Swift action missing from conduct complaint debacle

IF THERE is one lesson from the code of conduct complaint saga, it is that speed is of the essence.

For too long a cloud was left hanging over the Assembly as the fallout continued from what was said to and about Deputy Marc Leadbeater after he resigned from Education, Sport & Culture.

From one perspective, the comments that led to the complaint can be seen as benign, and that certainly seems to be the way Deputy Leadbeater interpreted them.

He did not agree with what was being said, but was not offended.

But taken as a whole – and considering the reaction – it has exposed some of the political manipulation that normally happens out of public view.

The cut and thrust of local politics? Certainly – it is just disingenuous of deputies to continue trying to give the impression this type of thing does not happen.

It has also demonstrated that this Assembly's personalities are larger, and in some cases more paranoid, than their predecessors ever were.

So how did this all unfold?

Deputy Leadbeater announced his resignation publicly on Sunday 11 December because of the motion of no confidence.

He was the only Education member to break ranks after they had insisted the board was united in the wake of the vote to end selection.

It is understood that it was after the next Home Affairs meeting that Deputy Mary Lowe, one of the three subjected to the code complaints that have been dismissed out of hand for a lack of evidence, asked him to stay behind.

During this conversation it is claimed she advised him to say that the reason for his resignation was because he was struggling while serving on two major committees to care for his son.

Deputy Leadbeater was not offended by the advice, but equally did not agree with it.

Fast forward to the eve of the motion of no confidence debate and we know that Education president Paul Le Pelley, also the subject of a complaint, and vice-president Carl Meerveld, who was not, were assuring Deputy Leadbeater that they would propose and second him to get back on the committee should the no confidence motion fail.

But just minutes before the debate got under way, Deputy Meerveld told Deputy Leadbeater that they were going to nominate Deputy Neil Inder instead.

Quite a change of heart.

Deputy Lyndon Trott, the third person targeted by the code complaint and the most vociferous in defending himself, had advised Deputy Meerveld that nominating Deputy Leadbeater would make the committee look politically weak.

That clearly is not a breach of the code, but an opinion, whether right or wrong.

Ironically, what transpired was a committee that looked politically weak and unsure of itself because all of this manoeuvring and flip-flopping has since been exposed.

In debate, Deputy Leadbeater said this about turn had been because of advice from senior politicians.

Also in debate, there was an exchange during Deputy Emilie Yerby's summing up which is of note. Deputy Le Pelley stood to make a point of correction and said: 'I do not want to go into particular details, but there were reasons why the committee decided that it might be an idea for Deputy Leadbeater to have a break. I do not really want to go into anything more than that. But there are sincere reasons and I am quite happy to talk to him about it afterwards.'

The care issue had permeated the committee's thinking overnight.

Senior politicians are understood to have threatened to withdraw their support for Education unless they nominated Deputy Inder.

Deputy Trott has been clear that he did not know Deputy Leadbeater had a disabled son.

Deputy Leadbeater thought that some of those advising Education's president and vice-president said that caring for his son was impinging on Deputy Leadbeater's ability to work on the two committees.

Clearly, he did not agree.

So was this a case of genuine concern, or manoeuvring to ensure that an anti-selection member of the board was replaced with an 11-plus supporter?

Was the subsequent complaint about genuine concern that comments had breached the standards expected, especially considering States policies on inclusion, or all cooked up to cause trouble for those members identified in an attempt to weaken their positions?

You decide.

Today we have heard more from one of the bodies that lodged the code complaint. The Guernsey Disability Alliance tried to resolve this in private through Policy & Resources, but having no success, and having seen Deputy Leadbeater's statement, pushed on through the code of conduct.

It still believes it was right to do so.

There are some arguing that the code of conduct system needs to be reformed.

Now the three members who were the subject of the complaint have also had a hand in creating the system in the first place when the States debated reforms last term and before that. If they are upset at being named, they were in some ways the architects of the situation by never moving in debate to change it.

Deputy Lowe has even served as vice-chairman of the States Assembly and Constitution Committee, which was responsible for setting the rules.

It is not the code but how swiftly it is acted on that is the real issue.

Complaints should not be allowed to fester because it just leaves people filling in the blanks themselves.

Everyone in political circles, and therefore inevitably anyone close to them, knew who the Policy & Resources Committee was investigating when it initially – and wrongly – took on the role of looking into the matter, wasting valuable time while rumours swirled.

Of course, P&R was not helped because no one apart from Deputy Leadbeater co-operated, just lengthening the saga further.

Actions need to be swift in these situations, otherwise everyone suffers.

Now we wait to see if the friction evident in the Assembly from both sides of the argument settles down.

The suspicion is that there are some quite deep personality clashes and ideological differences which will continue, even if members will not want to acknowledge that publicly.