Did gesture towards colleague represent new low in deputies’ conduct in the Assembly?
I WAS disturbed to read the report in the Guernsey Press (18 July) of the previous day’s States meeting of an incident where Deputy Inder had used his hand to make a slicing motion across his neck while Deputy de Sausmarez was answering his supplementary question. This occurred during a question and answer session on the Strategic Land Use Plan (SLUP) and related matters in the context of the local housing crisis.
In the online broadcast of that Q&A session, the hostile gesture was instantly called out by Deputy de Sausmarez and she sought immediate redress via the Presiding Officer.
In his response Deputy Inder can be heard claiming that Deputy de Sausmarez had ‘a style about her which blames everyone else …’ and she had been ‘… angry in her response all the way through, condescending and patronising …’. Deputy Inder agreed to apologize but only by way of saying he would ‘withdraw the silly remark …’.
However, in reality, during the 45 minute Q&A session, Deputy de Sausmarez answered 27 questions on the SLUP and related matters with civility and candour. Several of the questions put to her were either convoluted, misconstructed or misconceived (or even a combination of these!). Nonetheless she responded to the series of questions without any detectable anger, even making light of her increasing and understandable exasperation as it became clear that many of her critics didn’t appear to have fully grasped the objectives of the SLUP or, more tellingly, how the IDP reflected them.
So, at least two questions immediately arise from that Wednesday’s Q&A session. They are:
Does this threatening gesture towards a committee president represent a new low in deputies’ conduct within the chamber?
And how tolerant should deputies be towards a fellow member who displays intimidatory behaviour within the Assembly?
JON LANGLOIS
Grandes Mielles Lane
Vale