Vote of No Confidence: the Bailiff of Jersey (P.107/2008)
The Greffier of the States (in the Chair
Very well, the first item of Public Business is the Vote of No confidence in the Bailiff of Jersey and I will ask the Deputy Greffier to read the proposition.
The Deputy Greffier of the States:
The States are asked to decide whether they are of the opinion that they have no confidence in the Bailiff as President of the States and to agree that Her Majesty be requested to dismiss him from office.
6.1 Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier:
As I am sure fellow Members will be aware, speeches are my least favourite part of this job. Nor are they, I know full well, my forte. For me, expression within the written word comes far more easily. Indeed, I believe that I have set out the reasons underlying the decision to bring this motion of no confidence within the attached report already both fairly and matter-of-factly. As a consequence, I am sure Members will be very pleased to know that I do not intend to speak any longer than necessary but some things, it seems, must be made quite clear. As Members who come to debate this proposition we will, I am sure, hear a variety of reasons put forward by those who will oppose it. All well and good. Their value will be for the House to judge but of far more importance, let us not forget, is the listening public to cast judgment upon for they, the electorate, are the true judges however cosseted some within the House might feel. But 2 reasons put forward as excuses not to support the no confidence vote will not stand up. Firstly, as I have gone to great lengths to outline within my report, this proposition is not a personal attack on the Bailiff, Sir Philip Bailhache. Far from it. It focuses on the Bailiff’s actions and within a small community such as ours this, I can accept, can be a difficult thing to separate at first glance. But separate the actions from the man we must for it is the actions alone that I and so many others see as the reason for the Bailiff now continuing in his role being wholly untenable. It has amazed me these couple of weeks that a number of intelligent people do not - or possibly choose not to - understand the point at hand. Even the esteemed President of the Law Society, it would seem, in a recent letter to the J.E.P., this motion does not attempt to deny or even criticise the achievements of the Bailiff throughout his long career. While others certainly may do so, I do not even question this although I would ask the question as to why the Law Society has nothing at all to say in the Bailiff’s defence in this particular case. This motion is based solely upon crucial issues the Bailiff has got wrong, terribly wrong, and the fact that 16 years on he has not yet been held to account. Secondly, this proposition is also not opportunistic. To suggest that it is, as some may well attempt I have no doubt, is also to demonstrate the complete lack of analysis on the situation or equally, perhaps, to deliberately seek to muddy the waters in the hope of distracting from the core issues of justice and accountability that are at stake. After all, I ask the House to stop and reflect for a moment. Each and every one of us sitting in this Chamber today have and will again be approached by members of the electorate to take forward concerns of all manner of issues. In this case, I emphasise it again. Members of the public, ordinary men and women who evidently felt the same gut feelings of anger and unease that I felt as the revelations of April and May unfolded. These contacts - some from alleged victims of child abuse, some individuals simply deeply concerned by what they were hearing - these only confirmed to me that my own gut instincts were right. Would any one of us here, today, honestly just turn a deaf ear? What kind of politicians would that make us if we did? I put it to colleagues that any one of us who did so would have no place calling themselves a public servant and, quite honestly, no place at all within the House. I offer the House a quote: “It is every States Member’s first duty to their electors to look and research and stand-up and fight for their political agendas. Every States Member has every right to strive to put right with tenacity and public support any part of the way we are governed and the way in which justice is administered.” No, not my words. They are the wise words of the highly respected former Senator, John de Carteret, written in the J.E.P. in support of this proposition just a week ago: “Strive to put right with tenacity and public support any part of the way we are governed and the way in which justice is administered.” This is exactly what I now seek to do by holding the Bailiff accountable, something of which Roger Holland’s victims and their families were denied. Who do they have to turn to? I am turning to the States of Jersey and, in doing so, States Members to take that responsibility to deliver that justice, however belated. If we, the Government of this Island do not possess the will or courage to step beyond this place of deference to either the individual or institution, then the impact of democracy can only be highly damaging. We all make mistakes. This is a fact of life. I have made them. I will make more in the future, I am sure. Indeed, inviting all of those who wish to stamp their feet to now do so, some will have it that I am making a monumental mistake at this very moment. The point is that just as well all make mistakes in different ways; we all must be accountable for these. Do we, the Government, really expect the public who elected us to accept that the Bailiff should be any different? I offer Members a second quote for consideration: “When the public make a mistake they are held accountable. When the Crown Officers make a mistake, to whom are they accountable?” Once again, not my words but those of the respected former Constable of St. Helier, Bob Le Brocq. Further and fuller details relating to the deeply disturbing Roger Holland affair are both outlined within the proposition and elsewhere. I believe it suffices to state that the core fact marking this action on behalf of the Attorney General - the man later to become our present Bailiff - is essentially this. Following on from what must be acknowledged to be a less than glowing example of the process ensuring only suitably safe and trustworthy individuals are accepted into the Honorary Police force, it came to the attention of the Bailiff, then Attorney General, in the summer of 1992, that Roger Holland, sworn in as a Constable’s Officer, only hours before had a previous conviction for indecently assaulting a 14 year-old girl who had an assessed mental age of just 10. Incredibly, the Bailiff, as Attorney General, chose to do nothing about initiating the immediate removal of this convicted paedophile from office. Shocking enough in itself, it is the Bailiff’s subsequent justification 16 years later that I and, indeed, so many of the member of the public who contacted me hearing the full details of this case for the very first time find a clear, irrefutable indication of his unsuitability to continue in the role. A Bailiff, lest we forget it, who is head of both Jersey’s judiciary and legislature. I quote from the Bailiff’s statement: “The facts confronting me were a man who had expressed a wish to give voluntary service to his Parish had been honest about his convictions.” I put it to Members, this was said of a man who was a convicted paedophile, having abused a 14 year-old girl with a mental age of 10. Just as stunning, the Bailiff went on to say: “I quite understand the reactions of the victim’s father as reported on BBC but in context of the facts as known at the time, 1992, when not as much was known about the long-term paedophile tendencies of those abusing children and before the rash of child abuse investigations which took place in the U.K. in the 1990s, I hope the decision seems more understandable.” I am truly sorry, Sir, but no. To me, and to the members of the public who have contacted me, that decision is not understandable. Not understandable and not acceptable. It should not be acceptable to this Government. These judgments made by Sir Philip clearly illustrate that by allowing Mr. Holland to continue as an Honorary Policeman was a gross, indeed, a truly staggering error of both judgment and a failure to protect the safety of the Jersey public and, in particular, young women and girls. It is my contention that had the revelation of the original gross error of judgments back in 1992 not dammed him as it surely should, the Bailiff’s truly unbelievable contention in April of this year that not as much was known about the long-term paedophile tendencies of those abusing children surely does so. I put it to the House once again, with the reminder that the public, who charge us with protecting their interests, with protecting their interests of their children, are listening. This was 1992. Not 1852. Not even 1952. Just 16 years ago. Does a single Member of this House believe for one minute that the majority of Jersey’s public would accept deference to an individual or institution, however honourable or steeped in history, as being more important than protecting the interests of our children? I think not. For any Member to attempt to undermine the staggering seriousness of this issue by pointing to all the admiral qualities or achievements of the Bailiff is, at best, a distraction lacking in any substance. At worst, it is a highly dangerous breach of the public’s trust. It has been put to me quite categorically by a number of those who have approached me that the Parish of St. Helier were far from happy at being landed with a time bomb waiting to explode that was Roger Holland. Perhaps that side of the affair has not been given the public airing that it should. Nevertheless, it throws into the spotlight how could the Bailiff, in his then role as Attorney General, possibly overlook the very clear and present dangers of allowing a convicted paedophile into assuming a position of authority where he would, obviously, have opportunities to exploit vulnerable children. I repeat the words of the former Constable of St. Helier, Bob Le Brocq: “When the public make a mistake, they are held accountable. When the Crown Officers make a mistake, to whom are they accountable?” I ask the question, why did the Bailiff not, at the very least, immediately rescind his decision whenever he became aware of Roger Holland’s past? I come now to the Bailiff’s Liberation Day speech. Few of us within the Assembly will not forget the events surrounding Senator Syvret’s 2007 Christmas address as Father of the House. Although I fully accept some might differ in their views, to me the content of the Senator’s speech is essentially of little relevance to the context of this proposition. However, having ended the Senator’s speech and condemned him for making his point at an inappropriate time, within a matter of just a few short months we then see the Bailiff doing exactly the same, utilising another long-established tradition for his own political purposes, in this case the Liberation Day address, to make a highly political speech promoting his views on the historic child abuse scandal. If Senator Syvret was misguided or wrong in his use of the Christmas address in the Bailiff’s judgment - a view I largely share in several aspects - what utter hypocrisy was this? What double-standards and what ill-judged foolishness? I ask this Assembly to consider, was Liberation Day a date so emotionally locked within the hearts of so many Islanders, brave men and women who suffered then and, in many cases are still suffering more than 6 decades later, really an event where a Crown-appointed official of the highest rank would be expected to show such insensitivity and colossal lack of judgment. I quote for the House: “All child abuse, wherever it happened, is scandalous but it is the unjustified and remorseless denigration of Jersey and her people that is the real scandal.” As has been pointed out by others, this clearly inferred that however appalling the sufferers of the victims of Haut de la Garenne, some undoubtedly sensationalised stories on occasions in the world’s media was a whole lot worse. The Bailiff then further spoke of there being as yet no bodies, no evidence of murder, no evidence of cover-ups by Government. In the most basic sense, this may yet be true, yet for the almost daily discoveries of clear evidence, both physical finds and heart-breaking testaments from an ever growing number of former residents, that within the walls of Haut de la Garenne was clearly not as it should have been but was, in fact, a place of torment for some of those in society who were most vulnerable. Honourable man and distinguished Crown Officer or not, were these the words and actions of a man fit to continue as head of both the Island’s judiciary and legislature? Were these the words to inspire confidence in a public reeling from the shock of what has recently come to light? Perhaps even more tellingly, to inspire reassurance and confidence in those who have been abused and suffered that they will, eventually, receive justice. Yet not so much as an apology has been forthcoming from the Bailiff. Why? I put to Members, here is a man who is the Island’s chief judge, a man who has already been seen to be hugely negligent in allowing a paedophile to become a Law Officer where the individual, Roger Holland, went on to abuse further children. A man who will soon preside over the prosecution of further alleged paedophiles who abused vulnerable children from similar positions of trust. Further, and I fully expect it to be little more than a side show set against the seriousness of the issue of child abuse but to act in a manner seemingly demonstrating a belief that he is above and removed from the same standards he would impose upon politicians such as the Senator in his Christmas address can do nothing other than transmit to the ordinary working people of Jersey a message of arrogance and double-standards. I remind the House once again the public are listening. Where is the accountability here? The public are accountable. We as politicians should be accountable. Yet, once again, thus far, the Bailiff appears accountable to no-one. Can this House really be so untroubled by this fact? If so, I genuinely feel that from the evidence of my own experience, the Government are sadly, disastrously out of touch with the majority of public sentiment. So now I will go on to the Bailiff’s disregard for a political mandate. Sir, for an unelected and uninvited, by the large majority of Jersey people, holder of the senior Crown appointment to again enter the political arena and call comments by States Members “ignorant and unwelcome” is to risk outside interference from Westminster into the Jersey way of life. It is not the Bailiff’s personal fight. It is long overdue for our senior politicians to take aside our incumbent Bailiff and give him a date for retirement. His latest political outburst should be his last. Once again, wise words from the former Senator John de Carteret that also echo the feelings of many who have contacted me. I have never met the former Senator, Sir, but in reading his letter in the J.E.P. I could not help but think how valuable his obvious wisdom would be in the present House where for some strange reason it often appears almost taboo to point out that the mandate of the Bailiff is supposed to be a wholly non-political one. Let us consider the following: what is the Bailiff? He has no political functions or authority. These words, Sir, were not written by a disgruntled politician or some independent review committee such as Clothier but by the Bailiff himself within his keynote address at the Liechtenstein Dialogue on 6th October 2005. Yes, the Liechtenstein Dialogue, a high-profile gathering focused on the highly political issue of the future of international financial markets and taxation strategies. Sir, I am aware that this failing is not as serious as the others already highlighted yet here once again we see the Bailiff failing in his judgment, displaying disregard for protocols and constraints that he would, as President of the States Assembly, be quick to castigate were they made by others. International financial markets and the intricacies of taxation are, beyond doubt, political. The mandate of the Island’s Bailiff as is clearly demonstrable was intended not. Is highlighting this factor making a personal attack on the Bailiff? No, of course it is not. It is simply to highlight the present Bailiff’s continued disregard for adhering to his designated mandate. As to why this should be, of course, Members will have a variety of opinions. Yet, Sir, this stepping into the political arena goes on and on. In only the past 2 or 3 weeks we have seen a number of further examples. The hijacking of the traditional Liberation Day address for the political means. Perhaps most alarming the truly personal attacks on any politician who dares to try and fulfil his or her mandate by highlighting aspects and practices that are beyond any doubt flawed within the Island’s current judicial system such as one individual occupying a dual role as head of both judiciary and legislator. Indeed, the Island having allowed a situation to arise where the brother of the Island’s Chief Judge is also the Attorney General. Sir, the Bailiff’s role is an apolitical one and should at all times remain so. This was set out clearly when the role first came to be. As far as I am aware, and I make no claim to be a fully-fledged constitutional expert, nothing has come to pass over the following years that has seen this apolitical mandate be refined. If the Bailiff wishes to once again become a politician then let him put himself up for the democratic process of election and seek to become one. This apparent lack of judgment of disdain to adhere to the mandate of his appointed role can only further damage public confidence in the impartiality of his position. In closing, Sir, as I have been at great pains to make clear, I fully accept there will be some who will struggle to separate these criticisms between the actions they highlight and the individual himself. Some may even deliberately do so but separate them we must for as stressed within the preamble this is not a personal attack. The fact remains, however, that while none of us are infallible and we all make mistakes, we all must be accountable; even the Bailiff. In the interests of transparency, justice and public accountability we cannot afford a Bailiff occupying the role of Chief Judge when that judgment has been sufficiently flawed to allow a convicted paedophile to join a police force; nor one who attempts to justify this with such feeble excuses. We cannot afford a Bailiff soon to preside over what will likely be one of the biggest child abuse trials in British history who can make statements such as Sir Philip made on Liberation Day without even the good grace to apologise. We cannot afford a Bailiff who, for all his other attributes, appears to deliberately flout the boundaries set out in his non-political role. We cannot afford a Bailiff whose inappropriate statements, actions and behaviour have both brought his position into disrepute and significantly damaged the public’s confidence in its government as a result. We cannot afford to have a Bailiff who appears to be held in such a misplaced deference by many within the Government presently that any questioning of his role or call for him to be held to account is painted as high treason. As such, Sir, I have to ask the House to focus on the facts; upon the actions rather than the man and demonstrate to the public that accountability really does apply for all supporting this vote of no confidence. I make the proposition, Sir.
The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):
Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] Deputy Huet.
6.1.1 Deputy J.J. Huet of St. Helier:
I know myself that there are a great many facts which have not emerged which I personally believe would have put a completely and utterly different meaning on these matters. Therefore, I have no intention of supporting this projet and I would respectively ask all similar-minded Members in this Assembly to keep their speeches to the same length of time as mine is and hopefully we can bin this Projet within an hour. Thank you, Sir. [Approbation]
I rise to speak with reluctance because, frankly, I do not believe this report and proposition is worthy of debate in the first place. [Approbation] However, it is necessary for me as Chief Minister to respond and I do so; I respond on behalf of every Minister, every member of the Council of Ministers who will show their view, their very strong view of this proposition by not - unless the debate does indeed continue at length and raise other issues - speaking in it at all because they share my view that it is not worthy of debate in the first place. This is a hugely important issue and I am astonished at the relatively light-hearted and trivial way in which it has been brought forward. This is a hugely important issue not just for the Bailiff but for Jersey and we need to regard it as such. That is why the Council of Ministers have taken the, I think, unique step of writing to the Bailiff, a copy of which has been circulated to all Members. No individual, as our letter clearly says, is beyond accountability and indeed the Bailiff has acknowledged that the most serious basis for this deeply-flawed report and proposition was the Bailiff’s decision on the Holland case which the Bailiff himself has acknowledged, with the benefit of hindsight, could have been done better. But that was in 1992 when he was Attorney General, long before he was appointed to the office of Bailiff. It is the unanimous view of Ministers that the Bailiff has undertaken his duties over an extended period with probity, integrity and impartiality. The proposer raises the question in relation to the Bailiff: “Honourable man or not?” Well, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever in saying that the Bailiff of Jersey is a deeply honourable man and that question should not be asked. [Approbation] Sir, the report and proposition is based on the thinnest of grounds and there is nothing either in the report or the speech that we have just heard which justifies or comes anywhere near justifying, dismissing or asking the Queen to dismiss our Bailiff from his office. Really, I can only imagine the incredulity of her Majesty and her advisers if such a request was sent to her on the grounds laid out in this proposition. It would make Jersey look stupid - absolutely stupid. Sir, let us not be fooled by the proposer into believing that this proposition has the widespread support of the Jersey public. It may have the support of J.D.A. (Jersey Democratic Alliance) members; it may have the support of the Time4Change people. It most certainly does not have the widespread support of the public of Jersey generally.
The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):
May I remind those in the gallery that Standing Orders provide that they must not interfere with the proceedings.
Senator F.H. Walker:
Well, Sir, I wonder who that was and which society they belong to. Sir, this proposition, despite the denials of the proposer, is nothing other than political posturing and it takes no account of the distinguished record of the Bailiff in serving Jersey over a period now of 33 years. It takes no account of the effect on the position of Bailiff generally. It takes no account of the possible effect on Jersey’s constitutional position and the things that we hold dear which make us different to the U.K. It is nothing other than a thinly-veiled political attack and despite her denials the proposer virtually confirmed that in her speech. Sir, I will support very much Deputy Huet’s view. I hope Members will not dignify this proposition by turning this into a lengthy debate; I hope Members will not dignify it by speaking. I hope, therefore, we can dismiss this debate in the shortest possible time and Members will show their deep contempt for this proposition by not speaking and then by comprehensively voting it out. [Approbation]
The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):
Does any Member wish to speak? If not, I will call on Deputy Pitman to reply. Deputy Southern, just in time.
I had hoped, against hope, that this would not descend into the usual political mud-slinging [Laughter] which so often comes from the far corner on my left, however, I was disappointed. Disappointed to read in a letter circulated - I do not know if it was last night or this morning - by the Council of Ministers and signed by the Chief Minister that such an opportunity could not be resisted even by those at the top of our Government. I have no objection to 6 of the 7 paragraphs contained in that letter. It is absolutely appropriately supportive of the Bailiff if that is what the Council of Ministers wishes to express. However, it cannot resist falling into the trap of electioneering, of politicking and the penultimate paragraph says: “It is the Council’s opinion that this proposition is without merit and should be seen for what it is: a tendentious and opportunistic abuse of the States Assembly in the pursuit of political gain before an election.” Shame on you, Chief Minister; shame on you, Council of Ministers. That is completely unnecessary, over-the-top and just playing at politics: “The Council of Ministers believes the proposition to be a naked political ploy and will treat it with the disdain it deserves.” So here we have today 2 requests for this House to stop doing what it does, which is to debate political principle and political ideas in the fullest possible way so that the people of this Island can be assured that principle and politics is being dealt with. Instead we are told that what we are to do is to have a conspiracy of silence that a proposition brought genuinely and from principle by one of our Members should be ignored and treated with contempt, for that is the word the Chief Minister used. Treat it with contempt. That is a frightening, frightening precedent to set up. It is the place of this House to debate the politics of this Island and as the proposer stated clearly, no one, no one in this Island, should be above this House. This House is the Government of this Island and holds all to be accountable without exception. No matter how long-serving, no matter how well-serving, that accountability is a fundamental, essential principle on which this House is based. Without it this House may as well dissolve itself because that is what we are about. So, let us consider that which has been brought forward. What we have is the decision of the Bailiff when he was Attorney General not to act in the case of the appointment of Roger Holland to be a Constable’s Officer. It says in the statement by the Bailiff to the B.B.C: “I became aware of the conviction on my return from the Royal Court when an anonymous letter arrived at the Law Officers’ Department. The Parish authorities were asked for their views and responded that the Parish did not oppose Holland’s wish to join the Honorary Service.” I am unsure at this stage that that is the case. I believe that the Parish authorities thought they were powerless to act and were reliant on the powers above them, i.e. Royal Court, the Attorney General, et cetera, to do something about it. They vehemently opposed the appointment of Roger Holland, or many did, but they felt powerless, it appeared, under the law to stop it. It then goes on: “It is unclear what jurisdiction in law the Royal Court could have exercised had these facts been brought to his attention the following week.” It is unclear what jurisdiction the Royal Court could have. But the Royal Court surely is the body that accepts or rejects the candidacy of one person or another for a position of responsibility, a position of authority, a position indeed of power in the Island’s Honorary Police. Surely that is the body through which that acceptance is either agreed or not. Yet we are told: “It is unclear what jurisdiction in law the Royal Court could have exercised …” Surely the Royal Court had the power to say in the light of this person’s conviction: “He is not a suitable person to take up the position of a Constable’s Officer where he can instruct people what to do, accompany me, I wish to come into your house, obey my instructions, a position of tremendous power and authority.” Surely it is the position of the Royal Court to sort that out. But anyway, in any case, as Attorney General at the time was it not the duty of the Attorney General to sort that out and establish what the powers were and to act upon them? It surely was. But that fundamental error, which I believe is a serious error, is certainly one that had it come to light at the time, had it come to light later, in most communities in the world would have resulted in the very swift exit of that post holder. He would have been asked to resign with such an error; a resignation would surely have followed. But here we are 16 years later in the midst of what is called a historic child abuse scandal and this material raises its head again, how does the Bailiff react? He says: “With hindsight, of course, I would rather a different decision had been taken at the time.” Notice the passive nature of that sentence. Replace it with some personal responsibility: “I would rather a different decision had been taken at the time.” How about: “I would rather that I had taken a different decision at the time.” Any admission of error? Any admission of mistake? None whatsoever. Instead, the use of the passive voice: “A different decision might have been taken by me.” But in context what is the context of a convicted paedophile? What context is that? “On the facts known at the time, 1992, when not as much was known about the long-term paedophile tendencies of those abusing children, I hope the decision seems more understandable.” I am sorry but certainly to me and to many who have read those words - and it is many - that decision does not seem more understandable. It seems like a rather poor excuse for a mistake made - a serious mistake made - that in normal circumstances, in different communities, I believe would have led to a resignation. I hope the decision seems more understandable. Clearly to many it does not seem more understandable. It is completely unfathomable. No hint there of an error made, genuine or otherwise, no hint there - and this perhaps is key that many people were looking for and may have sufficed - of an apology with or without hindsight. No apology: “I let a convicted paedophile into a position of authority in our police force” and there is still, 16 years later, no apology for that act. I believe that is a serious error of judgment on the part of the Bailiff and one which, although an extreme sanction, I believe deserves some sanction and some holding to accountability and this proposition does just that. Then to combine that with the Bailiff’s speech on Liberation Day, again, shows a lack of sensitivity and a lack of judgment which is, while on a different level, equally extreme. I turn to the very words used and they were words used, let us remember, not off-the-cuff, not ad lib, a prepared speech, timed probably and deliberate, and I am sure that the Bailiff does this because I have seen his speeches and listened to many of them. He deliberately chooses each and every word and terms the phrases to say exactly what he intends. He has been in the job for 33 years; he does not do it lightly, so deliberate constructed speech where he says: “All child abuse wherever it happens is scandalous but it is the unjustified and remorseless denigration of Jersey and her people that is the real scandal.” “All child abuse is scandalous but it is the unjustified and remorseless denigration of Jersey and her people that is the real scandal.” That is a shameful statement. To compare a few days or a few weeks’ headlines with the systematic abuse of children taking place over decades is, to use one of the favourite words of the Chief Minister, absolutely outrageous. It made many, many of our residents, whether victims of abuse or otherwise, cringe. It upset many. In the days following that speech many people came to me with a sense of complete and utter incredulity and said: “Did the Bailiff really say that? I thought I heard him say that what was important was the headlines. Surely not.” I had to look it up because I did not hear the speech live, because I did not believe it either. No, but that is what the Bailiff did. Those are the 2 grounds on which many people in the Island have said: “Enough is enough.” Can we have faith in this particular Bailiff? Where is any sense of remorse for 2, I believe, serious errors made, consciously made, but yet to be apologised for. It seems to me, as is often the case, that an apology in both of those cases, in either of those cases, would have done for many of those upset, moved by what has happened, may well have done the business and we could have perhaps laid it to rest but no, no sense of backing down, no sense of apology, no sense even of having made 2 serious errors of judgment. That is the reality. I am glad to be able to second this motion and I leave it to others to continue this debate which I believe is an important one to have and we certainly should not be sitting on our hands and condemning this proposition to a silent death.
It is well documented that I have never really considered the post of Bailiff tenable as an institution. There does need to be a clear separation of powers, especially in the 21st century, and to have the Head Judge sat in this Chamber as Chair of this legislature is manifestly untenable. But it is not so much the post that we are concerned with today: it is the vote of no confidence against the current incumbent. It is also well documented and well known that I have had a range of disagreements with the present incumbent pretty much throughout my political career, all of the significant ones of which I would suggest go further to the points made by Deputy Pitman as to the essential inadequacy of this individual to deal with a lot of these issues. Before I go into those I really think it should be known that the Bailiff is not in the Chamber today on the Law Officers’ Benches in order to defend himself, to answer his critics, to take part in the debate because he chose that it should be so. I would just like to read an e-mail I sent to him on the 9th: “Bailiff, I spoke briefly with the Greffier today in order to inquire as to which procedures will be used in respect of the vote of no confidence against you which has been tabled by Deputy Pitman. Clearly, it would not be appropriate for you to chair the meeting; a similar observation has been made concerning the Deputy Bailiff. I was therefore happy to learn from the Greffier that he would be presiding. I also asked him whether you would be present in the Law Officers’ Benches to defend yourself. I was somewhat surprised to learn that you probably would not be in the Chamber for the debate as apparently you do not wish to defend yourself. For my part, I believe that any Member of the Assembly who is subject to some form of critical debate must have the full opportunity to defend themselves. It seems to me that several problems arise in the event of you [this is the Bailiff] not attending. Firstly, it could appear as merely a stratagem to enable the establishment Members to assert that you were not able to defend yourself when in fact your non-attendance would have been entirely your own choice. Secondly, it could most certainly be seen as disrespectful to the Chamber to not attend in respect of a debate and vote which concerns yourself. Thirdly, you will no doubt recollect that following about 6 months’ exclusion from the Assembly imposed on me I had a summons served on me at night at my home by which my attendance was going to be compelled to the Assembly. If such an approach was legitimate as far as I am concerned it must, by extension, be legitimate as far as you are concerned.” I concluded by saying: “It seems to me that by far the most appropriate course of action would be for you to attend the debate.” By not attending the Bailiff has exhibited disrespect for this Assembly, has attempted to undermine the credibility of the debate and has denied the listening public the opportunity to hear his side of events and to hear any explanation and I think his non-attendance here today, in fact, is a further serious black mark against him. It is also worth noting that should people consider my fairly frequent criticisms of the Jersey Evening Post too excessive that I did inform the Jersey Evening Post of the e-mail I just quoted and the issues of the Bailiff refusing to attend here today some days ago. They printed not one word about the issue, so again another stark example of the utter bias of the Jersey Evening Post. But let me turn through to some of the evidenced facts we have against the present incumbent, Sir Philip Bailhache. Firstly, we have the Holland affair. Now, it is claimed by him that a different decision may have been made. Well, that is a statement of fact. It was also asserted in his recent letter in response to the B.B.C. Radio 4 documentary that it perhaps was not known back in 1991, 1992 that paedophiles remained dangerous. That is simply incorrect. It was well documented then and has been for many decades. It is simply a statement of fact. But the remarkable thing about that episode is, again, as has been remarked by Deputy Southern, the complete and utter arrogance, refusal, total unwillingness to hold hands up and say: “I was culpable, I made a mistake, I am sorry.” He also asserted at that episode that the courts probably would not have wanted jurisdiction for him to go back to them after Holland’s swearing-in to have him removed from office. Well, what an absurd argument. Surely given that the Bailiff then, when he was Attorney General, had become aware that a convicted paedophile had been sworn in as an Honorary Officer, he should have at least attempted to get the court to strip Holland of office. He should have attempted to get the courts to accept jurisdiction and he should have attempted to get Holland stripped of office. Even if he had failed in both of those objectives it would have served the crucial purpose of alerting the public exactly to the issues concerning Holland. The fact that Philip Bailhache failed to do that I am afraid is simply catastrophic and, it has been remarked, would have led to the dismissal or the resignation of members in virtually any other modern, respectable jurisdiction. But then it is not only as though the Roger Holland affair was the only example of poor performance, poor judgment on the part of the Bailiff in respect of child protection issues. The Victoria College abuse scandal: the Bailiff was a member of the Board of Governors of that institution in the early 1990s at a time when child abuse was being routinely committed. Complaints of it were being received by the school authorities; the authorities chose to ignore those complaints; consequently the abuse then went on for a period of some more years until the abuser was finally arrested and prosecuted and convicted. Again, another stark example of the completely lackadaisical and non-serious application to matters of child protection. But there are other flaws. We get to the Limited Liability Partnership row. Let us remember that I ended up being excluded, quite improperly, because there was no provision in Standing Orders or the States of Jersey Law for indefinite suspension, suspended from the Assembly for 6 months at the directive of the Bailiff merely for pointing out a conflict of interests on the part of another Member. It is quite interesting, I do not think I have discussed this publicly previously, but I was called to remain at a meeting with the Bailiff and the then Greffier, Geoffrey Coppock shortly before the summer recess where I was told by the Bailiff that I would have to withdraw everything I had said concerning the other Member and apologise for it. I said: “Well, why should I do that because everything I said is true and it is evidenced; here is the evidence.” He said: “That does not matter, you will have to withdraw everything you said and apologise for it.” To which I said: “Well, I am sorry but I am not going to do that because it is true.” He said: “Look, you are going to have to withdraw everything you said and apologise for it or there will be very serious consequences for you.” I asked him what those consequences might be. He ummed and ahed and said: “Well, never mind about that just take my word for it there will be very serious consequences for you and that would be such a pity as you have such a lot to offer as a politician.” I did not really realise it at the time but with hindsight that was probably a criminal offence because even the States of Jersey Law at that time expressly contained a provision that forbade any kind of menace or compulsion to be placed upon any Member in respect of what they may say or do in this Assembly, but we all know how far that complaint to the Crown Officers would have gone in respect of that. The Bailiff then had me excluded via a proposition he put to the Assembly which he allowed nobody to speak in, did not allow me to defend myself, did not allow other Members who wanted to who were attempting to stand up and defend me, to speak on my behalf. I ended up being excluded for 6 months and then after that, as I have already remarked, I was summoned back to the Assembly as described. Then we move on to another example of the paucity of judgment. The just utter inadequacy of this particular Bailiff when it comes to child protection issues. I wrote to him a very angry e-mail, I think it was early last year, following the sentencing by him of a paedophile to 2 years’ probation who had essentially been attempting to rape 3 teenage girls by grooming them, plying them with alcohol, money and cigarettes. Two years’ probation for a would-be child rapist. You could not make it up. Then we get to his general political interferences and it is often asserted by him and his supporters that the Bailiff does not interfere politically. Well, yes he does. I could not recollect the number of times over the years I have brought propositions, amendments or questions to be dealt with in this Assembly and they have been interfered with, ruled out of order, stopped, sabotaged in some way by the Bailiff. I can give you 3 examples of that off the top of my head. Earlier this year - or it might have even been late last year; I forget the exact date - I submitted a question which was directed to the Chairman of the Comité des Connétables as is allowed and described in States of Jersey Law and Standing Orders and asked him to reveal to the Assembly if any of the Connétables received any additional personal money, pension, benefit, anything of that nature, any kind of further additional remuneration from Parish funds. He simply refused in the teeth of the law and the Standing Orders to permit the question - utterly bizarre. The 2 questions I have asked in the Assembly; firstly the one concerning the election periods for Constables, again, ravingly interfered with by the Bailiff and rendered meaningless and, likewise, the other questions for the Attorney General. So even this morning we have 2 examples of questions which have been interfered with. Then we get to him stopping the publication of my official comments during the dismissal debate. Cast your minds back to 11th September last year when I was facing dismissal as the Minister for Health and Social Services. A very substantial report containing a hotchpotch of distortions, omissions and, frankly, outright falsehoods had been tabled by the Council of Ministers against me. I prepared some formal comments as Ministers do in response to the propositions and the Bailiff, again, quite unprecedentedly and without any legitimate right, stopped them from being formally printed. It is obvious why he did so: he did it to stop the documentation gaining Parliamentary privilege and to stop it appearing on the States Greffe website because it is damaging to the establishment and indeed to him in some respects. Then we get to him stopping my Christmas speech. I think it is worth just reflecting upon that. We are a democratic Assembly and no Member of this Assembly has to agree with one single word of what I say then or at any other time. But the speech was in order, it broke no Standing Orders, it broke no Code of Conduct, it was therefore a legitimate speech, in order, and no matter if the Bailiff and every single other Member of this Assembly hated and detested every word of it, I had a right to deliver it. His joining-in with the mob-rule and anarchy and switching my microphone off and stopping me delivering that speech is another example of just how profoundly inadequate this man is when it comes to exhibiting some kind of sensible, balanced judgment on issues. That evening after that incident, I was inundated with calls, e-mails of support from members of the public but more significantly I had quite a number of the victims, who I know and I have been trying to help, on the phone to me grieving and angry and in tears. In tears that they just could not believe - could not believe - that the States Assembly could behave in this way. Turning to some of the remarks made by Senator Walker. He described the proposition and the debate we are having on it as “light-hearted and trivial” and that it was instead a deeply serious matter. Well, I do not think there is anything light-hearted or trivial in the report and proposition, nor indeed in Deputy Pitman’s speech. It seemed to me that they dealt with very important and significant issues, i.e. the failure to properly protect children from risk and jeopardy at the hands of paedophiles. Now, that might be light-hearted and trivial and not an important matter in the world of Senator Walker but I do not think he is in step with 99.9 per cent of the rest of the population. Then we get to the Bailiff’s Liberation Day speech. Well, as has already been remarked, what gross hypocrisy. I am a politician, I have stood in this Assembly giving a political speech and I had my microphone cut and the debate adjourned by the Bailiff. The Bailiff, supposedly not a politician, although some of us would question that, certainly unelected, a public functionary, a member of the judiciary, the head of the judiciary, the judiciary which will be presiding, unless I can do anything about it, over the child abuse cases, making a public speech in which he essentially attacks and denigrates the abuse survivors, the media coverage and essentially those who are campaigning on their behalf. Again, you just could not make it up, it is that extraordinary. The hypocrisy of it was breathtaking. So annoyed was I at that because, again - again - I had to deal with probably about 15 very angry, tearful abuse survivors following that speech by the Bailiff. There was, of course, at the time of the B.B.C. Radio 4 documentary a little while ago his flat refusal to clearly apologise to the parent of a victim of Holland. So, following these I wrote an e-mail of resignation to the Bailiff from the Bailiff’s Consultative Panel which I will quote: “I write to formally notify you of my resignation from the Bailiff’s Consultative Panel. While I had little confidence in you as a person in any event, both your statement to the B.B.C. and the letter you have issued to States Members today are really the final straw. Quite what ‘33 years’ of service’ or ‘acting in good faith’ have to do with a matter of this gravity I am afraid eludes me completely. You may have been acting in good faith but that is hardly the issue. The fact is your decision to not refer Holland to the Royal Court was gross incompetence. Most of us are accountable for our mistakes. People lose their jobs over far less serious matters. The fact that you are intent on attempting to remain in post in this great peacetime moment of crisis for the Island, a crisis arising from an ingrained culture, a failure and contempt towards vulnerable children simply serves to further illustrate your compound inadequacies. If you possess the faintest understanding of child protection matters as a man in your position should, you would know contrary to the assertions in your letter …” I will not quote it all but I have already spoken about the fact that paedophiles remain dangerous. I go on to say: “It is not as though this is the only gross child protection failure on your record; just from my memory 2 others occur.” The Victoria College Board of Governors issue and the failure to issue a custodial sentence to the paedophile, again, as I have already spoken about. I go on to say: “Yet another example of your contemptible attitude towards child protection can be found in your decision to side with mob-rule by your oligarchy allies and stop my Christmas speech in which I was attempting to express some recognition and empathy towards child abuse victims. The first time ever a States Member had stood and spoken in acknowledgment of what had happened and you stopped it even though every single sentence of my speech was compliant with Standing Orders and the Members Code of Conduct. The barracking of me by establishment politicians was simply an assault upon democracy, free speech and the rule of law; something you were content to embrace even though your actions had no basis in any recognised democratic procedure. The Speaker of any respectable legislature would have told those Members who were interrupting to sit down and shut up. Any decent Speaker would have told them no matter if every other Member of the Assembly hates and disagrees with the Senator’s every word he will have his say. But you instead, as recently as December 2007, preferred to silence an expression of empathy for abuse survivors and again to fail the vulnerable. Even if your claim of ignorance in 1992 could be taken seriously, even if it did not exhibit gross incompetence of the most dangerous type, your recent actions show, I am afraid, that you remain utterly incompetent in matters of child protection. Let me give you some advice: your position is hopeless. Not even the infamous friends at court in Whitehall are going to be able to save you and your colleagues this time. It really would be better for this community and, frankly, better for you if you just went and went now and took your colleagues with you.” To conclude I want to return to the speech that the Bailiff gave on Liberation Day. Now, I helped to establish a Jersey Care Leavers’ Association. I am not a member of it; I only rarely attend their meetings when I am invited to. It is run by them, for them and overseen and guided by people with similar experiences from the United Kingdom Care Leavers’ Association. They had a meeting at a point following the Bailiff’s speech and they issued a press statement. I was not present at this meeting, I had nothing to do with this, but I think to finish, it is worth reading out just what the Jersey Care Leavers’ Association thought of this matter. It is headed: “Jersey Care Leavers’ Association calls on Bailiff to retract claim that media coverage is the ‘real scandal’. The Bailiff of Jersey used his speech on Liberation Day to attack the press for their reporting of the child abuse investigation in Jersey. The Bailiff said that ‘denigration of Jersey and her people is the real scandal.’ The Jersey C.L.A. (Care Leaders’ Association) discussed the comments made by the Bailiff at its meeting on Wednesday, 28th May 2008 and decided to release the following statement: ‘Whatever the merits of the very different media coverage of the child abuse scandal in Jersey, the Jersey C.L.A. was shocked to hear the Bailiff say that the denigration of Jersey and her people is the real scandal. The Jersey C.L.A. knows that the overwhelming majority of Jersey residents know the difference in seriousness between continuous, contentious press reports that often get facts wrong such as was carried by the Daily Mail recently and the fact that to date over 160 adults have come forward to say they suffered abuse while in the care of the States of Jersey over a number of decades. We, the victims of this scandal, are disgusted with the Bailiff’s speech. He had weeks to make the statement about the historic abuse case yet chose Liberation Day to try and misinform the people of Jersey. The Jersey C.L.A. also believe that while the police are still to complete their investigation it is becoming clear that abuse did take place in the Jersey childcare system on a huge scale. The Bailiff should retract his statement and acknowledge that the most important scandal is that the abuse took place and remained unchallenged for years. The Bailiff should apologise to the victims of child abuse in Jersey for claiming that the real scandal is media coverage. The Bailiff’s comments portray the Jersey establishment as uncaring towards its people and it is this attitude that presents Jersey and its people in a terrible light to the international community who are following the story. The Jersey C.L.A. also believes that an admission of wrongdoing by those involved must be the first step to help those abused accept and deal with their nightmares. We have many friends who have suffered untimely deaths through addiction and suicide. We are fighting for justice for them too in their memory and we will fight for justice for all care leavers who were victimised in the hope that such justice will help them to finally make sense of their lives.’” The statement concludes at that point. Those are the views of survivors; people who have already been abused by the authorities in Jersey, often catastrophically. The Bailiff’s speech was effectively just another load of abuse on top of that which they have already suffered. The care leavers also wrote directly to the Bailiff asking for an apology for the remarks he made in his speech. He has not issued nor given any indication that he is prepared to issue any such apology. Again, I find myself dealing with distressed, wrecked, messed-up victims who just seemingly continue to get trampled into the ground by the system here in Jersey. The Bailiff is manifestly unfit to occupy this particular post on a variety of grounds for a variety of ways. I do not think a more inadequate individual in public administration I have ever met. I will most certainly be supporting the proposition and it is my earnest hope that at least Members will do the public the favour of debating these matters. I move the adjournment, Sir.
The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):
The Assembly stands adjourned until 2.15 p.m.
The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):
Does any other Member wish to speak? I call upon Deputy Pitman to reply.
It would be an insult to the men and women of Jersey who have suffered physical and sexual abuse at the hands of Roger Holland, and so-called previous carers at Haut de la Garenne and other children’s homes, if I had brought this proposition for political gain and electioneering for the JDA (Jersey Democratic Alliance). To use the serious misfortune of others for political gain is something I find abhorrent in politicians who do so and so, Sir, I find it disgusting that the Chief Minister and his Council have accused me of this. Come the election it will be some of his Ministers who will have to use the Communications Unit to promote themselves. Not I, who does actually listen and work - as far as my abilities allow - for the people who approach me, many of whom have either been victims of child abuse, relations of victims, or who have been at the receiving end of a bad decision made by the Bailiff, this Chief Judge. Furthermore, Sir, I do not believe that Senator Walker believes that I am abusing my position for political gain. He is a man, with others, protecting a friend and using my name to do so. Further, Sir, this cunning tactic allows for the Chief Minister and his Ministers to avoid the major issues of justice and accountability - a frequent occurrence of the Council - that these victims of child abuse and their families say rightly are due from this Government. I also believe, Sir, that there are too many Members in this House who stay clear of the taboo that is questioning the Bailiff. Sir, if it can be said that the abusers have to be accountable for the terrible abuse that they have caused 16 years ago, so should the Bailiff. When I ask: “Is the Bailiff going to be held accountable for a decision which led to a man to continue to abuse children within a position of trust - not by this Government, Sir - where do the victims of Roger Holland go to get this justice? Where does this leave other victims who were brought up in these children’s homes? Where does this leave the Jersey public in their confidence in this Government?” Once again, I believe significantly damaged and only demonstrates that many Members of this Government are significantly out of touch with the people of Jersey. I maintain the proposition and call for the appel.
The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):
The appel is called for. I ask Members to return to their designated seats. The Greffier will open the voting for or against the proposition of Deputy ...
Senator M.E. Vibert:
I notice Senator Perchard has returned after being delayed and I wonder if the défaut could be lifted on him, please?
The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):
The Senator is marked as excused. We have noted he is present and he is able to participate in the vote, thank you. The voting is open for or against the proposition.
|
POUR: 3 |
|
CONTRE: 47 |
|
ABSTAIN: 0 |
|
Senator S. Syvret |
|
Senator L. Norman |
|
|
|
Deputy G.P. Southern (H) |
|
Senator F.H. Walker |
|
|
|
Deputy S. Pitman (H) |
|
Senator W. Kinnard |
|
|
|
|
|
Senator T.A. Le Sueur |
|
|
|
|
|
Senator P.F. Routier |
|
|
|
|
|
Senator M.E. Vibert |
|
|
|
|
|
Senator P.F.C. Ozouf |
|
|
|
|
|
Senator T.J. Le Main |
|
|
|
|
|
Senator B.E. Shenton |
|
|
|
|
|
Senator F.E. Cohen |
|
|
|
|
|
Senator J.L. Perchard |
|
|
|
|
|
Connétable of St. Ouen |
|
|
|
|
|
Connétable of St. Mary |
|
|
|
|
|
Connétable of St. Clement |
|
|
|
|
|
Connétable of St. Helier |
|
|
|
|
|
Connétable of Trinity |
|
|
|
|
|
Connétable of Grouville |
|
|
|
|
|
Connétable of St. Brelade |
|
|
|
|
|
Connétable of St. Martin |
|
|
|
|
|
Connétable of St. John |
|
|
|
|
|
Connétable of St. Saviour |
|
|
|
|
|
Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S) |
|
|
|
|
|
|