PPC Minutes (Part A) - 26 March 2025

122

Privileges and Procedures Committee

(28th Meeting) (Business conducted electronically)

26th March 2025 Part A (Non-Exempt)

All members were present, with the exception of Deputies C.S. Alves of St. Helier Central , Vice Chair and T.A. Coles of St. Helier South , and Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade .

Connétable K. Shenton-Stone of St. Martin , Chair

Deputy L. K. F. Stephenson of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter Deputy S.M. Ahier of St. Helier North

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

In attendance -

C. Fearn, Secretariat Officer, Specialist Secretariat

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

Policy on  A1. The Committee considered a report and draft policy which had been prepared bringing  by  the  Assistant  Greffier  of  the  States,  Chamber  and  Members'  Support  in animals onto  connexion with the presence of dogs in any of the buildings across the parliamentary the  estate, to include the States Building, Morier House and the Hill Street offices. parliamentary

estate.  The Committee recalled the details of recent incidents where members of staff had

suffered injury/distress and furniture had been damaged. 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. Whilst the important role of assistance dogs in supporting those with disabilities was recognised, the Committee was advised that the presence of non-assistance animals in the workplace required consideration in the wider context of health and safety.

The  Committee  was  apprised  of  the  position  in  the  United  Kingdom  (UK) Parliament, where only trained assistance and security dogs were permitted within the 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.

With regard to the statutory context in Jersey, it was noted that the Committee was responsible for ensuring a safe and inclusive environment for all individuals within the States Assembly buildings. The Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law 1989 placed a duty on the States Greffe (as the employer) to protect the health and safety of users. Permitting assistance animals in the States Assembly buildings accorded with Article 7A of the Discrimination (Jersey) Law 2013, which included provisions for  reasonable  adjustments  to  ensure  individuals  with  disabilities  were  not substantially disadvantaged. The Committee was apprised of the definition of an assistance dog' as per the Policing of Parks (Jersey) Regulations 2005, as follows

123 28th Meeting 26.03.2025

–

1. a dog which has been trained to guide a blind person;
2. a dog which has been trained to assist a deaf person; or
3. a dog which has been trained to assist a person who has a disability, provided that the person is able to produce a certificate or other confirmation in writing by a medical practitioner within the meaning of the Medical Practitioners (Registration) (Jersey) Law 1960, or by a person who is the equivalent of such a person in a country or territory outside Jersey, that the person has a disability.

The Committee noted that emotional support dogs were not included in the classification of an assistance dog under the 2005 Regulations.

The draft policy comprised the following principles regarding the bringing of dogs into any States Assembly building –

- permitted dogs – only highly trained and registered assistance dogs would be permitted in States Assembly buildings;

- training and registration requirements – any permitted assistance dog must have been fully trained by a recognised organisation, registered, and under the control of the handler at all times;

- handler responsibilities – the handler would be responsible for ensuring that their assistance dog was clean, healthy, and did not pose a risk or disturbance to others;

- concerns or complaints – concerns or complaints regarding assistance dogs on the premises should be reported to the States Greffe, in the first instance, who would review the matter on behalf of the Committee, and decisions would be made on a case-by-case basis; and

- consideration for others – the policy would not override the responsibilities that existed in terms of adopting reasonable adjustments in response to individual needs in relation to allergies or phobias, to ensure all elected Members and employees enjoyed a safe and comfortable working environment.

The Committee approved the draft policy principles and requested that the Greffier of the States make the necessary arrangements for the same to be communicated to elected Members and States Greffe staff.