From Deputy Bob Hill.
THE news that the suspended Chief Officer of the States police is to retire raises a few interesting questions, not the least of which is the apparent revelation that Wiltshire police – and presumably the Minister for Home Affairs – knew of his approximate retirement intentions as far back as the summer of last year, which causes me to ask why they pressed on regardless to a point where it all appears to be pointless.

It is perhaps worth repeating some of the history of this saga. For example, it was revealed in a written answer provided in the States on 19 January 2010 that Senator Ian Le Marquand had originally been told that he would have the completed Wiltshire report in March 2009. As things stand he will be lucky to have it by March 2010.

We also learned at the same time that even when the report is received there is a complex legal process to go through before any disciplinary action can be taken. The impression being given is that this could take months to get started and that any disciplinary action could take a year to complete. If this is true then the whole business is already ‘out of time’.

While the terms of reference have been denied to States Members, it might be worth remembering that the Wiltshire investigation is not about the whole of the abuse inquiry. It is about the inquiry from February 2008 ‘and the months thereafter’ (Hansard, 8 December 2009). Given that the Chief Officer was suspended in November 2008 this presumably means that the period under examination covers around nine months, at the most. The way things are going it looks as if the ‘investigation into the investigation’ is going to take twice as long as the relevant part of the investigation itself.

Let us not forget that from other information already to hand it appears that Wiltshire has:
• Missed every promised deadline.
• Allegedly exceeded every budget (assuming someone bothered to set a budget), and
• It looks as if they will not deliver anything final until the Chief Officer has retired.

This performance almost calls for an investigation in itself (which of course would be an investigation into the investigation into the investigation, if you follow).

At the very least it raises issues about credibility. Is it really possible that those responsible for what looks increasingly like an expensive shambles will have the nerve to criticise anyone else’s performance in running an inquiry? Perhaps time will tell.

It might also be worth taking a look at the interesting question of ‘oversight’. From what we know so far, nobody is alleging that the Chief Officer himself was running the abuse inquiry. We all know that was someone else. What he is apparently accused of is not exercising the right oversight over what was going on.

OK, so if lack of oversight is culpable, it might be fun to ask who is exercising the said oversight over the Wiltshire investigation. The names that spring to mind are none other than the Home Affairs Minister and the Chief Minister. Or perhaps they have appointed someone else to do this on their behalf? Do they actually discuss the matter? Without more information we cannot be sure.

What we can be sure of is that when the promised Wiltshire report did not arrive in March (that is March 2009 remember), bells should have started ringing.

When it did not arrive as apparently further promised in May, June, July, etc, they should have been ringing louder, as numerous questions were being asked by States Members, myself included. By the time 2010 was approaching and the cost was creeping towards £700,000 there should have been bells, whistles, sirens and flashing lights.

So who is exercising the famous ‘oversight’? Surely nobody who will now go on to criticise anyone else, let alone the suspended Chief Officer for alleged oversight failures. Or perhaps they will. If you think that it couldn’t happen in Jersey, then think twice.