Minister for Health and Social Services - dismissal

STATES OF JERSEY

r

MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES: DISMISSAL

Lodged au Greffe on 28th August 2007 by the Chief Minister

STATES GREFFE

PROPOSITION

THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion

in a c cordance with Article  21(4) of the States of Jersey Law 2005, to dismiss Senator Stuart Syvret as

Minister for Health and Social Services.

CHIEF MINISTER

Note: In accordance with the requirements of Article  21 of the States of Jersey Law 2005 –

(a ) th e Minister for Health and Social Services was given the opportunity to be heard by the other

Ministers;

(b ) th e majority of those Ministers gave their agreement to the lodging of this proposition on 23rd

August 2007;

(c ) th e reasons for dismissal are set out in the accompanying report.

REPORT

1. INTRODUCTION

The States of Jersey Law requires that this Proposition has to be lodged in the name of the Chief Minister with the support of the majority of Ministers. I confirm I have that support and that the proposition is supported by all Ministers with the exception of the Minister for Home Affairs, who considers herself to be conflicted, and the Minister for Health and Social Services.

It is with real regret and a sense of sadness and indeed of failure that I bring it to the States. I had hoped and believed that the Council of Ministers would see out its term of office intact and as a team. However, recent events dictate that is not to be, and I have no alternative other than to propose the removal of Senator Syvret as Minister for Health and Social Services. I am doing so entirely due to the Minister's conduct in recent weeks, which is not conducive to the standards I expect from a Minister, clearly breaches the Ministerial Code of Conduct, has undermined his ability to function as Health Minister, and which last but by no means least, has put children more at risk today than they were previously.

Throughout his Ministerial term of office, I have worked hard with and in support of the Health Minister and I have tried at all times to ensure that his well-known individualistic views and policies could be reconciled with those of his Ministerial colleagues and that we could all work together to bring forward and to implement those policies we believe to be in the best interests of the Island. Unfortunately his behaviour and actions of late are not in keeping with the role and responsibilities of a Minister and in my view and that of my Ministerial colleagues it is no longer possible for him to remain in his Ministerial position.

At the request of a majority of the Council of Ministers, I asked him to resign but he refused and stated that he will fight to remain in his position. The Ministers' letter and the Council of Ministers' statement which preceded it are at Appendices 1 and 2.

This is extremely disappointing, particularly as it is all so unnecessary, and could have been avoided had the Minister followed the due process agreed by the States – to which he signed up and to which I urged him to adhere. The right way to ensure that services are as effective as possible would have been to work together with me, his Ministerial colleagues and the other concerned parties to investigate his concerns. Instead he chose, without furnishing any specific substantiated evidence of current failure, to launch into a series of vitriolic attacks on the Jersey Child Protection Committee, CAMHS, child care professionals, the Civil Service generally, his fellow Ministers, and many others.

This included a statement that "my initial response is to sack everyone who works there [CAMHS] and close it down".

This despite asserting in his e-mail of 8th August that: "I am not aware of any immediate danger to a child at this moment".

It should be firmly noted that Senator Syvret has been either President of the Health Committee or Minister for 7  years and 8 months, and prior to these sweeping criticisms and condemnations appears to have taken little if any action to correct the structural and individual failings he has now so publicly and so damagingly alleged. Indeed I have been surprised to learn that during this time he appears to have had little direct involvement with Social work staff or services.

The Minister has also been found to have breached the Data Protection Law by disclosing excessive personal data in an e-mail. Another matter is also being investigated.

This is not only unacceptable performance and behaviour by a Minister, it has resulted, more seriously, in the break-down of his relationships with his fellow Ministers, his Assistant Minister, some senior Managers within the Health and Social Services Department and those who deliver our essential child care services. This in turn has created a serious lack of trust, lowered morale, demotivated staff and without question harmed the provision of child care in Jersey now and into the future. Some staff are traumatised by these attacks and allegations, to which they have no right of response and some are known to be considering other employment. Sadly and of the most serious concern, children are more at risk today, as a result of the Minister's actions, than they were previously.

This requires the most urgent action and that is why the Council of Ministers considered a proposition to dismiss him at its meeting of 23rd August. Senator Syvret chose not to attend the meeting saying that he had not been given sufficient time to prepare his argument. The Council of Ministers considered this carefully and considered that it is in the best interests of Health and Social Services and particularly its vulnerable clients and patients that the current period of controversy and uncertainty is brought to an end as soon as possible. It is important to note that it was the Minister's action in summarily sacking the Chair of the JCPC, without any consultation with his fellow corporate parents or other Ministerial colleagues, and without following any of the due processes to which he had freely and enthusiastically signed up, that initially led the Deputy Chief Minister and I to call a special meeting. Ministers felt it is of the greatest importance that the States should be given the opportunity to judge the Minister's actions at the earliest possible date and to have the opportunity to decide whether or not he is now fit to continue  in  office..  The  meeting  therefore  had  to  be  held  before  midday  on  24th  August in  order  for  the proposition to be lodged in time for debate at the first States meeting on 11th September.

The States of Jersey Law requires that, before I can lodge a dismissal Proposition, the Minister be given the opportunity to be heard by the other Ministers and that a majority of Ministers give their agreement to lodging this proposition. Having taken legal advice and consulted with colleagues I am satisfied that I have complied with the requirements of the Law.

STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT The Report is broken down into sections as follows –

BACKGROUND

REASONS FOR PROPOSING THE MINISTER'S DISMISSAL BREAKDOWN IN RELATIONS WITH A WIDE RANGE OF PEOPLE

UNDERMINING THE CHILD PROTECTION ARRANGEMENTS AND THEREBY INCREASING THE RISK TO VULNERABLE CHILDREN

IMPROPER USE OF INFORMATION AND PASSING CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION TO THIRD PARTIES

FAILING TO FOLLOW THE AGREED PROCESS FOR MAKING MINISTERIAL DECISIONS BULLYING AND HARASSMENT OF STAFF VIA THREATENING AND ABUSIVE E-MAILS BEHAVIOUR UNBECOMING OF A MINISTER

BREACHING THE CODE OF CONDUCT FOR MINISTERS

CONCLUSION

2. BACKGROUND

1. 3-Stage review

The over-riding concern of the Council of Ministers is the protection of Jersey's children, which comes before all else in this matter. The Council has therefore decided that there should be an independent professional review of child protection which  should, if the States agree, lead to a full Committee of Inquiry. The intention is a 3-stage review.

As the first stage the Deputy Chief Minister has written to the Chair of the JCPC with 21  questions relating to a specific case, which are set out in Appendix  3. The H&SS Minister's action in sacking the current Chair has undermined this process. However, officers are working to produce the answers as soon as possible. These will feed directly into the second stage.

The  second  stage,  which  has  now  been  commissioned,  is  to  undertake  a  thorough,  independent  and professionally-led investigation into the standards, structure and performance of the child protection arrangements in Jersey. It is imperative that the current uncertainty is ended and any improvements implemented as soon as possible. An independent and highly qualified person, Andrew Williamson CBE has agreed to undertake the review. He has commenced his initial enquiries and expects to report within 3  months. His CV and the terms of reference are at Appendix  4. In order to identify an appropriate person, Lord Laming was contacted and he has given us his advice. Lord Laming was the U.K.'s Chief Inspector of Social Services and undertook amongst other reviews the Climbié enquiry, investigating the circumstances surrounding the death of Victoria Climbié in the U.K. This is regarded as a very significant milestone in the modern development of practice in child protection.

The third stage will be, if the States agree, a Committee of Inquiry, which could draw upon and benefit from the work of the 2nd stage independent review.

The proposed 3-stage enquiry should ensure that this most serious issue is handled openly and as quickly and thoroughly as possible. We have to ensure, without any delay, that our standards of child care are professional, robust and up to the standards we expect. Then we need to begin the urgent task of re-building confidence amongst our staff, and more importantly amongst our vulnerable children and their parents.

The Minister has refused to support this approach, indicating that he will bring forward his own proposals for a Committee of Inquiry. The Council of Ministers do not agree this one-stage approach, particularly as it is unlikely it could begin work until October at the earliest or report for anything up to a year or more. The allegations made by the Minister are far too serious to be left uninvestigated for any longer than necessary.

2. Senator Syvret'sinvolvement with SocialServices

The Senator has had senior political responsibility for these functions for 7  years and 8 months. The Council o Ministers was concerned to note the comments of the recently sacked Chair of the Jersey Child Protection Committee that the Minister has not set foot in the Social Services Department during nearly 8  years in charge of it.

Enquiries have confirmed that he has not visited the new Greenfields Secure Unit, although he is one of the 3  Ministers  (together  with  those  of  Education,  Sport  and  Culture  and  Home  Affairs)  who  hold  political responsibility for the Children's Executive Service.

No one can remember him having visited any of the Children's Homes in recent years. The only visit that can be recalled is to Heathfield around 2002, following the publication of the Kathie Bull Report. He had not visited the homes prior to that date. He has received regular invitations to visit the homes, particularly following the implementation of changes recommended by Kathie Bull.

Managers cannot remember any time that the Minister made contact for discussion, or visited teams or units in the child protection or child care area. In recent times a vision for the future of the Children's Service has been developed, summarising substantial plans for change and improvement. The Minister received details of this in the form of a presentation e-mailed to him some 2 to 3  months ago, together with an invitation to discuss the data presented  and  the  ideas  in  development.  The  Minister  was  ill  at  the  time,  but  known  to  be  in  e-mail communication on a number of issues regarding other parts of the Department. He did not respond then nor has he sought a discussion on his return to work. This is consistent with his lack of response to many previous such invitations and requests.

3. Formally raising concerns

Since the advent of Ministerial Government in December 2005, the Minister has not raised any of these issues formally at any Council of Ministers meetings, nor with me as the Chief Minister.

I have asked the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers whether he is aware of any formal concerns and he has responded as follows –

" I h a ve not heard of any formal concerns, before the current set of e mails. When I first became aware of the Minister's allegations I took urgent steps to assure myself that services for at-risk children were safe. As Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers and as Head of Paid Service, I called the Chief Officer of the Health and Social Services Department to account and asked him a number of formal questions about these services. I asked him if the Minister had raised any individual cases with him which he (the Chief Officer) had, for whatever reason, failed to pursue. The Chief Officer's response was "no".

A s I pursued this course of questioning, the Chief Officer of the Health and Social Services Department

said that when he (the Chief Officer) had himself become aware of the Minister's stated concerns about at-risk children he asked the Minister two questions on two separate occasions.

T h e first question was, "Do you know of any child who is not receiving a competent service from our

Department?". The Minister said; "No" in reply.

T h e second question was, "Do you have information which you are withholding which, if given to me, would allow me to make the lives of a child or children better?" The Minister said, "No" in reply."

3. REASONS FOR PROPOSING THE MINISTER'S DISMISSAL

The report explains the reasons for proposing the Minister's dismissal, which are in essence that the Minister's behaviour, correspondence and comments have breached the Code of Conduct for Ministers in a number of respects and are destabilising child protection arrangements to the point where the risk is increased that vulnerable children may fail to receive the support and protection that they deserve and which the law requires.

In more detail the reasons are summarised below and explained in the following sections. Reasons for proposing the dismissal of Senator Syvret as Minister of Health and Social Services

1. B r eakdownin relations with a widerangeofpeople –

• The Council of Ministers

• His Assistant Minister

• Senior Managers within the Health and Social Services Department

• Staff engaged in Social Work and Child Protection

• Chair and members of the Jersey Child Protection Committee (JCPC)

• Public service workforce

2. U n derminingthe Child Protection arrangements and thereby increasing the riskto vulnerable children by –

• unfairly attacking staff leading to –

– lo w m orale

– e m p l oyment problems

– si c k n ess, stress, etc.

• unfairly undermining the reputation of child protection arrangements –

– w i th out providing substantiated current evidence for his assertions

– b y m aking extreme allegations and threatening statements.

• summarily sacking the Chairman of JCPC, without any consultation with his fellow Ministers, and undermining the important role of the Committee.

• failing to recognise that past problems have been openly addressed and improvements made.

3. Im  proper use of information and breachingtheData Protection Law.

• The JCPC has complained that the Minister had breached the Data Protection Law in an e-mail. The Data Protection Commissioner has determined that the personal data disclosed was excessive and has breached the 3rd Data Protection principle.

• The Minister has passed a copy of a personal file to a third party and that is also under investigation by the Data Protection Commissioner. It has in any event breached the States policy

on the management of personal files.

4. F a iling to follow the agreed process formakingministerialdecisionsandrefusing to identify the sources of advice onwhich he relied when making a decision.
5. B u llyingandHarassmentof staff viathreatening and abusive e-mails.
6. B ehaviour unbecoming to a Minister in terms of the language contained in internal and external communications.
7. B r eaching the CodeofConduct for Ministers which specifically requires Ministersnottocommitmanyof the foregoing acts.

Each of these reasons is explained in detail in the following sections.

4. BREAKDOWN IN RELATIONS WITH A WIDE RANGE OF PEOPLE

A Minister requires the support of his political colleagues, staff and a range of other people and agencies if he is to perform effectively. Senator Syvret has lost the support of a wide range of people and without this support he will not be able to continue to function as a Minister.

1. TheCouncilofMinisters

A majority of the Council stated in their letter of 27th July 2007 (Appendix  1) that they no longer had confidence in his ability to remain a member of the Council of Ministers. They went on to state –

" W e have regrettably come to this conclusion in the light of, amongst other comments, Senator Syvret's Statement in an email circulated to Ministers that "I will just have to regard the Council of Ministers as another obstacle and distraction against which I have to fight in order to protect children.."

T h is comment was made despite the Council of Ministers clear statement that the protection of children in

Jersey is its primary concern and following its announcement that it is launching immediate enquiries into child

care structures and standards in Jersey.

H  is comments demonstrate that Senator Syvret has no respect for or confidence in, his ministerial

colleagues.

Since then the Minister has continued to write comments which reinforce his lack of respect for other Ministers. The following are a few extracts from e-mails sent by the Minster to the Council of Ministers. There are others –

" Y o u have by this demonstrated the validity of my original criticism that the CoM was an obstacle in the path of achieving higher standards in child welfare and child protection in Jersey."

And –

" Y o u say that you and other Ministers are "disgruntled" – I assume with my various public comments in defence of my enquiries into child protection matters. I am afraid – as even the most brief of acquaintances with the evidence shows – the CoM has been the author of its own misfortune. I have raised legitimate questions in respect of child welfare and child protection. Instead of supporting my efforts to deal with these deficiencies, you have – to the profound detriment of children in Jersey – sided with your good friend Iris Le Feuvre, who in turn is siding with her friend (Directorate manager, Social Services). Or perhaps it's the decayed and fly-blown façade of the Jersey judiciary you seek to protect? Amongst which numbers a man who attempted to humiliate and intimidate child victims of abuse into dropping their claims sits – without irony – in judgment upon a Constable who had the misfortune to have a paedophile in his police force.

It i s p retty tragic that – in the year 2007 – old Jersey insularities and networks can still trigger this kind of

behaviour. What kind of behaviour? Let this e-mail from you stand as a prime exhibit. You make precisely zero attempt to engage with or address child protection concerns. Instead it's just diversionary attacks on me, and the establishment asserting – once again – its monopoly of power. You and some of your colleagues in the States might still be deluding yourselves that its still 1982 and your power is as that of 'masters of the universe' (Tom Wolfe, Bonfire of the Vanities. I know you guys don't read, but really, this book would be quite an apposite introduction to materialistic hubris.) Well, it's 2007 now, and being a good Methodist or knowing a few funny handshakes will not persuade the external world into believing that the probably preventable rape of children is less important than "creating distress amongst a wide group of staff and undermining their moral and effectiveness."

Also –

" I  ta k e it from this letter that if an actual child murder were to take place in jersey when many sectors of the child protection apparatus could have intervened, but didn't – you will, perhaps be ready to shoulder responsibility".

2. Assistant Minister

Deputy Celia Scott Warr en, Assistant Minister for Health and Social Services, resigned her post on 17th August. The reason she states is "that I feel I can no longer give my support to the Minister for Health and Social Services, due to recent events". The Assistant Minister had been very loyal to her Minister and had been standing in for the Minister during his extended absence recovering from a medical procedure.

She has  most certainly not deserved the  criticisms, which she refutes, made by the Minister in the  media following her resignation.

3. Health andSocialServicesManagement

The Departmental Management Team has fully supported the Minister in all aspects of his work. Recent events have put increasing strain on this relationship. If the current pressure created by the Minister were to continue, the Management Team and other senior managers would be unable to continue to effectively manage the Department and serve the Minister's policy requirements. Inevitably something would fail and there would either be an increased risk to patients and clients, or the Minister would find himself unsupported on policy matters.

4. Staff engaged in SocialWorkandparticularlyChildProtection

The Minister has written confidential e-mails to many staff and open e-mails to a wider circulation and all States Members. In them he questions the ability of individual or groups of staff. The comments are known by staff, who are increasingly affected and concerned by the Minister's attacks. A very small selection of the Minister's comments serves to show what staff are facing –

" W h a t has to be described as grossly inadequate performance of the entire child protection apparatus in Jersey."

" C o u ld someone please explain to me precisely what the purpose of CAMHS is and give me a good reason why I should continue to spend taxpayer's money on it? Reading this review, my initial response is to sack everyone who works there and close it down."

"  . Ineffectuality, defensiveness, incompetence, collusion and stagnant culture of mutual support within the Jersey Civil Service."

These comments are the made more difficult to reconcile when the Minister then makes conflicting statements such as –

" F i rs tly, let me repeat again my well-documented view that the vast majority of staff in Health & Social Services do an excellent job."

" I a m not aware of any immediate danger to a child at this moment."

5. Chair and membersoftheJerseyChildProtectionCommittee

Former Connétable Iris Le Feuvre was appointed to Chair the Jersey Child Protection Committee by the Health and Social Services Committee, after consultation with the  Education, Sport and Culture Committee and the Home Affairs Committee. In a 13-page letter sent to all States Members on 15th August the Minister sacked Mrs.  Le  Feuvre. The 13-page letter reiterates very strongly the criticisms of the Child Protection Arrangements, but does not cite any evidence for these deficiencies. One of the main reasons given is that Mrs.  Le  Feuvre a Chairman has put her name to a letter written by an officer of whom Senator Syvret is critical.

I have asked Mrs. Le Feuvre who was the author of the letter. She has confirmed that although she consulted with and received input from, members of the JCPC, she was the author of the letter sent on behalf of the JCPC, in which it was stated that the Committee has no confidence in his (the Health Minister's) ability to hold political responsibility for this critical area of service". The JCPC letter is Appendix 5 and the Minister's letter Appendix 6.

The Chief Officer of Health's advice to the Minister is at Appendix 7. He advised that the Minister should not dismiss Mrs. Le Feuvre for a number of reasons amongst these is that"such a decision to dismiss will add crisis' into the system to quote (the Consultant Paediatrician's) advice to me this morning and will be a distraction' (I cannot think of a better term) from the substantive work of the committee itself."

The role of the JCPC is to bring together the relevant statutory and non-statutory authorities to ensure that the arrangements made for the most vulnerable of children is of the highest standard and to ensure that – through "joined up" working – gaps in service between the agencies may be avoided to reduce the risk of vulnerable children being seriously damaged. Whilst staff and agencies will continue to work together if the JCPC becomes ineffective there is a significant gap in the Child Protection Arrangements that must be filled or children will continue to be at greater risk.

The Minister has not brought forward any evidence of failure by the Jersey Child Protection Committee, other than to criticise it for reacting to his e-mails.

6. Public service workforce

The Minister's criticisms have been widely circulated and sometimes set out in extremely pejorative terms. They have been aimed at a wide range of staff from different professions and organisations.

The Civil Service Staff Association has written to the Chief Minister and agreed that their letter could be referred to PPC for consideration under the States Bullying and Harassment Policy. The letter was subsequently reported in the JEP and is at Appendix  8.

Public services depend upon the staff who work in and provide those services. No employer can deliver services effectively and efficiently without the commitment and motivation of its staff. At the end of 2006 the States conducted a confidential staff survey and there was serious concern when it reported that only 8% of staff believe that politicians within the States of Jersey support their staff, and only19% believe they are treated with fairness and respect by politicians. The approach adopted by the Minister is clearly undermining this trust still further.

It is fashionable in some quarters to deride and demean the work of and contribution to the Island made by Civil Servants and other public sector employees. However, it is a fact that the States of Jersey is well served by its staff and unless it is proven that an individual or individuals have under-performed or been negligent, they deserve and need the support of States members.

No group of employees should be subjected to the attacks made upon them by Senator Syvret in recent weeks – particularly when they have no right of reply, and no group of employees can be expected to perform at a consistently high level when they are demotivated and threatened by a politician, particularly one of the influence and position of the Minister.

There are proper processes to address poor performance and they should be followed. If there is evidence that a person's work has been sub-standard, they have been negligent, malicious or displayed otherwise detrimental behaviour, they are subject to strict sanctions up to and including dismissal and the States Employment Board insists that these are applied properly and conscientiously.

It is worthy of note that the Chairman of the Staff Side has stated that it is the first time in 20  years that the Civil Service Forum has written to complain about a politician in this way.

5. UNDERMINING THE CHILD PROTECTION ARRANGEMENTS AND THEREBY INCREASING THE RISK TO VULNERABLE CHILDREN

The Minister's conduct and behaviour is undermining services in such a way that it is increasing the risk to vulnerable children. This behaviour is unacceptable to the Council of Ministers.

Social Work and child protection work are extremely complex and demanding. Workers across all agencies engage with some of the most vulnerable members of society, in environments where challenging behaviour is the norm and where abusers (and sometimes victims) will do everything they can to avoid detection. Staff face heavy workloads, high levels of stress and are always vulnerable to criticism and complaint. Numerous high profile cases (probably most notably the Climbié enquiry led by Lord Laming in the U.K.) whilst highlighting specific deficiencies have served to hone practice and procedures, to achieve continuous improvement and identify good models and practice to protect vulnerable clients and improve their life chances. Jersey's arrangements and practices were designed to reflect good practice in the U.K., but are tailored for local circumstances.

It should be noted that due to its very nature, no system of social work or child protection will ever be 100% perfect and there will always be room for improvement. Jersey is no different from anywhere else in this respect and the  system  and its performance  can be improved.  Indeed  the Serious Case  Review undertaken  by  the Consultant Paediatrician has identified areas for improvement, but no serious failings. In it he states that he has received good co-operation from staff and agencies.

Judgements on the performance of people and services must be based on current day circumstances and evidence. Judgements are unfair and damaging if they are based on past defects which have been rectified, or are based on unsubstantiated allegations or general criticism not supported by evidence.

Across the U.K. such areas of social work are characterised by high staff vacancy rates and authorities are continually seeking to improve recruitment rates. Jersey suffers a similar problem, although less so than the U.K. As a result of the Minister's allegations, recruitment of high calibre professionals to Jersey will almost certainly become much more difficult.

The Council of Ministers has not seen any objective evidence to significantly call into question current practices. It has noted the recent Serious Case Review (SCR) undertaken by the Consultant Paediatrician. In this highly unusual circumstance an edited version of the SCR (to ensure client anonymity) is attached at Appendix  9. When Senator Syvret received this report he sent an e-mail to a selected group of staff which has been found to breach a Data Protection principle and is therefore not included in full.

The Minister commented –

" T h a nks you for undertaking this review. It does not make happy reading. Unfortunately the various deficiencies and failings described in the review are entirely consistent with other information coming to me concerning, what has to be describe as, grossly inadequate performance of the entire child protection apparatus in Jersey.

I n d e ed, some of the events recounted in the review seem scarcely credible such is the degree of

incompetence and lack of professionalism described. Even to a lay-person, it is readily plain to see that certain basic standards and procedures of child protection appear to have gone over the heads off the many "professionals" involved."

At the JCPC meeting on 11th April the Consultant Paediatrician told the Committee –

" h e  h ad found that the services had responded to evidence of abuse emerging in this case in a timely way in order to ensure the immediate protection of the child, and there was decisiveness in taking appropriate decisions which were effective in delivering the Child's security. Particularly with respect to information sharing and co-operation, as well as the duty to fulfil their responsibilities, the response of Jersey agencies was as good or better than he had experienced in the U.K.".

Yet it is this report which prompted the e-mail attack

The Consultant Paediatrician has been asked whether there is anything in his report which suggests or justifies the Minister's allegation of grossly inadequate performance of the child protection apparatus in Jersey and whether there was anything in his report which could be said to be evidence of the gross failure of individuals.

He replied. (A full copy of his reply is at Appendix 10).

" 1 ) N o, I did not uncover evidence of grossly inadequate performance in the child protection apparatus in Jersey. As I have stated, I did discover practices and arrangements related to the future safeguarding and welfare of the child which could be improved.

2 )  N o , I did not find evidence of gross incompetence, complacency or failure to cooperate on the part

of any individual to protect the subject of this SCR. I did find evidence of a lack of appreciation of the complexities of child sexual abuse and the need for all agencies to receive further training in this area."

1. U n fairly attackingstaff involved in child protection

The Council of Ministers and the States Employment Board has made it clear that it will not tolerate incompetence or other forms of poor behaviour by staff. However there is a proper process to deal with any such failings. The disciplinary and competency processes are very clear and whenever a member of staff exhibits such failings these processes are applied. The Senator has not provided any evidence of individual failings, nor has he in the 7  years and 8  months he has been responsible for Health and Social Services, made any formal complaint in relation to specific staff involved in this work. Instead he has, in recent weeks, made a number of extremely vitriolic and/or threatening statements directed at groups of, or individual members of staff. This is causing significant upset and distress. Already at least one member of staff has suffered sickness as a result of the stress and many others are voicing their concern and frustration. In some cases individuals have had to be persuaded not to start looking for alternative employment.

In an area where there are already vacancies and high case loads this increases the risk to clients. In the U.K. a major cause of failure is the inability to allocate case workers to individual children. There are some cases in Jersey which do not have an allocated worker, although they are being managed. If staff decide to leave or it becomes difficult to recruit, this will significantly increase the risk to children.

The Minister is a person with significant power and responsibility. His criticism, bullying and harassment of staff have had a very considerable and serious effect.

2. U n fairly undermining the reputation of child protection arrangements

The Minister has stated in internal e-mails his statement to the Assembly and in newspaper reports that he not only considers the services to be failing, but that staff are failing in many respects. He says they are incompetent, ineffectual and collude to avoid having to do what is expected of them. If there were any evidence of this culture the Minister would have every right to demand it be resolved. The Council of Ministers would be absolutely as one with the Minister and would do all they could to make sure it is put right. The Minister has not provided any evidence of current problems; indeed he has stated "I am not aware of any immediate danger to a child at this moment."

The evidence of recent years shows that when officers or politicians became aware of any failings there has been an open and transparent willingness to find out what has happened and put it right. That is one of the functions of the JCPC using the Serious Case review (SCR) process. The Consultant Paediatrician's most recent report praises the willingness of staff and agencies to improve. Past experience (see section  5.4 below) shows this has been the case.

The fear expressed by the JCPC in its letter at Appendix  5 is that by undermining the credibility of services it will increase the danger that children will slip through the safety net or people intent on avoiding services will find it easier to do so. It is too early to expect hard evidence of this, but there are reports from some workers that the reaction of difficult clients is becoming more challenging. It indicates how damaging statements can be when they come from someone with the position and power of a Minister. It should also be noted that the Minister was asked to share any specific current concerns and apart from raising some historic issues has declined to do so.

He has also, and perhaps significantly, declined to identify the sources he has stated he is relying upon for his allegations. All that the Minister has revealed is that much of his information comes from experts from outside the Island, ex-employees and/or their representatives, and other as yet anonymous sources.

3. S a cking theChairman of the JCPC

The report has already commented in detail on this issue. However, the JCPC is an important part of the child protection apparatus. Sacking the Chairman when there is no evidence that the Committee is failing in its work inevitably increases the risk that services may become less effective and is not the way to effectively deal with the concerns he has raised.

4. F a ilingtorecognisethatproblems have been openlyaddressedandimprovementsmade

Most of the failings that the Minister cites are historical failings that have been addressed and those circumstances no longer pertain. They are however cited as evidence of severe failings. The language used to describe them is extremely derogative and they appear to be the basis for personalised attacks on staff and services. Each of them has been and continues to be addressed. The implication in the Minister's pronouncements is that they are either current  issues or that  the services  are  guilty of allowing  them  to  persist. This  is  extremely  damaging  and misleading. It inevitably undermines the morale and commitment of staff who have worked or are working to improve matters, but are still criticised for the way things were. Four such issues are commented on below. They are –

• The Jervis-Dykes case

• Failings at Les Chênes

• The Kathy Bull report

• Bullying in schools

The Jervis-Dykes case was clearly a totally unacceptable case which should not have been allowed to happen. However,  when  it  came  to  light  the  Governing  body  of  Victoria  College  and  the  Education  Committee commissioned  an  independent  enquiry  by  Stephen  Sharp.  Necessary  improvements  were  identified  and implemented to ensure the future safety and well-being of pupils. This is years in the past and to suggest that current  education  and  child  welfare  practices  reflect  this  reprehensible  episode  merely  undermines  today's services.

Failings at Les Chênes. The establishment reached crisis point and corrective action was taken with improvements continuing thereafter. The Kathie Bull' reports 2001/2 identified Les Chênes as being inappropriate for use as a secure establishment. Four fully secure rooms which were used when a child's own safety or that of others was at risk were considered by the Kathie Bull report to be unsuitable for the purpose. The Education, Sport and Culture Committee seconded a new manager from the Prison Service to oversee an improvement programme in early 2004. The fully secure rooms were immediately upgraded and an instruction was given to staff requiring that they would only be used under strict criteria following assessment that there was an immediate risk of violence to other residents or staff, or of absconding, and all other methods to manage the situation had been considered.

The  new  policy  also  required  that,  whenever  a  fully  secure  room  was  used,  a  documented  process  of  re- introduction  to  the  community  was  immediately  commenced,  with  active  support  by  staff  to  address  the challenging behaviour, re-establish positive relationships, and as soon as safety could be ensured, to re-introduce the young person to the community. Records show that use of the fully secure facilities was substantially reduced on introduction of the new arrangements. This has continued to be the case. Figures indicate that there were 9 occasions during 2006 when the fully secure rooms were used, the majority when a young person was admitted late at night whilst under the influence of drink or drugs. In most cases these young people were integrated into the wider community the next morning when their system was clear of any intoxicating substances and they were no longer considered a danger to themselves or others. Statistics show that the fully secure suite' at Les  Chênes had become almost obsolete by the time the old unit closed towards the end of 2006. At that time the "new" Greenfields  opened  and  the "Grand  Prix" approach  ended.  The "new" Greenfields  provides  appropriate accommodation and facilities to meet the needs of young people who are considered either by the Courts or Health and Social Services, to require a secure environment. The Council of Ministers has received a report on these matters from the Director of Education, Sport and Culture, which is at Appendix  12.

Following the Kathie Bull report into Les Chênes, she was asked by the Chief Officers of Education, Health and Home Affairs, with the approval of their Committees, to undertake a wider review of Children's Services. This is not  the  act  of  a  group  of  people  colluding  to  avoid  dealing  with  difficult  issues.  The  Kathie  Bull  report recommended a fundamental revision of services and the Children's Executive was created. This comprises the Ministers supported by the Chief Officers of Education, Sport and Culture, Health and Social Services and Home Affairs. The most significant improvements have been implemented and improvements are continuing.

Allegation of a culture of bullying in schools. The Minister has made e-mail comments which appear to be supporting allegations by a sacked teacher. This is a teacher whose employment was terminated on the grounds of gross professional misconduct. He made (and subsequently admitted) false allegations against other teachers in a text message.

This is not to deny that specific improvements are required, but the severity of the language is extreme. Indeed the report from the Minister's own Department into the health-related behaviours of young people states that bullying in schools (including name calling) is on a par with the U.K. and has remained relatively constant in recent years. The Education, Sport and Culture Department continue to work on this issue, with some success, but that appears not to be recognised.

6. I M  PROPER USE OF INFORMATION AND PASSING CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION TO THIRD PARTIES

The JCPC has complained to the Data Protection Commissioner about an e-mail sent on 11th July by the Minister to various individuals. The Commissioner has concluded that it did breach the 3rd Data Protection principle in that the personal data (in relation to the child who had been abused) was "excessive" in relation to the purpose for which it was proposed.

The second issue is that the Minister asked for and received the only copy of a personal file relating to a previous employee, a Social Worker. He received the file and subsequently met the ex-employee and his Union representative without any officers or politicians being aware. It should be noted that it is the States Employment Board who is ultimately the employer, not the Minister.