Who is the real Chief Minister? (PART 1)

In this first of a series asking “who is the real Chief Minister?” I re-produce a quite staggering exchange taken from Hansard in Feb 09. It should be said that the Former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM is on record as saying that the typed notes of his suspension are not an entirely accurate reflection of what was said at the suspension meeting.


Terry Le Sueur appears extremely defensive of his Chief Executive Officer Bill Ogley (The Real Chief Minster?) as will become more apparent during this series, and is in no hurry to admit that the only people to have seen the handwritten notes of Bill Ogley, before he (Bill Ogley) destroyed them, were Ogley himself and Andrew Lewis, the then Home Affairs Minister. Graham Power QPM who was being suspended (possibly illegally) was not shown the notes so could not have signed them off.........All perfectly reasonable according to our Chief Minister.

03/02/09
The Deputy Bailiff:

There were 2 questions put to the bottom of the list because Deputy Pitman was detained, so Deputy would you like to put question 4?


4.15 Deputy T.M. Pitman of the Minister for Chief Minister regarding an inquiry into the suspension of the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police:

I would like to thank the House for its understanding in moving the questions and also thank my wife for carrying me up Bonne Nuit Hill. In the light of allegations of evidence relating to the suspension of the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police being destroyed by the States Chief Executive Officer, will the Chief Minister immediately implement a full independent inquiry and suspend the Chief Executive Officer until such an inquiry is completed?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):

The short answer is no. I do not consider it necessary to implement a full independent inquiry into the issue referred to in the question. The handwritten notes taken at the meeting in question were subsequently used to produce a typed document which was then countersigned by the former Home Affairs Minister and distributed to all 3 persons who had been present at the meeting. The handwritten notes were subsequently destroyed. This is perfectly normal procedure in relation to employee disciplinary or grievance hearings in the public sector.

4.15.1 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

With due respect, in making such replies and in issuing statements about mischief-making, does the Chief Minister not accept that he really misjudges the seriousness with which the public view this and, in fact, it will just be viewed as a smokescreen for him perhaps not possessing the political testicular fortitude for suspending the C.O. (Chief Officer).

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

No, I do not believe I do misjudge the public and I believe that if the public were aware of the facts, as I have just outlined them, they would not be at all concerned.

4.15.2 The Deputy of St. Martin:

I heard the Chief Minister say that the typed document was signed by obviously the Chief Officer and also by the Minister and passed on to the 3 people involved. But was the draft signed by the third person involved? In other words, did the third person agree with what had been typed?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

In view of the fact that the matter is still under consideration from a disciplinary point of view, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to comment on the reaction of the suspended Chief Officer.

The Deputy of St. Martin:

I would have thought it was quite a straightforward question. Was it signed or was it not?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I have nothing to add to my previous answer.

4.15.3 Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:

The Chief Minister said that it is perfectly normal procedure when conducting disciplinary hearings to circulate notes from typewritten drafts from handwritten drafts and then to destroy the notes before the typewritten minutes are agreed; does he stand by that statement? Is he not aware that the normal procedure is to check that all parties have agreed that the minutes represent a fair comment?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I rephrase that that is the procedure which is currently adopted throughout the States in regard to disciplinary proceedings. I am happy to review those and agree that those procedures need to be reviewed on a regular basis. If they require updating they will be but certainly what was carried out here is in compliance with the normal procedures currently in force.

4.15.4 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Could the Chief Minister circulate to Members the procedures that are written that outline this practice please so that we can establish for our own minds what has been written down and what is the practice and what is the policy? Can he also let us know at what time that was agreed, how was it agreed, where it was agreed, who drew them up, so we can see where the policy exists in writing that this is the common practice?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

Practice evolves over a period of time. I shall endeavour to find out what is available in written form to submit to Members. I cannot guarantee at this stage how comprehensive that would be.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Are there no guidelines?

4.15.5 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Can I ask the Chief Minister, when the former Minister for Home Affairs signed the written document that he referred to, did he also have sight at the same time the handwritten notes? Was he comparing the handwritten notes with what was on the typewritten notes?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I cannot speak for the former Minister but I believe that was the case.

4.15.6 The Deputy of St. John:

I refer back to a yes or no answer; did the 3 people concerned all sign the document?

The Deputy Bailiff:

That has already been asked, Deputy.

The Deputy of St. John:

It was not answered, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff:

It is up to the Chief Minister whether he wants to change his answer.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

The document was signed by the Chief Executive and the Minister for Home Affairs, it was not signed and it would not be expected to be signed by the suspended Chief Officer.

4.15.7 Senator S. Syvret:

In a matter of such gravity as the suspension of the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force, really does the Chief Minister not find it extraordinary that such a piece of evidence as the contemporaneous handwritten notes was destroyed, especially as I have learnt in the course of the last 2 years that one of the very first things the police want and require on an evidential basis are the handwritten notes of any meetings or discussions that have taken place? [Approbation]

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I do not find it extraordinary at all. I agree a full record of what happened at the meeting was required and is required and is available in identical form and, you would think, far more of use than some illegible ... I must not cast doubt on people’s handwriting, but some more illegible handwritten form. (End Hansard)

Terry, surely this sort of stuff has to emabarrass you? How can the public have confidence in you, or the Civil Service, after reading this?.....................................with plenty more similar stuff to come.