States Meeting Transcript - 21st June 2017

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT WEDNESDAY, 21st JUNE 2017

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption ...............................................................3

1. Immigration (Amendment) (Jersey) Order 2017: extension to Jersey by Order in Council (P.26/2017).......................................................................3

1.1 Deputy K.L. Moore of St. Peter (The Minister for Home Affairs - rapporteur):..........3

1. Deputy S.M. Brée of St. Clement:........................................................5
2. Connétable C.H. Taylor of St. John : .....................................................6
3. Deputy R.J. Renouf of St. Ouen:.........................................................6
4. Senator P.M. Bailhache : .................................................................7
5. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of St. Saviour:..................................................8
6. The Connétable of St. Lawrence:........................................................8
7. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:........................................................9
8. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................11
9. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. Helier:.......................................................11
10. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................12
11. Senator I.J. Gorst : ...................................................................12
12. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. John : ....................................................13
13. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier:....................................................13
14. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................14
15. The Deputy of St. Peter:.............................................................15

2. Channel Islands Lottery: allocation of proceeds from 2016 (P.27/2017) ..............18

2.1 Deputy M.J. Norton of St. Brelade (Assistant Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture - rapporteur):..............................................18

1. Connétable S.W. Pallett of St. Brelade:.................................................19
2. Deputy D. Johnson of St. Mary:........................................................19
3. Deputy S.M. Brée:......................................................................19
4. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................20
5. Deputy S.M. Wickenden of St. Helier:..................................................20
6. Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier:..........................................................20
7. Senator L.J. Farnham :..................................................................20
8. Deputy A.D. Lewis :....................................................................20
9. Connétable M.P.S. Le Troquer of St. Martin:...........................................21
10. Deputy M.J. Norton: ................................................................21

3. Income Support Medical Appeal Tribunal: reappointment of members (P.35/2017).23

3.1 Deputy S.J. Pinel of St. Clement (The Minister for Social Security):....................23

4. Jersey Innovation Fund (R.3/2017 and R.45/2017) (Consideration "in Committee").24

4.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:.....................................................24

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................27
2. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................29
3. Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin : ........................................................30

4. A.J.H. Maclean:........................................................................30

5. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................30
6. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................30
7. Deputy A.D. Lewis :....................................................................30
8. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................33
9. The Connétable of St. Brelade:.........................................................34
10. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................34
11. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:.............................................................35
12. Deputy A.D. Lewis : .................................................................35
13. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:.............................................................36
14. Deputy A.D. Lewis : .................................................................36
15. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................36
16. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:.............................................................37
17. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................37
18. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................37

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................41 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................41

19. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence:..........................................41
20. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................42
21. Deputy A.D. Lewis : .................................................................43
22. Senator I.J. Gorst : ...................................................................45
23. Senator L.J. Farnham : ...............................................................48
24. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................50
25. Mr. R.J. MacRae , H.M. Attorney General: ..........................................51
26. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................52
27. Senator I.J. Gorst : ...................................................................52
28. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................53
29. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................60
30. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................60

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................61

5. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement:.................................................61

1. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ................................................................61

1. The Connétable of St. Clement:........................................................61
2. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................62
3. Deputy M.J. Norton:....................................................................62
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................62
5. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................62
6. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................62
7. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................63
8. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ................................................................63

2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................64

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................64

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

Senator A.K.F. Green:

Before we start could I just correct something I said in question time yesterday? When Deputy Hilton was questioning me, among others, I said that the Jersey practice model was in place. That is not strictly correct. Some components are in place but the whole system is not in place yet.

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption

1. Immigration (Amendment) (Jersey) Order 2017: extension to Jersey by Order in Council (P.26/2017)

The Bailiff :

Right, we turn to Public Business and the next item on the agenda is P.26 Immigration (Amendment) (Jersey) Order 2017: extension to Jersey by Order in Council and I ask the Greffier to read the proposition.

The Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion; to signify, pursuant to Article 31 of the States of Jersey Law 2005, whether they agree that a request be made to the Privy Council for the making of an Order in Council that would amend; (i) the Immigration (Jersey) Order 1993; (ii) the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (Jersey) Order 2003; (iii) the Immigration (Jersey) Order 2012; and (iv) the Immigration (Jersey) Order 2015, with the purpose of; (a) transferring functions and powers under the Immigration Act 1971, the Immigration Act 1988, the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 and the Immigration Act 2014 (as each of those Acts has effect as extended to Jersey) from the Lieutenant-Governor to the Minister for Home Affairs; (b) replacing remaining references in those Acts, as so extended, to committees of the States with references to the Minister for Home Affairs; and (c) re-extending section 25(5) of the Immigration Act 1971 to Jersey so that the offence of assisting illegal entry, under subsection (1) of section 25, applies to things done whether inside or outside of Jersey irrespective of the nationality of the person who does them, as summarised in the report of the Chief Minister R.35 2017 dated 11th April 2017.

Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):

Could I ask the Minister for Home Affairs to act as rapporteur please?

1.1 Deputy K.L. Moore of St. Peter (The Minister for Home Affairs - rapporteur):

The main purpose of this proposition is to request that the States Assembly approve a transfer of the immigration functions of the Lieutenant-Governor to the Minister for Home Affairs. Those functions arise under the Immigration Act and are extended to Jersey by several Orders in Council, the details of which are outlined in the report to the proposition. The draft Order in Council also brings up to date any pre-2005 references to the "the Committee" so that there are consistent references throughout Jersey's immigration legislation to "the Minister". In addition, the Order in Council would implement an important change to the offence of assisting illegal entry under section 25 of the 1971 Immigration Act. I shall return to those areas in greater detail in a few moments. I am sure Members will be aware that in order to give effect to the changes envisaged it is necessary to amend certain parts of the Orders in Council extending to Jersey and this is something which can only be done by another Order in Council which appears as an appendix to this proposition. I can confirm that Jersey law officers have liaised with U.K. (United Kingdom) Home Office, legal advisers and Ministry of Justice legal advisers in order to settle, in principle, the text of the current draft which appears in the appendix. Members will also have noted that the full text of the Immigration Acts in their intended form as amended has been prepared and presented to the States as R.35/2017. I should like, at this stage, to thank the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel

for their balanced comments on this proposition. I am aware that some Members of the panel had reservations on a matter of principle. This was referred to in a speech yesterday regarding to the proposed transfer of functions from His Excellency to the Minister but it should be on the record that those Members did not impose their personal principles and opinions on the objective function of Scrutiny and I am grateful for that. With regard to the recommendation made by the panel that any future changes to the immigration rules be presented to Scrutiny before being implemented; I am entirely comfortable with the suggestion and would endorse it. Indeed, allowing for such an arrangement is a core purpose of the proposition, transferring the functions to a Minister who is answerable for his or her actions to the Assembly. I also agree that the rules should reflect, as far as possible and where relevant, the standards elsewhere in the British Isles. I return now to the principle purpose behind the draft Order in Council which is the transfer of the Lieutenant- Governor's functions under the Immigration Acts to the Minister for Home Affairs. I should be clear from the outset that in no sense does this proposition imply any criticism whatsoever of past incumbents of the office of Lieutenant-Governor and the manner in which they have exercised their functions. As the report states it was simply thought appropriate to consider whether it would be more fitting that the relevant functions are exercised by the Minister rather than by His Excellency in order to be properly subject to democratic accountability and oversight by the States Assembly. To this end the Law Officers Department have confirmed that the functions under the Immigration Acts are purely statutory functions rather than an exercise of prerogative powers and it is accepted by legal advisers in Jersey and legal advisers at the Ministry of Justice, as well as the Home Office, that it is proper from a legal and constitutional perspective that such functions be discharged in Jersey by a Jersey Minister.

[9:45]

Turning now to some of the specific functions exercised under the Immigration Acts. The rules regarding applications for work permits are already made by the Minister for Home Affairs and this will still be the case. Similarly, immigration fees are prescribed by order of the Minister for Home Affairs and this will also continue to be the case. The power to order deportation currently resides with the Lieutenant-Governor in cases where he or she deems such deportation to be conducive to the public good. This power is often exercised on a recommendation of the Royal Court although, of course, the court only recommends, His Excellency makes the decision, having reviewed all of the circumstances. As the proposition states, leave to enter is a power already exercised directly by immigration officers. The powers of the Lieutenant-Governor relate to the grant and variation of leave to remain. It is the immigration rules made by His Excellency that contain the policy detail about granting leave to enter or remain. It is important to mention at this point that in the last 18 months there has been an agreed arrangement with the Lieutenant-Governor whereby His Excellency acts in consultation and with the advice of the Minister for Home Affairs when amending the immigration rules. Members will also be aware of the political spotlight that can now be involved with asylum claims. Historically asylum claims had tended not to concern Jersey on the assumption that claimants could easily be returned to their original destination but in recent months the Lieutenant-Governor has been required to determine claims within the Island as well as enact more detailed rules for procedures on dealing with such applications. Such claims are almost inevitably liable to court controversy and there is a strong potential for judicial review in the Jersey courts and His Excellency's decision in any such case. To summarise, the functions would be transferred .. relate to the power to order deportation, to the grant and variation of leave to remain, to amending the immigration rules even though the Minister is already consulted in this regard and in dealing with asylum claims. If this draft Order in Council is made the Lieutenant-Governor will be removed from the political arena not only in terms of policies underlying the immigration rules but also in terms of application to the court for judicial review which will no longer have the potential to draw Her Majesty's representative into civil litigation as is likely under the present structure. The Minister will undertake the functions, working within the framework and with the

advice and support currently available to His Excellency, with the added benefit of being democratically accountable for any decisions made to this Assembly and the people of Jersey. As mentioned in my introductory remarks, the Order in Council would undertake some tidying up that removes any remaining references in Jersey's immigration legislation to "the Committee". Most of the Orders in Council that extend the Immigration Acts to Jersey were made before Jersey's move to ministerial government and therefore still refer to Committees of the States in relation to several functions. While those references are able to be construed as references to the appropriate Minister the text has still not changed because Orders in Council are not within the powers of the Law Revision Board to update. The Order in Council in this case would therefore also take the opportunity to update all remaining outdated references. This brings me to the remaining purpose of the current draft Order in Council, which is to re-extend section 25(5) of the Immigration Act. In 2007 the U.K. amended the Immigration Acts to ensure that any person who did anything outside the U.K. to assist an illegal entrant should be guilty of an offence. In other words, that it did not matter whether or not the accused was British. Before 2007 only a British person could commit the offence in cases where the assistance had been given abroad. To date there has been no Order in Council to extend this amendment to Jersey which means that a non-British person who acts abroad to assist someone to enter Jersey illegally commits no offence. The draft Order in Council in the proposition would extend the 2007 amendment so that this will no longer be the case. Before I conclude, I hope it is helpful to make a clear distinction between the Lieutenant- Governor's powers and functions under the Immigration Acts, which I have referred to this morning, as opposed to His Excellency's powers and functions under the British Nationality Act. To be clear, matters concerning British nationality will remain with the Lieutenant-Governor. This includes responsibility for naturalisation and registration as a British citizen. His Excellency's functions in this respect are functions of the U.K. Secretary of State delegated to the Lieutenant- Governor and cannot be sub-delegated. In summary, and for the reasons and purposes I have described, the Order in Council will mean that Jersey's legislative framework has evolved to that of the positon of the Home Secretary under the Immigration Acts in the U.K. and is largely mirrored by the position of the Minister for Home Affairs under the Immigration Act as they have effect in Jersey. This is a logical and practical step removing His Excellency from the political arena and ensuring greater democratic accountability and oversight for decisions taken under the Immigration Acts. I, therefore, hope that Members will feel able to support this proposition and allow the Order

in Council to proceed.

The Bailiff :

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak?

1. Deputy S.M. Brée of St. Clement :

I am sure for most Members after the excitement of yesterday this is somewhat of a dry debate and for most Members having read the Scrutiny Panel's comments, which I hope they have done, will note that the Scrutiny Panel's comments, I think, represent a very balanced view. It will come as little surprise to most Members that I am the person who had the principle objection. However, I think it just shows how well Scrutiny works. We put that aside and we looked at the evidence and there is no evidence that this is not properly formed. There is no evidence that the legislation will not work. However, there are a number of things that I feel we need to just consider before automatically voting for this and then moving on. I think one of those things is principle. Now, any person really has to stand by their principles and that is what I am doing today. I would stress that I am not speaking as a member of the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel. I am speaking as an individual Deputy and none of the views that I may express reflect those of the panel itself. I think we have to look at this and say: is this in the best interests of the Island? What we are being asked to do here is to remove the Lieutenant-Governor from the decision-making process about immigration, asylum and deportation and place it instead into the hands of the Minister for Home Affairs. Now, the Minister for Home Affairs will also be able to amend, change or alter the Jersey immigration rules by Ministerial Decision. So, what will happen is that you have a Minister, who is obviously politically motivated, who is answerable to the Council of Ministers, being the person who determines what happens, applies the rules, that he or she has the ability to change and more importantly, interprets those rules. Now, at the moment we have in the body of the office of the Lieutenant-Governor a check and balance in place to ensure that matters of immigration, asylum and deportation not only meet with the stringent requirements as in the United Kingdom but also do not become a political football. Now, you may well think that: "Well, it is how it is done in the U.K., we should be mirroring that. It makes sense that you have a politically accountable person in charge of that area." Well, my concern is what we are doing is removing a totally independent, non-political check and balance, to ensure that immigration, asylum and deportation cannot be used as a political tool in order to bring about a certain course of events. Now, I am sure at the moment that is not the intention of this particular law. I merely wish to raise in Members' minds the question, that in the future should we find that a Chief Minister, a Council of Ministers or indeed a Minister for Home Affairs has a very particular view on matters of asylum, immigration and deportation that we then become out of sync with the United Kingdom. Now, bear in mind when somebody is granted immigration or asylum in Jersey they immediately enter the common travel area so there can be no restriction to their movement from Jersey into the U.K. There is not a border there. So if they are granted asylum into Jersey they can then move into the U.K. and what would happen if our immigration rules, which are going to be determined by the Minister for Home Affairs by Ministerial Decision are changed so that there is .. in financial worlds it is called an arbitrage possibility. It is easier to get into Jersey than it is the U.K. Once you are in Jersey there is no restriction on moving into the U.K. Now, as I said, I would stress that I do not believe that is the intention here nor is it anything that I believe at this moment in time will cause a problem but I think we have to look at the principle. Are we happy and are we totally satisfied that it is in the best interests of Jersey to allow decision-making, application, interpretation and change of immigration rules to lie in one body; that being the body of the Minister for Home Affairs? Personally, I do not feel comfortable with that. I believe that the Lieutenant-Governor plays a very important role in being the check and balance, being there to ensure that fairness wins over political pains. I think to remove him would be doing a disservice to this Island and, therefore, I will be

voting against this purely on a matter of principle.

2. Connétable C.H. Taylor of St. John :

Following on from that; how does Jersey stand in relation to the other Crown Dependencies? I feel that this is something that perhaps should be done in unison with other Crown Dependencies and not, as it were, stray on our own.

3. Deputy R.J. Renouf of St. Ouen :

While I understand the point of principle expounded by Deputy Brée there is, of course, another principle on the other side which is that the powers presently vested in the Lieutenant-Governor could be seen as capable of politicising that office and, therefore, wholly appropriate to remove the conflict that might arise if the Lieutenant-Governor were to become involved in contentious matters. We have seen certain judicial reviews being brought to the Royal Court in which executive decisions taken by the Lieutenant-Governor are reviewed, pulled apart and criticised and that is perhaps not the right place. That is not the right process to look at this in that way. If a Minister, as an elected Member of this Assembly, was to make those decisions any changes found by the Royal Court that were perhaps necessary, any criticism, could be the subject of debate in this political arena. So to me it is perfectly right and proper that this process should be brought into the political world rather than vested in the office of the Lieutenant-Governor.

[10:00]

But may I ask the Minister in her reply if she could advise whether there will be a right of appeal from any decisions made by her under this revised legislation. That is a right of appeal prior to any full judicial review to the Royal Court. Is there another body that could look at the merits of any decision she might take on allowing persons into the Island or deporting or such decisions that might be within her power. May I also ask if the decision of the Minister would be capable of being reviewed by the States Complaints Board?

4. Senator P.M. Bailhache :

I am glad to follow the Deputy of St. Ouen because I think that Members need to understand this small change in its historical context and against the nature of the current role of His Excellency, the Lieutenant-Governor. There was a time when the Assembly could not meet without the consent of the Governor, just as an England Parliament could only meet at the pleasure of the King. We did not need a civil war to resolve that issue but there were ferocious disputes during the 17th and 18th centuries as to the proper role of the Governor in this Assembly. As all Members will know, your chair is 7 inches higher than the chair of the Lieutenant-Governor in order to emphasise that in this Chamber the Bailiff takes precedence over the Governor and in terms of the public administration it is this Assembly and not the United Kingdom Government which has responsibility for the internal affairs of Jersey. But even after the chairs were adapted the Lieutenant-Governor retained a power of veto, the power to veto any resolution of this Assembly which might offend the Royal Prerogative. A very wide power which was only ultimately removed in 2005 when ministerial government was introduced. The Governor's role is no longer a disputatious role. It is more analogous to that of a governor general than of a colonial governor or even the governor of an overseas territory. The job is, of course, partly ceremonial but much more important than that the job is to understand the community, to get underneath the surface and to understand how the community works. In that way a governor can become a bridge between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Jersey Government. The Governor is trusted in London because he is the man on the spot and because he is independent. He is respected in Jersey because he represents the monarch and because he is not the agent either of the United Kingdom Government or of the Government of Jersey. His job is to represent the interests of Her Majesty's subjects in the Bailiwick and indeed also to represent the community as a whole. That is not a political role and it is why we should try to protect the holder of the office of Lieutenant-Governor from political controversy. But there are only a small number of executive powers which are still exercised by or influenced by His Excellency, the Lieutenant-Governor. Some Members, I think, may recall the last occasion in which a political controversy engulfed the Governor and that was the dismissal from office of a Crown officer about 20 or 25 years ago. Some Members may recall a large and angry crowd gathering in the Royal Square where much of the anger was directed against the Governor as the representative of the Crown. Indeed there was one occasion when Senator Chinn,

as he then was, a man of quite considerable physical substance, had to escort the Lieutenant- Governor through a jeering crowd to his official car in the Royal Square. It was not a happy occasion. The Chief Minister lodged, a few days ago, a consultation paper which relates to the proposed creation of a Judicial and Legal Services Commission and in the event that in the future it might become necessary to remove a judge from office, I hope that it will be done by judicial process rather than by executive order of the Crown. The power to order deportation is a potentially politically controversial power. It has led, in the past, to an appeal to the European Court of Justice. On other occasions it has led to the Lieutenant-Governor being arraigned before the Royal Court at the instance of a disappointed litigant. I think that that is an undesirable state of affairs and that as the Minister for Home Affairs has explained, it is infinitely preferable that the power should be exercised by a politically accountable person who is accountable in this Chamber for the actions that she might take under the Order in Council bringing changes to the Immigration Act. Deputy Brée asked what would happen if the immigration rules were to become out of sync with the rules in the United Kingdom and my answer to that is that if any Minister for Home Affairs were to be so unwise as to change the immigration rules as to bring them into conflict with the immigration rules of the United Kingdom and to affect the integrity of the Common Travel Area, the United Kingdom Government would act to protect the Common Travel Area in one way or another. I hope that Members will support this proposition of the Minister for Home Affairs.

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

I just wanted to briefly touch on what Deputy Brée was discussing about checks and balances and to just remind him that the Lieutenant-Governor does not have checks and balances and the Minister for Home Affairs does indeed have plenty of checks and balances upon that ministry, namely the Scrutiny Panel, which I chair. Ministers are also elected by this Assembly, so we have the power to put forward a vote of no confidence or a vote of censure to remove them so there are plenty of checks and balances on the Minister and I find it entirely logical that these powers should be with a democratically elected Minister. So the Assembly can rest assured that my panel will be holding the Minister to account. I wanted to request that the Minister update the panel regularly on any use of these powers, please. If Deputy Brée does have any specific concerns, please if he could come and talk to the panel if any such concerns arise.

6. The Connétable of St. Lawrence :

As the Assistant Minister for Home Affairs with delegated responsibility for the Jersey Customs and Immigration Service, I am pleased to follow Senator Bailhache and Deputy Doublet who have both helpfully confirmed, first of all in Senator Bailhache 's case, that the role of the Lieutenant Governor is non-political, as we know, and in Deputy Doublet 's case, to reiterate to the Assembly that any decisions following the implementation of this would be put to the Scrutiny Panel before any changes were implemented by Ministerial Decision. I think that is one of the issues that Deputy Brée raised. So we find ourselves in a situation where the current system puts our Lieutenant Governor into a position where he might well be brought into the political arena and that is clearly one of the reasons that these changes are being proposed. I reiterate, the important thing is that a Minister of this Assembly will in future make the decisions which therefore makes the Minister accountable, Deputy Brée said, to the Council of Ministers but ultimately to this Assembly. I thank Deputy Brée for the report that he did and I support the words of my Minister when she thanked him without naming him but he has held his hands up for undertaking a review and presenting a report that did not allow his personal views to cloud the outcome and the views of that report. So it is important to state that when these functions are transferred, the Minister would be supported, as the Lieutenant Governor is now, by the Jersey Customs and Immigration Service so there can be no concerns as to the support structure that will be in place for the Minister, given that the support will not change, it will be merely redirected from the Lieutenant Governor to the Minister. Again, another extremely important consequence of this proposition would be the enhanced role of Scrutiny and of this Assembly; and I do not think that can be stressed enough. By removing effectively what is the current political role of the Lieutenant Governor, it becomes the responsibility of a Minister who is accountable to this Assembly and that has, I think, been articulated well by the Deputy of St. Ouen. Now Scrutiny mentioned in their comments that any future changes by the Minister to the Jersey Immigration Rules should be presented to the relevant panel before being implemented and I fully support that recommendation. We have already heard the Minister for Home Affairs support it and that is the norm for this Minister and for myself. I stress that because we do work very closely with our Scrutiny Panel and everything that we are considering is shared with that panel. As Senator Bailhache has said, it would be an unwise future Minister for Home Affairs and Assistant Minister for Home Affairs who decided to make decisions arbitrarily without reference to the Scrutiny Panel. They would not stay in their position for very long, I am sure, because this Assembly would not accept that. It is absolutely right that Members are able to hold Ministers to account for all of the important decisions that are made under the Immigration Acts and this proposition would allow that to be the case, so I ask Members for their

support on this proposition. [10:15]

It removes the Lieutenant Governor from the political arena, it allows accountability by the Minister for Home Affairs to this Assembly, and the Assembly is the ultimate arbiter of the actions of the Minister for Home Affairs. I think that covers the points that have been raised and again I ask Members for their support on this proposition and thank them.

Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier :

Could I ask a point of clarification from the previous speaker? She mentioned an enhanced role for Scrutiny in the process and it seemed to me she was referring to when the Minister for Home Affairs deals with particular individual cases. Surely Scrutiny is not allowed to deal with individual cases and in which case where is the enhanced role? Could she clarify what the enhanced role for Scrutiny is in this process?

The Connétable of St. Lawrence :

Yes, I can clarify. If the Deputy misunderstood what I was saying, I apologise that I was not clear. The enhanced role for Scrutiny is that before any proposed changes to the immigration rules would be made, they would be discussed with Scrutiny in advance, as is the recommendation in the Scrutiny report. The Deputy is quite clear that there would be no discussion with Scrutiny before decisions were made by the Minister on matters such as deportation or asylum; he is correct in understanding that.

The Bailiff :

Connétable , you mean on individual cases?

The Connétable of St. Lawrence : Yes, Sir.

7. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

I genuinely came to this debate with an open mind this morning. I had a brief word with the Minister for Home Affairs yesterday in the coffee room and I heard the comments of Deputy Brée which were obviously given in a different context in yesterday's debate. But when I hear this morning something which is a logical fallacy, when I hear somebody standing up and saying over and over again that the justification is that we must not politicise the Lieutenant Governor when he is not political anyway; he is probably the least political person in this Assembly and I think that is for a reason. I think all of us, in one way or another, and you, Sir, at times get charged with being political even though you are also independently appointed. Yet to say, because we want the decisions of deportation and those life-and-death issues in many ways, although perhaps not literally, although they could be of course to do with life and death, we want to give them to a politician so that the decision does not become politicised, it is completely illogical. It is the opposite. If you do not want it to become politicised, then you give it to somebody who is independent because that is what we do with decisions that we do not want to become politicised. When we discuss our own pay we do not discuss it because that would be politicising it, we give it to an independent body called the Remuneration Body. When we set the minimum wage we do not let politicians decide it, we give it to an independent body who decide on what the minimum wage is, even though in fact that is a political decision in many ways, but of course it comes back to us. There are a whole host of decisions which we do not want to be politicised and we give it therefore very correctly I have seen the Assistant Minister shaking her head. She has spoken already and her Minister can sum up. But if I am wrong, please tell me in summing-up, but we surely have an independent person here. When you look up the duties of the Lieutenant Governor it says: "The Lieutenant Governor is primarily diplomatic and ceremonial." He is a diplomat in that sense but it seems to me for different reasons. I am sure there are different factions in this Assembly, which makes me uneasy for different reasons, who want to reduce the diplomatic import of the Lieutenant Governor and give more power to an elected Minister of this Assembly. Now we have a British passport. You will know that I am not especially nationalistic. I have spoken on different

occasions about the need to have open communities where we do not value people on the basis of their nationality but we value them on their shared humanity, and I think that is still true and I will come on to that. But Jersey does not have its own nationality. If we did, that is fine, we could give this extra responsibility to the Minister for Home Affairs. But we have our passport, albeit some of us with a stamp in it, grace of the United Kingdom and the British Isles via Her Majesty, and it is the Lieutenant Governor who essentially issues that passport for us. So we are British and matters to do with immigration, deportation necessarily have to be checked by the wider British Isles. It is not Jersey, we do not have the authority to do that. The other point is that this needs to be seen in the wider global context of what is going on around us. If we were talking about fire safety and introducing fire regulations, it is quite likely somebody would stand up and say: "The reason we are doing this, of course, is because we do not want people to die." The reason we might want to install sprinklers is because ultimately it will save people's lives and we would decide about who makes decisions and what the right course of action is. I know that Members of this Assembly, along with others, were invited to watch a film, and I know that at least some of us chose to go, and watch a film called Fire at Sea and that gave a context of what is going on around the world to do with immigration. I know it is something that is close to the Chief Minister's heart, for example, and it is close to many of our hearts. It is absolutely right that when there is a British tragedy, whether it be an act of terror or whether it be an accident like we saw in that fire block, which is absolutely terrible, that our hearts and our sympathies go out to those individuals and we think: "What can we do to make this situation better?" But there are hundreds and thousands of people dying around the world in crises every week and every month and the situation in the Middle East still goes on. There are people fleeing for their lives, being crammed into boats by the most despicable of human traffickers who charge extortionate amounts to leave people in boats to die, to cross a stretch of ocean, to not know whether they are going to be allowed to get into the country, if indeed they make it over that short stretch of water alive in the first place. I defy anybody to see

those images and to not be moved by them, and this is exactly the context in which we are talking. Now I might be wrong, but what it seems to me, and it is a question for the Minister for Home Affairs first and foremost, is what is our asylum policy in Jersey? We know that asylum seekers are coming from all over the world in very desperate situations and it seems to me we have been pretty sheltered from it in Jersey in our little bubble. We like to say that we are a British Island. Some of us like to say that we are monarchists and we celebrate the ceremony and everything that goes with it but what about the rights and responsibilities that come with that? Because when an asylum seeker turns up to the U.K., whether it be Portsmouth or Gatwick or wherever, there is a due process that they have to go through and if they are a genuine asylum seeker, they go through that process. Yet in Jersey, it seems to me, we never hear about it. The only occasion we did is, I think it was last year, when an asylum seeker came over in the boot of a car, got off at the wrong place, meant to be going to the U.K., found himself in Jersey, and I had the privilege of meeting that individual. We took him out for lunch with someone else down to St. Brelade 's Bay to show him at least a beautiful corner of the Island during his brief sojourn over here. I can say that despite some of the public rhetoric, he was a genuine individual, he was not trying to scam anybody, he was fleeing for his life from a tyrannical regime in Iran. I suspect, quite frankly, and correct me if I am wrong, Minister, that Jersey got caught with its pants down. I do not know if that is a parliamentary expression but I think it got caught short and I think there was scrambling around saying: "Oh no, what do we do now?" We normally just send these people back. If somebody comes over and says: "Look, I want to get asylum in Britain." "Sorry, we are Jersey, we do not deal with any of that. We like to be British but, I am afraid, go back to the last place you came from, they can process you." Even if they have got a genuine claim, even if they are fleeing for their lives, and this is in the world context, are brown and black lives inherently less valuable than white British lives or non-white British lives? Because that is the way it is portrayed in the media, that is the question we have to ask and that is the question we get in Jersey. Indeed, yesterday we saw our English lives and English contributions less valuable than Jersey ones and I think this is the whole context in which we have that. Now I for one would be much happier, even though I am a self-declared not particularly a monarchist, I think there is something reassuring about having the Lieutenant Governor in this Assembly because I would much prefer those issues of deportation to be taken out of or kept out of the political arena and dealt with by somebody who is not a politician, who does not have to answer to people. Because the Minister for Home Affairs is the Deputy of St. Peter. In the future, she may be a Senator. In the future, who knows, she may be the Chief Minister of this Assembly. But at the moment she is the obviously that is the plan, we know that. But we have a Minister for Home Affairs who has a constituency basis. Now, she or he is going to be moving there at the supermarket saying: "Why did you make that decision? We do not want more foreigners coming over here." She is going to have to say: "Oh well, you do not understand the pros and cons of it." She will be coming under pressure to make decisions based, not just on the legal factors and the factors that have been set out in precedents, but also no doubt from her constituents. So, we are deliberately politicising decisions that should not be politicised. People can seek to politicise the role of the Lieutenant Governor if they wish to do that in the same way that people can seek to politicise when our Bailiff gives a speech but they would be wrong to do that because those individuals are above politics. Now there might be other reasons, for example, why we want to elect our own Speaker - and that is an argument for a different day - but to suggest that these individuals could be politicised, I think that is a very flimsy argument. I am very suspicious of what is going on here but for me the primary concern is the outcomes. Does it make it more likely that people will get a fair crack at the whip when they come to Jersey if we change the rules? I would be interested to hear whether that is true and also what appeal mechanisms are in place. We know that there are ways to appeal a decision and we have seen that played out publicly in the courts, not through the political channels. What will the appeal mechanisms be for somebody who gets deported and feel they have been deported or not allowed into Jersey or into the British area without good reason? Will there be an appeal mechanism in place and, if not, is that human rights compliant? So I think these questions need to be answered. Certainly for my part, I am very suspicious of any move when we have got a system that I think works very well already, when we have an individual with a tried and tested method. I do not see

the need for this change.

8. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

I must say, it is nice to have a few nice remarks about Scrutiny. We have had a number during the last few weeks and that is absolutely super. I took part in the Scrutiny review but there are still a few queries that sort of kind of linger. We have been assured by eminent persons that this is absolutely kosher and that both the Lieutenant Governor and the law officers are content with the changes. What does concern me a bit is, why was all this done during the interregnum between 2 Lieutenant Governors? Perhaps the Minister would be able to explain that because we never really got  an answer to that.   The other  comment, in the proposition  it says:  "The power to order deportation resides with the Lieutenant Governor." Now, our understanding on Scrutiny was that the deportation would be transferred to the Minister for Home Affairs, so perhaps the Minister could explain that. The trouble is that we had a particular incident. We have got organised and changed the law because of the weaknesses that have been identified through a particular incident, which we got the impression that there was plenty of consultation, but was it sufficient? Why did we do it in the interval and who is going to be ordering the deportations?

[10:30]

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

A lot of what I was going to say has been said but there are a couple of things that have been said by recent speakers that I just had to stand and say something about. I had the honour of having a similar role to the Constable of St. Lawrence and I had a lot of dealings with the Lieutenant Governor's office and I always thought this was a little bit of an odd arrangement because it was politicising the issue of immigration. Immigration is a very political issue and I think it is very important that the likes of the office of the Lieutenant Governor does not get involved with such a sensitive political issue and that is why this change is taking place. I found it almost bizarre that I spent time in the Lieutenant Governor's office discussing matters of immigration which was a political issue. I was never comfortable with that, so I am very pleased that this legislation has come forward to change that. But I was just a bit disturbed by some of the comments of Deputy Tadier . Does he really want to put a signal out that Jersey is a place to seek asylum? I would be a bit concerned about that when it is not established and set up to deal with that type of situation on a very regular basis. That is not to say we should not be humanitarian and deal with it when we absolutely have to, which has happened in recent history, but to send out a signal that Jersey will be a soft touch and be close up and personal with a Lieutenant Governor, I am a bit concerned about that. Perhaps the Deputy did not intend that to come across in that way but it certainly did to me and I would be very concerned about that. The Governor is independent but he is also a representative of the Crown and we have Crown officers who of course then sit in our Courts. That does not mean that the Governor should be exposed to an appeal, judicial appeals, and the possibility of would be simply wrong to expose the Governor to Court proceedings which can happen, has happened, and could happen again if you do not make these legislative changes. I believe there is an appeal mechanism in place at the moment for nationality and again the Governor's office has to deal with that and again I do not think that is right and proper. The office of the Lieutenant Governor should be not put in that position of such a sensitive area of what is essentially a political issue, particularly when it comes to a judicial review of an application. It is simply not correct, so I would fully support these legislative changes. I think it is somewhat overdue. It currently exposes the office of the Lieutenant Governor significantly and I think that should be changed. I would urge Members to support this proposition. Thank you.

10. Deputy G.P. Southern :

It is always nice to hear my colleague on my left develop an argument which ranges wide and far. But I want to reduce the argument down to something very straightforward and very, if you like, conservative with a small "c" and it is based on my own experience. I have been around for long enough that I have taken an appeal on deportation to the Lieutenant Governor in order for him to exercise his powers and I found the process then very satisfactory. The Lieutenant Governor listened very carefully to the case which was about a young child's right to stay in the Island with his father in order to complete his exams which was going to take something like 15 months. The solution I got was that he would have exceptional leave to stay and the Lieutenant Governor exercised that discretion very satisfactorily in terms of dealing with this particular case. So my small "c" conservative position says I have had experience of this and the system worked. Why are you changing it? So, I do not know about others, but certainly my position says do not change what you have already got because it apparently works very well. The position of the Lieutenant Governor is one not of politicisation, I think that argument is silly, it is one of independence and that is what I am looking for in a system.

11. Senator I.J. Gorst :

I am slightly surprised by 2 Members speaking against a democratic process and rather having an appointed person to make political decisions. I am not sure if that was 2 out of 3, maybe that is their party policy, I am not sure. But it seemed to me that midway through one of those speeches, the suggestion was that because we are British citizens, we in Jersey should have nothing to do with these decisions. The position then would simply be that some U.K. Home Office official would make that decision. Is that right? Yesterday I was accused of, I think the word was "anglicisation". I did not respond to it yesterday but I do not apologise if upgrading our social housing to U.K. decent home standards is considered anglicisation. I stand by it. Of course we should be improving living standards to a good standard that we find elsewhere and there are many others where we must continue to show that we meet the very highest standards of probity, of governance, of transparency and we do that day-in and day-out. It is about delivering our future. But this morning we have heard that just doing what the U.K. Secretary of State, or what really happens is one of their officials will make a decision, is the right approach for us. This morning we hear that U.K. approach: U.K. should be making decisions about who can be deported from Jersey. I do not think that is right. I think that the change the Minister is proposing is absolutely right. We are developing our personality, our democracy every day. This is a natural development of that. Deputy Tadier mentioned a particular case and he did not want that case to be politicised. I am sure he knows what happened in that case because it was so highly politicised because there was such deeply, strongly-held views in the community, we had to develop a work-around whereby the Minister made the decision and then had to recommend that decision to the office of Lieutenant Governor because it was not right, and the Lieutenant Governor did not want to be forced to make a political decision. I think Deputy Tadier was in the Town Hall on the day that I was there as well and understood and felt the strength of feeling that some in our community had about these issues. He and I were aligned. We were standing shoulder to shoulder that day, strange as it may seem to some Members or to some listeners, because we share the view that all life is inherently valuable, no matter of one's origins, one's colour, one's creed. This is an absolutely natural development of Jersey and an enhancement to our democratic processes. I never thought I would hear the day where my colleagues on the left argued against a proper decision by a democratically-elected and accountable Member of this Assembly but I have heard it today. I hope Members will not accept that argument but will vote to make the changes that the Minister is proposing because we in this Assembly believe in democracy. We have been shoulder to shoulder with our friends on the left trying to get electoral reform and improve our democracy. This is just another part of that improvement.

12. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. John :

Firstly, I would just like to say I support the proposition in front of us. I think what I have heard so far is an inherent distrust of the processes in the machinery of government in which we have and the concerns about how Members are held to account or how Members scrutinise certain things. I would just like to ask the Minister to, if she is able, provide a timescale in which she expects the Privy Council to make an Order in Council should the proposition go through but also to ask that with regards to the Jersey Immigration Rules, which I believe came in in August 2014, whether she would be willing, if an Order in Council was made by the Privy Council, to share that with the relevant Scrutiny Panel, which I am a member of, to state and account for why she believes those rules as set should stay in place or whether she intends to change them and as to the reason why so that there is that security in that process and there is that accountability.

13. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier :

In the debate yesterday I said that democracy was the best form of government and of course I stand by that; I am a democrat. But when you put a democratic system together there is a sort of art to deciding where which power gets delegated to, which politicians have which powers, which powers retain sovereignty from the people rather than elected representatives and which decisions have to be handed out to independent bodies which are not susceptible to political lobbying. When you decide how those powers get distributed, there in each decision-maker's mind will be a philosophy that underpins where they think those decisions are best made. The Chief Minister, I think, is confusing the words "democracy" and "independence" here. For me, the philosophy that underpins my view on this subject is based on my view of where Jersey's position constitutionally in the world is. Jersey essentially has 3 options for where it stands in the world. It could be an

independent country altogether, it could be an autonomous jurisdiction with an association with the United Kingdom, as we currently are, or it could just be an incorporated part of the U.K. Now, all of those options present opportunities and challenges. With being an independent country, we would have all of the opportunities to completely decide everything ourselves but we would also face the challenges of having to make very difficult decisions and provide very expensive and difficult public services by way of things like defence, by way of having Supreme Courts, by way of having international diplomats. By being an incorporated part of the U.K., we would struggle in that decisions would be taken out of our hands and the people who are best capable of deciding what is best for this Island, would have much less power and it would be decided somewhere much further away. I am somebody who believes that being an autonomous jurisdiction with an association with the U.K. is the best situation for Jersey because we retain the local powers to make the best decisions according to public services here; however, we have the protection ultimately of the United Kingdom. We are British citizens here, we have the protection that they provide with defence and we have the use ultimately of their diplomatic services when we, as individuals, get into trouble around the world. I find it very comforting when I go abroad knowing that my passport says "British citizen" on it rather than saying "Jersey citizen" because I know that I have much greater protection that way. But being an autonomous jurisdiction, of course, presents difficulties because there will ultimately be some decision-making that we do not have a say on here and it is our call as individuals to decide if that is worth it. Now I think it is worth it not having a say over citizenship of people in Jersey because of the benefits we get back from it. I think that it is a good thing that we do not have complete authority over the immigration rules in Jersey because, ultimately, we are pooling that right and that sovereignty with other jurisdictions, Crown Dependencies and the U.K., and I think we benefit from it. The natural conclusion of supporting Jersey's position as an autonomous jurisdiction with a strong association with the U.K. is the acceptance that there are some things which will be better decided independently, not by people who are susceptible to political lobbying.

[10:45]

One of those, as Deputy Southern , I think, very powerfully described, was the process there currently is whereby the Lieutenant Governor has the role that he plays in this, somebody who is politically independent but who will apply the rules fairly and justly with no political considerations to make on an issue, which for many people can be very emotionally difficult and can lead to terrible upheaval in their lives if the decision does not go well, but he will make that decision objectively. So the reason that I am against this change is not out of any antipathy towards democracy because I am a democrat and I think I have a much better record of supporting democracy than some of those on the Chief Ministerial Benches, it is because I support Jersey's position as an autonomous jurisdiction with a strong association with the United Kingdom. I do not support us becoming more of an independent country, nor do I support us becoming closer entwined with the U.K. We have a good constitutional situation today, it does not need to change, and it is perfectly acceptable in a democracy for this power to be retained by the Lieutenant Governor rather than a politician.

14. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I will speak briefly just to say that I agreed with 50 per cent of what the previous speaker said. I use the words "British Jersey" regularly in being the best of all worlds for us. I think where Deputy Mézec , if I may say, is incorrect, and the Minister will no doubt in her summing-up explain this, is that it is just simply not an option for the Lieutenant Governor to continue to discharge this function. It is not possible. So effectively there are 2 choices: either that the decision is made by an elected politician in the United Kingdom; invariably that would be an official, or alternatively the Minister for Home Affairs in Jersey and, of course, upon advice. The one issue which we will always be discussing and perhaps when we get to the Innovation Fund, is Ministers act upon advice. They cannot simply make a decision in isolation of advice. When advice is given, if they do not agree with the advice, then they have to say so and they can issue a letter of instruction which then overrides that. But they always act upon advice and that is one of the things, I think, better communication is the way that Ministers operate. They are not individuals who just simply make decisions. So there are 2 choices: either this decision is moved to the elected politician of the United Kingdom, which will mean an official will make it subject to exactly the same lobbying in the supermarket of a Weston-Super-Mare or Bristol or Edinburgh, or whether or not Ministers in Jersey can be trusted to act upon advice and do things properly. The latter is the best way to do it. The Lieutenant Governor cannot continue and, my understanding, does not wish to continue: cannot, does not wish to, it is just simply impossible. So there are 2 choices, are we grown up enough to have a democracy and Ministers that can make these decisions or not? I think we can. British Jersey is working and in supporting the Minister for Home Affairs we strengthen British Jersey with our autonomy and showing that we can do things properly.

The Bailiff :

Can I just say to Members that it is not in accordance with Standing Orders to use the name of the Lieutenant Governor to influence the debate in any way? It is difficult in this particular case and I understand. Can I ask if any other Member wish to speak? The Deputy of St. Ouen has returned. We were wondering whether you would be inclined to make a charitable donation, Deputy ?

The Deputy of St. Ouen :

I will certainly do so, Sir. I apologise to you.

The Bailiff :

Thank you. It would have been double if you had been singing on the way out as well. Does any other Member wish to speak? Then I call on the Minister to reply.

15. The Deputy of St. Peter :

Thank you to all Members who have taken part in what has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate that I think has asked some important political and philosophical matters of Members. It is good to see that level of debate occurring here today, so I am grateful. Firstly, and most importantly, perhaps, is the question around the anglicisation or not this Order in Council is asking of the Assembly. Simply, as I mentioned in my conclusion, this is a logical and a practical step removing His Excellency from the political arena. I think as Deputy Doublet mentioned, this is really a matter of democratic accountability. That is a matter, therefore, for the electorate of Jersey when they consider who they are going to vote for at an election, that they shall put that cross by the name that most represents their feelings. So, therefore, if the public of Jersey decide to go down a particular route, then that will be a matter for them and the people that they therefore put into office. There are democratic avenues that will be followed as a consequence and that is simply a matter for the public. It is right and proper, I think, that this matter does become democratically accountable and, therefore, as it has been described very well by Senator Ozouf and the Chief Minister, the office of the Lieutenant Governor is clear that this is now time for a change and there has been full communication with that office over these changes and the office is content to see this happen. Constable Taylor asked about what occurs in other Crown Dependencies. The same potential problems do exist in the other Crown Dependencies, notably in Guernsey; however, there, there is a different system of government, a non-executive system. Therefore, they are seeking a solution, I believe, but it is not as simple as it may be here in Jersey, and so that is another point for us to celebrate that we are able to deal with these questions here in the Assembly today. Rightly, the role of Scrutiny has been highlighted and we are grateful for the special role that will occur in that Scrutiny in future will be able to consider the Ministerial Decisions relating to this Act prior to them being signed off by the Minister which is a novel but a good conclusion and a good compromise that has been agreed between the Executive and the Scrutiny function. It has been a rather interesting debate going off at various tangents, so I want to ensure that I have answered all of the questions that have been raised. Senator Ferguson asked whether deportations would be included in these changes and, yes, that is correct, the functions will be moved to the office of the Minister for Home Affairs. Review has been an important part of the debate today. The review process will in the future be that an internal review would occur which is what currently happens at the senior management level. Next, rather than an appeal being made to the Governor, which is what currently occurs, an appeal will be made to the Minister. It is absolutely right that the Governor's office, as Deputy Southern pointed out, has in the past discharged this duty very well, yet it is time to make this change. The final right of appeal will of course be a judicial review, as I

am sure Members would expect. Deputy Tadier raised the issue of asylum and I am grateful to the Chief Minister who explained and explored that area as we have seen in recent past. Essentially, that is a good example of why this role and function does now need to move into the Executive. I do not wish to be drawn into any further debate about asylum. I can repeat my speech if you wish but this debate  is really about the changing and transferring of certain functions by Order  in Council and I think we should remain on that subject and not stray too deep into the water. I think, and I hope, that in so doing I have answered all Members' questions. Before I resume my seat, no matter what the outcome of the vote today, I would like to express my appreciation to law officers for their excellent work on the Order in Council and for liaising with their colleagues in the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. I am also grateful to the Head of Service at Customs and Immigration and his officers for their support during the preparation of this proposition. It was the law officers and the immigration officers who jointly put together R.35/2017, which I am sure Members will have seen the full text of the Immigration Acts in their intended form. It is a significant and helpful piece of work for which I am, and the Assistant Minister also is, very appreciative. Last but not least, I thank my own officers in Community and Constitutional Affairs for their assistance. I ask that we vote on this proposition en bloc and call for the appel.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

A point of clarification, if I may, from the Minister? The Minister appeared to contradict her Assistant Minister who made it clear earlier that when she referred to Ministerial Decisions being referred to Scrutiny they would not be about individual cases and yet the Minister seemed to suggest that they would. What sort of M.D.s (Ministerial Decisions) will be made that are not about individual cases, could she explain to me, so I can understand?

The Deputy of St. Peter :

Of course, very happy to. I think what I was suggesting was exactly as the Assistant Minister described it, that the M.D.s that will be sent to Scrutiny will be those that change the Act, not individual cases.

Deputy M. Tadier :

I have a point of clarification. I know the Minister said she did not want to get drawn into the process of asylum but how the asylum applications will be treated under the new arrangements was a question I asked because it is germane to how I might vote on this and perhaps how others would vote. So, would she give consideration to explaining how asylum applications might change under the new arrangements, if at all?

The Deputy of St. Peter :

I am happy to. There are no changes to the asylum function. Today we are simply being asked to agree the transfer of functions, the transfer of immigration functions, and the others as I have outlined in my speech.

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

I wonder if the Minister could clarify. I think she said that deportation is one of the functions that is being transferred to the Minister for Home Affairs. Well, the report to the proposition says that the power to order deportation resides with the Lieutenant Governor in cases where he or she deems the person's deportation to be conducive to the public good. Are those cases also being transferred to the Minister for Home Affairs?

The Deputy of St. Peter :

I think I have made that point quite clear.

The Bailiff : I am sorry?

The Deputy of St. Peter :

I think I made that point quite clear.

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Sorry, I am just querying the fact that in that case the report to the proposition appears incorrect.

The Deputy of St. Peter :

No, the report says, as the Senator said, that the function resides currently with the Lieutenant Governor.

The Bailiff :

Minister, I think the question is whether all the deportation functions of the Lieutenant Governor are to be transferred to the Minister. As I understood it, your answer was yes, is that correct?

The Deputy of St. Peter : Yes, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Very well, the appel is called for. I invite Members to return to their seats

Deputy M. Tadier :

Can I ask that they be taken individual Articles as well?

The Bailiff :

No, I cannot do that, I do not think. No, it is one proposition, Deputy . I invite Members to return to their seats and I ask the Greffier to open the voting. If all Members have had the opportunity of voting, I ask the Greffier to close the voting.

POUR: 40

Senator P.F. Routier Senator P.F.C. Ozouf Senator A.J.H. Maclean Senator I.J. Gorst

Senator L.J. Farnham Senator P.M. Bailhache Senator A.K.F. Green Senator S.C. Ferguson Connétable of St. Helier Connétable of St. Clement Connétable of St. Peter Connétable of St. Lawrence Connétable of St. Mary Connétable of St. Ouen Connétable of St. Brelade Connétable of St. Martin Connétable of Grouville Connétable of St. John Connétable of Trinity Deputy of Grouville Deputy J.A. Hilton (H)

Deputy of Trinity Deputy K.C. Lewis (S) Deputy E.J. Noel (L) Deputy of St. John Deputy M.R. Higgins (H) Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)

CONTRE: 5

Deputy G.P. Southern (H) Deputy M. Tadier (B) Deputy S.Y. Mézec (H) Deputy S.M. Bree (C) Deputy T.A. McDonald (S)

ABSTAIN: 0

Deputy S.J. Pinel (C) Deputy of St. Martin Deputy R.G. Bryans (H) Deputy of St. Peter

Deputy A.D. Lewis (H) Deputy of St. Ouen

Deputy L.M.C. Doublet (S) Deputy R. Labey (H) Deputy S.M. Wickenden (H) Deputy M.J. Norton (B) Deputy of St. Mary

Deputy G.J. Truscott (B) Deputy P.D. McLinton (S)

2. Channel Islands Lottery: allocation of proceeds from 2016 (P.27/2017)

The Bailiff :

We now come to P.27/2017 Channel Islands Lottery: allocation of proceeds from 2016 lodged by the Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture and I ask the Greffier to read the proposition.

The Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion to agree, in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 4(5) of the Gambling (Channel Islands Lottery) (Jersey) Regulations 1975, that all monies standing to the credit of the Channel Islands Lottery (Jersey) Fund which have not already been set aside by the Minister (representing 100 per cent of the total Jersey portion of the proceeds of the Channel Islands Lottery for 2016) should be paid to the Association of Jersey Charities for the benefit of the local community and the charitable needs of the Island.

[11:00]

2.1 Deputy M.J. Norton of St. Brelade (Assistant Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture - rapporteur):

This is, as you have heard from the Greffe, a very simple proposition in that 100 per cent of the profits of the proceeds of the Channel Islands Lottery, I am asking the Assembly if we can, as we have in previous times, transfer this to the Association of Jersey Charities for the benefit of good causes in our local community. I have to say I do feel a tremendous sense of privilege and pride having the responsibility of presenting this proposition again this year. This time last year, if I may, I reminded Members that as recently as 2010 the Channel Islands Lottery was in decline. It was facing an uncertain future and it was putting funding for good causes at risk. Last year I expressed my delight that in recent years the lottery has been rejuvenated for the benefit of Channel Islanders. I had also told Members that I set an ambitious target of generating £1 million of profit average per year by the year 2020 to go to good causes. There has been a lot of hard work and expertise that has improved the product, that being the lottery, which in turn has led to increased sales. Increased sales have led to greater footfall for local retailers and increased sales have meant higher and better-quality prizes. At its core, the Channel Islands Lottery is a simple concept. The more tickets sold, the more money raised for local good causes. This is, be under no doubt, the primary purpose of the Channel Islands Lottery, to generate proceeds for the benefit of good causes to our community. Members will have seen that the Public Lotteries Report for 2016 which came out in March 2017 was presented to this Assembly and I am delighted to report that the proceeds from lottery activity in Jersey in 2016 was record-breaking: £1,250,482. Be in no doubt, this in Europe per capita of population is the most successful lottery in Europe to date. Achieving this turnaround in fortunes of the Channel Islands Lottery in Jersey represents real achievement for our community, an achievement which we should all, as States Members, be immensely proud of. Now if Members support the proposition today, the proceeds will be transferred, as in previous years, to the Association of Jersey Charities. As Members know, the Association represents over 300 member charities and allocates funds from the Channel Islands Lottery on a basis of need. I will publish a Ministerial Decision, which will be a 3-year Service Level Agreement once the Association of Jersey Charities have agreed that S.L.A. (Service Level Agreement). That will then sit in place for further subsequent allocations over the next 2 years. The Association publishes its annual report on their website so everyone can see where the funds are distributed. I will also arrange for the Association to present their annual report to all Members. The amount of money will allow the Association of Jersey Charities to make an even greater positive impact on the lives of people in our community. The Channel Islands Lottery support is vital for allowing organisations to continue their work and I would express my thanks and the thanks of the Assembly for the work undertaken in supporting our community by the Association of Jersey Charities. They do an immensely valuable job. It is no exaggeration to say that the lives, especially those who are in some way disadvantaged, have been transformed by lottery money. I would also like to acknowledge everyone that has supported and contributed to the success of the Channel Islands Lottery during 2016. I would especially like to thank Islanders for their continued generosity in supporting the lottery. The Channel Islands Lottery really is a treasure of this Island. It has delivered for the community since the 1970s. It will keep flying high for decades to come if we maintain our focus on improving with attention to detail. I maintain the proposition.