A SCRUTINY chair is facing a vote of no confidence after allegedly stating he was unwilling to work with two other panel members and refusing to resign from his position.
Deputy Philip Bailhache, a member of the Health and Social Security Scrutiny Panel, has brought the no-confidence motion against chair Deputy Geoff Southern after losing confidence ‘in view of the stance adopted’ by the Reform Jersey Deputy.
However, Deputy Southern has defended his stance and said that he believes that two members of the panel – Deputies Barbara Ward and Andy Howell – have ‘failed to comply’ with the code of conduct for States Members. He added that he will ‘vigorously defend’ his position.
The dispute stems from a letter of complaint sent by Health Minister Karen Wilson to Deputy Southern over the conduct and line of questioning from Deputies Ward and Howell.
In his no-confidence motion, Deputy Bailhache stated that Deputy Wilson had made three complaints against Deputy Ward relating to revealing information from a private meeting during a public Scrutiny hearing, allegedly relaying information to the panel that was received through her membership of the States Employment Board and persistently raising employment matters in relation to recruitment difficulties. The allegation against Deputy Howell related to failing to act in a professional manner during a private meeting between the panel and senior Health Department figures.
Deputy Bailhache, in his no-confidence motion, defends Deputies Ward and Howell against each of the allegations made by the Health Minister. However, he said that Deputy Southern failed to offer any backing to his panel colleagues.
The vote of no confidence states: ‘Having received the letter [from Deputy Wilson], the chair wrote to both Deputies [Ward and Howell] informing them of the complaint. They asked to see the letter and on 9 February Deputy Ward collected a copy from the Members’ Room.
‘Deputy Southern was there and told Deputy Ward that he did not want her to attend any of the several meetings of the panel scheduled for the following week, saying that there was a trust issue with her. The same information was apparently conveyed to Deputy Howell and both Deputies were asked to consider resignation from the panel.’
Deputy Bailhache said that he met Deputy Southern a few days later to discuss the matter in what was a ‘frank and cordial meeting’.
In his no-confidence motion, Deputy Bailhache added: ‘We discussed the letter and went through the different allegations. Deputy Southern did not argue that any of the allegations against Deputy Ward were well founded but he was unwilling to reply to the minister’s letter defending Deputy Ward’s position.’
It continues: ‘I said that both Deputies were new Members of the States and had expressed a genuine willingness to learn from any mistakes and asked that the chair should withdraw his request for them to resign from the panel. Deputy Southern declined to do so and said that he could no longer work with either of them.’
Deputy Bailhache said that he had considered Deputies Ward and Howell ‘excellent members of the panel’ given their medical backgrounds and that the three of them had given consideration to whether they should all resign from the panel.
‘Deputy Southern has no power to require members of the panel to resign but his stance that he is unwilling to work with them creates an impossible situation,’ Deputy Bailhache added.
In response, Deputy Southern said that the behaviour of Deputies Ward and Howell during panel meetings had given him ’cause for concern’ and that they had made ‘egregious breaches of the code of conduct which are damaging to the reputation of my scrutiny leadership, and worse still, to the reputation of the States’.
The Reform Jersey Deputy said: ‘My concerns centre on the essential need to form good working relations between ministers, officers and members of scrutiny panels in order to enable good and efficient scrutiny to take place and to increase thereby the transparency of the process. As anyone who has experience in Scrutiny will attest, the creation of the “critical friend” is an absolutely vital part of the process. If ministers and their officers cannot be sure that they will be treated with respect and in confidence then the scrutiny process will collapse. I believe that this has happened in the case of this panel.’
Deputy Southern added that outside of the complaints made by Deputy Wilson, he had seen ‘additional behaviours’ which he did not feel were acceptable.
”I understand that Deputy Bailhache accuses me of being “unfair” in my treatment of two members of my panel – Deputies Howell and Barbara Ward. A confidence motion is a serious matter and should not be brought without due consideration of all the facts. All I have sought to do is to bring my years of experience to establish the highest standards of Scrutiny in my panel. It is vital to the integrity of government that Scrutiny is respected,’ Deputy Southern said.
‘There has been a number of instances of poor conduct by the two deputies concerned, culminating with a formal letter of complaint by the Health Minister, which I have had to deal with. As a result of the breakdown of trust between the paneI members and the minister, I felt compelled to ask them to stand down from the panel.
‘I understand that the confidence proposal will be debated on the 28 of this month and I will vigorously defend my position,’
The no-confidence motion was counter-signed by Deputies Ward and Howell, as well as Deputy Tom Binet. It is due to be debated during next week’s States sitting.
