Select a region
A senior States Deputy has confirmed he will be backing a bid to oust the Chief Minister and his committee – releasing an explosive set of email correspondence to explain why. You can read it in full here...
In an email to Policy and Resources, in which he copied in the media and the rest of the Assembly, Deputy Meerveld cited disillusionment, in an agreement he made with P&R about his place on the Offshore Wind Group, as the reason for losing faith in P&R.
In response, the President of P&R, Deputy Peter Ferbrache has argued that the Committee has not "one iota gone back on what was agreed".
You can read Deputy Meerveld's letter and Deputy Ferbrache's responses in full below:
Those who know me would consider me one of the last people willing to subjugate myself to others. However, no Deputy should ever put their personal interests or egos before the best interests of our community. My belief in the wind farm project and its ability to deliver the revenue we desperately need in a timely way, mitigating against tax increases, is such that I am willing to subjugate myself to enable it to proceed successfully. I am willing to accept a demotion concerning this project and subject myself to overbearing controls to enable the team working together on this project for the last two years, Deputy Blin and me, to bring it to fruition for the benefit of our community.
Before the States convened on Wednesday (October 18th), I met with four P&R members, Deputies Ferbrache, Mahoney, Le Tocq and Murray, in the Assembly Library room. We agreed on the deal detailed in the email below, with me acquiescing to P&R’s demands, accepting a demotion and controls on my free speech as a Deputy in return for P&R reinstating me to your Offshore Wind Group to enable me to help bring this critical project to fruition for the benefit of our community.
Just over an hour later, I was prompted by an email from [redacted] and WhatsApp messages from Deputy Mahoney to withdraw my draft amendment to replace amendment 3 to the Government Work Plan (GWP) as detailed in the agreement below, which I did, illustrating my good faith and compliance with our agreement.
Having heard nothing further from you, the current P&R, regarding our verbal agreement, I sent the email below at 15:37 the next day (Thursday, October 19th), confirming my acquiescence to P&R’s demands in return for my reinstatement to the Offshore Wind Farm working group. I expected a prompt response from you, the current P&R, especially as, at that stage in the debate, there was an expectation that the Government Work Plan (GWP) would be debated the next day or on Saturday — necessitating prompt action.
I was initially disappointed not to receive a reply or acknowledgement of our agreement on Friday, October 19th, which prompted concerns that the current P&R might renege on this agreement, especially when Deputy Helyar declined to answer a question from Deputy Queripel during his closing speech in the Finance and Investment Plan debate, which presented a perfect opportunity for a public statement that P&R and I had reached an agreement and that I was rejoining the working group.
I still await acknowledgement of our agreement one week after it was agreed, and my concerns that you, the current P&R, intend to renege on our agreement are now confirmed. After our agreement on Wednesday, October 18th, the Offshore Wind Farm working group has scheduled meetings—internal meetings and meetings with potential developers whom I introduced to the States. However, current P&R members of the working group have instructed that I not be invited to participate in those meetings.
I have shown good faith in our agreement with my actions, while you, the current P&R, have not reciprocated.
I am withdrawing from my offer to rejoin the P&R-sponsored Offshore Wind Group. I am reinstating my intention to amend the GWP, asking the Assembly to remove the Offshore Wind Group from P&R and form a Special Investigation and Advisory Committee to pursue this critical project.
So that we are clear, I have lost all faith in you as members of P&R, in your integrity and ability to lead our Assembly or deliver the best outcomes for our community. Consequently, I will support the motion of no confidence in you laid by Deputy Parkinson yesterday.
I am sorry.
This does not represent where we were or are.
When you and I coincidentally entered the Royal court building on Wednesday morning we spoke. This followed on from your presentation at Les Cotils which I attended the night before.
On the Wednesday morning we had a cordial and good conversation and you suggested to me that if you could be, to use your phrase, reappointed to the wind farm group you would withdraw your amendment to the working party group dealing with the wind farm and give an undertaking, the details of which are not material.
I never thought you had been taken off that group but that is another matter.
I said I felt the previous evening presentation was a good one and I enjoyed it and that I welcomed your approach.
I said I would take it to P&R ASAP.
I was able to do that earlier than I expected.
I saw three of my colleagues in the library and I called you in. We all agreed what you had suggested, in your presence, as I called you in.
I then went and spoke to Mark who was already in the Assembly and he immediately agreed.
I walked straight over to you and said all was agreed.
I also happened to see Chris Blin and I told him what was agreed and he expressed his delight at that.
We were all then engaged in three further days of debate finishing after six on Friday.
On Saturday morning you left a message asking me to call which I did.
We had again, what I thought was, a very friendly conversation but I cannot recall you raising the wind farm issue at all.
If you had any concerns you know me well enough you could have raised them.
If you had I would have assured you that what we agreed on Wednesday was agreed and there was no intent to go back on it.
Indeed if at any time you had had any concerns you know you could approach me. You have done so many times in the past and although we have not always agreed on every issue our conversations have always been friendly and civil.
In fact we concluded our conversation by saying we should try and arrange a lunch this week.
So the truth is that I and indeed P&R have not one iota gone back on what was agreed.
How you vote on the Parkinson motion is a matter for you but I do take objection to you questioning my integrity.
You have known me now for over 7 years and though of course we have had some political disagreements we have always done so civilly.
We have also agreed on many more matters than we have disagreed on.
We have had probably hundreds of conversations and quite a few lunches.
You even said, which I also agreed as recent as last week, that some people might not realise that even if we disagreed on political matters such as GST we were mates.
I have very many faults but lacking directness and not being open and frank are not one or more of them.
I also am a person who if I give my word I stick to it.
Thus, although I would have preferred to deal with this privately you have copied this to many people I am responding publicly.
So, I would like you to respond in this forum how you believe my integrity is impugned.
I also add if in addition you want at any time to speak to me you can.
POLL: Do you think P&R should resign?
P&R will not pursue an early election if timeframes can't be compressed
Comments
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.