Select a region
Deputy Gavin St Pier has published his statement on the privileges panel debate in full, replying to several accusations levied against him, mainly by Deputies Peter Ferbrache and Liam McKenna:
Sir, Deputy Le Tocq may wish to pray for me.
Firstly, I’d like to begin by apologising…by apologising to the families, the many families at the heart of this, one of whom is represented in the gallery, for the very poor, indeed real trauma which they have experienced at the hands of our health services, as Deputy Bury has said. It is they and their experiences who have been almost entirely absent from this debate and I will bring it back to that.
I am grateful for the adjournment as it has enabled me to check some facts overnight to rebut the cowardly and outrageous innuendo and smears of Deputies Ferbrache and McKenna, in particular that I had said I told Dr Rabey that I wanted Dr Bohin’s head on a stick. These have to be challenged and corrected for the record and on the record.
Neither Deputy had the common decency to put their absurd allegation to me before they spoke. They had ample opportunity to do so. Indeed, I attempted to contact Deputy McKenna three times over the weekend and he did not have the courtesy to return or even acknowledge my messages. I should like to see the evidence on which Deputies McKenna and Ferbrache are relying to make such dangerous allegations - but of course, Deputy Haskins, there isn’t any. It’s fourth hand hearsay. They say, Dr Bohin said, Dr Rabey said, I said. Even an advocate of Deputy Ferbrache’s competence knows that is not admissible evidence.
Anyone who knows me, knows that I would never use the language they cited.
Firstly, the date of the meeting does not tie up with that asserted. I was present at a meeting on 13th April 2021 with Dr Rabey. There are no minutes of that meeting. However, three other families were present. In fact, as I say, one of those present is in the gallery this morning. His face may be familiar to Deputy Ferbrache, as he is the client whom Deputy Ferbrache advised in relation to his family’s self-same safeguarding concerns but whom Deputy Ferbrache has no apparent recollection.
So, last night, I asked the families whether they had any recollection of my using that language.
The first responded:
“I have never heard you use language like that. I know you did not say it.”
The second responded:
“I don’t recall you ever using the phrase. I think all our meetings with Rabey have been professional and measured: we’ve been upset but never angry…”
All the members of HSC have been present at meetings with the families and will, I am sure, confirm that has been their experience and observation.
The third responded:
“I don’t recall it ever being said, in fact, I thought we all held back considerably our feelings…in that meeting. But didn’t Peter [Rabey] say she [Bohin] wants his head on a stick to us?”
Further exchanges between the families followed, and the timing of Dr Rabey saying this was attributed to a follow-up meeting held on 10th May 2021, at which he told the families he had ordered an investigation and had met with Dr Bohin to advise her of this. He said she was very unhappy with his decision to investigate and it is my understanding that is a grievance which she may be continuing to pursue. So I can reassure Deputy Queripel that I never said.
Next, we turn to the allegation that I said I wanted her removed as safeguarding lead. On 13th April 2021, following the meeting that day, I sent an email to Dr Rabey which included the following:
Peter,
Thanks so much for your time today…It was an incredibly important and powerful meeting – all the more so for no-one having a clue as to what others were going to say…
Having reflected, I’d like to propose the following next steps:
a) You and I meet one-to-one next week for half an hour to compare thoughts and notes after some reflection – perhaps first thing on Monday if that works for you – if not, please suggest some alternates – venue to suit you;
b) Get a follow-up meeting in the diary, inviting all those present today in, say, a month?;
c) Immediate suspension as safeguarding lead – remembering that suspension is a neutral act in any investigation…
Sir, I would hope that you would agree that the tone and content is calm, professional and entirely appropriate not the hyperbole claimed by Deputies Ferbrache and McKenna. Note I did not, as claimed, demand her removal, I suggested her suspension pending an investigation.
Next we turn to Deputy Ferbrache’s statement that Dr Bohin had told him that she had contacted the School Attendance Service because she was the only one available to do so. This is, in my view, an extraordinary statement, but even more as this assertion relates to my daughter, who was absent from school for long periods due to her poor health. Dr Bohin has said she played no part in our daughter’s clinical care. I’ve never asserted she did. The role that she did play was, as I said on 27th April 2022, as the Named Doctor for Safeguarding in making unsupported investigations into our family’s life that she insists were never safeguarding investigations, but certainly felt like safeguarding enquiries given the impact they had on us, and were definitely safeguarding investigations in the professional opinion of our GP – and that GP said so. All this in the Bundle that Deputy Ferbrache has referred to.
So, let me add context to this episode for the Assembly. Dr Bohin – outside the safeguarding protocol that means any concerns should be taken to MASH – the Multi Agency Safeguarding Hub – rang the School Attendance Service about our daughter. Not as her paediatrician. Not with our knowledge. But, apparently, she had concerns about our daughter due to her responsibilities as safeguarding lead, and she was the only person able to do this.
Furthermore, what Deputy Ferbrache says Dr Bohin said in relation to this, does not accord with The Islands Child Protection Committee’s report, dated 3rd February 2016, commissioned by Dr Nick Lyons, Dr Rabey’s predecessor as Reporting Officer into the way our family was treated The report is entitled “Independent view requested by Dr Nick Lyons acting on behalf of the Medical Specialist Appeals Panel meeting (held on 29th October 2015.)”
This report is in the Bundle of evidence that the Privileges Panel have seen and that Deputy Ferbrache therefore says he read. On page 11, it says “[name redacted but the Principal Education Psychologist at the time] was not aware of any other occasion when a paediatrician had telephoned the School Attendance Service to enquire about a child’s attendance. Dr Bohin was not advised that her enquiry and discussion with [officer] was inappropriate…”
Next let’s turn to the comments about data protection. I’m not entirely sure what point was being made but I can tell you that the Data Protection Commissioner found multiple breaches of Data Protection Principles under the then 2001 law relating to both the MSG and Dr Bohin’s handling of sensitive medical data in the case of our family. I shall read you in their entirety the relevant sections from the Commissioners letter of 12th December 2016: [read from letter]
Sir, none of this, none of this has anything to do with parliamentary privilege, the matter before the Assembly. This is chaff that has been thrown up by, in particular, Deputy Ferbrache – apparently unable to act in any role other than as a contentious litigator. He made some outrageous, unsupported allegations to throw mud in the hope that some sticks and to suck the Assembly down into the weeds of who said what back when. Deputy Ferbrache was in the minority on the Privileges Panel. He doesn’t like being a loser, we all know that. So he has attempted, disgracefully in my view, as Deputy Fairclough has said, to re-litigate the Panel’s findings on the floor of this Assembly. It’s a witch hunt and a Kangaroo Court where members have shown their bias without any evidence before them. I refute the allegations Deputy Ferbrache made, and as the Assembly can see, have both witnesses and written evidence to support my case.
Deputy Ferbrache really needs to move on from his weird, paranoid obsession with me. Literally nobody, nobody but him cares that I beat him by one vote in 2016 to be President of P&R and a few more of the public voted for me than him in 2020. So what? My advice would be knuckle down and do your job, instead of writing a trillogy of ramblings in the Press that mentioned me in every other sentence and trying to impress a few sychophants with a 31 page minority report. It is these character traits that make him such an unsuitable but more importantly, totally ineffectual leader; leaving him as a captive of his Committee, the Committee for Inaction this term, that has delivered nothing it promised at its outset.
For Deputy Ferbrache’s information, when I have said and say that there was those who have wanted to use this matter to get me out to the States, I was not referring to either him or Deputy De Lisle. I was referring to Deputy Meerveld. That is the name that has been reported to me by a number of people on a number of occasions – and that fact will come as no surprise to any member, least of all Deputy Meerveld. Deputy Meerveld was, as we know and we should never forget it, the mastermind behind the deceitful guerrilla marketing campaign in his first term.
Sir, Deputy Meerveld has defamed me in open correspondence to all members this morning, comments made, ironically perhaps, without the protection of parliamentary privilege. I shall read it in full:
Dear Members,
I have asked the Comptroller to draft an amendment to the Privileges Report, as detailed below.
I realise that this flies in the face of most other jurisdictions, but if our Assembly is incapable or unwilling to discipline our own, the law needs to change to protect the public from Deputies abusing Absolute Privilege to pursue malicious agendas.
Dear Robert,
I cannot accept the principle that Deputies can mislead the Assembly and maliciously lie about and defame individuals outside the assembly under Absolute Privilege and be allowed to do so with the simple justification that ‘they think they are doing it in the island's best interest’, especially as noting this report will establish a precedent for future Privilege Panels.
Please draft an amendment enabling the Assembly to instruct the Panel to withdraw this report and reconsider their decision, including any new evidence.
Absolute Privilege cannot be allowed to be interpreted this way in Guernsey. If the amendment fails, I will need a requête drafted to remove Absolute Privilege and replace it with qualified privilege protection as previously existed in Guernsey, which does not protect if a member lies or is malicious.
I will forward a copy of this email to all members, so they are aware of my intent.
Sir, in the context of this debate on this Privileges Panel’s report on my conduct, no reasonable person could conclude anything than this is a reference to me. I invite Deputy Meerveld to unreservedly withdraw his defamatory words. I will give way.
Deputy Meerveld as the head of SACC, responsible for members’ conduct, it is at best unwise but highly inappropriate for him to meet with a Code of Conduct complainant whilst complaints are still being processed.
Sir,
I will respond to the debate so far, as Deputy Brouard said, without fear or favour. I thank Deputies Queripel and Bury among others for their balanced speeches.
I will explain why I spoke as I did; the abuse of privilege complaint it triggered; the process; the findings; what has happened since; and the learnings, including the absence of any definition of abuse of privilege as Deputy Parkinson has noted.
This is an appropriate opportunity to deal with some of the public comments arising directly from the Privileges Panel’s findings. I’m grateful for them, as it has helped shine a spotlight on some of the issues in the last week or so, as does this debate.
Deputy Gollop has referred to my speaking in the public interest as I saw it. I will start with an illustration that, very briefly, explains for members’ benefit the public interest that drove me to speak as I did in April 2022.
Last Friday, the mother and father of a two-year-old came to see me with a draft, 15-page, 9,000-word letter of complaint which they are about to lodge with the leadership of the States. They are only doing so because, through my speaking in the States, they had become aware that when their child was born, the very negative experience that they had, was not an isolated event. Shockingly, they learned from my speech that they were treated in the same or similar way as others.
With the parents’ permission, I am going to give Members two very short extracts from their letter:
“It is a terrifying truth that we were let down by the system so badly that the only way we could get [our child] better was to go directly against [local specialist paediatric advice] and fund our own private treatment.”
And
“Whilst we were struggling physically, mentally, financially and emotionally to care for our child, administration hurdles were put in our way. The very doctors assigned to look after our child either washed their hands of us or behaved in an aggressive manner.”
Sir, patients and families trust their doctors. Doctors need to trust their patients and carers in return. Parents know their children better than anyone. If parents say, for example, that they really do not think that the diagnosis fits with their knowledge and observations, or the treatment plan is not working, doctors need to listen to that and work with the parents to explore those concerns and enable second opinions.
Representing the views of those who have no voice, or who are not being heard within the system, is one of the reasons that we have been given parliamentary privilege. I am grateful to the Privileges Panel for recognising that in their findings.
I am also grateful to the Panel for appending to their findings, both Hansard and Deputy Ferbrache’s paper. I shall refer to all three documents. Deputy Ferbrache also refers to the Bundle that I gave to the Panel, and I shall do the same.
Deputy Ferbrache’s lengthy paper puts into the public domain, through the Billet, evidence that would not otherwise have been published, which is helpful, as it enables me to respond through this debate. He has also drawn on some selective quotes from documents, which require rebuttal.
Sir, I do appreciate that this is the first time the States has considered an abuse of privilege complaint, but I do hope it has learned from the experience, as it has been a deeply frustrating one to be involved with.
The Committee for Health & Social Care wrote to you on 27th June 2022. It is worth noting that HSC’s letter was initiated by MSG’s letter to HSC of 23rd May, which “invited the Committee to refer Deputy St. Pier to the Presiding Officer with a request that the Presiding Officer refer the matter to a Privileges Panel.” The Committee obliged, demonstrating, in my view, a case of the tail wagging the dog. Where is the balance of power in this commissioning relationship? HSC is spending £20m or so of taxpayers’ money each year commissioning MSG for services. It needs to start holding MSG to account on the quality of the services it receives for that funding. The MSG’s letter was, as Deputy McKenna, supported by a considerable number of doctors, none of whom, none of whom had seen any of the evidence. The quotes Deputy Ferbrache gave on the conclusions of the investigation, do not come from the Learning Report or any other publicly available source, so they are unverifiable. None of us can know what is in the confidential report delivered to the Reporting Officer as none of us have seen it.
I was not formally notified of the allegation until 3rd October, although informally I was being told through the grapevine, not only that a complaint had been lodged, but that some members were seeing it as an opportunity to get me out of the States. This was before any Panel had even met. During this period, the existence of the complaint was also leaked to the media.
It is also worth noting here that although the Privileges Panel met with me in March this year, the Panel’s findings were not given to me until mid-September. There can, in my view, be no justifiable reason for that six-month delay.
The First Instance Panel, comprising Deputies Soulsby and Parkinson and HM Comptroller met on 21st July 2022. In that meeting, Deputy Soulsby pointed out that the First Instance Panel had not seen the various reports referred to in debate, which she rightly felt were material to the case and she was “thus unable to verify the conclusions of those reports as described” in HSC’s letter. In short, in my view, Deputy Soulsby was saying, how could the Panel determine if a prima facie case existed, if it couldn’t establish HSC’s assertions as facts? In short, the many pages in the Bundle of assertions within HSC’s complaint, were not supported in any way by evidence. Deputy Soulsby was right and as Deputy Parkinson noted, the evidence was missing and so I believe that the Panel erred in its conclusion – but that’s water under the bridge. These assertions are referred to by Deputy Ferbrache in his paper and I will return to them.
Both the First Instance Panel and the Privileges Panel cited and quoted from the ‘First report of the Joint Committee of both Houses appointed to review Parliamentary Privilege in 1998-99 session of Parliament’ in Westminster. In particular, it said, “This means, for instance, that a member should take steps, before making a potentially damaging accusation against a named individual, to ensure that not only evidence exists but it comes from a normally reliable source. This does not imply that a member needs to have evidence that would satisfy a court, but that he should act on the basis of something firmer than mere rumour or speculation.” In my case, Deputy Parkinson, my source was impeccable. It was the Learning Report which emerged from the investigation ordered by the Responsible Officer. (As an aside, it is worth clarifying that the investigation was not ordered by the Responsible Officer at my instigation or request as Dr Bohin has publicly claimed. Rather, it was ordered by the Responsible Officer at his own volition, having heard the four families accounts at the meeting on 13th April 2021, pursuant to the Responsible Officer’s powers and responsibilities under The Regulation of Health Professions (Medical Practitioners) (Guernsey and Alderney) Ordinance, 2015.)
Turning to the Learning Report, much of the public debate on the Report has understandably focussed on its comments around safeguarding, but it is essential to remember that the genesis of the Learning Report were parental concerns about the clinical care of their children and what happened if parents questioned, challenged or sought second opinions on that care. The alleged misuse of safeguarding processes was the basis for the investigation commissioned by the Responsible Officer, but it was grave concerns regarding the quality of care, that led parents to raise concerns, that in turn triggered the alleged misuse of safeguarding processes.
Sir, as I explained to the Privileges Panel, it is and was clear that HSC did not want the Learning Report in the public domain. The explanation given for that position – articulated in response to parliamentary questions and publicly - has been to protect the identity of the children. However, in fact no families are named, and it would take very little redaction to remove the very small risk that any individual child could be identified. Furthermore, all the families had repeatedly requested that the report be published, and the author had also consented to publication. I hope that HSC will reflect that, in the circumstances including this debate, it is best to inform the community of the failings documented, and their intent to rectify matters. When matters are hidden from the community then fear and tension escalates. Why were they so keen to decline publication of this report?
Deputy Oliver, remember, I did take request an investigation which produced a report which was not being actioned. Despite HSC and MSG having agreed to implement the recommendations in the Learning Report by no later than 31st January 2022, this did not happen. This lack of progress raised serious and justified concerns for all the families whose experiences had brought about the investigation. Given I already had an impeccable source, exactly as Deputy Parkinson says, I didn’t need a public interest defence, but I had one anyway, as public interest was so obviously engaged. The risks of the same issues arising again were very high, in the absence of the recommendations in the Learning Report being rapidly implemented.
It was clear by the time of the States’ meeting on 27th April 2022, three months after the Learning Report's recommendations should have been implemented in full, and six months after the Learning Report had been delivered, that no further action had been taken to implement the overdue recommendations of the Learning Report. Neither had any action been taken to or identify further cases.
By raising the matter publicly in the States, I feared, but expected, further cases to come forward. Sadly, I was subsequently approached by eight further complainants previously unknown to me. Three of those gave evidence - which I submitted to the Panel and form part of the Bundle that I am happy to share with any interested member - that they only came forward following the matter being publicly aired. To these can be added another four, including two this week, who have come forward following more recent coverage. In total, therefore, including the original cases, I am aware of a total of 16 cases, to which can be added one nurse and one doctor who have approached me expressing their concerns. It is in the public interest that these matters receive the attention of the States and be prioritised at the highest level in public.
By April 2022, I had exhausted all other avenues available, including the local complaint and regulatory processes. Therefore, in the face of the evident and evidenced problems being ignored, I had no other option but to bring a Motion to Debate the Responsible Officer’s Report on 27th April 2022. I was doing my job as a Deputy – and faced with the same situation, I hope any other member of the States would have done the same although rather doubt it given some speeches, rather than face the alternative of the issue being buried. It would have been irresponsible not to act.
The crucial recommendation of the Learning Report is for “strong clear leadership.” The Responsible Officer, HSC, the MSG, the specialist paediatric team, and the safeguarding lead, which happened to be Dr Bohin when the report was commissioned, were all referred to by me in my speech from line 164 on Hansard, as the relevant parties who were in leadership in healthcare at the relevant time.
I made my speech because I had a duty, a responsibility as a Deputy, to ensure that extremely important issues were raised for open debate. Those issues concerned whether clinical care and the safeguarding of children were being treated with appropriate importance and priority by those in leadership positions. The lack of progress in implementing the recommendations required someone to raise this issue in the States, so this deficiency could start to be remedied.
It is worth noting that following my speech, it took another six months to get a meeting between the families and those responsible for implementing the recommendations. At that meeting on 14th November 2022 – at which Deputies Brouard, Matthews, Leadbeater, and Alderney Representative Snowdon were present - a spreadsheet was presented by HSC showing 10 of the 13 Report’s recommendations as having been actioned and closed. The families pointed out that in fact the spreadsheet was missing a page of the recommendations, so it was an incomplete record in itself. However, as the discussion on the actioning of recommendations progressed the meeting quickly accepted that none of the action points should be closed, and HSC recognised that there was a need to start from scratch with implementing the Learning Report’s crucial recommendations. I would like to publicly thank the States’ members present for listening to the families and then ensuring that outcome.
The implementation work did not start in earnest until the beginning of this year, fully 16 months after the Learning Report had been delivered. Whilst it is true, as HSC has said, that progress is being made in changing processes and procedures, the harder but more important challenge, is changing culture. This will require determined leadership.
You don’t need to take that statement from me. The author of the Learning Report reiterated it. In a presentation to the group actioning the recommendations, in February 2023, shared with the families, the author’s slides included the following quotes:
This is a good juncture at which to emphasise I have no personal animus towards MSG specialists. On the contrary, I and my family – and no doubt many members here - have over the years had personal experience of excellent clinical care from a whole range of specialists, in our case, including from among others, Drs Beaumont, Duncan, Oswald, Patterson and Vhadra. The author of MSG’s original letter to HSC, then Chair of the MSG, Dr Yarwood, was the anaesthetist who helped in the delivery of my first child; and the current Chair, Dr Evans, I remember with gratitude treating my dying father with care and compassion. Of course, as Dr Evans has said, individual doctors are constantly needing to learn new practices. But organisationally, MSG are defensive and without in my view any obvious appetite or capacity to learn. Dr Evans has said publicly that he does not recognise this description. So, I will offer some evidence to support my position. An individual made a complaint to HSC customer care on 7th July 2020 in respect of the paediatric service; on 8th July 2020, the complaint was forwarded to the consultant paediatrician in the child’s case, with a covering email seeking a response on several points, including one about learning points. This was the written response from the consultant: “I’ve lost the will to live let alone find learning points from this case.” This is not indicative, I would suggest, of a willingness to learn. In another case that came to me this week. A mother emailed a consultant paediatrician with concerns and questions which followed a consultation. The consultant emailed back an 8 word response: “where did you obtain my email address from?” The mother replied, “it’s on the MSG website.” She received no further response. That exchange, Sir, in my view, is not indicative of an appetite to learn. An organisation that condones, from one of its partners, these responses and language, is not, in my view, one that is demonstrating its capacity and willingness to learn.
It is insufficient to keep repeating that second opinions are encouraged when families are saying that this is not their experience. On Tuesday, a member of the public shared with me their experience with another MSG specialism: “We requested a second opinion through MSG, which was refused. They appeared and treated us like we had insulted them and that we thought they didn’t know what they were doing.”
It is insufficient too, to keep saying that no-one who complains need fear that treatment will be impacted, when you have at least 16 families who have at one time or another held that fear – and when it’s your child, that fear is visceral. Effective communication means that if your message is not understood or accepted, you need to look at how you are communicating and behaving, rather than blaming the audience.
Sir, there are very many quotes from the Learning Report I could draw out to evidence these points, but I will instead just pick six:
Sir, it is significant in my view, that despite these comments in the Learning Report, despite the protracted child protection processes that they have been subject to, despite the poor behaviour of clinicians, the lack of empathy and understanding and more, none of the families received any kind of apology from MSG. The absence of any acknowledgement of what the families have been through and experienced, speaks volumes as to the culture. We’ve seen this continue to play out repeatedly in public comments in the last week or so, which is, I imagine, why families chose to speak out publicly.
I want now to turn to Deputy Ferbrache’s paper. Deputy Ferbrache deals with his conflict of interest from paragraph 67. He says he concluded for a number of reasons that he had no conflict. He uses the Ronald Reagan defence at paragraph 72, that he had no recollection of the client in question; and, he says, in any event, his relationship with that client was subject to legal privilege. The mere existence of legal privilege does not, as Deputy Ferbrache knows well, prevent the existence of a conflict of interest. If it did, a lawyer could act for both sides in every case, claiming both clients could rest assured that nothing would ever be shared because of the existence of privilege.
At paragraph 105 on page 26, Deputy Ferbrache then quotes from a letter from Island Health dated 17th May 2022, listing a number of what they termed ‘ramifications’ from my speech. To be clear, these are all assertions without any evidence to support them. Indeed, much of the available public evidence is to the contrary. I shall pick out a few. It is alleged that there was personal damage to an experienced doctor’s reputation. Dr Bohin has just had national media coverage following 10 months as an expert witness in one of the highest profile criminal trials this century. That is not an experience indicative of a damaged reputation. I named her as the Named Doctor for Safeguarding. This is a role that that she promotes herself on the forensicandexpertwitness.co.uk site which says, “I am currently the named doctor for child protection in Guernsey” - although this is in fact the role she gave up in 2021. On her own website Paediatricexpert.com site she similarly describes herself as the “named doctor for Child Protection since May 2018” and also says, “I now lead a team of 5 paediatricians” a role I believe she gave up in 2018.
The letter also alleges that there is an “unwillingness for any other doctor to step into the role as the Named D
The letter’s final unevidenced assertion was that there will be detriment to the “recruitment of any doctor to the island.” This felt somewhat hyperbolic to me, so I perused the MSG’s website to look at recruitment to the island since April 2022. Since then, they have welcomed, one acute medicine consultant, three anaesthetists, an oncologist, an ophthalmologist and a physician specialising in geriatric care. I am sure we wish all six of them every success in thanking them for making their careers in Guernsey and for the contribution they will make to healthcare in the island. In short, no evidence has been presented that recruitment of doctors has been remotely impacted and the MSG’s own evidence provides evidence to the contrary.
Sir, before I close, I am going to offer some brief comments on what needs to change.
Firstly, HSC needs to publish the Learning Report on the gov.gg website so that the community can understand the concerns raised and that demonstrate that HSC is committed to affecting change.
Secondly, as Deputy Soulsby has repeatedly called for, the health and social care complaints process needs to be far more robust and have independent oversight. The imbalance between patient and clinician should not extend into the complaints process. The perception that the profession can cover for each other, has to be broken if patients and their families are to feel comfortable coming forward with their concerns, and proper learning is to happen.
Thirdly, HSC urgently needs to deliver the regulatory framework it has been directed to develop. This was directed by the Assembly in 2019, and must now be seen as an essential, and urgent part of the quality assurance framework for healthcare in the Bailiwick.
Fourthly, we need to have a programme of independent inspection, from the Care Quality Commission or a similar organisation. We cannot rely on self-reflection to maintain and raise our standards. It is demonstrably not working. Independent inspection in Education has reaped significant benefits, and surely there can be no argument for such a vital quality assurance tool not to be part of HSC’s internal controls.
Given the increasing numbers of families that continue to contact me with harrowing and shocking experiences, I ask that HSC proactively facilitate a public appeal for those with historic or current concerns to come forward – guaranteeing them that there will be no negative repercussions arising for them. 16 families, many experiencing trauma, are 16 too many, Sir. We need to stop spending time and resources obfuscating and hiding our failings, and spend time understanding what has happened, supporting those that have suffered harm, and ensuring that permanent change is affected. To this end, as well as a public appeal, as Deputy Queripel says, I call on HSC to commission an independent and urgent external inspection of the paediatrics department: both assessing historic cases of concern and the current quality of care, behaviours and culture. Only in this way, can Guernsey families, taxpayers and this Assembly be reassured that the risk of further trauma and harm to vulnerable families has been mitigated.
Sir, I am grateful to the Privileges Panel for their findings. It is regrettable that the matter was not dismissed at First Instance and that it has taken so long to get to the right outcome.
Finally, I reiterate that, for so long as they wish me to do so, I will continue to represent those Guernsey families whose experience of a child’s serious illness, or sadly in some cases death, has been compounded by unacceptable behaviours.
These situations cannot and must not continue.
Express has reached out to Deputy Peter Ferbrache offering to publish his speech in full as well.
