Maybe not “cover-ups” exactly. In my proposition P169/2011 (click here, then click “propositions” tab then click P169) to curb Ministers and indeed any States member from lying to / misleading other States members, I gave 9 examples, with chapter and verse, of where the States had been misled.
Then I wrote:
“it seems to me that this is linked to another practice, namely ‘don’t speak to the one who knows most about it / the one who you are criticising.’
I gave three examples:
First, the suspension of Graham Power, where top civil servants were talking about his “inadequacies” as Chief of Police, and discussing the ins and outs of suspension as a course of action, all without once calling him in and saying, ‘so, what do you have to say?’ This is against normal practice when someone’s performance is being criticised, it is against the Code for disciplining the Chief Officer of Police, and it is against natural justice, which says that anyone should “know the case against them.”
For the Napier report into his suspension, which revealed all the goings-on, and was severely critical, and probably led to the departure of Bill Ogley, click here. See especially the summary of his findings at paragraph 107.
Second, an inquiry is conducted by accountancy firm BDO Alto into the value for money of the massive police investigation into historic child abuse, but they do not interview the man responsible for that spend, namely Lenny Harper. Scrutiny has looked into this matter and the report has yet to be published. We found a confused tangle where David Warcup said that he had stopped the policeman working with BDO Alto on the inquiry from interviewing Harper, but that he thought they were talking about a different inquiry.
I can’t go into it more than that right now, read the report when it comes out. The principle stands.
And third, the Environment Department holds an inquiry into the “alleged pollution incident” at La Collette in April 2009, during construction of the new incinerator, when contaminated water was pumped from the excavation into the sea against the rules. Again the inquiry managed not to formally interview the man who knew most about it, the man who blew the whistle, the man whose job it was to ensure that correct procedures were followed on the site.
Clearly there is a pattern there, and it fits in with the lies-and-myths scenario. There is on some occasions a reluctance to get to the bottom of things, to ask those who know the most, to sort things out in a direct and honest fashion. If there is an innocent explanation of all three cases I would like to see it.