Deputies have voted not to suspend Deputy Gavin St Pier over a disputed Code of Conduct breach.
Just 11 deputies voted in favour of suspending the Vice President of Policy and Resources for 25 days without pay.
22 voted against the sanction meaning the States have decided against the findings of the Standards Commissioner who said he had broken the States Members’ Code of Conduct by confirming information about the number of complaints made about a doctor with a national newspaper journalist.
Debate ranged over two days, starting on Wednesday afternoon before the vote was taken on Thursday afternoon.
During Wednesday’s afternoon session, deputies started by setting the stage for what kind of repercussions Deputy St Pier could be facing.
Attempts were made to ensure his suspension would be without pay, which was agreed by a majority, before an attempt to shorten the suspension to just five days failed to win much support.
As debate started on the prospect of the suspension itself, Deputy Sarah Hansman-Rouxell, the President of the States’ Assembly & Constitution Committee, laid out her predictions of how the situation would play out, not for result, but in tone.
“Members, in opening this debate, I want to lay the groundwork for a civil, open and transparent discussion,” SACC’s President said.
“This is a final stage of a long process, and it is not an easy one. It is uncomfortable for everyone involved. It is uncomfortable for the complainant, for the deputy concerned, and for the families.”
Uncomfortable, it was.
The debate was one that featured strong arguments for both sides, with the Health and Social Care President and others confirming they would be voting for Deputy St Pier to be suspended and others warning about the wider repercussions if he were.
Deputies delved into the rights and wrongs of their Code of Conduct, they discussed the merits of representing constituents and how that can be done if they face being suspended for doing so, and into the differences of processes between the States Chamber and the Courts of Law.
They considered what it means to govern, to prosecute, to set a precedent, and what the optics would look like if they voted not to suspend Deputy St Pier.
In his closing remarks defending his position, Deputy St Pier delved into the timeline that preceded today’s debate, starting from a personal family matter that occurred years ago.
He referenced his own experiences with medical specialists and safeguarding in the island, and the recent findings of the Office for the Data Protection Authority, citing a recent data breach by the MSG.
He spoke of the families that have reached out to him, trusting him to represent their thoughts, opinions, and experiences.
Discussing the report written by the Standards Commissioner he queried missing evidence and the direction of the complaint investigation from the outset, claiming that the timeline does not match up with the Commissioner’s findings.
He also insisted during the debate that he does not hold a personal vendetta against any doctor, but he is concerned about the complaints processes within local medical practices.
“This case is about a system that is currently not able to improve and evolve on its own into a healthcare system that is truly trusted, non-adversarial and trauma informed. It is about a system which is not outcome focussed or capable of properly evidencing quality assurance. That does not mean that all care is poor or dangerous and it does not mean that there isn’t excellent care, but the families have repeatedly asked how HSC know that paediatric outcomes are as good as they should be. They have never received an answer – because there is no means of providing that assurance.”
At the end of debate more than half of his political colleagues agreed that he had not breached the Code of Conduct and should not be suspended.
More to follow…