Why I resigned...

The truth is, I had to agonise for a good deal of time about this decision, trying to judge where I would be most effective, inside or outside of the department. It wasn't a case of running and hiding – it was a case of how to position myself, conscious all the while that the timing, as is often the way in politics and life, was unfortunate, or to put it more bluntly, lousy. I had, and have, two imminent causes to fight, both worthy of my best efforts and both will get my best efforts regardless of my political portfolio.

Surely the question has to be asked, after taking that line in the States, would my seat at C&E be tenable? I seriously doubt it.

The atmosphere was already frosty (which is natural – the department wish to fight their corner, make a convincing case and have everybody singing the same tune, it is, to say the least, inconvenient and more, a handicap, to have a dissenting voice) but mistrust could well have followed.

Deputy Hadley was definitely of the mind that the damage couldn't be repaired after bringing a requete regarding Sunday trading against C&E's wishes and subsequently resigned from the board.

It is true that the original proposals were of an uncompromising nature and I did play my part (along with Deputy Brouard) in having a well-intended concession inserted, and the board, to its credit, agreed to it. But I have come to realise since that this was something akin to a consolation prize for the retailers, a band aid, it actually fudged the issue.

The fact is, I have no real problem with putting an optimum distribution system in place. The theory is it would benefit the dairy, the farmers and the consumer, but despite the claim in the report that it would present the retailers with fantastic commercial opportunities, the real possibility remains that a turf war would ensue (the zones would once and for all be removed) and a number of rounds would lose their value and perhaps become unviable.

The retailers have claimed, reasonably, as far as I am concerned, that this model, in replacing the existing one, would be akin to moving the goalposts. Therefore, I expressed the view from early on in the review process that it would be morally right to come to terms with the retailers prior to putting the optimum model in place. It would represent a pragmatic solution that would enable quick progress.

Having a balanced board is one thing, with a voice occasionally putting forward different or alternative views, but surely a possibly dysfunctional board cannot be managed in the long run and would certainly hinder the department (bearing in mind that the work on the reshaping of the dairy industry will continue for some time).

The quandary is and was of course that the white van man issue is an item on the agenda for the meeting of the 30th. This is a work-stream that I have been heavily involved in. Proof has been gathered, numbers tallied up, accounts of the effect on local traders and the community (including the possible targeting of vulnerable and elderly people) have been submitted and, in my opinion, the evidence makes a compelling case for action. I hope and believe C&E will see it that way. If action is decided on and signed off, the credit will rightly go to the board and I am convinced it will be to the benefit of the local industry and economy. If action does not result, there are various options I can pursue in order to get the matter addressed, but crucially the hard work, the assembling of the facts, has been done.

I hope that goes some way to explaining my thinking. I am not expecting everyone to agree with my decision. The C&E board is of the opinion that I have made a mistake and only time will tell whether that is the case.

DEPUTY LAURIE QUERIPEL.