Deputy Gavin St Pier said he "strongly endorsed the States’ active support for the exploration of the opportunity for the island to host a British Lions’ training camp this summer and regret that the Lions have decided not to come to the island on this occasion."

"[However] the government’s communication of its involvement with this initiative was poor, by its own admission, having been reactive, slow and piecemeal. Unfortunately, this response divided and polarised many in the community.

"If unaddressed, this may risk the widespread public support for and compliance with public health regulations and advice, which has been a hallmark of the Bailiwick’s management of the Covid-19 pandemic and remains vital, particularly if a third lockdown should become necessary."

Pictured: Guernsey's Chief Minister has apologised for the way the States communicated Warren Gatland's visit, saying they were "a little clumsy" but were acting "for the overwhelming good" of the island - before going on to say that he would "exercise his rights" if anyone called him dishonest. 

In the absence of what Deputy St Pier calls a "clear, proactive statement from government providing full disclosure", he has submitted his questions "in order to bring transparency, closure and to heal the division created".

1. For the avoidance of doubt (and for the benefit of the wider community’s understanding of the decision-making process,) specifically, under which Regulation(s) of The Emergency Powers (Coronavirus) (General Provision) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) (No. 4) Regulations, 2021 was the visit approved?

2. Please provide any itinerary received in respect of Mr Gatland’s visit.

3. What, if any, expenses were incurred directly or indirectly by the States in facilitating

   and supporting Mr Gatland’s visit?

4. The media release of 7th April refers to the meeting at Foote’s Lane being a ‘small

   number of people in a large room’: how many people were present?

5. The media release of 7th April refers to the private dinner at the St. Pierre Park Hotel

   as being a ‘small number of guests’:

   1. How many people were present?

   2. Can you confirm that the private dining room had been agreed in advance as

      a ‘defined and agreed location,’ as was the description applied in the same

      media release to that at Foote’s Lane?

   3. Was the private dinner provided for in the original self-isolation order, or did

      the Medical Officer of Health vary orally or in writing the terms of the self-

      isolation order to allow this hospitality to take place before it was held?

6. For the avoidance of doubt, please list all meetings with Mr Gatland and their

   locations at which any public servants were present (whether in an official, private or other capacity) and the identity of any such public servants present at each meeting, including Deputy Peter Ferbrache, Paul Whitfield and Dr Nicola Brink.

7. The media release of 7th April says that there was ‘no risk of infection’ and ‘there was no public health risk.’ Previous public health advice has been clear that the risk in relation to coronavirus can be mitigated rather than eliminated, so is the media release inaccurate in this regard?