States Meeting Transcript - 1st November 2017

STATES OF JERSEY

OFFICIAL REPORT

WEDNESDAY, 1st NOVEMBER 2017

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

1. Brexit Information Report: July 2017 update (R.87/2017) - (consideration in committee).................................................................................3

1. Senator P.M. Bailhache (The Minister for External Relations):..........................3

1. Senator I.J. Gorst :........................................................................5
2. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence : ..............................................7
3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................10
4. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:....................................................11
5. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................12
6. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ................................................................13
7. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................14
8. Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin : ........................................................15
9. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :....................................................................15
10. Senator I.J. Gorst : ...................................................................17
11. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................17
12. The Deputy of Grouville : ............................................................18

2. Deputy K.L. Moore of St. Peter:........................................................18

1. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:.....................................................20
2. Deputy R.J. Renouf of St. Ouen:........................................................20
3. The Deputy of St. Peter : ................................................................20

4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................20
5. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................20
6. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ................................................................21
7. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................21
8. The Deputy of Grouville :...............................................................21
9. The Deputy of St. Peter : ................................................................22
10. Connétable C.H. Taylor of St. John:.................................................22
11. Senator I.J. Gorst : ...................................................................22
12. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:....................................................22
13. Senator L.J. Farnham : ...............................................................22
14. The Deputy of St. Peter:.............................................................23
15. Senator P.M. Bailhache :.............................................................23
16. Senator I.J. Gorst : ...................................................................23
17. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................24

3. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ................................................................24

1. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................24

2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................25
3. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. Helier:.......................................................25
4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................26
5. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ................................................................27
6. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................28
7. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................28

8. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................30
9. Senator L.J. Farnham :..................................................................30
10. Deputy S.M. Brée of St. Clement:...................................................30
11. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................31
12. The Deputy of Grouville : ............................................................32
13. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................32
14. Senator I.J. Gorst : ...................................................................34

4. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ................................................................35
5. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................36

1.5.1 Senator P.M. Bailhache : ................................................................36

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................37

2. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence (Vice-Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee): ................................................................37

2.1 The Connétable of St. John:............................................................38

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................38
2. Deputy P.D. McLinton of St. Saviour:..................................................38
3. The Connétable of St. John:............................................................38
4. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................38

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................40

[9:31]

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer.

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption

1. Brexit Information Report: July 2017 update (R.87/2017) - (consideration in committee) The Deputy Bailiff :

The next item of Public Business is the Brexit in committee debate in relation to Brexit which has been requested by the Minister for External Relations. I remind Members that for in committee debates Standing Order 96 applies. Unlike in usual debates therefore each Member can speak more than once and there is no vote at the conclusion of the discussions. The Minister for External Relations will start the debate. The Greffier has, I believe, circulated to Members the Minister's proposal for how the in committee debate should be divided into distinct parts with the suggestion of a total time for debate should be approximately 2 hours. Minister, it might be helpful to remind Members briefly of your proposed structure when you open the debate.

1. Senator P.M. Bailhache (The Minister for External Relations):

We have proposed, as you have said, a running order for the in committee debate and while naturally the Chair must have a discretion in this respect I hope that you may be fairly brutal in keeping Members to the timetable which we hope to observe. This is the third report into Brexit preparations that the Ministry of External Relations has placed before the Assembly following the U.K.'s (United Kingdom) decision to leave the European Union and the first time that Members will debate the Island's post-Brexit future in an in committee sitting. The report provides an update to Members on developments that are relevant to Jersey. A review of our Brexit priorities, a summary of the ongoing engagement between the Governments of Jersey and the United Kingdom, and an outline of the next steps that we will need to take, both legislatively and politically in preparation for the United Kingdom leaving the European Union. I will keep my opening remarks brief as the central purpose of the debate is to allow Members to express their own views. I will highlight the risks and opportunities that have been identified and hope that that will be helpful to the Members. We have proposed a structured debate which divides the discussion into 4 broad areas. First is the general debate, which I am opening now on political engagement, government objectives and so on. The second section will examine the personal impact of Brexit on Islanders in matters of immigration, migration and citizen's rights. The third will be a discussion of the potential effects on business, looking particularly at the implications of changing trade and customs relationships. The fourth and final section will be to look to aspects that affect both individuals and businesses in matters of transport and communication. Also the legislative measures necessary to ensure the proper functioning of relevant law in Jersey related to E.U. (European Union) legislation. May I first update Members on developments since the report was lodged on 18th July? I should emphasise that Jersey's Brexit preparations are a truly cross-governmental undertaking. While under the co-ordination of my ministry they include significant contributions from Ministers and officials across other government departments. Most significantly this involves the Department for Community and Constitutional Affairs in relation to immigration and customs, the Financial Services Unit in relation to financial services and the Department for the Environment in relation to

agriculture and fisheries. There are regular meetings of officials, including those from non- executive departments, to ensure a high degree of co-ordination and shared knowledge. Ministers meet on a monthly basis to review progress to provide direction to ensure co-ordination across government. For that reason I shall be asking my fellow Ministers to assist me in answering the questions and points that Members may raise on Brexit preparations within their areas of responsibility. While there has been significant international political development since the first Brexit report was presented in June last year our core priorities, although refined, remain the same. Our first and most critical priority is to continue the fundamentals of our existing relationship with the United Kingdom. This includes membership of the C.T.A. (Common Travel Area), Common Customs Territory, however described, freedom of movement of capital and external trade based on tariffs in common with the U.K. On this I can say with confidence that we continue to have in general a strong and productive relationship with the United Kingdom Government. I am encouraged by the honest and open dialogue that has taken place between Ministers and our counterparts in the U.K., including correspondence and support from the Prime Minister of the U.K. Our second priority is to continue the benefits of our relationship with the European Union, as already established under Protocol 3, so far as we can. This includes access to E.U. goods markets on terms no less favourable than the U.K., access to E.U. markets for financial services through equivalence, mutual recognition of regimes for third countries, and securing a deal on movement of persons in the E.U. for British Nationals resident in Jersey, as for British Nationals generally. The Chief Minister in his speech to this Chamber following the referendum emphasised the value that we place upon the contributions made by the many E.U. citizens living and working in Jersey and committed to provide certainty on their position at the earliest possible stage. That commitment remains exactly the same today. We are in regular contact with the United Kingdom Government on matters of immigration and the position of E.U. citizens with a further roundtable session due to take place later this month. Thirdly, we want to ensure that Jersey has the right agreements and international relationships in place to benefit from global opportunities. This includes extending the W.T.O. (World Trade Organization) territorial application to Jersey.

[9:45]

Our strengthened relationships with global markets, in particular in Africa, Asia and the Middle East, an expanded network of international agreements and entrustment to negotiate bilateral investment treaties between Jersey and our key trading partners. A joint Jersey/Guernsey working group on trade met with H.M. (Her Majesty's) Treasury on 27th September and a further round table on financial services is due to take place or is indeed taking place today. Finally, we have committed to apply our governmental resources to ensure effective engagement with the U.K. Government, States Members and the public to manage a legislative programme, which ensures the uninterrupted functioning of those elements of E.U. law that we wish to continue in force in the Island to ensure that we still control access to our housing and labour markets and to working with the Governments of Guernsey and the Isle of Man to maximise influence on the Brexit negotiations. The negotiations between the U.K. and the E.U. have entered formal stages with monthly meetings of the negotiation teams taking place in Brussels from June 2017, although unfortunately at an impasse at the moment. These negotiations have focused on matters which the E.U. has stated must be agreed before discussions of future relationships between the parties can be considered. They are the rights of E.U. citizens living and working in the E.U. and vice versa, the Brexit Divorce Bill and the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Preparations for Brexit within the U.K. have also begun in earnest. In the Queen's speech in June, the U.K. set out a bold legislative programme comprising 8 Brexit Bills. The first of these Bills, the European Union Withdrawal Bill has passed its second reading in the House of Commons on 11th September. Since the commencement of the negotiations the U.K. has also published a succession of position papers and future partnership papers including in relation to matters critical to the interests and objectives of the Island. The papers make positive references to the interests of the Crown Dependencies. The United Kingdom Government has also published 2 White Papers on trade and on customs matters. In these it is clear that the U.K. is planning to make provision for a wide range of outcomes from a deep and special - like boat trade - relationship with the E.U. to what might be called a hard Brexit. In her Florence speech, the Prime Minister also proposed the creation of a transition period of no more than 2 years following Brexit. This is a significant development and hints at a rather softer approach to Brexit than had been the case before the

general election in the U.K. We have made it clear that any implementation of a transitional period that is negotiated should encompass the Crown Dependencies insofar as that is achievable. As Members will be aware, when the European Council met in late October they did not believe that sufficient progress had been made in the negotiations and would not approve moving to discussions of the future U.K./E.U. relationship. Jersey's position is unchanged by the present impasse. Our regular process of engagement with the U.K. through workstream round tables and quarterly meetings continues to ensure when the negotiations recommence that our position and objectives are well understood. As part of the contingency planning we have been preparing for a range of Brexit scenarios, including a hard Brexit which some commentators think is more likely. As I have already said, our engagement with the U.K. is substantial and productive. The Chief Minister meets quarterly with Mr. Robin Walker , the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the D.Ex.E.U. (Department for Exiting the European Union) with the Chief Ministers of the other Crown Dependencies. They will meet again on 13th November. Equally Jersey officials will continue to work with officials from D.Ex.E.U. and other departments across Whitehall and the pace and frequency and intensity of those meetings has accelerated in recent weeks. I would close by saying that given the significance of our Brexit preparations it was acknowledged early on that we must communicate our work effectively with the public, industry, States Members and the media. The "Let's Talk Brexit" campaign has been a successful means of public engagement and remains ongoing, and we have sustained a considerable level of interaction with the public through social media. This has been most notable from the response to our Brexit resident survey, which showed that 80 per cent of Islanders we surveyed felt that they already had a sufficient understanding of Brexit issues. The full results of this survey have been published and shared on social media. We will shortly be publishing the results of the Brexit Business Survey, which has provided a helpful understanding of the concerns and opportunities envisaged by industry as a

result of Brexit and will form the basis for future discussions. Our campaign of engagement has not neglected, I hope, the States Assembly and has included 5 States Members workshops led by officials from across government departments, and I thank Members most warmly for their attendance and input at those workshops. They will continue in the coming months with focused sessions on legislation and trade. I cannot provide an unequivocal guarantee that Jersey will not be disadvantaged by Brexit, however I can repeat that the Government believe that our interests are being fully taken into account by the U.K. during these negotiations. We are well prepared and have dedicated extensive cross-governmental resources to ensuring the best outcome for the Island to which many Members have helpfully contributed over the past months. So I commend the report to the Assembly and look forward to this opportunity of addressing Members' views.

1. Senator I.J. Gorst :

I would like to start by thanking the Minister for External Relations and his ministry for all the work day to day trying to get to grips with the technical issues that arise out of Brexit. This truly is a cross-departmental piece of work. Some people like to criticise the Civil Service. I think that is unfair. I see in this piece of work, this coming together of some of our brightest people, with the best minds in our community, thinking about the difficult issues that Brexit throws up and thinking about our future. I want to thank them. They are right across every single department and that should not be forgotten. [Approbation] This first section has been entitled as a "political update". Is Brexit the positive sunny uplands that some in the United Kingdom and some in the media would have us believe? Or is it woe is me, all is lost, and we are just going into terminal decline. No, it is not. It is neither of those. The reality is, it is technical, it will require us to move sometimes quickly, always carefully, but we in this community have faced the forces of international changes and challenge every single year. This is no different. I am not naïve to think that we are entering the positive sunny uplands. But I am, for all the reasons I have just said and will go on to say, absolutely optimistic that we can navigate this well. All my interactions with U.K. Ministers, with ambassadors to the European Union and elsewhere around the globe give me hope for the future. The negotiations are, as Members will know from reading the media, ongoing. We have, of course, I think everyone involved in our preparations for the U.K. leaving the European Union were not surprised by the recent decision that the Europeans felt not at this stage had enough progress been made in those negotiations. But as the Minister for External Relations said, there are 3 threads to the opening or part one of the negotiations, that is E.U. citizens, what is going to happen on the island of Ireland and how much is the Brexit Bill. So Members will know that I returned from Brussels yesterday morning, and the feeling there among member states that I engaged with was that good progress is being made in relation to E.U. citizens. There are one or 2 issues which still need to be agreed but good progress is being made. Likewise, good progress is being with regard to the border and the island of Ireland, albeit we know that there are some very important negotiations going on about the Northern Ireland Assembly, and that will play into the E.U. negotiations as well. Members will also be aware that we have the honour again of hosting the British-Irish Council next week. So we are hopeful that progress is made in early order in relation to that. Although there is an acknowledgement as well that some of those issues will fall over into the second part of the negotiations about the future relationship just by their very nature. Then we probably get to the stickiest issue, which is the money, which of course is entirely a matter for the U.K. We do have an interest in what is negotiated for E.U. citizens. Of course we have an interest in the border and what is negotiated on the island of Ireland, not only because of our relationship with those areas through the British-Irish Council but also for any potential effects that it might have on the other elements of the negotiation. There again, if we were to read the media we would think all is lost when it comes to the money discussion. But that is not the feeling that I got from those member states that I engaged with on Monday. There is a distance to travel but all of them felt that that difference in approach, as we stand here today, could be bridged with the appropriate openness to what might be required. Although there are now 7 or 8 weeks until the next council meeting, where there will have to be a decision about whether there is a move to the next stage, I am not sure that after my engagement I would describe where we are as entirely an impasse. The European Union are offering the British Government the opportunity to increase the number of negotiation sessions between now and Christmas and the British Government is ready to take

advantage of that, but they would like them to be more free-flowing and perhaps not just 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. office hours for a couple of days a week. So I think we are going to see progress in that regard as well.

[10:00]

Then of course we have got the transition period which for our businesses is, I think, a really important step forward and everyone in Brussels on Monday was impressed and felt that the U.K. Prime Minister's Florence speech set the groundwork for more closer co-operation and working together more positively throughout the coming period. I am not sure that I can add too much more to the political update. As Senator Bailhache said, I will be seeing U.K. Government Ministers again at the end of next week. I will be in London the following week meeting with U.K. Government Ministers again. I say that because what Members say today in this debate is important because it will continue to help form those conversations that I have with the Ministers throughout the coming weeks and months. So we have got the U.K. engagement. We have got the E.U. engagement, albeit we must remember that it is the U.K. that is doing the negotiation, not us, but it is helpful for us to have engagement and for them to understand where we fit into that. But we must not forget throughout this process that our worldwide engagement has become even more important than it was even 2 or so years ago. That is why I just want to take this opportunity again to thank Senator Ozouf for all the work that he has done previously in that worldwide engagement. I was in Washington last month building on the firm foundations that he had built at that global event where we are able to make our case. We are able to build relationships with governments

around the globe and we believe also from that there will flow business. So I thank him for that work which was often unseen and certainly not always well understood and we are continuing to build on our work in the Middle East and in the Far East as well as we see growing opportunities, as the Scrutiny Panel has suggested in the past, in the United States of America and that was very positive, those meetings that I had there as well. Members do not want to listen to me, I do not think, on a further political update in this regard but I do want to listen to what they have got to say because it will help continue to form those conversations and that engagement and I look forward to what Members have got to say.

The Deputy Bailiff :

We now move to open the discussion on this part of the in committee debate. We have allowed approximately 20 minutes but obviously we will be flexible about that.

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

I thought I would rise early, and I will speak later on the W.T.O. I am wearing 2 hats today. One is as the chairman of the Brexit Review Panel that Scrutiny and the Chairmen's Committee has established and it is very early days but it is in anticipation of when the E.U. withdrawal legislation comes through to us, which I think is going to be lodged, if I recall correctly, in January. Secondly, to talk a bit about my experiences - and I apologise to members of Corporate Services because they will have heard the story already - as the Assembly's representative on the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly and also, having said all that, as Members will also know, we are all members of the Assemblée Parlementaire de la Francophonie so in this Assembly we are in a somewhat unique position of sitting in or having access to both sides of the arguments at times. It is quite fascinating. But I thought I would take the opportunity - I do caveat this as a member of the Scrutiny side - that what I will say will hopefully be quite complimentary at this stage but, and I always reserve my position until we see the detail later on and whether we have any observations on that point. But I think I am delighted to follow the Chief Minister because he touched on 2 things that I have come across in the last couple of years, one is his references to the island of Ireland issues and, secondly, to the very good work that the Minister for External Relations, in particular, has been doing with his team. I just want to elaborate on it because the Minister is always going to support his own team. I do have a couple questions at the end of this but I think I would like to endorse on these and just talk about some of the experiences I have had in the last couple of years relative to Brexit and particularly our constitutional position. I think it is worth saying firstly, in terms of the international engagement that we are getting, when one goes out, certainly in my experience, people are interested in our story. They are very interested to know that while we, as an Island 9 miles by 5 miles.. I will say the third oldest or one of the oldest parliaments in the world and whether, as people know, I too was in Washington earlier this year, hopefully another Member from this Assembly might be going there next year, and he will obviously speak to the Americans about New Jersey and that story, and that is really good and then you start talking about the contribution we make to the British economy and to the European economy and when you talk about £500 billion of investment being facilitated from Jersey alone they suddenly start pricking their ears up. Bringing it slightly closer to home, and by way of

updating this Assembly as their representative, so there are 2 Members here who attend the British- Irish Parliamentary Assembly. I am the main representative and Deputy Kevin Lewis is the associate. So we attend at least twice a year the various plenaries, and it was .. and people never quite understood our position and where we fit in and oddly enough, as a result of a suggestion from Guernsey, we did .. and I was party and presented or made a presentation on the constitutional position of this Island, and obviously Guernsey was next to us and Isle of Man participated as well, to the members of the plenary for B.I.P.A. (British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly) a couple of years ago. Oddly enough, that was when I first met Robin Walker or Mr.

Robin Walker because he is on the same committee, or was on the same committee as myself, on B.I.P.A. We only overlapped a couple of times. He was elevated to far greater standing. But it does help because again there is a contact there and, as the Chief Minister will know, he suffered or enjoyed the presentation that we made. He had a sort of understanding of where we come from and why we are constitutionally different, for example, to Scotland. Just stepping forward slightly, and one thing I will just note, when the vote had taken place on Brexit B.I.P.A. met, I think, about 2 weeks after and the atmosphere in the room was fairly charged, shall we say. Just by way of reference you have got a range of politicians, obviously all parties are from Ireland, including Sinn Féin, including the D.U.P. (Democratic Unionist Party). You have got the devolved assemblies. It will be applied to Cymru. It will be Welsh Labour. It will be Scott ish National Party. It will be Scott ish Conservatives. It is members of the House of Commons and members of the House of Lords and remainers and leavers. So the atmosphere was fairly charged. What I will say at the end of that, apart from the issues around the Irish border, was that there was a recognition that the vote should be recognised. I would say that was the attitude of 70 per cent of the people in the room. The vote had been taken, now was the point to get the best result out of it and that was across the board, and for Ireland it is critical for them because the volume of agricultural products they export across the border into Northern Ireland and into the U.K. Where does that take us? Well, going forward people then started looking around and saying: "Well, who is, for example, in the position that the U.K. may be ending up in?" and they do look to the Crown Dependencies to see if there is anything they can learn from. Now, what I was going to say is that what had been absolutely fascinating to me and is a very major compliment to the team from External Relations, is that I was able to present the paper that External Relations had produced, which if you remember was 2 days after the vote or 4 days after the vote, to a clerk at the .. he was a member of the House of Lords Committee who then eventually did a review into the position of the Crown Dependencies at that plenary conference. Just by way of example, the committee I sit on in B.I.P.A. is doing a review into agriculture and fisheries and we visited Belfast, Northern Ireland, and Dublin on the 2 I attended. Northern Ireland basically did not feel prepared at all. This was October of last year. Southern Ireland had been looking at this for a year because it was very highly on their .. it is a big risk thing. Even though they did not want it to happen, they had done some work. It was interesting just in terms of the level of preparedness from those 2 different jurisdictions and I think that was the measure that came through so I really do want to commend and place on record that the work and the ability of the team in External Relations, given that they are a small team, I have been very impressed with so far. I am sure there will be mistakes and issues that come along as we go along, that is the nature of things, but from a positive point of view I just want to endorse the comments that were made possibly to the embarrassment of the team at External Relations that I do welcome; (a) the support they have given me, (b) the briefings they will be giving to us on the Scrutiny Panel I am sure, but just to say that their work is recognised. Just to continue that story slightly, we had the steering group for B.I.P.A.; we hosted it about 3 or 4 weeks ago in Jersey, because this year it rotates, but this year Jersey and myself sit on that. The chairman, which is Conservative M.P. (Member of Parliament) Andrew Rosindell wanted to try and get people to understand certain things so he suggested, at short notice, that they met here. So we did. We reran the 20-minute presentation that I do on the high level constitutional position and then we brought the technical people in. We brought in the team from External Relations the next day which talked about financial services and talked about our position on Brexit. Again what is clear - I am sure the Chief Minister and the Minister for External Relations have been finding this - is that people still do not understand why we are different and it is so useful to get that engagement. We all have a responsibility because all of us, in our different roles, will meet politicians from different jurisdictions at different times, whether it is on a C.P.A., whether it is on an A.P.F. (Assemblée Parlementaire de la Francophonie) or whether it is on B.I.P.A. and for people to understand that. So what was very clear is that .. so on the steering committee you have people from the devolved

assemblies, people from Westminster and people from Ireland as well and they finally started understanding that our constitutional position was different. What was also very interesting, and I do not know if the word "jealous" is the right word, but there was certainly enthusiastic interest in the fact that our communications that are happening with Whitehall are very good and are very frequent and that the team has worked so hard to try and get that message across. The difficulty in all that is politics as well because obviously the relationship between Westminster and the devolved assemblies is fundamentally different with the relationship that they have with us. I think that understanding is quite critical to that process and then people start looking at it, well, how do you control immigration? How do you deal with .. you know, what is the position if we leave .. we are, for example, an exporter of shellfish and things like that. What about the agreements that you have with the fishery side. So I just re-emphasise that it is a major compliment to say that the teams that .. it is a small team. They have got bigger. I think it is very clear that for the moment Brexit is the main game in town, both on this side of the water and on the U.K.; it has to be. That they need all the support they .. we need to make sure that that support is there and, as I said, I do commend the work of the team. Now, I have 2 questions, I suppose, that said. I will not touch on W.T.O. at the moment because I think that will come under the section when we get to trade I think. I suppose 2 questions are .. is one is, I think I probably know the answer, but I think it is worth just putting it on the record. When will we know, for the Minister, perhaps he can respond, that all the hard work has been paid off; that we have been listened to? Now, in my view it can be at the conclusion of negotiations but I think it would be interesting just to know how do we know that tangible work, and there is a lot of hard work and good work going on, has paid off? Is there any early point? You know, when do we know what that final position is and how it affects us? I think the second concern I would have, and it has become clear, assuming I can read this on the note that I sent to myself, there is a lot of work in the individual departments and so it would be interesting to hear from the respective Ministers, when they speak at their various points, what their own ministries are doing in relation to Brexit. Obviously the interaction of each department that they are having with their respective U.K. counterparts and kind of in their view the key laws that we will be needing to be changing affecting their department. Now, as a guide, I did take the opportunity at the plenary for B.I.P.A. was, I will say, 2 weeks ago. It was in Liverpool. On the way down I stopped off in London for 2 days and I was very fortunate to meet both Hilary Benn, who is the .. I cannot remember the exact title but he is chairman or acting chairman of the .. I

think he is chairman of the Commons Select Committee on Brexit, or one of them. [10:15]

I also met Lord Jay, who was the former ambassador to France, but he is the, I think, acting chair in that case of one of the Lords Brexit committees as well. What was interesting was that firstly there is a big concern around what they are calling the Henry VIII clauses, that is obviously coming across from the devolved assemblies and that will be relevant for us from the point of view, is the distinction between order making powers and regulations. Now, generally this Assembly is quite keen that certain things stay in regulations. There is not too much put into order powers. Now, one of the conversations I had is that I believe in Westminster they are looking, although it is complicated, about sunset clauses. There is going to be this tension between the ability to move fast because some technical matter arises that you need to move quickly on because you have a finite period of time to do this on, versus giving power to Westminster versus the devolved assembly in our case, from the Assembly to the Ministers, and for how long. So it would be interesting just to understand that position. As a guide in the U.K. once the Repeal Bill is approved, I will say once it is approved, that is obviously a political issue, there is something like 800 to 1,000 pieces of secondary legislation that is coming down the line for them and they will have to deal with that within a year, broadly speaking, or by the deadline date. I suppose after that, switching briefly to the French speaking side, there are interested parties, countries, watching the process. On the A.P.F. we are one of the few British connected jurisdictions there so occasionally one does get some conversations from that side of people just trying to seek and understand the position. I will not dwell on that too much because I think that goes off completely separately. So I would be interested on those kind of areas, where the .. what the position is going .. how we would judge the success ultimately, when will we know the ministerial input because there can be a tendency for a department to think, although I have been impressed by the workshops we have had so far, I am going to get on with my day-to-day job because Brexit is External Relations. How do we make sure that is not happening? I mean I do understand it. I think there has been both internally within the States .. it breaks down the silos, people are talking to each other more and externally it is giving us a lot more access to Westminster for people to understand us. But how do we make sure, for example, he is not there, but the Minister for Health and Social Services, I understand they have a lot of E.U. nationals who work with them, how they are being communicated with. I shall stop there. I hope that has informed the Assembly on certainly some of the other experiences that are out there.

3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

So I was going for the remarks of the Chief Minister that he made about the work that had been done in paving the way for Brexit. If any Member wants to see what an Assistant Minister did then they can see it because .. I am smiling across the Assembly at Deputy Higgins, who asked for a copy of my full diary for 3 years and was published in the summer. I do not think anybody read it apart from me and .. well, I prepared it and nobody read it probably apart from Deputy Higgins. But it serves just the purpose of explaining what the work was that was necessary in paving the way to dealing with some of the new international arrangements and new organisations that we gave it to and I hope that that diary answered it .. helped Deputy Higgins for perhaps a role that was not understood and perhaps it was my fault that I did not explain it. It was certainly not explained by others except the Chief Minister. Now, the U.K. is leaving the European Union in 519 days. The U.K. has been the main interlocutor of relations with the European Union for Jersey and the other Crown Dependencies and we are going to continue to trade with the United Kingdom and we are going to continue to trade with the European Union. It was pleasing to hear that Back Bench parliamentarians that Deputy Le Fondré speaks of have understood now for the first time what the value of Jersey's trade is to Britain and also, to a lesser extent, that of the European Union and it is important that Back-Benchers, they are not the executive that Deputy Le Fondré is very clear about, they are Back-Bencher committees but it is important nevertheless that they are informed and certainly keeping these people informed with having proper data is important and that must continue. Nothing is going to change in 519 days with the fact that we have what effectively is a free trade agreement with the United Kingdom. We had it with the Crown of England since 1204 and later with the Crown of the United Kingdom and Union of Scotland in 1707. We had effectively a free trade agreement. Now, nothing is going to change that. That is the key explanation that the Minister and the Chief Minister for .. the Minister for External Relations and the Chief Minister explained was the pre-eminent objective of these negotiations. We have exploited that U.K. free trade agreement with the U.K. We often look up at Walter Raleigh. He was responsible for getting an opportunity to maximise that free trade because that is how the cod fishery happened. But the most question that I have in this stage of the debate is, is that with the U.K. no longer being part and round the table of the European Union table, we are not going to have the United Kingdom to speak up to represent ourselves and to deal with the mechanics of what are effectively going to be issues which are going to be of importance to us because we are not

leaving Europe, just like the United Kingdom is not leaving Europe. But we are not going to have a voice at all at the table. We were never part of the European Union in all senses of the word. I would like some reassurance by the Minister for External Relations and, where appropriate, the Chief Minister in saying what are we doing to build new relations, tangible relations, with other governments in the European Union because we are going to need friends in the European Union that understand and that are more likely to be sympathetic to our cause of being a services centre. A reputable, well-regulated, proper, value-adding services centre and I cite, for example, Estonia, and I wonder whether or not the Minister would agree with me that we have not made sufficient progress with the development of the relationship with the Government of Estonia. We have missed an opportunity. It was there and it seems, to much regret, that it has not been taken up. We had relations with .. who is holding the E.U. presidency of Estonia. There was not a surprise that we had the ambassador of Estonia here just a few months ago and I know we have to get a private jet back to him at a net cost of £1,200 to taxpayers for important E.U. meetings in London but there was not a happenchance that we had the ambassador of Estonia in Jersey earlier last year. It was because they are holding the president of the E.U. It is because they matter. They are a digital economy. Now, what is being done to secure relations, tangible, real, ministerial, government to government relations with effectively countries that will share a similar philosophy, a view, such as that of Malta too? Obviously Malta has been in the headlines recently for other reasons but we have had longstanding relations with the previous government, not the current government, in Malta and those have been a feature of some of the work .. people will look at my diary. So I am worried that we are effectively going to be not really putting enough effort into ensuring that .. the U.K. is not going to be there to protect us. They are not going to be there. Not going to be at the table. We need new friends and we need to invest in relations and you do not only call your friends when you are in trouble. You build relationships over a long period of time and we should be doing more of it.

4. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier :

Before I start can I just have a quick word about procedure? It seems to me that we have had at least 2 questions, 3 questions, coming from the previous speaker over there, another question now, an important one. I do not want to wait around for three-quarters of an hour when I have forgotten the questions to get some answers. It seems to me that we could better deal with questions individually as we go through the debate and get them out the way with any consequences or supplementaries that apply rather than wait for an hour and a half and get a whole pile of answers when we have forgotten what the questions were if all know they are answered..

The Deputy Bailiff :

Well, there is no particular structure to an in committee debate in that way. There is no requirement that it wait to the end for someone to sum up or anything of that nature and I am certainly open to calling upon those who light up with a desire to answer the questions that have been posed to them.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

Could we adopt the approach of when Members pose a question that it is answered in appropriate .. without another 6 questions being tapped on to it?

The Deputy Bailiff :

Well, it might be that there is a consolidation logic in the sense that perhaps wait for 2 or 3 questions but perhaps not wait for ..

Deputy G.P. Southern :

Can I put it to you we have had at least 3 .. 2 from over there and one from there which could be answered before I speak?

The Deputy Bailiff :

But did you want .. before you speak. Well, there have been 2 questions. It is entirely a matter for either the Chief Minister or the Minister of External Relations, whether they wish to answer any of the questions now.

5. Senator I.J. Gorst :

We are always happy to answer questions. I see one of the questioners is listening elsewhere [Interruption] and yet he asked a very good question, which is a question that is asked about diplomacy all over the world. There is no, I suppose, concrete answer to such a question. I think he indicated .. he is now listening again in the Assembly. I think he indicated that he felt that we might not see the benefit of all of this effort and interaction and engagement until we know the final future relationship and where we fit into that. On the one hand he is absolutely right because we must be in no doubt about this, the engagement that we have built up over, as Senator Ozouf said and as Deputy Le Fondré alluded to, in advance of the referendum result we had done a lot of preparation work, financial services, external relations, my office as well, together with other departments, to produce the report which he was then able to hand to parliamentarians and use so effectively in that forum. So we had done a lot of work then. That showed us to be credible interlocutors for people, not only in the British Government but elsewhere in Europe and right across the parliamentary spectrum in the U.K. It meant I was able to go to the Lords Committee and be questioned by that contact that Deputy Le Fondré has and it worked incredibly well. The relationships that I have been fortunate to build with U.K. Ministers throughout this period already pay dividends on a week-by-week basis where I am able to have very informal contact with them as well as these formalised meetings. So the money that we spent, the people that we have employed; they are already paying dividends in building that relationship in helping others understand our relationship. I mean some of the .. I dare to talk in this Assembly about where some of those relationships have been built and where conversations have been held but the opportunities have been created for those conversations and when, then, U.K. Ministers leave those conversations they have a better understanding about what we need but ultimately I think the Deputy is right, we will only know when the deal is finally ironed out. We have some expert advisers who have been through negotiations before in their former roles but are now here in Jersey. We also know that these negotiations can go ultimately through the night and ultimately people round that table are having to make really difficult decisions and trade-offs and that is why, for me, the personal relationship that is being built is so important because it is at that point when there is a trade-off, those people know they have got to come back and look you in the eye, even though you have built a good relationship with them. So there is pay off now but ultimately he is right, we will only

know when we know where we are in that particular deal or not. Senator Ozouf made, I think, very eloquently a speech explaining why it was that despite the great political grief I took and the, perhaps public grief I took, of why I reintroduced him as an Assistant Minister and it is a little bit

heartening for Members to be now nodding in agreement with the points that he has made. Some on the back row are not nodding in agreement at all but even they, in their heart of hearts, know that the unseen work that he did with countries like Estonia getting there on the ground, building relationships with regulators, with Government Ministers, with technology people is really important and it comes through constant networking and constant relationship building and it is very difficult to replicate it from the word go. So officials and Ministers are doing their best but I have got to be honest with Members, it is not as good as could be and we all know the reason why but we have got to put extra effort into it. On Monday I met with the Romanian ambassador to the E.U. Romania will be taking the presidency of the E.U. in 2019 at the very point when .. although they would like to have the deal negotiated 6 months in advance, I think we all know that they will not, so the Romanians are going to be left probably holding the cards or the baby, whichever term we want to use.

[10:30]

So we are starting there to build relationships. We have got a strong Romanian community here. I also met with the ambassador of Cyprus to the E.U. as well as the French one but we have spoken about that already and we are continuing to build good relationships with Ireland in Dublin through the British-Irish Council. We will be welcoming the Taoiseach next week to Jersey. These are all really important pieces of work together with the work that Deputy Le Fondré is doing at B.I.P.A. I, again, this month was in Rome meeting the Finance Minister as well. I have got an invitation to go to Berlin, now that they are .. well, they have got to form their Government first after their election. But Senator Ozouf makes an absolutely critical and fundamental point. We can negotiate Brexit well but we have to be mindful that the U.K. will no longer be around the table defending our interest. This is another reason why I do not think .. some people might believe that a different constitutional relationship is a possible outcome of Brexit. No, it is not. It is absolutely not. The way that the U.K. stand up for us and defend us might not always be as strong as we would like if we were in the room but we are not a member of the E.U. The way that they do that will be lost but that is a real tangible benefit that we feel the positive effect of day in, day out of being a dependency of the Crown and having this long constitutional relationship. While we will still have that relationship post-Brexit with the U.K.; that is absolutely fundamental to our interest, our relationship with the E.U., I am convinced, would not be enhanced. It would be diminished even further if we look for a different type of constitutional relationship. So we have to be mindful that places like us, we have to move swiftly. We have to show that we can move swiftly but we need to build relationships. That strongest relationship is with the U.K. It must be maintained and enhanced but we also must, as Senator Ozouf rightly said, build those relationships with other member states as well, which we are doing but I think he also rightly challenged us that we could and should be doing more.

6. Senator P.M. Bailhache :

Just a brief postscript to the Chief Minister's words. I saw the new ambassador for Estonia in London on Monday and Senator Ozouf is nearly right. I think we have not necessarily lost an opportunity with Estonia but we are certainly losing an opportunity with Estonia. He knows the reason why and I am not going to go any further into it this morning because it has nothing to do with this debate. Senator Ozouf also mentioned Malta I think. All these small countries are all certainly important for us and because they are small it is easier for us to build relationships with them but they have no "clout' in the European Union. The "clout" is held by the larger countries; by France and by Germany, and it is those countries which the Ministry of External Relations has put at the top of its list and is trying to build up relationships there. We once had a good relationship following our removal from the French blacklist with Monsieur Cazeneuve, who ultimately was the Prime Minister of France, and his advice to us was that in order to build up a good relationship with the National Government in France we should begin with the regions, with Brittany and with Normandy. We are doing that and I believe that we are doing it quite successfully but it is a long haul, and Senator Ozouf is quite right to draw attention to the necessity to have other friends, apart from the United Kingdom in the European Union.

Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier :

Could I ask a point of clarification from the last speaker? The Deputy Bailiff :

Yes.

Deputy S.Y. Mézec :

I am sorry to rise to the bait I guess but the Senator referenced an issue to do with Estonia, which he said was not relevant to this debate. Well, if he mentioned it it must be relevant to this debate. What is the issue with Estonia that is causing us problems? I would quite like to know.

Senator P.M. Bailhache :

It is not relevant to this debate. It is an issue of how we develop our e-Government and there are different points of view in relation to that and I do not think it is positive to deal with that on the floor of this debate.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Deputy Southern , did you wish to speak?

7. Deputy G.P. Southern :

I have basically got some questions. We know what we know through the media in general terms around the U.K.'s and E.U.'s relationship over Brexit and we know that it is fairly stuck and we also are aware that there are moves towards a hard Brexit, falling off the cliff edge it is described, versus a soft Brexit. What we do know, I think, and most economists now are talking about the degree of damage to the U.K. economy that will exist, whether it is soft or hard Brexit, after Brexit. There will be damage. We know that there are some 54 papers outlining the impact on various sectors of the U.K. economy that mark that damage. So my question is, have we had any access at all to those 54 papers, which may be examining the potential impact and if not, have we got our own equivalent done departmentally or through the Department of Foreign Affairs into what the extent of that damage  may be, given a hard Brexit and reliance on W.T.O., for example, in particular on our own industry, our own major industry, the finance sector, because we are told only this week, I think, of potential damage there; between 70,000 and 100,000 jobs lost in the financial sector in the U.K., what the equivalent is. Have we got any data or have we got any estimates of what may happen to our own economy as a result of the U.K. Brexit, especially in the light that economists are generally saying there will be damage. I guess the question is: how do you limit that damage and how extensive will that damage be and that is the question I want answering? If we have got those papers, like the 54 papers that nobody has seen, I believe, if we have got our own papers can we see them please so that we are all as up to date and fully informed about the potential of what is going to happen to our own economy linked to the U.K. A minor question, as, I think, the Chief Minister was talking about rights of E.U. citizens. The question would be, because of our relationship with the U.K., our maintenance of that free passage and free trade, are we inevitably bound by whatever position the U.K. ends up with on E.U. systems, are we inevitably bound that we have got to adopt the same or identical conditions in order to maintain our free access to the U.K.? So 2 questions there. One about the level of Brexit, what work have we done? Can we see

how much damage there might be? Secondly, on E.U. citizens? Senator P.M. Bailhache :

I wonder if I might test Members' views. I am very conscious of time and I wondered whether we might .. Deputy Southern raises some very good questions, which I would like to deal with but I wonder if he might agree that we deal with that under Part 3, business trade and so on, and if we might, at this stage, move on to the second part and hear the Minister of Home Affairs.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Well, I have one other Member indicating they wish to speak at this part of the debate. Could I ask Members whether there are others who wish to speak on this part? I am conscious of the time. We are now well beyond the 20 minutes we had nominally allocated but it is not of timing fixed in stone. It is a matter for the Assembly as to how long it wishes to deal with any particular section ultimately but I will assume that I will call on the next 2 Members who I have listed, which are the Deputy of St. Martin and Deputy Mézec , and then move on to the next section.

Senator I.J. Gorst :

Could I just make a comment about timing? I know that the External Relations Department were trying to be helpful with their timing and we are very grateful to them but for my part the debate needs to run as long as it needs to run because I am finding it interesting. This is a really important issue that we need to, together, navigate well so I would rather hear what Members have got to say and endeavour to answer questions if they have them than necessarily foreshorten the debate.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Well, this is an in committee debate. The normal rules of debate apply other than those varied by Order 97 and Members can speak for as long as they wish on any particular matter although ultimately the duration of the debate and the duration of parts of it are within the discretion of the Chair. I certainly do not propose to strictly restrict ourselves to 20 minutes if there are people who wish to speak on the matter.

8. Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin :

I was only going to rise in order to try to answer questions as they appear on the floor and in response to Deputy Southern I would just say, and if I might answer on behalf of the Minister for Economic Development, and talk about agriculture and fisheries. Very early on in the debate I asked officers to go away and examine, as quickly as they could, the financial effects of having to resort to a W.T.O. tariff regime should we find ourselves in a situation where tariffs had not been renegotiated. I can tell the Assembly that the cost to the agriculture and fisheries industry would be, in an approximate way, £500,000 per annum. The vast majority of that would be made up of shellfish exports into the E.U. Members will know, of course, we have a large export trade in lobster particularly and there would be a small tariff effect on the agricultural industry because the dairy actually export a small amount of goods in to the Republic of Ireland and that would also be subject to a certain amount of tariff. So in answer specifically to my particular part to Deputy Southern , we did some work really early. The labour thing is a much broader cross-departmental subject which we can discuss again. But very specifically, financially, the effects on agriculture and fisheries financially £500,000 if we resort to the W.T.O. tariffs.

9. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :

I do not want to start on too negative a point but the Chief Minister, in his speech, and I suppose more generally in his contributions in this Assembly, I think has a sort of weird habit of making an issue out of nothing when nobody has criticised something. He said in his opening speech: "Oh, you know, some like to criticise civil servants but I say Brexit is .." well, I have not criticised the Brexit stuff over this. I do not know who is criticising the Government for their strategy on this. I am not going to criticise the strategy because I think there is a lot of common sense behind it. The engagement that there is with international organisations, with politicians in the U.K. I mean I would hope that that would be what any Government of Jersey would be doing. It is eminently sensible and I do not really see where that criticism is coming from. There may well be things to point out in terms of what some of us might consider the imprudent spending on certain elements but the overall strategy, I have not heard a word of criticism about it because I think it is largely common sense. In terms of sort of the wider situation that both Jersey and the U.K. now faces itself with Brexit on the horizon, because of Jersey's constitutional position I think we are in a relatively fortunate position compared to other sections of what I will call the British family here in that the U.K. is going to suffer, and I think "suffer" is the right word, a political choice which is nothing but an act of political and economic stupidity. There is no future for the U.K. outside the European Union, which is more positive than remaining inside the European Union. A democratic decision has been made and so the Government of the U.K. obviously has to go ahead with that but what frustrates me is what I see in the U.K. discourse, arguments which simply are not sensible. No deal, for example. The Prime Minister of the U.K. saying: "No deal is better than a bad deal." That is simply not a sensible position. No deal is the worst potential option. It means a hard border in Northern Ireland. It means tariffs. It means a worse position for the U.K. and therefore the rest of us too as members of that British family, albeit Jersey probably not as badly affected potentially as others.

[10:45]

In my view I think there have only really been 3 political commentators that have spoken much sense in the past few years on this. That would be the Shadow Brexit Secretary, Keir Starmer, who I seriously hope will one day be the actual Brexit Secretary, because he is the only person who, right from the start, has spoken sense about transitional agreements which are going to be necessary if the U.K. is to safeguard .. and for the rest of the British family as well to safeguard our interests as the U.K. leaves the European Union. The other is Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister of Scotland, who in the immediate aftermath of the referendum, I think, was the only one who spoke sense there and so I hope that the Government is working as hard as it can to establish good relationships with the Scott ish Government, with the Scott ish Nationalist Party as well because they are obviously in a particularly difficult situation where their part of the U.K. did not vote for this and they have a particular interest in maintaining as much of the benefits of membership of the European Union while they leave. The other politician who I think has spoken a lot of sense has been the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, Fabian Picado, who I know the Jersey Government is in communication with. I know that they had representatives at their day in London recently. That is positive. I hope to see more of that. But to follow on from a point that Senator Ozouf alluded to, which was a very sensible point and it is one that I regret I have not heard more often in this debate, is talking to other countries, which could be potential allies here, and the one word that I have not heard in this debate is the Commonwealth. We are part of an organisation, a family of nations, which get on very well together, have a shared history. We have the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association where Members of this Assembly, who are not part of the Executive, get to establish relationships with and speak to them about the problems we face. Two members of the Commonwealth are also full member states of the European Union, Malta and Cyprus. When I have been at C.P.A. events, and I have been saying to other U.K. politicians: "You know, what work are we doing to speak to our friends in Malta and Cyprus who, when it comes to the final Brexit deal, will have a veto over it?" So little Malta, with a population of only, I think, about half a million people, will have a vote, a veto, of equal value to Germany with 80 million people. So that is, I think, an opportunity not just for Jersey but for all parts of the U.K., to be saying to our friends in those countries: "You know, forget our relationship with the U.K. Government", but directly with those governments and say: "You know, we are your friends. We have common interests in many of these areas. You have a veto at the end of this, please do not forget us and make sure that if there is some small print in an agreement somewhere that would negatively affect Jersey, you know, please speak up for us and say: Well, hang, you know, Jersey did not vote for this. Jersey could stand to lose out if there is not a good deal.'" It is not against the European Union's interests to give Jersey a good deal. It may well be to give the U.K. a bad deal but it is not in their interest to give Jersey one. So I think we need to be doing more with those countries to get them to speak up for us and I do think it is fair to say that I have not heard anybody talking specifically about those 2 countries. Senator Ozouf mentioning Malta in his speech was the first I have heard a U.K. Government representative do that and if they are doing that they need to talk about that more often because I think that that is a really good opportunity. The last point I want to make might, I suppose, be a bit of a weird point. I said before that the mantra that no deal is better than a bad deal is simply not a sensible statement.  It is bad for all sections of the British family of nations. There are some in the Conservative Party in the U.K. who want to leave the European Union, not for economic reasons but because they just do not like Europe. They have this sort of nostalgic view of Britain from the 1950s. You know: "That was the good old days. We should return to that", all of this nonsense that people - of my age at

least - have absolute distain for. There are some who want no deal for these weird reasons, nostalgic because they just do not like the E.U. They, you know, long for the old days of the Empire and that nonsense. There, I think, is a British patriotic case to say that this is bad for the U.K. standing in the world and its relationships with its territories. Many of these sort of ultra- conservative politicians are very proud of the relationship between the U.K. and the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar and to the Crown Dependencies as well. I think it would be good to see if work was being done, say, to those parts of the Conservative Party, who now that the Conservative Party has lost its majority, will hold more sway than they would have before, to say to those that it is anti-patriotic to support any sort of agreement that will negatively affect the U.K.'s overseas territories and its Crown Dependencies and that we, as part of that British family, our perspective is important and I think their position on no deal is simply not sensible and I would like to hear more from the Government of Jersey saying: "This is not a good position and if you care about the wider British community, British citizens who live outside the U.K. then this is something to, I think, talk about as well."

The Deputy Bailiff :

Chief Minister, do you want to speak on ..

10. Senator I.J. Gorst :

I just wanted to pick up on those points that Deputy Mézec raised. Perhaps he will forgive me for reminding him that I did say that I had met with the ambassador to the E.U. of Cyprus only on Monday, talking about these very issues. Senator Bailhache talked about his building a new relationship with the new Maltese Government. Earlier this month I met with the Commonwealth Secretary General, Baroness Scotland. Senator Routier was meeting, last week, with Lord Marland at the Commonwealth Trade and Investment Enterprise Forum. By the way, this is another organisation that Senator Ozouf was pivotal in getting us involved in and building relationships. He smiles and shakes his head but it is absolutely the truth and it is a good opportunity just to remind people. That is why he, Senator Ozouf , went to Malta when the Commonwealth Heads of Government was being held there and building relationships right across the Commonwealth and that, of course, is what we are doing as well in the Commonwealth when we are building relationships with Commonwealth Governments in Africa as well. So he is absolutely right to say that we should be doing this work. We are doing this work and we will continue to do this work but we should not be naïve about other countries, others who are one of the 27 member states, just how much political capital they are going to use to talk about either the Crown Dependencies or the Overseas Territories during the height of this negotiation because they have confidence in the negotiator. So in the British press we might have read various things about Monsieur Barnier and whether the E.U. had confidence in him. Again, on Monday I was told very clearly, by those interlocutors, that they have absolute confidence in him and they think he is doing a good job and so he is right to build relationships. That is exactly what we are doing. But we should not be naïve about what is going to be negotiated ultimately when it comes to the crunch.

11. The Deputy of St. Martin :

Just in response to Deputy Mézec I would just to like to say for my own part, and following on from the Chief Minister, I have also had meetings with the Environment Ministers from Crown Dependences and Overseas Territories and while we continue as an island to speak to the U.K. and we continue with work with Guernsey and the Isle of Man to speak to the U.K. we also do that in conjunction with the Overseas Territories and I have met with people from the Caribbean, B.V.I. (British Virgin Islands), Cayman, Bermuda, Gibraltar particularly has, at the moment, a very vocal Environment Minister, the Falkland Islands, St. Helena and Pitcairn in the Pacific. I have met with these people. Fortunately I did not have to travel to the middle of the Pacific to meet them. They all came to Alderney quite recently. But they are very concerned about the effects of the Brexit as well and many of these places benefit enormously from E.U. money coming through the U.K. to them for environmental schemes. In some cases the environmental schemes keeps their small islands ticking so it is important. So we are talking to these people.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Very well, then I propose now to move to Part 2 and invite the Minister for [Interruption] I beg your pardon. Sorry.

Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :

I did put my light on.

The Deputy Bailiff :

I apologise. I just did not see it on the screen.

12. The Deputy of Grouville :

Just very briefly and I had wanted to follow on from Deputy Mézec because the points he raised were very good. I was going to speak briefly but seeing as he mentioned it, the C.P.A., but in particular the C.W.P.A. (Commonwealth Women's Parliamentary Association), which I am on the steering committee, so I have worked on a lot of relationships with the women that I sit with there, Malta, Cyprus and Samantha Sacramento in Gibraltar and I think there is an awful lot more that could be done with the Commonwealth so I just flag that up. But there are issues and I do not see any way of where they fit in to this timetable or this agenda. There are issues where women are very concerned about how Brexit is going to affect pensions, for example, of part-time workers. Equal pay only came about from the Dagenham car factory in the 1970s where no justice was got in the U.K. so the women then had to rely on Europe for their support. So women are particularly concerned about various issues. They are worried that there is going to be a power grab so where the power becomes devolved into the parliaments and they will not have the support networks that they do now so I would just like to mention that. Seeing as we are talking about relationships with other organisations, for example like the Commonwealth and the twinning associations, our relationships with France. I do not know if we are co-ordinating anything here because a lot of the Parishes have very good relationships with their particular towns in France and Normandy. I do not know if there is a mechanism of bringing all of this together to give support to one another and speak with one voice as it were. Also perhaps a little further afield there is my work on .. well, our work, Jersey Overseas Aid. I know this is not particularly on Brexit but I just wonder if we are looking a little further afield at different relationships with different countries, we have a particularly good relationship with Rwanda and the work that we are doing there. We are moving into Malawi. Dare I say it, Lebanon? I just think that we need to be broadening our horizons and working simultaneously while we sit and wait and do what we can for Brexit we also ought to be looking a little further afield, but it is with the women in particular, the Commonwealth Women's Parliamentary Association, I am concerned and women are concerned mainly to do with their sort

of worker's rights, pensions, part time, those sort of aspects. I just flag those up now. The Deputy Bailiff :

Very well, the Minister for Home Affairs.

2. Deputy K.L. Moore of St. Peter :

In the interests of time I hope that my comments will be both brief and informative for Members to help the debate continue. As Members will know, of course, negotiations around the future immigration controls and passports, which are responsibilities from the Home Affairs portfolio, have not yet begun although the U.K. have started to set out their future objectives for controlling immigration from E.U. countries. Firstly, we wish to maintain the Common Travel Area, an objective that is shared across the British Isles and in Ireland and on that which we have received further regular reassurance from the U.K. Government. Secondly, Jersey must be able to retain control over who lives and works here in the Island so that we can meet our future labour requirements and we must also retain autonomy in setting our own excise regime and import and export controls. We also wish to secure no less favourable a deal on the movement of people in the E.U. for British nationals who are resident in Jersey and for British nationals generally.