Page 192 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 16 February 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
raised with me and the prospect that those matters may impact on the integrity of the inquiry. On 17 December, I received a reply from the commissioner, who declined to comment and offered to speak to my informant. He also said that he had done everything according to Hoyle and that he had used the standard practices of the commission.
I immediately responded on the same day, asking:
… whether you can confirm that, in your handling of the matter discussed in the conversation that was the subject of my letter … you honoured the confidentiality of that conversation.
I further went on to ask for a written copy of the standards which he said that he had relied on. I received a response from the person acting in the commissioner’s position, assuring me that the commissioner had acted appropriately on 4 January.
When I returned from leave, I wrote again to the commissioner, who had by that stage also returned from leave, and asked him once again to confirm whether he had treated the conversation of 4 November confidentially. On 18 January, I received a response from the commissioner where he used the staff member’s name several times. I need to point out that prior to that time I did not know that person’s full identity.
This staff member and others who had spoken to me were very concerned about maintaining their confidentiality, which I have respected, and I do need to put on the record that neither my staff nor any other member of the opposition’s staff knew that person’s identity until one of my staff opened a letter which was not marked “private and confidential” and read that person’s name.
On 20 January, I received a copy of an email that my informant, that I have previously referred to as X, sent to the commissioner expressing disappointment and concern that the commissioner had disclosed the informant’s name to me. And I will read some of that email. I will not read some of it because it would divulge this person’s identity. It says:
Dear Alisdair
It has come to my attention that in a letter to Ms Vicki Dunne, MLA, dated 17th January, 2010 you disclosed my identity, which I had previously gone to considerable lengths to keep confidential.
I am writing to you to express my disappointment and concern that this breach of confidentiality has occurred. It is of particular concern to me as this followed our recent meeting where you and I had an opportunity to discuss the previous occurrence; that is, your comment to my … supervisor that made him aware that I had brought concerns to your attention.
I had previously assumed that you would understand that my confidentiality is of the utmost importance to me, not just because I find myself as something of an internal “whistle-blower” in an environment that is sometimes dangerous and remains resistant to external security, but also—
for a whole lot of other reasons, which I will not read out here. It continues:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video