States Meeting Transcript - 18th November 2020

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

Wednesday, 18 NOVEMBER 2020

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption .................................................................. 4

1. Draft Financial Services (Disclosure and Provision of Information) (Jersey) Regulations 202- (P.125/2020) .............................................................. 4

1. Connétable R.A. Buchanan of St. Ouen (Assistant Minister for External Relations) - rapporteur: ................................................................................. 4

1. Deputy R.J. Ward : ......................................................................... 5
2. Deputy K.F. Morel of St. Lawrence : ...................................................... 5
3. Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade : ........................................................ 5
4. Deputy G.C. Guida of St. Lawrence : ...................................................... 6
5. Senator I.J. Gorst : .......................................................................... 6
6. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier : ........................................................ 6
7. The Connétable of St. Ouen :............................................................... 7

2. The Connétable of St. Ouen :............................................................... 9

1. Deputy J.H. Perchard of St. Saviour : ...................................................... 9
2. Deputy J.H. Young: ........................................................................ 9
3. Deputy R.J. Ward : ........................................................................ 10
4. The Connétable of St. Ouen :.............................................................. 10

3. The Connétable of St. Ouen :.............................................................. 10
4. The Connétable of St. Ouen :.............................................................. 14

1. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier : ...................................................... 14
2. Deputy J.H. Young: ...................................................................... 14
3. Deputy R.J. Ward : ........................................................................ 14
4. Deputy K.F. Morel : ....................................................................... 14
5. The Connétable of St. Ouen :.............................................................. 15

2. Draft Financial Services (Disclosure and Provision of Information) (Jersey) Law 202- (Appointed Day) Act 202- (P.133/2020) - as amended (P.133/2020 Amd.) ............. 17

2.1 The Connétable of St. Ouen (Assistant Minister for External Relations - rapporteur): . 17

3. Draft Limited Partnerships (Annual Additional Charge) (Amendment) (Jersey) Regulations 202- (P.126/2020) ............................................................ 19

1. The Connétable of St. Ouen (Assistant Minister for External Relations - rapporteur): . 19
2. The Connétable of St. Ouen :.............................................................. 21
3. The Connétable of St. Ouen :.............................................................. 22

4. Draft Intellectual Property (Unregistered Rights) (Marrakesh Treaty) (Jersey) Regulations (P.127/2020) .................................................................. 23

1. Senator I.J. Gorst (The Minister for External Relations):................................ 23

1. Deputy K.F. Morel : ....................................................................... 24
2. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour :........................................................ 24

3. Senator I.J. Gorst : ........................................................................ 24

2. Senator I.J. Gorst : ........................................................................ 26
3. Senator I.J. Gorst : ........................................................................ 27

5. Establishment and funding of the Fiscal Stimulus Fund (P.128/2020) ................. 28

1. Deputy S.J. Pinel of St. Clement (The Minister for Treasury and Resources): .......... 28

2. Establishment and funding of the Fiscal Stimulus Fund (P.128/2020): amendment (P.128/2020 Amd.).......................................................................... 30

1. Deputy K.F. Morel : ....................................................................... 31
2. Deputy S.J. Pinel:......................................................................... 32
3. Deputy J.H. Young: ...................................................................... 32
4. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier :......................................................... 33
5. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade : ........................................................ 33
6. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour : ...................................................... 34
7. Deputy K.F. Morel : ....................................................................... 34

3. Establishment and funding of the Fiscal Stimulus Fund (P.128/2020): as amended. . 37

1. Deputy R.J. Ward : ........................................................................ 37
2. Senator K.L. Moore : ...................................................................... 38
3. Deputy M. Tadier :........................................................................ 38
4. Deputy G.P. Southern : .................................................................... 40
5. Deputy S.M. Wickenden of St. Helier : ................................................... 40
6. Deputy I. Gardiner of St. Helier : ......................................................... 41
7. Senator S.Y. Mézec : ...................................................................... 42
8. Senator S.C. Ferguson: ................................................................... 44
9. Deputy R.E. Huelin of St. Peter : .......................................................... 44
10. Senator I.J. Gorst : ...................................................................... 44
11. Senator L.J. Farnham : ................................................................. 46
12. Deputy S.J. Pinel: ...................................................................... 46

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED ................................................... 49 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT .................................................................. 49

6. Draft Amendment (No. 48) of the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey (P.131/2020) .............................................................................................. 50

1. Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier (Chair, Privileges and Procedures Committee): ......... 50
2. Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin : .......................................................... 51
3. Deputy M. Tadier :........................................................................ 51
4. Deputy R. Labey : ......................................................................... 52

7. Carbon Neutral Strategy and Sustainable Transport Policy: Additional Considerations for Implementation (P.132/2020) - as amended ........................ 54

1. Deputy J.H. Perchard: .................................................................... 54
2. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier : ................................................ 56
3. Deputy K.C. Lewis : ...................................................................... 57
4. Deputy M. Tadier :........................................................................ 57
5. Connétable C.H. Taylor of St. John : ...................................................... 58
6. Deputy L.B.E. Ash of St. Clement : ...................................................... 59
7. Deputy D. Johnson of St. Mary : .......................................................... 60
8. Deputy J.H. Young: ...................................................................... 60
9. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade : ................................................ 62

10. Connétable J. Le Bailly of St. Mary : ..................................................... 62
11. The Deputy of St. Martin : ................................................................ 63
12. Deputy R.J. Ward : ........................................................................ 63
13. Deputy G.P. Southern : .................................................................... 64
14. Deputy K.F. Morel : ....................................................................... 64
15. Deputy K.G. Pamplin of St. Saviour : .................................................... 65
16. Senator I.J. Gorst : ........................................................................ 65
17. Deputy J.H. Perchard: .................................................................... 66

8. Draft Amendment (No. 50) of the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey (P.144/2020) .............................................................................................. 68

1. Senator L.J. Farnham : .................................................................... 68
2. Senator S.Y. Mézec : ...................................................................... 70
3. The Connétable of St. John : .............................................................. 72
4. Deputy S.M. Wickenden:................................................................. 72
5. Deputy R. Labey : ......................................................................... 73
6. Deputy M. Tadier :........................................................................ 74
7. Deputy L.B.E. Ash:....................................................................... 75
8. Deputy G.C. Guida: ...................................................................... 75
9. Deputy J.A. Martin: ...................................................................... 76
10. Deputy I. Gardiner : ....................................................................... 77
11. The Deputy of St. Martin : ................................................................ 77
12. The Deputy of St. Peter : .................................................................. 77
13. Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré: ................................................................ 78
14. Deputy G.P. Southern : .................................................................... 80
15. Deputy R.J. Ward : ........................................................................ 80
16. Connétable K. Shenton-Stone of St. Martin : ............................................. 81
17. Deputy J.H. Young: ...................................................................... 81
18. Senator L.J. Farnham : .................................................................... 81

9. Draft Data Protection (Amendment of Law) (Jersey) Regulations 202- (P.121/2020) 86

1. Senator L.J. Farnham (The Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture): .................................................................................. 86
2. Senator L.J. Farnham : .................................................................... 88
3. Senator L.J. Farnham : .................................................................... 89

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS .................... 90

1. Senator I.J. Gorst : ........................................................................ 90
2. Deputy R.J. Renouf of St. Ouen : ......................................................... 91

1. Deputy J.H. Perchard: ................................................................. 92
2. Deputy M. Tadier : ..................................................................... 92
3. Deputy J.H. Young: .................................................................... 92
4. The Connétable of St. Ouen : .......................................................... 92
5. The Deputy of St. John :................................................................ 93
6. Deputy I. Gardiner : .................................................................... 94
7. The Deputy of St. Ouen : .............................................................. 94

3. Deputy R. Labey (Chair, Privileges and Procedures Committee): ....................... 96

ADJOURNMENT .................................................................................. 96

[9:31]

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

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption

1. Draft Financial Services (Disclosure and Provision of Information) (Jersey) Regulations 202- (P.125/2020)

The Bailiff :

We now resume public business and the first matter of public business is P.125, the Draft Financial Services (Disclosure and Provision of Information) (Jersey) Regulations, lodged by the Minister for External Relations. The main responder will be the Chair of the Economic and International Affairs Scrutiny Panel, Deputy Morel , and I ask the Greffier to read the citation.

Senator I.J. Gorst :

Just before we read the citation, could I beg the indulgence of the Assembly, should the Assembly approve this legislation this morning there is P.133 an Appointed Day Act and that Appointed Day Act itself is amended. I wonder if the Assembly would oblige myself and the Assistant Minister who will be acting as rapporteur, to take the Appointed Day Act, should this be approved, directly after it.

The Bailiff :

Thanks you very much for that indication. Obviously the Assembly will need to agree but I wonder if the proposition could be made immediately after the next one, simply that allows practically the Greffier to cover both in the chat. For practical purposes that would be helpful. Greffier, if you would read the citation.

The Greffier of the States:

Draft Financial Services (Disclosure and Provision of Information) (Jersey) Regulations 202-. The States make these Regulations under Articles 7(1)(b), 8(2)(c) and 20 of the Financial Services (Disclosure and Provision of Information) (Jersey) Law 202-.

Senator I.J. Gorst (The Minister for External Relations):

I ask my Assistant Minister, the Constable of St. Ouen , to act as rapporteur.

1. Connétable R.A. Buchanan of St. Ouen (Assistant Minister for External Relations) - rapporteur:

The Draft Financial Services (Disclosure and Provision of Information) (Jersey) 202-, which I shall refer to as "the Law", was approved by the States Assembly in July 2020 and sanctioned by the Privy Council in October 2020. The Law sets out a framework on which further regulations and orders may be made to provide a complex matrix of legislation. Members may recall that the Law sets out how information is to be provided to the Jersey Financial Services Commission and the frequency with which is it updated. The Law, together with regulations and orders will be the basis on which we demonstrate, as a jurisdiction, our compliance with the provisions of the F.A.T.F. (Financial Action Task Force) recommendations in readiness for the forthcoming MONEYVAL assessment. The draft regulations, together with the Law, play an important role in achieving another successful review by Jersey and allowing Jersey to comply with recommendation 24 of the F.A.T.F. recommendations. Jersey achieved an impressive 2015 MONEYVAL assessment, however the assessment team's report did indicate that further changes could be made to ensure that Jersey continues to maintain its position as a leading international finance centre in line with developing standards. The Government has consulted extensively with industry in preparation of the draft regulations to ensure they are in compliance with the recommendation in a way that is workable and

proportionate. Consultation with the Jersey Office of the Information Commissioner has also taken place and we have received confirmation that he has no concern about the draft regulations. The Draft Financial Services (Disclosure and Provision of Information) (Jersey) Regulations 202- further supplement the Law by introducing the following key provisions. Firstly, it specifies that information collected by the provision shall or shall not be made publicly available. Secondly, setting out an application process to permit persons to apply to make information unavailable from public inspection. Thirdly, an appeals process to challenge decisions of the Commission. Finally, providing an additional fee to be paid by the Treasurer. These draft regulations will allow Jersey to modernise its company register and comply with international standards which, as I have previously indicated, is extremely important for the forthcoming MONEYVAL assessment and I proposed the principles.

The Bailiff :

Are the principles seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the principles? Deputy Ward , you seek a point of clarification?

Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier :

Yes, Sir. It may just be the sound and I apologise, during the speech did the Constable say regulations on - I cannot even remember the words now I have asked the question - who will not be listed or there is not access or there is access to the register? It was just the sound was not great.

The Bailiff :

Connétable , can you indicate what the position is with regard to regulations and access? The Connétable of St. Ouen :

Indeed I can. I apologise for the quality of sound, I am having to work from today because I am isolating. Certain of the regulations permit people's details to be excluded under certain conditions.

The Bailiff :

Thank you very much indeed. Very well, does any Member wish to speak on the principles?

1. Deputy R.J. Ward :

Thank you. This may be about regulations but it is a general principle. There seems to be a key point in this legislation which is, it you like, a significant persons status that is set out as the company. It says there are exceptions including those who are not holding a share in the company. I just want to know is there a significant person trigger point as to where they become that significant person that will be held on the register with particular information or whether, for example, you could hold a 99 per cent share? I may be wrong in thinking this but it a genuine question about the regulations themselves so it would be useful if that was answered.

2. Deputy K.F. Morel of St. Lawrence :

I would like to thank the department for providing the Economic and International Affairs Scrutiny Panel with briefings and also responding to our queries because we did have a number of them. We appreciate the importance of these regulations. I have already heard of some business that did not come to Jersey because they are not keen on the disclosure element of this from a public perspective. That is a political choice that Jersey makes and I think the reason for that are sound and understood in order to maintain our reputation at the top of the international regulatory pile, so to speak. I would like to direct Members to the comments paper that the panel has written which support this and say from the panel's perspective we were satisfied with all the responses we received and are happy for the regulation to be passed. Thank you.

[9:45]

3. Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade :

Obviously very supportive of the whole principle of bringing our legislation right up to the current level of requirement and the MONEYVAL. Absolutely behind that. But I could not help noticing, and this may be a detail that we could deal with in the Articles, unless I misunderstood this this seems to suggest that the current arrangement for companies registered in Jersey to pay a fee to the J.F.S.C. (Jersey Financial Services Commission) with a paper annual return will be replaced by a more expensive arrangement. While I fear that is the case, that there is no problem about where you have got active entities, I feel myself over the years where one sees where companies do not have any transactions and they are held for, if you like, nominal reasons and no other by local people that these fees have gone up and up and up. So I would like the rapporteur to give me a little bit of an explanation of what is said in the explanatory note on page 4, because it was not entirely clear to me what the new fee arrangement would be. If the rapporteur could clear that up, but I am very supportive of the principle of keeping our legislation fully up to these disclosures; all these disclosure requirements are very important.

4. Deputy G.C. Guida of St. Lawrence :

Interestingly, I have exactly the same question as Deputy Young. The document says that a much larger part of the fee will go to the Treasurer but I do not see that the Commission will not be able to recoup the money by just raising the actual fee of £225 by another £115 to make up for the lost money, which will raise the total fee by another 60 per cent.

5. Senator I.J. Gorst :

I just want to address the fee issue, which a couple of speakers have now referred to, and they will be aware that for limited partnerships the Assistant Minister has another piece of legislation this morning which amends the fee process. Historically part of the registry fee has either been maintained by the J.F.S.C. or returned to Government and there is also in place been a gentleman's agreement, if I may use that term, or an agreement - let us just say that - whereby the J.F.S.C. could retain some of the fee, which would be rightly repayable to Government to do improvement work to the register. With the modernisation of the legislation and changes in personnel at the J.F.S.C., looking at that agreement again, it has become necessary to make changes in legislation because there were concerns that such agreement between the previous Minister and the J.F.S.C. perhaps was not the best way to deal with such transfer of moneys and therefore this is not a change per se to the current division of fees, it is simply a legal basis to ensure there is no difficulty in the future. The registry have invested lots of money in improving their processes and improving their technology, and that is correct. They will and do consult with industry around fees but the proposed split here is not, and it would not be, and it is not appropriate in my view, nor the view of the Assistant Minister or team in Government, that there is any necessity for the Commission to simply increase its fees by the amount that is being refunded rightly to Government. This is just a legal basis for what, in effect, had been historically agreed; as I said. It is important that the J.F.S.C. have sufficient funding to run the functions that they are required to do on behalf of the Island, acting as the independent regulator and the registry function. It is just as important that they manage their costs appropriately and do not increase their costs disproportionately to what is necessary, continue to offer a cost-effective service to the Island and can show value for money to the users, as it were, or the entities that they are responsible for regulating. It is fair to say, in response to Deputy Young, that even if one is the shareholder of a passive company or that there are still requirements under A.M.L. (anti-money laundering) and compliance requirements, which have a cost to them. Therefore we are no longer in the world of thinking that a 2-tier approach would be appropriate in this regard, the ownership or shareholding in the company does place obligations on the Island in regard to international compliance and they come at a cost, notwithstanding the things that I have said about ensuring that those costs are proportionate.

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

Despite what the Minister has just said, Members should be absolutely clear, part of the fee is a form of taxation. For many years the Commission has paid money to the States, so yes, part of the fee is covering the costs of the Commission but the rest of it is taxation; simply that.

The Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak on the principles? If no other Member wishes to speak on the principles, then I close the debate and call upon the Assistant Minister to respond.

7. The Connétable of St. Ouen :

My Minister has responded to most of the fee points. If I could address Deputy Ward 's point about significant persons. That is normally how a director of a company is referred to and no other entity related to that company. Deputy Higgins is right, the portion of the fee charged to companies, which is a total of £235, £114 of that is returned to the States as a form of taxation to support the infrastructure of the run companies in the Island and it is effectively taxation but it is tax paid to the jurisdiction to maintain the infrastructure to run a regulator and to run a register, and also for the benefit of using the Island as a base for that company. I think I have covered all the points. I move the principles and ask for the appel, please.

The Bailiff :

I therefore ask the Greffier to place a link into the chat. Deputy Higgins seeks a point of clarification. Are you prepared to give way for a point of clarification, Connétable ?

The Connétable of St. Ouen :

I will do my very best to answer it. Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Can the Assistant Minister tell us whether the fees going to the Commission cover the costs of the Commission? The part that is going to the States is taxation. Can he just confirm what extra infrastructure are they providing because it is straight taxation?

The Bailiff :

I am not sure that is a point of clarification of the speech. That was a point that you made in your speech but I am not sure it is a point of clarification of the Connétable 's speech.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Can the Connétable tell us .. The Bailiff :

No, I am sorry. Is this a point of clarification, in other words, something that the Connétable has said, is it unclear to you?

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Yes, it is, Sir.

The Bailiff :

How would you like him to address it? Deputy M.R. Higgins:

The Connétable mentioned that, yes, it was partly tax but he also said it was to pay for infrastructure. If the other part of the fee is covering the cost of the Commission would he please explain what those infrastructure costs are that is coming out of the portion that is going to the Government?

The Bailiff :

Can  you  clarify  what  portion  of  the  fee  applies  to  infrastructure,   Connétable ,  and  what  that infrastructure may or may not be?

The Connétable of St. Ouen :

Yes, I can very briefly. The Government obviously has a group of civil servants in Financial Services whose duty it is to manage and run the Island's financial services business for the Island and obviously that contribution goes towards that infrastructure.

The Bailiff :

The voting link is in the chat, I therefore open the voting and ask Members to vote in the normal way on the principles. If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. The principles have been adopted: 40 votes pour, no votes contre, no abstentions in the link. A further 2 votes pour registered in the chat.

Deputy Morel , does your panel wish to call this in?

Deputy K.F. Morel (Chair, Economic and International Affairs Scrutiny Panel): No, thank you.

The Bailiff :

Assistant Minister, how do you wish to deal with the matter in Second Reading.

2. The Connétable of St. Ouen :

I would like to take the regulations en bloc, if I may.

The Bailiff :

Did you wish to speak in general to them or simply propose them en bloc now?

The Connétable of St. Ouen :

I would like to propose them en bloc but I am aware that one Member has asked a question, which I could use this opportunity to respond to that question.

The Bailiff :

Indeed you can. You can propose them in whichever way you would like to do so. If you wish to address a question in advance there is no difficulty with that.

The Connétable of St. Ouen :

The Member asked the question whether the regulation which permits share transfer of property holding companies to have their information kept private, and I think the thrust of her question was whether this provided a loophole through the housing regulations; the answer is it does not. You still have to own a share transfer property company, which is a structure that is used where a block of flats is built normally and it divides those flats and one share represents one flat. But the regulations are not a way around the housing regulations. To buy that share and to occupy that flat you still have to have housing consent to do so if it is a Jersey property. I would like to propose the regulations en bloc.

The Bailiff :

Are the regulations seconded? [Seconded]

1. Deputy J.H. Perchard of St. Saviour :

I just wanted to thank the Connétable for answering my question. I am disappointed he did not let me ask it to start with. I was quite pleased to have come up with a question for such - I am sure he will not be offended - dry legislation. But that does clarify matters for me. Just for the understanding of other Members, the reason I posed the question is because this regulation pertains particularly to exemptions made. I think it is important that any exemptions where information is not made publicly available needs to be publicly explained as to why that is the case. I thank the Connétable for answering the question.

2. Deputy J.H. Young:

I am sorry, I think I got very confused with that exchange. [10:00]

Is it being said that shareholdings in a company in which somebody holds a parcel of property would be exempt from these disclosure requirements? Is that what is being said? If so, I am very concerned about that.

The Bailiff :

That is obviously something the Assistant Minister will respond to when he sums up.

3. Deputy R.J. Ward :

I just want to ask a little more detail on the regulation I mentioned before. The Constable did reply. It is Regulation 2(2)(c) about the information does not apply to a person who is a significant person by virtue only of holding a share in a company ownership, et cetera. He made the point that a significant person is a named director but I just want to know whether you can be exempt owning a 99 per cent share in a company or even 100 per cent share in a company if you simply name somebody as your director. Therefore there could be a real cover for ownership. I may be barking up the wrong tree, as they say, but I just want to understand that particular regulation and what it means.

The Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak on the regulations or any of them? If no other Member wishes to speak then I close the debate and call upon the Assistant Minister to respond.

4. The Connétable of St. Ouen :

First, my thanks to Deputy Perchard. It was an interesting question, which I received fairly early in the morning, which woke my brain cells up quite quickly. It is an important point that it is quite clear in the regulations that members of the company who own a property would not wish to see their details published on the share register simply because the information is confidential to them. That would also include their housing qualifications. Turning to Deputy Ward 's question, the exemption. The principal person of a company is a director. Shareholders would normally just be listed but they can apply to have their information hidden, as can directors, if there are privacy reasons why they need to do so. But I can assure the Deputy that in terms of shareholders and principal persons of company they are subject to due diligence by the J.F.S.C. and, as such, it is not a backdoor route into Jersey. It is simply a mechanism where they may wish to have their information shielded from the public view at the moment. With that, I propose the regulations and call for the appel.

The Bailiff :

Deputy Young, as he is entitled to, has asked for a separate vote on Regulation 2. So shall we take Regulation 1 first?

3. The Connétable of St. Ouen :

Yes, I propose Regulation 1 and ask for the appel.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Are we taking the regulations separately now because they were proposed en bloc? The Bailiff :

I think what will happen, Deputy Ward , as Deputy Young is entitled to has asked for a separate vote on Regulation 2. We will take Regulation 1, then 2 and then the remainder of the regulations.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Thank you, Sir.

The Connétable of St. Ouen :

If I propose Regulation 1 first, Sir, and ask for the appel on that.

The Bailiff :

Yes, the link is in the chat and I open the voting and ask Members to vote in the normal way. If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. Regulation 1 has been adopted: 40 votes pour, no votes contre, no abstention in the link. A further 2 votes pour counted in the chat.

You have a point of order, Deputy Perchard? Deputy J.H. Perchard:

Yes, Sir. I am not too sure if this is possible but I thought I might like to ask whether it is possible to take parts of the regulation separately. Just that Regulation 2, and particularly paragraph (2)(a), for example, may be a part that Members wish to retain while also rejecting part (c), which I think Deputy Young might be interested in.

The Bailiff :

Thank you for the question, Deputy . No, it is possible to breakdown, at the request of Members, regulation  by  regulation  but  it  is  not  possible  to  break  down  subparagraphs  within  specific regulations. What a Member is entitled to is have a provision voted on separately and a regulation is a provision but a part of it is not a provision. We come now to the vote on Regulation 2 and I ask the Greffier to put the link into the chat. I open the voting and ask Members to vote in the normal way. If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. Regulation 2 has been adopted: 35 votes pour, 5 votes contre in the link, and a further one vote pour and one vote contre counted in the chat.

Do you propose the remainder of the regulations en bloc, Assistant Minister?

The Connétable of St. Ouen :

Yes, Sir, if I can propose the balance en bloc. The Bailiff :

I ask the Greffier to post a link into the chat and the vote is on the remainder of the regulations. The link is posted. I open the voting and ask Members to record their vote in the normal way. We are not voting in Third Reading, we are voting for the remainder of the regulations; Regulation 3 onward. We are still to come on to Third Reading. If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. The remainder of the regulations have been adopted: 41 votes pour, no votes contre, no abstention in the link and one further vote pour in the chat.

Do you propose the regulations in Third Reading?

4. The Connétable of St. Ouen :

I do, and if I could just comment briefly before I do so. Not least to thank Deputy Morel and his Scrutiny Panel for the assistance and help that they have given us in getting this regulation to the Assembly. It was a good engagement, as always.

The Bailiff :

Are the regulations seconded in Third Reading? [Seconded]

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

I have been listening to the conversation around this particular piece of legislation and I am reaching a suspicion that somewhere in this documentation is a means by which one can disguise the beneficial ownership of a company. What I want and I seek from the rapporteur is that this legislation does not do that categorically, and there is no way under any of these subparagraphs or paragraphs that you can hide the beneficial owner of a particular company. Only with that assurance would I be advising people to vote for this piece of legislation.

2. Deputy J.H. Young:

I just wanted to clarify. Obviously I voted against Regulation 2, it was because of this single issue about the share ownership and transfer of properties. I wanted to clarify that because only a matter of weeks ago we voted for a public register and we have major issues involved with our affordable housing and yet we still have a situation in where properties can be acquired and owned by persons who do not have residential qualifications and buying them as investment. I will be voting for this in Third Reading but I really want, please, this provision here not to water down that commitment that we previously gave to both Deputy Higgins and Deputy Huelin, that we are going to have a public register of property. I think that is really, really important. In voting for this please I want those reservations to be made, that is why I am speaking - but I shall be supporting the Third Reading

- because of the overriding issue that Deputy Southern has just pointed out is absolutely right. Public disclosure is absolutely vital.

3. Deputy R.J. Ward :

I really want to reiterate the things that the previous 2 speakers have mentioned. I share the concern regards share transfer, which is something I was not .. I came from a slightly different angle but I absolutely accept that and pick that up. I think that is something that needs to be addressed. I would like to reiterate as well, my real concerns over the naming of company directors are those who are kept in the public register but behind those could be major shareholders, major company financial interests, which we do not see. I think that is where transparency comes from and needs to be seen. We need much more reassurance on that, and that is the reason I voted against 2 and it was part 2(2)(c) really; it is a shame we could not take that separately. I wonder whether the Minister can look back at perhaps bringing a slight amendment to that, to bring more clarity as to what that means in real terms and what that looks like in practice day to day and week to week and year to year. That is the issue that I have regards this piece of legislation. Plus, I will add, this is a very complex piece of legislation that came to the Assembly. I am very pleased that Members have taken the time to pick these details out, as well as the Scrutiny Panel doing the same.

4. Deputy K.F. Morel :

This legislation has been available and published for many, many months and our scrutiny work was completed some time ago, back in September. So it strikes me as strange that a Minister should be asking such questions of a fellow Minister right now on the day of debate when he has had many months to ask these questions. It also strikes me that people are confusing 2 very different matters and that is the public register of properties, which has been voted for, and is entirely separate from these mandatory disclosure rules through the J.F.S.C.

[10:15]

It is the case that many thousands of ordinary Islanders own share transfer properties and are directors therefore of companies, which hold those share transfer properties within them. It is, I believe, for that reason that the exemption has been made in this way. Because it would be many thousands of Islanders who would therefore be published and that is not appropriate. I feel that these questions are of such significance; there was plenty of time, many months, in which these questions could have been raised.

The Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak in Third Reading? If no other Member wishes to speak in Third Reading, then I close the debate and call upon the Assistant Minister.

5. The Connétable of St. Ouen :

Firstly to Deputy Southern . I can confirm that there is no exemption in the law to provide beneficial information to the registry or indeed the J.F.S.C. It is simply a question of whether or not this is published publicly and that, as the Deputy will know, is the subject of an ongoing debate and Jersey has given a commitment in line with the rest of .. when the E.U. (European Union) Third Anti- Money Laundering Directive comes into play it is likely we will be publishing that information. In response to Deputy Young and Deputy Ward , and I thank Deputy Morel for his helpful intervention, the share transfer information is held only for residential property but they are still required to provide this information. It is available to the Minister, the Commission and law enforcement. As we know there is going to be a public register of property, we will consider how to interact this with property share transfer companies to make sure that this information is available. There is no attempt of subterfuge, it is simply the way it is written in the law to protect residential property owners having that information on public display on the register. With that, I ask for the appel in the Third Reading.

The Bailiff :

Thank you very much, Assistant Minister. I ask the Greffier to post a link in the chat please and I open the voting and ask Members to vote in the normal way. If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. The regulations have been adopted in Third Reading: 41 votes pour, no votes contre, no abstention in the link, 2 votes pour in the chat and one vote contre.

Senator I.J. Gorst :

I wonder if we could make the proposition that we take next P.133, which is the Appointed Day Act, with an amendment, so take it as amended.

The Bailiff :

Is that seconded that we take the matter now? [Seconded] As Members have heard, the Minister is content to take the matter as amended, so that is the proposition before the Assembly. It is seconded. Does any Member wish to speak? If no Member wishes to speak then I will ask the Greffier to put a voting link in the chat. I open the voting and ask Members to vote in the normal way. If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I close the voting. The proposition to take the matter next is adopted: 39 votes pour, no votes contre, no abstentions in the link, and one further vote pour in the chat.

Is this to be dealt with also by the Assistant Minister?

Senator I.J. Gorst :

Indeed, Sir, thank you.

2. Draft Financial Services (Disclosure and Provision of Information) (Jersey) Law 202- (Appointed Day) Act 202- (P.133/2020) - as amended (P.133/2020 Amd.)

The Bailiff :

We now, with the agreement of the Assembly, come on to the Draft Financial Services (Disclosure and Provision of Information) (Jersey) Law 202- (Appointed Day) Act 202-, P.133. The main respondent is again the Chair of the Economic and International Affairs Scrutiny Panel. I ask the Greffier to read the citation.

The Greffier of the States:

Draft Financial Services (Disclosure and Provision of Information) (Jersey) Law 202- (Appointed Day) Act 202-. The States make this Act under Article 28 of the Financial Services (Disclosure and Provision of Information) (Jersey) Law 202-.

The Bailiff :

As indicated, the Appointed Day Act is to be taken as amended, so I call upon the Assistant Minister.

2.1  The Connétable of St. Ouen (Assistant Minister for External Relations - rapporteur): Members will recall that the Financial Services (Disclosure and Provision of Information) (Jersey) Law 2020 was adopted by the States on 14th January 2020, sanctioned by Order of Her Majesty in Council on 14th October 2020 and was registered by the Royal Court on 23rd October 2020. This Appointed Day Act is to bring the law into force. The law sets out how information about entities in Jersey are to be provided to the Jersey Financial Services Commission and the frequency which that information is to be updated. The law sets out the basis on which the jurisdiction seeks to demonstrate compliance with the provisions of the Financial Action Task Force recommendation in advance of the Island's next MONEYVAL assessment. The effect of the Appointed Day Act is to bring into force all the provisions of the law on 6th January 2021. Although it was originally anticipated the law would be brought into force on 2nd December 2020, it is considered prudent to delay it slightly. As such an amendment, which has been accepted, has been lodged and I consider it to be prudent to delay for 2 reasons. Firstly to provide contingency for thorough testing of the integrity of the new registry systems and, secondly, to ensure that the industry has sufficient time to consider the guidance and law to be issued by the Commission. I propose the principles.

The Bailiff :

This is not a matter where the principles are dealt with, Connétable . This is an Act so it is a simple adoption or not of the proposition. There is only one vote, so you propose the proposition?

The Connétable of St. Ouen : I do, Sir. My apologies.

The Bailiff :

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the proposition? No Member wishes to speak on the proposition. Then I close the debate and ask the Greffier to post a vote into the chat. The link is there and I open the voting. Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. The Act as amended has been adopted: 44 votes pour, no votes contre, no abstentions, no recorded votes in the chat.

3. Draft Limited  Partnerships  (Annual  Additional  Charge)  (Amendment)  (Jersey) Regulations 202- (P.126/2020)

The Bailiff :

The  next  item  of  business  is  the  Draft  Limited  Partnerships  (Annual  Additional  Charge) (Amendment) (Jersey) Regulations 202- lodged by the Minister for External Relations. The main responder will also be the Chair of the Economic and International Affairs Scrutiny Panel, Deputy Morel . I ask the Greffier to read the citation.

The Greffier of the States:

Draft Limited Partnerships (Annual Additional Charge) (Amendment) (Jersey) Regulations 202-. The States make these regulations under Article 30A of the Limited Partnerships (Jersey) Law 1994.

Senator I.J. Gorst (The Minister for External Relations):

I ask the Assistant Minister to be rapporteur for this item as well please.

1. The Connétable of St. Ouen (Assistant Minister for External Relations - rapporteur):

The Draft Limited Partnerships (Annual Additional Charge) (Amendment) (Jersey) Regulations 202- which I refer to as "the amendment", increases the additional charge payable by Jersey registered limited partnerships from £115 to £145. The annual additional charge is part of the total annual fee collected by the Jersey Financial Services Commission. Of the total fee collected £115 is currently collected on behalf of the Treasurer. This increase to the amount payable to the Treasurer reflects the same increase made in Regulation 7 of the Financial Services (Disclosure and Provision of Information) (Jersey) Regulations. Limited partnerships are not within the scope of those regulations and for consistency across all entities it was felt appropriate to increase the amount through the amendment. This amendment does not result in an increase in the overall amount payable by an entity but an increase in the portion payable by the Commission to the Treasurer, and this will result in an increased receipt from the Treasury of £30 per entity each year. The amendment follows discussions with the Commission and builds on an understanding between Government and the Commission at the time of the last fee increase for industry. I propose these principles.

Are the principles seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the principles? No Member wishes to speak on the principles. Then I close the debate and ask the Greffier to place a vote in the link. I open the voting and ask Members to vote in the normal way. Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes. I ask the Greffier to close the voting. The principles have been adopted: 41 votes pour and no votes contre, no abstention, no votes recorded in the chat.