As the first day of
debate on the findings of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry progressed, it was striking
how many members had been converted to the relative importance of social
affairs in Jersey. The real divide in the House now appears to be over the much reported “Jersey
Way”, between those who think it’s a good thing and those who think it’s bad.
Sen. Ian Gorst opened with a
speech setting out his government’s approach to implementing the
recommendations of the Oldham Report. He said that individuals and institutions
must be held to account, but if the House was only to apportion blame then
their job was not fully done.
After this opening speech, it was
Dep. Montfort Tadier’s (St Brelade No. 2) turn to speak. Before he began,
however, he killed any gathering momentum by fiddling around trying to open an
email on his iPad. Dep. Rod Bryans (St Helier No. 2) read out a list of what the
Education Department had done in the past few years to help children. The
Constable of St Martin began his speech by admitting that he hadn’t yet read
the full report. Andrew Lewis should take
note.
Dep. Anne Pryke (Trinity) used
four I’s in her speech - “ineffectual, inadequate, inexplicable, inexcusable”.
No, not a self-portrait, but the description of Jersey as a substitute parent
put forward by Frances Oldham QC. Pryke then referred back to her time as
Health and Social Services Minister in 2009 (some members appeared to have forgotten this). Both her and Dep.
Mike Higgins (St Helier No. 3 and 4) raised individual cases brought to them and
some members did indeed speak movingly.
Sen. Andrew Green read out a
freephone number to the House for those who needed support. He accused Higgins
of “mudslinging” by making comments in his individual case raised which “he
knows are not totally correct” (is this
unparliamentary language?). Anyway,
Higgins can get away with not being totally correct; just ask the Attorney
General.
Green then indulged in a bit of
mudslinging of his own, dumping on his predecessors at Health - except for Pryke,
who’s excellent work he obviously praised because she was still present in the
House. What a creep. Don't turn your back on
him Anne...
Dep. Sam Mezec (St Helier No. 2) began
by saying how difficult it had been to write a speech for a debate containing
so many different strands. He apologised in advance for reading his notes and for
being unable to string a sentence together (don’t
worry Sam; it never stopped Eddie Noel). The token UK reference this week
was again Grenfell Tower. Mezec claimed it was “not an accident”. Dep. Peter
McLinton (St Saviour No. 1) always looks uncomfortable sitting next to him.
For a debate “in committee”,
there was very little in the way of interventions. However, Sen. Sarah Ferguson
and Dep. Steve Luce (St Martin) took the hump with Mezec over his comments
about whether members were trustworthy.
Const. Chris Taylor (St John)
stirred next. “Hands up who has a degree in politics?” he asked. One gullible
member put their hand up. Most other members were probably using their hands to
hold their heads in despair. Taylor said that in 50 years’ time it will be a
matter of shame that there are so many unqualified people in the Assembly (surely he means “unelected”?). The fact
that Taylor thinks a politics degree makes a good politician tells you all you
need to know about him.
The Constable of St John had also
taken the hump, but primarily with the Oldham Report’s use of the phrase “local”
Constables rather than “parish” Constables. He defended parish hall enquiries
for keeping children out of the judicial system (hmmm…) and highlighted the good work done by the parish system in
the past. Taylor then went on to tell the enraptured Chamber about how his son
had dislocated his elbow at a swimming pool when he was young. He also
explained to members the rules of “Crocodiles”, a Taylor family game which his
son was injured playing. The point of Taylor’s biography was to prove that the
children’s service was keeping an eye on his child after a few accidents which
he had suffered but seriously, is there any reason to bring so much unnecessary personal detail into the House? Many members are guilty of this shortcoming. It has the effect of turning parliamentary debates into group therapy.
Dep. Peter McLinton was
“saddened” by a lot of attitudes and experiences from his childhood. To mass
approbation, he bashed his copy of the report with his fist and criticised the tone of the debate as “like hearing an argument
at a funeral”. Oh please. Out of all the Jersey politicians, former media personalities in particular can’t resist this
self-indulgent, “why can’t we just all
get on?” crap. By its
very nature, political debate contains argument. It isn’t a radio phone-in.
Peter Mac helpfully read to
members large passages of the UN Convention on the Rights of a Child, as if he
were the first person ever to read it, before announcing there should be no
more “he said, she said” because “that’s why we got ourselves in this mess in
the first place historically.” Actually
Peter, it’s because we didn’t do enough “he said, she said” finger pointing in
the first place that we are in this position now.
After admitting a grave political
error earlier in the week for his 2008 Liberation Day address, Sen. Philip
Bailhache gave an equivocal speech expressing reservations as to whether the
State was responsible for children. Otherwise, he used his speech to angle for
the appointment of an Assistant Minister at Health with responsibility for
children (that wet-dream of an executive
majority in the House always gets pushed by Sir Phil). Dep. Judy Martin (St
Helier No. 1) helpfully reminded the former Bailiff that she had indeed been an
Assistant Minister at Health but wasn’t given any powers or responsibility for
children to go with it.
Dep. Geoff Southern (St Helier
No. 2) used his opportunity to push for tax rises and Dep. Jeremy Macon (St
Saviour No. 1) stodged through his favourite subject of procedures. Finally,
Dep. Andrew Lewis (St Helier No. 3 and 4) stood to launch his defence to the
Inquiry’s finding that he was a liar. The now confirmed political lightweight
doubled down on his denial, saying that it was all an issue of “terminology”.
After Lewis had smeared some of
the Graham Power mess onto former civil servant Bill Ogley, the Attorney General
rose and gave Lewis a pardon. The AG told the House that States members can’t
be prosecuted for lying to the House or an Inquiry; therefore, Honest Andy
would not be prosecuted. Earlier, the Chief Minister had claimed that
individuals and institutions must be held to account. What a pity no one had told the AG.
No investigation into Lewis appears
to have taken place, and no reasoning was given by the AG for his decision not
to prosecute. Happily for members, the AG has confirmed that they can freely lie
under oath in the House or at an inquiry. At
least we now know for certain there’s no point believing anything members say.
Whether the Care Inquiry actually
changes anything in Jersey remains to be seen. One thing is for sure, it
certainly hasn’t changed the States Assembly itself.
