A Word from Our CEO, Murray Norton, March 2026

Engagement, not labels, why clarity matters in Jersey’s lobbying debate

Calls for greater transparency in public life are always worth listening to carefully. The recent PPC proposition to introduce a lobbying guidance and engagement code seeks to strengthen trust and confidence in how decisions are made, and that is an aim most of us would support. The question, however, is not only about intent, but about definition, proportionality and whether certain mechanisms, such as a register of political lobbyists, would genuinely improve how policy is shaped in a small island like Jersey.

At the heart of this debate sits an important distinction that deserves more attention, the difference between lobbying and engagement. In larger jurisdictions, lobbying is often understood as a professional activity, undertaken by individuals or firms seeking to influence decisions on behalf of specific interests. In Jersey, the picture is very different. Much of what might be labelled as lobbying is, in practice, structured engagement between elected representatives and organisations that exist to represent broad groups of people, businesses or communities.

Business representative bodies fall firmly into that category. Chamber does not exist to advance the narrow interests of one company or one sector. It convenes views from across the economy, from small family firms to large employers, from retail and hospitality to construction, finance and the digital sector. Collectively, these businesses employ well over half of Jersey’s working population. It is therefore entirely appropriate, and often essential, that States Members seek out Chamber’s perspective when considering policy that will directly affect jobs, investment and economic confidence.

That engagement works both ways. Chamber challenges, tests and refines the views it hears from its members before presenting them to Government. It is not uncommon for Ministers and States Members to ask Chamber to consult more widely, to sense check assumptions or to explore the practical implications of policy proposals before they are finalised. That is not lobbying in the traditional sense, it is part of a healthy and informed policy making process.

It is also worth reflecting on the many other influences that shape political debate, and which sit entirely outside any proposed register. How often do we hear, quite legitimately, a States Member say in the Assembly, “I spoke to a parishioner the other day and they told me…”? That kind of individual, anecdotal input is an important part of representative democracy, but it can also be partial, emotive or unrepresentative of wider economic reality. There is a real risk that policy debate becomes overly influenced by those vox pop experiences, rather than by the informed, considered and evidence-based views of an entire sector that contributes materially to Jersey’s economy and employment. Seen in that light, structured engagement with representative bodies is not a threat to good governance, but a counterbalance to it.

This is where registers, however well intentioned, risk oversimplifying a complex reality. Registers can record that a meeting took place, but rarely capture the context, the range of views expressed or the fact that engagement may have been initiated by a States Member seeking informed input. As with all such systems, they are open to interpretation and do not always tell the full story. In a small jurisdiction, where professional and personal networks naturally overlap, that lack of nuance matters.

There is also a risk that conflating political organisations, professional lobbyists and representative bodies under a single definition creates unintended consequences. Organisations with limited resources may become more cautious about engaging at all, while those with greater capacity navigate the process more easily. The result could be less diversity of input into policy, not more.

None of this is an argument against transparency. On the contrary, Jersey benefits when engagement is open, accountable and clearly understood. Indeed, States Members are expected to uphold the Seven Principles of Public Life, commonly known as the Nolan Principles — selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty, and leadership — and these standards are formally incorporated into the Code of Conduct for Elected Members. Clear consultation processes, published policy frameworks, codes of conduct and a shared understanding of who represents whom, and why, often deliver more meaningful insight than a list of meetings ever could.

Jersey’s strength has always been its ability to talk, to test ideas early and to adapt policy before problems become entrenched. Preserving that culture of constructive engagement, while being clear about what constitutes lobbying and what constitutes representation, should be the focus of this conversation. If we get that balance right, we support trust in public life without losing the depth and quality of dialogue that effective decision making depends on.