Select a region
Reviewing absolute privilege will form part of the States Assembly & Constitution Committees’ work going forward, as the fallout from a debate on Deputy Gavin St Pier’s conduct - described by one member as an “absolute disgrace” - continues.
The Committee was warm to the idea of setting up a sub-group, bringing in other deputies, to consider the matter further.
It comes following a fiery debate in the States last week where members debated a report which cleared Deputy Gavin St Pier of an allegation of abusing parliamentary privilege for naming a local paediatrician, Dr Sandie Bohin, in a statement last April in an attempt to highlight general safeguarding failures involving sick children.
That finding and debate has led to condemnation from the local medical community, including Dr Bohin herself, her employer, the Medical Specialist Group, and the local wing of the British Medical Association.
Deputy Carl Meerveld, President of SACC, yesterday said the process as carried out was “very unsatisfactory for all concerned”, and what an “appropriate” use of parliamentary privilege is has yet to be established.
During the States debate, Deputy Meerveld had called for the island to consider restricting the amount of privilege afforded to politicians, perhaps returning to a system of qualified privilege previously in play in the island, where malicious statements could be litigated against.
“I don't think that's acceptable in Guernsey. And I would, unfortunately, have to then draw the conclusion that we have to look at the powers of privilege and see whether they should be constrained because if we can't police it, if we can't control it, then we have to restrict it,” he said at the time.
He reiterated to SACC yesterday that extra “evidence” presented during the debate, and the fact Health & Social Care had not been interviewed in person by the panel, may have influenced the final decision.
“I don’t think the conversation has ended here."
Pictured: Deputy Lester Queripel was highly critical of the tone of the privilege report debate.
Deputy John Gollop, who chaired the privileges panel which investigated the alleged abuse of privilege, and is also a member of SACC, did however note that there had been “such strong views” on either side of the privileges of debate that selection should be carefully considered.
He also revealed there had been “strong emails” between politicians before and after the debate.
The question, for him, was to establish what constitutes an abuse, and defining what irresponsible use of privilege is.
Meanwhile Deputy Lester Queripel, Vice-President of SACC, said the debate on the privileges panel report had “brought out the worst of deputies” and “should never have happened”, which is why he attempted to curtail debate from the outset.
The near seven hours of debate into Deputy St Piers’ conduct also “brought the States into disrepute”, he added, providing an opportunity for his friends and foes in the chamber to support or criticise him respectively.
He labelled it an “absolute disgrace”, “absolute nonsense”, and the worst debate he has ever been involved in as a States member.
Calls to curb 'parliamentary privilege'
Safeguarding report: "Was the focus on children lost?"
DEPUTY LETTER: Deputy St Pier's full statement during the privileges panel debate
St Pier cleared of abuse of privilege
Further criticism aimed at Deputy St Pier
Medics slam investigation into Deputy St Pier and question process
Many safeguarding recommendations "completed", final few "ongoing"
FOCUS: Anonymous letter and leaked report detail island safeguarding concerns
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.