PPC Minutes (Part A) - 10th November 2025

Minutes.

A1. The Minutes of the meetings held on 6th, 23rd and 28th October and 5th November 2025, having previously been circulated, were taken as read and were confirmed.

Code of Conduct for Elected Members/

accompanying guidance.

A2. The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A4 of 10th October 2025, considered the draft revised Code of Conduct for Elected Members and associated guidance.

The Committee recalled that following extensive consultation with Members, the Commissioner for Standards and the wider standards network, the revised Code and guidance had been lodged "au Greffe" (P.35/2025 refers). However, the Committee had subsequently agreed to withdraw the proposition in response to comments from Members at 2 briefing sessions held in June 2025, and on receipt of a comprehensive submission from Deputy M.R. Scott of St. Brelade . The Committee noted that initial discussions with Deputy Scott on the provision of training on Ethical Standards had informed the decision to revise the Code.

A rules-based approach had been adopted in respect of the revised Code in order to make it more accessible. The Committee noted that the House of Commons, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Welsh Senedd had also adopted rules-based Codes, which were succinct and allowed related areas to be grouped together logically. In this context, the Committee recalled the 5 headings within the draft Code, as follows –

• Behaviour

• Register and declaration of interests  

• Relationship with the Civil Service  

• Confidential Information

• Commissioner for Standards

The Committee had considered the revisions proposed by Deputy Scott and those arising from the briefing sessions with Members. Deputy Scott had suggested grouping rules together under different headings and increasing the number of rules from 26 to 34, altering the definition of certain behaviours and removing definitions attached to the Nolan Principles (as established by the UK Committee on Standards in Public Life). The most significant change proposed by Deputy Scott required the Privileges and Procedures Committee to review complaints made by Members against other Members in the first instance and determine whether the complaint should be considered by the Commissioner for Standards. The Committee had rejected Deputy Scott 's proposal on the basis of the perception of political bias and partiality. The Committee had not, in the main, supported the amended wording suggested by Deputy Scott .  

Having considered the draft Code of Conduct as revised, the Committee approved the same and requested that arrangements be made for a proposition amending Standing Orders to include the revised Code be lodged au Greffe'.

Women's Parliamentary Caucus: Diversity Forum Sub-Committee.

A3. The Committee, with reference to Minute No. A6 of 17th March 2025, of the Committee as previously constituted, received an oral report from Deputy L.K.F. Stephenson of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter in her capacity as Chair of the Diversity Forum Sub-Committee, in connexion with the draft terms of reference for the Women's Parliamentary Caucus (WPC).

The Committee recalled that the previous Committee had considered a proposal from the Diversity Forum Sub-Committee for the establishment of a WPC. This arose from a recommendation in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association's (CPA) Gender Sensitive Parliament Self-Assessment Audit. The Committee as previously constituted had requested that, in the first instance, the Diversity Forum Sub-Committee draft terms of reference and a scoping document for the WPC to establish key objectives, operating procedures and outcomes and these had now been shared with the Committee. It had also been suggested that the Sub-Committee undertake a survey of Members to ascertain the level of interest in establishing a WPC and to ensure the approach proposed by the CPA was appropriate within Jersey's parliamentary context. It was recognised that elements of a WPC were already encompassed within the work of the Diversity Forum and concerns had previously been expressed regarding duplication and the potential for the group to become politicised.

It was noted that WPCs were considered important mechanisms for empowering women parliamentarians and strengthening their political impact. WPCs also helped to change parliamentary working environments by advocating for equality between male and female Members and parliamentary staff. Currently, almost 100 parliaments around the world had a functioning WPC.

The Committee discussed the proposed WPC and its terms of reference and was advised that, subject to its approval, the Caucus would be launched ahead of the 2026 public election. The benefits arising from the same in the context of attracting female election candidates were highlighted. In response to questions regarding the resourcing implications arising from the establishment of the WPC, the Committee was assured that the States Greffe would only be required to support 2 meetings each year, to include agenda preparation and the production of the official records. Elected Members would work independently on other ad hoc initiatives/projects, such as securing speakers or arranging events for Members of the WPC. It was not envisaged that the States Chamber would be required for meetings of the WPC. It was noted that an application for funding from the CPA for a keynote speaker at the WPC launch event in 2026 had been prepared by officers at the request of the Diversity Forum Sub-Committee. The CPA had agreed to extend the deadline for submissions to allow time for the Committee to consider the terms of reference. The point was made that it was unlikely that the CPA would provide funding for all WPC initiatives and, in response to questions from the Chair regarding the longer term financial implications, with specific regard to the impact on the States Assembly budget, it was noted that any requests for funding would have to be considered by the Privileges and Procedures Committee. The Chair also sought clarification with regard to the distinction between the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians (CWP) and the WPC. It was noted that CWP was a network of women members of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association parliaments which included 2 elected Members of the States. Deputy Stephenson advised that whilst Jersey was represented on the CWP, the WPC would allow all women parliamentarians to come together to share ideas and support each other. She stated that the WPC would complement the work of the CWP. The remit of the WPC also differed from that of the Diversity Forum Sub-Committee in that the latter sought to promote inclusion and equal opportunities for all.

The Committee endorsed the establishment of the WPC, as detailed above and noted that the application for funding for the launch event would be submitted to CPA.

On a related matter, Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade suggested that the establishment of the WPC could act as a prototype or model for the formation of other informal groups of parliamentarians who wished to come together to discuss specific issues, similar to All-Party Parliamentary Groups at Westminster.  

Draft Treaties (Jersey) Law 202-.

A4. The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A11 of 6th October 2025, received Deputy Sir P. M. Bailhache of St. Clement and Ms. V. Bell, Senior Legal Adviser, Law Officers' Department in connexion with the draft Treaties (Jersey) Law 202-, the purpose of which was to provide for the States Assembly to approve treaties.

Deputy Bailhache advised that the aforementioned legislation had been developed in response to P.6/2023, which requested the Legislation Advisory Panel, in consultation with the Privileges and Procedures Committee, to bring forward legislation by which all Treaties and International Agreements signed by a Minister under entrustment from the United Kingdom Government or which were to be extended to Jersey under the United Kingdom Government's ratification process, were subject to ratification by the States Assembly before they came into force. Deputy Bailhache summarised the provisions of the draft Law and advised that it was anticipated that it would be lodged au Greffe' at the end of November 2025, for debate early in the new year.

The Committee thanked the delegation for attending and they withdrew from the meeting.

The Committee requested that a comment be drafted confirming its satisfaction with the draft legislation.

Risk-based exclusion policy.

A5. The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A6 of 6th October 2025, received Mr. Y. Fillieul , Assistant Greffier of the States, Chamber and Members Support and gave further consideration to the draft risk-based exclusion policy.

It was recalled that the Committee as previously constituted had approved the draft policy in principle, subject to consultation with Members and staff. The previous Committee had supported a proposal from Ms. K. Wright, Chief Executive Officer of Freeda, who had led the Violence Against Women and Girls Taskforce, to introduce a Risk-Based Exclusion Policy for Members following the introduction of the same by the House of Commons. Under the House of Commons risk-based exclusion policy, a risk assessment was undertaken by a panel of MPs appointed by the Speaker. This approach was not proposed in Jersey.

The Committee had recently discussed the draft policy and the feedback received from Members and staff in this connexion. Members gave further consideration to feedback arising from the consultation and agreed the following –

the guidance which supported the policy should strongly recommend against excluded Members participating in constituency drop-in sessions. To inform the approach, it was agreed that advice should be sought in relation to safeguarding practices/pathways in the context of staff convicted of offences covered under the Policy;

that the Policy should apply irrespective of whether the Member concerned had pleaded guilty or not guilty;

that the scope of the Policy should not be extended to cover offences other than those listed;

that the Bailiff should not be required to adjudicate on whether to exclude Members in accordance with Policy;

that Members should be required to report offences committed overseas; and

that the Policy provisions would apply irrespective of who the offence was alleged to have been committed against; Some discussion followed around prioritising safeguarding when the alleged victim was an elected Member. It was accepted that enabling excluded Members to participate remotely presented the only viable option. However, it was suggested that practical arrangements could be determined on a case by case basis by individual Committees or Panels and that the Scrutiny Liaison Committee might also wish to consider this matter.

The Committee noted that the Policy would be updated to reflect the above and re-presented for formal approval at the next scheduled meeting.

Standing Orders 16/67 and 103 – personal statements: review.

A6. The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A8 of 6th October 2025, considered correspondence dated 23rd October 2025, from the Chair of the Committee to the Bailiff in connexion with Standing Orders 16 – leave to make a personal statement, 67 – personal statements and 103 – procedure for debates.

The Committee recalled that the Bailiff had granted Deputy P.F.C.  Ozouf  of St. Saviour leave to make a personal Statement at the States meeting on 8th September 2025, in accordance with Standing Orders 16 and 67. The statement directly related to the Committee's proposition which sought  Deputy   Ozouf 's suspension for breaching the Code of Conduct.  Given the existing procedural context, as set out in Standing Order 103 (2)(e), the Committee had considered the following options -

amending Standing Orders 16 and 67 to preclude personal statements which directly related to suspension/confidence/censure propositions, given that the Member who was the subject of the proposition could speak twice in accordance with Standing Order 103(2)(e); and,

making broader provision within Standing Orders for the Bailiff to refuse leave to make a personal statement if it was considered that granting leave would constitute a breach of other Standing Orders (such as Standing Order 103). Guidance along the lines of that which was produced in 2013 could be developed and circulated to support the application of any revisions to Standing Orders.

The Committee had requested that draft amendments to Standing Orders which encompassed the options set out above be prepared for its consideration and had also agreed to consult the Bailiff on the proposals.  

It was noted that the Chair had recently met the Bailiff in connexion with the above matter and he had expressed support for amendments to Standing Orders to ensure that Members were unable to make personal statements in relation to suspension propositions. The Committee noted that this had been confirmed in an electronic mail message dated 31st October 2025.  

The Committee noted that draft amendments to Standing Orders/guidance would be presented for consideration at a future meeting.

Jersey Youth Assembly –amendments to Standing Orders.

A7. The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A5 of 6th October 2025, considered draft amendments to Standing Orders designed to facilitate direct interaction between the Jersey Youth Assembly (JYA) and the States Assembly. An accompanying report prepared by the Deputy Greffier of the States in this connexion was also noted.

The Committee recalled that it had recently endorsed a refreshed approach to the JYA which aimed to increase opportunities for young people in Jersey to engage with democracy. A new Standing Order had been drafted which would allow the JYA to present reports to the Assembly in its own right and Ministers would be required to present a response. JYA reports could be considered at in-committee debates with Members of the JYA being able to participate in accordance with Standing Order 972(b), which allowed any person in the Chamber for an in-committee debate to speak during the debate. The Committee had agreed that one in-committee debate each year would be appropriate and that a maximum of 3 members of the JYA could participate in the debate. The Committee had also agreed that the number of reports presented by the JYA should be limited to 3 per year.  

The Committee approved the amendments to Standing Orders and requested that these be lodged au Greffe'.

Forthcoming business.

A8. The Committee considered propositions which had been lodged au Greffe' for forthcoming meetings of the States Assembly and requested that comments be drafted in response to P.101/2025, which had been lodged au Greffe' by Deputy R.S. Kovacs of St. Saviour on 4th November 2025.

The Committee also noted that the Draft Public Records (Jersey) Law 202- had been lodged au Greffe' on 28th October 2025 for debate on 20th January 2026. Certain issues arising from the draft legislation were noted and Members were advised that a report would be prepared for the Committee's consideration ahead of the debate.

Action list: Privileges and Procedures Committee.

A9. The Committee noted the actions and outcomes arising from previous meetings. 

Minutes and action lists: Privileges and Procedures Sub-Committees.

A10. The Committee noted the Minutes of the meetings of the various Sub-Committees of the Privileges and Procedures Committee and the actions and outcomes arising from the same.

Highways (Jersey) Law 1956: display of election or referendum advertising materials.

A11. The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A3 of 6th October 2025, noted an electronic mail message from the Senior Operations Manager, Infrastructure and Environment Department, in connexion with amendments to the Highways (Jersey) Law 1956, which introduced an exemption to allow the display of election or referendum advertising materials on or above the highway without the need for a licence.

The Committee recalled that concerns had been expressed regarding condition No. 11 of the Highway (exemption for campaign advertising material) (Jersey) Order 202-, which stipulated that campaign advertising material must not be put up or taken down before sunrise or after sunset. This had been considered problematic in that candidates usually erected campaign material in the evening when traffic volumes were lower. The potential for difficulties in the event of a by-election during the winter months when daylight hours were reduced had also been highlighted.

The Committee noted that this issue had been raised with the Legislative Drafting Office with a view to amending the wording of the condition to create a degree of flexibility whilst prioritising safety above the display of election or referendum advertising materials. In terms of specific penalties for non-compliance with the conditions of the Order, attention was drawn to Article 5 of the Highways (Jersey) Law 1956.

The Committee noted the position.

Standing Orders 21A, 21AA and 164: suspension of elected Members.

A12. The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A13 of 8th September 2025, considered a report which had been prepared by the Deputy Greffier of the States in connexion with Standing Orders 21A, 21AA and 164, which related to the suspension of elected Members.

The Committee recalled that it had recently requested a review of the existing procedural context associated with the suspension of elected Members. It was noted that the aforementioned Standing Orders made provision for the suspension of Members either as a sanction or as a neutral act, through the adoption of a proposition.  In both cases, the suspended Member was prevented from undertaking parliamentary functions, although suspension as a neutral act did not prevent a Member from accessing the States Building and other facilities. A Member suspended as a sanction was not remunerated during the period of the suspension and could be suspended for a maximum of 28 days. No such prescribed limit existed for suspension as a neutral act and debates on whether to suspend a Member as a neutral act were held in camera. It was noted that a Member could also be suspended in accordance with Standing Order 111 if the Presiding Officer required the Member concerned to withdraw from the Chamber, a provision which had not been used to date.

The Committee was also mindful of other sanctions, to include a vote of censure, in accordance with Standing Order 21B and a vote of no confidence in an officeholder or body appointed by the States, in accordance with Standing Order 22. The States could not remove an elected Member from office and there was no recall mechanism, albeit that the Committee had agreed to reconsider this provision. Members recalled that the question of recall mechanisms had been posed in connexion with the consultation associated with the revised Code of Conduct but had gained no traction with Members. Subsequently, P.102/2025 had been lodged au Greffe' by Deputy R.S. Kovacs of St. Saviour in which amendments to Standing Orders were requested in connexion with breaches of the Code of Conduct and, more specifically, disqualification mechanisms and varying lengths of suspensions (paid and unpaid). Members could also be disqualified in accordance with the States of Jersey Law 2005 or the Connétable s (Jersey) Law 2008. It was recalled that former Senator S. Syvret had been disqualified under Article 8(2) of the States of Jersey Law in 2010 due to the fact that he had not been resident in the Island for a period of 6 months. In 2014, former Deputies S and T. Pitman of St. Helier had also been disqualified under Article 8(3) of the same Law when they had been declared bankrupt.

The Committee noted that there was limited precedent with regard to the use of the Standing Orders associated with suspension. Most recently, the States had agreed to suspend Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf of St. Saviour in accordance with Standing Orders 21A and 164 as a sanction for certain breaches of the Code of Conduct. The Committee's attention was drawn to a ruling on the application of the aforementioned Standing Orders which had been issued by the Bailiff ahead of the debate on the suspension proposition. The only other example of the suspension of a Member in recent history related to a decision of the former Bailiff , Sir P. M. Bailhache , to suspend Senator S. Syvret in 1996, in accordance with a previous procedural context.

The Committee noted the background to the existing procedural context, which arose from the adoption of P.1/2022, which had been lodged au Greffe' by the Committee as previously constituted. Prior to this, suspension as a neutral act was not possible and suspension as a sanction was based on a graduated system whereby a Member could be suspended for a maximum of 7 days on the first occasion, 14 days on the second occasion and 28 days on the third occasion, with remuneration reducing gradually and entirely in the latter case. The Committee noted approaches adopted in respect of the suspension of elected Members in other jurisdictions such as Guernsey, Westminster, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man.

The Committee discussed the above matter and considered the following –

what, if any, limit should be specified in Standing Orders as a maximum suspension period;

should debates on suspension as a neutral act always be held in camera?

should Standing Order 164 be clarified to make it clear which activities a suspended Member could undertake, making specific reference to constituency work?

should Standing Orders reference other sanctions which might follow from a breach of the Code of Conduct?

should Standing Order 111 stipulate that suspension in this context was a sanction or a neutral act?

should provision be made for recall elections?

Whilst the Committee did not reach firm conclusions in relation to all of the above, various suggestions were noted as follows –

automatic suspension (without debate) as a neutral act where a Member pleaded guilty to an offence in a case which was to be heard by the Royal Court;

automatic suspension (with debate) as a neutral act linked to offences where the maximum sentence would result in the disqualification of an elected Member. (It was noted that, under the current arrangements, if a Member received a suspended sentence they would not be disqualified. The Committee concluded that this was unsatisfactory and noted that amendments to the States of Jersey Law 2005 would be required to revise the position);

arguments for and against suspension without remuneration for an extended period (3 months was suggested);

consultation with the public in relation to any revised procedures agreed and proposed by the Committee; and,

the amalgamation and enhancement of certain Standing Orders in relation to suspension.

Ultimately, the Committee expressed support for an automatic suspension provision in situations where an elected Member was charged with an offence which would attract a sentence of 3 months or more. In such cases the Committee would lodge a proposition (which would be debated in camera) to suspend the Member as a neutral act.

The Committee noted that the States Greffe would draft revised procedures based on the above for consideration at a future meeting.

On a related matter, Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade questioned whether it was appropriate for the Bailiff / Deputy Bailiff to preside when the Committee's proposition in relation to the suspension of Deputy Ozouf was debated on 11th November 2025. Deputy Tadier emphasised that he did not wish to cast aspersions or question the integrity of the Presiding Officer but was acutely aware of the Bailiff 's dual role as Chief Justice and Presiding Officer and the public perception of the Bailiff presiding during the debate. The Greffier advised that whilst the impending Royal Court case in relation to the criminal charges against Deputy Ozouf would not be the focus of the debate, she agreed to raise the matter with the Bailiff .

Selection of an elected Member to preside at meetings of the States.

A13. The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A9 of 6th October 2025, received an oral report from the Chair in connexion with a recent meeting with the Bailiff to discuss a proposal to establish the convention of selecting an elected Member to preside at States Meetings.

The Committee recalled that, having expressed support for the above, it had requested that a draft proposition be prepared which was less prescriptive than P.86/2024, which had been lodged "au Greffe" (and subsequently withdrawn) by Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter . The Committee had also requested that the Bailiff be consulted on the proposal and correspondence dated 23rd September 2025, had been received in which a number of questions had been posed with regard to the practical application of the proposal.      

The Committee noted that the Bailiff was supportive of the proposal and had suggested that 2 working days' notice be provided in respect of the requirement to preside in the absence of the Bailiff or Deputy Bailiff . A discussion ensued with regard to the selection of Members to preside. It was noted that it had been suggested that the Chair/Vice Chair of the Privileges and Procedures Committee should preside in the absence of the Bailiff / Deputy Bailiff , with the Greffier and the Deputy Greffier presiding on an ad hoc basis to cover comfort breaks.  

The Committee noted that draft proposition would be prepared in connexion with the above for consideration at a future meeting.

Children's Rights Impact Assessments

A14. The Committee, with reference to Minute No. B1 of 16th June 2025, of the Committee as previously constituted, considered a report which had been prepared by Government officials in connexion with revised advice in relation to Children's Rights Impact Assessments (CRIAs) and the requirements under the Children (Convention Rights) (Jersey) Law 2022.

It was recalled that the legal advice supported the view expressed by Deputy Sir P.M. Bailhache of St. Clement that the current requirement to include information in propositions and amendments in relation to the impact (or otherwise) of the proposal on children went beyond the provisions of the Law. A CRIA was only necessary where it was considered that a proposition or amendment could have a direct or indirect impact on children, in accordance with Article 3 of the Law. It was further recalled that the Committee as previously constituted had agreed to consult the Council of Ministers on any proposed procedural changes in relation to the matter.

The Committee noted that revisions to the process had been accepted by the Government and, with immediate effect, the preparation of a CRIA would no longer be necessary where there was no direct or indirect impact on children and revised guidance would be circulated. The Committee was advised that the Office of the Children's Commissioner had been consulted in relation to the revised approach and had confirmed that it would continue to monitor all CRIAs published on the States Assembly website. Analysis of CRIAs completed during 2024 showed that 72 per cent did not identify any impact on children arising from proposals/amendments.

On a related matter, the Committee noted that the Chair was due to respond to a question from Deputy Bailhache in connexion with the ongoing requirement of the States Greffe for a CRIA when there was no impact on children.

The Committee noted the position.

Draft Elections (Jersey) Amendment No. 2 Law 202-.

A15. The Committee, with reference to Minute No. A12 of 8th September 2025, considered the draft Elections (Jersey) Amendment No.2 Law 202-.

The Committee recalled that a commitment had been made to avoiding substantive amendments to the aforementioned Law in the lead up to the public election in accordance with the Venice Commission recommendations. However, the Committee had approved a request from the Judicial Greffier to progress 2 minor administrative changes to Articles 24(3) and 47.

The proposed amendment to Article 24(3) switched responsibility for the production of ballot papers for a public election from the Electoral Administrators (EAs) to the Judicial Greffe. It was noted that the Judicial Greffe had identified a UK provider who would undertake the postal voting process at a cost of £34,000. The Committee was advised that the Judicial Greffe employed around 25 temporary staff to assist with the administration of elections, including the pre-poll process. Any increase in postal voting, which had been supported and promoted by the Committee as previously constituted, would place an additional administrative burden on the Judicial Greffe. The Judicial Greffier was keen to accept the tender but the Parish authorities did not support this, preferring to continue with the existing arrangements.

Turning to Article 47, which related to the designation of counting stations, the Committee noted that here has been some disquiet from EAs and Jurats about the Sunday election and it had been suggested that the count be held the day after the public election. The Committee noted that the Law allowed for the Autorisés to determine when the count took place. The Committee recalled that mistakes had been made due to fatigue in previous elections, culminating in major issues in 2022 when the Returns form was incorrectly completed in at least 4 constituencies. This meant that the breakdown of results had not been uploaded to vote.je for nearly a week.   

The current Law stated that the present arrangements required the count to take place at the polling station. This would obviously present a particular challenge if the count was held the following day in electoral districts where schools were used as polling stations. Consequently, it was proposed to amend the wording of Article 47 to align with that set out in Article 26, which placed responsibility for determining where the count was held with the Jersey Electoral Authority (JEA), in consultation with the Autorisés. This would enable the Town Hall (or another venue) to be used for all of the St. Helier constituencies in 2026 and could allow for a move to a central location for the whole Island, should a decision be made to use external election service providers in the future.

Having considered the draft legislation, the Committee approved the same and requested that it be lodged au Greffe'.

Date of next meeting.

A16. The Committee noted that the next scheduled meeting would be held on 1st December 2025, at 9.15 am in the Blampied Room.