States Meeting Transcript - 6th July 2017

STATES OF JERSEY

OFFICIAL REPORT IN COMMITTEE

THURSDAY, 6th JULY 2017

PUBLIC BUSINESS..............................................................................3

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

Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier:..............................................................3 1.1 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):..................................................4

1. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:........................................................7
2. Deputy R.G. Bryans of St. Helier:......................................................12
3. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:....................................................14
4. Connétable M.P.S. Le Troquer of St. Martin:...........................................16
5. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :..........................................................19
6. Senator A.K.F. Green: ..................................................................21
7. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :....................................................................24
8. Connétable C.H. Taylor of St. John : ....................................................31

9. Deputy P.D. McLinton of St. Saviour:..................................................33

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................35 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................36

10. Senator P.M. Bailhache :.............................................................36
11. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:..................................................37
12. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:....................................................41
13. The Deputy of St. Peter:.............................................................43
14. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour : ..................................................46
15. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. John : ....................................................50
16. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence:..........................................53
17. Deputy R.J. Renouf of St. Ouen : ....................................................58
18. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. Helier : ....................................................62
19. The Attorney General:...............................................................66 Deputy J.A. Hilton:...........................................................................68 Deputy A.D. Lewis :..........................................................................68 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :........................................................................69 Deputy A.D. Lewis :..........................................................................69 Deputy G.P. Southern :........................................................................69

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................70

[9:29]

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

PUBLIC BUSINESS

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

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

This meeting of the Assembly has been called to debate in committee the report of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry, which was published on Monday. I think it would be helpful as much to people listening to these proceedings to say a few words about how an in committee debate works and the arrangements for today's debate. With in committee debates there is no proposition on which Members will be invited to vote at the end of the debate. Furthermore, Members may speak more than once. However, although Members may use their contributions to raise questions, this is not question time. Generally speaking, I want to call Members to speak for the first time before inviting Members who have already spoken to speak again. Members may refer to any of the matters in the Inquiry report and may  mention the name of individuals quoted  in the report. However, the Assembly normally operates with discretion when it comes to naming individuals and should do so today. The Inquiry worked strenuously to protect the anonymity of individuals when it was appropriate to do so and that anonymity must be respected. I envisage that this will be a general debate on the full report. I have been asked whether the debate could be divided into separate chunks, perhaps focusing first on the report's findings and later on the recommendations. I think this would be difficult to do because I suspect many Members will want to link the 2 in their remarks. However, it is ultimately a matter for the Assembly and if there is a consensus that the debate should be organised in some way, that could be done informally as we go along. The Chief Minister will make the opening speech and he will also close the debate. We have today and tomorrow set aside for the debate, so there is plenty of time for everyone to speak. When the Chief Minister is called to make the closing speech, there will be no scope for further contributions.

Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier :

Is it okay at the beginning if I just get some concerns on the record that I expressed to you before this debate? We spoke beforehand when this sitting was announced and I confirmed with you that you are still the Care Inquiry's accounting officer. I made my view clear that I did not like the perception that could be taken by some members of the public for a debate on the Care Inquiry's report to be presided over by somebody who is the Care Inquiry's accounting officer. Others will judge that differently and I want to make it clear that that is not a personal judgment on you from my part. That is simply objective on roles that are held by whoever here and those above me have judged that it is not a great enough conflict to warrant having a different arrangement, but at the beginning of this debate I just wanted my concerns out there that I did express concerns about this proceeding and I am uncomfortable with it but will continue nevertheless.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Thank you, Deputy , and thank you for giving me notice that you would raise this point. It is true that I am the accounting officer for the money spent directly by the Care Inquiry. I was appointed to that role in December 2015 and that means I have formal responsibility to this Assembly and particularly to the Public Accounts Committee for the Inquiry's expenditure and the overall framework of governance under which it operated under the Assembly's Standing Orders. However, this debate is about the Inquiry's report, not its expenditure or its governance arrangements. I had nothing to do with the contents of the report which, like everyone else, I saw for the first time on Monday afternoon. I have no responsibilities for Children's Services and,

furthermore, before I took up my role as Greffier at the end of 2015 I had no links whatsoever with Jersey. For all of these reasons, I do not think there is any conflict of interest which stands in the way of me chairing this debate effectively and impartially. Deputy Noel.

Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence :

I would just like to inform Members that unfortunately I have not been able to rearrange 2 medical appointments that I have, one this morning and one tomorrow, so I will be absent for as short a period as possible from this Chamber.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair): Thank you, in which case, Chief Minister.

1.1 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):

On Monday, the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry published its report on their 3-year investigation into failings in our care system, failings that should never have occurred. We have now all had some time to start absorbing the full truth of those findings, to read of the harrowing experiences of children abused in a system that was supposed to care and protect but instead exposed them to the cruellest of treatment and immeasurable hurt and damage. The Inquiry report is painful to read but read it we must if we are to understand and agree what we must do as an Assembly, as a Government and as a community to make sure that we do not fail children again. I want to thank again this morning all those who gave evidence of their own difficult childhood. I particularly want to pay tribute - they know who they are - to those who had courage to come knocking on my door and to tell me of their own experiences, the most personal of experiences, in some cases involving themselves, in other cases involving members of their family. To this day, they bear the scars of the way they were treated by our institutions. They have shown courage; we must show courage in our response. I have already stated that I believe we should implement all the Inquiry's 8 core recommendations, but that is a decision we must take together because, as so clearly articulated in the Inquiry report, we are all corporate parents. Every child who is in care in Jersey is in our care. This Assembly and every Member is responsible for ensuring that they are safe and that they receive the best possible care and support. The Inquiry focuses attention on us as corporate parents. One of its recommendations is that we change of our oath of office. I know that the chairman of P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) already has this under consideration because I along with other Members - I know Deputy Maçon as well - have made contact with him to drive that recommendation forward. In addition, officials are already actively engaged in considering how we may develop a stronger common understanding of the associated responsibilities. I said on Tuesday that I will bring to this Assembly in October this year a detailed and costed response to the 8 core recommendations. In developing the report, we will give consideration to the 659 other recommendations referenced by the Inquiry. I will be asking Members in our role as corporate parents to agree the action to be taken and the investment to be made. In support of this, I am in the process already of establishing an advisory panel consisting of Members of this Assembly whose role it will be to advise me and other Ministers on the actions required to deliver the Inquiry's recommendations. Yesterday, I invited Deputy Doublet , the Deputy of St. Ouen, the Constable of St. Martin , Deputy Maçon and Deputy Mézec to sit on that panel. In addition to that advisory panel and as Members already know, I have met with representatives of some care leavers and they have kindly agreed to work with us to consider how best to deliver the Inquiry's recommendations, including those that relate to a permanent memorial and the potential demolition of Haut de la Garenne if care leavers wish that to happen. I will also be meeting with representatives of children's charities and campaign groups over the coming weeks to ask for their help. I know from conversations that have already taken place this week between them and key officials that they welcome the Inquiry's recommendations, in particular those relating to legislation, to a sustainable

workforce and a voice for children. They are very clear that there have been failings both at a service level and at a political level. Indeed, it is clear from the Inquiry's recommendations and from the responses received to date that we must work collectively and that we must provide clear leadership both in short to medium term as we respond to the Inquiry and in the longer term.

[9:45]

The Inquiry describes: "The lack of a culture of corporate working across departments and services." It goes on to say: "This is a matter which requires firm and visible leadership from Ministers and elected Members and senior managers." I have, therefore, agreed Senator Routier's proposal that a new Council of Ministers sub-group should be established to provide political focus and oversight of all social policy matters. This will include matters directly related to children such as safeguarding and the modernisation of children's legislation and those matters which impact children because they impact families or professionals who work with children. For example, matters relating to housing policy, our benefit system, potential changes to licences for key workers and their families, divorce reform, disability, substance misuse, violence against women and girls, sexual offences and so forth. This sub-group, which will be known as the Council of Ministers Community Group, will act as an enhanced Children and Vulnerable Adults Policy Group. It will be chaired by me and it will include key Ministers and other States Members. I have already asked the Comité to nominate a representative and I have already invited Deputy Hilton to sit on this group. She has agreed and I am grateful for her agreement. [Approbation] The community group will be supported by special interest working groups. As these are established, I hope that more Members of this Assembly will choose to be actively involved. We have all recognised the need for a more inclusive, a more collaborative approach to addressing the challenges we face. The community group provides that opportunity. I already chair the Children's Social Services Improvement Board and over the coming weeks I will be seeking an invite to meet with children in residential care homes. I would like to speak with the children who are in our care; of course, if they wish to speak to me. I will also be asking the Youth Service to consider how I might best engage with other children. I want them to know that as Chief Minister I have an absolute duty to uphold the principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children, which Members know we have had extended to Jersey. The Youth Service are already putting together plans for a

voice project, one which will help ensure that we give children a voice and that we listen to it. They are arranging for a Members' briefing on 18th June. The Inquiry is clear. We must give children a voice. This morning I signed a Ministerial Decision to appoint a children's commissioner. I did so with the support of fellow Ministers. The recruitment for the commissioner starts next week with the development of a detailed role description produced in consultation with relevant stakeholders and experts. This will include seeking the advice from U.K. (United Kingdom) based commissioners. I expect the adverts to be in place by the end of this month. The children's commissioner's prime function will be to protect and promote the rights of all children and young people in Jersey. It is envisaged that this will include reviewing our laws, our policy and our operational practices to ensure they uphold the rights of children, providing an independent complaints and investigation service, ensuring children can access and participate in all aspects of Jersey society, bringing to our attention any matters they believe are relevant. The children's commissioner will hold us to account for hearing children's voices. As suggested by the Inquiry, it would also be the responsibility of the children's commissioner to invite the Inquiry panel back to Jersey to review our progress, and I fully support that invitation. Members will need to consider and approve legislation setting out the commissioner's statutory duties during the course of the next year, but I do not intend to wait until that work has been done. I will move to appoint as soon as possible. The commissioner will then be in place to help us scope the necessary legislation. Members will remember that we agreed in the Medium Term Financial Plan to invest an extra £4.9 million in initiatives that support vulnerable children. A significant proportion of that funding has already been allocated to initiatives such as the family support workers who help vulnerable families to build essential life skills; the Baby Steps universal antenatal provision, which supports new parents to build parenting skills; the development of a special sexual assault referral centre, which provides a holistic service to victims of rape or sexual assault irrespective of age; adding staffing for the police public protection unit in order that they may continue to investigate cases of child abuse; and the children's change programme, the dedicated, experienced officials who will work to deliver the Inquiry's recommendations. Further to that, I have now asked the Minister for Treasury and Resources to allocate the remaining £1.8 million to a number of other projects, all of which support the Inquiry's findings. Approximately £96,000 will be set aside to ensure that children and their families, care leavers, service users, community champions and representatives of the voluntary sector can actively engage in the development of a new children's plan for Jersey. This plan will be brought to the Assembly for approval. It will place the Inquiry recommendations into a broad strategic context. As recommended by the Inquiry, it will set out exactly how we will ensure that the children for whom we are responsible achieve and fulfil their potential. It will do so, of course, for all other children as well. Just over £850,000 will be used to fund additional specialist children's legal advisers. This will allow us to respond to the increased number of children's cases that must be prepared for consideration by the court, cases that are arising as a result of the improvements starting to take hold in Children's Services. The funding will also allow Law Officers to invest more time into the development of children's legislation. We will also invest an additional sum of £195,000 in the development of an on-Island social work degree course and will look to cover fees for 12 students starting in September 2018. As we know from the Inquiry, it is imperative that we build a sustainable workforce. £170,000 will be invested in a specialist therapeutic service aimed at supporting families where the parent's mental health or other complex problems prevent the parent/child bonding so critical to the well-being of children. We will also invest in a new outreach service for children with special needs who attend mainstream education and provide an extended youth inquiry service. There are other areas that we will need to find money for and invest in if we are not only to deliver the recommendations but to build upon them, areas like mental health provision, areas like trauma counselling and advice for those whose lives have been damaged by the abuse that they have received. Earlier this week a Member in this Assembly asked what action should be taken with regard to the "Jersey way". As we know, for some the Jersey way is seen as positive in that it references culture of community and voluntary involvement. For others, unfortunately, the term "Jersey way" speaks of secrecy, a lack of openness, a lack of independent review and assessment, and a failure to be transparent. One of the areas that the panel ask us to consider is the separation of powers as recommended by Clothier and Carswell. As I said on Tuesday, I am on record as supporting that position, but to date this Assembly has not agreed that that needs to take place. As I say, the Care Inquiry has recommended that further consideration is given to this matter. They did so because they felt it had to be addressed despite acknowledging that constitutional issues fell outside their terms of reference. I have, therefore, already taken steps to establish a Members' panel to advise on how to take this forward. I know that Deputy Tadier has already lodged a proposition, but I have asked Deputy Tadier , Deputy Brée and Senator Ozouf to form this panel. I am sure that Members will agree that that truly has a diverse opinion sitting upon it. I will be asking their advice on the detail of proposals to be brought before this Assembly setting out the future role of the Bailiff and the future role of a Speaker. The Inquiry also makes very clear recommendations relating to the need for independent inspections. Last year, it was agreed by the Children's Service Improvement Board that we would introduce regular 3-yearly inspections of our Children's Service by an independent body. Discussions have already take place and the Minister for Health and Social Services will confirm details in the near future. However, in light of the Inquiry's report and recommendations, I will be seeking these inspections on an annual basis for at least the next 3 years. In addition, as

[10:00]

We are in the process of setting up the Care Commission and tomorrow I will announce the appointment of a fifth commissioner, a local resident with direct experience of our Island's care services, who will help ensure that people's experience and the way they have been treated is at the heart of the commission's work. Today I believe is the day that we start a process of collective consideration of the Inquiry's recommendations. It is an opportunity for us to discuss the content of the Inquiry report, as difficult as that may be. For my part, we stand on the threshold of an opportunity that we should grab with both hands metaphorically. Of course, today, tomorrow, we should talk of the stories of those who have suffered. People should rightly be held to account, be that States employees where processes have already started, be that the work of the Jersey Police Service in picking up those who have come forward and continuing their investigations, be that the work of the prosecution service making decisions reasonably based on the evidence, be that the work of the judiciary. That process has to happen, but if we use this report to simply apportion blame and think that our job is done, we are woefully misguided. For me, that is the historical way we have sometimes treated problems and challenges. Yes, those processes must happen. Yes, individuals must be held to account. Yes, institutions must be held to account. Our job will not be done when those processes are done. Our  job is only done when we have implemented the recommendations, when we have raised our heads having held them down in shame, when we have raised our heads and said: "We have a Children's Service that can stand head and shoulders above any in the world" where we can meet those higher standards and where each one of us can be as confident as anyone can be that children in our institutions and in our Island are safe. Let us during the course of our debate today, yes, talk about everything in the report, but at the end of today or tomorrow commit ourselves to working together for change. [Approbation]

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Chief Minister, before we move on, you mentioned a Members' briefing and I think you inadvertently said 18th June. Do you wish to clarify it is 18th July?

Senator I.J. Gorst :

I do apologise, yes, 18th July.

1. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:

If Members will bear with me, I am just getting up an email which has part of the opening speech and I am having to juggle between these 2. First of all, can I welcome the speech from the Chief Minister?

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

If you are having a technological difficulty maybe we should.. Deputy M. Tadier :

I am just there and I do thank Members for their indulgence. What I think is important early on in this debate is to put the voice of those at the centre of this report on the record first of all before we move on to anything else. Because of that, I want to read out publicly the press release that was sent out by the Jersey Care Leavers Association to the media because I suspect not everyone has had a chance to hear that because, of course, there has been a lot that has been going on over the last few days and we have not all been able to keep up with what is in the media. I know certainly I have not. Before I start, of course, the J.C.L.A. (Jersey Care Leavers Association) do not purport to speak for all care leavers in the Island. I think that is important to put on record, but it is also

important to say that they have provided much support over the last 9 years since the allegations broke for those who wanted to come forward and they have been a very valuable ally in some respects when it has come to formulating the terms of reference for the Inquiry: "On behalf of the J.C.L.A. and as a survivor.." that is the person who is saying that: ".. I welcome today's publication of the I.J.C.I.'s (Independent Jersey Care Inquiry) report. We have waited a very long time, not just for this report but to obtain an independent opinion and to understand why so many vulnerable children came to be abused in Jersey for so many years while in the care of the States of Jersey. The report makes for disturbing reading. The Inquiry exposes repeated failures in good governance and good governance management on the part of the States of Jersey. Very often and too often, the term historical' is applied like a label to the accounts of child abuse. This is both wrong and misleading. Survivors in Jersey and further afield are a living testimony to the fact that there is nothing historical about the abuse they suffered. They are the living proof of what happened and that it is a challenge for today and tomorrow, a challenge in the sense that as a community we have to face up to the failings identified in the report, to put those failings right and to ensure that we have a fit for purpose child protection system in place for tomorrow. The report identifies where the States of Jersey has gone wrong on child protection year-in, year-out. Too often the interests of vulnerable children were secondary and the risk is identified in the report that the lessons that could be learnt from the past will not be. Far too often the States of Jersey devoted its considerable resources on short-term measures to shore up reputations. Those concerned may well have thought they were acting wisely at the time but they were blinkered as to the real issues. Children were being failed and in the worst possible way. Jersey should rightly be proud that it held the Inquiry and credit is due where it is deserved. Those in the States of Jersey and others who supported the creation of the Inquiry and allowed it to go about should be acknowledged. The Inquiry would not have been possible had not so many witnesses come forward and, by no means least, survivors. It took courage and dignity to give evidence to the Inquiry. We must now look to the future. It would be absurd for this report to be allowed to gather dust. It is incumbent on Jersey's leaders and the States of Jersey to take this report and act on its recommendations made by the I.J.C.I. panel and to ensure that it is fit for purpose for child protection and that a system is in place for children from now and into the future." I will stop there because I think that is the most important part. They then go on to talk about some context for the J.C.L.A., which I think is more for footnote purposes for the journalists. If I can now read out a statement on behalf of campaigners that I made earlier in the week, I think it crystallises some of our thoughts. There was a hard-fought battle for the Inquiry to have taken place in the first place. I think it is only a few years ago we can remember to that and it was one of those debates which really came down to 2 or 3 votes and then, of course, once the principle was established I think it was overwhelmingly adopted. But it certainly was not without its resistance, including from senior political figures. If it were not for a handful of committed individuals in the States Assembly, the care leavers and many of the citizens media who successfully campaigned for the Inquiry to take place, it would not have happened. First and foremost, we must recognise that systemic child abuse did take place and it was allowed to happen in state institutions and elsewhere over recent decades to some of the most vulnerable children in our society and in our care. For some survivors and those close to them there may never be true justice or closure, but today we can stand with them in solidarity and recognise their pain and their trauma. The 2 important questions that we hoped the Inquiry would address were: how did this happen in Jersey and could it still happen today? Since writing that, we have learnt that worryingly there is a suggestion that children in Jersey today could still be at risk, and that is something we will need to explore and that is something I know the Chief Minister has already given a commitment to looking at and is something which he has been working on, to be fair, during the process while the Inquiry has been going on. During the giving of evidence, many witnesses spoke of the "Jersey way". By this they meant a culture in which reporting abuse was difficult, where they were not listened to, where whistle-blowing was almost impossible, where the

Island's reputation came before the safeguarding of the vulnerable and where complacency was the norm. There are still examples of some of these failures today. Some areas of the public sector and institutions remain hostile to criticism. Where this culture exists it must be replaced by an active pursuit of honesty, openness and accountability. Where problems exist, staff, agencies and citizens must feel able to raise valid concerns knowing that effective action will be taken in a timely manner. This will, no doubt, also mean better resourcing and investment in areas such as social care, education and training to name but some. We must also be prepared to reform our institutions where they are no longer fit for purpose and tradition can no longer be used as an excuse for not adopting modern best practice.  As I was preparing for this debate last night, even though we know things intellectually and we think that we empathise with them, it often comes to us perhaps late at night that we have a new perspective on something, something which is perhaps very obvious but we just seem to appreciate it in a different way. For me it was the fact that children were taken away over periods of decades from their family situation and often, the report told us, this was not because they were being abused at home. It was not because there was anything especially wrong that could be pinpointed at home. It may well be that in some cases there was a neglectful situation because they were with parents or a family situation which did not quite have the wherewithal to cope in some areas. They were put into an actively abusive setting. So they were taken away from something which, okay, was not great in many cases and put into a system where the state should have been looking after them but they were allowed in some cases to be abused physically, sexually but always mentally and emotionally in those cases. In those cases, children had their spirits crushed. As I said, whether it is physical or sexual abuse, there is always a mental and lasting emotional issue in that. I am sure at the time they could not verbalise what they experienced. Even if there was someone there that they could talk to and who would listen, it was not necessarily obvious how they could express that. I suspect they knew it was wrong but we know that often

children who are abused end up blaming themselves: it must be something that I am doing wrong. [10:15]

Most of us know what it is to have to a certain degree a loving and encouraging upbringing at home, at school. We are nurtured. We are allowed to play, to enjoy our childhood, to have fun, to learn, to explore, to flourish, to listen and to be listened to. We experience mutual respect and we learn to become self-confident and we learn to become relatively well-adjusted people, hopefully. But what about some of those who were abused in our society? That is why I think it is important that care leavers said to us: "Do not use the term historic' abuse." It is an easy way, I think perhaps for some, to say: "Look, this happened in the past." No, we need to consider that, first of all, their abuse still lasts today but we are all vulnerable. The way I look at it, we talk about vulnerable people. We are all potentially vulnerable because we are all human and that is part of the condition of being human. I want to give you a specific example of someone who will, of course, remain nameless but who is in our society, who was an abuse survivor. She was in care. Her story has been recorded in here, but the problems remain today because of that, and no doubt it is causative. She has developed complex issues. She has struggled with addiction, for example, and I might say that she struggled very well, showing immense bravery in that. She has brought up her own family, not always easy given the fact that she did not have the same tools given to her in order to do that and it has not been a straightforward process. The abuse is not just historic. It is not just something that happened in a state or foster institution in the past. It is that the actual neglect and the abuse remains systemic for this individual. I will give you the example. She is somebody who is in Andium Homes. She relies on that form of subsidy that comes from social housing. She has struggled with health issues. She has struggled with addiction and, therefore, it has been difficult for her to work, but it has also been difficult for her physically. She is not somebody, despite that, who has ever had to have rent arrears, but recently, because she needed to see the doctor more than she usually would in a year, she found out that all of a sudden she gets a

letter saying: "You are in arrears." Very, very worried about that. She has to go down to Andium initially and - I will put it on record - they are not necessarily.. I am sure they are still very helpful, but they are perhaps more.. they treat their debts with more urgency now that they are an independent, arm's length body than they might have when they were a housing department. So you get this very.. I think she called it a threatening letter saying: "We want your money, otherwise we will kick you out within 3 months." Now, what is all that about? She did not know that. Her rent is normally covered. So, we get involved, as I am sure many Members in this Assembly do with casework, to find out that the component has been put towards her medical account because she is only allowed to have 4 doctor visits a year. So we go down to Income Support, get this very difficult meeting with somebody there from Andium who is primarily interested in getting her money for the department. We have the department who needs to look at this and a very distraught individual, an abuse survivor but continuing to be abused by the system today because it is not set up to make sense of that. Now, this needs to be looked at holistically. I personally come from a different political perspective and I think it is absolutely right and inevitable that at some point we do need to bring politics into this because politics is personal, the personal is political. I do not believe in necessarily promoting financial independence over everything else. I personally believe in interdependence rather than independence. I think first and foremost we as individuals in society are interdependent on each other, and as soon as we start going down perhaps the independent route, the individualistic route that was set during the 1980s in America by the Reagan Administration and by the form of conservatism that we had under Thatcher, that becomes very difficult because we destroy some of the links that we have in society that have been built up over centuries. It is okay to say, if you are one of those traditional conservatives with a conscience who says: "It is all about the family unit. There are certain things that the state should provide. There are certain things that the family should provide." But what about those who do not have the family, and that is where it comes back to being germane for this particular debate. Those who have never had that family in the first place, they need the safety net around them all the time. As I have said, we all potentially need that safety net to be around us all the time. When we have an austerity programme that is imposed upon us.. and austerity is a political choice and it has been a political choice in this Island really for decades. It is alluded to in the report. I mentioned it the other day when there were comments made by Ministers at the time, former Ministers for Home Affairs, it has to be said. Both Senator Le Marquand and Senator Wendy Kinnard said, quite honestly, and they knew, they said that certain types of legislation and policy get prioritised in this Assembly over others. What did they mean by that? They meant that when it comes to financial legislation it takes precedence over social legislation, over child protection, over protection for the vulnerable. We have seen generations of politicians in Jersey stand for senior positions saying the

most important thing is to protect and look after the rich. It will have some kind of trickle-down. Keep taxes low, keep spending low, and everything will be all right. But unfortunately that does not work. We know today that there has been serious underinvestment in Jersey, not just in terms of political will but in terms of the tangible resourcing that we need to run an ever-increasingly complex and cosmopolitan modern society. We have to decide what kind of society we want to live in. Of course, this individual racked up those bills because we have a system in Jersey where we charge for healthcare at primary level. You have to pay often £40 or £45 to see a doctor in Jersey, and that is before you get into whether or not you need blood tests and all the rest of it. How does somebody in that situation, who is on the breadline, who has just seen their income support frozen for the last 9 years in effective terms - coincidentally, it coincides with when we found out about the child abuse - and in parallel we are saying let us freeze the contribution that we give to some of the most vulnerable in our society? That is going along in parallel. They cannot even think about going to the doctor, let alone go to the doctor. They cannot think about going to the dentist. If you want to look at somebody's socioeconomic status in Jersey, just ask them to open their mouth. I know it sounds strange, but you just look at the state of somebody's teeth, which is a key indicator for their overall well-being. You will see if they are struggling or not. I suspect most of us in here have decent teeth, hopefully, whether they are our own or not. Not everyone out there is so fortunate. The report talks about housing issues, and I am not going to go on too much longer for this part of the debate, but I think it is important to frame it from an early stage. It is about tangible policy. It is okay and is absolutely right some people will say and have said in the past child abuse happens everywhere. It is an unfortunate thing, but it is not unique to Jersey. That, of course, is true up to a certain point, but our concern is how this could have happened in Jersey, a wealthy place, a close-knit, small community, and those questions will need to be answered. What the report found about housing - 2.34, for example, page 20 of the second volume - it said: "Inadequate housing is cited in numerous Education and Health and Social Services Department records as a reason for the admission of a child into care." 2.37: "The result was that by reason only of housing difficulties some children spent long periods in residential care, some of whom may have suffered abuse and deprivation." So this is not because they were being abused at home, as I said. There was no other sinister reason apart from the fact that there was substandard accommodation that put people into the care of the system because they were neglected, they were not being provided with adequate housing otherwise. Then that is where the problem started. That really is tragic. 2.39 says, which is a slightly strange comment: "Restrictive practices by landlords appear to have been a factor in the lack of accommodation for families. Even as late as 1988 some landlords on the Island adopted a no kids rule for let premises." Why even as late as 1988? Even as late as 2017 Deputies on this side and perhaps elsewhere in the Assembly were having to ask the Minister for Housing over the last 8 years, in fact, is it appropriate that we have a policy that says no kids? Will the Minister change it? Even as late as 2017. We are made to feel like we are the bad guys, and this is a theme that is going to come out during the debate. Those who raise their heads above the parapet and ask the difficult questions, be it inside this Assembly or outside, are made to feel like: "That is a bit strange, is it not?" What about rent control? We have raised the issue of rent control because the Island has such a difficult housing situation. We have raised the question about empty properties in the Island which are not being put to use, which could be used to house families on a controlled rent scheme, whether that be properties that are bought by the States or that are bought to be rented out. It is said: "We cannot

deal with that. We are only Government." I think the Government needs to start listening to ideas. I do not accept the fact that we need to have groupthink, and perhaps Deputy Mézec will deal with this later on. It becomes dangerous when we are all in a groupthink situation. But when a good idea comes up, when a problem is identified and over decades or years it is not being implemented, then I think it needs to be adopted by Ministers because I do not see any action. These problems remain the same. They are not historic. They are the same today. I will finish this part by saying I do welcome the swift action that the Chief Minister is taking on implementing the children's commissioner recommendation. I will put this delicately because I do not think this is a day for yah-boo politics or point scoring, but it has to be said that in 2009 a former Deputy of this Assembly, Paul Le Claire, did bring a proposition and amendment - I think it was via the Strategic Plan - saying implement a children's commissioner. This was in 2009. It is when we knew about the child abuse. It is when we knew that child protection was an issue. The current Chief Minister was not in the Assembly. I suspect he was away on States business because he was excused attendance. But other key Ministers, the corporate parents of the time, opposed that proposition and it was lost by 23 votes to 21. What that says to me is that there have been 8 years now where we could have had a children's commissioner. It has been proposed that a body is being set up, a working group of Ministers, who will no doubt comprise most of those Ministers because they remain the same. I do not need to name them; they know who they are and it is a matter of public record. But I would question whether or not it.. but it is good, better late than never. As I have said before, the best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago; the next best time to do it is now. But one has to question whether or not we are likely to see the fruit of that, and I hope we are. I would also like to see what is going to be done for vulnerable people generally. I am not proposing that we have a vulnerable persons commissioner, but I think it needs to be accepted that it is fine to look after children, absolutely right, but unless you are looking after the parents and those who are vulnerable, both through the income support system - which I think urgently needs to be uprated so that at least the drag that has taken place is put right - but we fundamentally look at how we look after the most vulnerable in our society but also the care package that we put around them. For example, was a social worker offered to every abuse survivor that came forward if they wanted one and, if not, why not? Do we know who those individuals are, like the person I named earlier? Do we know the struggles that they have on a daily basis? That was somebody who had the bravery and the support of a family network to be able to come forward and talk to some of their representatives and ultimately that got resolved fairly swiftly, although it was a regret that they should have had to have gone through that in the first place.

[10:30]

But how many people are struggling on a daily basis? They have no one to turn to and they do not have the emotional wherewithal to be able to cope with that. I would suggest that there are many in our society. I would also like the Council of Ministers now to firmly consider a wider Civil Service Ombudsman because when issues are identified, when there are problems in engaging with departments, it is important that there is also an independent person to go to because these issues and the departments are all interlinked.

2. Deputy R.G. Bryans of St. Helier :

As a Minister, I would like to say that I fully endorse what the Chief Minister said earlier and the idea that we use this Inquiry as a catalyst for change, but I would also like to credit Deputy Tadier for his resilience and tenacity, his compassion and empathy, in working with the care leavers to bring us to this point. All of us have now heard and read a vast amount of information about abuse being committed by members of our community, preying upon those who are the most vulnerable while in our care. All of us have found it difficult to comprehend that something so dreadful could happen around us without us being aware, and we feel the inherent guilt that comes from being ashamed because we simply did not do something. This Inquiry has gone some way to rectifying the wrongs committed by giving those people a voice, breaking the silence and secrecy that surrounds the abuse they have suffered, and getting some justice for what happened to them. This Inquiry, detailing decades of systemic abuse, has provided the opportunity to reveal the truth and bring the perpetrators to justice. This is an historical moment for the Island and a time for everyone to come together and say no to the abuse of children. The perpetrators of abuse must realise that children who have been abused grow to be adults and once they regain control of their lives will speak out against their abusers, who will be punished. They are saying what you did was wrong and you are no longer going to get away with it. We have heard the Chief Minister accept the findings and explain as a Government what we intend to do moving forward. As Minister for Education, I want to talk about what we as a department are doing now and our intentions for the future. It was Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, the retired senior judge who chaired the Cleveland child abuse inquiry in the late 1980s, who coined the phrase: "Listen to the children." For me, this is the key to unlocking further abuse. We must not only give every opportunity for a child to have a voice but for those voices to be heard, listened to and actions taken that resolve their fears. Forgive me for reading something of a list, but it is important that Members hear about some of the work Education has undertaken in the last few years to address those concerns. D.B.S. (Disclosure and Barring Service) checks: it is fair to say there has been a recent overhaul of the checks to identify if there are any gaps in the system, rectify that position and make sure checks and balances are in place for the future. I sit on and am a member of C.A.V.A., the Children and Vulnerable Adults

group that has recently at my request undergone a review to make sure that we not only have a clear oversight of the various groups that fall under our remit but that Ministers can hold members accountable for their actions. M.A.S.H., the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub, was started in 2013 and has proved to be a formidable tool in dealing with troubled children and vulnerable families. In June 2013, teachers worked on the task and standards of conduct and their commitment to safeguarding. Everyone now receives in-house training. In 2014 we introduced a safer recruitment policy, making sure, as an example, that detailed references and other sources are asked for and verified before a post is filled. We pioneered this. We have a policy review looking at dealings and allegations against employees of Education. R.P.I., the Restrictive Physical Intervention, the law is now lodged. Working with the unions, we are providing for all our staff, teaching teachers about physical intervention and restraint reduction, protecting both teachers and children alike. The Jersey Premium: this is the major education initiative to address disadvantage, already proving its value in giving the highest rate of additional funding to those children who need it most in the most effective way. In 2015 the Early Help Approach was started, creating a new collaborative pathway for helping families before the problems that they are experiencing get worse. Just last week we reached the culmination of a great deal of cross-departmental multi-agency work creating a set of documents, a template, that will help everyone and provide a clearer understanding of what help can be given and recorded and how to access that help. This year we committed to funding and introducing 6 new family support workers. For those who did not attend the last serious case review presentation, it was indicated there that the help now being provided by a family support worker was crucial in helping resolve the problem and rehabilitating the individual concerned. In terms of well-being and mental health, every school has one if not 2 E.L.S.A.s, emotional literacy support assistants, trained with specialist skills to spot the signs of problems early on and to give any child the opportunity to be heard by someone they can trust. It is an initiative developed and supported by educational psychologists who apply psychological knowledge of children's social and emotional development to particular areas of need and recognises that all children should be nurtured in accordance with their individual needs. Through the Medium Term Financial Plan, as the Chief Minister has already stated, we have committed substantial funding to the Y.E.S., the Youth Enquiry Service. Of all the projects to sit under the umbrella of the Youth Service, this is the one I have most keenly supported because it offers that direct contact for anyone who is lost or troubled and wants to be listened to. It is trust that lies at the heart of this service. Children know who have approached the Y.E.S. project that their trust is never broken and they will not be let down. The Youth Service has recently been trained in dealing with runaway children and works

closely alongside the police providing a crucial intervention for children and parents alike. Teachers on this Island are among the most highly trained professionals, who are closely attuned to the children in their care. They see them on a daily basis and act as first responders with their finely-tuned radar to spot problems early on and deal with them efficiently and effectively. It is in their D.N.A. (deoxyribonucleic acid). They understand that early intervention is crucial. The lessons we have learnt from the mistakes which have been made and resulted in children being subjected to the most horrific crimes is a necessary and solemn undertaking. We are committed to ensuring these mistakes are identified and never repeated. Like a lot of Members who are parents, and even for those who are not, we have found the devastating truth of what happened deeply disturbing, and I cannot imagine what it must have felt like as a child to have suffered mental and physical abuse and the awful depravity they were subjected to. I would suggest none of us can. The indelible mark of abuse cannot be erased or forgotten but we can, using our powers as politicians, make sure that this does not happen in the future. Realistically, I am aware that the task is almost impossible. Abuse in all its forms surrounds us daily. When you are abused you are stripped of any power and control and you find it hard to trust others. There are too many abusers out there, especially people in positions of power who feel they are above the law and can do what they want. But we can heighten the awareness, put in place opportunities for voices to be heard and act effectively when it is discovered. We can never draw a line under what has happened, but we

can as corporate parents face up to our responsibilities and make potential perpetrators aware that abuse will not be tolerated. It will be discovered and those who have abused will be held to account and justice will be served. I do not know how to stop someone abusing. They are usually suffering some kind of pain themselves provoking the abuse and trapped in a cycle that must seem limitless. I do not know how to teach people to be more compassionate or empathic in their lives so that they can appreciate what they are about to do and stop before it is too late, ruining their lives and the lives of others for generations. But that does not mean I cannot try and within our education system attempt to educate and eradicate abuse before it takes place. Finally, I want to assure the Assembly that while I am Minister for Education I will do everything in my power to create a caring, empathic, compassionate society that aims to eradicate abuse in all its forms and within our schools give our children the highest level of trust and respect they deserve. Within that environment not only will they be nurtured and thrive, but they will know we will have done all we can to protect them as if they were our own.

3. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier :

It is my intention to speak a number of times during this debate on different issues, so I am just going to concentrate on one at the very beginning. But before I do that, I also welcome the remarks made by the Chief Minister, what he said and what he proposes to do. However, they are many fine words and proposed initiatives but at the moment they are merely words and we need action. Now, I know he has indicated one action today or one or 2 actions today, but I agree with Winston Churchill. It is action this day. There is a lot more that can be done even today, and I am going to be calling upon the Chief Minister and the Minister for Health and Social Services to do something today which will prove their sincerity in what they are saying. Now, over the 9 years that I have been in the States I have pressed Ministers relentlessly or their departments where they have failed or attempted to cover up their failures and scandals. For example, I have repeatedly attacked the States of Jersey Police for their failings to properly investigate allegations of criminality and their downright obstruction of people seeking subject access requests to deal with their perceived wrongs and actual wrongs. I have attacked the Data Protection Commissioner and her staff for failing to hold the police to account for their data protection failures. Although constantly attacked by Ministers and others in this Assembly for bringing these things out in public, my attacks were vindicated in the recent Police Service of Northern Ireland report into the case of Mr. Roy Boschat and others, which found that police failed miserably in their compliance with the Data Protection Law. I was also one of a small number of Members who challenged the suspension of the former Chief of the States of Jersey Police, Graeme Power, which has been shown in the Care Inquiry's report to be based on a lie and lies. I and others in this Assembly and people outside the Assembly.. and I particularly want to mention former Senator Stuart Syvret, who was pilloried inside this Assembly and outside for bringing up and out into the open the abuse in the care system. His reputation was trashed. His beliefs caused.. I should say not only his beliefs but also the determination and his desire to get the matter out also caused him to be jailed for various periods of time, which I think is scandalous in itself. There are other former Members of the States who brought up the case of the various abuse that has happened. I would mention also former Deputy Bob Hill, who was relentless in trying to get the truth and to try and get justice for the abuse survivors. That also extends to former Deputy Daniel Wimberley and Trevor and Shona Pitman. These are the people who raised the issue and kept on going on about it and were vilified and people in this House stomping their feet when people attacked the fact that we were raising the issues. So, I pay tribute to them. So, it is not just me; I am just mentioning this as an example. We also fought for the Independent Care Inquiry into the abuses, which existing and former Members opposed, and there are still some in this Island who are not saying: "Yes, it is disgraceful what we have seen" and everything else, but they are going on about the cost of the Inquiry. They opposed it when they were in the States. We have the Inquiry and the first thing they do before the Inquiry

results are out is start talking about the millions that have been spent on it. There are also people still in this House who I think will oppose the measures being proposed by the Chief Minister, and I and others will be relentless in pointing that out to the public. They have failed people before; we have got to make sure we do not fail again. I have also raised in this Assembly the case of a family comprising of a mother and 2 children who have been engaged with the Department for Health and Social Services Department for 21 years. All 3 are autistic and all 3 have been failed by the Department for Health and Social Services throughout their time. Allegations of sexual, emotional and other abuse that was perpetrated while they were in the care of the state.

[10:45]

This particular family was not largely covered by the Care Inquiry report. Why? Because the abuse occurred just after the end period. I know I have raised this with the Chief Minister and these matters can be investigated, even though it is later, and I know the police are aware of these examples, but the people concerned have been so damaged by their experience at the moment they are not necessarily in a position to be interviewed by the police to get the facts. That is how badly they have been treated. I got involved with this family I think it was 4 or so years ago and I was called by the mother and asked to go to Orchard House where her daughter was being assessed. She had been sectioned. The purpose of my going was because she could not cope with all the professionals. You get about 6 doctors or specialists all around, and they were just overwhelmed by it. I went along and I was disturbed by what I heard from the doctors concerned. The young lady concerned needed specialist treatment in the U.K. They were going to approach her about going to the U.K. but at that time we were at the height of all the spending cuts. I asked how much it was going to cost for this person to go to the U.K. establishment where they thought she could receive help. It was £200,000 per year. At that time we were watching every penny and the question I asked was: "Have you got the funding?" They said no. I said: "Well, why are you actually going to the girl and saying: Will you go to the U.K.?' and what happens if you do not get the money? She is going to be let down again" as she has been let down many, many times by these people. I was so disgusted I said: "I want to go and see the Minister." I left the building. I had only met the mother that day and she was handing over documents, papers that she had. One of the doctors went by as we were having this discussion outside the institution, and she could see the papers being handed over and so on. What happened? There was a phone call made from Orchard House, or somewhere else, to one of the senior people in the Department for Health and Social Services and they raced down to Orchard House to see the girl, who they had never met before and said to her: "Do you want Deputy Higgins seeing your records?" A number of points: Firstly, I had not met the girl. Her mother had not had a chance to tell her that she asked me to try and help her and the family. Secondly, the person concerned had never met her either. He went straight down; a senior official of the Department for Health and Social Services goes straight down to Orchard House and says: "Do you want Deputy Higgins to have your records?" I had not even asked for them at that point. What does that show you about the openness and transparency of our civil servants, or some of our civil servants? All I can say is, it just shows the Jersey way: there is obviously something there, cover it up. I might add, others who have been involved with this case since that time also believe there is something being kept behind, and certainly the abuse part of it is part of what I think is being kept behind. In addition to this, a social worker offered the vulnerable mother a meeting and then did not deliver it. This has gone on, and I have been trying to get a meeting between the social worker concerned and this vulnerable woman to find out why the meeting was offered and never took place. Since that time, I have had all sorts of obstructions put in my way. To give you examples, I was told: "The social worker is afraid of this vulnerable woman." I said: "What is the problem? I will go with the vulnerable woman, the head of the department can go with her, no problem." "No, we cannot do it." In this House, some of you may remember when I raised with the current Minister for Health and Social Services, Senator Green,

about the fact that the health officials were saying that their duty of care to their staff was greater than the duty of care that they had to the people they are supposed to be helping, the vulnerable people of this Island. In addition to that, the current head of the Children's Service wrote a letter to me when I was seeking a message, and the letter was highly defamatory, in my opinion. I would love to put it to a court because I think it was damning. The lady concerned who I had been helping was accused of  harassment, of harassing the social worker  at work, at her  home; of harassing the social worker's family; of harassing her on social media. I asked the Head of the Children's Service to justify the remarks that she had made in her letter, or apologise. I did not get an immediate response, so I sent an email. I basically said: "Either produce the evidence you had when you wrote the letter you had, which you should have had if you were going to write this sort of letter you have, or are you manufacturing the evidence?" Lo and behold I get a letter back first of all saying: "I stand by everything I said in the letter with the exception of the harassment at her home." Then what happens? The police get involved. The social worker, after my complaints about the defamatory statements and the allegations which were false, goes to the police and makes an allegation of harassment. The police came down, and fortunately for this lady I also managed to get a Legal Aid lawyer who was very good in this particular case. The police came down to her office. We pointed out to them what was going on and we asked: "When was the harassment claim made?" After I had made the statement about: "Produce your evidence or are you manufacturing it?" The police statement contains nothing really to substantiate anything that was there. For example, the harassment at her home was a statement made by this vulnerable woman: "I know where you live." Well she does know where she lives. Her harassment of her children is not even mentioned in the police statement. The harassment on social media was a statement that: "I have seen your Facebook." We have a situation where I have been trying to get this matter dealt with and I have been opposed repeatedly. I am still being opposed. Certain documentation from the

Department for Health and Social Services: I know that the Minister, I will give him his due on this one, recently said that I should be entitled to see information that the law officers have been withholding or have withheld for over a year. What I am trying to say is: we talk about historical abuse, we have a case at the present time which to me has to be dealt with now. I am fed up of being fobbed off, basically obstructed, constantly, over. I say that if the Chief Minister is serious about what he is saying and if the Minister for Health and Social Services is serious about what he is saying, this case will be addressed immediately. All information that has been withheld regarding the whole family history in care which the family and the children have all consented to be released, be released. I also say there should be an investigation into the defamatory statements that were made and the cover up and the constant delays. I am talking about a letter that was written in March last year and still we do not have it dealt with one way or another. I am saying that the Jersey way still exists, that criticism of abuse, whether it be emotional or sexual or whatever, is still being covered up at the present time. We need to get an open and transparent system, as the Chief Minister says we are going to have, and I challenge him now, and the Minister for Health and Social Services, be open and transparent on this case. Let us get it resolved; 4 years is far too long.

4. Connétable M.P.S. Le Troquer of St. Martin :

I am pleased that I signed the request asking for the in committee debate to be held today. I do not believe the debate is too soon, because it is likely to be one of many that we will have in the coming weeks, months and probably years; probably into the composition of the next Assembly. I have to tell you, simply, that I have not completely finished reading the 3 books yet, the volumes, but I have tried. I congratulate, and I think that is probably the wrong word, but commend the Inquiry team. I think there is one issue that can be laid to rest from the very beginning, that it was independent. I also thank the Chief Minister. I thanked the Chief Minister from the onset that he has supported this Inquiry, despite the concerns of the cost of the Inquiry, what it would achieve. His persistence has carried on and I welcome his immediate response this morning. The documents will be read many times over, I am quite sure. Some areas will be referred to many times, some will be part of the focus of reference. Of course, it is difficult to absorb everything; 1,000 pages spanning 70 years and trying to put something together to speak this morning in this debate. There has been much reaction already. We have had the Chief Minister's statement on Tuesday; the extensive media reports, which have been thorough; the interviews that have been thorough throughout this week; statements from 2 Members of the Assembly earlier in the week, and today's in committee debate. I am sure there are many issues that will come out as we re-read the report. I think the question raised by the Deputy of Grouville on Tuesday was unanswered, unfortunately, because there was a lack of time. It was probably the crux of the matter and one of the most important. What went wrong? That is answered in the report. Ensure that it does not happen again. We should be addressing that in many ways, in different ways, over the coming years, and very shortly by the sounds of this morning's Chief Minister's address. The Deputy 's question: "Why did it go wrong, who is still answerable?" Those answers never came out because we ran out of time and maybe the Deputy might be bringing those again today. It is not those who abuse children; they are criminals, we all know that. They are criminals. But who failed to address it? Many are no longer with us and will not be answerable, sadly. It is difficult to read the documents and speak in this debate today because there are so many aspects spanning over such a long period. There are 3 areas I just want to make comment on if I can? The Jersey way: I understand the comments that have been made regarding the Jersey way and of the interpretation that some people have put on it, and I thoroughly agree. There is no place for that definition and those people's interpretation of the conduct. They are absolutely correct. That conduct must never take place. It should never have taken place. It is illegal too; it is corrupt. Of course, I also have, and many others do, my definition of the "Jersey way". What the report states is the maintenance of proud and ancient traditions and the preservation of Island's way of life. Totally. Of our welcome, how I see it, to people from different communities. The French community; me: my great-great grandparents coming over to the Island. The welcome to the Italians and then later the Welsh, Scott ish, Portuguese, and more recently the Polish, and of course many others. Our welcome to them: that is the Jersey way. The Jersey way is those living on the Island, giving of their time, supporting others, their communities, the many charities. Supporting their neighbours. The Jersey way. The Parishes maintaining their unique individuality, but at the same time trying to support their parishioners. An Island that continually tries to make things better for all, and the hospitality and warmth we extend to others who come over to our community, and the sadness when they leave. I am sure that there is a Jersey way that many have referred to in the past when talking of this Jersey way, and on the other, the darker side, the other Jersey way referred to by some. I will quite happily stand at the front of the queue with a banner calling for the stop, and for heads to roll. If we are to seek to have a new Jersey way, which is inside the report, I think it is one that we already know and love and one that I think of when people have referred to it in the past, but it has been taken out of context. I am just sorry that others have had experiences of what is not the Jersey way, but one that is wrong and that one is corrupt, criminal, illegal and to be deplored. I was very concerned to read some of the comments within the report that indicated that in some management of our system, problems continue to exist to this time. That is still noted in the report now; we still have trouble, we still have problems and it is right through to this current time, even while the Inquiry was taking place. That has to be wrong. I will not speak long on that, because that is going to be addressed, I am quite sure of it, but it must worry the Chief Minister and the Council of

Ministers, and has to be addressed immediately. The third issue I would like to touch on is the Haut de la Garenne complex and the recommendations to demolish the building. Members will know that the complex is in my Parish. Today is not the day that we are going to be making decisions about its future, but if I can just make Members aware of a few points and just tell them that, during this debate, because people will be listening and it has already made a lot of media comment for both sides, we know that the building has not been used for a couple of decades as a children's home. It has been used for the States police for training purposes; the firearms team, I believe, used it; search teams used it. It has been used as a depot for military bands when the military bands used to come over the Island was able to put them up; the Department for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture put them up in hotels, and that stopped because of the cost. Then they went to Wesley Grove Chapel and sat there for the week. That is when we used to have military bands in Howard Davis Park every night. Then they eventually, because of cost, ended up in Haut de la Garenne. I have searched it many times as a police search officer. For those that do not know it, it is being used as an activity centre, an accommodation unit, and is fast- growing. It has not been an empty site. We, as Members, were all invited to attend Haut de la Garenne, I think it was last year. I went up; some of us took the opportunity to visit it.

[11:00]

We have a local firm trying to establish a business which recently applied for and was granted a liquor licence as well for their guests. Many people would have wished not to take on a project, but an entrepreneur has tried it and he has taken it on, and it is successful. I have just obtained some of the information, and I know we are not making a decision today, but just to let Members know and the public know. In 2016 they sold 7,500 bed/nights, which roughly equates to 3,500 visitors to the centre. The majority were school trips from the U.K., Guernsey, France, totalling around 50 schools. We have had visiting sports teams staying there, giving local sports groups additional competition. They were host for Team Minorca at the last Island Games. Two teams from France and Italy for the European Touch Rugby Tournament stayed there. Seven local schools on adventure activities. Le Rocquier, Grainville, Mont a l'Abbe, St. Michael's, Beaulieu, Victoria College, and Haute Vallée. The local brownies, cubs, beavers and rangers groups use it. It hosts the Annual European Dog Agility Show with visitors from 9 different European countries. In 2017 so far, 17 children's birthday parties have been held there, 35 outside catering events are scheduled. The indications of the 7,500 beds from last year is set to increase in 2017. The centre has 9 members of staff, 3 of whom live on site. It provides £5,500 business to Jersey Heritage in entrance fees, a greater figure for the local coach company for coach transfers, cleaning contracts to local companies and laundry arrangements to local companies. As you can imagine, and Members can imagine, their worries and, of course, their loss, should the building be razed to the ground. I think it is fair that we should reflect on this situation and the worries for those who are now benefiting. I just wanted Members to be aware and the public to be aware that when we do move forward, we can look at the other side for the Haut de la Garenne complex. I do not want to belittle anything that took place in the past, but razing it to the ground, and I do not think we can compare, and I am still reading the report but I know of the incidents at Haut de la Garenne, but you cannot compare it to the Fred and Rosemary West building in the U.K. I am not making light of that now. There is light at the end of the tunnel; the persistence of Members over the past 6 years and longer, and with the proposition from the former Senator Le Gresley for an independent inquiry and other Members, and despite the cost. I can remember my speech, in fact I looked it up this morning, of March 2013 suggesting to the Chief Minister that the £6 million was likely to be exceeded and possibly doubled. Then later, at this Assembly, Members will remember that we had to move to the Town Hall because of the fire alarm, and we continued and authorised further money to be put into the fund for this Inquiry to continue. I think it was the persistence of the Chief Minister, and I congratulate him this morning on his speech. It was only 2 weeks ago we were standing in this Assembly with a no confidence vote against him. The Chief Minister has asked if I would sit on the proposed advisory panel. He asked me yesterday. I am very pleased, and that is probably the wrong word, to accept that invitation. I hope I can offer something to that forum, despite the comments that I have said this morning, and none of them this morning are meant to be negative; I am trying to be positive. I was excited, and that is probably the wrong word too, last night to be

part of this corporate parenting, and I did attend those presentations that were given to the new States Members in 2011, 2012 on corporate parenting. Some Members and some of the public may think I am conflicted because of the group. It will be looking to achieve the recommendations and not investigate incidents of the past; that has been done. I am now looking forward to the future. I do not believe I am conflicted, despite these comments I have made today. The other things I should tell the Assembly, and I am sure the Members know, I was a police officer in the States Police for 30 years and my knowledge of a good police officer.. and I am very sorry for Deputy Higgins' comments about the police. You have different people in all walks of life, but my knowledge and my experience of police officers is that they want convictions; they do not want to turn a blind eye to things, especially the abuse of children. We have seen different policing methods, how policing methods have changed. Members will recall the way investigations were carried out throughout police forces and the change that you saw in rape investigations following the Thames Valley documentary on how they used to treat victims. You may think I am conflicted because on my retirement from the police force I worked for the Prosecution Service at the Town Hall for nearly 9 years before becoming Connétable , and that was after my retirement. I was there when some of the decisions were made whether or not to prosecute some of the offenders, alleged offenders, at that time, which had not gone to court. They would come to the Prosecution Service for the attention of the Duty Centenier. The other grounds on which people may think I am conflicted: I lived in the grounds, in a flat, a little house, at the Sacre Coeur for 25 years, from the age of one until I got married. I grew up and I played with those children at the Sacre Coeur Orphanage throughout that time. Many were friends; I still see some of them all that time. The difference was I went home in the evening to my loving parents, to their house. They were in the orphanage. Times were different to that time but never once did one make a complaint to me; I did not know what was going on behind the scenes. I do not think I am conflicted because I want to put this behind everything. I want to move forward. As I said, I really appreciate the Chief Minister asking me to be on the advisory panel and to bring out the recommendations. I recalled something last night; some Members will remember the Desiderata and I wrote out the Desiderata the year I got married. You will find it online, probably. At the end of it I wrote it out, because it