Know the backbencher and iruka mention the cost of the historic child abuse investigation quite a lot so i have decided to find some real facts about it. Time to look beyond the myth
I Have searched hansard and found some good info that i will be putting up. Now anyone who is familiar with hansard will know i cant link it as you will get a full page not the bit you want.
pomme i know you have already mentioned that.
But lets look at the facts starting in september 2008
The Assistant Greffier of the States:
The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion (a) in accordance with Article 11(
of the Public Finances (Jersey) Law 2005 to amend the expenditure approval for 2008 approved by the States on 18th September 2007 in respect of the Treasury and Resources Department to permit the withdrawal of up to an additional £7.5 million from the consolidated funds to be reallocated for the net revenue expenditure of a number of departments in order to fund the Historical Child Abuse Inquiry; (b) that funding (up to a maximum of £7.5 million) should only be made available to departments from the allocation to the Treasury and Resources Department by public Ministerial Decision of the Minister for Treasury and Resources based on adequately documented evidence of actual additional costs incurred or to be incurred as a result of the Historic Child Abuse Inquiry.
11.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):
This proposition has its origins in a statement made in this House on 26th February by the Chief Minister at the outset of the investigations at Haut de la Garenne. A statement included the words: “Yesterday the Council of Ministers met and confirmed our fullest support, the Home Affairs Minister, the Police and the Criminal Justice Authorities. We also confirmed that all necessary resources would be made available to ensure the most comprehensive inquiry possible and to support any prosecutions that lead from it.” Those were important and necessary words which are still as valid today as they were then. Certainly expenditure has been and continues to be incurred in respect of the Historical Child Abuse Inquiry; expenditure which, in the main, has not been able to be funded from within existing departmental resources. I said this morning that it is principally unusual for the Minister for Treasury and Resources to come to the House for a supplementary vote and before doing so it is my duty to inquire of Ministers whether the expenditure can be met from within their existing budgets. If Members refer to the proposition they will see that some £451,000 of expenditure has been met from within existing budgets. Nonetheless it is clear there is other expenditure that has been incurred and will be incurred over and above the resources of the departments concerned. As a result my obligation as Minister for Treasury and Resources was to ensure that that expenditure was properly, rightly incurred and accounted for. We issued a direction to all departments, which again is contained on page 4 of the report to Projet 91, which says in summary: “Accounting officers will be held accountable for the necessity of all expenditure and for the achievement of value for money. The Finance Law and all financial directions will still apply to all historic child abuse inquiries related to expenditure. Public Accounts Committee, internal audit and the Comptroller and Auditor General may at some time in the future investigate such expenditure and report accordingly. They may express questions requiring justification of the amounts spent.” That, Sir, is the background to the proposals which are before us today which come in respect of expenditure incurred by 7 departments or committees. In order to ensure that that money is properly spent and accounted for and in order to make the proposition workable the proposals are that the money should initially be made available to the Minister for Treasury and Resources and the Treasury and Resources Department to hold in a pot and monies would only be released from that pot to the departments on presentation of justification of the expenditure having been incurred. Any expenditure which has not been incurred remains within the Treasury and Resources Department and can only be used for the purposes of the Historic Child Abuse Inquiry and if not required will be returned to the consolidated funds. That, Sir, is the background to this proposal. The original sum of £6 million has been increased, as Members will have observed from my amendment, to a total of up to £7.5 million primarily as a result of increased activity in the police activities and the delay in withdrawing from Haut de la Garenne and the need to excavate a second site. Sir, as with other propositions of this nature, I act primarily as rapporteur and collector of the information from the spokesman on behalf of various departments. One of those departments is in fact my own in respect of Property Holdings where there is expenditure incurred in 2 directions. Firstly from the loss of rental because we have not been able to obtain rental from the Youth Hostel Association while the premises cannot be used for that purpose. There will be further expenditure in reinstatement of the property in due course. That is accounted for in the Treasury and Resources figures. I can leave other departments speak for their own particular requirements, Sir, but in general I do not think we need look at each department in too much detail. The point is we are here fulfilling an undertaking we gave to the public at the start of the year, that any costs of the Historic Child Abuse Inquiry would be met by the States, whatever those costs would be. Sir, I make the proposition.
So what i will be looking at is if the cost in september 2008 if im right was to 7.5 million and graham power was suspended on november the 12th how are we getting the 20million number. So many questions how much has been spent under chief warcup