LESSONS from the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry must “remain embedded in political decision-making” while “greater clarity and transparency” is required as to when serious safeguarding reviews are carried out and published, the Children’s Commissioner has said.
Carmel Corrigan said comments made during a government meeting – revealed during the employment tribunal of former safeguarding partnership lead Alison Renouf – “risk creating the impression” that the inquiry and its findings are being undermined.
During the meeting, a recording of which has been seen by the JEP, police chief Robin Smith described the inquiry – which uncovered decades of child abuse in the Island’s care homes – as a “noose round the Island’s necks”, while former government chief executive Dr Andrew McLaughlin accused organisations of “dining out on what happened a decade ago”. Mr Smith subsequently apologised and acknowledged his words had been poorly chosen.
Responding to the revelations, Dr Corrigan said: “All senior leaders have a particular responsibility to demonstrate that safeguarding, accountability and the lessons of the inquiry remain central to their decision-making about children.
“The Independent Jersey Care Inquiry documented profound failures in the care and protection of children, as well as the devastating consequences for victims and survivors. Its findings must be treated with the seriousness and respect they deserve.”
And, Dr Corrigan said that there needs to be more openness about when serious safeguarding reviews are carried out.
“There needs to be greater clarity and transparency about when serious safeguarding reviews are commissioned, completed and published in Jersey,” the Children’s Commissioner said, adding that where a review cannot safely be published without identifying the children concerned, there should be a “sufficiently detailed anonymised or redacted account explaining what happened”.
She added that Jersey had to move forward from the care inquiry but only by “applying the lessons” from it and ensuring they “remain embedded in political decision-making, safeguarding practice, workforce development, inspection and the design and delivery of services for children”.
The inquiry panel made a string of findings and recommendations when it released its report in 2017, including that children, at the time, remained at risk.
The then-government made a commitment to enact the recommendations in full.
However, the revelations from Ms Renouf’s tribunal have raised concerns that the inquiry and safeguarding procedures are not being given appropriate attention, with Dr McLaughlin suggesting that the government needed to move away from some of its partners.
Dr Corrigan said that it would “not be reasonable” to suggest that “these attitudes are prevalent across Jersey’s safeguarding system”, adding that, in her experience, those charged with safeguarding responsibilities “work with commitment and integrity”.
However, she added that, while important steps have been taken since the inquiry, the “real test” is whether the culture described by the inquiry, which allowed abuse to go undetected, has been addressed and sustained over time.
“I recognise the dedication of the many professionals and organisations working to safeguard children in Jersey,” she said. “Broader confidence in a safeguarding system depends on transparent decision-making, effective multi-agency working, independent scrutiny and clear evidence that concerns are listened to and acted upon.
“Government and safeguarding leaders should demonstrate how the lessons of the Care Inquiry continue to shape policy and practice, how professional challenge is supported, and how concerns about children’s safety are investigated and resolved.”
And, discussing Ms Renouf’s claims that she was sacked for whistleblowing, Dr Corrigan said that “any case in which a professional reports adverse consequences due simply to raising safeguarding concerns is likely to have a wider impact on both professional and public confidence”.
“Organisations and the government must consider not only whether adequate whistleblowing procedures exist, but whether staff trust them, whether concerns are investigated appropriately and whether those who raise genuine concerns are protected in practice,” she added.
Within her evidence, Ms Renouf also said she flagged her concerns following the meeting with the Children’s Commissioner’s office, but claimed she did not receive a response.
Dr Corrigan said: “My office took the information provided to it seriously and considered it within the Children’s Commissioner’s statutory remit. Our immediate priority was to assess whether the information indicated an identifiable and immediate safeguarding risk to any individual child.
“We were satisfied that the safeguarding concerns had been referred into an appropriate process for further consideration. Having established that there was no immediate safeguarding action required by me or my office in relation to an individual child, and that the wider concerns were being examined through the relevant process, we continued to monitor developments in the safeguarding arrangements and processes.”
Ms Renouf’s tribunal is due to resume on Friday morning.
