P&R came under pressure over the weekend to drop Deputy St Pier from the event, 36 hours before he stands for re-election to the seat from which all five members of the senior committee agreed he should resign following his recent re-arrest on suspicion of misconduct in public office, which he denies.
But he and his P&R colleague Deputy Charles Parkinson led last night’s public meeting to discuss the findings of its sub-committee which recently recommended that company tax changes did not provide a credible alternative to a goods and services tax.
Weekend email exchanges seen by the Guernsey Press showed that Andrew Niles and Andy Sloan asked P&R to reconsider Deputy St Pier’s involvement.
‘I find it very difficult to reconcile the public position taken by P&R with Deputy St Pier now presenting on behalf of a P&R sub-committee on one of the most politically sensitive areas currently before the Assembly,’ said Deputy Niles, in a message to P&R president Lindsay de Sausmarez which was shared with all States members.
‘Regardless of the technical procedural position, that does not appear consistent with the message previously communicated by the committee and risks creating understandable confusion among the public. It is also not how these matters are handled in other jurisdictions, especially when we have other deputies on the sub-committee able to deliver the key messages.
‘For me, this is fundamentally an issue of judgement, optics and maintaining confidence in the institution...ultimately, it is for you to take a leadership position on this.’
Deputy St Pier pointed out that under the rules of procedure he remained a member of P&R until his resignation was formally laid before tomorrow’s meeting of the States Assembly.
He saw no reason to skip last night’s public meeting at Les Cotils.
‘As the resources lead for the committee, this topic sits squarely within the areas of responsibility assigned to me by the committee. I will continue to discharge my duty in accordance with States’ rules for so long as I am a member of the committee,’ he said.
Deputy Niles was announced last night as P&R’s surprise nominee to replace Deputy St Pier as its fifth member.
Scrutiny president Deputy Sloan warned Deputy de Sausmarez that P&R’s credibility and integrity had not been helped by Deputy St Pier continuing to front the committee’s resources portfolio.
He said that P&R should have found a way to suspend its vice-president after accepting that he needed to resign.
‘To discover that, notwithstanding the public statements made, Deputy St Pier has effectively continued to participate in substantive P&R matters – including presenting on behalf of a P&R sub-committee on one of the most politically sensitive issues currently before the Assembly – is, frankly, extraordinary,’ said Deputy Sloan.
‘Regardless of the technical procedural position, I do not think this is how the public would reasonably understand ‘stepping aside’, nor do I think it sits comfortably with the rationale previously advanced by the committee itself around confidence and perception.’
‘This has now become fundamentally an issue of judgement and optics and is becoming an issue of confidence,’ he said.
Deputy Neil Inder claimed that Deputy St Pier ‘had put the whole of P&R in an awful position by standing again’ for the seat he had decided to vacate, which has in effect turned tomorrow’s election into a confidence vote in him.
In Deputy de Sausmarez’s absence on other States business, her P&R colleague Yvonne Burford replied to the committee’s critics.
She defended its handling of ‘somewhat unusual’ events.
‘The view of the committee was that this matter could take a very long time to resolve finally and that rightly or wrongly Deputy St Pier’s presence would be a distraction to the committee’s work over an extended period,’ said Deputy Burford.
‘The matter will be coming before all members of the Assembly in just three days’ time.
‘My personal view is that in the very short interim Deputy St Pier presenting the outcomes of the tax review sub-committee which he was on, as planned, or otherwise participating is not unreasonable.’