PPC Minutes (Part A) - 9th February 2026

Minutes.

A1. The Minutes of the meetings held on 26th and 28th January 2026, having previously been circulated, were taken as read and were confirmed.

States Members' IT provision.

A2. The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A6 of 24th February 2025, received a report which had been prepared by the Assistant Greffier, Chamber and Members' Support in connexion with the current Information Technology (IT) provision for States Members.

The Committee recalled that the current arrangements in respect of IT provision had been in place since 2020. Members received a grant of £850 to assist with the purchase of equipment (typically a device of their choice) to enable them to carry out their duties. Approximately 50 per cent of Members of the Assembly as presently constituted had used all or part of the grant. Those Members who were appointed to Ministerial/Assistant Ministerial positions were offered Government funded laptops, in a similar arrangement to the provision of devices to staff. However, Members who used devices which had not been provided by the Government did not receive the same support from the Modernisation and Digital Department and this often led to frustrations. Government managed devices were configured and controlled centrally to provide secure and easy access to organisational data and benefitted from protection against security threats, including viruses. Members using their own devices were also unable to access the Connect learning portal and sometimes experienced challenges when attempting to access data via non Microsoft devices.

In order to address the above issues, it was proposed to offer all Members a laptop (which would remain the property of the organisation) in place of the grant (option ). Members who chose to accept this offer would be required to use a gov.je electronic mail address and would also receive support from the IT service desk. Regular hardware and software updates would be applied, devices would be protected from security threats, access to Connect would be enabled and devices would be compatible with existing equipment in buildings. However, access to certain websites and online services was restricted on Government issued devices and some third party software could not be installed. Alternatively, the existing arrangements could be maintained (option one) or all Members could be offered the choice of a laptop or the grant to assist with the purchase of equipment (option 3). The Committee's attention was drawn to the financial implications associated with each of the above options.

It was recommended that the Committee support option 2 on the basis of implementation with effect from June 2026 (after the next public election).

The Committee discussed the above matter and noted concerns from some Members with regard to restrictions on accessing certain applications, such as ChatGPT on Government devices. Ultimately, majority support was expressed for option 3, which would see Members being offered the choice of a Government laptop (with associated IT support being provided) or a grant to assist with the purchase of equipment (no IT support would be provided). The Committee noted that the overall financial impact of this option on the States Greffe would be marginal, with higher costs in 2026 reducing in 2027/28/29.  In response to questions from Members, the Greffier of the States confirmed that whilst there was no cut off point during the life of the Assembly for grant applications, applying for a grant on the cusp of an election could be perceived as a misuse of administrative resources.

Privileges and Procedures Sub-Committees: publication of correspond-ence.

A3. The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A2 of 26th January 2026, received an oral report from Deputy T.A. Coles of St. Helier South in which he requested that consideration to be given to the publication of correspondence from the Privileges and Procedures Committee's Sub-Committees on the States Assembly website.

The Committee recalled that, at present, only correspondence from Scrutiny Panels was published on the website. If the Committee was minded to support Deputy Coles ' proposal, website related work to facilitate this had been costed at £1,200.

The Committee endorsed the above recommendation and agreed that the new arrangements should be put in place after the 2026 public election. The Committee also agreed that the Chair of the Privileges and Procedures Committee should be advised when correspondence from Sub-Committees was to be published.    

Machinery of Government Sub-Committee: lobbying guidance and register.

A4. The Committee, with reference to Minute No. A4 of 28th April 2025, of the Committee as previously constituted, considered Lobbying Guidance and an Engagement Code which had been produced by the Machinery of Government (MOG) Sub-Committee, together with an accompanying report and proposition and a covering report from the Assistant Greffier of the States, Chamber and Members' Support.

The Committee recalled the background to the development of the aforementioned Guidance and Engagement Code and noted that it was designed to promote openness and transparency and improve engagement. It was noted that both the Guidance and the Engagement Code had been shared with the Council of Ministers and the Executive Leadership Team. In his capacity as Assistant Chief Minister, Deputy M.R. Ferey of St. St. Saviour advised that whilst some Members of the Council of Ministers had supported the development of a register of lobbyists, the general feeling was that the proposal was overly bureaucratic.

The Committee discussed the proposal and noted the view of Deputy S.M. Ahier of St. Helier North , Chair that the proposal could inadvertently have a chilling effect' on civic engagement, particularly for individuals wishing to contact elected Members and could create confusion over what constituted lobbying. Deputy Ferey added that concerns had also been expressed by the Council of Ministers with regard to the administrative burden. It was noted that, if adopted, Government officers would be required to maintain the register on behalf of the executive. In his capacity as Chair of the MOG Sub-Committee, Deputy T.A. Coles of St. Helier South explained how it was envisaged that the process would work in practice and stated that lobbying was an acceptable part of the democratic process.

Having considered the above matter, the proposition was approved for lodging by a majority and the Greffier of the States was requested to take the necessary action. It was agreed that Deputy Coles should act as rapporteur during the debate.

Deputies Ahier and Ferey requested that their dissent from the Committee's decision be recorded.

Referendum Commission reports.

A5. The Committee welcomed Advocate M. Boothman, Chair, Referendum Commission and Mr. C. Dobbing, Commissioner and considered 2 reports prepared by the Commission for presentation to the States, together with a covering report from the Deputy Greffier of the States.

The Committee recalled that the Referendum Commission had been established in accordance with the Referendum (Jersey) Law 2017, and its 2 key functions were to advise on the proposed wording of a referendum question and appoint lead campaign groups. Since the Law had come into force the Commission had only been required to advise on the wording of a referendum question on one occasion in late 2017, when the States had agreed that a referendum should be held in relation to the role of the Bailiff as President of the States. Ultimately, the referendum had not been held so the Commission had not been asked to exercise its powers in relation to the appointment of lead campaign groups. Nevertheless, the Commission had considered how it would fulfil its statutory duties and had prepared 2 reports in this connexion. The first report, entitled Referendums in Jersey, built upon R.49/2019, which had been prepared by the Commission as previously constituted. A second report entitled Designation of Lead Campaign Groups had also been prepared.

The Committee noted the content of the aforementioned reports and discussed the role of the Commission with Advocate Boothman and Commissioner Dobbing. In response to questions from Members, Advocate Boothman advised that guidance suggested that referenda should not be held on the same day as a public election as issue blurring could occur. Whilst it was noted that a number of countries held referendums at the same time as national elections, the effect on the result of the election/referendum was unknown. Holding a referendum concurrently with an election to boost voter turnout was generally not recommended on the basis that it could cause voter fatigue and confusion and risked diminishing the importance of a specific issue. With regard to the use of yes/no questions, it was noted that this binary format forced a decisive, clear and unambiguous outcome. Turning to the lead time for referendums, a minimum period of 2 – 3 months was considered acceptable.

The Committee noted the challenges which had been experienced in terms of recruiting to the Commission, with one vacancy remaining. Advocate Boothman advised that the aim was to ensure that the Commission was gender balanced to ensure better representation and also to raise the profile of the Commission after the election.  

The Committee thanked Advocate Boothman and Commissioner Dobbing for attending and they withdrew from the meeting.

Having noted that the Commission was unable to present reports to the States in its own right, the Committee approved the presentation of the reports produced by the Commission and requested that the Greffier of the States take the necessary action.

States Member's survey.

A6. The Committee received an oral report from the Assistant Greffier of the States, Chamber and Members' Support in connexion with the 2026 States Members' Annual Survey, which collected feedback on the services provided by the States Greffe with a view to ensuring that these remained relevant and accessible.

The Committee noted that the Survey was anonymous and would open prior to the election and close around mid-April 2026. The survey was designed to elicit information in relation to the uptake of newer services such as Members' Resources and Constituency Support. A summary of responses would be shared with the Committee and, ultimately, all States Members.

The Committee noted the position.

Hansard/

transcripts of Scrutiny Hearings: improved search functionality on States Assembly website.

A7. The Committee, with reference to Minute No. A8 of 26th January 2026, noted a response from Epiq Transcription Services, the external service provider who produced transcripts of meetings of the States Assembly/Scrutiny Hearings from audio, in connexion with options for improving the search functionality associated with transcripts on the States Assembly website.

The Committee had been advised that the cost of providing an automated transcript of States Meetings with enhanced search functionality was estimated at approximately £30,000. This involved using artificial intelligence to transcribe parliamentary sessions from audio to text. However, 100 per cent accuracy could not be guaranteed and a disclaimer would be required (as was the case on digitalStates.je – a website which had been developed by Deputy A.F. Curtis of St. Clement ). The Committee had agreed that the option of uploading a searchable version of the original (and official) Hansard report, which was quality assured by the States Greffe, should be explored, as opposed to creating another automated version at additional cost.  

Members were advised that a response to the above request had now been received from the external transcription company. The challenges of providing the transcript in an excel format, which had been suggested by the website developer as a means of improving the search functionality, were noted together with the impact on the style, formatting and the turnaround time for the production of the official report. The likelihood of increased charges had also been highlighted.  

The Committee noted the position.

Pan-Island Commissioner for Standards: annual report - 2025.

A8. The Committee considered the 2025 annual report of the Pan-Island Commissioner for Standards, in accordance with the Commissioner for Standards (Jersey) Law 2017.

The Committee recalled that the Commissioner for Standards investigated complaints in relation to alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct for elected Members and reported to the Committee on the outcome of any investigations. The Commissioner could also provide advice on any other matters relating to standards or conduct.

The Committee noted that a total of 19 complaints had been received by the Commissioner during 2025, 6 of which had been deemed admissible. Of the 19 complaints received, only one had been submitted by a Member against another Member. 4 complaints against Ministers had been received (comprising 8 allegations) and 16 complaints against Members (87 allegations). One investigation had been temporarily suspended and an update on this would be provided in the 2026 annual report. In addition to considering complaints, the Commissioner had provided advice to Members when requested and contributed to a review of the Code of Conduct.

The Committee noted that the Islands of Jersey and Guernsey had provided funding to enable the Commissioner to attend a course on artificial intelligence (AI) law, policy and governance. The increased use of AI raised complex issues around accountability, transparency and ethical judgement. The training sought to equip Commissioners with the conceptual and regulatory frameworks required to interpret and apply established principles.

It was noted that the Commissioner's pay for 2025 was similar to previous years at £20,718.

The Committee requested that the Greffier of the States make the necessary arrangements for the report to be presented to the States.  

Policy on bringing animals on to the parliamentary estate.

A9. The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A1 of 26th March 2025, of the Committee as previously constituted, gave further consideration to the policy which had been adopted in connexion with the presence of dogs in any of the buildings across the parliamentary estate, to include the States Building, Morier House and the Hill Street offices.

The Committee recalled that Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier Central had requested that it review the policy position during a recent meeting of the States Assembly. The Committee was advised that the policy had been introduced in response to incidents whereby an animal had caused injury and damaged furnishings. Whilst these incidents had been reported after the event, the absence of a definitive policy had left individuals feeling unable to raise concerns at the time. The important role of assistance dogs in supporting those with disabilities was recognised but the presence of non-assistance animals in the workplace required consideration in the wider context of health and safety.

The Committee recalled that only trained assistance and security dogs were permitted within the UK parliamentary estate. This aligned with statutory obligations outlined in the Equality Act 2010. It was noted that, in the workplace, non-assistance animals were permitted at the discretion of UK employers and there was no legal requirement to do so. However, employers were required to manage risks relating to animals under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. Emotional support dogs were not included in the classification of an assistance dog under the 2005 Regulations.

The Committee noted that Deputy Ward was concerned that the policy had been implemented in response to the behaviour of a single animal. Deputy T.A. Coles of St. Helier South suggested that consideration could be given to adopting a more flexible approach in respect of dogs in the Hill Street offices. However, the Committee recognised that it would be impossible to ensure the safety of all users and that the existing policy mirrored the policy for Government buildings. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade highlighted some challenges arising from the adoption of the policy which, in one case, meant that a Member preferred to attend meetings remotely as they were unable to bring their dog on to the parliamentary estate. Deputy Tadier also referenced growing trends towards extending family friendly concepts to include dogs, driven by the fact that pets were considered to be part of the family.

The Committee concluded that the current policy was appropriate and should remain in place to ensure the health, safety and comfort of all building users.

Code of Conduct for elected Members: guidance.

A10. The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A1 of 28th January 2026,  considered guidance which had been produced to support the recently adopted Code of Conduct for elected Members (P.102/2025)

The Committee noted that the guidance aimed to provide clarity around the Code of Conduct. Whilst the guidance was unenforceable, it was recognised that the Commissioner for Standards might reference this when considering a complaint.

The Committee approved the guidance and requested that the Greffier of the States arrange for it to be presented to the States.

On a related matter, Deputy T.A. Coles of St. Helier South suggested that the Code of Conduct and other relevant policies which applied to Members should be uploaded to the States Members' Teams channel for ease of reference.

Draft Elections (Electoral Registers) Amendment (Jersey) Commence-ment Act 202-.

A11. The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A1 of 23rd June 2025, considered the Draft Elections (Electoral Registers) Amendment (Jersey) Commencement Act 202-.

The Committee noted that the Act brought the Elections (Electoral Registers) (Jersey) Amendment Law 2025 into force on 17th March 2026. The Electoral Registers Law amended the Elections (Jersey) Law 2002 in relation to electoral registers and made consequential amendments to other legislation.

With regard to the Automatic Voter Registration project, the Committee noted that testing had been ongoing since before Christmas with only minor issues being identified. The Committee noted that when the legislation was enacted live testing could be undertaken.   

The Committee approved the legislation and requested that the Greffier of the States arrange for it to be lodged au Greffe'.

Risk-based exclusion policy.

A12. The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A2 of 1st December 2025, gave further consideration to the risk-based exclusion policy, which had recently been circulated to Members. In this connexion, the Committee also noted an associated draft proposition.

The Committee was advised that additional feedback had been received from a Member in connexion with the proposed wording of a letter included as an appendix to the policy. The letter made reference to excluded Members considering resigning from the States as a result of the reputational impact arising from criminal charges. The Member concerned believed that whilst this might be appropriate in some cases, it may not apply in every circumstance.

With the exception of Deputy C.S. Alves of St. Helier Central , the Committee agreed that the aforementioned wording should be removed. The Committee requested that the Greffier of the States make the necessary arrangements for a proposition to be lodged au Greffe'.

Computer-readable legislation project: Legislative Drafting Office.

A13. The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A19 of 26th January 2026, approved the presentation to the States of a report which had been prepared by the Legislative Drafting Office in connexion with a computer-readable legislation project, which aimed to drive improvements in legislative drafting.

The Committee recalled that the project considered improvements to the quality of drafting and the readability of legislation. Outcomes had been shared with other legislative drafting offices across the Commonwealth and with the technology community.

The Greffier of the States was requested to take the necessary action.

Forthcoming business.

A14. The Committee noted propositions which had been lodged au Greffe' for forthcoming meetings of the States Assembly.

The Deputy Greffier of the States drew attention to the following propositions –

Draft Planning and Building (Jersey) Amendment Law 202- which had been lodged au Greffe' on 3rd February 2026, by the Minister for the Environment. Among other things, the amendment enabled the States Assembly to make Regulations setting out the procedure to be followed when lodging a new Island Plan, making amendments or interim revisions to the Plan. The Committee was advised that a draft comment would be prepared in response to the proposition in connexion with procedural implications.

Draft Public Finances Law (States Funds) (Jersey) Amendment Regulations 202-, which had been lodged au Greffe' by the Minister for Treasury and Resources on 4th February 2026, sought to replace the Consolidated Fund with 2 new funds: the General Revenue Fund for day-to-day spending and the Jersey Capital Investment Fund for spending on infrastructure and other assets. The Committee noted that consequential amendments to Standing Orders would be required and the Minister would lead on these.

The Committee noted the position.

P.101/2025 – Breaches of the Code of Conduct – review of Standing Orders.

A18. The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A9 of 1st December 2025, gave further consideration to the matter of the suspension of elected Members and, in this connexion, received 2 reports prepared by the Deputy Greffier of the States. The second report responded to P.101/2025 – Breaches of the Code of Conduct – review of Standing Orders, which had been lodged au Greffe' by Deputy R.S. Kovacs of St. Saviour and adopted by the States Assembly.

The Committee recalled that it had recently reviewed the current provisions for the suspension of elected Members and had concluded that some amendments to existing processes/Standing Orders/legislation were required. These included a determination that standards reports should not be published where it was deemed that no breach of the Code had occurred; the adoption of a risk based exclusion policy (Minute No. A13 refers); automatic suspension where an elected Member was charged with an offence which attracted a sentence of 3 months or more; and, disqualification if a Member received a suspended sentence of 3 months or more.  The Committee had also presented a comment in response to P.101/2025, which requested a review of Standing Orders in relation to breaches of the Code of Conduct. This included consideration of disqualification mechanisms and varying lengths of suspension (paid and unpaid). It was recalled that the Committee was required to present a report to the States no later than 31st December 2026, with its findings and recommendations. The States had also adopted an amendment to P.101/2025, which had been lodged au Greffe' by Deputy M.R. Scott of St. Brelade which sought to ensure that the review encompassed all Standing Orders which related to breaches of the Code of Conduct, to include disqualification mechanisms.

The Committee noted the terms of reference which had been drawn up for the aforementioned review, as follows -

a review of the disqualification criteria as set out in the States of Jersey Law 2005 and the Connétable s (Jersey) Law 2008;

consideration of the introduction of recall mechanisms;

a review of the Commissioner for Standards (Jersey) Law 2017 and Standing Orders relating to complaints about the conduct of elected Members, with a specific focus on investigations; determinations by the Privileges and Procedures Committee and appeal mechanisms;

consideration of the definition of sanctions associated with breaches of the Code; and,

consideration of the legislative and procedural frameworks in other jurisdictions.

The Committee approved the terms of reference for the review and agreed that community service orders which were equivalent to a custodial sentence of 3 months or more should also fall within the scope of the review of the disqualification criteria. Similarly, it was understood that the courts had the power to impose a fine in lieu of a term of imprisonment and that a number of statutory offences were defined with both a fine and a custodial limit. Consequently, the Committee agreed that consideration should also be given to fines for criminal offences which had a directly comparable or alternative prison sentence of 3 months or more.