States Meeting Transcript - 7th July 2017

STATES OF JERSEY

OFFICIAL REPORT IN COMMITTEE

FRIDAY, 7th JULY 2017

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption ...............................................................3

1. Report of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry (R.59/2017) (consideration in committee)................................................................................3

Mr. R.J. MacRae , H.M. Attorney General:.....................................................3 1.1 The Very Reverend P. Brooks, The Acting Dean:........................................4

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :....................................................................6
2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................15
3. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :........................................................16
4. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet :................................................................18
5. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:........................................................21
6. Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier:..........................................................24
7. Deputy S.M. Wickenden of St. Helier:..................................................27
8. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence:........................................28
9. Deputy G.J. Truscott of St. Brelade : ....................................................31
10. Senator P.F. Routier:................................................................31

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................34 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................35

11. Deputy S.M. Brée of St. Clement:...................................................35
12. Deputy S.J. Pinel of St. Clement : ....................................................36
13. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................37
14. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary:................................................37
15. Senator L.J. Farnham : ...............................................................39
16. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................39
17. Senator P.M. Bailhache :.............................................................47
18. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:..................................................48
19. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier : ............................................51
20. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. Helier : ....................................................52
21. The Deputy of Grouville : ............................................................57
22. Senator P.F. Routier:................................................................57
23. Senator I.J. Gorst : ...................................................................57

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................61

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

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption

1. Report of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry (R.59/2017) (consideration in committee)

Mr. R.J. MacRae , H.M. Attorney General:

Yesterday I was asked a question by Senator Ozouf about delay in child care cases, applications for care orders in particular. It is right to say that both under our children's law and the equivalent English Children Act, delay in making decisions is contrary to the best interests of children. Article 2 of our Children Law provides that in any proceedings in which any question with respect to the upbringing of a child arises, the court shall have regard to the general principle, but any delay is likely to prejudice the welfare of the child. Any delay must be purposeful. The court, whenever it is looking at a care case, will have regard to the no delay' principle. Quite unlike the case of general civil litigation, the court will intervene to ensure that the case is kept up to speed. Some care cases will begin with an Emergency Protection Order, sometimes my department will receive a notice of an urgent application and make an application to the court to secure a child and remove it to a place of safety the same day as we receive the notice. In other circumstances, proceedings will begin with an interim care application pursuant to a care order. Once an interim care order is granted, it will be reviewed every 4 weeks by the Royal Court. The court will be told of any changes, the parties will be kept to a court-imposed timetable, and if there are any concerns the court will order an urgent directions hearing in relation to those proceedings. For example, if there was an unexpected change in circumstances, another child expected in the family, fresh allegations that might impact on expert assessments or the timetable for proceedings - sometimes children make allegations when they are brought into care because they are finally in a safe place. Other factors that sometimes cause delay are parents not turning up to meetings with experts, psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers. You cannot say to a parent who has missed an appointment: "You cannot see your child again." Social workers go to great lengths to ensure that those appointments are kept: buying parents diaries, sending them texts and so on. When it comes to listing the case for a final hearing there are a number of things to take into account: the availability of experts, often from England; other witnesses; and of course the court diary, although the court does treat these cases with urgency. There needs to be a final care plan for the court to take into account the particular needs of that child. If the plan is adoption, it will also often be possible to have the freeing for adoption' application heard at the same time. Of course, that is very significant for the parents as, from that day onwards, it extinguishes their legal ties with the child. It can be very good for the child and it gives them certainty going forward. Before the Minister can make an application for a freeing' order, the fostering and adoption panel must approve that the child is suitable for adoption and recommend an application be made. It is right to say, on average, the last years have shown that those proceedings in total take about 40 to 44 weeks

to conclude in Jersey. As I think Senator Ozouf was saying yesterday in his question, recently in England and Wales a 26-week time limit for those cases has been introduced. That time limit has caused difficulties, which have been publicised. It has led to delay in local authorities issuing proceedings because they know of the time limit, contrary to the interests of the child and, of course, the parents who cannot receive legal advice under Legal Aid until the application has begun. Secondly, in some cases, knowing, as I think the Assembly will, of the difficulties in these cases, because of the desire to conclude matters within 26 weeks you sometimes end up with a final order not properly tailored to the interests of the particular child. That is the answer to the question I was asked. I would like to correct something Senator Ozouf suggested in his question yesterday, that in some way in the speech that I made yesterday I had impliedly rejected the need for reform

and change set out in the report of the Care Inquiry. That is simply wrong. I welcomed the report. The question of the precise changes to be made is a matter for the Assembly, not for me, but as the Deputy of St. John noted, my department will be instrumental in implementing the changes that this Assembly elects to proceed with. The only narrow point I made was that in relation to the test for taking children into care, it is the same in Jersey as in England and Wales. I said no more about the law than that.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Thank you very much. We have a number of Members who have indicated they wish to speak for the first time; a growing number of Members, in fact, 6 or 7 at the moment. After which, once we have exhausted those, there will be the opportunity for second speeches, and I have 2 or 3 Members who have indicated they wish to speak for a second time. The first name on the list is the Acting Dean.

Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of St. Saviour :

Sir, before we recommence, could we know which order the speakers are in this? The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

I am slightly reluctant to do that because it is not the normal practice and because sometimes people pop in and out of the room for all sorts of reasons and they get moved around. I did move around the list yesterday to accommodate the Attorney General before the end of the day, for example, because I thought that was in the interests of the Assembly. I am slightly reluctant to do that. I am happy to talk to individual people if they have to leave the room for a cup of tea or something. I do indicate, sometimes, where people are on the list, but I am reluctant to run what is, in effect, an official speaking order, because it is not the normal practice in the Assembly. I can say the first person is the Acting Dean.

1.1 The Very Reverend P. Brooks, The Acting Dean:

As Members will know, this is the first time that I will have spoken to this Assembly, and I want to say that, as I offer some reflections, my comments may reflect the thoughts of others and may already have been shared, but I feel, as Acting Dean, it is incumbent upon me to make comments on today and on the report that we have received. Like all the States Members, I am horrified and deeply saddened by what has happened to those who became victims of our Island's care system. The Inquiry has shown clearly its failures. My thoughts and prayers go out to all the victims, all victims of abuse, and today, as we continue our debate we will of course continue to remember those who have suffered physical and sexual abuse, or emotional neglect, while under the care of our Island. I want to say to those people, you are at the top of our thoughts. The abuse should not have happened and we must ensure, as far as it is down to us and to this Assembly, that it does not happen again. I also want to add my thanks to the victims who have had the courage to speak out. For some perhaps it was a relief to at last be heard, to be believed, and for their story to be told. In any case, for many it would have been incredibly difficult and I want to thank them for being willing to speak out. I also want to add my thanks to the care panel and their team. They have worked carefully, diligently, thoroughly and have heard what at times can only be described as - the word has been used in this Assembly a number of times - harrowing testimony. However unpalatable the truth, we are grateful that it has been told and recognise too, as we have heard with the 4 who have come forward this week, that there is still more to be told.

[9:45]

Now that we have the report, however, we must get on with responding to what we have learned and ensure that the future is different from the past. So, to the Care Inquiry and their team, and to those who have shared and spoken with them, thank you. Frances Oldham Q.C. (Queen's Counsel)

in her statement on Monday said that a fair test of any society is how it treats its most vulnerable citizens. Jersey has been tried and found wanting. We have heard that previous reports in this area have not been fully enacted or followed through on. We have been found wanting on each occasion. I am grateful for the Chief Minister's pledge, as far as it is in his power, that all the recommendations will be followed. We are all clear that things need to improve. Perpetrators of abuse against children must rightly and are being brought to justice. Sitting as Dean Substitute, part of my role when speaking here is to offer an ethical comment into the proceedings. Justice is a very important part of ethics. Ethically, a failure to deal with bullies, with those who abuse others, is to collude with them and to add to the victim's sufferings. We must not be seen to be colluding in any way. Of course, the work of the States of Jersey Police and courts and others continues with our full support. Justice is a fundamental element of any civilised society. Things need to move on for those who work with and for our children. We have heard of improvements in the last few years, but more remains to be done. The process is ongoing. Four words have struck me in the report: training, accountability, prevention and sustainability. Training: we have been recommended to learn from the best, and that is already happening, but we must continue this further. Training costs money but if it is the right sort of training it is invaluable and irreplaceable and repays the investment manifold. The benefit to our children cannot be understated. Some of the situations our professionals have to deal with are incredibly challenging. Making the right choices in care and support for the vulnerable is rarely easy. Excellent training is vital. Accountability: in the words of John Donne, the poet: "No man is an island, Entire of itself. Every man is a piece of the continent. A part of the main." We have, in the past, too often worked in isolation. Too many people behaving as an island. The words "silo mentality" have been used regularly. Many think they know best or thought they knew best or, if in positions of responsibility, they thought that they - the caregivers - knew best. This report shows that we do not and that they often do not, know the best. We have to work together. The silo mentality is changing but so much more needs to be done. I have to say, in my experience, working with others does take time. It is really irritating how long it takes when you have to work collaboratively, but it is essential for the good of our children. It requires deliberate investment of our time, but it has to be done. Too often, if there has been any accountability, it has been inadequate, and frequently there has been accountability to no one, as we have read. This report shows that accountability must be done better across the board. It is a challenge to this Assembly, to politicians, both Ministers and Back-Benchers. We can no longer hide behind civil servants. It is part of the politician's role to know what is going on and to hold people to account. Structures and procedures that ensure proper accountability are a part of this, but not the whole story. The responses to this report that I have heard show that there is a genuine willingness to take responsibility, but those with responsibility here and in our civil service have been challenged with this report to continue that culture change. It requires people's commitment, not just structures, to attain proper accountability. The report expresses concern that planning and policy should be rooted in children's experiences and not process-driven. Of course that is right. Accountability must not simply be a paper exercise but something that genuinely ensures the best for and with our Island children. Prevention: The report, particularly in the recommendations from witnesses and other contributors to the Inquiry, and in the appendices including that by Roger Bullock and Roy Parker,

have used the word "prevention" frequently. It is often said that prevention is better than cure. Many of the 8 recommendations will result in better prevention of the abuse of children. Of course, abuse can never be ruled out completely. Individuals may still perpetrate evil against others but prevention and care can and must be done better. My fourth word is "sustainability." The work cannot just be the product of a whole load of enthusiasm because we have got a report and we have spent a lot of money on it. The fact is, we are likely to do well for 12 or 24 months because the panel is coming back, but then there is a real possibility of losing momentum. It has to be sustained. Decisions now have to be taken that will ensure that the good work that is already being

started and continued and the good intentions that are currently in this place, do not fade as the story moves from the headlines. Not simply short, but medium and long-term decisions, planning and commitment, are essential to a right response to the Inquiry. The report of the Care Inquiry is, of course, not completely doom and gloom. The panel was impressed by the range of the work and dedication of staff and volunteers in many agencies, notably the many groups based at The Bridge, Les Amis, M.A.S.H. (Multi Agency Safeguarding Hub), our health visitors and C.A.M.H.S. (Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service). I am also aware that many of our foster carers, despite the issues that have been raised in this Assembly, do an outstanding job. Child development and its science is complex and I have to say I fully support and welcome support for families from the earliest days. There are those who know much more about child development than I do, but the reality is that there is development that happens in children from the very beginning that, if that period is lost, it is almost impossible to regain for that person. However, at the same time as these agencies that I have already mentioned do good work, for some, at least, resources can be a real struggle. In the church, we sometimes use the phrase: "Join in with what God is doing." Here, we can translate that to: "Properly support that which is doing well." This is one of the challenges to our Ministers and civil servants that comes out of this report. The Inquiry panel has made some of its recommendations, that the whole community consider how the negative perception of the Jersey way can be countered. As we have heard in our debate, the use of that phrase has frequently not been good. After the Manchester bombing, at the vigil in the Royal Square, I said this: "Of course we are all angry at the evil perpetrated but we must respond by seeking justice, by protecting the vulnerable and by showing compassion. This is the way of our values, the Jersey way." Just as it was true after Manchester, so it is true today after the report's publication. I will say it again: "Of course we are all angry at the evil perpetrated but we must respond by seeking justice, by protecting the vulnerable and by showing compassion. This is the way of our values, the Jersey way." This debate is part of countering and changing the negative perception of the Jersey way. Before I conclude, I have one further point and then my conclusion. At the start of each day, as we sit as the States, I lead us in prayers, asking for God's help in the work of this place. I happen to think that it is very important for us. I would, would I not? As part of the prayer, on each occasion I pray: "Que, dans toutes leurs délibérations, soit accompagné de votre bénédiction, réussissez pour le bien et le soulagement des personnes qu'il vous plaît de s'engager à leurs soins" or, in English: "That in all their deliberations, being accompanied by your blessing, succeed for the good and relief of the people whom it pleased you commit to their care." I think that this report is part of the answer to that prayer and it is a reminder each time that we pray and as we meet as the States Assembly in this place. To conclude, I arrived in Jersey 23 years ago to serve the Church of Jesus Christ and the community in this Island. I count it a privilege to live and serve here, but unless we take care of our children properly, that privilege is but dust and ashes. If we fail to properly recognise the corporate parenting by our Assembly and society of our looked after children, we fail the test, our most vulnerable citizens remain betrayed, and the values we wish to be known for are the very thing that do indeed, as has been said, hold us up for ridicule. The report tells us starkly that we have failed to prioritise needs of children or to value them. I fully endorse the desire to change. In the Members' coffee room, I found the University College of Jersey prospectus; they

are based at Highlands College. Its cover reads: "The best way to predict the future is to create it." This is the moment to seize the opportunity for our young who are in our care. The Inquiry report tells us the Island's highest value asset is our children. This Assembly, along with all public servants, must now show it believes that. [Approbation]

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

May I be the first to offer my congratulations to the remarks of the Acting Dean. I do not know how long he is going to be with us in this Assembly, but I know, as his predecessor has, he has shown, to me and other Members, compassion and a very caring pastoral role in the role that he has

in this Assembly. There are issues about his right to speak and his predecessors' and his successors', but certainly it is in the unseen way in which the Dean of this Assembly carries out what is a very informal role, and certainly the remarks that he has made exemplify the reasons why he is a welcome member - certainly in my view - of this Assembly, and the comments that he makes, both those publicly and also those to us in the coffee room when some of us need a little pastoral care. I thank the Acting Dean for his remarks. This, I think also, is an important opportunity. We have had many in committee debates over the years, but it is an evolution in our parliamentary system, that in fact we are having a public debate which is video-streamed, which Islanders can see. They are elected representatives, talking, debating, contributing, commenting on matters past, and most importantly, matters previously. There will be no conclusion of this debate because there is no particular vote, but there will clearly be issues that will be raised and will be taken across. For my part, I congratulate also and pay tribute to the many Members of this Assembly who have spoken, I think eloquently, from the heart and doing what they really are here to do, which is what we are all here to do, which is to serve Jersey. This debate is very much about looking back, but learning about the past and how we can move forward in a constructive and positive way. We can focus, and my remarks are very much going to be focused on what we need to do now to change, implement, repair for the people that we have let down. I am one of those Members that was on the Council of Ministers; I think it is only Senator Routier and I that were on the Council of Ministers at the time of Operation Rectangle.

[10:00]

The report, which is substantial, the Frances Oldham report - which has received a lot of comments about the cost and of course that has been a challenge - I think the more one reads it, as the Chief Minister has said and encouraged us to do, and as other Members have said, the more one reads the testimony of victims, the more one realises just how important this issue is. To say that this report is just about child abuse would be, I think, to do a disservice to it. The corrective action that is required and that this report calls on is much, much wider than just simply the issues of children, and they are important. I want to say I am pleased, if that is an appropriate word - I am at least relieved I suppose would be a better word - that some people where a dark shadow has been cast on their reputations and the way in which they dealt with things at the time have been, I think, very fairly reflected in the Inquiry report. I think particularly of those Ministers that were at the time and the officials at the time who were dealing with what was an extremely difficult situation. I would single out, if I may, the former Chief Minister, who I think in a very, very difficult situation made the right decisions in a number of different respects. Nobody is perfect, but he certainly, and other Ministers, knew of the serious implications at the time of what had happened. It was an extremely difficult time for the Ministers concerned, but I believe that they acted in good faith and I certainly was part of certain discussions about that. It was difficult; it was painful beyond belief to see the portrayal of the Island that many of us have been born in, brought up in. I make no difference between those that are born and not born, as many Members will say. To see the Island around the world.. and indeed I saw on Monday the portrayal in a newspaper which is seen by millions of people in London, the Metro newspaper, the description of the "House of Horrors". Around the world, Jersey was brought to the attention of people as a place of which terrible child abuse happened. There is no doubt that child abuse happened. There is a reason why I have not ever commented directly on the issues of child abuse myself and I have withdrawn from discussions at the Council of Ministers in the redress scheme and in various other matters. That is not, for the avoidance of any doubt, because I am a victim, but because I was an individual that was aware of child abuse in a very close sense. So I have watched, observed and given, where possible, information and insight into the world of child abuse, how it happened, how it was denied, how it was ignored and how the effects on the individuals that are known to me have effectively had their lives changed. There is no political point-scoring, there is no competition, there is no league table

of Members at this Assembly who know little, who know more or less than anybody else. I am no different. But there is a reason why I have taken the position that I have in not being directly involved in various different aspects, but I believe that that time has now ended and that I am able now to take a full part in the discussions and in certainly the repair work and in the corrective action that must be taken. So I was a student at Victoria College. That is not the issue particularly, but I was aware another Member had spoken of that. I was a musician in the peripatetic music system and I was aware in the 1980s of what had happened in the education system and I was aware of, only too painfully, what it was for an individual to have had to deal with abuse. I make those comments because they are deeply engrained in me and that when people say sorry, I know what that means to the victims and I know what it also means to the people that have been through this whole Inquiry. Some of them do not wish to be reminded of what was a very dark period in their lives. There is one individual, not connected with Jersey, who I have tried to assist who said and identified the fact that that individual had been abused; 30 years ago, that person would not have been believed. There are many people that still hold knowledge of child abuse that happened that have not got and did not have the confidence to come forward to draw to the authorities the attention the fact that abuse happened. It is extremely difficult for the friends and family of those people to say, to encourage those people to come forward. If I may publicly also make a warm and I think appropriate tribute to - I think I can name the D.C. (Detective Constable) because she has been in the public domain - Detective Constable Fossey. Chief Inspector, I am so sorry. She has rightly been promoted. The work of that individual, I think we owe that individual a deep debt of gratitude for the work  [Approbation]  that she has undertaken in putting in place proper arrangements and safeguarding and prosecution and investigation. There is much that has changed since the 1980s. It is true that when an individual came forward, either within the care system of Jersey, the education system or any other arrangement that children were not automatically .. not by their immediate people around them, but by the Education Department or the other authorities, that they were not believed. They did not think that they would be believed. The children themselves perhaps did not even understand the implications of what had happened to them, because they were innocent. Their innocence was taken away. I make my remarks about Chief Inspector Fossey to say that if there is anything that any individual knows about abuse that has happened in Jersey, then the individual that is capable of dealing compassionately, privately, confidentially and appropriate is there. If there are other issues that need to be brought to the attention of the authorities, then the message should go very clearly out that there are now the appropriate safeguards and protections in place for individuals that still need to report child abuse

that happened in Jersey or elsewhere in the period up to the perhaps 1990s. We have heard in the last couple of days of the issues that some people have come forward and we should encourage them to do so, because it is the only message that I have ever given to anybody that has come to me is that these people have had their lives irrevocably damaged, their innocence has been taken away. The pain that they have suffered is immeasurable. You can never change the past, but if the actions that they are called to take in reporting the abuse means that a single person, a single other young person does not have to suffer what they have done, then it is my only hope that in time they can look back at the inexplicable pain that they have suffered and the further pain that they go through in having to go through the prosecution system, that they will ensure that some other person is protected. It is extremely difficult. I know, because I have seen it. I know that when an individual goes forward and reports a crime, they can be ostracised from those others that are around them. Society closes ranks. Education, of the past, closed ranks, when safeguarding did not work. Those individuals themselves who have suffered abuse are themselves also bullied because others around them are also unable to accept the fact what has happened to them, which might have also happened to others in their same class, et cetera, are able to do it. It is extremely complex. It is not binary, it is not simply the individual, it is the individual and how they react to their friends, how to react to their teachers, how they react to their families and the way that those other people have to deal with it. It is so difficult and that is the reason why this is in no way a way that must be used as a political football. It never has done and I have not heard any comments of this Assembly in the debate that we have had today that has attempted to do so, because to do so would be to undertake a great disservice to those people who still have to come forward and who are still living and who will live with the consequences of child abuse every single day of their lives in future. I want to also pay tribute to the Ministers who have recognised in the recent years the issues that needed to be dealt with. I particularly want to say to the current Minister for Housing and to the Deputy of Trinity that I was with her, I saw her when she dealt with the needs of a health system that was simply not fit for purpose in a variety of different ways when she started her term of office. The term "Everest" was, I think, made by another Member. We did not have a health service that was simply in minor repair, it was a health service that was broken, virtually in every single aspect of what that Minister inherited, not only in terms of the infrastructure and the hospital buildings, but in the whole way in which that department had operated. It was a scandal and it had been left for too long. The Deputy of Trinity , I think this Assembly owes her an enormous debt of gratitude for the work and the courage that she undertook in putting in place what she did. It was a long journey that is not finished and she does not think the journey is finished. Her current successor knows that it is not finished, but such was the antiquated.. the decades of unchallenged.. of political individuals who either did not know, turned a blind eye, did not question or for whatever reason that it is not appropriate to offer a blame or whatever, but it just did not happen. But the Deputy of Trinity exhibited to me enormous courage in changing what needed to change. It was the turning point for me that changed for ever Children's Services and the health services that are now currently being changed. I think that the Deputy of Trinity should be proud of the enormous, significant, decades- long required change that happened in the health service and I say that publicly to her. [Approbation] I am pleased that other Members may recognise that, because sometimes we do not say thank you to some of our colleagues. I have also made comments about the Jersey way and I

was perhaps surprised in the Inquiry report that it was focused on to such a great extent. [10:15]

I want to just make a couple of observations about that and why it is so fundamental to separate out the pejorative and negative aspects of the Jersey way with those that still use it in an attempt to say that it is, as it has without doubt positive attributes. It is a euphemism that personally I have always found difficult. My friends say it is an insular word in the pejorative sense. We are proud of a lot of things in Jersey, and I am, whether or not it is the filter-in-turn, our reputation for helping our neighbours, our Jersey cow, the garments that bear our name. We all have an enormous amount of things to be proud of, but there is also a need to recognise the things that we should not be proud of and we need to recognise the fact that things went wrong. The Jersey way in the context is not wanting to be told to do something because we think we know best and that is the attitude which I have always found so difficult. I say it, and I think my remarks are not going to be welcomed by some people, because the Frances Oldham Q.C. report shines an uncomfortable light into that view that somehow we are a closed community that does not want to see.. expose, open ourselves to external review. Somehow we think we might know better because simply we are of Jersey and from Jersey and because we understand our traditions, because we understand our parochial system and our history, that that somehow gives us some sort of better right to say what is correct to do today. It is that that has always been such a problem. Islands are around the world burdened with the suggestion of secretism, of being secret, a world where they reject advice from outside. The link is of course in the other reports that have been made by Englishmen, by non-Jersey residents, about our political system, our judiciary and other matters over many years and reports that, until now, I do not think have really been understood in terms of the needs of the fundamental foundations on which our democracy is built. Electoral reform: Members of this Assembly and Islanders understandably do not like to be told that it is a problem, they do not like to be told that when we have election observers they are likely to be critical of our system. On balance, I have always argued that there is a need to respect and understand the context in Jersey, but also to understand - and we use it in the financial services world - global standards. Global standards are not issues which are irrelevant to Jersey. They are relevant and they must be put into some sort of context. It is not in any way doing a disservice, it is not in any way unpatriotic, un-Jersey, to say that there are things that need to improve. Every day is a new day, every day is a learning day, every day is a day in which we may learn something new, either from within or from outwith. We must have the confidence, we must have the humility to understand that and the consequence of when reports are written about Jersey and what we need to do to change, we must basically put them into context, but we cannot simply say that they are not relevant. If this Assembly sets up inquiries or reviews such as Clothier, Carswell, Williamson, we do not do that casually, because we do not think that there is a problem. The difficulty we have is when these individuals, some of which are panels that are people from Jersey and from outside Jersey, report we do not like what their conclusions are and many of the issues of culture that we are talking about are at the very heart. The problems that have emerged in child abuse and the non-recognition of child abuse, they are built on the foundations that are simply not fit for purpose in today's way. I think that it is fantastic that the Chief Minister has demonstrated in his remarks.. and I have watched his interviews, he was given a hard time on Channel 4 News, he was interviewed on the  Today programme and he has been on the media around the world. For me, he has exemplified what is effectively.. and I cannot use the words "new Jersey", I cannot use the words "Jersey way" or "new Jersey way", I will just use it "the modern Jersey": broadminded, open-minded, unprejudiced, unbiased, understanding, tolerant, liberal, kind, humane, thoughtful, considerate, compassionate, gentle, loving, caring, decent, responsive, thoughtful, kind, proper, responsible, respectful and

understanding. Those are the words, in my view, that represent what many of us want to build in terms of a modern Jersey and they are the words that are almost the opposite of the negative connotations of the prejudiced words of the old Jersey way. I hope that this debate and this report and the actions that must flow from it will be remembered in terms of the guiding principles of the modern Jersey that we, the elected Members of this Island, must do. We must move fast in terms of implementing the changes. We need to basically change quite a lot. There needs to be a massive change and that is why the Chief Minister has, I think, set up these various panels. I know that some Members are challenged by the fact that they may be invited on panels of people they might not agree with politically, of the different political spectrums, but there are common denominators which the Chief Minister said he needs 25 votes to deal with a number of those issues. I hope that there will be a real joining of Members across the traditional political divides, across the traditional ministerial and non-ministerial divides of the left and the right, to the extent that those are even relevant in the modern world, and that we will commit ourselves all to making and putting in place the corrective action, because delay is going to be the worst issue and the worst consequence of this report. If this report and the recommendations that are in it are delayed in terms of their implementation, we will do a disservice not only to the children of today, but the children of tomorrow and the wider Island community. We have to put our own self-interests aside. We have to put legislation in place that puts child welfare at the ascension of decision-making. It is not at the moment. We have to have improvements in openness, in scrutiny and inspection. F.O.I. (freedom of information) is a reality. I think F.O.I. is right. It is the way that you ensure an open and transparent society. Perhaps the modalities of the way it is dealt with need to be addressed, but we must not turn that F.O.I. arrangement off. But there are issues. There is an issue about Ministers being able to speak in confidence prior to a decision that is made that completely have a coach and horses through them in the arrangements. There is a juxtaposition, there is an impossibility of the way that the F.O.I. Law works with the obligations of the Council of Ministers to make decisions in the way that they do. If I may say, there are issues in this States Assembly which need to be dealt with. Back-Benchers clearly need facilities, they need advice. Sir, I think your Greffe needs to be complimented on the fact that you provide guidance in relation to this report and have given us some information, but I do think that at the heart of the implementation of these recommendations has got to be a step change in the respect in which Members are held and in the way that they respect themselves. Members do not have offices, they do not have facilities, they do not have research assistance in the way that parliamentarians in other countries have. I think that that is going to have to be dealt with.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Senator, it is a very interesting point, especially from my perspective, but we have strayed quite a long way from your course.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I know. I am coming back to it, yes. But they are at the heart of it, but I come back to the point .. The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

But it is not really, and that is why I think you really do need to come back to the heart of the report.

Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

Would the Senator give way just for a moment? There are 2 floors that are free at the Finance Centre that could be put to good use, I am sure, although we are not here to talk about that at all.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

No, we really are not here to talk about that, Deputy . Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

No, we are really not going to do that.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Let us get back to the report. I think if we get back to the report of the Care Inquiry, that is what people expect us to be debating today.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

Yes, the Care Inquiry speaks of a need of Ministers to question and that is really the point that I am trying to make. It is the training, the aptitude, the knowledge that Ministers must question, that Ministers are simply not there as the implementer of the public sector and their civil service views. They have to be in touch and on top of their brief. They have to be inquisitive. Members of this Assembly who are not Ministers must also be suitably inquisitive, informed. The point that I want to make in that is that there has to be an understanding of the resources and the assistance that Ministers and Back-Benchers are given. That is the point that I wish to make. Otherwise it is not possible to implement the findings of this report. I will leave it at that, but there has been too much of a concentration of process and hierarchy. That is what the Oldham report says. We have focused on all of the issues to do with child abuse, almost by thinking that we can put money in, that we can rely on processes and simply that will be the solution. It is not. It is not simply processes that will work. It has to be more than that and it has to have an engagement of the political individuals who have to take responsibility. The issue of responsibility is something that is again not part of this debate today, but is relevant. There has to be an understanding, I would say, of what actual responsibility is. Responsibility is not necessarily blame, but it is taking responsibility and acting. If I were to address the Assembly in French, I would use one word, responsabilité,  but in English there are 4 words that responsibility means: responsibility, accountability, answerability and liability and there has to be training on those very points. There are 2 aspects that I do wish to address in relation to the corrective action that I think is within this report that does need discussion and it is perhaps serendipitous that in the period of time that I have not been a Minister I have had some time to focus on some of the issues which I did not necessarily expect were going to be in the report, but which are at the heart of it. I made some observations, and you cut me off at my feet, Sir, totally rightly, when I challenged the Attorney General in relation to what he said. I am grateful for his clarification that he was not effectively saying that the Family Court system in Jersey does not need attention, because he said he agreed with the recommendations of the report. There have been issues when we have responded previously to the Williamson report, to the Kathie Bull report, which have involved the Civil Service and the Children's Service. I am absolutely convinced now that there is an interrelationship of reform of the court system that must happen.

[10:30]

The Care Inquiry report has highlighted a number of areas that need significant change and they are evidence that we have out-of-date systems and laws. They are not an issue that is confined to a particular department or service, but they are issues that are about the way the court system operates. The court systems and the family law in Jersey is outdated. In 2011, as the Attorney General mentioned, there were limits, guidance given on the time that care orders and others needed to be taken. While I will not explain what the problem is, I am aware, because I asked a number of weeks ago the Attorney General's office to give me some statistics about what the length of time care orders were taking. I was shocked at the answers that I got.  There may well be answers, but when I know that in the U.K. the guidance is 26 weeks and I get figures that the average length of time for care order proceedings in Jersey in 2014, 2015 and 2016 has been between 34 and to 45 weeks, I recognise that there is a question that needs to be answered. The Deputy of St. Martin is wanting to make a comment.

Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin :

The Attorney General answered those questions this morning. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I do not think he did, with respect. I think that there are real issues that need to be dealt with, because the statistics.. and again, if a Member of this Assembly is demonstrating the fact that evidence is wrong to be asked and taken and simply said: "Evidence, answer, no problem" I do not accept that. I am concerned of the length of time that it is taking for adoptions, for care proceedings, the amount of care orders that have been taken, the way the courts deal with them. I will put a written question to the Attorney General so that he can answer a number of questions, because in the interests of transparency, these issues need to be dealt with. The report says that there needs to be better training of judges. I make no criticism of our judges in Jersey, but in the U.K. there has been for years the requirement of training of judges. That has not happened to any great extent, to my knowledge, in Jersey. It is regarded by some to make any observations of esteemed officeholders such as Jurats in any way as being anti-Jersey, as being critical of the Island that I love and serve. I salute our Jurats and the service that they give, but we must also recognise that in a world where Family Courts need different arrangements, where the child needs to be put at the centre of decision-making, there does need to be consideration given to who and how the people hearing those cases are appointed. The Jurat system and the Judicial Appointments Commission and other arrangements do need to be looked at. It is not a criticism of the individuals, but it is a criticism of the arrangements that are in place. The court system for children is not working and it has to change, both in terms of its law, its practice, its procedure and in terms also, if I may say, of where it takes place. The court hearing of a family or an individual is an incredibly intimidating experience, and indeed, it is the court hearing that a child that has suffered abuse or a young person

has suffered abuse can be.. it is the process of the court hearing, the anticipation of the court case, the uncertainty of the judgment that will be received that requires the most experienced and knowledgeable people to deal with it. I know an individual that is awaiting the outcome of a court process for abuse that was alleged to have occurred in another jurisdiction. I know the pain that that individual is going through and has done so for years and there has to be the appropriate support network in place for those individuals, not just at the time that they are going through it, but in the years afterwards. When these people read cases that are similar that involve the same person, they will be traumatised and that the support for them needs to be put in place. I know that people will say that it is not required and I know that there will be answers for it, but I am sure that a time limit for care and supervision orders, which is of course not absolute in every sense of the word, needs to be put in place. The delays of implementation of decision making are, in my view, unacceptable. There does need to be changes in the way that experts are regarded and treated by the courts. There is an issue of the unnecessary administrative work the need to remove the arrangements for things like interim care orders to make sure that decisions are made quickly and speedily in the interests always of the child. Indeed, I would say that in fact the courts in Jersey have not understood, with the greatest of respect and perhaps that is a function of the people that are making these judgments. I think there has been in the past a recognition and perhaps an expectation that parents are always right. That needs to change. The courts must, in legislation, have effectively the rights of the child at the centre of the decision making, not the interests of parents, because we are too trusting. I see a number of Members shaking their heads. I am afraid that middle-class parents who are perfect in terms of their upbringing are too naïve in terms of understanding the fact that parents are not as they are and they cannot always deal with a child. There are some cases where courts in Jersey have relied too much and have trusted parents that are clearly incapable of dealing.. or are likely, on balance, not to be able to deal with the child that they are dealing with. That has a devastating consequence on the child concerned. Our childhood is short. The period of time.. and the Minister for Home Affairs and the Chief Minister and I all had in our manifestos the 1001 Days. That is 1001 Days from inception to basically 2½ years. The way the brain and synapses work means if you do not put in place the conditions of unconditional love and unconditional safety, you will create a damaged individual for the rest of your life. The courts have to understand that. It was said of the Jesuits: "Give me a child until he is 7 and I will make a man." Well, that is the period after the 1001 Days and it becomes, as the child becomes older and older, much more difficult when the damage has been caused. I am afraid the courts have not dealt with childcare issues as quickly as they should, knowing the scientific evidence of what happens to a child when they are growing up. So it may be casual to say: "It is okay for a child protection order to be taking more than 27 weeks" but when you are dealing with a child of 2 or 3 - and I am one of these Members of the Assembly that is not a father - I understand how important it is. It is urgent that these issues are dealt with and it cannot be left to processes and procedures that are currently in place. There are lots of other issues and based upon the information that I have learnt in the last few days, I am going to publish some information about that. I hope that the 2 propositions which I was going to bring forward, irrespective of the Care Inquiry, on reforming the Family Court, and the other issue, which is of an ombudsman, I am going to give these to the Chief Minister and publish them. I do not want to make a proposition in my own name, but I hope that the research that I have undertaken in the last few months on both the court system and the evidence that I have that it is not working in the interests of the child always does need to be changed. I hope the panels that will deal with this will have the evidence that I have gathered in recent weeks. The penultimate issue that I wish to address is the issue of a child commissioner, and the linked issue, which is another issue which has failed, in my view, to be addressed, and that is the issue of an ombudsman. In other places there is a child ombudsman, and the Care Inquiry is absolutely clear, and the Chief Minister has said that the appointment of a child commissioner will now happen. But I think that there is also the parallel and equally important issue that there does need to be putting in place the arrangements of an ombudsman, as was suggested in Clothier. Clothier suggested  in chapter 9 an ombudsman for Jersey. It was 2 pages and it was clear. Ombudsmen might not be the thing that Members wake up in the morning and say: "Oh, I must get to grips with ombudsmen and I must get on and put an ombudsman in place" but I think it is absolutely fundamental. It was chapter 9, it was one of the main recommendations of Clothier, and it must be done. I have been criticised in this Assembly for suggesting that the arrangements for the Complaints Tribunal are in some way again non-Jersey. To criticise the Complaints Panel is almost treacherous, it is almost disrespectful to the people that are doing it. It is not. It is to build on their important work, but also to professionalise it. Again..

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Senator, sorry to interrupt. We are in a slightly unusual position in that although there are 26 Members here, 2 of them are en défaut, so I wonder if somebody could lift the défaut on the Constable of St. Saviour and Deputy Andrew Lewis . [Aside] Thank you. As well, if I could just mention, Senator, you have spoken now for 45 minutes, which is significantly longer than anybody else, and I think..

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I am going to finish.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

.. you have covered it quite widely, but if you could conclude, yes. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I will, yes. So effectively I sum up and say that the issue of the ombudsman has been something that is absolutely fundamental and I will circulate.. I will not speak any more, because I accept your guidance, Sir. The ombudsman issue is one that must be dealt with. It was part of Clothier; Frances Oldham Q.C. says of an ombudsman. I was grateful for you putting me in contact with the House of Commons Clerk for the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Select Committee. That is something that we do not have. I do not know where that falls into the remit of, but I am absolutely convinced that an ombudsman that deals with complaints about health and all the other issues is absolutely fundamental. It must form part of the corrective action that the Chief Minister has said. There is an absolute urgency. Members are looking at me in a strange way and thinking that this does not matter. It is fundamental and I will circulate the report that I have written on that and I hope that it will be progressed. The whole issue of the Child Inquiry has been difficult, but we cannot change the past, but we can change the future and the future of Jersey can be changed if we want to quickly and decisively, based upon years of reports, of professional reports that have been made, in some cases from outside of Jersey. It is the very elements of being an open and modern Jersey, non-judgmental, accepting advice and accepting where things have gone wrong and putting in corrective action and joining across the Chamber in terms of the political divides that we need to do it. I am sorry if I have spoken long, but I have never, ever spoken about child abuse in Jersey before and it is for the reasons that I said at the beginning. I will commit myself in whatever role that one ends up in to doing it and making sure. There is just a final thing I will say, and that is that I know there have been some negative comments made about the privatisation of financial services legislation. I think the Chief Minister in recent years has ensured that there is both the requirement for legislation for financial services and for social. He has been criticised, but I would only say that it is the engine of the economy, the powerhouse of the economy, which is our business and professional services sector, which is highly regarded, which are global standards that are also going to pay for some of the improvements that have been made, perhaps without the need for taxing hardworking individuals in Jersey to any great extent than what

they are. I thank the Assembly for their time.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair): Is this a point of clarification, Deputy ? Deputy M. Tadier :

It is just a point for the Chair, which I know this is a different type of debate, and it may help Members to know that when I speak - and I am still happy for all new speakers to go first - I intend to speak on the issue of the suspension of Graham Power and so will be quoting extensively from page 764 onwards in the second volume. It is just to let Members know, if they too have issues that touch on that and related process, they may wish to consider those comments in the round. I know we have not adopted a thematic structure so far, but it is just to let people know in advance what I am going to be speaking on.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair): Okay, thank you.

2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Like other Members, I am appalled at the degree of depravity and cruelty which has been exhibited in our States organisations in the report. I also give credit to those who have been brave enough to come forward. To admit to even suffering things like that is extremely difficult, and for a predominantly Christian society, it is truly deplorable. Like Deputy Vallois, I want to see actions, not just words, because that will demonstrate a real apology, but like Deputy Le Fondré, I am concerned about the changes in culture required. The failings described on page 3 of the volume 3 recommendations are pretty strong. The problem is that the failings described can be found all over the States. Openness and transparency, promotion of the recruitment and retention of staff, tackling the silo mentality, these are principles which crop up frequently in debates in this Assembly. My comment is that while the Council of Ministers are busy hiring commissioners and a children's rights officer to look after children and their treatment and so on - which is absolutely right - I will be very interested to learn about the plans to improve the culture through the States. In other words, what is the States Employment Board and the human resources function going to do about the very strong criticism of this culture in the States, which was in the report? I would mention the following comments, again in volume 3: "12.3 A culture which is hierarchical, paternalistic and patriarchal." The civil service is organised like the Army, which is totally out of date for civilian services nowadays, and what is more, the culture makes people frightened to use their initiative. We still do not have a viable complaints and whistle-blower policy which works. "12.15 A moribund senior management", human resources again, addressing poor performance. The Auditor General, way back in 2008, was emphasising that we needed regular and realistic performance assessments. Where are they? As Deputy Le Fondré mentioned, paragraph 12.23: "The fifth Director of Children's Services in 5 years." You do question what is wrong with the organisation. When I was an auditor, it was the first thing you looked at, complaints file and the staff turnover, and if there were lots of complaints and there was a high staff turnover, you knew you had to dig much more deeply into the organisation. "12.100 Criticism of the department for not taking any notice of the Breckon Scrutiny Report." Sounds familiar? "12.108 Must have a framework for delivery of change. The key changes are cultural; 12.118 The specialised unit for implementation should be located within the Chief Minister's office." It seems to me that the Chief Minister should perhaps prune some of the other activities in his office so that he can keep a finger on the pulse. I am not sure that we should consider what is the purpose of the Chief Minister and what is his remit. What is his job description? Have we ever actually sat down and thought about it? Just a thought. "13.25 A dedicated H.R. (human resources) service for the Children's Services" which underlines my request for a proper programme of development for the S.E.B. (States Employment Board) and

all the H.R. departments. 13.26, this is talking about the Probation Service. Somewhere, I am not sure where, I may have heard a comment that the Probation Service is to be amalgamated into Home Affairs. This seems to be a department which is working well, so leave it alone. During my time in the States, I have had occasion to be asked for help by people who have been subject to bullying and general unpleasantness. Only this week, I and other States Members received an email describing a very worthy employee who was leaving and going back to the U.K. because he is fed up with the working conditions and the general H.R. attitude. The Chief Minister mentions a whole plethora of staff to improve procedures, but is that the correct way to go? The Inquiry panel criticised the department for concentrating on procedures rather than addressing staff morale and standard of service delivery. It was for this reason they gave a limited number of recommendations rather than a long tick box list, because you get totally tied up with procedures instead of addressing the real things to be addressed, service delivery staff morale, outcomes. The Chief Minister talks about a culture change in the Assembly. My question is: why did the people in power ignore questions raised by Back-Benchers? I also have heard comments made by Members of the employees who are leaving because of the atmosphere, the working atmosphere within the States organisation. The first one was: "Life is too short." The other one was: "I really cannot work in such a feotid atmosphere anymore." I do understand that there is cautious optimism regarding the programme to remove bullying in Health and Social Services. In this Assembly, we need to remember that there is a fine line between challenging and bullying and I think sometimes we go over the line. Basically, we do not appear to have learned any lessons in H.R. and these matters are ignored by the States Employment Board. It is all very well spending millions on being told where we went wrong; that is fine. How are we going to make sure that we can now do it right?

3. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :

I am sorry that yesterday ended like it did in what can only be described as an astounding revolution.. revelation, sorry - if only, if only - in that parliamentary privilege does not extend to a Committee of Inquiry for States Members. I have to say, it does extend there, so that the evidence is not.. I mean, it does beg the question why do we or why do the people, why do parliamentarians that are giving evidence have to take an oath? After my speech, Sir, I would like you to repeat what you said at the beginning of yesterday, when you were reporting on the accounting officer role that you have over this Committee of Inquiry, because I think what you were saying was missed, because Deputy Mézec was raising some other points. But if anyone needed an example of the Jersey way, I think the revelation of yesterday was it. That was a classic example. Earlier this week, I have not been filled with huge amounts of confidence on what is going on with the Children's Service and I certainly do not apportion blame to the Head of Children's Service when she made plain in the Jersey Evening Post that the services are better than they were. Likewise, the Chief Minister himself remarked that some of the people that are mentioned in the report in a negative way are no longer will be moved off the front line. Now, if I had a child or if I knew of a child in the Children's Services, I would take absolutely no comfort from either: "The services are now better than they were" and people that are mentioned in the report being moved off the front line, but are still employed by the States of Jersey. Surely, surely we need to at least suspend them, pending investigation. Some of us have got long memories, but I do wonder as well about the double standards of this Assembly and I know personality politics comes into things way, way too much. It seems now that we have our £23 million document, everyone is getting behind it. I was not in the Assembly at the time, but I remember ex-Senator Syvret, when he highlighted the fact that financial legislation gets precedence over social policy. He was suspended from office for 6 months. Some politicians that were there then voted to suspend him at the time, but as I say, we have now got this document and some document it is. We have got to act on it. This Island is in desperate need of action and delivery now. Our Chief Minister has a huge responsibility and I am

comforted that we have the Chief Minister that we do to drive these changes forward. [Approbation] But he has to equip himself with a strong, supportive team. I was sitting around the Council of Ministers 3 years ago when I was there as an Assistant Minister for my Minister and I witnessed the huge struggle and fight he had with some of the Ministers that were around the table to get this Committee of Inquiry off the ground. Now he does not need Ministers that are not committed to this 100 per cent, he needs Ministers with integrity and he needs 100 per cent commitment behind him, even if that means he has got to reconsider who his colleagues are and do a reshuffle. This document is too important to let slide.

[11:00]

We have seen documents in the past: we have seen the Kathie Bull document, we have seen the Williamson, Carswell, Clothier repots - they have all slid off the radar. Jersey cannot afford to let that happen. He is going to set up panels, which I am comforted about, but they really cannot be talking shops. What we need is a timetable, action and delivery. We do not need talking shops; we have had talking shops. I am glad to see next week he is advertising for a Children's Commissioner. Some of us voted for a Children's Commissioner 7 years ago. We now have the document so we are going to get one. We must look forward now. We have this document for all those people that needed evidence, needed a reason, to base whatever it was that they were wanting. We have that; we must look forward. The Chief Minister needs the right structures, he needs policies, he needs resources but the bottom line is the children, our children, Jersey's children need to be safe, they need to be cared for and they need to be loved, and that is what the action and delivery has got to produce. I happen to disagree with some of what we were told yesterday by the Attorney General. I feel I can disagree with some of it because I do not feel it was exclusively a legal speech. I took comfort from what the Deputy of St. Ouen was suggesting with the Prosecution Service. I think we absolutely do need an independent Prosecution Service but the Deputy was suggesting that we go further afield from just the U.K., he was suggesting we go to other jurisdictions such as Ireland. We have a lot of changes to make, we have got to deliver but, as the Dean said, that is not the whole story. It is not the whole story by a long way. The question I asked on Tuesday is a question that we have got to ask ourselves. We have got to ask ourselves: why? Why this happened; why this happened in a small community such as ours. It happened decade after decade and nothing - nothing - happened. Nothing happened to protect our children and vulnerable people in our society. What politicians, the media the media have a huge role to play. This is not just about reporting a news story now, they have a role to play. Our justice system, our authorities need to ask ourselves: why and how did this happen decade after decade? I

am going to leave it there because it is that "why" that needs addressing more than anything. Thank you.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Deputy , you asked me to repeat what I said. So what I said in answer to Deputy Mézec was that I am the accounting officer for the money spent directly by the Care Inquiry. It is not the money that the department has spent but the money that has been passed over to the Care Inquiry which means I am formally accountable to the Assembly, and particularly to the Public Accounts Committee, for its expenditure and for the overall framework of governance because it was set up under the Assembly's Standing Orders. But I went on to say that I have nothing whatsoever to do with Children's Services or the areas covered by the report and indeed, as Members will know, I had nothing to do with Jersey before I arrived in post at the end of 2015. So that was the response I gave yesterday.

The Deputy of Grouville :

Yes, it was that particular issue, that you were responsible for that but answerable to the Public Accounts Committee.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair): Yes, that is right.

The Deputy of Grouville :

Right, and I want Members to think about that. The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

I would also just like at this point to say something which I think may have been missed from the end of the Attorney General's comments yesterday which was to do with parliamentary privilege. He said that the matter was under review and I think it would just be helpful if I said a couple of words about that. It is true that the Privileges and Procedures Committee commissioned a review by Sir Malcolm Jack, who is a pre-eminent expert in this quite technical area, with a view to having a look at parliamentary privilege in Jersey as it is set out in statutes and in case law with a view to updating the law. His report is due next Friday and it will be a matter for the committee as to how to take that forward. I very much expect that it will cover issues including what will happen if somebody were to lie to a committee of the Assembly under oath. That is exactly the kind of area of law that I would expect the review to cover. That is all I can say at this stage but I hope it is helpful to know that that has already been identified as one of a number of issues in that area and work is in hand. Deputy Doublet .

4. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet :

I am pleased to follow the Deputy of Grouville behind me and I want to echo her words on taking action because that forms the basis of what I would like to say today. I have read a great deal of the report, as much as I have been able to.  I have given it my best attention and I share the sentiments expressed so aptly by many other Members. But what I would like to focus on now is where we go from here and what actions that we all can take as individuals because there are collective actions that need to be made by us as an Assembly and by States departments. But I want to impress upon Members the fact that I felt the weight of responsibility upon my own shoulders as an individual for the children, not just the children that we are responsible for under the corporate parenting role, but every single child on this Island. I spent a great deal of time sat at home after I had read some of this report thinking about what I could do myself then and there because I am not somebody who likes to just read reports and put them on a shelf, I like to take action and I do like to try and get things done. I think many Members take that same approach as I do. I have taken some actions already and I wanted to share those with Members in the hope of inspiring Members to think what action can they take today, tomorrow, in the short term, as well as the medium and long-term change that needs to happen within the States of Jersey more generally. So, firstly, I used the wonders of social media, a question that I asked the Chief Minister on Tuesday, I believe, about what should the public do? What should members of the public, parents, people working with children, what should we do if we think that a child is at risk of abuse today? The answer from the Chief Minister was: "It should be reported to M.A.S.H." I was then going to ask what the contact details were but the time for questions came to an end. So, I went on to the M.A.S.H. website, which was quite easy to find; there is a very informative video on the website. I think I found it via States of Jersey Police and all this I just searched for via Google. I shared that video on my Facebook page, along with the phone number, which I believe - I should have written this down - I think it is 519000. Can someone look that up for me, please? I should have written that down. But

that post has already reached 1,600 people, that is how easy it is to get that information out to people. I think the Minister for Health and Social Services suggested something like putting that number on the side of milk cartons. I think perhaps in the Parish Hall s that number could be

prominently displayed in every Parish Hall - did I say the number correctly; has someone looked - to reach as many members of the public as possible so that that number is to hand if anyone has any concerns. The post that I wrote on my social media page when I shared that number 519000, I was correct. Yes, I have memorised it now. The post that I wrote, I said: "People do not need to wait until they are 100 per cent certain that something is going wrong in a child's life." If they have any concerns whatsoever, I think they should ring that number and pass those concerns on because the risk of not passing those concerns on and a child being harmed, the negative outcomes of that happening are much greater than somebody passing on some concerns and it being found that there was nothing to worry about. That is something for us as Members to think about and for members of the public to think about. I hope that Members, if you do have a social media account, that you can go on to your devices right now; that is an action we can take right now. We can find that M.A.S.H. video, we can share it on our social media - I think everyone in here has a device - and we can reach thousands of people that way. So that is part of stopping abuse that might be happening today. I also thought about what I could do to help prevent abuse happening because the report found that children are still at risk in our Island. It is not just going to be children that are within our institutions, a lot of abuse that happens is by family members and will be within private homes, and we must remember that. Yes, this report has focused on our institutions, but we cannot forget the children who are at home and everything seems normal. I think Senator Ozouf touched on this. We need, as a society, as an Island, to start looking a bit deeper and keeping our eyes open for things and being vigilant in a reasonable manner but I do think we need to be vigilant. I researched this, how to prevent child abuse, and with the recommendation in mind, the voice of the child, that is obviously something that is very dear to my heart. As a primary school teacher I worked with very young children, 3 to 5 years old, and they do have a voice. They rely on adults to amplify that voice for them but children do have things to say and they do have their own opinions. We can empower them to protect themselves as well as us protecting them. So in the course of my research on how to prevent child abuse, I came across the N.S.P.C.C. (National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children) website. The N.S.P.C.C. ran a campaign, which I have been aware of. I can see the Minister for Education nodding in front of me because I think there is a recent partnership with the States of Jersey and the N.S.P.C.C. and they have run some brilliant campaigns. The N.S.P.C.C. has a centre called the Gower Centre which I believe is in Stopford Road. They are doing some wonderful work. I took the opportunity to get in touch with them yesterday. I was listening to the speeches downstairs and I got in touch with some very helpful staff from the N.S.P.C.C. in Jersey. They said that they have not had any States funding until very recently and some of the work that that charity is doing is absolutely essential in the Island. It is absolutely essential. I think that particular charity needs more support from us. There is perhaps a debate to be had over what services we should be providing ourselves and what services we should be supporting charities to provide but that is a debate for another day. The particular campaign that the N.S.P.C.C. has, and this is a national campaign which is already there and set up which could be brought to Jersey, I looked it up. I had heard of it on social media; I think it is quite a popular campaign. I want to get a conversation started about this because it is not easy to talk to children about abuse and how to prevent it. It is not easy to talk to your child at home or to children at school if you are a teacher or in other settings, because we are naturally quite embarrassed about things like that. We do not want to bring it up; it is difficult to talk about. I do not really remember being spoken to about it as a child apart from the usual stranger danger: do not talk to strangers' but, like I just said, it is not strangers that are perpetrating these abuses. So the campaign I found is called the PANTS campaign. It really should appeal to children, it is fronted by a "Pantosaurus" dinosaur and I will take the opportunity now to read out the 5 parts because the letters P-A-N-T-S