‘What people read cannot be unread’

But, having read the report, there is a lot more to it, and because I was previously the minister of that committee perhaps my perspective on the issue may be of interest.

A quick recap: Deputy Victoria Oliver posted a criticism of a police investigation on social media. She removed the post but did not issue any form of public apology, correction or retraction, which has resulted in a loss of confidence by her colleagues on the Home Committee and proposal to the States for her to be removed from that committee.

This is obviously a serious matter and the question has to be whether her actions warrant her removal.

The first point to note, which seems to have been missed by a lot of people, is that although the police action was a raid relating to cannabis, and Deputy Oliver supports legalising cannabis, the issue is nothing to do with cannabis nor the debate regarding the legalisation of cannabis.

It is also not about Deputy Oliver’s right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

The central issue is that Deputy Oliver broke protocol by making a public comment on a live police investigation.

You may think, so what? Other people criticise the police, so what’s wrong with her doing the same?

The difference is that she is a member of the Home Committee, which has political responsibility for the police and law enforcement.

When I joined the Home Committee as its minister it was made very clear to me that the police, rightly, operate on day-to-day issues independently of any political interference, and that members of the committee should not comment on any specific police investigation. To do so runs the risk of being seen as political interference, as well as running the risk that something said could negatively impact on the police’s ability to progress that investigation.

For that reason, I and my committee operated on the basis that we made no comments in relation to any active police investigation. My understanding is that previous committees also operated on this basis, and that, until Deputy Oliver’s comment, this committee also adopted that modus operandi.

So, on that basis, Deputy Oliver commenting on an active police investigation clearly overstepped the mark – but it is actually more serious than that.

When I was minister this was an informal arrangement, but following the critical reports about the Home Committee’s governance arrangements a formal protocol agreement was signed by all committee members, so it seems that she broke the terms of a protocol she signed.

Breaching this written agreement makes it more serious.

As I mentioned above, this is not about Deputy Oliver’s ability to express her views that cannabis should be legalised. It is quite right and proper that she has freedom to comment on her beliefs and to comment critically on States laws and policies.

What is unacceptable is for a member of Home to make those comments in relation to a specific, ongoing police investigation.

She made a mistake. Everybody makes mistakes. A test of a person’s character is how they deal with their mistakes. This is where I think Deputy Oliver made another error of judgement.

OK, she removed the post from social media but, and at the risk of sounding very Game of Thrones, what she said cannot be unsaid. What people read cannot be unread.

This whole issue would have ended had she posted a statement that she was not criticising the police’s actions, that as an independent body they are right to uphold our laws and take action where appropriate. But she did not do this.

I draw a comparison with the mistake I made in a previous column. When I was aware of my mistake I emailed an apology to the deputies concerned, and I asked the Press to ensure the version going online would have the offending paragraph removed. But in addition I ensured that the very first comment in my next column was a public apology and a correcting admission that I had made a mistake. In this way, both the original mistake, and the correction were in public, and with the same prominence.

Apparently, Deputy Oliver has also noted that what she said has been misunderstood. That may be so.

But I, or anybody reading her comments, do not know what was in her mind when she wrote it. We do not know the message she intended to give. We only know the words she used and the message she did give with those words.

This is the same for every message anybody sends – it is only the sender who knows what they mean, so it is the responsibility of the sender to ensure the message is understood appropriately.

The fact that Deputy Oliver acknowledges a misunderstanding only serves to exacerbate her error of judgement: she knows people misunderstood it but has still chosen not to issue a correcting statement.

The States is faced with a simple choice:

n Support Home and send a message that deputies are expected to maintain high standards; or

n Support Deputy Oliver, effectively saying it’s OK to break your word, breach a protocol you signed, and not be held to account.

Many deputies speak about responsibility and accountability – now is an opportunity to show they actually mean it.