Snap review of AFR dealings a first for States scrutiny...

SPEED is never a word that has really been associated with the States' scrutiny process.

In the past it has tended to be, to use one of members' favourite cliches, like turning around a supertanker.

So last week really was a first for Guernsey – a snap review of the political decision surrounding the non-disclosure of the AFR settlement after the law firm was illegally raided by police in the early hours.

The grilling of the Home department's minister, Jonathan Le Tocq, has given us an insight into where the committee is heading.

What political oversight was there when the chief of police reached the settlement with the law firm?

Where does the boundary lie between an operational issue, where there needs to be independence for the police, and non-operational ones – and where does negotiating a pay-out from the public purse fit?

Who gave the authority for the settlement talks to go ahead in the first place?

What legal advice has been given, or was it more about advice from lawyers? – two very different things.

How did the department adhere to the principles of good governance, particularly over transparency?

Does the fact there is no States-wide policy on disclosure excuse the department from having its own?

These were the paths the Scrutiny panel went down – it will release the transcript of the hearing and its own initial report within days.

It was reassuring to watch the Scrutiny members pursuing their questions, not just accepting an initial fudge, but allowing ample opportunity for a straight answer to be given. That at times this was not forthcoming will no doubt also be reflected in its findings.

Does the public now have a complete picture?

No. That is shown in the questions that were left hanging – and why the minutes of the two meetings at which Home debated whether to release the figures should come out.

Or at the very least, Scrutiny should be banging on the door of the department to see them.

Only then would light really be shed on the political decision-making process.

Thanks to the committee we now know there was a U-turn, with board members initially supporting release.

Instead of acting on that first decision, it appears the civil servants decided it would be best to convene an emergency meeting with the board to change its mind.

That worked – what we don't know is what advice was given at the second meeting that was so compelling and which was not available at the first.

What really triggered the about-turn from all but one member?

Plenty of reasons have been floated as the weeks have passed. The way they have come out helped to fuel the impression that the board was not as in control of the situation as it would like the public to think.

It argues that the case was a long one, which is why different figures for legal fees have been released – what that means is the board could not have had all the information when it made its decisions.

The same goes for the issue of whether the States' insurer had paid out for the settlement.

One minute it was not large enough to cross the threshold, the next came confirmation it had.

Remember that the agreement with AFR was reached by the time the minister was briefed on 7 November.

It was not until pressure grew from the public and this newspaper for more information to be released that the board started tackling the issue.

There has been talk in the past about the push and pull effect with States information.

Too often it has to be extracted from the States rather than being proactively released.

And when a decision has been made to keep something secret, reasons for doing so are either not forthcoming quickly enough or explained convincingly.

There is already some good that has come from this saga.

A disclosure policy was discussed yesterday by the Policy Council – once it is released, everyone will know where the boundary lies for agreeing to

secrecy.

Now we wait to see how Scrutiny presents its findings.

It will be up to the public and politicians to decide whether any more action is needed or not.

The story is not over.