Guernsey Press

Ferbrache to P&R: ‘release file notes’

POLICY & Resources has said it will not release confidential details surrounding the critical report into Home Affairs, despite calls for the information to be given to politicians before a possible vote of no confidence in Deputy Mary Lowe.

Published
Deputy Peter Ferbrache. (Picture by Peter Frankland, 25118385)

Deputy Peter Ferbrache has written to P&R asking for the file notes of the report, written correspondence, and identities of the people involved to be released.

‘I, on my behalf, and I would suggest so would all of my colleagues, would keep that confidential. It is only the most extreme cases that the identity of witnesses is not known to the jury. I can think of none in my legal experience but I appreciate that in matters of national security (which this falls far short of) there are exceptions to that principle.’

In his letter, Deputy Ferbrache sets out his case for P&R to release all the information.

‘It is a general principle that before someone’s reputation can be besmirched and before, in this case, their political career can be severely damaged they are entitled to know the full facts and the circumstances alleged against them.’

‘If a motion of no confidence is brought then I, and my colleagues, in the States of Deliberation will be the judge and the jury. As a judge and jury, we are entitled as I stress to know the full facts.’

Last week P&R asked Deputy Lowe, the President of Home Affairs, to resign because her position of accepting the recommendations but not the contents of the report was ‘incoherent and unsustainable’.

The independent report contained allegations by senior officers of bullying and harassment.

If she did not resign, P&R said it would have no choice but to put forward a motion of no confidence, which would be voted on by all States members.

In its letter of response to Deputy Ferbrache, P&R refuses to publish more evidence. ‘All of the interview notes are confidential to each of the interviewees. Those were the terms under which the interviews were undertaken.’

‘Professor Staite maintains that she has accurately summarised the interview feedback and used it, together with the document review and observation of the committee in action, to give a clear picture of the current state of governance in Home Affairs.’

On the issue of written correspondence the report author has said the only written correspondence she worked from was in the form of emails from members of Home Affairs and she has declined to publish those emails to respect the confidentiality in which they were sent.

Deputy Jonathan Le Tocq, writing on behalf of P&R, suggests that possibly that information could be made public.

‘It may be that members of the committee will agree to publishing those emails in full if you were to ask them and felt that they were material to the consideration of the report?’

There is no reference in the P&R letter to the potential vote of no confidence in Deputy Lowe, or when it could take place, but it does state that the future direction needs to be rooted in the facts.

‘The P&R committee agrees with you that any conclusions, decisions and next steps in relation to Professor Staite’s report should be evidence-based. The P&R committee has been and continues to be focused on finding the best way forward for the Committee for Home Affairs and the wider States to address the concerns raised in the report and implement its recommendations.’