OPINIONS: The Big Debate

The issue risks undermining 'Guernsey Together' spirit, argues Deputy Peter Roffey...

THE issue of ‘Gatlandgate’ seems to have divided island opinion. Should the British and Irish Lions head coach have been granted a special exemption from Guernsey’s normal self-isolation controls in order to scout the island and decide if it’s a suitable base for a training camp?

For some it was a very sensible, safe and positive use of discretion to try to give the island a boost, without imposing too much risk of importing a third wave of Covid-19.

To others it was a real kick in the teeth when they, a family member, or a friend had been denied such special VIP treatment over the past year when they had great personal need of such flexibility. Maybe to see a dying loved one or to attend a funeral.

A case of Guernsey trying to be positive and look forward? Or one of Guernsey being far less ‘together’ than the States has always claimed, with one set of rules for the powerful or famous and another for ordinary islanders?

To be honest I have migrated from one view to the other as more details have emerged.

What sits at the core of this saga is a simple matter of judgement. Sadly that has been compounded by a supremely bad case of misinformation which risks putting a large chink in the very considerable trust the people of Guernsey have had in ‘the authorities’ throughout this last extraordinary year. If that creates any doubt over future communications then that will be far more damaging than the specifics of this particular VIP visit.

I’ll return to the issue of communications in a moment but first let’s focus on the judgement calls which have seemingly split public opinion. I guess there are three things to factor in.

1. How big a risk did the visit pose?

2. How much benefit could it bring?

3. Does it risk undermining the crucial spirit of Guernsey Together by smacking too much of ‘one rule for you and one rule for us’.

Dealing first with the risk. I am convinced it was pretty low. Of course anybody coming to Covid-free Guernsey from countries where the virus is still endemic poses a very slight risk. But I simply don’t believe our health authorities would have signed off on the visit unless they were convinced that risk was minuscule.

Dealing now with the benefits. I can’t help feeling these have been exaggerated too. I would love Guernsey to be able to host the Lions’ training/bonding camp in June if it is safe to do so. However, as a reasonably keen follower of sports journalism the idea that such a pre-tournament camp would generate acres of positive news coverage strikes me as rather fanciful.

Perhaps the biggest issue is the third one listed above. Whether the trip risks undermining the idea that we are all impacted equally by the sacrifices Covid-19 has imposed on our community. It’s here where the constantly changing narrative from the authorities has also changed my attitude.

My first reaction was that while it was a finely balanced judgement it was a decision I could understand. If Warren Gatland really had done the absolute minimum needed in order to suss out our facilities. If he had only left his hotel room/car, masked, for the minimum amount of time to carry out that assessment, and hadn’t mingled with the population, it sounded like a minimal risk to take.

Of course it would still smack of double standards to Mrs Le Flem, whose sister wasn’t able to fly in from the UK for her mother’s funeral, but leaving that aside I could understand the risk/benefit judgement and why the trip had been allowed.

Later the story changed beyond all recognition. The picture painted by early media releases of Mr Gatland spending his downtime sitting alone in his hotel room and living off room service suddenly disappeared. Instead he had been joined by local top brass for a sandwich lunch at the rugby club bar and by an exclusive set of guests from the local sporting fraternity for a meal at St Pierre Park Hotel.

Now I am not against wining and dining high-profile guests, even if I hate such formal socialising myself. I understand it can help to oil the wheels and bring about desired results. But frankly for permission for such activities to go ahead as an exemption to the self-isolation rules really does strike me as a bridge too far.

Who am I to suggest that? Am I an expert in public health? No I definitely am not but I do know two things.

The first is that such activities will smack far more of double standards to ordinary Guernsey people than just allowing a tight, controlled visit to assess facilities with the absolute minimum of contact with members of our community. As a result the risk of undermining the spirit of ‘Guernsey Together’ was obviously increased. Exemptions for socialising sounds too much like different rules for different folks.

The second is that by firstly putting out statements which completely whitewashed these meals out of Mr Gatland’s itinerary only to fess up about them when the word of the street had reached a crescendo made the situation 1,000 times worse.

Knowing some of the people concerned, I am willing to accept that this was ‘cock-up not conspiracy’, but sadly I suspect thousands will not believe that. As a result, their faith in the messaging coming out of the States over Covid-related issues in future will have been damaged.

That really is tragic and potentially dangerous. One of the main reasons why Guernsey has done better than most communities when it comes to the pandemic is because we have been united and we have, rightly, believed and trusted the messages coming from our government.

The final revelation was that 50-odd ‘compassionate variations’ to the self-isolation rules had been granted recently. Who knew that? I didn’t and had advised those desperate to travel to Guernsey for urgent family reasons that I thought they would be required to self-isolate.

I knew about critical workers but not about large-scale compassionate dispensations from the rules. I am certainly not saying it’s wrong, but I would like to know much more about it.

New columnist Alex Garner argues that the bungled PE has cost the States dearly...

A GOVERNMENT runs, to paraphrase a renowned business leader, on efficiency of communication. This is never more critical than when dealing with a crisis.

The effectiveness of the States’ public relations strategy in responding to the Covid-19 pandemic was proven by islanders having had restriction-free living on the agenda for the majority of 2020, much to the envy of friends and family elsewhere. Those watching from the UK were struck by what could be achieved by expert-led decision-makers providing simple yet engaged messaging which inspired trust and co-operation from the public. If a member of the Civil Contingencies Authority was spotted driving near a local landmark it was because they’d earned a mask-free day out with the family, not because they were self-administering an eye exam of questionable clinical merit.

Every Guernsey resident has a story of a life event (be it celebratory or compassionate) missed, postponed or cancelled due to domestic and international restrictions imposed by the CCA and Public Health to get the pandemic under control. Guernsey residents played their part and made these sacrifices in the knowledge that restrictions were universally applicable and set by trusted authority figures who had become cult heroes.

Fast-forward several months, through both an election in which ‘transparency’ was a key buzzword, and a short, sharp community-seeding-induced lockdown, and the PR machine is in desperate need of some maintenance. The clandestine nature of Warren Gatland’s quarantine-exempt recce to assess the island’s potential to host a British and Irish Lions training camp in June has – as it was always going to do – raised many questions but few straight answers. What should have been a famous moment on our post-coronavirus victory lap has instead become something of a cause celebre.

The decision to abandon the previously successful strategy of openness and respect towards the public in favour of employing tactics out of the Barnard Castle playbook was one borne out of either political misjudgement or apathy. Gatland’s visit had already been alluded to in an article in the Daily Telegraph on 31 March. Over the long Easter weekend many a WhatsApp group chat notification pinged alive with messages that the various friends of the uncles of the dogwalker had it on good authority that the Lions head coach was in Guernsey. There was never any way this story was staying under wraps, regardless of press embargoes.

Once that reality had been accepted the only reasonable course of action was to get out in front of the issue and let people know what was happening ahead of time. Had that been the approach taken I have no doubt that islanders would have got fully behind the opportunity – perhaps the many rainbow drawings adorning front windows would have been joined by stuffed lions?

Hosting a training camp for the elite of international rugby union represents an obvious opportunity from both a financial (hotels, food and facilities hire for 60-plus players and staff, not to mention the participation in bonding activities) and prestige point of view. There is also the real opportunity to take hosting such a camp not as a crowning glory, but a jumping-off point into a brand new market.

Offer the Lions an environment which caters for top-level sporting preparations as well as team bonding and there’s no reason Guernsey couldn’t become to rugby (and beyond) what Tenerife and Mount Teide have become for cycling in the wake of Team Sky’s patronage.

With so much to be gained it’s such a real shame that the States doubled down on their initial undercover approach with error-strewn media releases confirming, rather than releasing, information which was already filling social media and the air around cafe tables. Once the story first got out, the States issued a press release that Gatland had visited but strict measures were put in place including daily testing and all meals being eaten in his hotel room, a precaution initially attributed to a quote by Dr Brink and then reiterated by Deputy Ferbrache in a radio interview.

Then whispers that there had been a couple of meals with other attendees, with at least one attended by both the chief minister and the director of Public Health, got louder. At least a day of speculation preceded a follow-up States press release – actually, there had been both sandwiches at a meeting and a private meal attended. Keeping the public in the dark initially can be considered a mistake by people complying with the Lions’s wishes for privacy. Making statements one knows to be misleading via both government and state media channels will surely have some flicking through their code of conduct handbooks.

The local backlash against what has been perceived as a separate set of rules for the rich and famous has been picked up by media outlets across the UK and the world and will surely have filtered back to the Lions team. Until complete clarity over the circumstances of Gatland’s visit is given it is hard to see how it can be shown that the public support exists to convince the Lions they’d be welcome after all.

Key questions remain outstanding, particularly around the testing regime. For example – did Gatland foot the bill for his daily tests? Were all those he met with in enclosed spaces tested daily or are they currently isolating? What measures were taken to prevent a third wave of community seeding in case of false negatives? How similar were the measures taken for this celebrity visit compared to other quarantine exemptees? This is especially relevant considering Public Health still do not know who the patient zero for the second wave was, and the multiple day one negative – day 13 positive results during the current regime. Many people complied with travel restrictions and self-isolations because of these risks.

Few individuals have gained such universal trust as Dr Nicola Brink over the past 12 months. Personally, I have complete faith that the regime she put in place for Warren Gatland’s visit and the approximately 50 other exemptions granted in the past two weeks ensured the safety of the rest of the community. With that taken for granted the story should have been one of the great opportunities which were presenting themselves for the island as a reward for the #GuernseyTogether sacrifices made by the people, for the people. However, the focus is now on a minor political scandal and growing feeling that perhaps the Covid cost has been burdened by the many for the few.

Considering how much has been given up already, the loss of faith that our leaders do have our best interests at heart is itself a tragedy, and Messrs Ferbrache, Whitfield and co will have to work hard to win back the trust they have lost over the bungled PR. Now more than ever they must realise that leadership is a matter of ‘but what have you done for me lately?’

[Alex Garner grew up and was educated in Guernsey at the Vale and Grammar Schools and is now a qualified solicitor.]

The online conversation

Comments posted on the Guernsey Press website over the past week give an idea of the public response to the evolving story...

5 APRIL – Chief Minister defends visit by British and Irish Lions head coach

DM: Fly in, stay in hotel, eat in room, test every day, escorted everywhere when out of the hotel. Sounds pretty safe to me. He didn’t pop along to the Ship & Crown after dropping off his bags did he?

Fermaindonkey: A lot of fuss about nothing if you ask me. Tightly controlled visit and could only be a plus for Guernsey if they decide to train here. Gatland would just take the opportunity of free publicity elsewhere if he had to quarantine for 14 days just to look at Footes Lane.

TurkeyBaster: A Lions tour is a very special thing. The players are world class sportsmen surrounded by the highest levels of professional medical and logistical support. Dr Brink and team, together with the CCA, have demonstrated huge competence. Combining them might just be as good as risks management gets. On a practical level, having the Lions here in June could be a highly beneficial exercise in strengthening and rehearsing protocols ahead of opening the border. The economic benefits may be modest, but the empathetic and emotional benefits of #Guernsey Together With The Lions would be fantastic. Let’s hope Mr Gatland hasn’t taken away the impression that we’re a bunch of introspective whinging poms.

Lou Cannon: This is just ridiculous. Families kept apart for over a year (still ongoing), but a visiting sports coach is ok? Why not apply the same testing to those who really need to travel right now?

gypoppy: I think this sets a bad precedent and I am sure it will apply to others in future in the higher society. Rules and laws simply do not apply to some people in our society.

A J F: I have not seen my mother, who is on the island, since well over a year now. But I have no qualms with this very sensible decision of the CCA... People may whine that it is unfair because people who need off-island medical treatment or want to visit relatives etc. should be afforded the same opportunity but the point is that this was a one-off short and well controlled business trip and if one person like myself was given leave to visit my mother without quarantine then there would be a flood of other people coming into the island on the same basis – and that is when the problems start.

6 APRIL – ‘Why one rule for him, another for others?’

Dylan K: I fear the CCA may have badly judged public opinion on this one, of course one visitor is low risk, but the same could be said for someone desperate to see relatives. I’m seeing nothing in the ‘essential’ trip that couldn’t have been done via Zoom, its [sic] no excuse saying loads of business trips have happened, if they weren’t strictly necessary they shouldn’t have happened either. As for benefits to the island, it looks like in the unlikely event they do come here. PW [Paul Whitfield] may even be paying them! And as for asking for the Rib voyage at cost price in the spirit of ‘Guernsey Together’ what a bloney cheek!

Trudie: I don’t think anyone outraged at this need have any worry that we’ll see this training camp here in June (or any number of benefits thereafter) following this trip, after seeing the way some people have turned on the CCA who’ve come up trumps for us time and again over the past year why would anyone want to visit let alone bring any business? Imo [in my opinion] this is a forward thinking move which reflects the positive direction we are going wrt [sic] dealing with this pandemic, we’re not stuck back in the first lockdown. In case you think I’m biased I’m not particularly a rugby fan, also haven’t seen family members/occasions for quite some time now and didn’t vote for CCA members at current election. Oh and I’m not a non-resident demanding the CCA explain every decision they make to me. Meanwhile, over in Jersey...

Paul: How small minded and insular some in Guernsey have become. What about the hundreds flying in and out for all kinds of reasons with no criticism at all? This had the potential of being a huge PR boost for Guernsey plc as it tries to navigate its way out of these desperate times, yet the perception of Mr Gatland, who has been vaccinated and is subject to almost daily testing, as are all associated with elite sports, is seen as a very unwelcome visitor. Off to Jersey now no doubt.

Beagle: I’m annoyed and very disappointed by this revelation. Islanders have sacrificed so much and tried so hard to get where we are. The decision shows total lack of respect for islanders, their feelings and what they have done and was in my opinion very foolish. Rules apply to all – no exceptions. Sport is not essential. Lots of people have more valid reasons to be an exception. My respect for Mr Ferbrache and Dr Brink has gone down considerably.

8 APRIL – States reveals more of what Lions coach did

Rocket4: Great shame. A well-intentioned and high profile visit could have been a moment for proactive communications to celebrate Guernsey’s community efforts and achievements over the past year. Instead, handled with the deft and elegance of reversing a muck spreader onto the Guernsey Together rainbow.

Bob1: Seems a pretty obvious question, but why did any meetings have to take place over lunch or dinner? Seriously, that is the point when people take off face coverings nearly all of the time. Why couldn’t meetings just be held in a socially distant room with masks on? It seems like people were tickling their egos meeting with WG [Warren Gatland] over dinner/lunch rather than actually just finding the safest possible way to discuss things... Why weren’t people just informed what he did at the start? The impression was given it was a business tunnel type visit in and out. When it wasn’t, it involved schmoozing and lunches and dinners. Interesting what comes out when people actually ask questions. Some people haven’t seen family for over a year.

Roc Wizard: What a surprise. Not as strictly controlled and risk managed as we have been led to believe. I think I shall apply for my parents to come over for a weekend to have tea and cake in the dining room on the basis it is ‘either compassionate, medical, critical work, or other exceptional circumstances’. They’ve both been vaccinated and take part in a local voluntary testing regime which sees them tested twice per week as part of a wider population surveillance trial. The application will sail through I’m sure.

9 APRIL – Criticism of Gatland visit makes headlines

Douglas White: The problem with this visit was how details of it ended up ‘leaking’ drip by drip after the event. This gave it the feel of a guilty secret right from the start.

PLP: It should be a cause of regret that this issue has become so polarised. It is possible to see the potential benefits of this visit whilst having sympathy with people who haven’t seen relatives for over a year. It should have been possible to have a balanced debate on this subject but that was largely scuppered, no thanks to political brownie point scoring attempts by stirring up trouble on social media. Now we’re left with a mud-slinging festival with ever more entrenched positions, meaning the chances of any sort of meaningful engagement are becoming less and less likely.