STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

TUESDAY, 9th SEPTEMBER 2025

COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER ........................................ 3

1.1  Welcome to His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor .................................... 3 STATEMENTS ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY ......................... 3

2. The Minister for the Environment will make a statement regarding the States of Jersey Complaints Board Findings: Ministerial Response (R.101/2025 Res.). .......... 3

2.1   Deputy S.G. Luce of Grouville and St. Martin (The Minister for the Environment): ..... 3

1. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence : ........................................... 4
2. The Connétable of St. Lawrence :.......................................................... 5
3. Deputy A. Howell of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : ................................. 5
4. Deputy A. Howell : ......................................................................... 5
5. Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : ................................ 6
6. Deputy H.L. Jeune : ........................................................................ 6
7. Deputy K.L. Moore of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter : .................................. 6
8. Deputy K.L. Moore : ........................................................................ 7
9. Deputy M. Tadier : .......................................................................... 7
10. Deputy M. Tadier : ...................................................................... 7
11. Deputy J. Renouf of St. Brelade :........................................................ 8
12. Deputy J. Renouf : ....................................................................... 9
13. Connétable K. Shenton-Stone of St. Martin :............................................ 9
14. The Connétable of St. Martin : .......................................................... 9
15. Connétable R.D. Johnson of St. Mary :................................................ 10
16. The Connétable of St. Mary : ............................................................ 10
17. Deputy M.R. Scott :.................................................................... 11

PUBLIC BUSINESS ................................................................................ 11

3. Reduction of Lodging Period .............................................................. 11

1. Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : ............................... 11
2. Deputy P.M. Bailhache of St. Clement : .................................................. 12

1. Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier Central : .................................................. 12
2. Deputy P.M. Bailhache : .................................................................. 12

4. Suspension: Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf of St. Saviour (P. 64/2025).......................... 12

1. Deputy S.M. Ahier of St. Helier North (Chair, Privileges and Procedures Committee) . 13

2. Suspension: Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf of St. Saviour (P. 64/2025) - proposition to take in- camera...................................................................................... 14

1. Deputy K.F. Morel : ....................................................................... 15

2. Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf of St. Saviour : ..................................................... 15
3. Deputy M. Tadier : ........................................................................ 15

3. Suspension: Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf of St. Saviour (P. 64/2025) - resumption ........... 18

1. Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................... 18
2. Deputy M.R. Ferey of St. Saviour : ....................................................... 19
3. Connétable K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour : ................................................... 20
4. Deputy P.M. Bailhache of St. Clement : .................................................. 20
5. Deputy L.V. Feltham of St. Helier Central : .............................................. 21
6. Deputy M.R. Scott of St. Brelade : ........................................................ 22
7. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier : ................................................ 23
8. Deputy M. Tadier : ........................................................................ 24
9. Deputy A.F. Curtis of St. Clement :....................................................... 27
10. Deputy L.J. Farnham of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter : ............................ 28
11. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter :................................ 29
12. Connétable R.P. Vibert of St. Peter :................................................... 30
13. Deputy J. Renouf of St. Brelade :...................................................... 30
14. Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat of St. Helier North : ......................................... 32
15. Deputy K.F. Morel : .................................................................... 33
16. Deputy A. Howell of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : ............................ 33
17. Deputy I. Gardiner of St. Helier North : ............................................... 35
18. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of St. Saviour : ............................................... 36
19. Connétable A.N. Jehan of St. John : ................................................... 37
20. Connétable K. Shenton-Stone of St. Martin :.......................................... 37
21. Deputy S.G. Luce of Grouville and St, Martin: ....................................... 38
22. Deputy C.S. Alves of St. Helier Central : .............................................. 38
23. Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf : .................................................................. 39

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED ................................................... 42

24. Deputy S.M. Ahier : .................................................................... 42

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT .................................................................. 44

5. Draft Residential Tenancy (Jersey) Amendment Law 202- (P.24/2025) ............... 44

5.1   Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier South (The Minister for Housing): .................... 45

1. Deputy B. Ward of St. Clement : .......................................................... 50
2. Deputy C.D. Curtis : ...................................................................... 52
3. Deputy P.M. Bailhache : .................................................................. 53
4. Deputy H.L. Jeune : ....................................................................... 55
5. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of St. Saviour : .................................................. 57
6. Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier Central : .................................................. 58
7. The Connétable of St. Mary : .............................................................. 60
8. Deputy M.R. Scott of St. Brelade : ........................................................ 60
9. Deputy A.F. Curtis : ....................................................................... 62
10. Deputy K.M. Wilson : .................................................................. 63
11. Deputy J. Renouf of St. Brelade :...................................................... 64
12. Deputy R.S. Kovacs : .................................................................. 67
13. Deputy M.E. Millar of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter : ............................. 68
14. Deputy S.M. Ahier of St. Helier North : ............................................... 70
15. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter :................................ 71
16. Deputy M. Tadier : ..................................................................... 73

17. The Connétable of St. Peter : .......................................................... 74
18. Deputy S.Y. Mézec : ................................................................... 75

ADJOURNMENT .................................................................................. 81 [9:30]

The Roll was called and the Greffier of the States led the Assembly in Prayer. COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER

The Deputy Bailiff :

1.1  Welcome to His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor

On behalf of Members, I would like to welcome His Excellency to the Chamber this morning. [Approbation]

STATEMENTS ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY

2. The Minister for the Environment will make a statement regarding the States of Jersey Complaints Board Findings: Ministerial Response (R.101/2025 Res.).

The Deputy Bailiff :

The next item of business is a statement by the Minister for the Environment regarding his response to a States of Jersey Complaints Board report.

2.1   Deputy S.G. Luce of Grouville and St. Martin (The Minister for the Environment):

I rise today to respond to the report of the Complaints Board to do with the Northern Leaf hearing and, more importantly, to acknowledge the genuine concerns raised by residents living near Retreat Farm. First and foremost, I recognise the impact this situation has had on their lives, the disruption, the distress, and the feeling of being unheard. These are not just complaints; they are heartfelt expressions from people who care deeply about their homes and their community. I want to thank those who came forward. Speaking up is never easy, and their voices have helped shape the way we respond. The site in question, Northern Leaf, has been the subject of extensive scrutiny. Officers have investigated issues including odour, noise, light and planning. Some investigations have led to enforcement action. Others, after careful and objective assessment, have not met the legal threshold for statutory nuisance. I understand this can feel technical or even dismissive, but I assure Members that every concern has been taken seriously. The Regulation Directorate has followed the 4 E's mode: engage, explain, encourage and only enforce as a last resort. Officers have dedicated hundreds of hours to this matter and their professionalism deserves recognition, even as we acknowledge the emotional toll on residents. I must also address the findings of the Complaints Board report. While I respect the Board's role, many of its assertions are based on perception rather than evidence. For example, the suggestion that the officers prioritised company interests over residents is unfounded and undermines the integrity of public servants who have acted ethically and diligently throughout. The key issue of this case centres around odour. The law requires objective assessment, not subjective opinion. Odour must be judged by qualified Environmental Health practitioners using internationally recognised and well-established methods, including what is known as the "sniff test". To dismiss this approach is to disregard decades of sound environmental health practice. To ensure thoroughness, I instructed officers to conduct a detailed odour assessment involving multiple practitioners. The findings, included in my report, confirm that a statutory nuisance is not occurring at a level that would be prejudicial to health or constitute a nuisance. The Directorate has fulfilled its statutory duty. I recognise that the complainants do not agree with the assessment; however, this matter is now considered closed. A new investigation could be opened only if there is a material change in circumstances. While odour is present, its mere presence does not meet the threshold for

statutory nuisance. I must reject any recommendation that would compel unlawful action, such as serving a notice without sufficient evidence. It would be manifestly wrong for the Board to recommend that I act ultra vires, beyond my legal powers. The law is clear: the Minister must be satisfied that a nuisance exists. That threshold has not been met. While I am rejecting the recommendation of the Board with regards to odour, I have accepted the other 3 recommendations as outlined in my report, being: to publish a redaction policy on planning representations, which is found on gov.je; to ensure conflict of interest declarations are embedded in customer policy; and to ensure that business interests are not prioritised over impact on neighbours. With regards to planning matters, the Board made no conclusions that there had been any concerns, which I must take as nothing was found to be lacking. Last Thursday the Planning Committee approved a range of planning applications, however they were minded to refuse the application relating to the chillers, which is one of the main concerns of neighbours, centred around noise disturbance. There are more committee procedures to be followed to confirm the decision on 25th September, and as Minister, due to the potential for the submission of further appeals, I cannot make any further comment in relation to this. To support constructive dialogue, I have commissioned independent mediation. This initiative brings together residents, the business, and Government representatives in a neutral, structured forum. It is not a substitute for regulation, but it offers a path to address concerns that regulation alone cannot resolve. I am disappointed that mediation was not central to the panel's recommendations. In a case so deeply rooted in community tension, mediation offers a way forward built on empathy, dialogue and mutual understanding. I also want to acknowledge that this speech is a response to the report itself. I am aware that questions may arise about my future engagement with the States Complaints Board and my attendance at hearings. I have concerns about how the hearing was conducted, and we are raising those concerns, along with other areas, where we believe improvements could be made directly with the States Greffe, and I hope, in due course, with the Board itself. I remain committed to ensuring that all voices are heard and that our actions are guided by fairness, evidence, and compassion. Together, we can find a way forward that respects both community well-being and lawful process. Thank you.

The Deputy Bailiff :

There now follows 15 minutes of questions, and the first question is from the Connétable of St. Lawrence .

1. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence :

I rise to speak on behalf of the many parishioners who have over the years contacted me regarding, as the Minister has just said in his statement, the odour and the noise from the chillers. Notwithstanding the Complaints Board's findings, they continue to contact me. One of my main concerns is the odour. Last week you did not need to sniff for odour in St. Lawrence , you breathed it in, if there is such a thing. It was so strong. It was in St. John near the Marks and Spencer shop facility, it was at the Hidden Garden in St. Lawrence . I could not step out of my car without the stench overwhelming me, and I must admit I did feel sick, and this is a complaint that has been made by the near neighbours who have put up with this for many years. I am coming to a question, Sir. Will the Minister .. he has just told us categorically that the issue of odour is closed. How can it be opened again? Because there is an odour; there is no doubt that there is an odour. You do not sniff it, you breathe it in.

[9:45]

Deputy S.G. Luce :

I am grateful for the Constable for that observation. I have said that the matter is closed and it is. It could be however reopened if there is a material consideration that changes in this matter; if the growing cycle changes, the buildings change, something material change. The Constable will understand - she is a member of the Planning Committee - the concept of material considerations. If something changes, we can look at this again. I want to address just very quickly that the Constable mentioned health, and it is important. The term "prejudicial to health" means injurious or likely to cause injury to  health under Article 1 of the  Statutory Nuisance Law. The determination of prejudicial to health is not based solely on testimony of complainants. It is a determination of the expertise of Environmental Health practitioners in evaluating the likelihood of injury to health. There must be an underlying threat to health from disease, and disease in this context is not a reference to infection but the legal connotations of the word referring to the absence of health, and it has got to demonstrate a tangible impact on health. I cannot stress enough to Members the challenge I have had with the Statutory Nuisance Law. It is a criminal offence and the bar is extremely high. I will say no more than that for now and wait for some other questions.

2. The Connétable of St. Lawrence :

The Minister has just said something needs to happen to allow him to open, I believe, an investigation again into the odour. Can he clarify what that something could or would be?

Deputy S.G. Luce :

I am advised that a change to material consideration would be something significant, a difference in the cropping policy of the .. so there was an enormous amount of additional material being grown, a difference to the structure of the building, a difference to the way the buildings were operated, something like that. But there will have to be, I am advised, a significant change in the way things are done onsite for something to be opened.

3. Deputy A. Howell of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity :

I ask this question on behalf of the neighbours of Northern Leaf at St Lawrence, my constituents. Please can the Minister confirm that following the Planning Committee's refusal of consent last Thursday he will ensure that the chillers, which have been present illegally at Northern Leaf for the past 4 years, are removed by 13th September 2025, as required in the law by the enforcement notice, I think first issued in January 2024? So that is 18 months ago.

Deputy S.G. Luce :

As I mentioned in my speech, and as the Deputy said, there is an enforcement notice in place on the chillers. In order to rectify that enforcement notice, the company concerned submitted a number of planning applications recently. As I said in my speech, the Planning Committee sat last week to determine those. Five were approved and one, the application for the chillers, was refused. Those of you who know Planning Committee rules will know that when a decision of the committee goes against the officer recommendation there is what is known as a cooling-off period, so that decision to refuse the application for the chillers will go back to the next Planning Committee meeting I believe at the end of this month, where that decision will have to be ratified. At that point the committee will have officially made a decision to refuse the chillers. There still will be an opportunity for an appeal and there will still also be a small amount of time for the enforcement notice to expire. At that time I will certainly be needing some legal advice as to what I can and what I cannot do, but as I am sure the Deputy will appreciate, if the decision is taken to ratify the decision to refuse, the applicant does have the ability to appeal that decision, in which case I would be called upon to determine that appeal and I cannot really comment further other than the process, which I believe I have described.

4. Deputy A. Howell :

I really find this is making a mockery of the whole thing for the neighbours. This has been going on for such a long time and they have been asking me, they have been saying: "What are you doing?" and it just .. this is an enforcement notice, which should be enforced. If the chillers were refused ..

The Deputy Bailiff :

Do you want to come to a question, Deputy Howell ?

Deputy A. Howell :

Please, could he look at this? Thank you. Because it is very disappointing and I am not sure what I am going to say to my constituents.

Deputy S.G. Luce :

All I can say at this moment is that the enforcement notice has not expired yet, so there are still some days to run, but there are proceedings in place. The application was made to rectify the reason for the enforcement notice. That is not unusual Where an applicant is making an effort to find a way through the problem and to resolve the problem it would be very unlikely that a successful case would be taken to court because, at the end of the day, what one is trying to do in all these planning matters is to rectify things so that everybody is happy. In this particular situation, we have an appeal system where a decision is taken and if either side disagree with the outcome there is an appeal process, which they can follow. It may well be that if the Planning Committee decided to approve the chillers, that the neighbours themselves might want to appeal that to an independent inspector because they felt that was the wrong decision. I have to work with the processes that I have, I have to work within the laws as prescribed, and this is the way we work currently.

5. Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity :

Minister, you acknowledged in your response to finding 5.5 that the law had to be amended so that environmental impact assessments are now requested for medical cannabis growing facilities, presumably because of the environmental risk involved. Does this not suggest that the industry was established in haste, without sufficient strategic planning, leaving regulators to manage these consequences?

Deputy S.G. Luce :

The Deputy may well know that I was a member of a Scrutiny Panel that looked very closely at medicinal cannabis growing in Jersey right at the outset and we felt at the time very strongly that an E.I.A. (environmental impact assessment) would be necessary. I can remember quite distinctly somebody arguing that an environmental impact assessment was not the same as an assessment which was done to assess the environmental impact, or words to that effect. Quite how we started and how we got away with things at the beginning of the medicinal cannabis industry in Jersey, I am not sure. But I am sure if we could go back and do it differently, we would start from a different point. That being said, the establishment of medicinal cannabis growing at Retreat Farm was done in the very early stages of this industry, and it did not require an E.I.A. to be done before it was established.

6. Deputy H.L. Jeune :

Given the shortcomings that the Minister has described, what steps will the Minister take to ensure that any future new industries are not established without robust environmental safeguards from the outset, and that the regulator or regulators are properly equipped to oversee them?

Deputy S.G. Luce :

It is my understanding that we have changed the rules and new entrants into the medicinal cannabis industry have to supply an environmental impact assessment.

7. Deputy K.L. Moore of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter :

In a public statement published on this matter, the Minister described the growing of cannabis as similar to agriculture and said from time to time odours appear to those dwelling in the countryside. But given the description of the odour recently in the area, and the witness statements from the residents who all describe this as being a practically constant presence, does the Minister really consider that this is equal to an odour from agriculture that comes from time to time?

Deputy S.G. Luce :

I am going to have to go back and talk to my officers again but, as I said in my speech, there were initial officer reports. We have responded every time to complaints but more recently I asked for a complete reassessment by a number of different environmental health practitioners in my department. They conducted 33 visits, there were 176 records of incidents written down, and only on 4 occasions did they feel that the level of smell had reached a level where statutory nuisance would be present. I am told that the odour is not persistent. I am told that when officers go up there quite often, it is not as strong as it has been described. It is very difficult. As Minister, I have qualified staff who are trained to do these jobs, to assess odour, and to come to the Assembly and hear my colleague, the Constable of St Lawrence - and I trust her word implicitly - and if she says she feels ill when she gets out of the car I take that very seriously on board. I just touch very briefly on agriculture smells in the countryside and the Deputy , like myself, lives in the countryside and we are fortunate to do so, but with that sometimes comes smell. If we went back 25, 30 years, the smell in wintertime of rotting cauliflowers was something we had to endure for months on end. Anybody who lives near a dairy farm will at times be subject to the smell of slurry or, worse still, silage, which has not fermented particularly well. There are smells associated with agricultural production, and I think we have to put up with that. But I take on board a persistent smell of a particular intensity is something else altogether. But I go back to my qualified officers who are trained and regularly updated in their training on statutory usage when it comes to odour. I rely on them. My sense of smell is not anywhere near good enough and they are trained to assess odour to a particular level. This assessment cannot be done by a machine. The only way to do it is to use the human nose, and I am relying on them for their assessment.

8. Deputy K.L. Moore :

How much time has the Minister taken himself to spend in the vicinity to assess his own view? Deputy S.G. Luce :

I cannot say that I have spent a huge amount of time in the vicinity, but I have in the past attended on the site on a number of occasions. I can say that to the Deputy . I am also more recently in a slightly more challenging position inasmuch as with the planning matters, any matters which might involve an appeal, I am very well aware that I may be called upon to make a subjective and proper decision on appeal. I need to be really careful how involved I get with any of these matters.

Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

Will we be extending question time, just to know now maybe? The Deputy Bailiff :

There is the ability to extend the time for up to 15 minutes. Do Members wish to extend the time for 15 minutes? In that case we extend for 15 minutes.

9. Deputy M. Tadier :

There is an irony I think that will not be lost on everybody that somebody who grows one or 2 plants for personal medical use is likely to find themselves with a hefty fine, perhaps before you, Sir, in the other place or even in prison, but a company who grows tons of it in the middle of suburban Jersey is apparently just doing business as usual. Does the Minister accept, or can he confirm, that the threshold and the bar that he spoke about in statutory nuisance and prejudicial to health, does that also include the definition of mental health?

Deputy S.G. Luce :

I have to say to the Deputy I have not seen the words "mental health" in any of the laws that I have reviewed when it comes to statutory nuisance.

10. Deputy M. Tadier :

Does the Minister accept that there has clearly been some prejudice to health, and we have seen it from what we have heard from residents and neighbours talking about the toll that this has had on their mental health, the inability to enjoy their own homes, so does he ultimately accept that? Does he believe that perhaps .. he said that the bar is high. Does he believe that the bar is perhaps too high and would he look to bring amendments to the law if there is evidence there to suggest that a lower threshold of actual nuisance should be implemented by the end of his tenure?

Deputy S.G. Luce :

I want to say, and I have said it a number of times, I absolutely accept that neighbours in the vicinity of Northern Leaf are affected by the smell.

[10:00]

There is no doubt that there is a smell, I am not trying to say that. There is no doubt that there is a noise that comes from the chillers. But the difficulty I have is that, as I said, Statutory Nuisance Law in Jersey, it is a criminal offence and the bar is extremely high. I recognise that this law would benefit from a review. I have said that in the past and I can say it again now. The project was scoped previously but due to competing demands it has not been taken forward. But I do support improvements to the law and I have acknowledged this. It is a high evidential threshold in terms of proven impact and statutory nuisance has to be assessed on a reasonable person. There is a gap - this is what I am coming to - in Jersey law in the provision for civil action for a nuisance in Jersey which limits options for Islanders when a nuisance does not meet the statutory thresholds. Improvements to the Statutory Nuisance Law itself alone will not address this. I believe, and I have said this before, that common law nuisance legislation should be developed to fill this gap. This is not a new concept for this Assembly. It was debated in 2009 when the inadequacy of the voisinage legislation was highlighted. I am happy to say that I am sure this is not the last that we are going to hear of statutory nuisance in this Assembly. I will be back here in the not-too-distant future making more statements about statutory nuisance. I would say again, it is a criminal offence. The bar is extremely high, very difficult to get to. The other option in Jersey is very little. In the U.K. (United Kingdom), there is a civil nuisance which comes ..

The Deputy Bailiff :

Your answer has now been almost 2 minutes, Minister.

Deputy S.G. Luce :

Sorry, Sir. I think Members will have got the gist of what I am trying to say.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Deputy Ozouf , your phone went off, I think, so you will have to pay the usual penalty. Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf of St. Saviour :

Indeed, Sir, I apologise.

11. Deputy J. Renouf of St. Brelade :

To return to the findings of the Complaints Board, it is 5.5 they say: "In relation to the odours the Board consider that the current burden of proof was set outside of reasonable levels" and they used that conclusion to develop an argument that said that officers should have taken a novel approach or found some way to find a way to bring a criminal prosecution. Would he take the view that it is not the job of officers to take a novel approach because to do so would fatally undermine any prosecution that were mounted because a defendant would simply be able to claim that you had invented new tests purely to bring this case against us? Therefore wherever the fault lies it is not with officers who simply have to work within the laws that they are provided with.

Deputy S.G. Luce :

I think it has been suggested by the Complaints Board that I should try to increase case law in this issue by taking some cases to court. The law is very clear, in my view, unless I have evidence to show that statutory nuisance is occurring I cannot take that case to court. If I were to do that I would be not necessarily laughed out of court but certainly thrown out because it is incumbent upon me to have the evidence before I go to court. This is the challenge that I have. Obviously it would be nice to have some more case law but I need to be absolutely satisfied that I have the right evidence in front of me before I take a case to court to see whether it is meeting that incredibly high bar, that high level that the Statutory Nuisance Law insists that we have. It is a difficult one but I am very clear in my position in this law, I need evidence in order to take it to court. It is not my job to take cases to court where I do not have the evidence just to make up case law.

12. Deputy J. Renouf :

Is the corollary of that, that we should understand that the Minister's view is there are 2 things needed; one is to strengthen the statutory framework and the second is to bring a civil set of penalties or law? Or is it his view that only one of those should be pursued? If so, which one?

Deputy S.G. Luce :

If I had the choice, I would certainly go for the civil nuisance because I think there is too big a gap between statutory nuisance and not acting at all. As I said, we could review statutory nuisance and make some improvements but that will not give us the ability or will not give complainants the ability to meet the civil nuisance, which is obviously not a criminal offence, and the bar is much less high.

Deputy K.F. Morel of St. John, St. Lawrence and Trinity :

I first wanted to ask, am I allowed to ask a question just as another Minister? I just wanted to check that first.

The Deputy Bailiff :

No, I do not think so. Not under established principles, no. So that means, Deputy Millar , your question probably falls away as well.

Deputy M.E. Millar of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : My question has been asked and answered.

13. Connétable K. Shenton-Stone of St. Martin :

Is the Minister aware that some residents of St. John have had to move out of their homes due to the persistent nauseous odours? This is totally unacceptable and surely this is a clear impact on health. Does the Minister agree?

Deputy S.G. Luce :

I think I would best start by saying I am not aware of anybody that has had to move out of their home because of the smell, and if they have moved out of their home I have no evidence in front of me to show why they might have done that. They may say it is smell but to say it is prejudicial to their health, as I said earlier when I read out the official wording of the law, again it is a very high bar to achieve. I am not aware that anybody has moved out of their home, is the simple answer.

14. The Connétable of St. Martin :

If I give evidence to the Minister that people have moved out of their home, would he take it forward? Deputy S.G. Luce :

Obviously, if people have moved out and the evidence comes before me, I will have to have a look at it. But as I said to the Constable, I am certainly not aware of anybody that has moved out of their home.

15. Connétable R.D. Johnson of St. Mary :

My question follows that from my fellow Constable. The Minister has replied to the effect that he considered the matter closed. I am aware that in connection with the recent spate of applications, E.I.A. assessments were prepared - indeed, I have seen them - if I understand the position correctly, one of the tests is not only the strength of smell but the frequency. To assist residents, the department did helpfully ask them to get in in touch with them if there was evidence of smell so they could go and monitor it. Going back to the Minister's reply that the matter is closed, given that the frequency could affect the ongoing such nuisance that it is, would he pledge to keep that line of communication open so that residents can indeed contact his department as and when there is an instance of smell, on the basis that if they were so frequent that would be a material factor in determining whether the thresholds have been reached?

Deputy S.G. Luce :

To be absolutely clear, where I said the matter is closed, that was specifically to do with odour. It was not to do with planning or anything else or noise. It is the odour that is the section of this inquiry that we have closed. My officers have responded to hundreds of emails and telephone calls over this issue. As I said, I recently required them to do another extensive review of the smell situation at Northern Leaf that involved a large number of qualified Environmental Health practitioners. As I said, 33 visits and only 4 occasions where there was a possibility that the level of smell met a statutory nuisance level. I can appreciate that it is very difficult for Members to hear that that situation is now closed when they get out of their cars or they visit the site and they can smell the odour coming from the site. I will have to keep the situation under review, but for now it is closed. But I would go back to the point I made right at the end of my statement, which is that I have engaged mediation on this, where we have the opportunity for residents and for the company involved and for Government representatives to get together around a table to discuss all these issues to see how we might move forward together. I am aware that some residents have found recently things have been improved, but I am also absolutely aware that some residents have found some things have not improved. But I would urge everyone to get involved with mediation so that we can all sit down outside of a regulatory situation where officers have to be very black and white. The Regulation Department is very prescriptive. I would urge them to come along and sit down and discuss these issues to see how we might move forward.

16. The Connétable of St. Mary :

I thank the Minister for his reference to the mediation. I am aware of that and I, as Constable of one of the Parishes involved, have agreed to partake in that but it does not address the basic question, that the frequency of smells, if that continues, it is only that which is going to determine whether the statutory nuisance threshold has been reached. I do repeat the question. But I think the last E.I.A. assessment in relation to odour did specifically draw attention to the possibility that an ongoing monitoring could take place? I ask him again, would he agree to keep the channel of communication open to enable that to be done?

Deputy S.G. Luce :

I absolutely guarantee that I will keep channels of communication open so that we could move forward together. In the first instance, the mediation process could well be that. But I do say to the Constable, if there is a way of monitoring the smell which is simple and straightforward for the department to do, which does not involve hundreds of hours of officer time, I am prepared to give that a go. We are not going to respond to complaints about odour; I need to be very clear. I cannot continue to allow my officers to go out every time we receive a phone call or an email. We have had many officers tied up for days, weeks, months and years we have been on this. We have to draw a line at some point, but there must be a way that we can, at regular intervals, keep an eye on the situation. But I have to say to States Members that if we move forward with a situation where every time an email comes in or every time a phone call is received an officer has to leave the department and go to St. Lawrence it will cost us. Not that money is important, but it will cost us time and money and officers will not be doing other work.

The Deputy Bailiff :

I do have questions from the Connétable of St. Lawrence and Deputy Howell , they have already asked questions so I will take a question from Deputy Scott ; the last question.

Deputy M.R. Scott of St. Brelade :

I was wondering whether I might propose that the question time be extended if Members want? The Deputy Bailiff :

No, because there is no facility to go beyond 30 minutes.

17. Deputy M.R. Scott :

Very quickly, is the Minister aware that mediation is not going to remove annoying odours? Also, whether the process of mediation is not quite the same as really investigative resolution, so while it .. it is not the same as an ombudsman would actually deliver?

The Deputy Bailiff : Twenty seconds, Minister. Deputy S.G. Luce :

I appreciate that mediation may not take away the smell, or may not take away the smell immediately, would be what I would like to say. We do have new owners of the business at Northern Leaf, and I have found them very receptive to suggestions, very receptive to any ideas of ways that they can move forward with their neighbours. I think their intention is very much to work with the neighbours and to come to some sort of outcome where everybody is satisfied. Now, I do not know quite what that will be, but I know there are things that can be done, efforts that can be made, and I would hope that through mediation and discussion the 2 sides in this argument just getting into a conversation about how they move forward together might be the way we proceed.

PUBLIC BUSINESS

3. Reduction of Lodging Period The Deputy Bailiff :

Before we start Public Business, decisions need to be made about whether to reduce the minimum lodging periods in relation to 2 matters on the Order Paper. First, there is an amendment from Deputy Jeune to her own third amendment to the Draft Elections (Senators) (Jersey) Amendment Law. Standing Order 32 needs to be suspended in order that the amendment can be listed for debate at this meeting, and the lodging period needs to be reduced so that it can be debated as well. Deputy Jeune , do you make that proposition?

1. Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : Yes, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the proposition so that that amendment can be debated at this sitting?

[10:15]

All those in favour of adopting the proposition, kindly show. Those against? The proposition is adopted. Secondly, there is an amendment to Extension of Section 75 (Electronic Travel Authorisations) of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 to Jersey, P.58, lodged by Deputy Bailhache . Deputy Bailhache , do you propose under Standing Order 26(7), the lodging period be reduced to allow this matter to be debated at this sitting?

2. Deputy P.M. Bailhache of St. Clement :

I make that proposition, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] Does anyone wish to speak on the proposition?

1. Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier Central :

I think perhaps there should be an explanation as to why there is late lodging because it is a significant amendment to a piece of legislation, I believe, or a law, which was lodged - I cannot get my words out today - some time ago.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak on this proposition to reduce the lodging period? I call upon Deputy Bailhache to reply.

2. Deputy P.M. Bailhache :

Deputy Ward is right, I think an explanation is called for. I apologise to the Assembly for the late lodging of the amendment. It was caused by the fact that my attention was really only drawn to this proposition by a presentation that was made to the Legislation Advisory Panel by officers of the Immigration Department a few days before the amendment was lodged. It seemed to me that there was an issue to be considered, and that was why I lodged the amendment. So I maintain the proposition.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Those in favour of adopting the proposition, kindly show. Those against? The proposition is adopted. Deputy S.G. Luce of Grouville and St. Martin :

I would just like to remind States Members I did email them to say that the P.57 Draft Regulation of Care is listed on this Order Paper, but I have informed States Members that I am delaying that so that Scrutiny can do some work on that proposition.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Thank you, Minister, for that.

4. Suspension: Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf of St. Saviour (P. 64/2025) The Deputy Bailiff :

The next item is Suspension: Deputy Ozouf of St Saviour, lodged by the Privileges and Procedures Committee. The main respondent is, of course, Deputy Ozouf . I remind Members that under Standing Orders, the Deputy may speak twice during the debate. Accordingly, before the proposer is asked to reply, I will invite Deputy Ozouf if he wishes to address the Assembly at that stage. I ask the Greffier to read the proposition.

The Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion to agree, in accordance with Standing Order 21A, to suspend Deputy Philip Francis Cyril Ozouf of St. Saviour for 28 days with immediate effect as a sanction for breaches of the States Members' Code of Conduct as detailed in the Report R.127/2025.

1. Deputy S.M. Ahier of St. Helier North (Chair, Privileges and Procedures Committee)

This debate is not just about Deputy Ozouf , it is about us as an Assembly and whether we take breaches of our Code of Conduct seriously. P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) has brought this proposition today because of Deputy Ozouf 's conduct. He has been found to have breached the Code of Conduct on several counts, namely: paragraph 2, Public duty; paragraph 3, Personal conduct; paragraph 4, Conflict between public and private interest; and paragraph 5, Maintaining the integrity of the States. Therefore, we have proposed a sanction of suspension upon him. Some Members have commented that this proposed sanction is disproportionate because the infraction committed by Deputy Ozouf was relatively minor. Let us explore that for a moment. He drove at twice the legal speed in a green lane and did not display an up-to-date insurance disc. It was not a couple of days out of date, it was from June 2023. I agree that either of those could be regarded as minor misdemeanours in themselves, but the Deputy compounded matters by failing to engage in the process, missing 3 Parish Hall Inquiries, and then only attending the Magistrate's Court because he was alerted to the court date by a journalist looking for a story. If a member of the public missed 3 Parish Hall Inquiries and failed to turn up to a Magistrate's Court hearing, then their arrest would have been ordered. But, because Deputy Ozouf was a public figure, a journalist spotted his name on the court list. As an elected Member of this Assembly, his name stood out. It was notable because people expect better of us. They do not expect us to be breaking the laws we ourselves have made. We are all bound by a Code of Conduct which serves to maintain standards of behaviour, which engender respect and trust in this Assembly. The crime is not the key focus here. What is important is he broke the law, failed to engage with the accepted processes and in doing so breached the Code of Conduct. Everyone makes mistakes but Deputy Ozouf 's lack of engagement not just with the legal process but with the complaints process which followed, showed a disregard for rules and procedures. The 4 people who submitted complaints about Deputy Ozouf to the Commissioner for Standards did so because they considered that his behaviour was not befitting of a States Member. They expected better. We know from the 2024 Jersey Opinions and Lifestyle Survey that trust in this Assembly is low and so we should be listening to the public when they tell us that a Member's behaviour has left them disappointed and reduced their trust and respect for us all. Let us be under no illusion, we are all affected because the public sees us as one entity. We are all tarred with the same brush and even more so if we fail to apply sanctions when a Member breaches our Code of Conduct. When I took over as P.P.C. chair I saw my role as being the champion of good standards, and we should all question what standards we think are appropriate if we decide to reject this proposition and the message that sends to the public. Are we saying there are different rules for States Members? Do we think that it is appropriate for Members to break the law? Then why should the public obey them? Do we think that it is appropriate for Members not to attend Parish Hall Inquiries? Then the public can take it that they do not need to either, and that will inevitably erode the Parish system which, I do not have to remind Members, is a vital part of our Island heritage and serves to reduce the burden on the courts. Do we think it is appropriate for a Member to not engage with the Commissioner for Standards when she is investigating complaints against them from the public? Then why do we have a commissioner? And why tell the public that we are answerable to them for our behaviours when we think we are not? Encouraging quality candidates to come forward is absolutely essential if we are to turn the tide and increase voter engagement. It has been said that this proposition, if adopted, will discourage people from standing for election. If it discourages people they think would struggle to abide by the laws of the Island of Jersey and the Code of Conduct then I do not think that is a bad thing. Surely we want people to look at joining the Assembly with a

sense of pride. No one would apply for a job at a company which had a poor reputation and where poor behaviours among its staff were disregarded. You would be concerned that in joining you would be seen in the same poor light. This proposition demonstrates that the majority of Members of this Assembly believe and abide by the Code of Conduct and consider standards to be important. Although Deputy Ozouf did apologise to the court and latterly to the Assembly, his subsequent poor engagement with the commissioner did not demonstrate any change in behaviour. In fact, there was a continuation of the disengagement and avoidance. The commissioner wrote to him on 21st February 2025, received no response, and commenced her investigation on 13th March 2025. Deputy Ozouf subsequently voluntarily made an apology to this Assembly on 19th March of the same year. Continued lack of engagement with the commissioner further delayed the review process until an interview with Deputy Ozouf was eventually conducted on 6th May 2025. I cannot emphasise enough that all Members should engage with the commissioner in a timely fashion when a complaint is being investigated, and to not do so shows a lack of respect for the commissioner's role, the Code of Conduct and the complainants. The Deputy has advised us of his A.D.H.D. (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) diagnosis, and I am aware that the Greffier and her staff have reached out to him during the last few months on numerous occasions to provide support and advice and to signpost counselling. Reasonable adjustments have been made but his diagnosis, while providing some explanation to some of his behaviours, does not excuse them. People with A.D.H.D. are not above the law. If Deputy Ozouf maintains that his poor mental health was responsible for him missing emails and not reading letters, how is it that he was able to continue submitting questions and propositions and actively participating in this Chamber throughout that same timeframe? Deputy Ozouf chose not to engage with the Parish Hall process. He chose not to deal with the commissioner until it risked being regarded as another breach of the Code. Those choices must have consequences, especially if those choices damage this Assembly's reputation. P.P.C. is not seeking to make an example of Deputy Ozouf . This is not a personal vendetta against him. We have to listen to the public and they have expressed incredulity that Deputy Ozouf has ignored just not the rules which apply to all Islanders but also the rules which apply to him explicitly as an elected Member of this Assembly. This was not his first time in court nor was it the first time a commissioner was found him to have breached the Code. We have a strong Code of Conduct because that helps keep democracy intact. We appointed a Commissioner for Standards because we wanted to have someone who could review complaints impartially and then present findings for us to act upon. It is uncomfortable to be passing judgment on a fellow Member, and I appreciate that, but this is the system we have adopted and we must take all complaints seriously and be seen to follow a fair and transparent process if we are to build public trust. In this instance, Deputy Ozouf was found to have breached the Code and P.P.C. accepts that. Deputy Ozouf accepts that. This is the sanction the committee considers to be appropriate and it is a matter for Members if they choose to apply it. I make the proposition.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded]

2. Suspension: Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf of St. Saviour (P. 64/2025) - proposition to take in- camera

Deputy K.F. Morel of St. John, St. Lawrence and Trinity :

Under Standing Order 81, I wondered if I might propose that this debate be taken in camera. The Deputy Bailiff :

Well, you may make the proposition. Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] Does anyone wish to speak on the proposition that this debate be held in camera?

Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

Should the proposer not speak on it first? The Deputy Bailiff :

Yes, the proposer; Deputy Morel .

1. Deputy K.F. Morel :

Having listened intently to the chair, and I fully understand why a sanction is sought with regard to the Deputy 's conduct and, like the Deputy himself, I do not excuse that in any way. What I do have an issue with is, and we saw this with the previous similar debate in this term, is the public element of this when I believe we are discussing matters which pertain effectively to somebody's health and somebody's mental health, and I find that the fact that that is being done in public is humiliating and is highly likely to actually exacerbate those sorts of matters. I liken this essentially to if any employer in this Island were to conduct a disciplinary process in public they would be condemned. [Approbation] While I appreciate we are self-employed, we are effectively acting as an employer in this situation. In no other situation would you have this sort of thing discussed in public. I am not contesting the proposition in itself but I am absolutely contesting the fact that the public humiliation should not take place.

[10:30]

The Deputy Bailiff :

The proposition has been seconded. Deputy Ozouf , your light was on, do you want to speak now on this?

2. Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf of St. Saviour :

If I may, Sir. I am truly grateful for the Deputy 's proposal and for the seconder. I have thought about this and I think that the idea that I am protected from public scrutiny relating to this matter, I think it is important there is a proposition that is in public. Whatever the outcome of that, the public will not know what the arguments for and against that were. I have already been public about it and now not to deal with this in private will, I do not think, strengthen public opinion. As uncomfortable and as grateful as I am for Members, I think that Members are responsible and they will be saying what they want to say. I think that precedents, transparency and openness is what we need. As uncomfortable as it is, as important as it is, I think it must be in public because we are here to serve people and they deserve to hear. I am grateful for Members' consideration; I will be okay.

3. Deputy M. Tadier :

The idea that no firm in Jersey would hold its H.R. (human resources) processes in public of course is very easy to rebut, is it not, because we are not a firm. We might consider ourselves a bit like the old firm, the old boys' network but, essentially, the difference is we hold our recruitment processes in public. No company in Jersey would have public meetings where they recruit people and they ask members of the public to ask their potential employees questions to see if they get elected. That is done in public; admittedly the voting part is done in private. It is absolutely right that Parliaments all across the world will have open and transparent processes for the removal, the sanction and the suspension of their Members which might be done in different ways but there is a public process here. I think given the fact that Deputy Ozouf himself does not want this to be held in camera, when I finish speaking, should give cause for the mover of the proposition to think about that. I am really disappointed because last night I anticipated this. I took to social media, very rarely use it these days, former Twitter, but I said: "We are seeing lots of questionable parliamentary devices at the moment; I would not even be surprised if some Members were to ask for a secret debate tomorrow (today). This is sadly a resurgence in the Assembly of the Jersey way which I hoped was a thing of the past." How long ago was it that the Committee of Inquiry made recommendations that the States Assembly, all of us, now, in the past and in the future, should be taking steps to rid ourselves of that, I think

largely unfair label of course, because there are so many good things that Jersey does. But the "Jersey Way", as it was coined in the Committee of Inquiry, was a cover-up culture, a culture that allowed things to be brushed under the carpet for individuals who held responsibility, positions of influence and power to get away with it without answering to the public. Essentially, this is not exactly the same but this is absolutely about one of our Members who has breached the Code of Conduct, who has been through a process, and it is absolutely right that that process be done in public. I do ask the Member for St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity to withdraw his suggestion that this should be held

let us not talk in euphemisms, "in camera" in Latin means "in Chamber". We are in Chamber now of course. What it really means is secrecy and lack of transparency. That is not anything any of us should be supporting today.

Deputy K.F. Morel :

If I may, and I do like to listen to my constituents when they have an opinion The Deputy Bailiff :

You cannot make a speech now. Are you applying to withdraw

Deputy K.F. Morel :

Deputy Tadier being a constituent. I am concerned about the mental health implications - I listened to Deputy Ozouf particularly - and as a result I would like to ask the Assembly if I may withdraw the proposition.

The Deputy Bailiff :

You propose to withdraw the proposition. Is that seconded? [Seconded] Those in favour, kindly show.

Deputy M. Tadier :

Could we have the vote, please? The Deputy Bailiff :

The appel has been called for. Members are invited to return to their seats. This is a proposition to withdraw the proposal under Standing Order 81 to conduct this debate in camera and I invite the Greffier to open the voting. If all Members have had the chance of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. The proposition has been adopted:

The Greffier of the States:

Deputy Luce and Deputy Ozouf voted contre. The Deputy Bailiff :

We now move back to the debate.

3. Suspension: Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf of St. Saviour (P. 64/2025) - resumption The Deputy Bailiff :

Who wishes to speak next on the debate?

1. Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf :

I thought I was called. Members often say this in the Assembly, I was not planning to say much because I thought that I had already said an apology and the context, et cetera, et cetera, but I feel that I have no choice but to simply clarify. That is all I wish to do, is I just wish to say it is a matter for Members, it is a political matter for Members, and I am sorry that there was a ring-binder moment there. I meant to abstain on that last vote because I will abstain on the underlying thing. It is a matter for Members; I am in Members' hands, this is a public process. I said I did not want to say much because I am so embarrassed that we are taking up States resources, and States resources are being taken out on this issue. It is on the record that certain things have been said. I would politely, if I may, tell the chair of P.P.C. that I was not found in breach of the Code of Conduct in 2018. I was absolutely, and always have been, entirely attempting to comply. I was one of those Members that brought the code in, we did not used to have one, and I thought it was important that Members show that they act properly, in good faith, with honesty and integrity and avoid bringing the States into disrepute. That is why I am so horrified that certain aspects of my conduct, which I have sought to contextualise but not excuse, would explain why those difficulties have happened. I was not, I believe, found guilty of breaching the code in 2018 by the commissioner or by P.P.C. What happened was that political and media pressure, much as the Deputy of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity has said, were difficult. I must say to Members that on that issue I have never really dealt with, I guess, the trauma that arises from that. I was found to be not guilty of any suggestion of a police inquiry. I went through a lot - and Members have to - and I am a longstanding Member of this Assembly. I have served in various capacities and we all change and develop. We develop different skills, things happen in life, but we are here to serve the public, and that is what I have always sought to do. We are all different and I am sorry if my particularities are irritating to some Members. I know that in the first day that I was here I was described as a "Jack-in-the-box" putting my light up and down because I was worried about States audit reports. In those days I was the youngest Member for some 15 years. I think I calmed down a bit later on but it does speak almost to the fact that some of us are different. I do now know that I have A.D.H.D. and that is not an impediment, it is not an excuse. Part of the reason why I have said it .. just as I have been the only openly gay Member of this Assembly for many years - I know there are others - but I was for many years. I just thought I am a private person, like we all are, but there are certain issues in our private life that I believe we should publicise. This is a private motoring matter but it is public and I have paid due attention to those issues. If I may say, it is not quite correct to say that I was only informed of the Magistrate's Court issue by a journalist. I was initially informed but concurrently I was also informed by others, including one very senior Minister who kindly also told me. The fact that I did not see, like the second Parish Hall Inquiry, the letter, I did not see it, the fact is I did turn up to the Magistrate's Court on time and prepared, alone, and dealt with the administration of justice, as was expected of me. I think too, if I may say, to take bits and pieces of the activities that I have or have not done and to use them as justification to say that I am not willing to engage is, with respect, not my intention. I have no intention and do not choose not to comply with rules. I have been a Treasury Minister, I was an internal auditor, a fraud investigator and I know what rules are but I would just say to Members, sometimes in life one finds some difficulties. I have had some difficulties and I believe I have been open about that. The team around me is no longer there, so I have to make new arrangements in place. It is a lonely place, like I know other Members have had, and I do not want people that are lonely to think that when they find life difficult, somehow that is not made to be an acceptable situation. It is not an excuse, it is contextualised. When I speak about the administrative help that one needs, I am working to find that administrative help because I need it. I have always needed it,

and I know that, because I need to put that in place. That does not mean I am incompetent, it does not mean that people with A.D.H.D. or any other neurodiverse minority issue are different. I am capable and I want to serve. It is up to Members whether or not they think that the explanations and mitigation I have given are sufficient or not to deal with the most severe sanction that is possible for P.P.C., which I have never seen in all my years of this Assembly, but that is a matter for Members. Life moves on and I would accept, without question, Members' final decision. I ask for Members' understanding, as I did yesterday. I thank them for their understanding in me as being an ordinary person, not above the law, compliant with the law, respectful of the honorary system, respectful of our system of justice. One rarely talks about the things that one does - rarely - because they are private. I was very happy last night when I assisted some Honorary Policemen trying to find an individual who was lost until 2.45 this morning. The things we do. I am not saying where or what it was but somebody was lost and I went to go and help them. One does that but one does not talk about it, but one respects honorary service and service. It is service to our community that matters and I wish to continue to serve. I am grateful for the Bailiff 's ruling on what that is in relation to a suspension or not. I will answer Members' questions but I do not think I have got anything else to add apart from what I have already said, which is that I had not had intention, it was not mens rea that I did not engage. I know Deputy Bailhache has made some other observations about the Parish Hall Inquiry system. I think I am going to leave it there. I will answer Members' specific questions. I am intensely embarrassed taking up States Members' time on this because we have got massive public issues. I will leave it there. Thank you.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Thank you, Deputy . Does any other Member wish to speak on the proposition?

2. Deputy M.R. Ferey of St. Saviour:

As I rise, I would just like to remind Members that I am a member of P.P.C., one of the members of P.P.C. on the executive side, and this was not a decision that we took lightly. It certainly was not a unanimous decision and we laboured long and hard over what would be the correct course of action. Since putting this out into the public, people have asked me: "Is a vote of suspension, by taking this course of action, are we setting a precedent?" The next one of us who unfortunately gets caught speeding, the public expectation will be that we will also face a vote of suspension which amounts to a de facto £4,000 fine because once we are out of the Assembly for 28 days, that is without pay. But of course there are different circumstances in this particular case which have been highlighted already by the chair, but I would just like to bring a slightly different colour to some of them.

[10:45]

Failing to attend a Parish Hall Inquiry when invited to is not a good look for any Member. I draw on my own experience, because I served as a Centenier for the Parish of St. Helier for a term 25 years ago. What I would do at the end of each session is if anyone had failed to appear, I would get on the phone and speak to them. Very often if it had slipped their mind, they would happily come down, particularly if it was something that the Centenier could have dealt with. Equally, there were some people that said: "I am a busy person, is this likely to go on to court?" and I would say: "On balance that is possible" and they would say: "Well send me a summons instead and I will deal with it in court" and of course, that was their prerogative. I do not know if processes have changed at the Town Hall from when I served as a Centenier but to get 3 invitations to attend a Parish Hall seems to me to go above and beyond what would ordinarily be expected. I do not know if that was done because it was the Deputy in particular that was involved. I do not know, I can only draw on my experience and the way that I would run Parish Hall Inquiries, so that was something that certainly entered my thinking. Not engaging with the Commissioner for Standards, of course, it is paramount that if we do have a commissioner in place that the commissioner is engaged with at the earliest opportunity and that cases can be carried through. While I was firstly in favour of a vote of censure, and our

minutes do reflect that, it was particularly because I had sat on P.P.C. in the previous Government and we had dealt with cases. One of them, which in my eyes was probably the same, if not even worse than what we are facing with Deputy Ozouf , we dealt with that by way of censure, so there seemed to me to be a slight inequality there. I think the only guiding balance is public perception: what do the public expect is going to happen today? I think on balance we have arrived at the right decision in P.P.C. and I am sure many Members will wrestle with this decision personally. I think when I take everything into account, my view is that I will be voting for the proposition.

3. Connétable K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour :

This has been in the mix for a while now. I am not excusing Deputy Ozouf 's behaviour in any way, shape or form, but in mitigation the Deputy has lost recently his life-long partner, followed closely by a close family member. Combine that with his A.D.H.D., I am not sure if I could hold it together, I must admit. But it has come to court, the Deputy has apologised profusely to the Honorary Police, to this Assembly, to the Commissioner for Standards and the people of St. Saviour and the Island who have elected him. It has gone to court, he has been fined £575, not a small amount, and I think a line should be drawn under that now and we should move on. I think the Deputy has learned a lesson and I wish him well for the future. I will not be supporting the proposition.

4. Deputy P.M. Bailhache of St. Clement :

I circulated a press release and Members will be aware that in my view a suspension of Deputy Ozouf for the matter with which we are concerned would be disproportionate and an unfair penalty. What we decide is important because if the Assembly can act unfairly towards Deputy Ozouf , it can do so towards any of us. If a Member acts dishonestly or violently, that is a different matter and suspension is justified, but that is not in question here. Suspension should be reserved for serious misconduct. I have heard that some Members are contemplating abstention and I hope that no one will do so. We all have a view and Members should be prepared to stand up and be counted. The chair of P.P.C. thinks that suspension is not unfair but I think P.P.C. are taking into consideration things which they ought not to do. They state in their report the committee is resolute that should there be future breaches of the Code of Conduct by Deputy Ozouf , it will seek to apply further sanctions as appropriate. It seems to me fairly clear that at least some members of P.P.C. had in mind the immigration matters with which he has been charged but we do not know the detail of those matters. We do not know the mitigation, nor has he been dealt with by the court. It is elementary justice

The Deputy Bailiff :

Well those matters probably should not be referred to at all, I think, Deputy Bailhache , at the moment; it is sub judice.

Deputy P.M. Bailhache : I am sorry, I did not hear. The Deputy Bailiff :

I do not think they should be referred to at all at the moment, those matters, because they are before the courts.

Deputy P.M. Bailhache :

Thank you.

Deputy M. Tadier :

There is presumably parliamentary privilege in here, is there not?

The Deputy Bailiff :

Yes, but there are Standing Orders as well in terms of referring to these matters: Standing Order 107.

Deputy M. Tadier :

Can I clarify, it is not to be heard by you, is it, Sir? The Deputy Bailiff :

Well it is not but my role in the other place is irrelevant to my role here; I am simply an independent, impartial Chair interpreting your Standing Orders.

Deputy P.M. Bailhache :

I think I am entitled to say that it is elementary justice that a man can only be punished for those things for which he has been convicted or found proved. We cannot consider anything else; that is for another day. There are 2 charges against Deputy Ozouf : one is failing to display an insurance disc in his car, and that is quite clearly not a suspension offence. The more significant one is speeding but how many of us can honestly say that we have never committed a speeding offence when late for an appointment? I think the only difference between Deputy Ozouf and many of us is that we have not been caught. The Assembly would be sparsely populated if everyone who had committed such an offence were to be suspended. How many other professions have a policy of suspending employees if caught speeding? I cannot think of any. P.P.C. says that the Deputy 's actions and lack of regard for the Island's laws and judicial process have damaged the integrity and reputation of the Assembly. If his failure to attend Parish Hall Inquiries is said to be a lack of regard for judicial process, I think that is wrong, as Deputy Ferey has said. The Commissioner for Standards found, and I quote: "Failing to attend a Parish Hall Inquiry displays a disregard for accountability and a lack of respect for legal obligations." Unfortunately, the commissioner was mistaken. There is no legal obligation to attend a Parish Hall Inquiry. It is a courtesy to respond obviously to a request to attend a Parish Hall Inquiry, and Deputy Ozouf displayed discourtesy in not responding to that, but discourtesy is hardly a suspension offence. If it were, again, this Assembly would be very sparsely populated. It follows from the commissioner's mistake that she was wrong to conclude that there was a conflict between public and private interest. That provision of a code was not relevant to Deputy Ozouf 's conduct. In truth, there were 3, not 4, breaches of a code but none of them justifies the extreme penalty of suspension. To say that the integrity and reputation of the Assembly have been damaged by Deputy Ozouf 's conduct is, in my view, highly debateable. I think that this debate itself is damaging to our reputation. Deputy Ozouf acted foolishly and wrongly but when a Member goes astray the punishment must fit the crime. If P.P.C. had imposed a reprimand, no one could complain but a suspension involving in effect another fine of more than £3,000 is way over the top. Members have heard the Deputy 's statement; I think he has been punished enough. [Approbation]

5. Deputy L.V. Feltham of St. Helier Central :

I speak today as deputy leader of Reform Jersey and on behalf of the party to make our party position clear. We will be supporting P.P.C.'s proposition today. Our assessment of the proposed action to suspend Deputy Ozouf is that it is both a proportionate and appropriate action. We think it is proportionate as a sanction should be assessed in line with the scale of breach of the Code of Conduct. The breaches outlined in the Commissioner for Standard's report are not just a matter of ill temper or poorly-chosen words for which an apology would be more appropriate, neither is it a matter of just inappropriate action which may be a case for a censure. In this case the Member has failed to follow due process and has also broken the law. These actions bring us as an Assembly into disrepute; therefore, a suspension is the correct sanction. I acknowledge that some Members may feel discomfort with this process, particularly in light of the Deputy 's diagnosed A.D.H.D. While it is vital to approach such matters with sensitivity and respect for neurodiversity, all Members must be held accountable for their actions. Inclusion and accountability must go hand in hand. Suggesting that a diagnosis exempts someone from scrutiny risks undermining the integrity of our processes and could erode the confidence of employers and institutions having an inclusive leadership. Our disabled and neurodiverse communities have overcome significant barriers to contribute

meaningfully to our society and they deserve to see that inclusion is about fairness and not exemption. [Approbation] Suspension is also appropriate as it aligns with actions that may be taken in similar circumstances in the public sector. While I am conscious that it is usually a mutual act during investigation within the public sector, our current procedures mean that P.P.C. takes any action following the conclusion of an investigation and not during. At this point I have to say that our party does feel that this proposition cannot be voted on without taking into consideration other factors that are in the public domain related to Deputy Ozouf 's conduct. Were the Deputy a public servant working within the public sector, the disciplinary policy would have been followed and the employee would be suspended pending the legal process. Therefore, we consider a suspension at this point entirely appropriate. Why would we seek to treat ourselves any differently to other public servants? We are also mindful of the strength of feeling about these matters of the constituents that we represent, many of whom have asked us to support this sanction. That is our position.

6. Deputy M.R. Scott of St. Brelade :

I agree with the chair of the P.P.C. in one respect; this vote is about us as a States Assembly. In considering the proposition I thought very hard about this and exactly what are we doing as a States Assembly.

[11:00]

Are we dispensing justice or are we applying the rules of a club? That leads me to question some things about the process whereby we have come to this point where we are looking at the proposition that is placed before us. I would like to thank Deputy Ferey for explaining some of this because it does seem that the P.P.C. had considered a vote of censure, first of all, and then somehow were persuaded to turn that into an actual proposition that we suspend Deputy Ozouf . I note that Deputy Tadier very much has promoted transparency in this but I do think one thing that is very important is how do we dispense justice? What rules do we use? What is that process? If this is about justice, of course. Deputy Feltham , I am grateful that she has spoken on behalf of the Reform Party. This is about proportionate action, of course, and I am not sure who is claiming to be an expert on that. I believe that perhaps in similar circumstances employees might be suspended with pay. I cannot really comment on how this would have been dealt with in that way but it certainly would not have been dealt with in an open hearing. As I think about this maybe to some extent - because this is about us - it is about our procedures that are on trial, trials by ordeal, show trials, all those things can come into mind when we are talking about the way that we are doing this right now. Coming back to this subject of dispensing justice - because, as many people know, I do have a legal background and I perhaps have an idea in my mind about how justice is dispensed - I think about things like jury vetting, I think about consistency of the application of rules. I think about rules even for interpreting rules, none of which our processes, that I am aware, that the P.P.C. does when it is proposing what it might describe as a fair and proportionate proposition. I cannot yet be persuaded that the actual proposal in terms of the nature of the offences is proportionate. I would just simply like to refer to some things in the public domain that might make me question this. I might go to the U.K., I might look at Angela Rayner who has resigned a public position to do with a matter that involved deceit. I am not aware that Deputy Ozouf has done anything deceitful. I have had a situation, I have been part of a debate of this States Assembly where we were discussing a case of bullying and harassment, interference with the proceedings of a panel which, by the way, there is an actual offence, contempt of the States, that attracts 5 years for that, but it was not like the P.P.C. seized that one and shook it about and seeking to lobby the commissioner. But, no, what we had was that a Member did not respond to the commissioner. In that situation, what did we have: we had a vote of censure. So somehow now, bearing in mind that a Magistrate who is probably subject to the highest kind of ethical standards in the British Isles, they will not be suspended for what are relatively minor motoring offences or to fail to display papers, notwithstanding that they have had insurance. Let us just think a bit more about this suspension; what does it mean? Well we have got an explanatory

note and basically while he can do constituency work, he will be deprived of the tools to basically carry it out. He cannot attend committee hearings, he does not get paid, he cannot come on the States premises, and we think that that is really how we serve the public and his constituents. I note that there was mention of 4 members of the public who complained but I do not exactly know what precisely they were complaining about. Were they talking about a catalogue of offences? At the end of the day is everybody' fate and the actual severity going to come down to how many members of the public complained about something? Because I see danger in that in the same way that I have seen the P.P.C. object to the idea of a recall mechanism. I frankly think I would prefer the recall mechanism because typically you get far more people saying: "We do not want that person to serve as our elected representative" than 4 people who come in response to a press report. I am aligned with Deputy Bailhache in this matter. I think it is very disappointing that the P.P.C. did not put forward a vote of censure which I think I might have been persuaded to support. I note, and I agree with the Constable of St. Saviour , all of what he said about the apologies, about the fact that justice in the case of the speeding fine was dispensed, and how much do you want to kick somebody when they are down? For that reason I will not support this proposition.

7. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier :

Deputy Tadier , when we were debating whether to hold this debate in camera, said that this is not a normal workplace. It is a very true comment, of course, and therefore it would not be sensible to apply the rules of disciplinary processes carried out in firms and businesses to this place. I guess he is right in what he said about the experiences we go through to retain our jobs, is certainly not something you would expect a person in a normal workplace to put up with but we do it because that is the system that exists. I think Deputy Feltham was wrong when she compared the suspension to the workplace because of course, as has been alluded to by Deputy Scott , suspension in the workplace does carry your salary; you do not lose your salary when you are suspended for an offence which you may not have committed. Of course, as Deputy Bailhache said, there is a swingeing fine relating to this suspension if it is carried forward. I was disappointed to hear Reform say that they will be supporting this because they have had this enormous postbag of people saying that they are concerned about Deputy Ozouf 's behaviour. It is really hard, is it not, these days to know exactly what the public thinks because it really does depend on where you get your knowledge. Do you get it hunched over your laptop, when you should probably be in bed, or your iPhone? Do you get it when you are in your Parish or your district, people coming up to you? I have not been approached by a single constituent who has asked me my views on whether Deputy Ozouf should be suspended or not. Not one person has contacted me. That may be because I am not considered to be approachable or it may be that my constituents have got more important things on their minds when they stop and talk to me, as they do about many things. Deputy Bailhache , I thought, pinpointed an important error that was made by the Commissioner for Standards and this had not been rebutted by Privileges and Procedures Committee. In fact, when Deputy Bailhache circulated his press release highlighting this mistake in the process that has been applied to the Deputy , I assumed that P.P.C. would have withdrawn their proposition straight away. If this was a legal case, the legal case has collapsed because the judgment is not sound, so why is it being pursued by P.P.C.? Why do we have that stone-deaf proposition from the chairman of P.P.C. which seemed to me to have absolutely no ability to hear what the Deputy had said in his statement yesterday evening. This morning I happened to watch on breakfast television a report about Ofsted and the devastating report card that was given to a headteacher which led to her suicide. It was pointed out this morning that Ofsted could have dealt with that differently. They could have got the problem fixed with the school which was not doing too badly - it was not a failing school for sure - and that tragic outcome could have been prevented. I want to finish by saying that we are, I think, particularly the older Members of the Assembly, learning slowly about the importance of mental health in our society, in our lives, in our constituents' lives and in our own lives. I do not think we are there yet but it does seem to me that there is a real issue here around the mental health of a Member. I think it is absolutely wrong that we are pursuing this. Indeed, I did

look to see whether we could have moved on to the next item at the beginning of the debate because back in the old days you could do that. I remember earning the wrath of a Constable, my predecessor, when he proposed something which I thought was simply a waste of the Assembly's time. After he proposed it I stood up and said: "Can we move on to the next item?" and we did. Problem solved. I have been informed this morning that now we have a ruling that there have to be 10 people who speak before we can do that. Now I am not sure how many people have spoken but if we have reached the magic number of 10, I would certainly like to propose that we move on to the next item.

The Deputy Bailiff :

You are number 8.

The Connétable of St. Helier :

I am number 8; well I cannot do that. I will conclude my speech and sit down.

8. Deputy M. Tadier :

I rise to speak partly in a personal capacity and I am also a member of P.P.C. I would just like to note that our deputy leader for the party has given, I thought, an excellent speech and outlined in a very measured manner what the party position is. As the second-most senior Member in terms of long service of our party, I have got the benefit and sometimes the problem of having corporate memory, only second to Deputy Southern , so I can remember not just what has happened in this sitting but in perhaps the last 4 Assemblies that I have served in. Of course, when I started off in 2008 I was on the first P.P.C. there and I have always had a strong interest in process and in standards that Members should hold themselves to, so I speak very much in that vein. When the last speaker stood up and, he is adding to what I said yesterday on what used to be Twitter, that again we are seeing devices being proposed, parliamentary devices being proposed, which will have the effect of curtailing legitimate debate in here, like we had earlier, and we are getting it now from the Constable of St. Helier , rather than dealing with the tough issue that we have got in hand. Deputy Bailhache is absolutely correct that we are all put in here to represent our constituents and to vote one way or the other. I do not think any of our constituents will thank us if we decide to abstain on this. If we abstain we might as well not be here, so I think that is absolutely correct. Where I part company with Deputy Bailhache is that he said something which pricked my interest, or piqued my interest even, which was that he said: "If this was a matter of violence or dishonesty then it should certainly have a sanction applied to it, which is to suspend a Member." But I recall of course that only a few years ago, I think it was not long after the Committee of Inquiry into historic child abuse had reported back, that they found one Member of this Assembly to have lied, both to the Assembly and to the Committee of Inquiry. That was former Deputy Andrew Lewis who at the time was acting as the Minister for Home Affairs. He was somebody who categorically was found to have lied, that was the outcome. Deputy Bailhache of course at the time - I cannot remember if he was Senator - stood up to defend Deputy Lewis , saying that he should not be censured because in fact it was a censure motion, it was not a suspension motion. It seems to me that of course the now Deputy Bailhache would have been arguing, saying that he had not lied. It seems to me that Deputy Bailhache is perhaps more interested in the individual rather than the offence that is caused. Because of course if he is happy to defend somebody who has lied to an Assembly and lied to a Committee of Inquiry, I would say being defended by Deputy Bailhache

[11:15]

Deputy P.M. Bailhache :

Will the Deputy give way?

Deputy M. Tadier :

I will not give way unless it is a point of order. If it is a point of order I will

The Deputy Bailiff :

If it is a point of order, yes.

Deputy P.M. Bailhache :

No, it is not a point of order; will the Deputy give way? The Deputy Bailiff :

Will you give way?

Deputy M. Tadier :

I will give way.

Deputy P.M. Bailhache :

I think the Deputy should tell the Assembly that in relation to the individual in question, whom I will not name, there was a considerable issue as to whether in fact he had lied. He denied lying and I think the Assembly ought to be aware of that.

Deputy M. Tadier :

Even now the Deputy cannot name him; it is in the public domain. It was Deputy Andrew Lewis , and he was acting as the Minister for Home Affairs at the time, and he was found to have lied in a Committee of Inquiry. It shows that Deputy Bailhache is unwilling to accept the results of an independent body when they report back when it simply does not align with his views or his politics. Of course, one does have to go back a little bit further when it comes to

The Deputy Bailiff :

Deputy Scott , your point of order? Deputy M.R. Scott :

Could I have a point of clarification? Deputy M. Tadier :

No, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff :

No, he is not giving way.

Deputy M. Tadier :

No, she can use one of her other covert party members perhaps later on to make a speech for her. One does not have to go back too far to

Deputy M.R. Scott :

Sorry, could I have a point of clarification? Or point of order. The Deputy Bailiff :

No. A point of order, yes.

Deputy M. Tadier :

Can we stop the clock, please?

The Deputy Bailiff :

Yes.

Deputy M.R. Scott :

I just would like to understand what this covert party I am a member of is. The Deputy Bailiff :

Well that is not a point of order.

Deputy M. Tadier :

Can I continue?

The Deputy Bailiff :

You can but I do remind you that you are obliged not to impute improper motives directly or by inuendo to any Member of the States under Standing Order 104. [Approbation] I do not think that everything you have said is necessarily directly relevant to the proposition.

Deputy M. Tadier :

I better make sure I stick to the facts then which are on the public record. The facts are, as I have said, Members are intelligent enough to make their own conclusions from that. The other point I would say is that - it is a valid point to make - Deputy Bailhache has form in defending the indefensible in this Assembly whereas what we are here to try and do today is come to a balanced position about when a Member has acted inappropriately, and been found to have acted inappropriately, what is the right sanction, if any, that we apply? Of course, we can go back to the saga of Roger Holland, who was an Honorary Police Officer, who Deputy Bailhache , when he was the Attorney General, knowing that this person was a convicted paedophile, thought it was okay for this person to be

The Deputy Bailiff :

No, Deputy Tadier , you must stop this. This is a debate about whether or not to suspend Deputy Ozouf , not the history of Deputy Bailhache 's dealing with third parties who are not Members of this Assembly. It is inappropriate what you are saying, you know it is inappropriate, you must stick to what is before the Assembly: this proposition. [Approbation] If you do not do so, I will have to require you to stop speaking which I do not want to do.

Deputy M. Tadier :

I accept the ruling of the Chair; I am simply trying to say that there is a history and a pattern of behaviour from certain Members in this Assembly to not want to seek accountability when there have been blatant and egregious inappropriate behaviour in public office and this is what we are debating today. To get back to the point, I think that the Constable of St. Helier made, that there is not any public interest in this issue; simply not true. There was a public meeting that took place just over a week ago in St. Brelade which was attended by the 4 Deputies and the Constable, which was kindly chaired by a member of the media. One of those questions that came up, which of course was uncomfortable for us, I think, was the question of how we were going to vote in the suspension, and I think that was addressed. It was quite clear that the public in that room who attended wanted to talk about this issue and they had very strong feelings. The response that they responded most clearly to with most approbation I think was the unequivocal answer that our Constable in St. Brelade gave saying that we should not be debating this today. I think a lot of us agree with that. The reason we should not debating that is because, in the words of our Constable, the Member should have done the honourable thing by now and have resigned from public office. Because there had been a series of breaches that have taken place, just not now, but there is a pattern of behaviour which P.P.C., of which I am a member, has recognised, which is that it goes right back in time. The corporate memory which I speak of are the questions that still remain over those inappropriate credit card transactions that took place when he was the Minister. Although that is not what we are debating today that is in the public's consciousness, that is something that will come up. If anybody has been on social media, the results of having made that public statement last night, that Deputy Ozouf made, was that it of

course became a story on the mainstream media which was then replicated on social media, had the effect that there were lots of comments. Some Members in here would have read those comments - I am not going to read those comments out - but Members might wish to avail themselves to think about whether there is strong public feeling in this. Of course, the Constable of St. Helier may wish to read some of the comments from potentially those many St. Helier parishioners who have contributed to that debate. Of course, there is the more recent anger, and I think this is where a lot of the public feel more angry about this, is the fact that a Member of the States Assembly, possibly somebody who was also a Minister at the time, has been in the Petty Debts Court over a period of time. That is where there is strong anger. There is something in the States of Jersey Law which Deputy Mézec pointed to yesterday, which is that if you are made bankrupt then you cannot be a Member of the States Assembly. Now is that right or wrong? I do not know, that maybe needs to be revisited in the future. But clearly the message that has gone out with that requirement is that if you cannot manage your finances sufficiently and you become bankrupt, that you are not an appropriate person to be a Member of this Assembly. What does that mean if you cannot pay your rates, if you cannot pay your bills, should you also be a Member of the Assembly? These are questions that the public are asking; I do not have a definitive answer for that. Then I turn to the issue of the Parish Hall Inquiry. Now what I am slightly disappointed with is that there was an opportunity for Deputy Ozouf to answer the questions and explain why he did not attend, why he did not engage and what went wrong. I have not heard that so I am quite happy to put my hands up and say that I have not always been a fully-converted zealot for the Parish Hall Inquiry system. I think it has definitely got its merits but I have warmed to it over the years from what I have seen in this Assembly. I also know that my esteemed colleague in St. Brelade , Deputy Miles , who is also a doctor, did her doctorate on the Parish Hall Inquiry system. I have got a copy of it at home that I acquired and it is a very good read, and I can see why she fully deserves her PhD for that. She is also doing a review at the moment into the Parish system, which I wish her well with. Certainly, I have known for a long time that you do not have to attend the Parish Hall Inquiry system; it is alternative to necessarily going to court and it is a way that justice can be administered in a less formal way and there are lots of merits that we know about it, about keeping people, especially young people, out of the criminal justice system. I have never heard Deputy Bailhache say before that you do not have to attend the Parish Hall Inquiry system. Maybe we should have a big ad campaign to just tell young people and tell people who get stopped: "By the way, you do not have to attend the Parish Hall Inquiry and do not go if you do not want to." I used the words "2 fingers" yesterday, I am not sure if you would permit it, but one could figuratively give 2 fingers to the Parish Hall system. That is perfectly fine according to Deputy Bailhache because you do not have to attend. The issue here is that Deputy Ozouf did not not attend, if that is the correct phrasing, the Parish Hall Inquiry because he did not have to, he did not attend for some other reason. Did he get the letters? We do not know. He has not clarified whether he got the letters or whether he simply ignored the letters or the letters remained unopened. But again that does not speak to good organisational skills that you would expect to have from an elected Member of this Assembly. I am really concerned, and I would be interested to hear from some of the Constables here - apart from the Constable of St. Helier who is not supporting this - what effect this might have on the Parish Hall Inquiry system on the wider Parish system if a States Member who ostensibly supports that Parish system does not see fit to attend on 3 occasions. Should other members of the public attend Parish Hall Inquiry systems or should we simply do away with it and rely on a more formalised court system? I would be really grateful to hear from Constables whether they think that is correct.

The Deputy Bailiff :

The Chief Minister was going to speak; he is not here. Does any other Member wish to speak on the proposition?

9. Deputy A.F. Curtis of St. Clement:

I will not speak for long. It is an interesting set of arguments provided and it shows that I think none of us are true experts in ethics. But what confuses me in this in understanding where to go - and I have put a lot of time and thought into this - is which threshold was breached to bring forward a proposition for a sanction? Is it the motoring offences, is it the respect of the Parish Hall process or is it the attitude and lack of engagement with the Commissioner for Standards? We have heard that the Parish Hall process might be discourteous but is it understandable - and I take on board the argument provided - and I do not think that really should form a material consideration here. The Deputy may well have got away with far less by way of court punishment if he had attended. He chose not to, he may have got more, we do not know; that is a court process. Is it the motoring offences? Given this is a first for the Assembly to decide when to sanction, I believe, I think that was highlighted - I see the nods - we are in some ways considering what to do when somebody is found in breach of a law in a court and given a fine. I am trying to work out whether we are getting 2 bites of the cherry on Deputy Ozouf or any Member who breaches a law to the extent that we have seen. He was found in breach of the law, he was fined, and we found that in doing so that is a breach of the code, but he has been sanctioned by the court. The question to me that I do not know - and I would like Members to think on and to talk on - is this different to where many other breaches could arise from? The code covers many breaches which would be of a civil or professional matter. The use of a sanction might be because it is felt that the person, while found in breach of the code, would escape justice if a sanction was not brought and these powers at disposal of us as an Assembly when that breach has occurred seems like the Member has got away scot-free. But this Member has not, this Member has been punished by the court to the extent the court felt was appropriate for the offences and it leaves a big - and I will be honest - question mark in my mind what our role is when it comes to these types of offences. Lastly then, in trying to understand our consistency, it is disappointing but understandable that the Deputy failed to engage properly with the commissioner but slow engagement with the commissioner, while it may slow the speed of processing a complaint and complaint handling, does not, in my view, undermine the integrity of the Assembly to the extent of other breaches in which this Assembly term have adjudicated. It has been highlighted by Deputy Ferey that we have had one censure in this term. In looking back at the proposition, that censure in many ways was exacerbated because the case in question undermined access to confidential information during live and confidential investigations, none of which I believe has occurred during this complaints handling by the commissioner. I am left in a very difficult position, like all Members, asking what would I want in my position, knowing we are all at some point imperfect, but importantly asking what consistency are we following in regards to this?

10. Deputy L.J. Farnham of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter :

This is not an easy matter for the Assembly to consider. Wherever a proposition comes before us regarding the future of a Member of this Assembly, we are reminded that behind the titles, behind the debates and the responsibilities we all carry, there are people, both States Members and Islanders, who deserve at all times our very best care and attention. Public life carries with it unique pressures. The demands are constant and scrutiny is sometimes intense and often the support available does not match the weight of the responsibility we carry. When colleagues are facing personal or health difficulties, it is all too easy for this Assembly, and indeed the wider community, to focus on performance, accountability or outcomes and to lose sight of the people behind the roles. We have made progress, considerable progress, in how we talk about mental health in our Island. Stigma is lessening, awareness has grown and services are improving, but this progress must also extend into the heart of our political life.

[11:30]

As leaders we must be willing to recognise vulnerability in ourselves and to each other and to respond with the compassion and criticism that is appropriate. The events leading to this proposition I think serve as a reminder that we need to do better. Members must feel able to seek help when they need

it and to be supported rather than judged when they do. The structures around us within this Assembly, within the Government, across our public services, and indeed across the whole Island, must provide that support in a way that is practical, confidential and genuinely effective, and in a way that enables each and every one of us to deliver the very best service to our Island. At the same time, it is right to acknowledge that Deputy Ozouf 's conduct has fallen short of the high standards of behaviour that this Assembly and the public are entitled to expect from their elected representatives. That is a serious matter and, with that in mind, I believe it would be right for the Deputy to reflect carefully on his own health, on his position, and to consider whether stepping down in order to focus fully on himself and his well-being may be the best course of action for this Assembly. [Approbation] Of course, I say that while keeping in mind that the ultimate sanction for this Assembly is the ballot box. This Assembly has a duty of care not only to Islanders but also to each other. Whatever decisions are taken today, I hope we can commit ourselves to strengthening the culture of care, respect and understanding within this Chamber. That is how we will maintain the humanity of our politics and ensure that those who step forward to serve our Island are not left isolated when they face challenges in their health and well-being. In turn, we will all become better equipped to provide the very highest standards of service that Islanders rightly expect and deserve.

11. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter :

I am pleased to follow the Chief Minister. This, by its very nature, I suppose, is a personal debate in that we are dealing with an individual; one of our colleagues. Therefore, hopefully, you will forgive me for perhaps being a bit more personal than I would have liked to be. The first point that I want to make is one which Deputy Bailhache made so eloquently about proportionality. It will be up to each Member's conscience about whether what we are being asked to vote on - a removal from this Assembly for that period of time - is proportional to what Deputy Ozouf has done. In considering that proportionality, I wonder whether Members might consider their own actions, as other Members have asked and as Deputy Bailhache articulated so well. Have we all put our insurance disc on our car on the morning that we ought to have done? I know sometimes, on at least one occasion, I thought I was putting my insurance disc on my window, but - I do not know whether any other Member does this - sadly, I was putting it behind the existing one and it was not on display. I could say I am grateful to my wife for pointing this out at some point in the future. And which one of us did not speed, whether it be by one mile an hour or more, even on our way home last night? We out west have had some extensions to our speed limits, and I cannot be the only one who, even having seen the notice of the extension, was driving along and was somewhat surprised to see the actual signage up. I would not like to admit to how fast I was driving. There is very clearly a question about proportionality. But the issue that I really wanted to consider and discuss - and I do so with some nervousness because the old saying is so true: "All families are the same in their own individual way" - is about living with neurodiversity. I know that I am not the only Member who lives with neurodiversity in their family. There are others who have been living with it for so much longer and for whom their experience will be individual and personal in their own way. I am not a medic of any description and I am not a professional in living with those conditions. On the one hand, it is such a privilege to live with someone with neurodiversity in one's family because they bring so much joy and vibrancy, and they can be so generous. Yet on the other hand, sometimes the simple things like administration, like dealing with fight-or-flight, like being organised - the things upon which our interactions in our societies are based - can for some be so very, very challenging. But they can also be some of the most entrepreneurial, most innovative and most creative members of our community. Like the Chief Minister, I am so pleased with how we as a society and an Assembly have found the strength, as has happened elsewhere, to talk about neurodiversity and, more broadly, mental health. For me, talking is good because it builds understanding, but also action is important. As we know from Deputy Ozouf 's 2 apologies .. we remind ourselves he has apologised to this Assembly and to his constituents twice. We also know that for some experiencing living with neurodiversity that in itself is incredibly difficult. Because each of us knows the strength it takes to apologise, not knowing

what the consequence of taking responsibility will be. As we know from those apologies, Deputy Ozouf very clearly does not extend his neurodiversity as an excuse. Absolutely, he does not; nor am I, in my remarks this morning, extending it as an excuse. But I am asking Members to consider what message it sends in how we vote today. A certain Member here to my right talked about something which I do not like to use - a term I do not like to use - but for me, part of what makes Jersey great is that in its functions and in its systems, it can be and is proportionate. It is understanding. The whole of the Parish system is based on being close to members of our community. The Parish Hall Inquiry, whatever the rights and wrongs of this case, is based on giving people a second chance, is based on being merciful. That is part of what makes this such a great community to live in. Therefore, for my part, I have no disagreement with the Commissioner for Standards; I hope she will continue to do her work and that she will do it diligently. But the whole process does lead to a decision in this Assembly, which, for my part, does not cast doubt on the process prior to. We are left as the ultimate decision makers in light of what P.P.C. have asked of us; therefore, we cannot step back from making that decision. We have to make a decision today. I hope that Members will make a decision recognising the proportionality of what is being asked. I cannot, either logically or in my heart, find that this 28- day suspension is proportionate and therefore I ask Members to think about that. Also, as they are passing judgment - I think there is only one other Member of this Assembly who has got experience of passing judgment in another place, but we are being called upon to pass judgment today - that we might be merciful. [Approbation]

12. Connétable R.P. Vibert of St. Peter :

Like many Members, I am finding it very difficult to reach a decision on this. I fully support P.P.C. in the way that, following the report from the Commissioner for Standards, that they believe that they must take this forward and request some form of sanction in respect of Deputy Ozouf . However, I also perhaps have an understanding - and I have spoken about this some years ago in the past - that from the age of 14 through to probably 33, until I was properly diagnosed, I suffered some severe mental health problems from time to time. While we have said we cannot take that into account, I think that somebody who has been through that and continues to suffer in that .. just like Deputy Ozouf mentioned yesterday, I have to put mechanisms in place to cope with certain situations, and sometimes that simply does not work. Therefore, I really do understand how when you are suffering from these forms of mental illness - and I hope the Deputy does not mind me referring to this - that you simply do not realise that your actions are not identical to everybody else. That is a position I found myself in. I thought: "Everybody thinks like this", and I made probably some bad decisions, but I did not really think that my actions were that different from anybody else. But, of course, they were and other people recognised that. It is not always very easy to take advice from other people. I think we have to consider that factor. I also, like Deputy Gorst , consider: "Is this proportionate?" As a Centenier, I have had people not turn up for a Parish Hall Inquiry, and you do consider it disrespectful.

[11:45]

But is it something that warrants sanctioning a Member of the Assembly, and is a speeding offence equally something that we should sanction a Member for? Like Deputy Gorst , the new speed restrictions in St. Peter were introduced and the signs went up while I was on holiday. I was aware that they were coming, but I may or may not have this morning failed to notice at least one of the new restrictions. I am not admitting to anything, but I think I may have done; there is a new stretch along by Marks and Spencer that was not there before, and I may or may not have noticed that that had come in. Anyway, I ask Members to make a sensible decision here. I fully understand the position of P.P.C., but from my own experience of mental health issues, I would find it difficult to support this.

13. Deputy J. Renouf of St. Brelade :

Like others, I hesitate to speak in this debate. We are all flawed human beings, we work in a system that is not perfect, we are subject to a great deal of pressure, and we all make mistakes. But I do think there are some fundamental issues here which we have perhaps been diverted from during this debate. We have committed collectively to a Code of Conduct and to a process for investigating breaches and for determining sanctions, should breaches occur. I think the public rightly expect us to abide by the processes that have been put in place and to act when breaches of standards have been found to have occurred. The case of the former Deputy Prime Minister in the U.K. has been mentioned, and I think what that has shown is the public have an exceptionally low tolerance for politicians who fail to uphold high standards, even when there are mitigating personal circumstances, as indeed there were in her case. Incidentally, was not found guilty of deceit; the relevant section of the judgment on her concluded that she acted with great integrity but she was found guilty of failing to meet the highest possible standards. I do believe that, in Jersey too, the public want us as politicians to take responsibility for our failings and to accept consequences of behaviours that breach the standards to which we have committed. In relation to Deputy Ozouf , I note the following points. I know that Deputy Ozouf has been through an exceptionally difficult period and continues to have challenges, which have been discussed at length, and I have immense personal sympathy for him, as I hope he knows. [Approbation] I also note that he acknowledges and accepts the verdict of the Commissioner for Standards that he is in breach of the standards. The only issue, therefore, is the sanction and the question of proportionality. Is an apology sufficient or should there be real sanction? I do have to raise some significant facts - awkward facts, if you like - because I do note that the Deputy only apologised to the Assembly after an investigation was opened. The Member should not be surprised that the timing of his first apology in the Assembly, a few days after the commissioner had opened an investigation, invites the interpretation, correctly or wrongly, that the apology to the Assembly and to his parishioners, however genuine, was also a response to extreme political jeopardy. I note also that the Deputy promised to respond to the Commissioner for Standards, but did not. For me, this brings the central issue into focus, which is the failure to engage with the commissioner's investigation. For me, this is the central charge because I do think that risks undermining the processes to which we have committed. I think that those actions - or lack of actions, if you like - do not seem like the actions of someone who is taking full responsibility for their behaviour, or who truly recognises the gravity of the situation and accepts that when actions or behaviour fall below the required standards there should be consequences. I note also the wording that the Deputy used in his second apology yesterday regarding his non-attendance at Parish Hall Inquiries: "Of course, I would have wished that the non-attendance at the Parish Hall Inquiries would not have occurred." It is a strangely neutral statement, as if the non-engagement was something that happened to him. As mention has already been made, there has not been an explanation. Nevertheless, the Deputy has accepted that he breached the conduct and, unlike Deputy Bailhache , has not, as far as I know, queried even the question of the 4 different paragraphs of the breach that the commissioner identified. In deciding the appropriate sanction, I think it is appropriate to consider past behaviour. It is not a comparison I want to use, in a way, but it is the only one I can think of: that in court cases, in general, past behaviour is not used in determining guilt; there are exceptions. But it is relevant when it comes to sentencing in a court. The Deputy has already pleaded guilty in the courts to a number of offences in the Petty Debts Court. In this case, he has also conceded that there were breaches. For me, the key issue here is not the criminal issues; it is the process. The process that we committed to as an Assembly. There may be problems with that process; I note that in Guernsey there is an appeal process, which we do not have. There may be problems, indeed, in the way that the process is undertaken, and those might be valid criticisms and valid issues that we should address. But I think the public would say to us: "Well, you have undertaken to follow those Codes of Conduct as they are, and you are able to bring changes to it, should you wish." We have not done so, and this is the process that is in place now. It is the one that we should therefore follow, regardless of whether or not it has flaws. As I said at the beginning, there are flaws in all processes. For me, overall, the question is: has the Member breached the standards? Yes, he has. Has that

reflected badly on the Assembly? Yes, it does. The sanction is interesting; people have raised the question that it is the upper end; it is, in fact, the maximum sanction that can be applied. I think the point that was made at the Parish Hall meeting which we attended was that the problem may be that we do not have a sufficient range of sanctions, not that the sanction is excessive. Taken on its own, without seeing it in the context of a range of sanctions, a 4-week suspension does not sound excessive. It sounds excessive when you place it in the context of the fact that it is the only significant sanction that we have available. I think a 4-week suspension feels proportionate in the circumstances. It was open to Members to bring amendments to reduce it. It could have been reduced to a one-week sanction by amendment - that would have only been one sitting suspended - and no Member chose to do that. We are left with the choice: either we vote for this proposition and stick by the principle that there should be consequences for breaches of the Code of Conduct, or we say that in this case there should be no actions taken as a result of those breaches of the Code of Conduct. I err towards the side of saying that there should be consequences and I will therefore be voting pour.

14. Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat of St. Helier North :

I just want to highlight one thing. I am quite disappointed because we seem to be making light of the fact of a speeding offence that was double the speed limit. [Approbation] This is one of the "Fatal 5" in the Policing Plan for 2025 to 2028. There are all sorts of statistics which will say at what speeds you have various impacts if you have a crash. My disappointment with some of the Members in the Assembly is the fact that we are not recognising that. In a 15 miles an hour zone what you find is many pedestrians. I walk regularly around the roads where I live. There are horses, there are children, there are dog walkers, there are cyclists. Those roads were decided to be put at 15 miles an hour because of the level of activity within them. I recognise that if you hit somebody at 30 miles an hour - which is double the speed limit of a 15 miles an hour zone - that impact is unlikely to have the same impact on an individual than if you were driving 80 in a 40 miles an hour zone. But if you were driving 80 in a 40 miles an hour zone, I would suggest you would have lost your licence because it is deemed to be excessive. In fact, from memory, probably 65 is where you would lose your licence. Now, this is what worries me; people do not think this is a serious offence. I do, and I will not apologise for that. I think this is a significantly serious offence and I will tell you why. I spent 25 years in the police dealing with road traffic incidents of all sorts; not all of them fatal, of course. But also, from a constituency point of view, one of the highest levels of complaints I get is from residents within my constituency about the speed of vehicles. People have been knocked over walking on some of our small roads by pedal cyclists late at night when they have not been seen. I think this is an important factor. When somebody says they do not think this is serious - I want this on record - I do, Sir. I accept that we all make mistakes. When somebody says: "Oh, we have speeded", well, now we need to start considering that fact and stop .. it is difficult; when you drive along a road, you have to concentrate to stay at 15 miles an hour. You have to concentrate to stay at 20 miles an hour. If you look across the Island, we have gone from 15s; we now have many more 20s; we have a lot more 30s. In fact, you might as well never drive more than 15 miles an hour because the roads now across the Island swap and change all the time. But I want to make the point that I think it is a serious offence. The second thing I would like to say is that a lot of people have been concerned about this is double jeopardy. Actually, as a police officer, if you were convicted in a court of an offence, guarantee it, you are on a discipline code and you will be dealt with under a discipline. I am not saying that we are the police, but we are under a code of conduct. We are under a code of conduct. We might like to think that we do not need to be dealt with under that code of conduct, but the public's perception is that we should be.

[12:00]

Like with emergency services, people expect a certain code of conduct. They expect people not to be breaking the rules. From my perspective, I do feel that there has to be some way of dealing with this when a Member breaks the rules, so I will be supporting P.P.C. I have been on P.P.C. in the past. I know it is difficult and I know it is challenging, but I just wanted to make the point that I think speeding is a serious offence.

15. Deputy K.F. Morel :

I think we all agree that speeding is a serious offence, but we also all agree that we have all done it. Therein lies the issue in terms of understanding why P.P.C. has gone straight for this 28-day suspension when a vote of censure, in my opinion, would have been a much more appropriate response and, given other matters, would have allowed escalation elsewhere if required. I spoke earlier for the debate to be held in camera, not because I felt secrecy was required but because I felt humanity was required. One of the things that I really worry about in this Island is division and a lack of humanity, particularly because - as Deputy Renouf has said - we are all flawed human beings. I do fear that, in political debate, it is quickly forgotten that we are all flawed human beings. Every single one of us in this Chamber has offended in different ways, whether that is against loved ones, against family, against the law, whatever it is. We get things wrong; we do things wrong. We have also stood here in this Assembly .. most of us, certainly, will have at some point made a speech saying how we need to help people with mental health conditions, how we need to help and be understanding, how we want greater diversity in this Assembly, and how we must ensure that these things are taken into account and have a more diverse Assembly. As you come up to an election, that will be said a great deal: about the need for diversity in this Assembly. My concern is that when I see a committee jump to a much more severe sanction than is necessary, in my opinion, that it suggests there is an element of hypocrisy. "We want diversity but we are not willing to adapt to diversity." That really worries me because I agree that we should have more people with diverse conditions of all sorts in this Assembly, whatever that diversity is. But in order to do that, we have to then be flexible to adapt to their needs and the public have to be flexible to adapt to their needs. I thought Deputy Gorst spoke incredibly well as someone with experience, because people do have different needs. I was nodding my head when the Connétable of St. Peter was saying that he learnt late that other people did not think like him. That is something I have been learning a lot over the last few years. Apparently, you do not all think like me; this is something strange to me and something that I am learning. That is why my concern here is the public nature of this - but fair enough, that has been dealt with - and then just the level of sanction. Deputy Tadier spoke about a matter before this Assembly many years ago, where I believe that the sanction was a vote of censure. I would suggest that those matters were much more serious in many ways than these because they included, it was found, deceit. This, to my knowledge, does not. I think deceit is very poor; if you are a States Member you should not be deceitful. But if you are a States Member, you should be human and that means you will err and you will make mistakes. I would like to think that, as an Assembly, we try to support people to learn from their mistakes and grow and develop in that way. I do not feel that running to suspension .. which, I also have to point out, and nobody has mentioned this at any point, a Deputy is democratically elected by the people. To take somebody out of this Assembly is basically us saying to the people who have elected that person: "We know better than you right now and we are therefore overturning for a period of time your democratic decision as a people." That is something that has not been mentioned and does need to be mentioned in this Assembly. I think we can become quite judgmental and quite officious and think that we are holier than thou. My problem is that I know I am not holier than thou. I think other Deputies in this Assembly should also understand that they are not holier than thou. We all make mistakes; it is that simple. I feel that, if you are going to seek sanction, you should at the very least start at the bottom and work your way up, not start at the top and go where after that? That is why I find it very difficult to support this proposition. I will continue to listen; my mind is not wholly made-up, but you can see certainly which side I think I am leaning to. I do worry about this Assembly and its penchant for punishment and sanction, because to me that is not what States Members should be doing.

16. Deputy A. Howell of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity :

I, too, want to mirror what Deputy Kirsten Morel has just said. I want to be part of an Assembly that is kind, compassionate and forgiving. We have all made mistakes. I agree with Deputy Le Hegarat that speeding is serious. I agree that we need to put our windscreen discs in the front. I think that the Parish Hall Inquiries are excellent, especially for the youth of this Island, so that they do not become criminalised. But I really feel that this sanction of 28 days not in this Assembly is too harsh and I will not be supporting the P.P.C. in this instance.

17. Deputy D.J. Warr of St. Helier South :

I rise not to say very much at all because I think a lot has already been said, and "humanity" is the word that comes to mind. It just struck me, Deputy Gorst 's commentary; we are a Christian society. There is a famous line which runs in the Bible: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and I think we should remember that sometimes in this. We have got lots of mitigating circumstances. I appreciate Deputy Le Hegarat 's commentary around speeding offences. Nobody died, which is obviously always a positive. It is interesting that Deputy Tadier made this commentary about criticising everybody else, when he himself has actually been sanctioned by this Assembly in the past but failed to mention that.

Deputy M. Tadier :

Sir, would the Member give way?

Deputy D.J. Warr :

Yes, Sir.

Deputy M. Tadier :

I just wanted to know what the Bible says about speeding in green lanes, Sir. The Deputy Bailiff :

Well, that is .. Deputy Warr .

Deputy D.J. Warr :

It is not even worth responding to that, Sir. [Laughter] Grace is what comes to mind, and I think it is really important that we are graceful in this Assembly. I would like to leave it at that.

4.3.17   Deputy M.E. Millar of St. Mary , St, Ouen and St. Peter :

I am also not going to say a great deal, because much of it has been said before. I do share some of Deputy Alex Curtis 's concerns, but there is nothing unusual in a criminal conviction turning into a disciplinary proceeding. That is what this is; it is a disciplinary proceeding. In many workplaces a speeding offence would not trouble the waters at all, unless you were likely to lose your licence and driving was a key part of your role. I was involved, a very long time ago, with an employer who called and said: "We have got a youth worker who has been arrested for possession of class A drugs. Can we suspend him?" Things like that. If you have a youth worker who is possessing class A drugs, then clearly, as the employer, you would want to consider what to do. I am not going to discuss Deputy Ozouf because my issue with this is the process. I thought that the debate that we had in January of last year was the lowest point in my short term in politics, but I think this one is a very, very close second. I agree with Deputy Morel that disciplinary proceedings are held in private. I have chaired and been part of many disciplinary proceedings, and people have lost their jobs as a result of those, but they have been in private. There is no need, really, I do not think .. whether the public need to know the outcome, whether the public need to know what everybody thinks about it, is a question. We have to remember that what is in the public interest and what is of interest to the public are not necessarily one and the same thing. I do think we need to deal with all of these things with compassion. I would really hope that P.P.C. will go away and consider whether this is the best process to follow. There is no reason why we could not set up some form of disciplinary panel with

independent people, if we needed to - which is what happens everywhere else in the public service - to consider such matters like this and not have the humiliating and, I agree, inhumane spectacle of someone's washing being aired in public. There may be many examples that the P.P.C. could look at; I do not know if C.P.A. (Commonwealth Parliamentary Association) have guidelines. We all like C.P.A. and they have some useful things to say. I would hope that P.P.C. will consider how we deal with this type of thing in the future and whether it really needs to be in public. The last thing I would like to say is that I find it quite surprising that some of those who are most keen to have this in public are also those who are most keen to uphold human rights. We talk about human rights a great deal in this Assembly and we bend them and we stretch them and we misinterpret them, and we create new human rights where none exist. But there is a very clear human right to privacy of your private life, your home and your correspondence. I think that we have very, very much strayed into breaching that human right today, and I really hope that P.P.C. will take that into account in future.

Deputy M. Tadier :

Sir, can I raise what I think is a point of order? It took me a moment to process what Deputy Warr had said. He said that I had been sanctioned by this Assembly, but it is simply not true. I was wondering whether he would withdraw that erroneous comment.

The Deputy Bailiff :

I think it is too late for that now because he has finished his .. there is a point of order, I suppose. Is that right? Do you want to withdraw that?

Deputy D.J. Warr :

Sir, I understand that the Deputy was suspended for a day for sending an email around to the Assembly Members. I would wonder if he could confirm that.

Deputy M. Tadier :

I can confirm that is not true, Sir; it never happened. Never been suspended from the Assembly.. The Deputy Bailiff :

Right, leave it; I cannot rule on that so it is not a point of order.

Deputy D.J. Warr :

If that is the case, I withdraw then.

17. Deputy I. Gardiner of St. Helier North :

I really struggle with this debate because I listen to the Members and it feels like if you are supporting P.P.C. you are not human and you are not compassionate. It feels like fully blackmailing. Now, we do need to be human. We do need to deal with the matters. There are some matters for which we do not have the right processes. We talked about sanction and proportionality and we are going into if the disc is there or not; if the speeding was there or not; if engagement with the process was there or not. Deputy Gorst raised it; there is lots of joy and there are lots of new ideas coming with people with A.D.H.D. and from others, and I think that Deputy contributed over the years a lot to this Island. Does it mean that the rules can be broken? I do not know. Actually, no, I do know. I think that Deputy Ozouf said: "I am a long Member of this Assembly." Absolutely, and we are grateful for the contribution. "I was Treasury Minister. I was on all these jobs." When you are a longstanding Member of this Assembly and have spent a lot of time in the Executive, you should know .. Deputy Ozouf should know better what the rules are and what is expected from States Members. We are all expected to do this. I think that one of the difficulties is about personal responsibilities. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, during this term, 3 legal matters arose with Deputy Ozouf , not with other Members. If we are talking about care, I think that it is important to care - I really, really care - but first of all, it is a self-care.

[12:15]

If, because of the different circumstances that I would have, for example, in my life, I am not able to perform for some time as a States Member, I am taking a leave. The person needs to get personal responsibility to get better and to perform. Listening to the chair of P.P.C. - I think it was chair of P.P.C., unfortunately if I did not write it - that while Deputy Ozouf failed to engage with the process and while he did not meet with the Commissioner for Standards and with Parish Hall Inquiries, Deputy Ozouf continued to put propositions and bring them at the States Chamber. So, how are we choosing what a person is able to do and what a person is not able to do? I do not know. For me, care for yourself starts from the beginning. Care for the public - and this is big question - does public is cared by this behaviour? The third thing is care for fellow Members. We have all been put today in this position to debate, and if we are talking about personal responsibility, I think each Member can consider how they would act when there are 3 legal procedures over the top. I feel really confused, crushed, compassion; it is a lot of different emotions. But I do believe that there is a process. It is not one standing thing; it is just so many things came together. I would expect there is a personal responsibility taken in a different way and not just in the word and in acts, so I will continue to listen.

18. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of St. Saviour :

I will try to keep this brief. Like Deputy Gardiner , I am really struggling with this. Deputy Renouf mentioned the different degrees of sanctions and I think that is what I am really stuck on, because this does seem quite severe. Also, Deputy Morel raised the point that the electorate have not consented to this. Of course, I am a representative of the Parish of St. Saviour , of which Deputy Ozouf is also a representative. I am not clear on what that electorate would want us to do, so it feels slightly undemocratic to be making this decision without understanding that; so, that is something that I am still considering in the way that I will vote. Lots of people have mentioned compassion; that is a principle that is at the forefront of everything I do, and I feel really sad for Deputy Ozouf that he has felt forced to disclose a medical diagnosis in order to present some mitigation. Nevertheless, I agree with previous speakers who have stated that standards are standards, and laws are laws, and I feel that the buck does have to stop somewhere. As the creators of those laws and people who have agreed, as part of the role that we are appointed to do, to uphold the very highest standards .. and let us not forget that we are expected not just to comply with the law like any other citizen, but we are expected to attain higher standards of behaviour than the average citizen. That is something that I take very seriously, and I think we should all take that seriously. Something else I have learned from this debate is that we need to have a bit more of a humane approach to each other. It is not just something I have learned from this debate, actually; it is something I have said previously, and I think Deputy Morel mentioned it and Deputy Gardiner did too. I wanted to draw Members' attention to processes that are available via the Diversity Forum. We do have these procedures whereby if something goes wrong sanctions are considered, et cetera, but there are also procedures and discussions that are underway at the moment in the Diversity Forum about how we can help Members who might need a bit more support, who might have disabilities or neurodevelopmental conditions, such as A.D.H.D., to have the support they need to attain those high standards. It is very possible to perform this role to an extremely high standard with disabilities and neurodevelopmental conditions. I would hope that perhaps the Deputy in question, but all other Members who care about this and who have said that we need to have these high standards and that they have compassion for Members with disabilities and neurodevelopmental conditions, that they might get a bit more involved with the Diversity Forum and think about how we could all be helping each other a bit more to attain those high standards. That is my hope for this Assembly. I am still unsure of how to vote on this, given the fact I do think the sanction is a little severe. Somebody mentioned a U.K. Member of Parliament who recently resigned, and I think we do not have that culture in our Assembly of taking those immediate actions to step aside from a role when something has gone wrong. Perhaps we need to do a bit more of that and get ahead of things and say: "I am

really sorry; I did not meet those high standards; this is the action I am going to take", rather than waiting for something to be imposed on us. I know the Deputy does get another speech; I do wonder if he might feel able to do that. I think it might be less painful if that was the approach. I know that other Members, when sanctions have been recommended by P.P.C., have said in their speeches that they recommend that Members vote for it because they accept the sanction. That is just a suggestion for the Deputy ; it is, of course, for him to consider. I wanted just to correct Deputy Warr , actually. In fact, when we look at the data on belief in our society, we are largely and significantly a non- religious society. As a humanist, I could not let that go. But as a humanist, I think it is important that we remember that we are all human, and we do all have varying personal circumstances from time to time. There are many Members who have suffered bereavement and who, I think, can deeply empathise with what the Deputy has gone through. The support is there; the support can be improved. I hope that, collectively, we will reflect on that and consider how we can improve that going forward.

19. Connétable A.N. Jehan of St. John :

Like others, I was asked this morning by the media what way I was going to vote, and I said I did not know. I have to say that while I supported the vote to allow the Deputy to make his statement yesterday afternoon, I was left disappointed with its content as I was expecting more. We have heard this morning in the debate some excellent speeches from both sides of the argument. Deputy Feltham spoke about our employees and how they could be suspended. There is a difference, however, in that suspension in that circumstance is described as a neutral act and, importantly, is with pay. We are being asked to support suspending someone without pay. We have heard from Deputy Ozouf that he remains confident and capable, and from the proposer that the Deputy remains productive with questions and propositions. I would like to echo the comments of the Minister for Justice and Home Affairs with her views about speed. It is not a laughing matter and those people who have suffered as a result of speed would have been horrified to hear some of the comments in this Chamber this morning. The Collision Reduction Plan is a need following the amount of injuries caused, often by speeding drivers. Yes, we have probably all exceeded the speed limits, but as the Minister for Justice and Home Affairs explained, the driving offence was double the speed limit. We have heard a little bit about the Parish Hall system, and Deputy Gorst spoke about its strengths. I think the Parish did show consideration in warning the Deputy not once, not twice, but 3 times to attend an Inquiry. Deputy Morel and Deputy Millar both said employees would not have a case heard in public. I would remind them and Members that employment tribunals are heard in public; indeed, there is a very public case that is live at present in the Royal Court. I find myself still in the same position as when I arrived. I do not believe that I have ever abstained and I will not abstain, but as I stand, I am still not sure of the way that I will vote. None of us have brought an amendment and I am sure I am not the only one who is regretting that now. I will listen to both parties summing up with a great level of interest.

20. Connétable K. Shenton-Stone of St. Martin :

This is such a difficult debate but, fundamentally, we are here to uphold standards. Saying this, I still do not know how I am voting. I have enormous respect for P.P.C., for the Commissioner for Standards and for the Honorary Police. I take the point of a previous speaker who said that we seem to be divided in here, but that if we do vote with P.P.C. we are guilty of not having any kindness or compassion. Well, kindness, compassion and humanity is something that I try to live by. I also do not like the fact that some Members have tried to hijack this with neurodiversity. I have years of experience of neurodiversity because 2 of my family members .. one has A.D.H.D. and one has high- functioning autism. To me, neurodiversity with them is a superpower. They have A.D.H.D., they have high-functioning autism, but they do not go around speeding, they do not go around going through lanes at double the speed. As someone who brought in a proposition for road safety, it is so extremely important. Driving at 30 miles an hour in a 15 miles an hour zone could have caused life- changing injuries or death, so it is not something to be laughed about. It is not something that we

can all say: "Oh, yes." I am somebody who probably annoys people because I do drive within the limits. Because that is just me; I am not particularly keen on driving so I just drive within the limits. I have an old, clapped-out car because that is what I like and I am not a speed king. I am not perfect in any way; none of us in here is perfect in any way. We all have lapses and that is human nature, but we are in elected office and we should raise our standards and be aware that we are open to public scrutiny. It is very uncomfortable but this would not be happening in a States Chamber if we were not elected States Members, so there is something in our life .. we get elected and we have to be aware that we are public figures. I have spoken with Deputy Ozouf at length about neurodiversity and I am always here to be supportive. I do not know how I am going to vote, but we just have a duty to uphold standards and whichever way we vote, I am certain, knowing every single person in here, that whichever way we vote - if we vote pour or we vote contre - we are all Members who have a level of kindness, compassion and sensibility. I do not know how I will vote.

21. Deputy S.G. Luce of Grouville and St, Martin:

There are many and various reasons why I wanted to become a Member of the States Assembly, but passing judgment on my fellow States Members was not one of them. I could have stayed in the youth panel and continued to work there. I could have put my name forward to see whether I might have become a juror, if I was interested in passing judgment. But as the Minister for Planning, people might say: "Well, you pass judgment all the time." But in certain circumstances, if this was a planning issue, we would all certainly be completely conflicted. However, with planning issues we have independent inspectors from the U.K. that we use frequently and they recommend to the Minister how we might move forward. In this instance, we have the commissioner who has investigated and come forward and said: "Yes, there has been a breach and something needs to happen." This, of course, is where we find ourselves now with trying to decide what the level of seriousness is and where the sanction should lie. Like others, I cannot put my hand on my heart and say that I have not exceeded the speed limit at some point in time. Certainly, I can remember times where I had vehicles - tractors, lorries, vans - scattered across Parishes and in yards and sheds and fields, and finding them all with the right insurance disc in the right place was a challenge. But it is interesting to hear about speeding, and I completely concur with the Minister for Justice and Home Affairs, the Constable and others about the seriousness and the effects that speeding can have. But I would say to States Members, if we are going to sit here and pass judgment on a speeding offence, let us have some more evidence. Daylight? Nighttime? How many people were around?

[12:30]

Was it wet? Was it dry? All the sort of questions that police officers would be putting forward in a case if we were to decide the severity of the offence. I do take on board that 30 miles an hour in a 15 is well over the limit, but there could be mitigating circumstances in any offence and we have not heard any. When it comes to the Parish Hall and engaging with the commissioner, that is certainly something that I would not have done. I am sure the Deputy would look back on that and regret it. All of us respect the Parish system entirely. I would have been there waiting at the door, had it been me. But we get back to the point of the proposal from P.P.C. today and where we go. I have to say, I feel very uncomfortable about the level of sanction that is proposed here. I worry about setting precedents for the future, but I completely accept that the Deputy is not without fault - far from it - and he knows that. I do not think the level of sanction is correct but pushing the contre button also concerns me because it sends the signal that I do not think a sanction is appropriate when I do. So where I go I will have to see, but Deputy Tadier said we should not push the abstain button if we are prepared to sit in this Assembly and I usually agree with him. In this instance I worry a lot about the message I send depending on which button I push.

22. Deputy C.S. Alves of St. Helier Central :

The Code of Conduct is part of our contract with the electorate and P.P.C. has a duty of care to the public to ensure that elected officials uphold that contract with the electorate. So in the interest of due diligence and given the seriousness of this matter, it was only right that this Assembly was given the opportunity to consider it. I would like to address some of the comments that were made earlier about the commissioner. Just like we are not here to adjudicate on the law, the commissioner was not adjudicating on breaches of the law; she was adjudicating on the breach of the conduct on the code and that is her job. There was no mistake; she simply noted the Deputy 's failure to abide by the accepted processes and procedures and that is the breach. The commissioner is not expected to be a legal expert; she is an ethics expert. Was Deputy Ozouf 's behaviour in line with the Code of Conduct? It was not, and that should be the focus of this debate. It is disappointing that some are using this debate as an excuse to criticise a commissioner for doing her job. It is never easy to be complained about but we can be 100 per cent certain that the commissioner follows a transparent and fair process. One thing that has not been mentioned, unless I missed it, is that we are lawmakers. That is our primary role as politicians: to make the laws. As such, I feel it is vitally important that we lead by example and that we follow those laws and the processes associated when those laws are broken, otherwise - quite frankly - we make a mockery of the system and ourselves. It is not one rule for us and another for the public. Many Members have mentioned already the Care Inquiry and I would like to mention the use of the term the "Jersey Way" which unfortunately we know has negative connotations. I would rather it did not because I think that COVID showed us that we can really turn that around, but unfortunately it was used to describe a culture of lack of transparency, resistance to change and protection of powerful interests. That inquiry revealed how this ethos fostered coverups. Taken from a simple Google search I found that although the Care Inquiry made recommendations to improve the situation, the term the "Jersey Way" continues to carry a negative perception. Quite recently in 2019 a Scrutiny Panel noted that it was still associated with a failure to support complaints and achieve positive results. We know that the public continues to accuse us of sweeping things under the carpet and refusing to listen and to act. We also know that this is one of the top reasons that people choose not to vote and the reason why we have the lowest voter turnout in the O.E.C.D. (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries. I would like to ask Members: do we really want to reinforce this view? Do we really want to be seen to be unable to hold ourselves up to a code that we signed up for when we took public office? Unlike my Constable, the Constable of St. Helier , I have had constituents contact me, not just on social media and via messages but also in person or even when I am walking through the streets of St. Helier . I think many of us would agree that the public have made their views quite clear on this matter. Public perception matters and I think Members need to remember that none of us would be here without the public. So I hope that Members will think about that when making their final decision.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Thank you, Deputy . Does any other Member wish to speak on the proposition? Accordingly, we move to the final stage of the debate and we will hear first from Deputy Ozouf and then from Deputy Ahier .

23. Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf :

I repeat that I am intensely embarrassed that public time is being taken up over me but I take some comfort from the fact that there has been some incredibly important speeches about standards and the importance of them, which I absolutely agree with. It is a difficult process, as other people said, but it is what it is. I just offer some comments in relation to corrections. We have an oath of office that requires us to be honest and proper in the way that we speak in this Assembly, and so where there have been understandable issues which have been raised during the debate about this specific misdemeanour that I did, I just feel .. because Members have made reference to it and they have basically said if and when that, or whatever, and I just wish to correct for the record. In relation to the Parish Hall Inquiry, and the Constable of St. John , I was in no way undermining the importance

of the Parish Hall Inquiry system; I want to apologise. But it might be helpful - based upon Deputy Ferey 's thing to say - the first issue, one learns a lot about processes. The first one I was told at the roadside and then because of the issue of the insurance disc I said in my statement yesterday that I did the insurance disc and I simply was not reminded of it. I am not criticising the States Police I was not reminded of it, but I did not receive anything in the post. The second one I did but it went unopened; I never saw it. That is because I was moving and other things. The third one I knew about, and what I have said to P.P.C. is that I prioritised .. I knew about it, I prioritised assisting a member of St. Saviour and I put my public duty .. I am sorry, I put my public duty to help an individual on that occasion, and that is the reality. Then I found out that of course I was going to the Magistrate's Court anyway. To deal directly with the Minister for Home Affairs and speeding, because I realised that .. I was informed that the 31 miles an hour was a trigger that would go to the Magistrate's Court anyway. It was the timing of the Magistrate's Court which was the issue, for the avoidance of doubt. I knew at that stage I was going to be going to the Magistrate's and I absolutely agree, if this is any way that I can send out a clear message that the code that we should not speed, I absolutely agree. I fell short on that morning. I know that road, I know exactly where the green lane starts and stops. There are no green lanes in Trinity and St. Saviour , there is in St. Helier , it is a segue in between. I know it and, yes, I was discombobulated because I was going to a family meeting dealing with the issues that I have referred to. I will not go into it. I was late and I was getting told off for being late when I was trying to deal with something. I am sorry but there was no danger, it was not wet, but I do not say that in any way, I just .. I was asked for the context and I am saying it. But I was dealt with by the magistrate after I offered to give a full apology and the magistrate dealt with me and I immediately said that of course I accepted the penalty. I also would like to work with the Constable of St. John ; I only noticed on 20 miles an hour in Longueville yesterday around Waitrose that I want to do. We all must uphold speeding. I am sorry that on that one occasion I was speeding because it was a lapse of judgment. Issues of A.D.H.D.: this is not an excuse, but I do not want people with A.D.H.D. to think that because of the challenges that they have .. which I have masked. I do not joke with the fact that I was regarded I think as a very organised Member of this Assembly, because I had support. I did not realise it at the time but when my support network, both within Ministerial office - that is fine, that is politics - and my own personal situation fell apart, I have had difficulties. It has taken me time to rebuild that but I am determined to do that and I am sorry that I fell short in relation to that. In relation to the Commissioner for Standards herself, I have found real difficulty. The Greffier maybe will know, I spent hours .. to refer to Deputy Renouf , do I take the question of standards seriously? Absolutely. I have spent hours, and any Member that wishes to look - as I have asked people to do - at my computer and see the scale, the hours of attempts that I tried to answer the question but could not deal with the last issue. Activities in the States, we send kindly a draft to the States and then they sort it out, they do all the typographical errors. They deal with it. Fantastic. I was not able to do that for some unknown reason, which I am told is a previous issue. I was not found guilty of breaking the Code of Conduct previously and I am so uncomfortable that I have to defend myself but I have got to say certain things. I live with the 2017 nightmare when I stood aside voluntarily from a Ministerial office because I said: "There is public concern, I am going to step aside, if I have done wrong I will resign." I was put back because I was found to not be wanting, and then there was another issue that was raised which I also then had to deal with in the public domain and I bear the scars of that. But I was not guilty, I was not charged, and I was not found to be against the Code of Conduct. That issue effectively has been a very difficult issue and I need mental health .. I think they call it post-traumatic stress. I was traumatised by that experience because it lasted for 18 months, but I stepped aside, offered to resign, and the Chief Minister said it was a distraction from the Government so I was sacked, and understandably so; I have no issue with that. The issue about Ministerial responsibility is different from that of States Members and I am even nervous about speaking fast because I feel that the Assembly deserves answers to certain things. I take full responsibility for the issues of the Commissioner for Standards and I am sorry that I have found that last step of sending a proper and considered report to the

Commissioner for Standards in the way that I did, because I tried. I tried. I also need to say that I had intended - because I contacted the Greffier and I think the chair of P.P.C., who contacted me immediately after the Magistrate's Court - I was going to make a statement straight away. But then I was advised by people around me who were concerned about my mental health, about the drubbing I got on social media, which I do not look at, and I basically delayed that statement. I apologise for that. I had intended - it is on the record - to make an apology forthwith after I was chased out of the Magistrate's Court by media, which is what we do, we accept that. So I do say to Members politely that the apology yesterday, the first instance since the commissioner has done her report, at my own .. I had no resistance in terms of the decision, I made the decision to do the personal statement to apologise because that is what I think the right thing to do is. Past behaviour: Petty Debts Court. I have to say I have not been proven guilty in the Petty Debts Court. I have been alerted to non- payment of bills, the most significant one of which was not mine but I took responsibility for somebody else's. There was administrative error. If anybody wants to check that, it is the fact, but unfortunately I could not say who that bill was because they were alive and I took responsibility for a family member's bills and there was a mix up, but I could not say because they did not know I was paying his medical bills. So I was not ever, ever, found guilty of not paying a bill. The Petty Debts Court, which I did try to explain to the commissioner, who also said to me during the interview - and P.P.C. has the whole transcript - that the whole transcript was not going to be given to P.P.C. The whole transcript was so they can see it. The transcript does say it was going to be excerpted and the whole thing was sent, so it has got all that information in. Members do not have that of course. On the issue of Commissioner for Standards, sorry, I have learnt. I have tried. I hope Members will forgive that last bit but it is because of the previous issue. I have learnt that now and I am dealing with it, and I have found ways of dealing with it.

[12:45]

The C.P.A. guidance about whether or not this penalty .. I asked the chair of P.P.C. .. I duly attended, I co-operated of course with P.P.C. and went to the meeting. I tried to offer mitigation, I explained all the background, apologised; I do not think any member of P.P.C. would say I did not fulsomely and in my own terms. Then I received the email that I was to be suspended. I emailed the chair of P.P.C., respectfully and properly. as I think it is proper to do. I have not circulated, I have done no lobbying, I have done no criticism of anything, but I just wish to say that I did ask the chair of P.P.C. if he could kindly explain why the most severe sanction had been done because I did not understand how breaches of the code - and that I accepted - to have been found wanting, would result in the most severe sanction that can be made. I also gave examples from across the Commonwealth, 180 Parliaments and assemblies, that I could find no suspension that was proportionate. So I asked whether there was going to be some publication and some information about why P.P.C. had gone to the absolute maximum 28 days, just out of politeness. It is up to Members to decide. I am just wanting to say, I did say that the C.P.A. guidance does also say the issue was that the Commissioner for Standards is not a policeman or woman and that they are not there for being a policeman. So I was discombobulated. I do not understand why there has been an exception made, or there has been any explanation of why this is a proportionate sanction. It is up to Members to decide that, but that is what I said to P.P.C. and I went through in detail and gave Australia, United Kingdom, New Zealand, Canada - because they are Francophonie - France, and loads of other. I had no response. The chair responded to me and said: "It was made clear at the meeting you had at P.P.C. on 14th August that there would be no further correspondence on this matter once the meeting had concluded. The opportunity will be to discuss it in the Chamber." That is it. I still do not understand the proportionality, if I may respectfully say. If we are now going to be operating on a triage of offences then I think that the message needs to be clear for the public as to what it is. If it is going to be for what I have done - and bearing in mind the mitigation - then that is now clear that that is going to be the guide. But I did ask for a guide and I was given nothing. I do not want to have to be in this position to have to defend myself because I have apologised, I have had difficulties, I have worked

very hard to try and deal with those issues because - and Deputy Gardiner said - I carried on as Minister for External Relations when my civil partner died. I carried on. I did everything I possibly could. I also had an uncle that was in the twilight of life which I had 24-hour care for. So it was difficult but I still did the public interest first, serving Jersey and serving individuals, and I continue to do that day-in day-out, as I am sure other Members do. I must say, I have not had one constituent who has raised the issue of my failures in relation to that. They have been welcoming of my assistance, like no doubt the other Deputies. I have honestly not had one criticism directly to me to say: "You should resign" or: "You should do this" or whatever. I am very welcomed for the assistance that I give, and that is what we like doing; we are here to serve people. We are here to serve. Maybe it is my Catholic tradition of having to go to confession and confessing what you have done wrong and then be forgiven. I thought that is what you do and I thought that is what we had. I have not any particular Catholic adherence, I do go to different services in different faith communities because I respect inclusivity. I am not going to say to Members whether they should .. I will abstain because it is like a court, I do not think the defendant should basically vote for their own situation, so I am going to abstain and it is up to Members to decide whether or not what I have had to say, with respect and courtesy and with slight pressure because of the time .. I am so embarrassed this has taken so long and I will sit down. I think I have answered every Member's questions that they have. I have garbled through. I am just looking around to see if there is any Member that has any question that they wanted to have clarification of, because I think I hopefully have answered them at speed and I apologise for that speed. It is an A.D.H.D. trait.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Thank you, Deputy . I note the time. Do Members wish to adjourn or continue? LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED

The Deputy Bailiff :

The adjournment is proposed. Are Members content to adjourn?

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Sir, is there anyone else to speak?

The Deputy Bailiff :

No, just the chair of P.P.C., that is all.

Deputy S.M. Ahier :

Sir, I will be brief.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Are Members content to continue?

Deputy M. Tadier :

Sir, can I ask a point of order? When we get to the vote can you confirm that it needs 25 votes to pass?

The Deputy Bailiff :

It does not need 25; it is a simple majority. The chair of P.P.C. will respond.

24. Deputy S.M. Ahier :

I want to thank everyone who has spoken and I recognise that this has been a very uncomfortable debate for us all. I would particularly like to highlight the excellent speech by the Constable of St. Martin , who has obviously personal understanding of the condition, and that was of great note. I disagree with Deputy Bailhache in relation to the disproportionality argument, but there is something

I agree with him and that is concerning abstention. I believe that this is a binary choice whereby you either believe that Deputy Ozouf should be sanctioned or you do not. When he said stand up and be counted I tend to agree with that sentiment. Deputy Morel mentioned the previous case of lying to the Assembly with a certain Member and the reason why he only got a vote of sanction on that occasion was that suspension was not immediately available then. It was only after there was a third offence during a single term that we could suspend a Member, so that was the only appropriate action that could be taken at that time. Some Members consider this proposition to be a disproportionate response to Deputy Ozouf 's driving offences. I hope that during this debate the speech I made and those of others will have emphasised that there are broader concerns here than just speeding and failing to change a tax disc. Deputy Ozouf , in not attending a Parish Hall Inquiry, set a bad example as a leader to Islanders. He then failed to engage with the Commissioner for Standards until it risked being regarded as a further breach of the code. As an Assembly we need to determine whether we take breaches of our Code of Conduct seriously. Some Members have expressed concern about Deputy Ozouf 's mental health and whether this should be taken into consideration as mitigation of his breaches. I agree that it should be a consideration, but it is a matter for Deputy Ozouf whether he feels that given his health concerns he is currently best placed to serve this Island. Some Members have used this debate as an opportunity to criticise the Commissioner for Standards for her processes. Some have even questioned why she did not fully understand the Parish Hall Inquiry system. The Commissioner should not be required to have a deep understanding of our Honorary Police and practices. She should not really need to know anything about how our court system works. She only needs to know what our Code of Conduct says and whether that code has been breached by a Member's actions. Expecting her to be an expert on our laws would only be a necessity if we also expected Members to be breaking those laws on a regular basis. This Assembly adopted the Commissioner for Standards Law and this Assembly agreed our Code of Conduct. This Assembly created this system. If we do not like it then it is within our gift to change it. A revised version of our code will be lodged for debate by us in a few months' time and I urge Members to come forward with amendments if they do not consider what P.P.C. lodges to be the best way forward. It is vital to democracy that we have a set of standards against which we can be held accountable to the public by each other and by ourselves, but good conduct is just as much about our culture as it is about formal rules and structures. Building and maintaining a strong, ethical culture requires constant vigilance and we must remember that a single transgression damages the public's trust in an individual Member, and an individual Member's bad behaviour can damage the trust placed in the institution to which they belong. One of the key factors which affect whether someone is regarded as trustworthy is others' perceptions of their behaviour and, crucially, whether this meets expected standards. Where this Assembly is concerned, trustworthiness relates not only to the behaviour of individual Members but also to our ability to show that behaviour is of a high standard and will be dealt with if it falls short. If we wish to rebuild Islanders' trust in this Assembly, we have to demonstrate that we care when our code is breached, otherwise there is no point in having one. I make the proposition, and I call for the appel.

The Deputy Bailiff :

The appel has been called for. Members are invited to return to their seats. I ask the Greffier to open the voting. If all Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, then I ask the Greffier to close the voting. I can announce the proposition has been adopted.