States Meeting Transcript - 02/03/2011

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT WEDNESDAY, 2nd MARCH 2011

PUBLIC BUSINESS – RESUMPTION..........................................................3

1. Historical Child Abuse: request to Council of Ministers (P.19/2011) - amendment....3

1. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:.............................................................3
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:................................................4
3. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen (The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture):.........6
4. Senator P.F. Routier: ....................................................................7
5. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:................................................7
6. The Deputy of St. Martin:................................................................8

2. Historical Child Abuse: request to Council of Ministers (P.19/2011 Amd.) - comments ...........................................................................................19

1. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................19
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................21
3. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................21
4. Connétable S.A. Yates of St. Martin:...................................................21
5. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................22
6. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................22
7. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................24
8. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................24
9. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade:...............................................25
10. Deputy A.E. Jeune of St. Brelade:...................................................25
11. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:...................................................26
12. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:..................................................28
13. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..............................................................28
14. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier : .......................................................28
15. Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence : ..................................................29
16. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................29
17. Senator J.L. Perchard: ...............................................................30
18. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................31
19. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity (The Minister for Health and Social Services):........31
20. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:........................................................32

2. Housing Issues in Jersey (P.189/2010): comments......................................38

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................38

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................46

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................47

2. Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier:.....................................................47
3. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................49

4. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade : ........................................................51
5. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................54
6. Senator F.E. Cohen:....................................................................55
7. Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................56
8. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................57
9. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................59
10. Senator P.F. Routier:................................................................59
11. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................60 The Connétable of St. Mary:..................................................................72

STATEMENTS ON MATTERS OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY ........................72

1. Statement by the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding fiscal stimulus ....72

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):......................72
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................73
3. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:........................................................73
4. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................74
5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................74
6. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................75
7. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................75
8. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:.....................................................75
9. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................76
10. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................76

2. Statement by the Chairman of the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel regarding the Fiscal Strategy Review Report..........................................................76

1. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................76
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................77
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................78
4. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................78
5. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................78
6. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................79
7. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................80
8. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................80 Deputy A.K.F. Green:........................................................................80

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption..............................................................80

4. Draft Gambling (Remote Gambling Disaster Recovery) (Amendment) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.199/2010): continuation of second reading........................80

1. Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):...................81
2. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................84
3. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................87 The Bailiff :...................................................................................92

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................92

[9.30]

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer.

PUBLIC BUSINESS – RESUMPTION

1. Historical Child Abuse: request to Council of Ministers (P.19/2011) - amendment

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Very well. The debate resumes on the amendment of the Deputy of St. Martin to the proposition of Senator Le Gresley. Does any other Member wish to speak on the amendment? Senator Le Gresley.

1. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

I was reflecting last night on some of the speeches we had yesterday and I felt it important to perhaps point out a couple of issues that were mentioned in certain speeches. I would like to first deal with the speech of the Minister for Home Affairs when he talked quite enthusiastically about the Time to be Heard forum that took place in Scotland. I have read up quite a lot about this forum and I felt it important to point out to Members that not everybody who took part in this forum was happy with the outcome. Not only some of the survivors who attended the forum were not happy, but also the commissioners who ran the forum came up with some problems. If Members will allow me to do so, I would just like to read a few sentences from the report which was released in February of this year by the organiser of the forum, Tom Shaw, and he said this about the issues that they faced in setting up the forum because this forum was modelled on the Confidential Committee of the Irish Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. So it was very much a pilot forum and there were issues that had been discussed with the Scott ish Human Rights Commission which also affected the way that the forum was conducted, but one of the issues they faced was the lack of protective legislation in Scotland for the work of a confidential forum and that necessitated changes in the conduct of the forum, especially the way in which it recorded what participants said. Another key issue for some survivors was the lack of an accountability strand in the work of the forum. T.T.B.H. (Time to be Heard) had no powers to investigate allegations and no role in recommending participants for compensation. For some survivors, that was seen as a major weakness and a reneging by government on what had been anticipated during its consultation. We also have to remember that the participants were all people who attended what was known as the Quarriers Homes. These were previously known as the Orphan Homes of Scotland. In their final observations to the Scott ish Government, the forum commissioners said because the forum was set up without legislative basis, it did not have the benefit of the statutory protections enjoyed by the Irish model that it sought to emulate. The essence of the Confidential Committee model, as its name implies, is confidentiality. Because T.T.B.H. did not have statutory protection for confidentiality the chair and commissioners, informed by independent legal advice, developed

practices to mitigate any risk that information provided in confidence might require to be disclosed. Another consequence of the non-statutory basis of the T.T.B.H. was its lack of corporate legal personality separate from the chair and commissioners. This had implications for the possible personal liability of the chair and commissioners, employment and contractual issues and the ownership of the records held by T.T.B.H. Their final recommendation is: "Nevertheless it is essential that any future forum be established on a statutory basis, modelled on the Irish legislation, thus providing necessary protections for both the participants and staff of the forum." So I think you can see from that (and that was a report issued only last month on the work of the forum) that there are potential problems if we were to go down this route because we do not have the necessary protective legislation in place at the moment, whereas we do, of course, for a committee of inquiry. As I told you, the people who participated in this were all people who had attended the Quarriers Homes. Quarriers Homes set up their own organisation, the Former Boys and Girls Abused in Quarriers Homes, and they issued this paper I have in front of me in December 2010 and this was after the forum had taken place. They say: "Given that 9 ex-employees of Quarriers Homes have

been convicted in the Scott ish Criminal courts, it is our view that a proper effective inquiry is essential and has to be undertaken to learn the depth and how widespread such abuse was, while ensuring that Quarriers is fit for purpose today. The Pilots or Forums will not address effectively such issues fully in our view concerning the past institutions' (including Quarriers') culture, past management and operational, regulatory and other such issues." So they had serious doubts at the end of the process that the Time to be Heard forum had delivered what had been anticipated. I also have a message from David Whelan who was the chair of the F.B.G.A. (Former Boys and Girls Abused in Quarriers Homes) and he said: "Truth and reconciliation never made it past the starting block because of Scott ish Government's non-action, because survivors wanted a truth and reconciliation. This came up with something else. The Scott ish Government has come up with its own solution which is Tom Shaw's work and a watered-down version of restorative justice with preconditions while avoiding the recommendations of the Scott ish Human Rights Commission. Many of Scott ish survivors are very unhappy about this latest news." That is about it, really. So what I am trying to say is it may be a way forward, but it was very much a pilot and we need to take note of that. The second point I wanted to make was in the Deputy of St. Mary 's speech, he quite rightly looked again at the Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund and we of course heard from the Attorney General on his view about the use of the funds which, of course, I respect. I would say to Members let us all think back to last year when we were told that we had to, in future, budget for court and case costs and that we could not keep dipping into this fund, that it was not good practice to rely on windfalls, if you like, into a fund to pay for the escalating cost of court and case costs. We know from the records that we received yesterday and in the accounts we have seen that court and case costs historically have been funded out of the Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund. Unfortunately the Minister for Treasury and Resources is not here, but we have already, in our budget for 2011-2012, provided a budget now for court and case costs. To me, in budgeting terms, if you move some money from the fund to cover some of those court and case costs, you free up some money and that money can then be freed up to pay for a committee of inquiry. To me, it is quite a sensible way of dealing with the matter. [Approbation] If we are restricted in the use of the fund, let us use it for what we have used it before and let us remove some of that budget that was

given for court and case costs to free it up for a committee of inquiry. [9:45]

My final point, when the Chief Minister spoke, he referred to the Kerelaw Inquiry which I mentioned in my opening speech. He said that that was still ongoing but I do not quite know where he got that from because the inquiry report was published in May 2009.

2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour :

In the immortal words of many speakers, I was not going to speak, but what I think has bedevilled this whole Haut de la Garenne, obviously the Island has become polarised by it and people on either side are deaf for various reasons to the arguments, insofar as they are arguments, of the other side. The sad thing is, and it was manifested in Senator Le Gresley's speech, that again we are a group of 53 people trying to work out what is the right kind of committee, the right kind of structure to move forward. Some of us have knowledge of this (very few, it should be added) some of us do not, but here were are, 53 people, struggling between the merits. This is so often the case in the States and this is what frustrates the public enormously, that these issues come to the States. Some have been subject to Scrutiny and we get some very excellent background material; a lot have not. We struggle, often from positions of ignorance, of bias, of prejudice, to work out solutions. That is what really disappoints me. What has disappointed me from the whole of the Haut de la Garenne thing is, quite frankly, the lack of empathy. It was quite clear that from the moment this hit the Island the Council of Ministers, quite frankly although I think there were people on it who were sincerely trying to resolve the issue, I do not think there was the basic empathy in many quarters. There simply was not the basic empathy. There simply was not the

understanding of these issues, of the impact they can have, of the long-term consequences, of the nuances that surround these issues. It was not simply there and it was simply decisions were taken: "How can we close this down as quickly as possible?" and of course it has led to all manner of rumbling on and on and on. I know why the Deputy of St. Martin has come up with his 6 points because he is really, I suppose, trying to confront the Council and say: "This is what you agreed with. Can you show me the movement that has been made in dealing with these points? If you cannot, then we need to investigate." Partly because of the old cliché: "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat the mistakes of history", I do not entirely agree with the view that you can just say: "You must, you must, you must look to the future" because it suggests that these, sort of, systemic failings, the causes of them, the causes in our structure and so forth and so on have been removed. We have all, sort of, made a confession and moved forward. I do not think that is the case. I do not think some people, quite frankly (in very key positions) have absorbed what went on, what really went on and what the lessons were to be learnt from what went on. I do not think that has been absorbed. The tragedy is that here we are, 53 people, trying to structure the future of an inquiry; some, it has to be said, incredibly late in the day, these, sort of, emails that appear to have arrived. I blame myself as well, but I am surprised at these emails that have been pulled out of the hat very late in the day about new approaches. Why were the key parties not sat around a table, the Care Leavers' Association, the people who, if they are represented in terms of formal groups, feel they have been subject to very, very serious allegations against themselves, the Council of Ministers, the Back-Benchers who have taken a very strong interest, why were they not sat around a table to try and hammer out a solution to this? Instead, we have all this manoeuvring going on about what is or what is not the right approach. It is for that reason that I will vote for Deputy Hill. I am not totally convinced, I have to say. It has this feeling of being stuck in a period of history but it has to be looked at and there has to be a system which is credible to the people who have a tremendous investment and commitment to its outcome, but it is so sad (and I never thought I would end up in this position of saying we need more consensus in that sense); yet again, the

search for consensus, the search for knowledge, has not been carried out and we are all at sixes and sevens trying to sort out what are the best ways forward, how different countries handle this, when we could have easily got a paper saying: "These are the different approaches that different jurisdictions have taken, these are the pros and the cons of these approaches" and we know that there are these arguments. Kindly vote on the basis of that knowledge, that insight and the engagement of all the parties who have an investment in the outcome of this and the engagement of all the parties. Instead, as ever, we are struggling from positions of ignorance, prejudice, bias, polarisations but, for that reason, I will support (imperfect though it be) and as a Member told me this morning, we do not live in a perfect world. I think I have come to that conclusion many times recently, we do not live in that world but we have to move forward. If he, as I think will be the case, shows flexibility in how he is prepared and if the Council of Ministers say: "Look, we may not have the most perfect solution but tell us how we can move forward and we will look seriously at trying to incorporate that in the way forward", I think it would be the magnanimous gesture which we have been crying for. [Approbation]

Connétable G.F. Butcher of St. John :

Before we move on to the next speech, Sir, and I do not know procedurally whether I can do this or not, the Deputy of St. Peter did try and contact me earlier this morning but was unable to reach me because I was in an early meeting. Can I do malade for him now and have the défaut lifted?

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

I did wonder in the sense that he was malade yesterday. I think we could allow you, if you are willing to take the oath.

The Connétable of St. John :

I did not want to do it off my own bat, Sir, just in case he walked in. [Laughter]

That was absolutely the right approach to take, Constable, and I will ask the Greffier to administer the oath. Thank you, Constable. Does any other Member wish to speak on the amendment? Deputy of St. John .

Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John :

Although I am supporting the main amendment, I have one or 2 concerns with this particular amendment, or number of amendments, and I would give way to the proposer of the amendment if he can tell us whether or not he will allow us to vote on 1 to 6 in individual votes, given that number 1 is, for instance: "How have the Island children's homes been running over recent decades?" We are asking for far-too-wide historical decades. We are talking about 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years. We will have great difficulty in getting that information. I believe that is probably too wide to ask a review, to go into something like that, and I will give way, as I say, to the proposer if he can indicate whether or not we can take the vote separately.

Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin : Yes.

The Deputy of St. John :

Thank you for that. That makes life much easier for me. I believe we need to do this in a sensible way and we want the Chief Minister to come back, hopefully the main proposition accepted, with the terms of reference of an inquiry. That being the case, now I have got that from the proposer, I will not say any further; I do not want to delay the debate any more. We can move forward and I will sit down.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Does any other Member wish to speak? Deputy of St. Ouen .

3. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen (The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture):

First of all, I would like to say there is no doubt that we have in the past failed a number of individuals who have been in the care of this government. I think we all feel sorry and indeed would like to apologise for letting them down. The bigger question is whether or not a committee of inquiry will meet their needs, and I do not believe it will because, no matter how hard we try, we cannot turn the clock back. When I look at the amendment proposed by the Deputy of St. Martin , it is all about trying to look back. We have gone through that process. We forget about Andrew Williamson and the efforts that he made and the positive outcomes from all of that inquiry that he conducted. As part of the Children's Policy Group, we have far greater confidence now that we will be able to provide for the children in our care in a much better way than in the past but, equally, society's attitude to children has changed dramatically over the last 30 years and we tend to view children in a far different light to that of the past. Senator Le Gresley made some comments about the view of certain individuals regarding an inquiry that was conducted in Scotland and that people were not satisfied. I think if you look at the conclusions of every inquiry that has been conducted, no matter how extensive it has been, there will still and always be individuals who will be dissatisfied because an inquiry of its own does not help individuals deal with their concerns, their views and the impact of a set of circumstances that they have experienced. We also know, and Senator Le Gresley also touched on it when he mentioned that the allegations have not been properly considered, but I would like to remind Members that we have had an extensive police investigation that has fully investigated the allegations made by all individuals. Again, I do know that there are a number of individuals who made allegations who feel that that police investigation was not satisfactory, but we have to rely ultimately on something and fully acknowledge the past but deal with the present. We need to provide appropriate support for those who have suffered abuse; there is no doubt. I believe that has and is being offered, but I want to direct and suggest that the States would do far better to direct our attentions to making sure

that, both now and in the future, these sorts of circumstances do not happen again. So I am sorry, but I cannot support Deputy Hill's amendment.

4. Senator P.F. Routier:

I was a Member of the Council of Ministers at the time when the promise was made to have a committee of inquiry and I stand by that and I will keep that promise; I was there at the time and I know the circumstances. We probably know a lot more now and the offer of a committee of inquiry was probably made in the heat of what was going on at that time. There were lots of things happening, but I recognise that and I accept that but I still maintain that I will support that promise that a committee of inquiry should go ahead. So I will be supporting Senator Le Gresley's main proposition. When it comes to what is being asked of this amendment to have the list of 7 requirements put down as terms of reference, I have difficulty with those, with a number of them. I would prefer that the people get together and sit around a table. The same sorts of issues which Deputy Le Hérissier was talking about; he is unsatisfied with the way things are being dealt with and I do share those views and those comments but I have come down on the other side of the fence and hope that the people who want to progress this, the Council of Ministers and other Members, should get around a table and come forward with terms of reference which everybody can agree to. So I will not be supporting the amendment of Deputy Hill but I will be supporting the main proposition.

[10:00]

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Does any other Member wish to speak? Constable of St. Helier .

5. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier :

I believe there are 3 good reasons to support the Deputy of St. Martin 's amendments, or I could say 3 groups of people: first of all the survivors and the victims of Haut de la Garenne. The question will be asked: "Will they not be satisfied with Senator Le Gresley's proposition unamended?" I think the answer is no. The Council of Ministers has already stated they will look at other solutions, other models, and Senator Le Gresley's proposition allows them to do so. They have promised to talk to the J.C.L.A. (Jersey Care Leavers' Association) this time, as they failed to do before. The first time, of course, they announced they did not believe a committee of inquiry was necessary. Yesterday we heard Senator Le Gresley being invited to the Council of Ministers to be part of the framing of terms of reference or discussion about how best to tackle this matter. Where have we heard that call before? Was not the Deputy of St. Martin, the bringer of these amendments, invited over to discuss the Napier Report; the same Member of the House who has been doggedly pursuing the Council of Ministers for having dropped a key consideration in that review? Precisely how much reassurance will the J.C.L.A. and those whom the association represents take from what will surely seem to them a refusal by the Council of Ministers to agree to look into everything, to leave no stone unturned, no story unheard? What these amendments are saying to the victims is that: "We will do just that, we will examine everything: all this and more." The Council of Ministers, of course, is not bound to include it although, unless they want to have this debate all over again in a few months' time, they had better include it. The Council of Ministers is not bound to show, I am afraid, what has become customary profligacy in how it is paid for, nor their customary feet-dragging in the time it takes to bring it about. The comprehensive inquiry that these amendments direct the Council of Ministers to undertake (and which I believe the survivors and victims deserve) starts here today with an acceptance that the matters raised by both Deputies in their amendments must be included along with other areas that will be brought forward if the Council of Ministers approach this latest challenge in an open, consensual way. The second reason to support the amendments is that the people of Jersey deserve to know the truth about Haut de la Garenne or to be allowed to make up their minds what that is. Yesterday, one Member of the

Council of Ministers, the Home Affairs Minister, showed once again that he has already made up his mind what that truth is, certainly in respect of the former police officers involved. I am sorry that Senator Le Marquand felt it necessary to excoriate the retired police officers involved because every time he does that he discredits the victims. He also, incidentally, shows a slim understanding of natural justice. He tried to tell the Assembly yesterday that a draft report, the Wiltshire Report, delayed and over budget as it was, which was part of an unfinished and ultimately inconclusive disciplinary process that had to be abandoned, tells us all we need to know about the matters the Deputy of St. Martin is seeking to have included in the Committee of Inquiry. If the Deputy 's amendments are rejected, rightly or wrongly, there will be a perception that all the Council of Ministers really wants to do is to maintain its position up there in its ivory tower [Approbation] at the top of Senator Le Marquand House, 9 floors above contradiction, out of touch with Back- Benchers and the public. I come finally to the matter of Jersey's reputation and ask Members to consider how it will play out. If the Council of Ministers, having refused to conduct a committee of inquiry in the first place, a promise by the former Chief Minister (and that should be enough, as Deputy Southern said yesterday in a refreshingly concise intervention), if the Council of Ministers says they will support a committee of inquiry, but not necessarily one that includes the matters raised by the Deputy of St. Martin, how will that play out with the international community? We know the terms of reference have to come back to this Assembly for debate and approval, but do our envious and hostile critics know that, or care? The message I want us to send out today may not reach the far-flung places the original news story did almost exactly 3 years ago, but let us send a message out that the inquiry will be one which, from the start, is marked by openness. The States of Jersey have agreed to a comprehensive, far-reaching committee of inquiry which will leave no stone unturned in an effort to understand what happened.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Does no other Member wish to speak? I call on the Deputy of St. Martin to reply.

6. The Deputy of St. Martin :

I think it is quite apt that I should begin my reply on such a high note, having listened to the Connétable of St. Helier. I think his speech to us really hit the nail right on the head. I thank him for it. [Approbation] I also thank all those Members who have spoken and one thing I would like to start off with, expressing my disappointment that so many were missing when I gave my address, and it really was disappointing because so many issues have been brought up by speakers which I had made clear during the course of my address and had they been in the Chamber, in short, they would have listened to what I had to say and maybe they would not have been quite so doubtful had they listened. However, I have the opportunity now of summing up and I will go over some of the issues that probably were missed out. Can I start off by commenting or summing up on the Chief Minister? I thought he had difficulty in defending the Council of Ministers' position, particularly as he was supporting the proposition from Senator Le Gresley, but he could not support the other proposition, the amendments, and I also think his difficulty was that we have just had a vote whereby, 27 votes to 21, this House has expressed its support for one of the amendments which could form the basis of the terms of reference. So I can understand how the Chief Minister had difficulty in responding and he raised concerns about the harm that a committee of inquiry might cause to victims. Again, it just shows, I believe, how out of touch the Chief Minister is with the feelings of the victims and I would remind him that there are 2 victims: there are the abused and there are the accused. I believe both have the right to have their expressions, their thoughts, brought to the attention. I think all too often we just think about the victims, and I know they themselves need every care and assistance that can be given, but there are also a number of people who have been accused. Some, I think, trial by media, trial in the States, and I think those people have the right to have their expressions shared, their views heard. So again there is every reason why we should have the committee. He raised concerns about the cost, particularly about the legal support.  I have brought so many propositions to the House and amendments and I have heard so

many times: "Oh, it is too costly to do something." That is an old red herring. If we want to do something, we will find the money to do it. We can find money for all sorts of things and this is probably one of the most important things, I suppose nationwide, worldwide, what happened about our historical abuse, and here we are; we are still trying to cover it up because we have not got the money. I would remind the Chief Minister of the former Chief Minister's pledge about no stone being left unturned, no matter what the cost was, and again the Chief Minister was the former Deputy Chief, he was the Minister for the Treasury at the time. Did he raise any concerns? Did he express his dissent at the time, 3 years ago? He did not say so, but I doubt if he did. A promise was made under the 6 issues and the Council of Ministers has shown that the 6 issues have not been resolved. Every time someone has got up and spoken from the Council of Ministers, they have found an excuse why not to have it, but no one has addressed the 6 issues which were part of the considerations from 3 years ago. He claimed that the Committee of Inquiry could be detrimental to the civil claims. I would say that it will not make any difference at all. In fact, if it does make a difference to some people's claims, it may well be they were not valid in the first place. No one should get any more than they deserve, but again I believe that is another red herring. He made an unfounded claim, I thought, that the purpose of the Committee of Inquiry was to find who was to blame. Again, I strongly refute that allegation. I have been consistent in seeking the truth, as indeed has the Chief Minister been in obstructing all those people who have been trying to establish the truth. He claimed that a committee of inquiry would be constrained by accepting my amendments. Again, that claim has been made by other Members. The 6 issues are not mine. They were the 6 issues identified by the former Council of Ministers, of which the Chief Minister and the Minister for Treasury and Resources were members. The Chief Minister knows that the 6 issues were to form the basis of the terms of reference which would have to be drawn up and they would have been drawn up by the former Council of Ministers had the police investigation been over before that Council of Ministers' term of office had been concluded. Senator Perchard and the Constable of St. Ouen also touched on the subject and asked about the flexibility, my goodwill and were we constraining ourselves by accepting the issues which, although unresolved, might be out of date. I would refer them and other Members to Deputy Tadier 's speech and his amendment and also my opening speech when I said that I was just proposing the 6 issues identified by the former Council of Ministers. If Members were of the view that they were still unresolved, then they should form the basis of the terms of reference. Although I believe the 6 issues could be included in the terms of reference, if Ministers support the principle, then of course the terms of reference can then be drafted in accordance with what we think is best practice for a committee of inquiry. Deputy Tadier lodged his amendment because he thought it was more appropriate to do so during the initial debate. I believe now his judgment was spot on because Members approved his judgment which will be, of course, incorporated in the terms of reference if, indeed, Members support my amendments. To finish summing up on the Chief Minister's speech, I would like to draw attention to his interesting remarks remaining about consultation. Unfortunately ( Deputy Le Hérissier has alluded to it) the offer was made before we got into this and unfortunately the Chief Minister ignored it, felt it was inappropriate but now, at the last minute (and I welcome it) he is saying: "We could sit around the table, maybe with Senator Le Gresley, the Deputy of St. Martin, Deputy Tadier and the Care Leavers and we can find a way forward." Certainly I think our offer will still be accepted and we would like to find a way in which we can find the best ways of getting good terms of reference for a committee of inquiry. I thank Deputy Le Claire for his support. He mentioned about leopards do not change their spots. I am an optimist and I would hope that the Chief Minister would recognise the importance of keeping a promise. The Constable of St. Ouen, who supported Deputy Tadier 's amendment, was not sure where we were going and were we tying ourselves in by accepting the amendments. I will keep repeating it. The terms of reference will be drafted on the basis of what we agree today and any other issues which may be relevant but, before we can agree to a committee of inquiry, we have to support my amendments first otherwise, there is no committee of inquiry. I thank the Deputy of St. Mary again for another analytical speech. He is of the view that the 6 issues are not out of date and, indeed, there are many other unanswered

questions to be asked and again I keep coming back; they will form the terms of reference if indeed my amendments are approved. He said: "What would you feel like if it was one of your children who had been involved?" Again, a very important thing to be stated. He also raised the issue of funding for the Committee of Inquiry and again I am thankful for the Attorney General's contribution, although I do not necessarily agree with everything he had to say, but I believe that the examples that the Deputy of St. Mary gave about how the confiscation fund has been used for other ways, there certainly are reasons why the Committee of Inquiry could be funded. I would draw Members' attention to the answer given by the Minister for Treasury Resources on 15th February. He says about the reason how the Committee of Inquiry could be funded, he says: "A final view could be taken when the terms of reference of any such committee of inquiry are published"; makes it clear. I know he is not listening, the Minister for Treasury and Resources, but this is his own answer to the question. So what we are saying here, depending on the terms of reference, it could be funded from the confiscation fund. Not my words; the Minister for Treasury and Resources'.

[10:15]

I turn to Senator Perchard's speech, for which he sought assurances from me, and I hope that I have given them by covering the issue and when I mention about covering the Chief Minister's speech, but if he is not, I am more than happy to give way to see if he would like me to give further reassurances, but I hope that he understands that the 6 issues are there to form the base of a committee of inquiry. They do not necessarily have to be all part of it. I think the Senator knows that I am pretty thorough in my work and I want what is best for the victims, the public and the States Members. Again, I thank Deputy Higgins who supported the proposition or the amendment and he questioned those who were questioning the cost of the Committee of Inquiry. I think this is important, but again I think it was mentioned by the Chief Minister; we have to bring in Q.C.s (Queen's Counsel) et cetera from the U.K. (United Kingdom). I do not think so. I think we can have a committee of inquiry, cut our cloth accordingly, but again that will be when the consideration is given to who will be part of the Committee of Inquiry and also the terms of reference. Senator Le Marquand's speech I thought was most uncomplimentary and most disappointing. As a Minister and former magistrate, he did not endear himself to many Members with his speech. I do not think he had any right to attack the integrity of a member of the public who could not defend himself and I hope that that name will be removed from Hansard. I thought the attack on the former Deputy Chief Officer was quite uncalled for. He said that life had moved on and safeguards were now in place, however, he tried to justify not having a committee of inquiry by 2 experts he had been contacted with. However, having said that, he then suggested there were other options. You cannot have it both ways. If you want to move on and you are still prepared to look back, well I hope we will be prepared to look back and I hope the Senator will be prepared to support a committee of inquiry. Deputy Tadier reminded Members of the 6 issues which were part of the terms of reference but they are not flexible, or they are flexible; we can have what we want. He said we should not be looking for excuses for doing nothing. If we do not address the matter now, nothing will be addressed until after the elections. I think we have to wait for the Chief Minister to come back in 3 months' time (I doubt it will be 3 months' time) but then we will be heading for the summer recess, then we will be heading for the elections. So if we do not do something now, nothing will happen. Again, he said that the Committee of Inquiry is not just about victims but it is about public confidence. The Deputy of Trinity is also the Minister for Health and

Social Services and, as a corporate parent, should be looking for what is best for the victims. However, she played the party role and again we should not be looking back; we should be moving forward. However, the ink is hardly dried on her comments when she, along with the Minister for Home Affairs, is suggesting we should be looking at alternative options. Again I would say: why did she not lodge an amendment to Senator Le Gresley's proposition like I did and Deputy Tadier ? The mention about the Scott ish system, and I think Senator Le Gresley was quite right, it is in its

infancy. There are all sorts of problems on both sides, not just the survivors, but those people who are running it find it is pretty well a toothless machine and it is not really working. I turn now to .. I call him one of the wise men from the east and that is the Constable of St. Martin, although I thought yesterday he was a bit more like Doubting Thomas. We were both in church on Sunday; we know about Doubting Thomas'. He was raising some concerns. Quite right. I think we have all got concerns and I hope I can address them and hope I can persuade him to support the amendments. He was saying that abuse has changed; what was acceptable 50 years ago is no longer acceptable now, he is quite right. I hope we are not going to go back looking at 50 years but I would remind him that abuse has been quite current, and I have been checking up with the Minister this morning. I was a member of the Health and Social Services Committee way back in 1998, 1999. There we had a report made about a couple, and this abuse had been going on for 10 years and the Attorney General advised us that it was not in the public interest to proceed. Senator Le Claire is nodding his head because he became a Member soon after that and this is this issue so, the Constable of St. Martin , we are not looking at something 50 years ago, but I hope we will not; I hope we start looking probably from about the last 35 years, probably the mid-1970s. But there was abuse going on and indeed we heard at the Health meeting that this abuse had been going on from 1990 right the way through to 1999 and nothing had been done. So again one of the 6 issues is there: has the matter been resolved? No. I hope that the Constable of St. Martin can accept that what we tried to do is for the best of everybody. He wisely said that he had not made his mind up at the time so I hope he can be persuaded by, certainly, the Constable of St. Helier's speech. Deputy Southern made probably one of the shortest speeches on record but he did remind us that if a promise is made it should be kept. Deputy Pitman again spoke in support (and I am grateful of it) he gave a reminder to us of the Chief Minister's statement. I thank Senator Le Gresley, quite right, pointed out about the forum not being very favourable on both sides. I am thankful for Deputy Le Hérissier's support. The Deputy of St. John asked if I could split the issues. Well, they will be there, but I hope that bearing in mind that they will probably be considered for the terms of reference whether they are accepted or not but I think I would take it that he would be happy to accept them when we vote them individually. The Deputy of St. Ouen is a member of the corporate parent with the Deputy of Trinity and Senator Le Marquand. Not going back, let us move forward,

let us push it under the carpet. Again, his speech was exactly as one would have anticipated. Senator Routier, I hope I could persuade him to support these amendments; he supported Deputy Tadier 's, I believe he did. I think I have checked up and I would have thought he would have supported these 6 issues. If we are going to support Deputy Tadier , one would hope one could support the principle of supporting the 6 issues. I did touch on the Constable of St. Helier, I thought his speech was excellent. He said again, reminded everybody the 6 issues are to form the terms of reference. He says that the public is waiting for the truth to be out there or at least make up their minds and he again reminded us that the terms of reference would come back to the States. I hope that if Members could support my amendment, that when the terms of reference are drafted, we could involve people like myself, Senator Le Gresley, Deputy Tadier , the Care Leavers and those who feel they have a contribution to make before it comes back to the States for rectification. So what I would ask Members to do is to agree to the principle of the Committee of Inquiry and agree to the 6 issues which place a part of the amendments and remind everybody that a promise was made 3 years ago that if those 6 issues were not resolved, then we should have a committee of inquiry. I would submit that the 6 issues have not been resolved. Therefore, we should have a committee of inquiry. I would ask now, Sir, that we have the appel and we vote on each one.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Very well. The appel is called for and the Deputy has asked for the 6 questions to be voted on separately. So we will firstly vote on questions 1 to 5 and then we will take eventually the preamble words in question 6 together at that stage. So question 1 is the first matter for the Assembly. This is whether this question should be part of the terms of reference of a committee of inquiry: "How had the Island's children's homes been run in recent decades?"

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

We will continue. I will ask the Greffier to reset the system and the next vote is on question 2: "What procedures were in place to recruit staff and how is the performance of staff monitored? Should other steps have been taken to monitor performance?"

Very well. I will ask the Greffier to reset the system for question 3 which is: "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?

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Very well. I will ask the Greffier to reset the system for question 4: "How did those in authority at political and officer level deal with problems that were brought to their attention?"

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Very well. I will ask the Greffier to reset the system for question 5: "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?"

[10:30]

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Very well. Deputy , I am just considering the procedural votes. We have taken votes on the separate questions but we have not yet voted on the substantial issue in the preamble of whether or not there should be the committee. I am just conscious if the vote is put together with Question 6 that some Members may wish to vote on Question 6 differently from the overall concept. So I think we need to take a vote on Question 6 first and then we will take a vote on the actual preamble words.

Deputy M. Tadier :

Can I ask about Question 7 which ..

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Question 7 has been voted on, Deputy , so if the rest goes through it is there. So I think we must vote firstly on Question 6 which is: "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?"