When the States Members’ Code of Conduct was introduced, the idea was to encourage a higher standard of behaviour among deputies. Not that most of our elected representatives were really prone to unacceptable treatment of each other, civil servants, or the public. The Guernsey States has traditionally been one of the more genteel of parliaments.

Perhaps that long established, unwritten, code of behaviour had eroded somewhat in recent years, reflecting a less respectful attitude in society generally, but we shouldn’t exaggerate. Our deputies are drawn from all parts of Guernsey society ranging from teaching to healthcare. They don’t suddenly become ill mannered, aggressive or loutish just because they’ve joined the States.

So, bad behaviour by States members has always been the exception rather than the rule. Nevertheless, the time came to lay down formal standards expected of deputies, rather than relying on self-restraint and peer pressure. The main aim was to prevent the States itself being brought into disrepute, but, looking at the way it has panned out thus far, it might seem to have backfired in that respect.

What drives a deputy to go beyond the pale in their behaviour or language? It can be frustration, pressure, passion, ego, a clash of personalities, or just occasionally a bullying nature. At one end of the spectrum there’s the States member, who, failing to see some laudable improvement, allows their frustration to boil over.

Abusive behaviour is still utterly unacceptable, of course, but at least there’s some mitigation. At the other end of the scale we have politicians who treat their colleagues, staff or the public with contempt – out of pure hubris.

That is in itself contemptible.

The hope was that bringing in a formal code of conduct, with sanctions, would prevent such poor behaviour. I think it probably will help, but there’s also a danger it might fuel political rows and simply provide the protagonists with another weapon. Previously, a heated falling out between deputies led to fevered discussion amongst fellow members and sides being taken. Occasionally it had longer-term implications for one or both of the parties involved but usually it proved to be a nine-day wonder.

These days, any similar row seems to automatically lead to threats of “code of conduct complaints at dawn”. Indeed, should the injured party choose not to pursue a formal complaint they are in danger of having their justified outrage dismissed as lacking substance. ‘He/she can’t be too sure of their case or else they would have referred it to the panel.’ That is unfortunate. So is the unavoidable fact that a bitterly contested code of conduct complaint is likely to turn what could have been a short-term spat into a long-term feud.

That is not to say that the code isn’t needed or that the complaints made so far aren’t fully justified. Several have concerned outrageous lapses in behaviour. Threatening to punch a fellow member’s teeth out in the corridor of a States building is a disgrace.

So is comparing President Obama with a gollywog at a press conference. Accusing others of lying or not caring about the safety of babies may be somewhat lesser offences but remain deeply offensive to those on the receiving end and add nothing to the political process.

So I am not claiming that the code is being used frivolously or simply as a device to discredit fellow members. Indeed I’m convinced that each individual complaint has been made sincerely, in the belief that it’s best not to hit back in kind, but rather to refer it to the calm and non-political judgement of the panel.

However, the bigger picture is that since the code was introduced the amount of bad behaviour seems to have increased – not decreased.

This may be just a coincidence or the new process may simply need time to bed in. I certainly hope so because a code is definitely needed. We must remember that it’s there not just to protect deputies from each other but to give redress to States’ employees and the public as well. In the past these third parties have had nowhere to go if they felt abused by one of their elected representatives.

That was a real problem from time to time and had to be addressed.