States Meeting Transcript - 15th February 2017

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

WEDNESDAY, 15th FEBRUARY 2017

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption................................................................3

1. Senators and Deputies: candidates' qualifications (P.1/2017) - resumption............3

1.1 Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier:........................................................3

1. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. Helier:........................................................5
2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................7
3. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour:......................................................7
4. Senator P.F. Routier: ....................................................................8
5. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:......................................................9
6. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence : ..............................................9
7. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter:...................................................10
8. Deputy D. Johnson of St. Mary:........................................................10
9. Deputy S.M. Brée of St. Clement:......................................................11
10. Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier:......................................................12
11. Deputy P.D. McLinton of St. Saviour:...............................................13
12. Mr. R.J. MacRae , H.M. Attorney General: ..........................................15
13. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................15
14. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary:................................................16
15. Senator I.J. Gorst : ...................................................................18
16. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................19

2. Brexit Report: steps taken by the Government of Jersey before notification by the Government of the United Kingdom under Article 50 of the UK's intention to withdraw from the EU (P.7/2017).......................................................27

Senator P.M. Bailhache (The Minister for External Relations):...............................27 Deputy M. Tadier : ............................................................................27 Deputy G.P. Southern :........................................................................28 Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:.............................................................28 Deputy A.D. Lewis :..........................................................................28 Senator P.M. Bailhache : ......................................................................28 2.1 Senator P.M. Bailhache : ................................................................29

1. Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................30
2. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :........................................................30
3. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :....................................................................31
4. Deputy R. Labey : ......................................................................31
5. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................32
6. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................33

7. Deputy A.D. Lewis :....................................................................34
8. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................34
9. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ................................................................36

FAREWELL TO THE DEAN...................................................................39

1. The Deputy Bailiff :.....................................................................39
2. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement:.................................................39
3. The Very Reverend R.F. Key, B.A., The Dean of Jersey:...............................40

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................41

4. The Connétable of St. Clement (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):....41

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................42

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer. PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption

1. Senators and Deputies: candidates' qualifications (P.1/2017) - resumption The Deputy Bailiff :

Very well, we resume the debate on P.1/2017 - Senators and Deputies: candidates' qualifications - and the next person noted wishing to speak is Deputy Mézec .

1.1 Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier :

Good morning, everyone. It is always nice to start in the morning because you are guaranteed an audience. [Laughter] Good morning. So, let us say what we all know to be true right from the very outset which is that Jersey is incredibly privileged to be where it is today socially, culturally and economically because of the incredible contribution that immigrants have made to our Island over the centuries. We accepted thousands of Huguenot refugees in the 17th and 18th centuries, English merchants in the 19th century, Breton farmers in the 1940s, and that is particularly important because without them I would not exist, and today there are over 7,000 Portuguese people on the Island, there are 3,000 Polish people and 2,000 Irish. In fact, almost half of the population of Jersey was born somewhere else, yet we have an incredibly cohesive society where not only do we get on well but we actively celebrate the cultures of our minority communities with their involvement in our civic functions and their food and cultural festivals in the summer. I think there are probably not many other places in the world that have such a large proportion of their community who was not born in the community and that is part of what makes Jersey unique and special. I think it is why we should be willing to consider legal provisions which would see the facts that we have an unusual demographic makeup recognised in our political system. There are not many other countries that have that sort of demographic makeup, so it is not something they need to consider. Many of the people who come to Jersey are intelligent, talented and hard- working and I think we would be fools to shoot ourselves in the foot by erecting barriers or, dare I say it, building walls to stop the talents of these people being utilised for the public good in our political system. Yesterday Deputy Tadier outlined the progress that there has been over the years in opening things up like jury service, the Honorary Police and the right to vote and we now benefit from the contribution of immigrants in those areas. I think that the natural next step is surely to recognise the demographic peculiarity of Jersey and end the citizenship requirement for service as a States Member, or not even just as a States Member, just for Deputy and Senator, because it is not a requirement that already exists for Constables, so it is about creating a level playing field. I think there will be a much better parliament when we look more like the people that we are meant to be representing and will make decisions which are more in touch with the desires of our community.

Ultimately, that means having a parliament that has more women in it, more working-class people and Portuguese and Polish members as well. Now, I am a British citizen, some people like to say that they are proud to be British. Well, I am both proud and grateful to be British because it is an incredibly lucky accident of birth that I happened, without asking, wanting or earning it, I was given citizenship of a prosperous country and I can benefit from all of the rights that that entails. Many people across the world are not so lucky to have that. But the nation state which governs my citizenship is not the same state which governs this Island. Jersey is not a nation state, it is not technically part of the U.K. (United Kingdom) but it is the U.K. which gives us our citizenship and our passports. I have got my passport and if you turn to the opening pages of it, it says that: "This passport remains the property of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom." Now, there is no such thing as Jersey citizenship in any legal sense. We talk about Jersey citizenship but it is not a legal construct, it is more something we talk about socially. I think some people might think

that the closet thing we have to citizenship in the Island is maybe housing qualifications. So our citizenship is given to us by another state and so by that very fact we cannot be like other countries and restrict membership of this Assembly solely to nationals because there is legally no such thing as a Jersey national. For me, I just think it is bizarre that we restrict membership of this Assembly to nationals of another state. What other country does that? That, to me, seems very strange. If you want to become a British citizen, you have to pay a pretty handsome sum of money to do so which many people might not having going spare; you have to do a test which asks questions on U.K. history, not Jersey history; and you have to swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen as head of state of the U.K., not as La Reine, notre Duc. It is because of these facts that I simply cannot accept the argument which has been made by some that possessing British citizenship is an essential requirement to demonstrating your commitment to Jersey and I resent some of the language that was used yesterday and in particular the use of the word "loyalty". There are nearly 70 million British citizens in the world, less than one-seventh of 1 per cent of them have any commitment to Jersey, yet we place those potential immigrants on a pedestal above immigrants from other countries who have contributed to Island life for decades. So what passport you hold - and I feel this point incredibly strongly - has no bearing whatsoever on your commitment to this Island and our community. To say that your citizenship matters is to put a big question mark above the status of the Portuguese and Polish residents of our Island and I think that that is incredibly wrong. It is absurd because we are not even talking about citizenship of Jersey, we are talking about citizenship of another state. Now yesterday Senator Bailhache spoke of conflicting national interests; so what happens if you are a Jersey-based naturalised British citizen and an issue crops up where the U.K. national interest is at odds with the Jersey national interest because you have just sworn allegiance to the U.K., so who comes first: the U.K. or Jersey? I am sorry, but it is not a sensible thing to say that because you have British citizenship you are automatically loyal to Jersey like that. So, for me, I do not think that it is your loyalty to a geopolitical entity that matters, it is surely your loyalty to the principles upon which we think are special in our Island. For me, the

principles that I am loyal to are equality, justice Senator P.M. Bailhache :

Will the Deputy give way?

Deputy S.Y. Mézec :

Okay.

Senator P.M. Bailhache :

It is not a loyalty to the country about which I was speaking, it is a loyalty to the sovereign, to the Queen, and we would need to change the oaths of Deputies and Senators if we acceded to this proposition.

Deputy S.Y. Mézec :

Of course it is an oath to the Crown and it is an oath that you have to swear if you want to become a police officer, it is an oath that you have to swear to become a States Member.

[9:45]

Now, I was given this at birth, I swore nothing to nobody when I was given this, but I did swear an oath when I became a States Member, so how is that not good enough? A foreign national who would become a Member of this Assembly would have to swear allegiance to the monarch and all of the monarch's descendants. I did not have to do that to get my British citizenship, it was given

to me when I was born without asking for it, without swearing any oath. So, if that is covered in the oath, an allegiance to the head of state, I really do not see how possessing citizenship is an automatic guarantee of that. So, my main reason for opposing the status quo is not because of my

loyalty to my Island or to my country or to humanity in general, it is because of my loyalty to the principle of justice. I think there is a clear injustice where we have rules that confer more rights to people than others based on their possession of something which has no impact whatsoever on their ability to do the job. So a person who was born in Madeira but moved to Jersey at 4 years old considers Jersey the only home they have ever really known, speaks perfect English, went to school here, worked for decades and paid tax here, served in the Honorary Police and volunteers for other community organisations cannot stand for election to serve their community. Yet, somebody can arrive from the Outer Hebrides, a place that culturally has very little in common with Jersey, they can kick up their feet for a couple of years, not work, not pay a penny of tax, not contribute a single thing to our community, yet they can stand for election after 2 years no matter what, and I cannot accept that that can be fair or right. So, what makes you a Jersey person is not what passport you carry, it is based purely on whether or not you love this Island. Not what document you hold, not what passport you hold, not whether you were born here, the only thing that matters is whether you love this Island. I think that that should be the only criterion to stand for election. The only thing else that should matter is whether the good people of this Island want to turn out to vote for you. If they do not want you in our Assembly, they will not vote for you. If they do, they will, and I trust them to make the right decision. So I ask Members to support this proposition and give them the rights to have that decision at the ballot box. Do not restrict it, let anybody who is fit to be a Member of this Assembly and wants to serve their community take part and recognise that Jersey in its demographic makeup is different to other countries. We do not have a Jersey citizenship, so let it be open to those thousands of Portuguese, Polish and other nationalities who serve our community so well and let us not make this exclusive based on what I think is a flimsy argument about loyalty based on something that there are 70 million people in the world who got given it without asking and have not sworn any oath of allegiance to anything.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Before I call upon the next speaker, I will just note that the Chairman of the P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) I think will be making the customary fine, as indeed will Senator Farnham , for an interjection by his phone during the roll call. Deputy Andrew Lewis .

1. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. Helier :

I nearly always enjoy Deputy Mézec 's speeches because they are said with such passion but on this occasion it is all the right rhetoric but I am afraid for some of the wrong reasons, and I will expand on that a little bit more. I was also fascinated to hear the Constable of St. Martin, who I always enjoy listening to, saying that people cannot stand. Well, they can, they just need to naturalise first. So, anybody is eligible, they just need to naturalise first. I think that shows a massive commitment to any country that they may be living in and it would be an expectation of most other countries to do that. At the end of the day we are a Legislature here, so we are making laws for a country that we should be citizens of to make those laws, in my personal view, although I think Deputy Mézec may have a perfectly convincing argument for equality and having more diversity in our parliament. I would agree with all of that. I think we should have more women in our Assembly, we should have more from our other minority nations citizens of this Island, Poles, Madeiran descent, we would be delighted to have more of them in our Assembly but there is a bar they need to cross first, or get over, and that is become a citizen of the country that they clearly love and are committed to and I see no problem with that. But I did a bit of research anyway because I was starting to wonder: "Maybe we are wrong here, maybe something different is happening elsewhere that we do not know about." The only one I could find was Guernsey and even that was in some dispute yesterday but has been clarified by the Greffier today. So I had a look around and I found some interesting facts. Australia, you need to be a citizen. It was intimated to me yesterday by a Member that that was not the case. My research suggests that that is the case. India, you need to

be a citizen to stand for parliament. I thought I would look around at some other countries, other continents, perhaps a bit more diverse. So, Afghanistan, a troubled country, now a democracy, you must not be a citizen of another country, let alone be a citizen of that country. In other words, you cannot have dual nationality to be a member of the parliament in Afghanistan. In Argentina it is quite interesting, you have to be the son of a national of the country that has been a citizen sorry, if you are not born there, your father has to be born there in Argentina. If you do get nationality, you have to be living there for 6 consecutive years before you can stand for election in that country but you also have to be a citizen. Germany, you have to be a citizen. Estonia, you have to be a citizen by birth. France, you have to be a citizen. Imagine us, many of us have spent lots of time in France, and a lot of Jersey people have homes in France and people talk about retiring to France. I cannot quite imagine the French Government saying: "Yes, come and be one of our Deputies too" unless you are nationalised or naturalised, I think is the term. In Korea, South Korea, I have to add, you have to be a resident for 5 consecutive years. In the Philippines, to be President you have to be the age of 40 - the Chief Minister just about makes that - you have to have been born there; be a citizen but be born there. If you want to be a Senator in the Philippines, you have to be a natural- born citizen, over 35 years old, be able to read and write and be resident for not more than 2 years. I am afraid, I cannot find, apart from the example that was given of Guernsey, anywhere that suggests otherwise. So there must be a really good reason for that and I think I articulated that earlier. Diversity as a parliament I think is a great idea but taking citizenship of our country, which is obviously British citizenship, is important and we then lay loyalty to our sovereign which was also mentioned. So I will bring up the example of Australia. In Australia you do need to be a citizen to seek election but if you want to vote in an Australian election, you have to be an Australian citizen, but you can also be a British citizen and vote in an election in Australia which I thought was quite interesting. Likewise, in the U.K. you must be over 18, you must be a British citizen or a citizen of a Commonwealth country, or the Republic of Ireland, maybe the European Union as well. Now that is all going to change soon. The Constable of Mary is correcting on the E.U. (European Union) matter. But my point here is that perhaps if we are making an amendment, we should be looking at that. We should be looking at should members of the Republic of Ireland, or citizens of the Republic of Ireland and citizens of Commonwealth countries, as it is in the U.K. can stand for election. Perhaps we should be considering that here, not the amendment that is being suggested today which is a blanket everybody. I think people would be more comfortable with that. That might be a bit of an evolution, and it might be more inclusive along the lines that the Deputy was intending, but otherwise I cannot support this for some of the other reasons that were suggested yesterday by Deputy Norton on item (b). But, more importantly, if you are going to act in a Legislature capacity in an Assembly such as this, you really do need to be a citizen of that country, nation, call it what you like. We are British citizens, we are proud of that, and those that live here and make it their home and are proud of being here too, why would they not wish to become British citizens? That does not mean they have to give up their citizenship elsewhere. I know of one person that stood for election in recent years in Jersey that naturalised so that she could stand for election and thought nothing of it, thought it was a perfectly reasonable request to have to adhere to. So if you do want to stand for election - and I must correct the Constable of St. Martin here - you can, you are not barred, you simply have to naturalise first. I think that is something we should be proud of, we should continue with and we should not make an exception.

Thank you. Deputy M. Tadier :

Would the previous speaker give a point of clarification? Would he define what a citizen is in the Australian context and would he confirm that being an Australian citizen is not the same as being an Australian national?

The Deputy Bailiff :

Are you able to clarify, Deputy ? Deputy A.D. Lewis :

We may require the Attorney General from the Australian Parliament to be here to answer that one. I do not think our Attorney General could quite manage that one. I think we are splitting hairs beyond semantics. The point I was making is that you need to be a citizen of a country

The Deputy Bailiff :

Well it is not a question of repeating the point, are you able to offer the clarification? Deputy A.D. Lewis :

I cannot make clarification on that, Sir, no.

Deputy M. Tadier :

Can I just ask one more point? Could he clarify that if you do a quick Google search, do you realise that an Australian resident

The Deputy Bailiff :

No, that is not a legitimate point of clarification of the speech, Deputy . Senator Ferguson.

2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

I am delighted that Deputy Mézec recognises the value of immigrants like me. The internet is a wonderful thing. Last night I wandered around to compare the approach taken - like Deputy Lewis of St. Helier - to compare the approach taken by other countries with regards to the nationality status of candidates for election. I found the Australian lady who got herself elected to the Senate and then it was ruled to be invalid on the grounds that her Australian/British dual citizenship constituted an allegiance to a foreign power: "All candidates for the Federal Parliament must take reasonable steps to renounce any foreign citizenship." Then there was the fact that you have to be able to speak and converse fluently with a degree of proficiency in English in Mauritius. In actual fact, the Commonwealth seems to take a pretty standard approach. What is apparent is that most countries require candidates for election I did not go through them all, so I will not want to say "all countries" before my comment is queried. But what is apparent is that most countries require candidates for election to have the nationality of the country where they are standing for election. There is a recognition internationally that to retain a foreign nationality while standing as a nationally-elected representative is effectively serving 2 masters and, as the saying goes, no man can serve 2 masters. Several times yesterday I heard the phrase: "It was unfair if nationals of other countries could not stand within a short time as candidates in our elections" and all I can say is: why is it unfair? It takes time to absorb the mores and culture of another country. Even if it is a qualifying period of 5 years, then to some degree it is perhaps too short a time for candidates to absorb this in a fairly complicated jurisdiction like Jersey. It took me about 30 years to catch up with it. Frankly, if people are committed enough to take up British citizenship and then stand for election, I have no problem with it. This demonstrates a degree of commitment to the Island. Now the Connétable of St. Martin has commented that the current system seems unfair but would his parishioners want to be represented by a Connétable who lived in St. Brelade? I wonder. No, if you live in this Island then you will want to commit as a national. This is a well-meaning

proposition but it is fraught with problems and I ask Members to reject it.

3. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour :

With this proposition, it is becoming difficult for me because my first instinct, my gut reaction is let the electorate decide who they want to represent them and that we should remove all the barriers for candidates to stand. But on the other hand, and being a Jersey person, and it is a bone of contention in my passport where I have a stamp that says: "The holder is not entitled to benefit from E.U. provisions relating to employment or establishment", certainly I know many people who will see that as a mark of being a Jersey person. Of course, with Brexit that is going to apply to a lot more people in the short term. But I think the biggest issue for me is although the conundrum that is being put forward is why can British nationals come here and stand after 2 years whereas those from other parts of the world cannot?

[10:00]

Of course, the issue is it is reciprocal because we can go there and do that. If a Jersey person went to another country, Portugal or Poland, for example, are we going to be afforded the same rights? No. Of course they are going to turn around to us and say: "Unfortunately, here is the barrier, you need to become a citizen." My problem here is the decision which we are being asked to make is not reciprocal, so once again it is not for the benefit of the Jersey person that this decision is being made. Because it is not reciprocal that, for me, is a big stumbling block because it is not in the interests in that regard. I totally agree with the points made by other Members to say immigrants of course can contribute a great amount to our community. I do not think anyone is denying or questioning that. The issue is partly about loyalty, partly about commitment, partly about demonstrating those types of things. But again, as I say, my biggest issue which I find myself unable to support this is that it is not reciprocal and therefore, while it is attempting to create fairness and equality, at the same time it is continuing another unfairness and inequality against the Jersey person. Therefore, on those grounds, I do not think I can support this proposition but I will wait for the proposer to sum up. Thank you.

4. Senator P.F. Routier:

I have been thinking overnight on the point which was raised by Deputy Norton about the different meanings of 5 years that abound around this Island because there are different meanings to it in various places. For instance, yesterday I was questioned about the issues regarding population increases and the rules that we have regarding that, so someone has to be continuously in Jersey for 5 years before they have free access to work. In some people's minds that is not even long enough. In some people's minds. But if this proposition is passed, it could mean that someone could be elected to this Assembly but not have free access to work in the general community. It would be inconsistent. It would just not stack up. Of course, this Assembly, when the law was being developed for the Control of Housing and Work Law it was decided to exclude this Assembly from the rules of that legislation. So it may be, if this was to be passed, we might think about having to adjust the Control of Housing and Work Law. It would be fairer for the whole community

Deputy M. Tadier :

There is a point of order. I think the Senator

The Deputy Bailiff :

Sorry, a point of order is something on which the Chair must be asked to rule. Is there a matter Deputy M. Tadier :

Well I think that the Senator knows he is misleading the House

The Deputy Bailiff :

Deputy , you cannot say that he knows because that means he is intending to mislead the House. Do you mean

Deputy M. Tadier :

Can I rephrase it? I think the Senator should know that what he is saying is not correct because he knows that currently the Housing and Work Law does not apply to States Members and that you can be a States Member after

Senator P.F. Routier:

That is right, that is what I was just saying.

Deputy M. Tadier :

If I misunderstood

The Deputy Bailiff :

That is what I understood the Senator just to have said, that it does not apply. Deputy M. Tadier :

Okay, that is fine. I will sit down because I misunderstood.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Very well, please continue, Senator.

Senator P.F. Routier:

That was the point I was just making, that this Assembly is not covered by the Control of Housing and Work Law. Is that consistent with the way we treat the rest of our Island population and the businesses community who are not able to freely have access to people who have been here less than 5 years? Some people consider this to be a job. If we were to be hard line about controlling of work and housing legislation, we perhaps should include this Assembly. If people are concerned about population, that is a matter that we could consider. I think that what is being proposed today is inconsistent, it does not meet the desires of a lot of our community who want us to control population and we have those controls in place to deliberately make it difficult for people to employ staff, so I do not think we should water it down. I hope Members will not support this proposition.

5. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier :

I was originally minded to support the proposition put forward because again we do have a lot of people within the Island who make a great contribution to it and you would expect them to be able to offer their services for the benefit of the community through the States. However, like others, I also did some research into the rights of, let us say, Jersey or British citizens in other countries and the ones that were not mentioned were Portugal and Poland where the largest number of our foreign residents come from. In the case of Portugal, there is no general voting right in any elections or referenda for third country nationals who do not come from countries with I cannot even say it now. I will use "reciprocal" now versus the word they have got here but basically reciprocity. In other words, you have equal sorts of rights between them, although under a European Community directive people who are members of the European Community, any country in the European Community, can vote in municipal elections and so on but when it comes to national elections, they do not have voting rights. I was also looking at Poland and again the right to vote and to be elected on the national level is limited to Polish citizens only. Although sympathetic to the idea, if there was a level playing field and Jersey citizens could vote in, let us say, Poland or Portugal, then I think that would be acceptable. But at the present there are no reciprocal arrangements and therefore you can ask the Minister for External Relations to see what he can do to try and achieve parity and, if he does, then perhaps it is a matter for bringing it back to the States at that time but I cannot support it at the moment.

6. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence :

I am not going to repeat hopefully any comments made on quite a lot of the proposition so for a lot of reasons already stated, I will not be supporting part (a). However, part (b) I did find rather attractive because of a lot of comments being made about the anomalies between essentially somebody turning up from the U.K. after 2 years and potentially standing and not necessarily having had time to absorb. To be honest, the reason I wanted to stand up and just say this, because I believe the proposer is taking it in separate parts, if I have understood that correctly. If he is not, I will be voting against the whole proposition but if he is, I am willing to certainly vote on part (b) and part (c). But in saying that, obviously there is a wording that has been used which I think is from the States of Jersey Law 2005 and talks about "ordinarily resident". All I would say in voting for part (b), I am just going to leave it with P.P.C. who would have to consider that matter. If they come back with what is meant to be a better wording, I am very easy on that. I do take the point that let us be consistent with the points that Senator Routier has made and I think perhaps we should increase the period to 5 years. That is where I stand. Thank you.

7. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter :

It was only in the last sitting that we voted on a very complex change in the way that this Assembly runs and there were some Members who were so confused with the number of propositions and withdrawals being put forward, they ended up voting the wrong way because they were unsure exactly what they were voting for, and I fear we are going down the same path here on this particular one. Item (b) gives me considerable concern. For example, I could have arrived in this Island with my parents at the age of 10, lived here for 5 years, gone off to the U.K. and I can come back now in my mid-40s, late-50s, whatever sort of age it is, and say: "I cannot get a house, I cannot get a job. I know, I will stand for the States. All I have to do is live in a black economy for 6 months' sofa-surfing [or whatever way people want to do it] and get myself a nice little job and free access to housing without any problems whatsoever." We have enough of these anomalies already in the system, in Health, for example, and Social Security. We have differences there where Social Security say that as long as you have accumulated 6 months of work in Jersey, then you can have free primary care and people come down to the hospital expecting that to include the secondary care at the hospital. With the hospital we have a different requirement. You have to be here continuously for 6 months and working before you can have free healthcare, and that is just one example of these anomalies that exist all the way round. Certainly, Senator Routier has mentioned the issues with regard to the housing and work regulations there as well. I think all we are doing potentially is adding another layer of confusion for us to make the wrong decisions. If I look at the proposition in general in whole, I am not entirely comfortable with it. I am not saying I would vote against it in the whole but I cannot vote for it as it currently stands. I did speak to Deputy Tadier earlier this morning, very briefly in the coffee room, and asked him whether he could consider changing it and he said he cannot. If he cannot, then I cannot support the proposition. Thank you.

8. Deputy D. Johnson of St. Mary :

It seems to me this proposition raises 2 distinct aspects: the first is the British citizen requirement and the second is the residential requirement. As far as the former is concerned, I have to say I am minded to accept that there are very strong communities from outside the Island who add a lot to our community and it seems to me inconsistent that they should be expected to vote for us if they themselves are not eligible to vote. If we do wish to broaden the franchise, it would be helpful if they were given the right to stand. But to a certain extent that pales into insignificance as regards the second point. I appreciate that Deputy Tadier has effectively borrowed some of the wording from the present law in his requirement but I do find it difficult to accept that someone who can have been here for a total of 5 years on and off over whatever period it might be should be allowed to stand. In fact, it goes against my own family. Of my 4 Jersey-born children, one is pursuing his career in London. On the basis of the present law he can at some stage in future, as the Connétable of St. Peter said, come back and stand, having been here for a period of 6 consecutive months, no matter he may not have been in touch with what has been going on in the Island. That seems to me to be wrong and I believe that the present law needs to be reviewed and revised. For that reason, and that reason only, I am afraid I shall be voting against the proposition.

9. Deputy S.M. Brée of St. Clement :

For some this proposition will be very seductive. It goes to the heart of living in a cosmopolitan Island with many different cultures and races and nationalities represented. So why not support this proposition? One word: commitment. Deputy Tadier stated that this Assembly should be representative of the Island. Well I would suggest that this Assembly is representative of the Island. We come from many different backgrounds with many different experiences and histories but the one thing that unites us is a commitment to Jersey and the fact that we are British. We are law makers. We pass laws here that will affect everybody without fear or favour to any particular segment of the community and we pass laws that then are placed in front of the Privy Council so we are looking to the Crown in that instance. That is where our allegiance lies. We have all made a commitment to this Island, a very long-term commitment on the part of some, shorter term on the part of others, but we have accepted the conditions that go with that commitment. One of those is that anybody who wishes to stand for election in this Island is a British citizen. Now, Deputy Tadier in his proposition mentioned the C.P.A. (Commonwealth Parliamentary Association) Benchmarking sub-panel that I was on and we did talk about this, my recollection is at great length, and we were not necessarily unanimous in our thoughts. Irrespective of what I thought at the time, since this proposition has been lodged quite a number of my constituents have spoken to me, contacted me to give me their views on the proposition, and it is a unanimous view that to stand for election we need to be a British citizen.

[10:15]

As I am here to represent them, that is the stance that I am taking. This is not Jersey being racist or xenophobic or nationalist, and I would hate for any of those words to ever be used in this Assembly. To ask somebody who comes from another country with another citizenship to take on dual citizenship in the main does not strip them of the citizenship of their birthright. Now I asked Deputy Tadier this particular question yesterday and he very kindly gave me some information. I have not double-checked it so I cannot attest to its accuracy, but bearing in mind that I trust that he would not seek to give me inaccurate information, I think it is very important that we look at it. There are very few countries in the world who do not allow dual citizenship. Looking at the list that he kindly gave me, possibly the only exception to the rule that may affect us is the stance of Poland which may need to be looked at as they do not at the moment recognise dual citizenship. I have now been corrected so the information that Deputy Tadier has told me is that they now do. So that is even more weight to the argument. We are not looking to take away anything from anybody. We are not looking to strip them of their birthright. We are asking them to make a commitment and that commitment is that you take on British citizenship. With regards to the 5 years, the part (b) of this proposition, I agree fully with that concept. Unfortunately, I cannot agree with the wording that is used in the proposition. I believe that anybody who stands for election to this Assembly should have lived in the Island continuously up to the last 6 months who wishes to stand. Why somebody with a British passport can come over here and after 2 years think they know everything about the Island and to be able to represent people is beyond me. Five years is the least amount of time it takes, I would suggest, for anybody to fully understand Jersey's unique history, our unique traditions, our very unique legal system, and our culture. Now by "culture" I mean everybody on this Island contributes to our culture. This is not suggesting that the immigrants who have come to this Island do not benefit our culture greatly. They do. With regards to our status as

British citizens, we owe allegiance to the Crown and by virtue of that fact, we are afforded British citizenship. It is a very proud and old allegiance. Many centuries ago we chose the Crown as the body to which we give allegiance. Now, allegiance means many different things but we are loyal subjects of the Crown and that is very important in this debate to understand why we are British and that is why. It does not matter that we hold a British passport, what matters is our allegiance to the Crown and we make a commitment by being British citizens to that allegiance. I am very proud to be a Jerseyman and I am proud to be British but above all I am here to represent the majority view of the parishioners who elected me to this Assembly and that above all is why I will not be supporting this proposition. Thank you.

10. Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier :

What should be an in principle debate has now been bogged down in the nitty-gritty of unacceptable detail, it seems, for most Members and that is a shame. It is the reason why I believe that Deputy Tadier should withdraw the proposition because I am worried about the negative message that will go out from the inevitable vote against it today, in the same way that yesterday Deputy Southern wanted to give the Minister for Education a ticking-off. The result was he got a resounding vote of confidence and in the same way I feel if this is not withdrawn, it will send out a bad message because this is audacious and interesting and, do you know what, it is reaching out to areas of our community that we all should be reaching out to. Not just the Polish community or the Madeiran, Portuguese community but the U.K. community, the recent U.K. community. The fairly recent U.K. community does not engage as much as we would like it to with our election processes here. The Jersey-born are in the minority of the population now but probably in the majority of those engaging with the election process and it is not a good place to be in. We have to do things to reach out to all members of our community and we have to show them that they are valued. I do not know, there are so many people with so many worries about this and misunderstanding. Can you accrue the 5 years by coming here on summer season over 10 years and have enough? That does not seem right to a lot of people because the commitment should be that you live here permanently and the seasonal worker generally is working here and sending the money back home, building their houses back home in preparation for permanently going back home. In general, I do not have a problem with this idea of trying to enfranchise members of the community here who are not necessarily - I do not know what word to use - indigenous or first nation or what have you, and I think it is an important thing that we should be looking at. But it seems to me at the moment that I do not know what there is to fear here but it seems to me that fear is playing a large part in that debate and so we go to extremes. I really do not think we can compare the Island with Afghanistan. There are probably very good reasons for why that particular nation I know, it was an extreme.

Similarly, with the loyalty card being played. I do not know what that means. When is the loyalty tested? When we go to war with Portugal? When it is the World Cup? Are we expecting if members from the Portuguese community sit in this House they should suddenly start supporting the English football team? Well that is not going to happen with the Italians or the Portuguese or the French for very obvious reasons. The Constable of St. John said earlier in this debate that you have to be a member of the club to be on the committee of the club, and I take his point and I know what he is saying, but one has to appreciate there are many people in this Island making a huge commitment to the Island, contributing to the Island, doing jobs that lots of other people in the Island would not want to do, and we need them desperately. They do not feel, some of them perhaps, that they are members of the club. So anything that we can do to break down those barriers and reach out, we should be doing. In a world which has voted for Brexit and Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen possibly later this year, it would be a fantastic message that we would send out if we found a way to include foreign nationals, if that is the right expression, being able to participate in the Government. Senator Bailhache I think said: "Well it is not done anywhere else." I do not know if that is true but so what? What is wrong with for once being at the vanguard of finding a way in which foreign nationals who play an important part in the Island can also play an important part in the Government? Why can we not find a way to do that? As far as I know, we are not citizens, we are all subjects, and as subjects we swear allegiance to the Queen. I have to say Deputy Mézec came right back at Senator Bailhache with a good point that to be a police officer here of course you have to swear allegiance to the Queen. But why can we not invent a Jersey citizenship? Why can we not find a way to do that? Maybe we can bestow a Jersey citizenship upon people who are from foreign countries but have worked here and made a commitment here? As always with these things, if you want to oppose it there are lots of ways to oppose it and perhaps Deputy Tadier has been too audacious in the detail of his proposition and it should have been perhaps a little bit more vague and in principle so that we could start working on a way to reach out to our communities but that has not happened and we are where we are. So, in principle I would love to be able to find a way to work on this to make this situation better, include more people. At the last debate on the electoral reform, speaker after speaker were mentioning the election observers and I was thinking to myself: "What on earth has this got to do with the price of fish? I do not understand why we are talking about election observers in terms of electoral reform." Then I suddenly got it when I was thinking about what to say on this speech in that election observers obviously would come along and look at our elections in May next year and say: "Well, okay, let us look at your figures for voter turnout, et cetera. Oh, here what is wrong, clearly you are not reaching out to large sections of the community" and so we should anticipate that and try to do something about it. Again with the Constable of St. John, he says: "This takes the cake." Or takes the biscuit or takes the sweet. I think the trouble with the Constable of St. John's position is he wants to have his cake and eat it in terms of this argument: Jersey is special. Jersey is a special country, we do things differently here. We have Connétable s elected in this way. We are not ever going to be Venice-compliant when we have the Connétable s and yet a lot of us believe that they should be here and the majority of the Island does too because that is how they voted, so that is what we have got. So on the one hand, similarly with the position of the Bailiff , et cetera, the argument is that Jersey is special; this is our tradition; this is how unique we are; this is what we have done. So, yes, that is fine, but we can be special in other areas too. We can make a difference. We can be the first to enfranchise our foreign nationals if we find a way to do it without fear. As Roosevelt said: "The only thing to fear is fear itself" in a situation like this. But I urge

Deputy Tadier to withdraw the proposition so that we do not have to take it to a vote and we do not send out a negative message in the headlines tomorrow.

Deputy A.D. Lewis :

Can I clarify, was the Deputy proposing the Deputy withdraws this? The Deputy Bailiff :

No, he was urging Deputy Tadier to consider it. It is not capable of being a proposition because the States cannot require someone to withdraw something, they simply vote against it. Deputy McLinton.

11. Deputy P.D. McLinton of St. Saviour :

It is always an honour and pleasure to follow Deputy Labey who speaks eloquently and well; if only he would speak up a little. [Laughter] I was taking the children to school this morning and I said to them: "I am back in the States again this morning" and their reaction was: "Oh, yes?" I said: "Yes, we have got an interesting debate going on." I said: "I just want to run it past you" because I thought without telegraphing this, I will get the children's opinion because children are very clever indeed. Mine particularly, I think I will get that on record. [Laughter] I said to them: "Just imagine this, an Italian man arrives in Jersey. A proud Italian man opens a restaurant; it is a very popular restaurant. He is well-loved by the local community and come the end of it, he is thinking: Maybe I will stop being an Italian restauranteur because I am interested in politics.'" I said: "Do you know what? He can vote, he can pay his rates, he can pay his taxes, he can do all of these things but right now he cannot " I did not mention about citizenship at this point.

[10:30]

I said: "He cannot just stand for election. What do you think of that?" James, being James, he said: "What do you think, Dad?" I went: "Not for me, I am interested in your view" and he and my daughter said: "That is really stupid, is it not?" I went: "Hmm, thank you, that is kind of what I was thinking, really." Citizenship costs over £1,000. People seem to skirt over that. If you are really committed you should become a dual citizen but there are many very, very clever people who could be of huge benefit to this Island through this Assembly, who have not got that kind of money rocking around plus the expenses of standing for election. It is a huge punt on their behalf. So the community we are in .. I would far rather there were people in this Assembly who were intelligent, people centric, representative of some of the .. we call them minority communities, it is not really a minority on this Island nowadays, who served the people of the Island well, whether they were born here or not. I do take a certain umbrage to a mention in this Assembly that this is not in the interests of Jersey people; that I am not allowed, for example, to go and stand in the Polish Parliament. The interests to Jersey people are served by this Assembly and the people in this Assembly and not where they can wander off to. Good people serving good people in a world of divisiveness, in a world of Brexit, in a world of nationalism, in a world of Trump, in a world of "we are better than you", in a world of walls; it pains me that we could think of ourselves as divided. We are all the same. We are spinning around the sun on a rock, equal in every way that we can be. Where we decide to live our lives, where we want to get involved in the community, the tribe of where we are, will be a wonderful thing if we were just able to do best benefit to the people we share, wherever we live, with. I would say that if we allowed foreign nationals into this Assembly we would serve the people of the Island of Jersey. What is Jersey people anyway? I am French. I am Irish. I am Jersey. I am a mongrel. We are all mongrels. We are just talking about the mongrels who think, by some reason, they have stepped across a line, can turn back across the line and say: "And you guys over the line, you can have nothing to do with this. We managed to get across the line; we did." This is a movement of the line. A more sensible movement of where the line should be in my humble opinion. The Constable of St. John. I will tell you a story which does not involve food. When I was campaigning I rang a doorbell, an elderly lady opened the door and I went: "Hello." She said: "I do not know why you bothered." I thought: "Oh, dear, one of those." She said: "Yes, I was going to vote for you anyway." So I resisted the urge to say: "I did not know that before I rang the doorbell" but I thought I would zip it and I said: "Do you mind me asking why?" and I thought: "Oh, it is because it is him from radio, or went to school with his dad" or whatever. She said: "No, always vote for the new ones." So I said: "Does that mean that I am not

to bother ringing your doorbell again, should I stand again?" She went: "No", I went: "Okey- dokey." Must log that one. Now, ding dong, she opens the door: "I do not know why you bothered", "Why is that?" "I only vote for Russians."  It is the most stupid argument against this I have ever heard. "I only vote for good people I believe in and I do not care where they come from" would be a better argument, I would say. I have been known my entire life for not playing it the same way as everybody else and I am proud of that. I am proud of being individual. I am proud of this Island being a unique little lump of pink granite in the Channel. I am proud of the community that has built up. I am proud of the people that have been welcomed in this Island over the many hundreds of years who have benefited this unique place. Yet in here I hear the argument: "Yes, we are unique but we should do it the way everybody else does it." What? Be unique in a world of divisiveness and I cannot believe the world is getting more divisive with all the inclusions, all the ability to contact, to see what the world is about. We are getting more and more tribal, building more and more walls and we have a chance here to reach out, not to be a minority part of our

community but to a substantial section of our community and say: "Come on in. Have a right to a say as to how the Island you have chosen as home is run." It makes eminent sense to me to not be a citizen of Jersey, to be a citizen of this planet, which we all are, to have our chance to have a say in this Assembly and to be proud of it. I would rather that Italian restauranteur that I have imagined up, who is a good man, who has got good intelligence and understanding of his community, I would rather he was sitting in this Assembly than somebody who rocked up, stood, got a British passport and will do an okay job. Good people. It is people. It does not matter where your passport is from. People, and let us not draw a line to say: "People, but only if you can afford over £1,000." That is not the right line. That is discriminatory and remember, we do not do discrimination anymore, do we? Let us give everybody a chance.

12. Mr. R.J. MacRae , H.M. Attorney General:

I want to, if I may, say a few words about the position of Constables because it has been suggested in the course of debate that because the law we have been looking at is silent in relation to their nationality then it is the case that persons of any nationality can seek election to that role. That may be the case but the law is unsettled. This is a question of customary law. There is nothing in statute upon it. Certainly customary law used to draw a distinction between nationals and aliens and thus when the law was passed in 1966 I have no doubt that at that stage the court would have held that Constables would have needed to have been British nationals. But of course things do change and, has been said by, I think, Deputy Tadier in the course of this debate, Honorary Police Officers have been sworn in by the Royal Court from other jurisdictions. The point that I would like to draw the Assembly's attention to is simply that this is not yet settled and it would need a ruling of the Royal Courts if a foreign Constable would stand for election to determine whether or not non-British nationals can be Constables.

Deputy M. Tadier :

I thank the Attorney General for what I think was helpful advice. Could he confirm - obviously, he cannot give necessarily a categorical answer but he may have hinted at the fact - that things may have changed since 1966 and nowadays would there be a likelihood that a candidate rocking up, without British nationality, for Constable may be allowed to stand?

The Attorney General:

It is certainly possible. I cannot say it is likely but certainly things may well have changed since the time this law was passed.

13. Deputy G.P. Southern :

How very interesting this debate is becoming. What I was struck by was Deputy Labey 's words: "Let us lead. Let us be the first to do this. Let us, as a reflection of a cosmopolitan society", and it could not barely get more cosmopolitan. Should we not be considering this as an enlightened, as a

progressive, as a liberal view that that is the way forward? I was just looking at the number of cards, let us not call them identity cards, registration cards, applied for last year and the numbers are indeed very interesting. This is people who wish to work in Jersey or they may have changed jobs recently or changed house. We look down the table and here we have; British, 13,900, of whom 6,800 are Jersey born; 6,800 Jersey born, on this particular list. Then we look down the list; Portuguese, 2,700; Polish 1,700 and we are down to Romanians 591 and the list goes on through South African, Italian, Filipino, Hungarian, Czech, Kenyan, Canada, American, New Zealander, Slovak and by the time we get to the bottom of that first column we have got 6,800 foreigners, foreign nationals, to match the 6,800 locally born candidates who are applicants for a registration card. So we are cutting out that many people from this particular opportunity. As Deputy Tadier said in his introduction, his proposal: "These people may be called for jury service. They can become part of the police despite the oath to the Queen. They can become part of the honorary. They do pay their taxes. They do pay their social. They even, probably, pay their long-term care charge for should they become a burden later on in life. Yet we say: "But you cannot stand to represent other people in our community because you are not a British citizen." It seems to me that that, given our society, is not a logical position to take nor is it a sound position to take. It has been proposed that instead of leading on this particular issue we follow and from the front bench there came the suggestion that we should be following Korea and possibly Afghanistan and I ask whether we really want to follow Afghanistan as a liberal democracy; well, it is not one yet and it may be a long time before it is. Yes, we have this fear that somehow the Russians are going to take over, the Russians are coming, as they used to say. On that list they are on the second half. There is not very many of them. I think the Constable of St. John can sleep easy in his bed. He will not be taken over by the 26 Russians who just applied to work here nor would they swamp our benches. At 26 they would be just quorate. Never mind. Do not go there. It has been pointed out by a previous speaker that it is relatively straightforward for us to say: "Let them apply for dual nationality. Let them spend over £1,000 before they get to election expenses in becoming dual nationality in getting British citizenship despite the difficulty for Jersey people of that particular test." We have had that pointed out to us. So no guarantees there. Yet we have got this £1,000 plus barrier in the way of doing that. So I think, without doubt, as Deputy Labey pointed out, the debate has got mixed. There are Members in this States who are, I would say, hung up on part (b), what is the definition that operates there and therefore are thinking: "Well, I do not think that is the right way forward." The principle, I think, is absolutely sound but the mechanism by which we apply it .. perhaps enough people in this Chamber have reservations about that and seek clarity on that. So like Deputy Labey I think I am in a position .. I will support it because I will support the principle. I think it is the right direction to go in. But I think I would be requesting my colleague, Deputy Tadier , to withdraw, consider withdrawing, the proposition, consulting with the S.G. (Solicitor General) and P.P.C. and bringing back, in short order, something that tidies up the qualification period and makes it crystal clear that we are not opening the gates to Rag, Tag and Bobtail; that we

are getting the right people. [10:45]

Where did that come from? It come from: "Are you listening comfortably. Are you sitting comfortably? Then I will begin. Listen with mother." I think it was: "Listen with mother." Anyway. There I will stop with that encouragement to withdraw and bring it back.

14. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary :

It is just a couple of very small observations because this is a very interesting topic and I do not think we are doing it justice with the way we are attacking it here but anyway Deputy Labey talked about enfranchising these people who are part of our community. I just want to make it clear, Members obviously realise, but just to make it clear for the record, that we do enfranchise these people. We have a system that allows people with 5 years' residence or 2 years in other circumstances to vote and participate in our system. We are ensuring that people who have come to the Island and are working here or who are being part of our community can have a voice in this Government. There is a big difference between having a voice in the Government and being a member of the Government or let us say the Parliament and the Legislature because there are many instances where the people who come here who have a vote do not lose their ability to vote in the country that they came from. They are effectively able to keep up with both jurisdictions. They are able to have a say in the future determination of policy through their votes. So enfranchisement is not an issue here. That is already done and we do it without requiring any citizenship change or nationality change or whatever. We let anybody who has come here and has been here for the required amount of time to participate in our elections and that, I think, is an extremely good thing. I have to say that in the .. I think it is about 15 or 17 years now that I have been involved in getting

people on to voting registers and doing things like that, that it was jolly hard to encourage any of the minority groups, as we called them, to get involved and become registered to vote. That was a really difficult thing to do. So without even thinking about how we get people into this Chamber, have we really done everything that we can to get people involved in the process at the first level that we have already come to? I do not know. I mean Deputy McLinton Suddenly I was faced with his radio name and that was not going to go down very well. Deputy McLinton was very clear about the Italian restauranteur who is a great part of the community and working very hard. Well, yes, he is. He is working very hard and you ask that Italian restauranteur, is he registered to vote and probably he is not because he is too busy being an Italian restauranteur and doing a very good job about it too and he is not very interested in it or if he is interested in it: "Why do you not stand for the Assembly?" "Well, I am too busy. I am doing the job that I came here to do and I am enjoying doing that and I am putting my trust in people that I am voting for." But the other thing that people have said is that there is a huge financial impediment to people coming here and taking up British citizenship. Well, anybody who, like I do, and I know the other Constables do because we have lots of elections and lots of reasons to attend swearing-ins, but many Members, I am sure, attend court on a Friday morning and there are a considerable amount of people every week who are taking up British citizenship. They have been through the procedure. We see them standing to take their oaths. It is standing and they are not all sort of .. they are not all people from the groups we have discussed. I see lots of Thai people. I see lots of Philippine people. I see Canadians. I see Americans. I see all sorts coming through and taking up British citizenship. Very few of them go on to then stand for the Assembly. We have had some naturalised person standing. So I do not think we can say that there is a financial barrier. It is like saying: "I am being discriminated against from driving a car because I cannot afford to take the driving test." There are always things we set ourselves in processes that require a fee or require some sort of test. I think we have to be careful that we do not devalue what is a very important thing and a process that is taken up already by a large number of people and those people, we may see them come through the court on a Friday morning, and I may never see them again in any kind of public role or whatever, but they are here working and living in our community. They have not lost the identity or the culture or the history

that made them who they were before they became a British citizen. They are still the same person. But they, for one reason or another, have become committed to living in this society that we are in and have decided that part of that commitment for them will be taking British citizenship. For those that do not want to do that we are allowing them still to be part of the system by voting and we do not ask any questions about nationality for that. Do not dismiss the huge number of people who do become British citizens and who choose to take the test and then say that it is too expensive and that is a barrier to being part of the Island life. Well, it is not. It quite clearly is not. I would just like to say that I feel that one distinction that has been missed here in this debate is the difference between serving the community in various ways, whether it is a police officer or an honorary officer, whatever, and being part of the law making body of that jurisdiction. It is a very different thing. It a very specialist thing. If we decide that we set a slightly higher barrier to that or a slightly higher requirement to that then I think it is not necessarily a bad thing especially when, I am no lawyer obviously, but especially when so many of the laws that we make in this Legislature have direct relevance to British laws that already exist where we are bringing things into line with standards that have already been set. I look back at a law that has been set up over 100 years ago about explosives and that started out, the preamble in French, that it is desirable to bring the law into line with standards set in the United Kingdom. We are, by definition of being part of the British Isles, inexorably linked with Great Britain, inexorably British. Therefore, we have to assume that there is a reason why the Legislature would have a British undertone to it. I think that if we allow, make provision for, anyone who wishes to, to take that step that we require then I think we have already gone quite a long way to welcoming the people who make up such an important part of our Island to welcome them on to all levels of Island life.

15. Senator I.J. Gorst :

These debates often, for me, are quite difficult because, as Members know, I am myself an immigrant and must count myself privileged to be able to call this Island my home. We are living in a changing world and we should consider that changing world and in that consideration we, like the rest of Europe, like America, should consider what we, as a Legislature, are being told by those who put us here. We have heard this morning, it was no surprise because the international media is full of it, President Trump, the Brexit vote, the pros and cons of immigration. But we, of course, come to that conversation from a unique vantage point for all the reasons that Deputy Mézec said in his opening speech. For generations we have enjoyed, we have benefited from, we have welcomed others into this community. Some of that has been offering refuge. As he mentioned, went as far back and talked about Huguenots. Some of that has been because we have had economic requirements that have matched the economic ideas of those who wanted to come here and that has been a .. I say beautiful but a good marriage of perhaps requirements from different ends of the telescope. I think, as we stand here today, we can be proud of the integrated community that we enjoy but we should not take it for granted and we should be mindful that while communities around us are getting into divisive arguments and are saying things and basing policies upon points of view that we would wish to reject that we should not take for granted the cohesion that we currently enjoy. So if we remind ourselves of how our community came together in recent times around the terrorist atrocities in France; we came together, not only nationalities but also from different religious standpoints to say that we would stand against evil. That we would show quite clearly in our community the difference between a religious standpoint and those who wished to take a religious standpoint to do evil and brings acts of terror upon the communities which either they were living in or they just visited those acts of terror upon. Some of those acts of terror have been used by some in the political classes in some parts of the world to bring division, to build walls, whether they be physically or metaphorically. We do not want to do that in our community and I think never has the need been so great for politicians to be careful with their words as it is

today because they can easily be misunderstood. We can easily say things which bring division. We can easily say things whereby members of our community feel that perhaps they look around the world and think that some of the things that we might say mean that they are not welcome. I know that by saying as far as I am concerned and this Government is concerned those people who have come to this Island as immigrants - some with their families, some without their families, some for escape from difficult situations but some just to better themselves and their future and the future of their families - they are welcome. We want to ensure that they feel welcomed in our community. That is why one of the issues at the heart of Brexit is how are we going to respond, together with the United Kingdom Government, to European nationals living in our community who are invaluable parts of our community and how are we going to continue to make sure they feel welcome and continue to ensure they have rights into the future but at the same time we must be mindful.

[11:00]

Deputy Southern says: "But it is a but" because we must try to understand the message that people are telling us. At the same time we must understand that in coming to a community there is .. perhaps obligation is the right word .. but I think for most people that obligation is a desire. There is a desire and an obligation to take part in that community, to understand that community and to recognise how that community acts, behaves, to understand its history. To understand its culture and to work with those and not to expect that that history and that culture should be disrespected or in some way broken down. To me, the argument that Deputy Tadier is putting forward; it is not about whether immigrants feel welcomed or not; it is not about whether we are building walls or not; it is about whether the threshold that is currently in place in order to stand for election to this national parliament, because that is what it is. Yes, we have to deal with issues that in the United Kingdom a Parish council would deal with or a city council or a county council but we also, importantly, deal with issues that a national parliament would deal with. That is asking ourselves, in that role, as a national parliament, are the thresholds over which one has to stride appropriate.  Is the requirement that one should be a British citizen before being able to stand for this national parliament, which has a long and proud history? It is part of what makes us unique? We might argue about the Venice Convention. We might argue about how it might look odd outside to having the role of Constable in this Assembly. But in this Island we understand how history has

brought us to this point and in this parliament we understand the benefit of being connected with that history. Is the threshold of having to be a British citizen an appropriate one? Let us not get confused about what it says in the passport that we have. We could easily be confused by that because it is a European-style passport with measurements and arrangements as approved by European directives. Deputy Mézec is right, on the front it says that it is a Jersey passport and it is issued by Her Britannic Majesty's Lieutenant Governor of Jersey but on page 2 or 3 in the small print it says it is the property of the United Kingdom Government. So let us not confuse ourselves with where the passport emanates from or all of those details. The important point is that we, in this community, are loyal to the British Crown and long, in my view, may it be so. Her Majesty, in my view, is not simply the head of state of the United Kingdom as one speaker tried to suggest. Her Majesty is the head of state for the Island of Jersey and long may that remain. Therefore, while welcoming all who want to choose Jersey to be their home, all who see their future here on this Island, while welcoming all it is appropriate that we have a threshold over which one must reach in order to stand for this national parliament of the Island that we all love. The only argument that I

have really heard that suggests anything other than that is not the argument about division. It is not the arguments about wars. It is not the arguments about making people feel welcome. It is the arguments about, is the cost of getting that dual nationality, if your nationality of birth is something other than British. Of course we must be mindful that we do not cost people out of standing for our national parliament but I do not think that that argument today stands up or is sufficient reason to lower or to change that threshold. That is why, perhaps, I join with Deputy Labey and ask the mover to withdraw it because I do not think that any Member who would vote against this today is sending any message that we do not welcome people because we do. There is another issue connected with welcoming people and that is the language we use about managing migration. That is about the language we use about whether we have got an open door or a closed door. That is the language we use about recognition of the benefit of migrants and migration into our community. Perhaps all of us should consider how we carefully use the language around that issue because I think that that issue is an issue where people, if we are not careful, can feel unwelcomed in the words that we use. I think we can be proud of the cohesive community that we have here. It has not happened by accident. All members of our community have been part of it. But there is an understanding that reciprocal arrangements are important in the mind of the public. There is an understanding that when people move into a new community we want them to feel welcomed but there is also a desire and an obligation to understand and to respect the community into which people have moved. This threshold of being a British citizen, I think, is appropriate because that is what it is and therefore I ask the Deputy to withdraw his proposal today. If not then I think it will be, and I hope it will be, rejected but simply on the ground that the threshold is appropriate and no others.