Conduct unbecoming

Was it appropriate that a serving deputy should write a series of articles in the Guernsey Press in which a subjective critical judgement was made of named colleagues during an election campaign to appoint a new Assembly, and at a time when many of those named were seeking re-election? Were the assessments by Richard Graham fair, unbiased, factual and respectful? We did not think so. The fact that in our view discourteous remarks were made about some sitting deputies and election candidates, and some aspects of the first article were factually incorrect, persuaded us to lodge a complaint with the States Members Code of Conduct Panel as recently reported in this newspaper.

Our complaint centred on the first article published on 21 September 2020 and focussed on whether its content complied with sections eight and nine of the Members Code of Conduct requirements.

Section eight records that Members shall at all times conduct themselves in a manner which will tend to maintain and strengthen the public’s trust and confidence in the integrity of the States of Deliberation and never undertake any action which would bring the States, or its Members generally, into disrepute.

Section nine is written in the following terms: Members shall at all times treat other members, civil servants and members of the public with respect and courtesy and without malice, notwithstanding the disagreements on issues and policy which are a normal part of the political process.

Deputy Graham draws attention to a speech by Deputy Trott when as vice president of P&R, he was speaking about the PwC report commissioned by the committee on air and sea connectivity. Richard Graham claimed that Deputy Trott, in opposing further investigation of the runway extension, said he knew that would be a waste of £700,000 and instead suggested we would be better off wasting only £400,000 finding out if there was any way that a £50m. passenger ferry could make it across the channel on those days when the sea is not flat calm . . .

Not only was Deputy Trott speaking on behalf of P&R (not in a personal capacity) and reiterating that the committee takes its role as guardians of taxpayers’ money very seriously, but Hansard does not record any such remarks from Deputy Trott; a fact that Deputy Graham acknowledged to the panel. Any suggestion that Deputy Trott preferred to waste money or investigate the feasibility of a £50m. ferry in the circumstances he described, was not true.

In that part of his article dealing with the resignations from Economic Development of the late Deputy Jan Kuttelwascher and Deputy Jennifer Merrett, the reasons given by Deputy Graham for the resignations were that ‘they got the hump’ which seems somewhat disrespectful, particularly as in a later article when describing the reasons for his resignation from Home Affairs, he was far more measured. The replacements on Economic Development, deputies David De Lisle and Dawn Tindall, were afforded similar discourtesy by labelling them ‘two outstanding candidates out of a cast of two’; a somewhat sarcastic comment and the circumstances he described were factually incorrect. There were three candidates for the two positions, including Deputy Louis Jean, and an election was held. Deputy Graham once again accepts he erred but no apology for the mistake or the belittling of colleagues is recorded in the panel’s judgement.

Deputy Parkinson is praised as one of the best speakers in the 2016-20 States, but according to Deputy Graham, when in 2018 Deputy Parkinson stood to deliver his new committee’s plans for the economy, nearly half of those present walked out for a leisurely smoke or comfort break leaving the meeting quorate by a margin of only one member. To put this in context, the speech referred to was delivered at about 12.15pm and immediately before the lunch break at 12.26pm.

A leisurely smoke seems an unlikely reason for anyone to leave the debate at that late stage in the morning’s proceedings and in our opinion the comment does nothing ‘to tend to maintain and strengthen the public’s trust and confidence in the integrity of the States of Deliberation’. Indeed, two correspondents to the letters page voiced concern at this alleged behaviour, seeking names to influence their election choices.

In his defence Deputy Graham told the investigation that he had been commissioned by the Guernsey Press to write a series of articles for which he received no remuneration. He claims that at the request of the Press they were supposed to be light-hearted rather than a bland recap of events. He accepted that Deputy Trott had not actually said the words that he attributed to him. He accepted that he was mistaken over the election of replacement members to Economic Development. He claimed that his comments about members leaving the Chamber for a leisurely smoke (he gave no evidence or explanation to support this assertion) was to make the point that while members were happy to spend plenty of time debating social issues they were less interested in talking about the economy. He failed to convey that message in his article, and in that context made no reference to social policy. Instead the focus was on allegedly a significant numbers of Members being disinterested in Deputy Parkinson’s presentation, preferring a leisurely smoke or comfort break. Members come and go from the Chamber at various times and there may have been legitimate reasons for absence.

The panel’s conclusion was that Deputy Graham’s critical comments in the article were simply a normal part of the democratic political process and he had the right to freedom of speech. The panel concluded that the particular words in the article were ‘nowhere near conduct which might merit censure under the Code of Conduct.’

The complaint was dismissed.

Our presentation to the panel ran into some five pages and is clearly too lengthy for this letter. Despite accepting the panel’s decision, in which it is recorded that our complaint had been thoroughly researched, we feel our standards are somewhat higher than those displayed in the article to which we refer. It would appear that freedom of speech takes precedent over courtesy and accuracy which become inconvenient obstacles when it comes to writing an appraisal of the States past performance. What else that was written in subsequent articles was inaccurate or misleading?

BRENDAN AND PAM MURPHY

guernseymurphy@googlemail.com