On my last blog posting, Chief Minister 6, I showed what a little bit of research and evidence can prove. So the question I ask is: How did the Chief Minister, Terry Le Sueur, and the deputy Chief Executive, John Richardson, get it so wrong? The question asked of the Chief Minister by the good back-benchers, who are seeking truth, honesty and integrity, is a very simple one: Why was part D of the terms of reference dropped?
Now as clearly evidenced by the letter I published from the former Chief of Police, Graham Power, the Chief Minister is misleading the house. For me this is very serious and, some people may say: What does it matter it's only Part D? But for me it goes to the very heart of everything that is wrong at the moment. All we seem to get from the Council of Ministers is half truths or lies, lies and damn lies.
Again, I ask, a question gets submitted to the Chief Minister regarding Part D of the terms of reference and the Chief Minister replies with complete and utter garbage by stating that the former Chief of Police would fully participate in the Napier Review on 31 March. I find it incredible that the Chief Minister is given this answer by his civil servant when it is so blatantly wrong. Is this the level of government we now find ourselves with?
I have been watching and studying the States now for quite some time and, in doing this, I have become accustomed to how it works. For any person out there who has not already, if you have a free moment, go up into the States gallery and watch a sitting. I warn you now. It will leave you demoralised and under no illusion that we are in serious doo doo!
How is it that back-benchers can bring propositions to the House, well researched and evidence based, and yet 99% of the time their proposition will be rejected. The reason they will be rejected is due to the 29 votes that will always swing the same way as the Treasury Minister, Philip Ozouf.
On the matter of Senator Ozouf, let me just say what a joke I thought this morning's Talk Back phone in, phone out, phone you, phone me was. It was just a normal Talk Back show, but packaged in such a way that Philip Ozouf didn't have any opposition sitting next to him in the studio. He was therefore never challenged and allowed to waffle and waffle to the extent that, by the time he had finished talking, you had forgotten what the question was. These Talk Back shows need to improve and have a serious hard impartial anchor who is well versed on the issues and will keep guests on point.
Sorry for the slight digression. I must fully congratulate the back-benchers who have strived for truth honesty and integrity and who do not give up in the face of adversity. On my next blog posting I will be showing my readers the Jersey Power Chart.
There is so much more I want to say on what is going wrong in the States Chamber, but for me the only problem I see right not is the 29 members who consistently vote with Philip Ozouf. We can bring questions. We can bring propositions. We can hold rallies. We can drink Kir Royale at the Grand Hotel, but at the end of the day it's those same 29, who seem to lack any independence of thought, backed by a Council of Ministers telling a pack of lies. Yet these 29 vote with them every time. How is it that these 29 people voted for Chief Minister Le Sueur's Commissioner led review, over Deputy Hill's P9 and THEN when the Deputy of St Martin's asked the Chief Minister to bring a statement to the House regarding Napier's review, more or less the exact same 29 voted against it? Make no mistake. The Jersey child abuse scandal has fully exposed the ineptitude and morally and socially corrupt attitude of this government.
Senator Terry Le Sueur
Senator Paul Routier
Senator Philip Ozouf
Senator Terry Le Main
Senator Ben Shenton
Senator Freddie Cohen
Senator Sarah Ferguson
Senator Alan Maclean
Senator Ian Le Marquand
Connetable Len Norman
Connetable Silvanus Yates
Connetable Daniel Murpthy
Connétable Ken Vibert
Connétable John Gallichan
Connétable Mike Jackson
Connétable Graham Butcher
Connétable Peter Hanning
Connétable John Refault
Connétable Juliette Gallichan
Deputy Ben Fox
Deputy James Reed
Deputy Jackie Hilton
Deputy Ian Gorst
Deputy Phil Rondel
Deputy Angela Jeune
Deputy Ann Dupré
Deputy Eddie Noel
Deputy Andrew Green M.B.E.
So I now come to an exchange in the house between Deputy Tadier and Chief Minister Le Suer.
4.6 Deputy M. Tadier:
Earlier in question time the Chief Minister said he agreed with the principle of being innocent until proven guilty in Jersey and in common law, I guess, as a principle. Will the Minister, therefore, confirm that as Mr. Power has not been found guilty of anything that he is, in fact, innocent?
Senator T.A. Le Sueur:
It depends on how one describes the term “innocent”, in that it is certainly the case that he has not been proved guilty. He has not had the chance, or no one had the chance, to determine that situation. On the basis that until one is proven guilty one remains innocent in law, then clearly Mr. Power, the former Chief Constable of Police, was, on that basis, innocent and is.
4.6.1 Deputy M. Tadier:
Given the fact that we have heard from the Chief Minister that he was and is innocent, will he be asking the Minister for Home Affairs to make an apology, or will he be making an apology, to an innocent man?
Senator T.A. Le Sueur:
This sums it up for me. And again why the Child Abuse Victims will never receive an apology from this Government.
So, after exposing the Chief Minister over the dropping of part (D) and finding out that the final terms of reference were agreed on the 25th March 2010 we also know that the JEP ran an article two days later with the full Terms of Reference published, including part (D).
This had led to Deputy Bob HIll emailing the Chief Minister. I reproduce it in full below.
From: Bob Hill
Sent: 03 December 2010 11:16
To: Terry Le Sueur
Cc: All States Members (including ex officio members); Diane Simon; John Richardson (CMD)
Subject: Napier Review; Terms of Reference.
Good Morning Terry,
With reference to the Ministerial Decision above. You will note that it contains the following: "Mr. Napier is an experienced Barrister who specialises in Employment and Discrimination Law. Mr. Napier was also able to start the investigation immediately and following an initial meeting in Jersey on 25 March 2010, agreed the final Terms of Reference (copy attached) and also agreed to commence a review on 6 April 2010. Mr Napier plans to complete his Review and submit his final report in early May."
You will recall that we met Mr Napier at lunch time on 25th March and will concur that he was given the Terms of Reference that were published in the COM Comments(3) to my Proposition P9/2010. You may also recall that prior to my meeting with Mr Napier, he had met Diane Simon from the JEP, and possibly other members of the media. I know I told you when we met Mr Napier that Diane had already been in touch with me asking for a quote for the report she was drafting for publication the following day. You will note from Diane's Report (attached above) that she has included the Terms of Reference as shown in Comments(3). I also know that I spoke to Mr Napier about the Terms and know that he not only had a copy of the Comments (3) but also P9/2010 and the Comments lodged by the Treasury and PPC. Therefore the facts speak for themselves and is also supported in your Ministerial Decision above which state that the Terms of Reference were agreed on 25th March. It is also stated that the agreed Terms of Reference is attached to the Ministerial Decision. Please could I be sent a copy of those Terms by 10am Monday. You are down for Questions without Notice and I hope to be able to ask you why the answers given to Oral Questions asked on 19th October, 16th November and 30th November are at variance from the facts above.
Deputy F. J. (Bob) Hill, BEM.,
Deputy of St Martin.
I have received some comments from Moral-rightnes so instead of publishing them on my last blog I thought I would post them
“Terms of Reference” is a phrase that may be new to some of the public, who along with those who already have knowledge, may be bemused by the definition when attempting to relate to Chief Minister's responses to questions surrounding its change, just prior to the investigation into Graham Power's suspension.
Suspension of Mr. Graham Power, Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police on 12 November 2008 - Report to the Chief Minister of the States of Jersey by Brian Napier QC
[my comments: aka the Napier Report]
Terms of Reference
The purpose of the Review is to:-
a) Examine the procedure employed by the Chief Minister’s Department and the Home Affairs Minister in the period leading up to the suspension of the Chief Officer of Police on 12 November 2008.
[my comments: not relative to any conspiracy]
b) Review the manner in which senior officers managed the assembly of key information used in the decision making process that ultimately led to the suspension of the Chief Officer of Police.
[my comments: not relative to any conspiracy]
c) Investigate whether the procedure for dealing with the suspension was correctly followed at all times including:-
i. The reason for the immediate suspension of the Chief Officer of Police
ii. Whether there were any procedural errors in managing the suspension process.
[my comments: not relative to any conspiracy]
d) The Report should highlight any areas where in the opinion of the Commissioner sufficient evidence exists that would support, in the interests of open government a full Committee of Inquiry into the manner in which the Chief Officer of Police was suspended on 12 November 2008.
[my comments: into the manner - not relative to any conspiracy]
The ongoing issue relates to the change of the original, agreed, “Terms of Reference”, which had the following included:-
(d) Review all information relating to the original suspension procedure, including relevant sections of the published Affidavit from the suspended Chief Officer of Police.
[my comments: would have broadened the inquiry to allow Mr Napier to call in witnesses to support Mr Power's allegation of a conspiracy]
However, I have discovered that Verita are now saying that the suspension of the Consultant does not fall within their remit, and that they have asked the Minister for Health and Social Services to extend their Terms of Reference again, so that they can report on matters relating to the Consultant’s suspension.
Now the Chief Minister would have us believe that changing term (d) had no significance as Graham Power had agreed to be interviewed, but as one can see from the above, the remit no longer permitted an investigation into a conspiracy and although Graham Power had alleged it, Napier was not able to interview anyone who may have supported that allegation.
Furthermore, we now know the reason the Chief Minister gave for changing term (d) was not valid, so why was it removed, buy a person with a conflict of interest (Deputy Chief Officer) without the States agreeing a change via a proposition??
So one question for Mr Napier. that would sink TLS even lower, why did he not interview Deputy P Le Claire?
As we come to the Budget next week check out the voting of the ones above. We will also be looking at the reply's the Chief Minister will be giving to oral questions.