Market abuse: we have right to know
IT WAS interesting to listen to the chief executive of the Channel Islands Competition and Regulatory Authorities on BBC Guernsey radio on 2 February when he explained their function. He said that their purpose was to look out for consumers, to be an economic regulator and to have a reactive role towards the competition laws. He said they are an independent authority but answerable to the Economic Development committee. But I continue to be concerned since, on 29 March 2016, the Guernsey Press referred to Cicra's involvement in an investigation into 'significant market abuse' in relation to a States contract, a potential breach in competition laws and material implications for islanders. It was later reported that this referred to a multimillion-pound States contract.
As such, it is difficult to understand why an investigation can't take place. There may be good reasons, including finance, for not going ahead, but the terminology being used in the media suggests that this is serious, so what are we to think?
Every four years we listen to a group of well-meaning people at the hustings seeking election to the States and we hear them repeatedly refer to openness, accountability and transparency, so why are we once again being kept in the dark? Can someone say how the 'material implications for islanders' are going to affect me and mine?
On 30 January 2016, the Guernsey Press reported that senior Scrutiny politicians warned that money must be made available for a 'crucial investigation into significant market abuse'. The main points in this article appeared to be being made by the then chairwoman of the Public Accounts Committee, who acknowledged recent issues with legal costs, and the chairman of Scrutiny, who both said funding should have been available.
On 30 January this year, the Guernsey Press reminded us that the former Commerce and Employment board had denied Cicra the funds necessary to carry out an investigation and the article went on to say that the board members wanted more information. What appears very strange is that Cicra, according to the article, could not discuss confidential information with the board – the very body it was answerable to and the provider of its funding.
On 31 January this year, the Guernsey Press reported on how the newly established Policy & Resources Department is going to be able to be more supportive towards Cicra, but Cicra refer to the challenges of speaking to key individuals and gathering evidence after such a long period of time. Is a two-year period so long that we can't resolve something that is so significant? I understand that the Guernsey Police are currently involved in an investigation where breaches in the law are alleged to have occurred during the 1980s and 1990s. This is obviously a different type of crime, but nevertheless it makes the Cicra investigation being dropped after only two years quite odd.
There are undoubtedly going to be different circumstances, but the fact remains that allegations have been made with significant implications for me and my fellow islanders, so why can't we know about it?
richardmarquis@cwgsy.net
