THE chair of the Privileges and Procedures Committee will no longer be asking the States Assembly to hold a vote of censure against a Deputy in private.
Deputy Max Andrews is the subject of the vote, which if carried would amount to an official reprimand. It is due to take place during the first meeting of the States Assembly following the summer break next Tuesday.
Two reports published by the parliamentary behaviour watchdog last week shed light on a toxic spat between the St Helier North representative and Deputy Moz Scott.
The pair – who used to sit on the Economic and International Affairs Scrutiny Panel together before Deputy Andrews resigned in March – were separately referred to the Commissioner for Standards, Dr Melissa McCullough, earlier this year.
Deputy Andrews was referred for what were described as ‘discourteous communications to her [Deputy Scott] and about her; and violation of her personal boundaries’, which involved compliments that she looked ‘stunning’, occasions on which he gifted her an ‘inordinately expensive’ box of chocolates, Chanel perfume and bath oil, in addition to a heated exchange when he was reported to have called her a ‘silly cow’.
The complaint about Deputy Scott revolved around ‘inappropriate language’ directed at Deputy Andrews.
Dr McCullough recommended in her reports that both Deputies should apologise to the Assembly for breaching the States Members’ Code of Conduct, and that a suspension, or ‘vote of censure’, should be considered in the case of Deputy Andrews.
The Privileges and Procedures Committee – the panel of politicians responsible for overseeing the running of the Assembly – concluded that a written apology from Deputy Scott to Deputy Andrews would suffice, but decided to bring a vote of censure against Deputy Andrews.
PPC chair Karen Shenton-Stone wrote to States Members asking for the debate to be held ‘in camera’ – meaning it would not be broadcast live, be open to the public or be able to be reported on by the media – due to the ‘highly sensitive nature of the commissioner’s investigation’.
Deputy Andrews, who apologised to States Members and publicly on Facebook last week, tweeted this week that he did not agree with that approach.
‘I sent a statement of apology to States Members on Friday evening. I will also be making a statement of apology in the States Assembly on the 12th of September too. The vote of censure needs to be in the public domain and not behind closed doors,’ he wrote online, adding the hashtags ‘#transparency’ and ‘#accountability’.
Deputy Montfort Tadier also objected to the debate being held in private, explaining that ‘the public deserves to hear the rationale for those wishing to censure another Member, or not’.
Following ‘urgent discussions noting concerns raised by Members’, Mrs Shenton-Stone later confirmed that the committee would no longer be asking the Assembly to hold the debate in private.
‘The sensitivities around the case still remain, but it is up to another Member to propose an “in camera” debate if they wish,’ she said.
Mrs Shenton-Stone explained that the PPC initially proposed holding the debate in private due to the committee being privy to ‘a plethora of sensitive, confidential and wholly unverified information’ related to the case which was not in the public domain.
‘We want to be as transparent as possible,’ she added.
