Stalemate.

Below is a letter to the JEP from Deputy Bob Hill which was published (so I’m told) in their hard-copy but not online. As there are a growing number of people who are getting their “news” from online “un accredited” media and no longer buy a copy of the JEP, I thought I would re-produce the letter here.

What Deputy Hill’s letter appears to spell out is that vast amounts of money have been spent by our Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand, on reports (Wiltshire) that were only ever going to come to a stalemate. Who on earth authorised this money to be spent on a complete non entity? Why have the “accredited” media not bothered reporting on, or “researching” yes that is “researching” (some of our accredited media will have to look the word up) how and where this money was spent? How much more money has been spent that we haven't been told about?

When your child is deprived of a glass of milk at school because of the “economic climate” you might want to ask how Ian Le Marquand is allowed to spend in excess of ONE MILLION POUNDS (probably closer to two) on something that was only ever going to turn out as a stalemate. Even if Chief Police Officer Graham Power wasn’t retiring until July 2011 there is little or no chance of any disciplinary proceedings against the Chief Officer ever being completed.

Something tells me that Senator Ben Shenton and his Public Accounts Committee won’t be probing the Home Affairs Minister either.

Dear Sir,
"In the current debate about States budgets, Ministers have stated their determination to save public money and avoid waste. However, if recent figures released by the Minister for Home Affairs in relation to the suspension of the Chief officer of Police are anything to go by they still have a lot to learn when it comes to personnel issues.

In a reply to a written question the Minister for Home Affairs has revealed that the costs of this suspension and disciplinary enquiry, which started back in 2008, have now exceeded the one million pounds mark. Figures released in response to my question give the total costs of the disciplinary investigations being conducted by Wiltshire Police on the Ministers behalf as totalling £834,922 up to the end of May, and the cost of cover for the absence of the Chief Officer as £234,854, making a total of £1,069,776. However, that is not the end of the matter. Costs of the Civil Servants and Law Officers who have been advising the Minister are not included, and as the Chief Officer does not officially retire until 20th July 2010 there will be further costs associated with his absence up to that date. Additionally, the figures given do not include the cost of the independent enquiry into the suspension currently being conducted by Brian Napier QC which is expected to report towards the end of July. It looks like a safe bet that the final figure will be significantly greater. It might be useful therefore to contemplate what Ministers hope to achieve in exchange for this substantial sum.

In responding to Oral questions in the States the Minister for Home Affairs admitted that the matter was now approaching the "end game" and that there was not enough time remaining for any disciplinary proceedings to take place. He agreed that the whole issue is now likely to result in "stalemate." I take it that by “stalemate” the Minister acknowledges that once the Chief Officer retires he will no longer be subject to the Disciplinary Code and all disciplinary proceedings will have to be abandoned. I understand that the Chief Officer has already been told to “take outstanding leave” before he retires so it looks as if the “stalemate” has already arrived.

It would be hard to imagine any private sector organisation, or for that matter any competent government, spending this sum of money on a disciplinary investigation into someone who had already passed his retirement date when the investigation started, and who had to retire in 2010 come what may. Against this background we are all entitled to speculate about the motives of those involved. Could it be that protecting the reputation of the former politicians who ordered the suspension is regarded as more important than the prudent use of public funds? Whatever lies behind this costly and now pointless action, it does little to the credibility of the Council of Ministers repeated calls for savings. It appears to be yet another case of “do as I say and not as I do” which does little to enhance the reputation of our islands politics.

Deputy F.J. (Bob) Hill, BEM,

Submitted by VFC.