PPC Minutes (Part A) - 8th September 2025

Privileges and Procedures Committee (7th Meeting)

8th September 2025

Part A (Non-Exempt)

All members were present, with the exception of Deputy K.L. Moore of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter .

Deputy S.M. Ahier of St. Helier North , Chair

Deputy C. S. Alves of St. Helier Central , Vice Chair

Deputy M. R. Ferey of St. Saviour

Deputy L. K. F. Stephenson of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter Deputy T.A. Coles of St. Helier South

Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade

In attendance -

L-M. Hart , Greffier of the States

W. Millow , Deputy Greffier of the States

E. Patterson, Secretariat Officer, Specialist Secretariat

C. Tucker, Secretariat Officer, Specialist Secretariat

K. M. Larbalestier, Principal Secretariat Officer, Specialist Secretariat

Note:  The Minutes of this meeting comprise Part A only.

Minutes.  A1.  The Minutes of the meetings held on 7th, 15th and 28th July, 5th, 14th, 21st

and 29th August 2025, having previously been circulated, were taken as read and were confirmed.

Automatic  A2.  The Committee, with reference to Minute No. A13 of 2nd June 2025, of the Voter  Committee as previously constituted, received an oral report from the Greffier of the Registration  States in connexion with the Automatic Voter Registration Project.

project.

The Committee recalled that, in adopting P.27/2025 – draft Elections (Electoral Registers) (Jersey) Amendment Law 202-, the States had approved changes which enabled a move to Automatic Voter Registration, replacing the current paper-based opt in' system with a database created from the People Directory. In practice, this meant that, rather than completing an annual statement which listed those eligible for inclusion on the electoral register, members of the public who were over 16 years of age and who met the residency criteria would automatically be included on the register. It was anticipated that this would make it easier for people to vote and would remove barriers to voting.

The Committee noted that system testing had commenced later than anticipated due to resourcing issues and the inclusion of additional work in relation to the Tirage system  (jury  selection).  Consideration  would  be  given  as  to  whether  annual statements should also be issued ahead of the 2026 public election, dependent upon the progress and outcome of the testing.

The Committee noted the position.

E-petitions A3. The Committee, with reference to Minute No. A4 of 16th June 2025, of the system: review Committee as previously constituted considered a report which had been prepared

by the Deputy Greffier of the States in connexion with proposals for a revised e- petition system.

It was recalled that the previous Committee had decided to review the existing system in response to concerns and, as part of the review, had conducted a public survey. The results revealed that the main issue appeared to be that expectations exceeded actual outcomes, with the lack of a tangible decision causing frustration. Consequently, alternative approaches which addressed the issues raised had been explored.

Members noted that the former Committee had supported a revised approach whereby a petitioner would have the option of engaging directly with a States Member with a view to that Member lodging a proposition, similar to the existing paper petition process. It would be made clear to petitioners who did not wish to engage with Members that a vote on an e-petition would only be possible if a Member lodged a proposition. The Committee noted that Standing Orders could be amended to alter the parameters for e-petitions, by virtue of reviewing thresholds and outcomes.

Turning to the thresholds that currently applied, the Committee noted that 1,000 signatures were required to elicit a Ministerial response and 5,000 triggered consideration of an in-committee debate. The Committee's attention was drawn to statistics to date in relation to e-petitions and it was noted that 89 petitions had reached the threshold for a Ministerial response and 8 had been considered for an in- committee debate. The impact of reducing the thresholds to 500 for Ministerial responses and 2,500 for an in-committee debate was noted at 132 (Ministerial responses) and 24 (in-committee debate).

The Committee considered the proposals and recognised that the existing system continued to attract public criticism, with letters to the media and opinion pieces having been published in the Evening Post (copies of which had been provided). The Committee noted the following options for revising the system, to include the advantages and disadvantages –

disbanding the e-petition system (this had been publicly suggested);

removing the requirement for action in response to e-petitions (also publicly suggested);

fully aligning the paper and e-petition systems (it was noted that there were no thresholds for paper petitions);

retaining the existing system; or

addressing the principal concerns in relation to the existing system (ie, the lack of a tangible outcome).

The Committee discussed the above options and noted various suggestions from Members, to include introducing a Ministerial question and answer session when a petition met the threshold for a Ministerial response and removing the option for in- committee debates entirely; a proposal which was not supported by the Committee. Some discussion ensued around levels of engagement by the States Greffe with petitioners and the provision of contextual information in relation to e-petition topics. It was noted that whilst the Greffe supported the administration of the e- petition system, any responses which could be perceived as political would not be appropriate. Ultimately, tangible/improved outcomes relied upon collaboration between petitioners and elected Members.

Having explored the matter, the Committee agreed to retain the existing system with

19 7th Meeting 08.09.2025

information  on the  States Assembly website  being bolstered to better manage expectations in relation to outcomes and also to raise awareness of how to influence change via engagement with Members. Reference was also made to links with the proposals for a lobbying register, which was being developed by the Machinery of Government Sub-Committee.

On a related matter, the Committee noted that further work was required to improve access to e-petitions to avoid discriminating against individuals who did not have online access.

Remote  A4.  The Committee, with reference to Minute No. A8 of 2nd June 2025, of the participation in  Committee as previously constituted, considered draft amendments to Standing States  Orders, together with an accompanying report which had been prepared by the Meetings:   Deputy Greffier of the States in connexion with remote participation in States proposed  Meetings (Standing Order 55A refers).

amendments to

Standing  The Committee recalled that 2 propositions had been lodged au Greffe' by the Orders.   previous Committee, both of which sought to amend Standing Order 55A. The

propositions had been subject to a reference back' to the Committee with a call for further  consultation  with  Members  on  the  subject.  Consequently,  a  survey  of Members had been conducted, the results of which were noted. Draft amendments to Standing Orders had been prepared for consideration by the Committee based on the responses received.

The Committee noted that the proposed amendments had been structured to allow for separate votes on the following –

1. The reinstatement of remote participation during emergency periods or where a quorum in person could not be achieved due to a risk to health.
2. Members could request remote participation if absent at the start of the day for health or wellbeing reasons.
3. Members could request remote participation if they were required to leave the Chamber for health or wellbeing reasons.
4. Members could request remote participation if absent at the start of the day for caring responsibilities.
5. Members could request remote participation if they were required to leave the Chamber for caring responsibilities.
6. Members would not be expected to partake remotely if doing so would be detrimental to their health and they would retain the right to be marked as ill or absent due to parental responsibilities.
7. The Greffier would record Members' remote participation in the minutes, including  the  justification  under  Standing  Order  55A  for  that  remote participation.
8. The   Bailiff  would  issue  guidance  on  remote  participation,  following consultation with PPC (attention was drawn to the draft guidance). Members would be required to follow that guidance.

It was noted that Standing Order 55A would need to allow for remote participation when a Member could not attend meetings of the States in person in accordance with the Risk-Based Exclusion Policy which was being developed. Some discussion ensued around paragraph g above and whether it was appropriate for the reasons for remote participation to be formally recorded in all cases, with specific reference being made to those who were excluded under the aforementioned policy. It was agreed that paragraph g should be separated/amended to allow Members to vote separately, as follows –

The Greffier would record Members' remote participation in the minutes;

The justification under Standing Order 55A for remote participation would be recorded in the minutes.

Deputy M. Tadier advised the Committee of his reservations in relation to the breadth of the Risk Based Exclusion Policy. With regard to remote participation, he was concerned about the potential for abuse and suggested that attendance in person could ultimately become the exception rather than the rule, albeit that the States met only once every 3 weeks.

The Committee approved the proposed amendments, subject to the revision of paragraph g, as detailed above and the removal of paragraph h. It was agreed that a briefing should be arranged for Members ahead of the amendments being lodged.

Selection of an  A5.  The Committee considered a report which had been prepared by the Deputy elected  Greffier of the States in connexion with a report and proposition entitled Selection Member to  of an elected Member to preside at States Meetings', which had been lodged "au preside at  Greffe" by Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter (P.86/2024 refers). meetings of the

States.  The Committee noted that Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade had requested that

further consideration be given to the terms of the aforementioned proposition, which had ultimately been withdrawn by Deputy Gorst .

The Committee recalled that the Committee as previously constituted had presented comments on the proposition which highlighted the fact that an amendment to the States of Jersey Law 2005 would be required to facilitate the implementation of the proposal. The former Committee had also noted that the proposal did not go beyond the elected Member presiding at meetings of the States; that is to say, the Member concerned would be unable to exercise any functions beyond this.

The Committee noted that an amendment to Standing Orders would also be required to implement the proposal. In terms of the implementation of the proposals, if a proposition of this  nature was adopted, an open ballot for selection  could be undertaken in accordance with Standing Orders. Consideration would have to be given as to whether candidates would make statements and respond to questions before the ballot. The process for nominations would also require consideration. In this context, the Committee recalled that the terms of the proposition prevented the Chair of any Committee or Panel established under Standing Orders from being selected. If this element of the proposal was supported, it was suggested that the selection should take place after other appointments.

The Committee discussed the terms of the original proposition and Deputy Tadier made the case for bringing forward a broader, less prescriptive proposition which sought to establish the convention of selecting an elected Member to preside at States Meetings.

The Committee supported the proposal on the basis of the approach set out above by Deputy Tadier and requested that a draft report and proposition be prepared. It was agreed that timing was key given the limited life of the Assembly as presently constituted. However, this could be addressed by setting a commencement date which coincided with the reconstitution of the States Assembly after the 2026 public election. The Committee noted that the Bailiff would be consulted on the proposal.

21 7th Meeting 08.09.2025

Jersey Youth  A6. The Committee, with reference to Minute No. A7 of 28th April 2025, of the Assembly – Committee as previously constituted, considered draft amendments to Standing amendments to  Orders designed to facilitate direct interaction between the Jersey Youth Assembly Standing  (JYA) and the States Assembly. An accompanying report prepared by the Deputy Orders.  Greffier of the States in this connexion was also noted.

The Committee was advised that the previous Committee had been briefed on a refreshed approach to the JYA which aimed to increase opportunities for young people in Jersey to engage with democracy, as follows –

- establishing a closer relationship with the Assembly to enhance visibility;

- combining the work of the Jersey Youth Parliament (JYP) and the JYA;

- renaming the JYP as the JYA, to reflect its renewed focus and closer working relationships; and

- adjusting the age range of participants from 12-18 to 14-19 years old.

The  Committee  as  previously  constituted  had  endorsed  the  new  format  and supported the principle of amendments to Standing Orders to facilitate the same. 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. During the drafting of the proposed new Standing Order an alternative approach had been suggested which extended authority to the JYA under Standing Order 35 to submit reports to the States Assembly in its own name. The extension of Standing Order 35 to encompass the JYA also had the effect of allowing it to comment on propositions; a matter which had not been considered by the previous Committee.

The  Committee  considered  the  proposed  amendments  to  Standing  Orders,  as detailed above and, in particular, the reference to in-committee debates. Members were mindful of discussions in relation to e-petitions (Minute No. A3 refers) and the public dissatisfaction with in-committee debates and, more particularly the lack of a tangible outcome. The likely frequency of in-committee debates arising from JYA reports was also raised. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade suggested that the proposal could be perceived as prioritising the views of one group over another and suggested that other groups may wish to benefit from similar arrangements. He also questioned whether the JYA was truly representative of the views of all young people, with specific regard to the manner in which its members were selected. The Deputy was of the view that direct interaction with the States Assembly was not required to legitimise the remit of the JYA. He recalled that previous Youth Parliament debates had been hosted in the States Chamber with some Members observing from the gallery and Ministers participating in debates. The Deputy Greffier advised the Committee  that  the  revised  approach  arose  from  the  recommendations  of  the Independent Child Care Inquiry and, in particular, the need to establish the voice of the child. Some dissatisfaction with the previous arrangements for JYP debates had also been expressed.

Having reached no firm conclusions on the proposals, the Committee endorsed a recommendation for a briefing from officers with operational responsibility for the JYA.

Common- A7.  The Committee considered a joint newsletter prepared by the Jersey branches wealth  of  the  Commonwealth  Parliamentary  Association  (CPA)  and  the  Assemblée Parliamentary  parlementaire de la Francophonie (APF), which set out the activities undertaken by

Association  both groups during 2024.

and Assemblée

parlementaire  The Committee noted that the newsletter provided an insight into the extent of the de la  involvement of the Jersey sections of the CPA and APF in the activities of the wider Francophonie:  organisations, including details of conferences attended by Members, the benefits 2024 activities  arising  from  increased  understanding  of  parliamentary  roles  and  information report.  sharing.

Having considered the newsletter, the Committee requested that the Greffier of the States make the necessary arrangements for it to be presented to the States.

23 7th Meeting 08.09.2025

Standing Order  A8.  The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A5 of 15th July 2025, 64.  considered a report prepared by the Deputy Greffier of the States in connexion with Standing Order 64.

The Committee recalled that the aforementioned Standing Order related to questions without notice to Ministers. The Standing Order provided 45 minutes for Ministers to answer questions and this time was divided into 3 question periods. The Chief Minister was required to answer questions during the third question period, with other Ministers answering questions during the other periods in rotation (with the possibility of altering the sequence within each rotation). The Greffier of the States was required to distribute a rota to Members which set out the meeting dates at which Ministers would answer questions.

The  Committee  discussed  the  Standing  Order  and,  more  specifically  the arrangement whereby any time not used during questions to Ministers was carried over to the Chief Minister. The Committee considered the equity of the current arrangements and the potential for abuse of process. It was noted that, during 2025, there had only been one occasion when the 15 minute period for questions to Ministers had not been fully utilised and the time had been reallocated to the Chief Minister. Nevertheless, the Committee requested that a draft amendment to Standing Orders which abolished this practice be prepared for its consideration. It was agreed that the amendment could be lodged at the end of the year, together with any another necessary housekeeping amendments.

States  A9. The Committee, with reference to Minute No. A6 of 2nd June 2025, considered Members'  a report which had been prepared by the Deputy Greffier of the States in connexion activity  with a request from the Scrutiny Liaison Committee (SLC) for Members' activity records.  records  on  the  new  States  Assembly  website  to  include  references  to  any

propositions/reports that Members had been involved in bringing forward in their capacity as a member of a Committee/Panel or as an Assistant Minister.

The Committee recalled that, at present, official parliamentary business brought forward by a Committee/Panel appeared on the website under the name of the relevant body, and not individual Members of the Committee/Panel. The request received from the SLC had been considered by the previous Committee from a procedural perspective and it was noted that the current practice aligned with Standing  Orders  19  and  35,  which  related  to  the  lodging  of  propositions  or amendments/the presentation of reports or comments by Ministers. Whilst the States of Jersey Law 2005 afforded Ministers the opportunity of delegating authority to Assistant  Ministers  for  specific  areas  of  responsibility,  official  business  was lodged/presented in the name of the Minister. Similarly, Standing Orders did not provide  for  the  lodging/presentation  of  official  business  by  Scrutiny Panel/Committee Chairs and official business was progressed in the name of the relevant Panel/Committee.

It was noted that the Committee as previously constituted had concluded that the current approach and procedural context was entirely satisfactory and this decision had been communicated to SLC. However, SLC remained dissatisfied with the arrangements. It was noted that technical problems associated with the new website had resulted in some inconsistencies/errors in terms of the information which had been included on the website and these issues had now been resolved to achieve uniformity of approach.

The Committee's attention was drawn to the information which currently appeared on Members' profile pages and it was recalled that the previous Committee had also approved the inclusion of training attended by Members. However, this had not been

progressed following adverse feedback from some Members.

Members considered the adopted principles which informed decisions in respect of the type of information that was included on the website. There had been some disagreement between the Committee as previously constituted and the SLC on the amount of information which was included and political certainty was required to inform future resource allocation. With the foregoing in mind, the Committee was requested to consider whether profiles should –

only contain basic information relating to the individual Member, to include contact details, records of service and voting records;

continue to include information about constituency and parliamentary work, or;

be enhanced to include any parliamentary work Members were involved in (in whatever capacity).

The Committee discussed the matter and a variety of views were expressed, with some  Members  supporting  SLC's  proposal  and  others  being  content  with  the existing approach and procedural context. Potential challenges arising from SLC's proposals  were  highlighted;  to  include  a  situation  whereby  a  Member  of  a Committee or Panel did not support the Committee/Panel decision in relation to the approval of a proposition/report/comments. Under SLCs proposal, that item of business  would  appear  on  the  Member's  profile  irrespective  of  whether  they supported it or not. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade made the point that public opinion was not formed solely on the information included on Members' profile pages on the website.

Having been unable to reach a majority decision in relation to the above matter, the Committee agreed to reconsider the proposal at the next scheduled meeting when all Members  were  present.  If  the  Committee  decided  to  support  the  proposal amendments to Standing Orders 19 and 35 would be required.

On a related matter, Deputy C.S. Alves pointed out that, unlike the Minutes of meetings, which contained the full names of Members and their respective titles, other documents on the States Assembly website referenced Members by their titles alone. This made undertaking research particularly difficult as it was not clear who held which position at a particular period in time.

States of  A10.  The Committee considered correspondence dated 29th August 2025, from the Jersey  Chair/ Deputy Chairs of the States of Jersey Complaints Panel to the Chief Minister Complaints  (a copy of which had been received by the Committee) in connexion with the Panel: letter to  decision  of  the  Minister  for  the  Environment  and  the  Chief  Officer  of  the Chief Minister  Environment Department to boycott a public Hearing by a Board of the States of re actions of  Jersey  Complaints'  Panel,  convened  in  accordance  with   the  Administrative the Minister  Decisions (Review) (Jersey) Law 1982.

for the

Environment/  The Committee recalled that it had recently approved a report for presentation to the Chief Officer.  States  in  respect  of  a  complaint  from  Mrs.  M.  Le  Cornu  against  the Minister/Department.  Whilst  the  Department  and  previous  Ministers  had  fully

engaged with the Panel in the past, in this particular case, the Minister/Department had taken the unusual decision not to attend the public Hearing. Press releases issued by the Minister and the Chief Officer suggested that the basis for this decision related to dissatisfaction expressed by Departmental officers about an earlier Hearing which had been convened in respect of a separate complaint against the Department. There had been no discussion with the Board about these matters and the press releases had been issued in advance of the Ministerial response to the Board's findings and

25 7th Meeting 08.09.2025

recommendations.

The Committee noted that the Complaints Panel, which comprised members of the local community who gave of their time freely, had expressed serious concerns about the decision of the Minister and the Chief Officer not to engage with a statutory process prescribed by the States. The Panel believed that this action highlighted the vulnerability of the existing system to the vagaries of Government and the sensitivities of individual Ministers and Officers. The Panel also suggested that some basic misconceptions appeared to exist with regard to its role, as evidenced by suggestions from the Chief Officer that Hearings should be conducted in a similar manner to planning tribunals/Scrutiny reviews.

The  Greffier  of the  States  advised that  Environment  Department  officers  had attended a number of Hearings over the years and many were familiar with the Panel's processes, which were publicised on the States Assembly website. The Greffier  and  officers  of  the  States  Greffe  also  regularly  provided  support  to complainants  and  Government  officers  throughout  the  life  of  a  complaint.  It appeared that the officers who had attended a recent Hearing were unfamiliar with both the role of the Panel and the manner in which Hearings were conducted. The Greffier had met the Chief Officer of the Department to discuss the decision not to engage with the Panel and issue press releases ahead of the Hearing and there had been a tacit acknowledgement that the matter could have been dealt with differently.

The Committee noted that the Minister for the Environment was due to make a Statement at the States meeting later in the day in response to the findings of the Panel in respect of a complaint against the Department.

Forthcoming  A11.  The Committee considered propositions which had been lodged au Greffe' business.  for forthcoming meetings of the States Assembly.

The Committee recalled that draft comments had been circulated electronically on 3rd  September  2025,  in  respect  of  the  4  amendments  to  the  Draft  Elections (Senators) (Jersey) Amendment Law 202-. Majority decisions had been achieved in respect of the comments in relation to the first, second and fourth amendments, with the following Members responding in the affirmative –

first amendment – lodged "au Greffe" by Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier – Deputies T.A. Coles of St. Helier South , M. R. Ferey of St. Saviour , S.A. Ahier of St. Helier North and L.K.F. Stephenson of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter ;

second amendment – lodged "au Greffe" by the Comité des Connétable s – Deputies T.A. Coles of St. Helier South , M.R. Ferey of St. Saviour , K.L. Moore of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter , S.M. Ahier of St. Helier North and L.K.F. Stephenson of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter ; and,

fourth amendment – lodged "au Greffe" by Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade – M.R. Ferey of St. Saviour , K.L. Moore of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter , S.M. Ahier of St. Helier North , L.K.F. Stephenson of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter . The Committee was in receipt of correspondence from the Judicial Greffier with regard to this particular amendment and the financial impact of the same should it be adopted.

A majority decision had not been received in respect of the draft comment on the third amendment, which had been lodged "au Greffe" by Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity . It was understood that the Deputy had now lodged an amendment to the amendment  and it was recognised that the deadline for

presenting comments on the same had passed.

Elections  A12.  The Committee, with reference to Minute No. A11 of 24th February 2025, (Jersey) Law  considered  a  report  prepared  by the  Greffier  of the  States in  connexion  with 2002: proposed  administrative amendments to the Elections (Jersey) Law 2002, as proposed by the amendments.  Judicial Greffier.

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 Judicial Greffier  had  requested  that  the  Committee  consider  progressing  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 above matters, the Committee approved the drafting of amendments  as  set  out  above.  In  doing  so,  some  Members  expressed  strong opposition to the count being held the day after the election, albeit that it was recognised that the Law allowed the autorisé to determine when the count took place.

Matters for  A13. The Committee noted the following matters for information – information.

1. a  letter  dated  22nd  July  2025,  from  the  Chief  Minister  regarding  the management of email correspondence to all States Members;
2. a letter dated 25th July 2025, from the Chair to the President of the SLC on

27 7th Meeting 08.09.2025

the ability to comment on social media posts on the States Assembly website. Some discussion followed in relation to this matter, with Deputy M.   Tadier  of  St.  Brelade  disagreeing  with  the  previous  Committee's decision to allow Members to request that comments on any post featuring them alone be disabled.

3. a letter dated 25th July 2025, from the Chair to the President of the SLC in connexion with the draft Code of Conduct; and,
4. a letter dated 18th August 2025, from the Chair to Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf in connexion with the Committee's decision to lodge a proposition seeking his suspension in relation to breaches of the Code of Conduct and Deputy Ozouf 's response dated 20th August 2025.

It was noted that a ruling had been received from the Bailiff to the effect that, if the proposition was adopted, Deputy Ozouf could continue with constituency work. The Greffier of the States added that the Bailiff had granted leave for Deputy Ozouf to make a personal statement in connexion with the matter. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade requested that the Committee review the provisions of Standing Order 67, which related to personal statements. Deputy C.S. Alves of St. Helier Central requested that the Committee also review Standing Orders 21A(3) and 164, which related to the suspension of elected Members.

Date of next  A14. The Committee noted that the next scheduled meeting would be held on 6th meeting.  October 2025, at 9.15 am in the Blampied Room. Apologies in advance from Deputy

C.S. Alves of St. Helier Central were noted.