FOCUS: "Free speech" in the spotlight after non-States member's education comments

Monday 29 March 2021

A non-voting member of Employment & Social Security has been slammed for making "puerile" comments about Education's non-publication of the secondary review, leading to suggestions that politicians are attempting to "muzzle" and "emasculate" him for speaking his mind.

Ross Le Brun wrote a letter to all deputies, which he shared on social media, on Tuesday last week. It called for States members to support an ultimately-unsuccessful amendment that sought to secure the publication of the education review so that all Deputies could see the "like-for-like comparisons" of different school models.

In that email, he said that "you need to have the facts and evidence gathered by the review to make informed decisions and not allow it to be withheld from you", before adding that the second part of the 'pause and review' amounted to "a lot of effort, time & taxpayers money that is otherwise going to just be hidden from you."

While the views were expressed were framed as those of "a parent of a four-year-old who is to start States education this year".

A thread of emails obtained by Express - not from Mr Le Brun - reveals a significant backlash to those and other previous comments. ESC President Andrea Dudley-Owen felt his assertions were unprofessional and suggested that her committee was deliberately hiding information from the public. 

"You now have an insight into the States that few members of the public do and with that in mind I would like to ask you, what makes you think that a Committee might hide work? 

"In the four and a bit years I spent on 2 Committees last term I have not seen any work “hidden”.

Pictured: Deputy Dudley-Owen said Mr Le Brun had acted in a disrespectful way towards her committee. 

"Your position as a non-voting member of the Committee for Employment & Social Security does require you to have a much higher level of professionalism than your email below indicates. Your assertion is a serious one and not one that I take lightly. You may have a personal interest, as many of us do, in education, but you are also a member of a States of Guernsey Committee and we need to work in a respectful way towards each other. 

"You have previously called ESC Committee members “billshutters” on a social media post in relation to Education policy, implying that we are liars and I took this up with the President of your Committee, Deputy Roffey at the time. If an elected member acted in the way you have there would be consequences.

"ESC & ESS have a joint Committee meeting soon and I wonder how do you think behaving in this way helps our congenial and collaborative working? I will engage in a respectful, mature way, but please… no more false claims or puerile rudeness." 

Deputy Mark Helyar responded to this 'all deputies' response with a "Hear, Hear", while Deputy Neil Inder noted that he had "mused in a previous presidential role whether NVMs/NSMs should come into the scope of the future standards panel." 

"This has got Rule 11 written all over it." 

Pictured: Ross Le Brun and Mark Thompson were appointed as non-voting committee members of ESS in December. 

The Economic Development President pursued the matter further, sending email to the President of ESS about Mr Le Brun's social media activity and behaviour. He raised concerns about repeated offensive comments, citing another occasion where Mr Le Brun described members of the Assembly that expressed a preference to the three-school model as ‘billshutters’.

"You’ll get no faux prissiness from me on people who use the vernacular, but am obliged to ask what your view on that kind of outburst from one of your non-States members; especially one that targets what appears to be the majority of the Assembly.  

"And I also note that for someone who is usually vocal on every topic, there has been no response from you or your Committee to Milly’s [Deputy Dudley-Owen] email to Mr Le Brun." 

He asked whether Deputy Peter Roffey considered the comments to be "appropriate" behaviour for a non-States member.

"I’m particularly intrigued to know whether your Committee conducted anything that looked like due diligence on your member’s social media output before appointment. No one can claim as a double ex-candidate he didn’t have a certain style about him.

"I genuinely don’t mind what his personal opinion is on the matter; but I and probably the majority of the Assembly would draw the line at paying someone to call us ‘billshutter’ – we can all get that for free." 

Deputy Roffey said that incident was "some time" ago and that he had spoken to Deputy Dudley-Owen at the time about it. He said that Mr Le Brun was not there to be a yes man.

"I think the ESS were always aware that Ross had strong views, often bluntly expressed, when we appointed him. Indeed we knew that he would be a member who would often provide robust and unnuanced challenge to the rest of us around the committee table. We didn’t appoint him for a comfortable ride.

Pictured: Deputy Inder tweeted in response to Mr Le Brun's own social media response before deleting the comment. 

"As far as his view on politics outside of the ESS mandate are concerned, I have no intention at all of trying to muzzle him and I very much doubt I would succeed if I did. As I said he is a man with strong views and joining ESS as a non-voting member did not stop and should not stop him expressing them and lobbying for policies he believes in." 

He said lobbying for policies is something that States members do on a regular basis, and is accepted from elected members as part of the “rough and tumble of politics”. He did not object to the language used by Mr Le Brun.

"Ross has not been to a Swiss finishing school or taken elocution lessons and he tends to speak in “Anglo Saxon” rather than prose but that does not make his views less valid. 

He acknowledged that a "clear line" needs to be drawn between what he says on matters on the ESS mandate and more general political matters. 

"In the latter I regard him as a complete free agent so long as he refrains from abuse. That does not mean never saying anything which upsets any States members. That sort of emasculation does not come with the remit of being a non-States member on a committee and it would be a very sad day if it ever did."

TRANSCRIPT - Mr Le Brun's email:

"I am a parent of a 4 year old who is to start states education this year. I want to know my representatives are ensuring all the islands children get access to the best education we can build.
I’d like to ask that you all support amendment 2 from Deputies Bury & Gabriel.
You need to have the facts & evidence gathered by the review to make informed decisions and not allow it to be withheld from you. Thousands marched in the “PAUSE & REVIEW” for this evidence to be published.
Publishing the review is not bringing 2 school back!
As much as anything else, the review involves detailed consultation with teachers and other stakeholders.
It’s a lot of effort, time & taxpayers money that is otherwise going to just be hidden from you.
Voting against this amendment would be voting against making a decision based on all the facts and all the evidence. It would be continuing to let down all the less privileged children that the old selective system used to let down.
Please support the Bury/Gabriel amendment to know you have done your best to make an informed decision and more importantly, for the benefit of all the islands children!"

In a follow-up email, he stated: 

"I’d like to point out that the review also contains detailed consultation with teachers on three school models. The same teachers who have been forced to go to the media to ask to be consulted with now. If you value the teachers and other stakeholders input you will need the review published.