Chief Minister Le Sueur
Senator T.A. Le Sueur:
As far as I am concerned, the main problem of accountability rests with the person who is responsible for the Haut de la Garenne incident in the first place, and that person is no longer in the employ of the States.
Now is this Bozo meaning Child Abusers or Lenny Harper. That Statement sums it up for me. We all know he means Lenny Harper.
The conduct of the Chief Minister has been firmly thrust into the spotlight over these past months, some would say these past years.
I believe that leadership should be a baseline expectation for someone in the role of Chief Minister, but what has been coming out of the Chief Minister's mouth over the past 6 months goes completely beyond the ridiculous. Now I am not sure who is researching or writing the Chief Minister's replies to questions from various States members, but my guess is when they hand them over to the Chief Minister they all have a good laugh in the back room because they can't believe he's just gone and read them out in the States assembly!
I am finding it increasingly difficult to come to terms with the total ineptitude of the Chief Minister. This is not borne out of some dislike for the Chief Minister but purely on researched and evidence based fact. I have noticed now in the States assembly one has to be very careful when questioning the Chief Minister because, as standing orders state, you cannot just stand up and call him a liar across the chamber. It now seems that the Chief Minister has misled the house, so how do you say it: He's lying; he's been misleading; he's being economical with the truth?
Below is the speech that the Chief Minister, Terry Le Sueur, stood up and made in his defence of P166/2010. What stands out from this speech is the complete garbage contained therein and the reason I say it is garbage is because, put alongside facts and evidence, it does not stand up. In fact, he offers nothing.
I believe the question that must be asked is "how or why did so many States members back the Chief Minister on this complete waffle" and then to compel matters even more he asked States members to check his comments on P166, which in themselves make even less sense than the speech below.
The local media have really got to step up their game. They simply cannot let the Chief Minister come out with such complete waffle and get away with it. They should be applying pressure and keeping him to account on behalf of the public based on proper facts and evidence. Their role is essential if we are ever to achieve anything like good governance in Jersey. Everyone has got to step up to a new level.
I have noticed a distinct change in BBC Jersey since the arrival of the new editor. One day he'll have a knock on the door. It could be some time soon. He will have a simple decision to make: Does he ruffle feathers and go against the grain in bringing BBC Jersey up to the standard of an independent media broadcasting outlet? or it's champagne and caviar and not much else. We know that Channel/Rankin TV is coconut crazy and Shipley and Bright up at Five Oaks, AKA the JEP, is the Establishment paper through and through. So it looks like it's up to the BBC to start holding people like the Chief Minister, Terry Le Sueur, and not forgetting the Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand, to account, because let's be honest here, a former magistrate, in fact a man of the law, who is meant to be able to spot injustice cannot spot injustice when he is the cause of it! How crazy is Jersey in the year 2010?
So, back on to the speech of Terry Le Sueur on P166, a speech so lacking in any coherent evidence based fact inspired 30+ members of our States assembly to vote with the Chief Minister, as opposed to the speeches of Trevor Pitman, Daniel Wimberley, Simon Crowcroft and Paul Le Claire. Make no mistake, and I do believe it's great that people hold rallies, call meetings and lobby politicians, but the real problem, and it's the most glaring problem, meaning that very few decent propositions will get through the states is because of the 30+ States member who decline to show any freedom from the influence that they are under. If anyone doubts who the 30+ States Members are, and they are being named and their photos will be going up, then go into the States website. On the left hand side is members and votes. See how Philip Ozouf voted on the proposition and from there you can just tick off the names.
The Jersey historic abuse investigation has blown the lid off this Island and totally exposed the toxic cancer that lies beneath the surface.
P166 and a fully exposed Chief Minister:
3.1.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur:
Members may well be relieved to learn that I do not intend to speak very long in response to this proposition. The impression I get from most Members is that this subject has been done to death in recent weeks. The proposition originally called on the Chief Minister to do 3 things, now 2 of them. Firstly, to provide more comprehensive information on a range of issues which the Deputy of St. Martin, and others, feel to be deeply significant and worrying. Secondly, to provide a formal apology to the former Chief Officer of Police for a failure to deal with the suspension in accordance with the disciplinary code relating to his position. The third request has now been withdrawn.
I believe that I have dealt with the first point in the presenting of my comments to this proposition. I have outlined my answers to the questions and concerns raised by the Deputy of St. Martin. I have tried to keep my answers succinct and to the point but I hope that they do, indeed, deal with these issues in a complete and satisfactory manner.
I am sure there will be a few Members who may disagree with one or 2 of my views. That is human nature, but I cannot change my opinions. I have arrived at my opinions only after detailed consideration of a number of papers and reports from a variety of people. I could embellish my answers. I could make each one take up half a page or more, but it would not alter the fundamental thrust of my views; views, which I have already expressed in this House on numerous occasions in response to written questions, oral questions and questions without notice. I took the view that less means more and I indicated, quite clearly, my views to all the issues raised by the Deputy, not just in my written comments here today, but in the numerous questions which I have answered and which the Deputy acknowledges have been numerous.
As I indicated in questions yesterday, we have to distinguish between the suspension process, which Mr. Napier found to be flawed, and the decision to suspend the former Chief Officer, which I and others find to be entirely justified and which has, indeed, be borne out by subsequent events.
So that leaves part (b) of this proposition, the issue of an apology. On that, I have made my position abundantly clear. I have expressed a view verbally in answer to oral questions and in written form including my comments to this proposition. My opinion, my robust opinion, is clear and I hope understood by all Members, even if I know some may disagree with me. I do not want to go over the events of the last 2 years. I am sure that all Members have had ample opportunity to reach their own conclusions and I am sorry to see that even last night, the former Deputy Chief Officer of Police was writing to the local media attempting to justify his actions.
An apology to the former Chief of Police could well be seen as a slap in the face for the former Minister for Home Affairs, the former Chief Minister, the Chief Executive of the States and the current acting Chief Officer of Police. It would also, in my view, be offensive to a large number of people in Jersey, many of whom hold the former Chief Officer, and his deputy, responsible for portraying a grossly misleading image of the Islands.
So in saying that, I am not in any way condoning any child abuse which may have occurred at Haut de la Garenne, or anywhere else; nor do I wish to offend any members of the Jersey Caregivers Association or any other victims of abuse. In the pursuit of justice the police have my full and unwavering support. But, that is not the issue here today. The issue today is whether we consider that I, or the States, should give an apology to the former Chief Officer of Police for his suspension. I accept that the Deputy of St. Martin sometimes gets carried away in his strong views on this matter. I have to say, nonetheless, I deplore suggestions that I was either misleading the House or that others were guilty of a conspiracy theory. I believe that that is an unwarranted and unjustified allegation. I also, even more so, deplore the fact that the Deputy has chosen to disclose the content of a confidential email, even though that content may be relatively innocuous, a document which contains confidential information is marked confidential, should still remain confidential. So, I hope, we are not lowering the standards of this Chamber. But to come back to the proposition, I hope that Members are in no doubt about my view. I hope that Members share my view and I hope that Members will reject this proposition.
So there we have it. Now if someone wants to defend that speech then feel free but all I ask is that you back it up with some evidence.
And what of misleading the house? Below is an exchange that highlights what Im on about . It concerns a question by the Deputy of St Martin about the removal of part d of the Napier TOR
2.4 The Deputy of St. Martin of the Chief Minister regarding alterations to the Napier Terms of Reference:
I would just ask that Members, I know they are entitled to footstamp but could I just ask the footstamping commences after the answer is given, so Members this side of the Chamber are able to hear all the answers. [Approbation] [Laughter] In his answer to an oral question on 19th October 2010 about altering the Napier terms of reference, the Chief Minister advised that they were altered when it was established that the previous Chief Officer of Police would fully participate in the investigation, will the Minister inform Members when this willingness was communicated and, if by letter, when was it received?
Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):
I am advised that Mr. Napier himself contacted the former Chief Officer of Police and ascertained that the former Chief Officer was indeed willing to participate fully in the investigation. He did indeed participate and Mr. Napier has also had access to a copy of the affidavit prepared by the former Chief Officer of Police in connection with subsequent appeals in the Royal Court.
2.4.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:
I do not like to prove that the Chief Minister is not telling the truth in this Chamber, but what I have here is a letter dated 21st April to the Deputy Chief Executive informing the Minister about his ability to take part, however the terms of reference were published in R.39 on 14th April. Can I ask the Chief Minister if he maybe would reconsider his answer, in actual fact that Mr. Napier did not make contact with the Chief Officer of Police before the terms of reference were altered?
Senator T.A. Le Sueur:
The terms of reference are a fluid arrangement. At the time of the agreement in this House of those terms of reference the disciplinary process involving the former Chief Officer was still in place. Accordingly, it was questionable whether the Chief Officer would be willing to participate in such an inquiry. After Mr. Napier had established that the former Chief Officer of Police was prepared to assist in these investigations, that particular aspect of the terms of reference was no longer relevant.
2.4.2 The Deputy of St. Martin:
I find the answer astonishing because quite clearly the evidence I have to hand really shows that the Chief Minister, I am afraid, is misleading the House this morning.
The Bailiff:
Be careful with your language.
The Deputy of St. Martin:
I will, but it is rather frustrating when you have evidence in your hand, and I know the fact that what the Chief Minister is saying is maybe incorrect and I would ask him maybe he would check to ensure that what I have - the evidence that we have at hand - is really the evidence which we should be hearing or study it this morning.
The Bailiff:
That was your question, Deputy.
Senator T.A. Le Sueur:
If the Deputy is prepared to give me the evidence he has, I will investigate it myself. I said in my answer, and I was very careful to say, that I was advised that Mr. Napier had contacted the Chief Officer. I do not have the information first-hand, and I do not have evidence to do that. If the Deputy has evidence to the contrary and wishes to share it with me I will happily look into it.
[Interruption] [Laughter]
[10:00]
2.4.3 The Deputy of St. Martin:
Can I ask the Chief Minister why it was felt necessary to remove part of the terms of reference because the Chief Officer of Police said he was happy to partake? Surely they should have been left in if indeed he was happy to partake. Would the Chief Minister not agree?
Senator T.A. Le Sueur:
It strikes me as being totally irrelevant whether it was left in or not. The fact is that Mr. Napier did have access to Mr. Power, both to ask him questions and to read his affidavit. The whole question of whether they are in the terms of reference as published is totally meaningless when the reality is that Mr. Napier had full access to all evidence provided by the former Chief Officer.
2.4.4 Deputy M.R. Higgins:
Would the Chief Minister be prepared to put his evidence and Deputy Hill’s evidence to P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee)? We obviously have here allegations that the House has been misled and I think it is time that the information is put out by both sides to P.P.C. and be adjudicated on. Would the Chief Minister agree?
Senator T.A. Le Sueur:
I cannot see that this is a matter of relevance to the P.P.C. The question relates to the ability of Mr. Napier to access information from Mr. Power. As I have said, and Mr. Napier has said, he had full access to that information.
2.4.5 The Deputy of St. Mary:
The Chief Minister appears to believe that the truth does not matter too much as long as the right answer comes out ... [Members: Oh!]
The Bailiff:
No. Deputy, please do not make improper assertions against other Members of the Assembly, as required by Standing Orders.
The Deputy of St. Mary:
I shall restart, Sir. The question was about whether the terms of reference were altered after the Chief Officer of Police agreed to participate or before and the Chief Minister is then telling us: “Oh well, it does not matter too much because what happened in the end was that the Chief Officer of Police did co-operate with the inquiry.” But that is not the point of the question. My question to the Chief Minister is does he believe the process that doing things in the right way, that doing what you said you did, and it is true, matters?
Senator T.A. Le Sueur:
Yes, process is important. But getting information is also important. As I said, the reality of the situation is that whether it was in the terms of reference as published or not, the instructions to Mr. Napier were received by Mr. Napier, acted upon by Mr. Napier, he had access to the information from the former Chief Officer of Police and so whether it was done before or after that, the fact is that the outcome… the reality is that full access was obtainable and obtained.
2.4.6 The Deputy of St. Martin:
Will the Chief Minister accept that the affect of watering-down the terms of reference meant that it narrowed the terms of reference, thereby certain crucial witnesses did not need to be interviewed? Will the Chief Minister agree to that?
Senator T.A. Le Sueur:
No, I do not think that is correct at all. The fact is that the terms of reference referred to access to information. That information was available. If Mr. Napier felt the need to have information from other sources he was totally at liberty to do so.
Deputy T.M. Pitman:
Can I seek clarification from the Chief Minister, Sir?
The Bailiff:
No, I am sorry, Deputy. Not at this stage. This is question time.
Deputy T.M. Pitman:
It would be nice to understand what was said.
The Bailiff:
There will be an opportunity, Deputy, if I may say so; the questions without notice, the Chief Minister will be asked today, and of course Members are free to take up any point then.
Im sorry for such a long posting but its one that must be done. Bob Hill has the Chief Minister here , what does the chief Minister say "I said in my answer, and I was very careful to say, that I was advised that Mr. Napier had contacted the Chief Officer." he was advised. Is the Chief Minister getting advise on everything?
Someone is lying here, its very simple. TLS says that (part d) was dropped because Graham Power had agreed to see Napier , that was on April 21st 2010 but (part d) was dropped on R39 on the 14th April
Someone is getting it very wrong.
Before the Keyboard Cat plays TLS out I will clear this little bit up
Deputy of St Martin
"I would just ask that Members, I know they are entitled to footstamp but could I just ask the footstamping commences after the answer is given, so Members this side of the Chamber are able to hear all the answers. [Approbation] [Laughter
The reason for the footstamping
Senator T.A. Le Sueur:
As far as I am concerned, the main problem of accountability rests with the person who is responsible for the Haut de la Garenne incident in the first place, and that person is no longer in the employ of the States.
JERSEY 2010
RICO SORDA
