the prosecution service and how cases were dealt with leading up to decisions on whether to prosecute.

This  would  address  objectives  around  providing  reassurance  and  public confidence in the process, could enable learning for the future and would address issues of transparency in government.

The Council believes that criticism that Island's prosecution service has delivered anything but fair and impartial justice is unjust and has no firm basis. The former Attorney  General  took  steps  to  explain  the  principles  and  reasoning  behind prosecution decisions, including the engagement of external lawyers, and the role of the Attorney General is covered within the independent Carswell report that was presented to the States Assembly in December 2010.

4. The Police Investigation

The examination of how the police investigation was conducted, including overall governance of the police service.

This could address objectives around providing reassurance and public confidence in the Police, could enable learning for the future and may address issues of accountability and transparency in government.

The Wiltshire investigation focused heavily on the conduct of the investigation. This  independent  report  has  now  been  published  and  the  recommendations identified are in the process of being implemented by the States of Jersey Police. This  would  appear  to  fulfil  the  requirements  for  public  scrutiny  and  future improvement. In addition, the current proposals for a Police Authority seek to address concerns about the governance of the police. The current Council finds it difficult to conceive what a Committee of Inquiry would add to this work.

6. RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

Public inquiries are inevitably costly, something recognised in R.27/2008, when the  Council  of  Ministers  stated  there  would  be  significant  cost  to  such  an undertaking. The costs will vary widely depending on the scope of any such exercise; and forecasting such costs in advance of establishing the detailed scope and terms of reference is particularly difficult. It is also clear that costs and scope can be easily be subject to significant underestimate at the start, the experience in Ireland  being  a  good  example  of  this,  where  initial  estimates  were c. 2.1 million euros  and  projected  final  costs  of  between  126 and  136 million euros.

It is therefore only possible to make a broad assessment at this stage, using other recent inquiries as a guide. With this in mind an initial estimate would be that, in Jersey, an inquiry with reduced scope could cost in the order of £3 million – £5 million with something of broader scope anything between £5 million and £10 million.

The costs of a Committee of Inquiry would clearly be in addition to those incurred as part of addressing the subject more broadly, in particular:

The Island has already committed considerable resource to dealing with both the investigation  and  matters  arising,  including  reviewing  and  improving  current childcare and reviewing the police investigation. In addition to the above, there

will be a number of civil claims which will incur significant cost and potentially result in compensation payments. In total this could amount to a seven-figure cost.

7. CONCLUSIONS

In March 2008, it was feared that what had been uncovered by the historical abuse investigation represented the worst ever case of abuse anywhere in the UK. This has proved not to be the case and, whilst any individual case of child abuse is serious,  the  scale  of  the  issue  has  been  shown  to  be  very  different  to  that apparently presented when the Council of Ministers made its commitment to a Committee of Inquiry.

There is no question that the care system operating historically in the Island had failed certain children in the States' residential care in a serious and unacceptable way. The Island's government has unreservedly apologised for this and, given the confirmation that all criminal prosecutions are concluded, is working in detail on the  most  appropriate  approach  to  be  adopted  in  dealing  with  the  claims  for compensation.

Although the criminal case has ended, the support and care provided to those affected continues. The arrangements for Psychological support that have been in place  since  2009  will  be  strengthened  in  2011  through  the  provision  of  an independent gateway which will enable individuals to both have their story heard and be provided with access to appropriate services.

In addition, whilst the work undertaken since 2007 demonstrated that services within childcare were not failing, significant steps are being taken to ensure that current and future child care is of the highest possible standard.

There is also no question that the way the Police investigation was handled early in 2008 generated a level of fear and apprehension amongst the public which has subsequently been judged to have been wholly inappropriate. It is clear lessons have been learned from this, and steps have already been taken to improve Police investigations and governance in the future.

The current Council recognises that the most compelling argument for some form of inquiry is in the area of historical childcare. It is accepted that an inquiry in this area might provide opportunities for those affected to have their story heard and understand what has happened, though evidence would suggest that outcomes often fail to match expectations, sometimes adding to the sense of grievance and anger.

With the police investigation having fully investigated the allegations made, it is unclear what an inquiry into events that took place many years ago would add to this  and  what  meaningful  benefit  would  be  derived  from  such  a  complex undertaking.

The Council has therefore concluded that a Committee of Inquiry would not meet the requirement to investigate unresolved issues in relation to the historic abuse in the Island as the issues have been reviewed.

It is accepted that not everyone will agree with the Council's decision and some individuals may still have questions. It is hoped that those who may not agree will recognise the seriousness with which the Council has considered the matter. With

the advantage of the passage of time, the Council has reviewed all the issues and considers that a Committee of Inquiry would not be appropriate.

The current Council of Ministers firmly believes that the Island would be best served by recognising the steps that have already been taken and the continued focus on improving current levels of childcare and also continuing to meet and support the needs of those affected.

APPENDIX A

REPORT

The  Chief  Minister  and  the  Council  of  Ministers  have  made  it  clear  since  the announcement  of  the  police  investigation  into  historic  child  abuse  that  all  required resources will be made available to enable the investigation and any subsequent criminal proceedings to be completed effectively. At this time this must be the top priority for the Island.

It is nevertheless almost inevitable that, at the conclusion of the current criminal process, there will still be a very large number of unanswered questions about the way in which children have been cared for in Jersey in previous decades.

The  Council  of  Ministers  believes  that  the  only  way  to  ensure  that  there  is  total transparency in relation to this issue is for a full public inquiry to be held in due course, and the Council is hopeful that all members of the States will share this view. The most effective way to undertake any such inquiry is through a Committee of Inquiry established under the States of Jersey Law 2005.

The Council of Ministers has approved the attached draft proposition relating to this issue (see Appendix) in order to illustrate the nature and extent of the Inquiry that is envisaged. The purpose of this Report is to place the matter in the public domain. The Council does not, however, consider it would be appropriate to lodge this proposition au Greffe' until the criminal process has been completed. This would firstly be inappropriate because lodging and debating this proposition now could risk compromising the ongoing criminal process. Secondly, until that process is complete, it remains unclear exactly what questions will remain unanswered at the end of the process, and this proposition may need to be amended. It could be some time before it is possible to lodge and debate this, but the Council nevertheless believes that this should be done as soon as it becomes possible.

Council of Ministers

APPENDIX [to R.27/2008]

DRAFT

PROPOSITION

(to be finalised once the criminal process has been completed)

THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion

to agree that a Committee of Inquiry should be established in accordance with Standing Order 146 in order to investigate any issues which remain unresolved in relation to historic abuse in the Island.

COUNCIL OF MINISTERS

Note:  The membership and terms of reference of the Committee of Inquiry to be agreed

by the States at that time.

REPORT

Since the announcement of the police investigation into alleged historic child abuse in the Island, the Council of Ministers has made it clear that the Island's first priority must be to give full support to the police investigation and any subsequent prosecutions to ensure that anyone found guilty of abuse can be brought to justice. The Council has also made it clear that anyone who, while not necessarily acting criminally, covered up evidence or who deliberately or negligently failed to act upon information they received will be dealt with appropriately. The Council has undertaken to ensure that all the necessary resources will be made available to achieve this objective.

In a statement made on Monday 25th February 2008, just after the discovery of the fragment of a skull at Haut de la Garenne, the Chief Minister stated that "The protection of children is our highest priority and we are totally committed to supporting the Police and Criminal  Justice  authorities  in  uncovering  any  historic  abuse  and  bringing  those responsible to justice. There will be no hiding place for anyone who abused children or in any  way  colluded  with  or  helped  to  cover  up  that  abuse.  We  will  commit  whatever resources are necessary to the investigation and any subsequent criminal cases."

Experience in other jurisdictions that have faced similar investigations in the past has shown that there are always a large number of unanswered questions that remain at the end of  the  investigation  and  prosecution  process.  It  is  therefore  probable  that  the  future conviction of any guilty parties in Jersey will only go some small way towards answering the many questions that local residents and others outside the Island have been asking in recent weeks. These are likely to include questions such as –

• How have the Island's children's homes been run in recent decades?
• What procedures were in place to recruit staff and how was the performance of staff monitored? Should other steps have been taken to monitor performance?
• What measures were taken to address inappropriate behaviour from staff when it was discovered, and if those measures were insufficient, what other measures should have been taken?
• How did those in authority at political and officer level deal with problems that were brought to their attention?
• What processes were in place to assess the performance of the homes and what action was taken as a result of any problems that were identified?
• Were there any mechanisms in operation to allow children to report their concerns in safety and what action was taken if and when concerns were voiced?

The Council of Ministers believes it is essential that its undertaking to ensure that there is complete transparency in relation to these issues is translated into a firm commitment to hold a full inquiry into any unanswered questions in due course. It is, of course, the case that  the  inquiry  will  not  be  able  to  begin  until  the  conclusion  of  the  current  police investigations and any associated prosecutions, but the Council nevertheless considers that it is important for the States to be advised now of the Council's commitment that this inquiry should take place so that work can start as soon as possible after the conclusion of any criminal trials. There have been many comments in recent days in the international press alleging a culture of secrecy' and cover-up' in Jersey and a public commitment at this stage to hold a full transparent inquiry would demonstrate in a practical way that this is simply not the case in 2008.

The  Council  of  Ministers  believes  that  the  inquiry  should  take  the  form  of  a  States Committee of Inquiry established in accordance with the procedures set out in the States of Jersey Law 2005 and the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey. This would enable the States as a whole to agree the terms of reference of the inquiry and its membership. In addition,  a  Committee  of  Inquiry  has  the  advantage  of  having  all  the  powers  and immunities  conferred  by  the  States  of  Jersey  (Powers,  Privileges  and  Immunities) (Committees of Inquiry) (Jersey) Regulations 2007 (see Appendix) which enable it to summon evidence and witnesses if necessary, and also provide protection against civil and criminal proceedings. These powers and immunities will be essential to ensure that the Committee can discover the full facts without any inhibition.

It would be premature at this stage to speculate on the precise scope of the Committee's terms of reference, as these may depend in part on the outcome of the current police investigations. The Council is determined that nothing should be done or proposed at this time that could, in any way, prejudice the current police investigation. When it is possible to establish the Committee it will, however, be essential to ensure that the terms of reference are far-reaching so that every concern expressed and every allegation made can be fully investigated. Whilst it may be too late to right the wrongs of the past, it will be important for the people of Jersey that all relevant issues are brought out into the open so that the truth of what may have happened in recent decades can be established.

Under Standing Orders a Committee of Inquiry can be comprised of between one and 5 people and the appropriate membership will need to be considered once the precise terms of reference can be drawn up. In order to ensure a proper degree of independence, it is nevertheless almost certain that it will be necessary to appoint one or more members with appropriate professional qualifications and experience from outside the Island. The Committee  will  require  considerable  administrative  support  to  undertake  its  work effectively and it would be naïve to imagine that there will not be a significant cost associated with its work. The Council nevertheless believes that this will be an essential and worthwhile use of public funds in the light of recent events.

Financial and manpower implications

As explained above it is likely to be many months, or even years, before this Committee of Inquiry can begin work and there are therefore no immediate resource implications arising from this proposition. When a further proposition is brought in due course to appoint members of the Committee and agree terms of reference, a full resource implication statement will be included, together with details of the proposed source of those resources.

APPENDIX B Summary of other inquiries

APPENDIX C

1. Some issues surrounding costs

Whilst it is vital that a commitment is obtained at the outset to adequately fund an inquiry, in its initial stages it will be extremely difficult to gauge the overall projected costs accurately because of unknown or variable factors. Providing a forecast in advance of establishing overall scope and the inquiry team's detailed terms of reference have been definitively established is particularly difficult and a preliminary budget would need to be identified at the outset.

This difficulty is highlighted by the initial estimate in 1999 of the costs of the Commission  of  Inquiry  in  Ireland  would  be  between  1.9 million  and 2.1 million euros and would take 2 years to complete. In practice, it was 10 years before a report was produced and it has been estimated that final costs could be between 126 and 136 million euros.

In 2004 the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) produced a consultation paper,  Effective  Inquiries,  in  response  to  a  wider  piece  of  work  known  as Government by Inquiry. In this consultation document, the DCA noted that there had been approximately 30 significant/extensive inquiries since 1990 at a total estimated cost of over £300 million. Some of these inquiries and their costs are listed below –

• Stephen Lawrence Inquiry – 1997 – £4.2 million
• Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry – 1998 – £14.5 million
• Bloody Sunday Inquiry – 1998 – c. £155 million
• Royal Liverpool Children's Hospital Inquiry – 1999 – £3.5 million
• Marchioness Inquiry – 2000 – £6.3 million
• Shipman Inquiry – 2000 – £16 million – £21 million.

Based  on  these  inquiries,  it  was  estimated  in  2004,  that  the  average  cost  of inquiries was approximately £7 million (this figure excludes the Bloody Sunday Inquiry). It has also been recognised that in addition to this there will be further costs  to  a  department  itself  in  terms  of  the  handling  of  the  inquiry  and  its aftermath, as well as the redeployment of staff away from their usual tasks.

As an example of a breakdown of costs, the Ireland Commission is projected to cost (Source: C&AG Ireland report June 09) –

*  Administration:  58%  salaries,  25%  accommodation,  6%  IT,  4%  experts,  3% accountancy.

**  Costs of representing the public interest, government departments and compliance

with discovery orders.

What is striking from the above figures is the amount spent on legal costs – a broad estimate would be 90 – 100 million euros. If, as would be likely, Jersey adopted the principle that legal representation should be met by the States, then a great deal of expenditure on a Committee of Inquiry would be on legal fees. The

list of the main practical issues provided in Section 2, below, identifies at least 4 areas where Counsel/legal advice will be required –

• for the Inquiry Team
• for witnesses
• for those named by others
• for other parties (e.g. States Departments).

To further illustrate these costs –

• It has been estimated that on any one day of the 209 days the North Wales Tribunal on Child Abuse sat was regularly attended by  8 Queen's Counsel,  21 Junior Counsel  and  solicitor advocates.
• it has been estimated that a day of hearings (typically 3) cost the Ireland Commission 103,000 euros per day (though in Jersey this is likely to be higher).

2. Practical Considerations

In  considering  what  a  Committee  of  Inquiry  might  look  like  in  Jersey, consideration of other public inquiries in the UK has identified a number of issues that will need to be considered. These are set out below and will need to form part of the thinking behind the size and scope of any inquiry.

Chair/Inquiry Team

Many  inquiries  operate  with  a  single  Chair,  who  may  choose  some  suitably qualified  assistants  for  support  (e.g.  Victoria  Climbie,  1 Chair,  4 assessors). Others will appoint a team of people (e.g. 3), with one identified as the Chair. Under Standing Orders, a Committee of Inquiry in Jersey can be comprised of between one and 5 people.

Counsel for the Inquiry Team

The inquiry team will almost certainly require specific legal support, probably in the form of a solicitor to the inquiry and a legal team in support. This is likely to be significant.

The Victoria Climbie inquiry had a legal team of 13 and the North Wales Lost in Care' enquiry had 10 plus legal assistant support.

Counsel for Witnesses

Legal support will be required for witnesses, which is very often paid for by the inquiry.

Counsel for those named by others

Legal support for those either accused of abuse or those accused of operating or presiding over systems which allowed abuse to go unchecked.

Counsel for other parties

Legal support for other parties, such as the States Departments involved or other involved parties.

Secretariat

A secretarial service will be required for the inquiry team. This often includes a secretary to the Chair, plus support staff.

The Victoria Climbie inquiry had a secretary plus 7 others and the North Wales Lost in Care' Inquiry had 8 administrative staff under a Chief Administration Officer.

Evidence-Gathering/Witness Team

Careful consideration will need to be given to who should provide evidence, what evidence is required and what support is required to gathering evidence.

Some inquiries, such as the North Wales Lost in Care' inquiry include support to the evidence gathering process through a witness interviewing team (9 people, including 8 retired detectives).

Document Management

Document management will be required to handle the collection of documents, sort/order them and ensure their safekeeping. A dedicated Document Manager will be the point of contact with those who may have documents and will ensure that a disclosure schedule is signed off and will deal with continuing disclosure. The Document Manager will also be the Data Protection Officer for the inquiry.

Venue

A multi-functional venue will be required which will provide facilities to hold the public inquiry, including public access, provide facilities for the inquiry team, legal team and secretarial and to house the technology requirements. Separate meeting rooms will be required both for the inquiry team and to meet witnesses.

Media Support

It will be crucial to have dedicated and experienced media support for the inquiry. This will be particularly important during public hearings, when new information will undoubtedly come to light and will need to be responded to and co-ordinated with some urgency.

One dedicated person is likely to be an absolute requirement, though more may be required at key times. (e.g. Victoria Climbie 2 people, North Wales Lost in Care' 1 person).

IT Support

IT systems and support will be required for –

• Document/evidence management systems
• Transcription systems
• Website

Not only will the right systems have to be selected and implemented, ongoing support will be required, particularly for the transcription service, systems support and website updating.