States Meeting Transcript - 3rd November 2020

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2020

COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER ........................................ 4

1. Welcome to His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor .................................... 4
2. Welcome Senator S.C. Ferguson ........................................................... 4

PUBLIC BUSINESS ................................................................................. 4

2. Reduction of minimum lodging period .................................................... 4

1. Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier (Chair, Children, Education, Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel): ...................................................................................... 4
2. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement (The Minister for Home Affairs): ................ 6
3. Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin : ........................................................... 6
4. Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré (The Chief Minister): .......................................... 6

3. Deployment and use of Energy Conductive Devices (Tasers') by The States of Jersey Police (P.97/2020) - as amended (P.97/2020 Amd.) ........................................ 6

1. The Connétable of St. Clement (The Minister for Home Affairs): ........................ 7

2. Deployment and Use of Energy Conductive Devices (Tasers') by The States of Jersey Police (P.97/2020): Second Amendment (P.97/2020 Amd.(2)) .......................... 11

3.2.1 Deputy R.J. Ward (Chair, Children, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel): .... 11

3. Deployment and Use of Energy Conductive Devices (Tasers') by The States of Jersey Police (P.97/2020): Second Amendment (P.97/2020 Amd. (2)) – Amendment (P.97/2020 Amd.(2)Amd.) ................................................................. 12

1. The Connétable of St. Clement (The Minister for Home Affairs): ...................... 12
2. Deputy M.R. Higgins: .................................................................... 12
3. Deputy S.M. Wickenden of St. Helier : ................................................... 13
4. Deputy M. Tadier :........................................................................ 14
5. Senator S.W. Pallett: ...................................................................... 15 Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of St. Saviour : ........................................................ 15
6. Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat of St. Helier : ................................................... 16
7. Deputy D. Johnson of St. Mary : .......................................................... 17
8. Deputy G.C. Guida of St. Lawrence : ..................................................... 17
9. Connétable J. Le Bailly of St. Mary : ..................................................... 17
10. Deputy R.J. Ward : ..................................................................... 18 Deputy J.H. Perchard of St. Saviour : ........................................................... 19 The Attorney General: .......................................................................... 19 Senator S.W. Pallett: ............................................................................ 20 The Connétable of St. Clement : ................................................................ 20 Deputy J.H. Perchard: .......................................................................... 21 Deputy R.J. Ward : .............................................................................. 21 The Connétable of St. Mary : .................................................................... 21 The Connétable of St. Clement : ................................................................ 22

11. Deputy J.H. Perchard: ................................................................. 23
12. Deputy K.G. Pamplin of St. Saviour : .................................................. 23
13. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet : .............................................................. 24
14. The Connétable of St. Clement : ....................................................... 24

4. Deployment and Use of Energy Conductive Devices (Tasers') by The States of Jersey Police (P.97/2020): Second Amendment (P.97/2020 Amd.(2)) - as amended .......... 27

1. Deputy M.R. Higgins: .................................................................... 27
2. Deputy S.M. Wickenden:................................................................. 28
3. Deputy M. Tadier :........................................................................ 30
4. The Connétable of St. Mary :.............................................................. 30
5. Deputy R.J. Ward : ........................................................................ 30

5. Deployment and Use of Energy Conductive Devices (Tasers') by The States of Jersey Police (P.97/2020) - as amended .......................................................... 32

1. Deputy K.F. Morel of St. Lawrence : ..................................................... 32
2. The Connétable of St. Ouen :.............................................................. 33
3. The Connétable of St. Lawrence : ........................................................ 34
4. Deputy M. Tadier :........................................................................ 34
5. Senator S.W. Pallett: ...................................................................... 35
6. Deputy R.J. Ward : ........................................................................ 36
7. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet : .................................................................. 36
8. The Connétable of St. Clement : .......................................................... 37

4. Draft Wildlife (Jersey) Law 202- (P.110/2020) .......................................... 39

4.1 Deputy G.C. Guida (Assistant Minister for the Environment - rapporteur): ............ 40

1. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade : ................................................ 41
2. The Deputy of St. Martin : ................................................................ 42
3. Senator L.J. Farnham : .................................................................... 42
4. Deputy K.G. Pamplin: .................................................................... 42
5. Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade : ....................................................... 43

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED ................................................... 43 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT .................................................................. 44

6. Deputy M. Tadier :........................................................................ 44
7. Deputy R.J. Ward : ........................................................................ 45
8. Deputy G.C. Guida: ...................................................................... 45

5. Jersey Care Model (P.114/2020) - as amended .......................................... 49

1. The Deputy of St. Ouen (The Minister for Health and Social Services): ................ 50

1. Connétable C.H. Taylor of St. John : ...................................................... 55
2. Deputy T. Pointon of St. John : ........................................................... 55
3. Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat : ................................................................ 56

2. Jersey Care Model (P.114/2020) - as amended - reference back ........................ 57

1. Deputy G.P. Southern : .................................................................... 58
2. Senator S.C. Ferguson: ................................................................... 60
3. The Deputy of St. Ouen : .................................................................. 61

4. Deputy M.R. Higgins: .................................................................... 62
5. Deputy G.C. Guida: ...................................................................... 63
6. The Connétable of St. John : .............................................................. 63
7. Deputy J.M. Maçon: ...................................................................... 63
8. Deputy R.E. Huelin of St. Peter : .......................................................... 64
9. Deputy G.P. Southern : .................................................................... 65

3. Jersey Care Model (P.114/2020) - as amended - resumption ........................... 67

1. Deputy I. Gardiner of St. Helier : ......................................................... 67
2. The Deputy of St. Martin : ................................................................ 67
3. Deputy R.J. Ward : ........................................................................ 67
4. Senator S.C. Ferguson: ................................................................... 68
5. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier :......................................................... 69
6. Deputy M. Tadier :........................................................................ 70
7. The Connétable of St. Mary :.............................................................. 72
8. Deputy K.F. Morel : ....................................................................... 72
9. The Deputy of St. Peter : .................................................................. 73
10. Deputy K.G. Pamplin: ................................................................. 74
11. The Deputy of St. Ouen : .............................................................. 78

ADJOURNMENT .................................................................................. 81

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer. COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER

The Bailiff :

1. Welcome to His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor

May I start by welcoming, on Members' behalf, His Excellency to the Chamber this morning? [Approbation]

2. Welcome Senator S.C. Ferguson

May I also, I am sure also on behalf of all Members, welcome back Senator Ferguson who has been absent. [Approbation]

PUBLIC BUSINESS The Bailiff :

We now turn to Public Business. If I may remind Members that we are operating the new system where there is a time limit for speeches, which the Assembly approved on 7th October. The Greffier will ring a bell, we hope, when you have been speaking for 14 minutes and then again signal when time is up. I am just informed that, notwithstanding what my note here says, we do not have a bell.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

I shall "ting".

2. Reduction of minimum lodging period The Bailiff :

I think the Greffier will make some suitable remark when the time comes. Before we start Public Business proper there are a number of decisions, which need to be taken by the Assembly about reducing the minimum lodging period. The first item has been lodged by the Children, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel and it is the Deployment and use of Energy Conductive Devices (Tasers') by the States of Jersey Police (P.97/2020): second amendment. Chair, do you wish to make the proposition under Standing Order 26(7), the lodging period be reduced to allow this.

1. Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier (Chair, Children, Education, Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel):

Yes, I do. Do you want me to speak about that now?

The Bailiff :

Yes, if we take them all in order because they are not necessarily linked. Deputy R.J. Ward :

This is an amendment to our amendment of the proposition. It came about late because it was linked to the publishing of our full panel review on the use of conductive devices or Taser. It is simply we did not have the time to lodge this final amendment before the report was published. The decision was made to do a thorough job with the report and subsequently from that a small amendment, which is this amendment of our original amendment, which was lodged in time, was made. So the only reason it is late is because it is directly linked to the Scrutiny report that all Members should have seen. I will say no more than to say I hope the reduced lodging period for this small amendment can be accepted.

The Bailiff :

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on this? The Connétable of St. Mary is just making a contribution to the Greffier's charitable fund and we are very grateful for that. Nobody wishes to speak. We will put up a vote in the box in the normal way. It is there. I ask Members to vote in the normal way and open the voting and a vote pour enables this to be taken at this sitting. If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes I ask the Greffier to close the voting and post the result: pour 32, no contre, no abstention. I have a further 6 pour in the chat, therefore that will be dealt with during the course of this sitting and debate.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Can I just thank Members on behalf of the Scrutiny Panel? Thank you. The Bailiff :

There is also an amendment from the Minister for Home Affairs to that amendment and it will also be necessary for the Assembly to suspend Standing Order 32 and make the reduced lodging period. Minister, do you wish to ask for that?

2. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement (The Minister for Home Affairs): Yes, please.

The Bailiff :

Is that proposition seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak? Could I ask for an indication in the chat if anyone is proposing to vote contre? I will allow a few more seconds, if anyone is going to vote contre would they please put in and then we will do a proper vote otherwise we can probably deal with this informally. No one is voting contre, therefore that will be taken also. The next item has been lodged by the Deputy of St. Martin , which is also I think to be debated at this session. It is the Draft Wildlife (Jersey) Law, P.110 amendment. Deputy , do you wish to make the proposition?

3. Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin : I do, thank you, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Is it seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the proposition? Again, if anyone wishes to vote contre could they indicate so I know whether or not to put up a formal vote? No, no one has indicated a desire to vote contre so we take that as being a standing vote in favour. Finally, there is also an item lodged by the Chief Minister, the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (E.U. Withdrawal) Act 2020: Extension to Jersey by Order in Council, do you wish to make the proposition that it is dealt with, Chief Minister?

4. Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré (The Chief Minister): Yes, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Is that seconded? [Seconded]  Does any Member wish to speak on the proposition? If no Member wishes to speak then I would ask any Member who wishes a vote to be taken to indicate a contre vote in the chat at this point. No one is indicating a desire to vote contre so that we will take as a standing vote as having been adopted by the Assembly.

3. Deployment and use of Energy Conductive Devices (Tasers') by The States of Jersey Police (P.97/2020) - as amended (P.97/2020 Amd.)

The Bailiff :

The first item of Public Business is the Deployment and use of Energy Conductive Devices (Tasers') by the States of Jersey Police, P.97/2020, lodged by the Minister for Home Affairs. For the purpose of this debate, the main respondent is the chair of the Children, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel and for the panel's amendments the main respondent will be the Minister for Home Affairs. There are 2 amendments lodged to the proposition from the Children, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel and an amendment with the Minister to the panel's second amendment. Chair, could I ask, is your intention to accept the amendment from the Minister to the panel's second amendment?

Deputy R.J. Ward :

It is not our intention to. It is a very small amendment but I think it is important that we discuss it. The Bailiff :

In which case we should not take anything as amended and should proceed to deal with all the matters in due form. I therefore ask the Greffier to read the proposition.

The Connétable of St. Clement :

Before we do that, Sir, the first amendment of the Scrutiny Panel I am accepting. The Bailiff :

So we could take that as amended but then we will come on to deal with the Scrutiny Panel's second amendment.

The Connétable of St. Clement :

That would be my suggestion but clearly that is a matter for Deputy Ward . Deputy R.J. Ward :

The panel would be very happy to do that. I think it is the amendment to the second amendment that is the only difference really. Yes, I think that would be a very acceptable course of action.

The Bailiff :

Very well, we will not deal with the first amendment. Do Members agree that we can take this as amended by the first amendment? No contre indication, therefore, Greffier can you read that as amended by the first amendment?

[9:45]

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion (1) to refer to their Act dated 1st April 2014 and to endorse the intention of the Minister for Home Affairs to authorise the deployment and use of Energy Conductive Devices ("Tasers") by the States of Jersey Police Force for a trial period of one year in accordance with the following principles – (a) A Taser will only be issued to a uniformed police officer who has completed a Taser course (to the national standard). (b) The use of a Taser will be at the discretion of the police officer who is carrying the Taser and will not be subject to a specific firearms authority. (c) Usual supervision of the use of Taser will apply and the individual officer's usage must be justified and compliant with all existing legislation and associated College of Policing Guidelines. (2) To request the Minister for Home Affairs to review the impact of the changes to the use of Tasers on policing in Jersey after the one-year trial period has been completed, and to report to the States on the success, or otherwise, of the trial, with the report to include data in respect of – (a) the number of times a Taser has been used on a person under the age of 18; (b) the number of times a Taser has been used to resolve a situation involving a person undergoing a mental health crisis or episode; (c) a breakdown of the gender, age, and cultural and ethnic groups of the people on whom a Taser has been used; and (d) the number of times a Taser has been deployed by a police officer who is on their own. (3) To agree that the deployment and use of Tasers in accordance with the principles outlined in the proposition should not continue beyond the trial period of one year without the prior approval of the States Assembly.

1. The Connétable of St. Clement (The Minister for Home Affairs):

This is a very simple matter but nevertheless a very important matter and seeks to put the States of Jersey Police on exactly the same footing as every other force in the British Isles, including Guernsey and the Isle of Man. It will give the police greater ability to keep us safe by decoupling the lethal firearms, pistols, rifles and the like, for the non-lethal Taser. Currently a Taser can only be used when a firearms authority has been granted. This means that trained Taser officers are unable to use

or consider using the equipment when dealing with incidents that fall outside of a firearms authority. We are therefore currently managing our use of Taser outside of national guidance and unlike any other force in the British Isles. Currently, an authorised firearms officer has to wait for an authority to be granted. This time delay in obtaining the authority to deploy and restrictions placed on officers puts the public, the individual concerned, and the officer at risk of assault; perhaps serious assault. This is because the police do not have the ability to use a piece of equipment that is regarded by other police forces as a piece of personal protection equipment that trained officers can consider using, depending on the situation that they are dealing with, much like P.A.V.A. (pelargonic acid vanillylamide) spray or a baton or handcuffs. Throughout the British Isles, police forces recognise Taser as an important tactical response option for officers who are not authorised firearms officers but who have successfully passed the 5-day national standard Taser course. Taser is a piece of equipment that is recognised in compliance with the Human Rights Act as a less lethal option to aid the management and resolution of conflict. Taser will always revolve around the need to minimise any risk and maximise the safety of those involved with the overarching principle being to save and preserve life. Taser is used by police as a tactical option when responding to violent incidents or when there is a need to protect those who are at risk to themselves through mental health concerns, which can, on occasion, present a risk to life or serious injury. It enables the police to minimise risk and maximise the safety of those involved with the overarching principle, as I said, of being to save and preserve life. Jersey is a safe place but the force deal with an increasing number of violent incidents and violent individuals, weapons and people wanting to harm themselves. The police have unfortunately seen a rise in the number of intelligence reports relating to bladed weapons being used or considered by offenders. There has been a 22 per cent rise in the number of spontaneous firearms incident deployments in the last 3 years, which is a cause for concern. Coupled with the fact that over the last 5 years there have been over 180 assaults on police officers, without question officers now face a greater risk from weapons and a significant increase in the number of mental health instances whereby an individual takes possession of a weapon for self-harm that can put both officers and members of the public at risk. In our experiences, that in most cases the mere introduction of Taser into a specific situation is enough to diffuse the situation and reach a peaceful resolution. As evidence of that, since 2014 the States of Jersey Police have used Taser 341 times. When I say "use", on 181 occasions the officer opted to draw the Taser from his holster but did not use it, on a further 152 occasions the red dot laser was placed on a person and only 8 instances where Taser was discharged, bringing a dangerous incident to a safe resolution. The majority of these discharges were for instances involving individuals in possession of bladed weapons. However, they have also been successfully deployed to save life, preventing the person from significant self-harm or suicide. Taser has therefore only been discharged on just over 2 per cent of the time that it has been used, which demonstrates a high level of professionalism and proportionality by the force in the use and deployment of the equipment. As I said, currently the use of Taser is deployed under a firearms authority whereby a senior authorising officer has reason to suppose that officers may have to protect themselves or others from a person who is in possession or has immediate access to a firearm or other potentially lethal weapon, someone who is otherwise so dangerous that the deployment of armed officers is considered applicable and our contingency or for the destruction of animals. This process can lead to delay and place officers and the public at an unacceptable risk. Very often officers will find themselves dealing with a violent individual or a specific volatile situation that would not warrant a firearms deployment, therefore on these occasions the officer should have a Taser as a tactical option to consider. The proposition seeks to align the States of Jersey Police with all other British police forces whereby Taser is regarded as a piece of equipment that officers can carry and consider using, depending on what they are dealing with. The responsibility to justify Taser usage falls to the officer who must be able to evidence their actions, showing that they were proportionate, lawful and necessary. For example, when officers use a baton, P.A.V.A. spray or handcuffs they do not need authorisation as their training and professional judgment allows them to make decisions based on the incident that they are dealing with. So should it be with Taser. All and any use of

personal protection equipment by an officer must be justified and officers will always be required to justify their actions as being proportionate and necessary and, as I said, lawful. Any officer will always document why they felt the need to handcuff an individual, use P.A.V.A. spray or use their baton. Police officers are now very used to wearing and using body-worn cameras to good effect. All the times that Taser has been discharged have been captured on body-worn cameras and it would be a matter of police policy that where possible officers will activate body-worn cameras before using Taser. A very high percentage of uniform arrests, particularly with handcuffs, P.A.V.A. or indeed a baton are used, are all captured on body-worn cameras. The police inform me that they have confidence that 99 per cent of arrest incidents are covered by the cameras. The States of Jersey Police are not seeking to issue Taser to every officer. Only those officers who pass the national standards 5-day course, undertake annual refresher training and undergo psychological screening will be able to carry a Taser. Any such use would be in line with the conflict resolution model and the national decision model, which is used by police forces throughout the British Isles to assist operational officers and commanders to manage their response to situations in a reasonable and proportionate way. The States of Jersey Police, if this proposition is adopted, are looking to train an additional 20 officers which would allow for 2 officers to carry a Taser on each of the 5 operational 24/7 shifts. It is important that we are able to provide our police officers with the protective equipment they need but also that they are able to deploy that equipment tactically and quickly in the interests of public safety, our safety. As part of our engagement for the proposition, the police have spoken with the Children's Commissioner and it is agreed that there should be a presumption that Taser will not be used on those under 18. But we can never say never and the commissioner understands that. We can all imagine scenarios where this might be appropriate. I make the proposition and once again thank Deputy   Ward and his panel for the robust and strong manner in which they scrutinised this proposition and for their balanced and supportive review report. As I say, I make the proposition.

The Bailiff :

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] Two points of clarification have been asked of you, Minister. The first is from Deputy Tadier .

Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

The Minister said that he was informed by the police that in 99 per cent of cases a body-worn camera was used at the same time as a Taser was deployed. Was he being figurative or is that an actual statistic?

The Connétable of St. Clement :

Sorry, if I was not clear. With the use of Tasers it is 100 per cent of the time but it is on normal uniformed arrests where the police consider 99 per cent of arrests are covered by the camera. So if I did not make that clear.

Deputy M. Tadier :

That is still not clear. Can the Minister confirm that whenever a Taser has been deployed in Jersey in the past in 100 per cent of cases a body-worn camera has been automatically on?

The Connétable of St. Clement :

That is correct.

The Bailiff :

Deputy Higgins, also has a point of clarification. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier :

The Minister mentioned psychological tests of police officers. I have spoken to some police officers recently and I have been told that they do not have psychological testing or if it was it was done when they were first trained and it is not done repeatedly, so can the Minister please clarify the police policy on psychological testing of officers, especially those who will be using Tasers and firearms?

The Connétable of St. Clement :

It is my understanding that all officers who apply to be authorised firearms officers do have to undergo psychological testing and also, of course, have to refresh their skills every year, but that applies to Taser as well because currently the Tasers can only be used by authorised firearms officers.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Can the Minister confirm that they are tested annually or is it just once in their career or what? The Connétable of St. Clement :

I know for a fact that all firearms officers, who currently are the only ones who can use Tasers, have to do a refresher test every year and of course psychological testing goes on all of the time to make sure that officers are well and are able to make the necessary risk assessment.

The Bailiff :

There is a further point of clarification from the Connétable of St. Lawrence . Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence :

The Minister said that there was a 22 per cent rise in the number of spontaneous firearms incidents and it was not clear to me what a spontaneous firearm incident is or was, so I would like him to clarify that for me. Also to put the 22 per cent into an easily understood figure, so how many spontaneous firearms incidents were there and how are they defined?

The Connétable of St. Clement :

"Spontaneous firearms incidents" is where authorisation is requested by the police for the attendance of authorised firearms officers. This could be when a weapon is suspected or firearms suspected as being used in a particular incident; 9 times out of 10, probably higher than that, when there is a bladed instrument being utilised or suspected of being utilised, that would be a situation. If my memory serves me right, I believe there have been 86 deployments of firearms in the last 12 months.

The Bailiff :

Deputy Higgins, you are asking for a further point of clarification. It is a point of clarification, yes, but I would remind Members we are not yet moving into the debate on this. The next thing to be considered is the amendment.

[10:00]

But a further point of clarification, yes, Deputy Higgins. Deputy M.R. Higgins:

It is just following from the Constable of St. Lawrence 's question. When permission has been given or permission is being sought for firearm deployment, do you have accurate figures of how many times a firearm ..

The Bailiff :

Sorry, Deputy , that is not a point of clarification of the Minister's speech. That is a question, which the Minister can answer when he sums up, but that is not a point of clarification.

The Connétable of St. Clement :

I would point out that Deputy Higgins is a member of the Scrutiny Panel and these questions were answered at the Scrutiny hearing we had on this issue.

Thank you, but it is not a point of clarification, Deputy .

2. Deployment and Use of Energy Conductive Devices (Tasers') by The States of Jersey Police (P.97/2020): Second Amendment (P.97/2020 Amd.(2))

The Bailiff :

There is now to be dealt with the second amendment lodged by the Children, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel. I ask the Greffier to read that amendment.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Page 2, paragraph (a) – For paragraph (a) substitute the following paragraph – "(a) A Taser will only be issued to a uniformed police officer who has completed a Taser course (to the national standard) and who has also completed their probationary period." Page 2, paragraph (c) – After paragraph (c) insert the following new paragraph – "(d) Any use of a Taser must be recorded on body-worn cameras by all officers attending the situation in which use occurs, with the footage to be submitted, retained and logged alongside the use form from the incident."

3.2.1 Deputy R.J. Ward (Chair, Children, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel):

First of all, I would like to thank the Minister for accepting the original amendment, a great deal of work, and I would like to say thank you to the Scrutiny Panel and, in particular, the officers who work on that yet again, who put so much work into producing quality reports. This small amendment came from the work that happened with the Scrutiny review and all Members should have seen the documents, glorious 61 pages of quality, I hope they would believe. But we looked very thoroughly at the use of Tasers. One of the issues that came up was the use of body-worn cameras and key finding 14 on page 9 of the report points to that and leads to recommendation 5. Body-worn cameras are used by the police and we accept that and we think it is a very positive reassurance for the public. We also believe that it is a reassurance for officers themselves because they are acting in situations that require a response. They cannot go and consider repeatedly whether it is the right thing to do; sometimes they have to work in an emergency. Having body-worn cameras and the footage accordingly helps them analyse the work that they have undertaken, the circumstances themselves and to show that they made the right decision. If the decision was not perfect it can lead to training and improvement. I think that is one of the real issues here. The other area is simple, the reassurance of the public. Tasers in Jersey were not a particularly accepted idea when they were first introduced and we understand that Tasers already exist in Jersey for the police. Any extension of the use of Taser needs to be handled very carefully in order to keep the public on the side of the police in their policing, which is still, in the vast majority of cases, policing through compliance and people respecting our community. We do not want that to be lost in the nature of our policing because of the use of Tasers. The other areas regards body-worn cameras, and I do not want to shift into the debate on the amendment of this amendment, sorry, but it is very difficult, Sir, so please stop me if I do and I understand that, is that we understand that at times there could be mistakes made. However, I think the explicit expression that body-worn cameras will be switched on in any use of Tasers, of firearms, by all of those involved, gives very clear guidance for the police and means that if there are issues with body-worn cameras as we move forward, they can be addressed. The technology needs to fit the use of the technology. It gives a reassurance to the public. It gives a reassurance to the police and it takes away the questioning of situations if there is clear footage as to what happened at that very conflicting time, in particular if there are issues with the use of Tasers around children. One of the recommendations that we made is that any use of a Taser by a child should have a full review by the Children's Commissioner. In order to do that we would need all of the evidence available to give clarity for the use and clarity of the outcomes of that. I will not say anymore at the moment but

I hope that this small amendment can be accepted. I do not know if I have to move the amendment but that is what I have got to say at the moment.

The Bailiff :

Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded]

3. Deployment and Use of Energy Conductive Devices (Tasers') by The States of Jersey Police (P.97/2020): Second Amendment (P.97/2020 Amd. (2)) – Amendment (P.97/2020 Amd.(2)Amd.)

The Bailiff :

There is an amendment to the second amendment proposed by the Minister for Home Affairs and I ask the Greffier to read that amendment.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Page 2, paragraph 2. After the word "must" insert the words ", wherever practicable,".

1. The Connétable of St. Clement (The Minister for Home Affairs):

I think I have made it clear from the report attached to my amendment to the amendment is that I am and the police are in complete agreement with the panel. Body-worn footage is a crucial aspect of governance around the use of Taser. Indeed, as I have mentioned in my opening speech, is used consistently by the States of Jersey Police and the police welcome it, the officers on the beat welcome it and because of it we have seen the number of complaints against police officers reduced because they have the evidence required. But the only reason I brought this amendment is that I am uncomfortable, as I say in the report, because the Assembly is being asked to require something of the police which is possibly operationally unfeasible in every circumstance. The reason I say that, all pieces of technology, including body-worn cameras, are not infallible. Technology can fail, the battery could run out, the camera itself could fall to the ground. An officer could walk around a corner and find a dangerous incident and does not have time to put the camera on and, therefore, he would be in breach of the requirement of the States if the amendment is passed unamended. We are totally supportive of the principles. As I say, in 100 per cent of cases where a Taser has been used the body-worn camera has been operational and that will always be the policy. In 99 per cent of normal uniformed arrests the camera has been operational and the evidence is available. It is just that we should not require the police to do something which might be impractical in all circumstances, so I move the amendment.

The Bailiff :

Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded]

2. Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I am pleased that the Minister agrees that body-worn cameras are exceptionally useful for both the police and for the public. However, because we are dealing with a weapon, it is the conducted energy device or Taser is described as a non-lethal alternative to police officers being equipped with firearms. However, that phrase is no longer even used by the manufacturers, who now refer to them as less lethal weapons. This reflects the reality that Tasers can and have resulted in the death of some of the people they have been used on. There is great concern among the public about officers having Tasers and whether they would be used appropriately. Can I state right from the start, and I do not think there is a single Member of States that does not believe that police officers should have a means to protect themselves and members of the public against those carrying weapons, such as firearms, swords, machetes, clubs and knives? However, it is the use of these weapons in other circumstances which gives the public and some Members concern. The Minister is saying the requirement that they must use them cannot always be done. We accept that. It could be that, yes, an officer comes round

a corner and is suddenly confronted by something and he has only got time to use his Taser but he has not got time to put his camera on, we can accept that as an exception. However, what we would like to see is that the body-worn camera, we say, must be used. If it is not then the circumstances have to be explained. But we do not expect, let us say over the next year, they are used 8 times, then in 6 of the 8 times it was not considered appropriate or was not possible to use; I find that hard to believe. An exception we would all accept but I would rather if the law be clear that they should be used and then we can look at the exceptions but the exceptions should not become the norm, and that is my fear if we put this sort of phraseology in place. I accept, again, what the Minister said about a sudden surprise and he has had to use them; I do not accept that the batteries could fail. Surely before any police officer goes out he should make sure he has got a charged battery on his camera and on his Taser. I think this is an important matter for the public. The public have got to be reassured that they are going to be used appropriately. By having the video evidence that can be demonstrated. If it is not appropriate to use in a particular case, I agree with Deputy Ward , then that can be used as an excuse for further training or for lessons to be learned. I think that cameras have to give reassurance to the public that they are being used appropriately. In fact I think I will leave it at that. This is a very important matter, it is about giving the public confidence that the police are using them correctly. If we allow them wiggle room in the sense of saying whatever, I have forgotten the actual wording that the Minister has used, then I think that we would be allowing more and more of these things not to be recorded. Because I have had many complaints over the years of police officers not recording things on body-worn cameras or, where they have recorded instances, when it comes to trial that information has not been available because the tapes are not available. I will just make one final point. In the proposition it was saying that the body-worn cameras are not only the officer who is using the Taser must be recorded and kept, it is also all officers who are attending the particular incident. The reason for that is, as we have seen from footage from North America of various police actions, evidence from different angles and picking up different sound and perspectives is instrumental in determining whether the appropriate weapons were used proportionately and correctly. I will leave it at that.

3. Deputy S.M. Wickenden of St. Helier :

I think this is entirely practical for this to be worded the way it is. Of course, the wording of this part of the proposition, as the previous speaker said, is that all officers attending the situation in which use occurs with the footage be submitted. There could be many reasons why somebody has not put their camera on while there is a Taser deployed. There could be a large group situation and the officers might be dealing with multiple people at a very noisy time and they are not aware that one of their colleagues has deployed a Taser. But in the way that this is being put, that means that that officer would be called up to say: "I am terribly sorry but the rules are you must." There could be a situation where there is a lot going on and they have to quickly just get involved in stopping somebody from harming another member of the public. They are not deploying a Taser, they are just part of what is happening in that area. I think it is absolutely sensible that the Minister has brought this amendment too because of the fact that this particular Article that is being changed by the Scrutiny Panel is saying that all officers attending, and it is using the word "must". When it says "must" that really is saying that there is no other option, you need to do this first and then carry on with your policing; there has to be some leeway. I have been on the Jersey Police Authority for 6 years now, we know about every single time the Taser gets pulled out of somebody's pocket in a large situation. We get informed, we get an update on what is going on. I am more than happy that the police to date handled themselves absolutely appropriately in the way that they have been using Tasers and it has not had to be used.

[10:15]

In most cases the threat of a Taser will calm down a situation before anything else. I have got more points to make when we get to the other side but, of course, I just do not understand why this is not being accepted by the panel. This is absolutely a practical way of putting the wording and to say "must" for all officers attending the situation cannot always be practical. Therefore, I think that this amendment to the amendment should be supported.

4. Deputy M. Tadier :

I cannot agree with the last speaker. I have some experience of looking at Tasers from my time on the Scrutiny Panel, I think it was in 2012, and I remember that one of the key things that not just the panel but the States Assembly was concerned about was mission creep. We were told at the time that only a very few officers would have it, those who were trained with firearms and that was given as a safeguard. Effectively what we are seeing - for right or for wrong - today is that mission creep coming about. But I am going to speak to the actual amendment of the Minister to the amendment of Scrutiny. I think it is absolutely critical that the burden of proof and the onus is on the police in this matter. We are talking about rollout of more powers and more proliferation of Tasers and we will have that debate properly in a moment. But if we are going to do that, we need to set the bar, I think, high rather than medium or low and to say that there is any area of doubt. Now, the whole point of body-worn cameras, as has been said by the Minister and the Scrutiny chair, is the fact that it provides insurance, if you like, for both the public, those with whom the police might be having the interaction at the time, who are innocent until proven guilty, remember, who might be under all sorts of influence or whatever, and it is an insurance for the police themselves so that they can protect themselves against vexatious or indeed legitimate criticism. That is why we have surveillance. We also did a review into C.C.T.V. (closed-circuit television) cameras. The great frustration of course is that when people agree to be surveilled either by body-worn cameras or more generally by the state, they do it in the knowledge that they are giving up some of their human rights and their freedoms in order for protection. If we get a situation where we are giving more police Tasers to deploy potentially more often, but we are saying: "But we do not really always expect you to have your body-worn camera on" then that is not a fair deal, I do not think. This amendment that the Scrutiny Panel have brought forward makes me much more comfortable, but I cannot vote for this proliferation unless that kind of safeguard is in place. I am not necessarily sure I will vote for it anyway. I will have to see and be convinced by the debate because I think there are compelling arguments on both sides. We must start off from the position that the law is clear and the policy and the directions are clear, that police must wear their body-worn cameras in these situations. Now, I would go one step further and say why are the cameras not on all the time when they are on duty? Of course we do not expect them to have them on during their lunchbreaks and their own personal time and there will be times when they need to switch them off and switch them back on again, but it is normal nowadays for taxi drivers and bus drivers to have cameras on so we know exactly what is going on on the buses. Of course it will always be that one case, will it not, where a Taser ends up getting deployed and the police officer does not have the camera on, for whatever reason, and that is when you get your human rights issue. That is when you get the disabled person or the person with the hidden disability or whatever it is, that the person that they maybe legitimately think is drunk, but they are not really drunk, they have just got a rare condition that makes them appear in a certain way, they get tasered, something happens: "Oh, I am sorry, the camera was not on because I did not have time. I was just coming around the corner." The onus is no longer on the officer to make sure that they are putting it on. Those officers, I am sure most of them function to a very high standard, but there will always be people who may be having a bad day and think: "I have just forgotten to put my camera on, but it does not matter, because the law gives me that out. It says if practicable.' I will just say: Well, it was not practicable' and there you go, job done" whereas if it is in the law, even if you compel people to do stuff in the law, there are always going to be reasonable grounds for why you did not do something, but the point is the onus is there to do that. I think it is the other way around. I think it is bizarre that the Minister is not accepting this very reasonable and evidenced recommendation from the Scrutiny Panel and I would be very concerned if we cannot have that expectation that police officers, when they wear body cameras .. and I would say again in general

you should have those cameras on. That is what they are there for, otherwise why are they being worn at all?

5. Senator S.W. Pallett:

Good morning. I just want to speak on the amendment to the amendment, just really some clarity around the meaning of police officers. Clearly (a), (b) and (c) clearly define that it will be States of Jersey Police Force officers in terms of using a Taser and the authorisation for it, but in terms of (d), it does say that body-worn cameras .. "wherever practicable, be recorded on body-worn cameras by all officers." The States of Jersey Police are not the only police officers in Jersey. We have 12 Honorary forces and I think the rollout to more uniformed officers, more States of Jersey Police officers with a Taser, is likely to see more incidents where Honorary officers will be on scene. I think it probably happens now to a small degree, but I think they may to a larger degree include Honorary Police officers more often moving forward. I just really want some clarity around where it says "be recorded by body-worn cameras by all officers attending the situation." Now, I know body-worn cameras are available to some Honorary officers. Would it be expected that Honorary officers would be expected to have their body-worn cameras on at that specific time? Because I think we need to be clear here about what we are specifically asking for. In terms of the "wherever practicable" bit, I tend to agree that I prefer that wording, only from some of the situations that I was involved with as an Honorary officer myself. I am sure it happens with the States police all the time is that a lot of the incidents, a lot of the things that happen are extremely fast-moving and when you are dealing with people that are in distress or people that are becoming aggressive, sometimes the last thing you think of is putting your camera on. When you get situations where multiple officers are being sent to a scene it is highly likely that more than one will have their body-worn camera on. As long as the incident is being recorded by the majority of officers, I think it is reasonable to expect officers to work under "wherever practicable" rather than having to think in the back of their minds: "Oh, I must have my body-worn camera on before dealing with the incident." So I am comfortable with the amendment to the amendment from the Minister for Home Affairs, but I just believe there should be some clarity about how Honorary officers would fit, because they do have body-worn cameras, they will be attending scenes - they probably already do now, but there certainly may be more in future - where a Taser has been issued to a uniformed officer. I would like the Minister just to clarify whether the Honorary Police are covered under (d) and how that might work in any future incident. Thank you.

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

I have a question as well. I think this question is for the Attorney General, because obviously I agree with the panel's amendment, but as Deputy Ward said, he felt that we should have the debate on this small alteration that the Minister is trying to make. I am just wondering what the actual effect in law will be if we have just have the word "must" or if we have the extra words "must wherever practicable." I have looked at I think it is the Police Procedures Law and the word "must" is in there already for other things. I am just wondering if the Attorney General could clarify. What would happen if a police officer .. so if we voted against this amendment and it said an officer must have their camera on when they are deploying a Taser, if something happened which a reasonable person would judge to be a fair situation where an officer could not turn their camera on, for whatever reason, what would happen then to that officer if just the word "must" was there in the law? I hope that makes sense and I hope the Attorney General could assist with that.

The Bailiff :

Mr. Attorney, are you able to assist the Assembly at this point? Mr. M.H. Temple Q.C., H.M. Attorney General:

Could I have a few minutes to consider the question?

Yes, indeed. There is at least one other person who wishes to speak, so we will call upon you before the Minister sums up.

6. Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat of St. Helier :

My concern is not dissimilar to that of Senator Pallett. There is a presumption anyone that attends at the scene of a serious incident will be that of a uniformed police officer with the States of Jersey Police. Of course there will be on many occasions the Honorary Police, but also officers from the States of Jersey Police who may be not in uniform and therefore may not have body-worn cameras on them. Therefore my concern is if the law is explicit, as in that all officers who attend have to have a body-worn camera on, then I am concerned from the perspective of do all of our officers that are in plain clothes all have body-worn camera? Will they have to have them with them at all times? It may very well be that that is the case, but I think we are making it very explicit as to what we are requiring. From that point of view, I am concerned about the presumption that body-worn cameras would also always have to be worn and turned on. The previous speaker mentioned the point of what happens next and, from my perspective, if a police officer forgot to turn on their camera, does that then proceed with them being disciplined under the Discipline Code? I think there are some real issues here in relation to making the legislation quite so tight. I do have another point which I know the Minister has accepted, which is that of anyone who is going to be issued with a Taser has to have completed the 2-year probationary period. My concern is this: we issue police officers with ASPs in relation to protection of both themselves and others, we issue them with P.A.V.A. spray and we issue them with handcuffs and they are trained on a regular basis in relation to those pieces of equipment. In relation to the rolling out further of a Taser, that is based on the fact that it is another option to be used. I am a little bit concerned that we are again saying that an officer cannot have a Taser with less than 2 years and this is for why? A high percentage of operational police officers are probationers and therefore on any one day you may have potentially half your deployment staff being probationers. Therefore if you are only allowing non-probationers, there may be an issue here in relation to how you deploy staff in relation to various incidents. You will say that on a normal deployment, you will look at the resources across the board and utilise those that you think are your best deployment. Quite often you will have limited resources and of course there will be limited resources in relation to the use of a Taser. I know they are only saying at this stage that it would be 2 extras. There may be police officers on uniformed operational policing who do not want to be issued with Tasers because of course you will find that not all police officers wish to apply for a firearms course and be issued with firearms, so there may be police officers who do not wish to be given a Taser.

[10:30]

I am just a little bit concerned that we are saying that a police officer with 6 months who has completed their training, they have been fully tutored and they have been sent out on their own and then we are saying that we can send them to anything, because that is what happens. All police officers potentially can be sent to anything, so my concern is that if we feel that there is a need to broaden the distribution of Tasers - this might be the Minister that will be able to answer this for me

- but I want to know why we are saying that somebody is able to be deployed to anything but we will not deploy them with a Taser because they have not completed that probationary period. That for me is a little bit .. I do not really understand why that is in there, if I am perfectly honest. From the point of view of firearms, it is general that for specialist courses that people have completed their probationary period and that is, as much as anything, about the cost and the continual upgrading of those particular skills. That is usually why you would not consider a probationary constable. But bearing in mind, what does a probationary constable mean? It only means that it is somebody who has just joined the States of Jersey Police. They could have whatever background you can imagine. They might be a doctor; they could be somebody that has just come out the armed forces; they could be somebody who has just come out of university or just come out of school. You have a vast amount

of individuals that will be probationers, so I think you are excluding people who could be potentially better candidates for the use of that equipment than others. I will just sow that seed and wait for the response from either the panel or from the Minister.

7. Deputy D. Johnson of St. Mary :

I have to say, I was not quite expecting this amount of discussion on this particular amendment to the amendment. My concern is that without it, we are imposing on officers an obligation which they may not be able to fulfil, and that cannot be right. As has been mentioned by Deputy Tadier , there are protocols and procedures in place to make sure that police officers are accountable for their actions on a number of matters, including the use of Tasers, and I cannot conceive that if for some reason a body camera did not record the situation that the officer would not be held to account for that. The other aspect is that for those that attended the demonstration a couple of weeks ago, there was footage of an incident where about 12 officers I think attended a situation. I do question whether it is necessary and obligatory for all 12 to record that. The amendment submitted by the Scrutiny Panel as to recording is well-accepted, we all accept that, but I think I would have difficulty in approving that amendment were the words "wherever practicable" were not included because, as I say, it would mean officers were being obliged to carry out a function or be made subject to a law in the knowledge that there may be circumstances, legitimate circumstances, where they could not carry that out. The words, to my mind, "wherever practicable" are quite sufficient, given the enforcement procedures and the disciplinary procedures that the police already have in place. I shall very much be supporting this amendment and I am concerned that without it the main amendment should perhaps not go through.

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

I am extremely glad to speak after Deputy Hegarat. It is remarkable when we have a speaker who walked the walk and can talk from experience about the subject that we discuss here. So much of it is purely theoretical and I do feel that there is quite a lack of understanding of the procedures. Body- worn cameras protect the officer. They are not for the public, they protect the officer and the officers are very keen to use them. However, they have limitations. One of them - and this is quite important to understand - is that they are not on all the time. There are some extremely good reasons for that. First of all, they produce massive files which then need to be archived, sorted and sometimes looked at. If you did it all day you would have about 150 hours of video to look at at the end of the month. If you use them only when there is an incident, that comes down to about 7 hours of video to examine. That is the first thing. The second thing is that many of the older cameras will have a full day of battery life, so again, you would only use them when absolutely necessary. The last but probably the most important point is that you are not exactly allowed to go out in public and film everything you want. If anything, it is impolite. You do not go out and just film. Officers will switch on cameras when they interview the public when there is an incident. It seems a simple enough gesture and it is indeed applied 99 per cent of the time because cameras protect officers. They will switch them on every time they can, but they sometimes forget. We could add an amendment here saying: "What about making sure that your shoelaces are tied before you go to an incident?" It is pretty important, you do not want to trip over them and then hurt somebody or yourself, so it is pretty important, and 99.9 per cent of the time it would be done because it protects the officers and everybody else. Then sometimes one of your shoelaces has come undone, so what is good in setting up a law that forces somebody to do something that is ancillary to saving a life, but that cannot be guaranteed? Again, I think there is this misunderstanding that officials do not really want the video because that is evidence of misdeeds. Officers are very, very clear that cameras protect them.

9. Connétable J. Le Bailly of St. Mary :

I do not believe that body-worn cameras have anything to do with this legislation. Having to have one piece of a kit working to use another is nonsense. Having served in the Honorary Police with 8

years as a Centenier, I can easily understand the request for States police officers to carry Tasers. The thing that concerns me is why do they not have them at the moment, vital pieces of kit? They have extending batons, they have P.A.V.A. spray and it makes sense to include a Taser. This piece of kit could save a live, either the life of the officer or one of his colleagues or maybe a member of the public in a situation in which a split second could save a life. The Honorary Police are not keen to carry a Taser, as they feel that their honorary role does not warrant it. Unfortunately, evil minds do not discriminate between Honorary officers or States police officers. I can recall, as a Centenier, conducting a pre-Christmas road check in which a driver was stopped and was totally unco-operative. It was necessary to transfer him to the Parish Hall while awaiting the States police to chauffeur him to his night-time accommodation. At the Parish Hall , the offender became very violent and it required 4 Honorary officers to hold him on the floor in order to handcuff him. I was lucky to have 4 fit officers in order to contain the situation. The States police do not have immediate backup in a dangerous situation. Any piece of kit which allows them to carry out their duty quickly and safely using a minimum of restraint has to be of benefit to the officer or member of the public who requires protection. The Taser will probably not be used any more than it is used at present as part of the equipment issued to firearms officers. It is the fact that it is there in an emergency that should bring added reassurance to the officer and the public. In short, the Taser is a deterrent to stop a situation escalating without even needing to be deployed. European police officers carry guns. That does not mean to say that they use them. In fact, having spoken to some retired French police officers, they have stated that they have never needed to draw their gun during their careers. I have no doubt that the same would apply here, but the added confidence in order to contain a situation and also gain the respect shown to the police officer by the offender would mean the deterrent would be justified without the use or presence of a camera.

10. Deputy R.J. Ward :

I feel that perhaps we need to draw this debate back a little to the actual amendment of the amendment, perhaps press a little reset button. There are a few key points that need to be made before we go further into this. First of all, this is not a debate about whether we have Tasers or not. It already exists in the States of Jersey Police. It is not a debate about giving every police officer a Taser or indeed Honorary officers Tasers. That is not the consideration here. This will be a few officers on the beat with Tasers under strict recording circumstances now that the other amendment has been accepted. This amendment of the amendment is about 2 words. The Assembly needs to make a decision as to whether it wants to have the phrase "where practicable." I think it is important to raise that again. There are a number of things that come from that. First of all, there were some contributions that were really interesting for the debate and I think enriched this debate. I thank Deputy Le Hegarat for her consideration about probationary officers and I get what she says. I will say that one of the concerns of the panel was having lone officers with Tasers. That is in the report. We would encourage that to not happen and so I think that does, to some extent, address that area. What we are not looking to do is catch officers out. I think as soon as we start to talk about the use of body-worn camera and the footage, there seems to be a regression back to a sort of defensive mode by some to say: "Oh, you are just trying to catch officers out." That is exactly the opposite of what the panel was trying to say. What we are trying to say is that by having the default position explicit that cameras will be switched on, we have an opportunity to reassure both the officers and the public that there is a record of the incident that they can go back to, that it increases accountability and transparency of the use of Tasers, which is minimal at the moment, thankfully, and we do not want to see an increase in that. It does provide an opportunity for training for officers in order to address the issues that they faced in those circumstances, which is a development issue. It looks at the situation itself. I would be interested to see what the Attorney General says about reasonable grounds and I am sure that within any situation where a "must" or a requirement is made there will be reasonable grounds where that cannot happen. This debate I believe is about where we put the onus.

Do we put it on before an incident - it is taken as read that body-worn cameras, to give that assurance, are switched on - or do we leave it to a much less broad situation?

[10:45]

In either circumstance I think the recognition of the importance of the body-worn camera is important for us all. I think that is really important. The second thing I would say regards the point from Senator Pallett regards the use of cameras, in the report that accompanies this amendment it is referred to, that this is about officers attending with Tasers an incident, so it will be the officers carrying Tasers that will be required to put their body-worn cameras on and other officers that may be attending with Tasers, if they have a body-worn camera, I would say that that is probably a good thing because it gives more evidence. I think we need to look very carefully about what this part of the debate is like. It keeps getting extended out. Deputy Guida, when you talked about the analogies, I think you are talking about the use of Tasers in general, and I think the analogy of shoe laces is somewhat misguided. That has not neutralised the work that has been undergone here to try to look into this in depth. Deputy Tadier , I think you make a very good point and there is an issue here of the balance of power and there are genuine concerns that exist in our society. We need a balance to take account of those concerns and of the concerns of the police officers who we are asking to use Taser and putting them into those circumstances for their safety as well. I do not see the use of body- worn camera as the default position should get in the way of doing that and therefore I would urge people to not support the amended amendment, but the original amendment go through so we have another check and balance in place. I think that is all I have to say now. There was another point but I seem to have lost it in my notes.

Deputy J.H. Perchard of St. Saviour :

I would like to ask the A.G. (Attorney General) a follow-up question to Deputy Doublet 's question about consequences to an officer who has not been able to turn on their camera, has used a Taser ..

The Bailiff :

Is this a question to the Attorney General? Deputy J.H. Perchard:

Yes, Sir. I am just outlining the circumstances I would like him to address, which is a situation where an officer has not been able to turn on their camera and where this amendment to the amendment has failed because I want to know whether I am right in assuming that if the wording of the law is "must" it does not mean that if someone fails to do it they will be instantly criminalised but rather that they are likely to go through some sort of internal process. Is that correct?

The Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak on the amendment to the second amendment? Mr. Attorney, are you in a position to advise the Assembly on the matters that were raised?

The Attorney General:

I can take both Deputy Doublet 's and Deputy Perchard's questions together. The proposition is not to amend legislation. The proposition is to set out principles concerning the deployment of Tasers so there is not an amendment to any police procedures law that is entailed in the proposition. In reply to Deputy Perchard's question, there is no formal criminalisation of the police if they fail to turn on a body-worn camera as required by the panel's amendment to the amendment. A possible consequence if the Minister's amendment to the amendment is not carried is, as Deputy Le Hegarat suggested in her speech, there are possible disciplinary consequences to the officer because the use of a Taser is all around the use of reasonable force at the point of dealing with an incident or the point of an arrest. The Police (Complaints Discipline Procedures) Order 2000 has scheduled to it the Police Discipline Code and point 5 of that code is the use of force and abuse of authority, and provides that

officers must not use more force than is reasonable, nor should they abuse their authority. It is a clear statement that there has to be reasonable force used by an officer when carrying out their duties. The requirement to turn on a body-worn camera when using a Taser does not, I accept, immediately mean that it follows naturally that there has not been a reasonable use of force. Nevertheless if a camera is not turned on, as required by the panel's amendment to the amendment, there will necessarily be a suggestion that the officer has not acted properly in accordance with the principles the Assembly is currently debating and will no doubt approve. That may well give rise to a disciplinary complaint in circumstances where an officer has not turned on their body-worn camera where they are required to do so. I hope that answers both questions.

The Bailiff :

Thank you very much. Senator Pallett, do you have a further question for the Attorney General? Senator S.W. Pallett:

I know it is an issue I brought up when I was speaking but could I ask the Attorney General in the amendment to the amendment, part (d), what his view is where it says: "wherever practical we are recording on body-worn cameras by all officers" what he considers "all officers" to mean within this piece of legislation?

The Bailiff :

As the Attorney has explained, Senator, it is not a piece of legislation as such but if you wish to offer a view as to the legal effect of a guidance that contains the words "all officers".

The Attorney General:

If it were a piece of legislation then my view would be that it would include the Honorary Police because "officers" under the interpretation law is construed as including Honorary Police. As it is not a piece of legislation I think it is quite clearly from the start of the proposition a reference to the States of Jersey Police Force and I think "officers" has to be construed in that context so it has to be limited to the States of Jersey Police Force.

The Bailiff :

Deputy Perchard, do you wish to continue with the speech? I am sorry: first the Minister for Home Affairs has a question.

The Connétable of St. Clement :

Yes, just for clarity because this was raised by Deputy Le Hegarat, would the proposition include plain clothes officers who might be at an incident? Would they also be required to wear body-worn cameras?

The Attorney General: Was that a question for me? The Bailiff :

I think it was, Mr. Attorney, yes. It is a question of whether plain clothes officers would be required to wear a body-worn camera if they would not otherwise do so and therefore turn it on.

The Attorney General:

I think yes, in accordance with the reason I just set out in response to Senator Pallett's question. My interpretation would be that it would include, provided the officer was a Jersey Police Force officer, then they would be required to wear a camera.

The Bailiff :

I am sorry I did not hear the beginning part. You said "provided" and I could not hear what you said after that.

The Attorney General:

I am sorry; I will turn up the volume on my machine. The Bailiff :

You said it would include a States of Jersey Police officer who was in plain clothes, a detective, and then you said "provided" and I was not sure what you said after "provided".

The Attorney General:

I think I said "provided they were a States of Jersey Police officer." I think it is very likely that an officer would be a States of Jersey officer.

The Bailiff :

Just for clarification purposes, that would mean that an officer would be required to wear a body- worn camera even if he would not normally have done one attending an incident.

The Attorney General:

Yes.

The Bailiff :

There is a follow-up question from Deputy Perchard. Deputy J.H. Perchard:

If the Assembly was to reject the Minister's amendment to the amendment is there anything to prevent the Minister from adding an exemption in the guidelines after this has been adopted? Would the situation the Attorney General just outlined, if an officer who would not normally be wearing a camera is in attendance and witnesses the use of a Taser is the Minister in a position to add an exemption to officers in that particular situation if we adopt the language "must"?

The Bailiff :

There are also other Members who wish follow-up questions for the Attorney General so we will ask the questions and then the Attorney can see if he can give an omnibus answer. That was your question, Deputy Perchard, then Deputy Ward .

Deputy R.J. Ward :

I was a bit unclear. We seem to have gone down a bit of a rabbit hole here and I wanted to be clear. The report makes clear that any use of a Taser by a States of Jersey Police officer must be recorded

- and it is a question coming - by body-worn cameras by all officers attending a particular situation and the footage submitted. The interpretation of that means that all officers attending would have to wear a body-worn camera but I want some clarification on that. Plain clothes officers would not wear a body-worn camera and it was those officers with Tasers that would have the body-worn cameras that should therefore be switched on and those attending. I want some clarity on whether the A.G. is saying the interpretation is that all officers attending will now have to strap on a body- worn camera. I am a bit confused, if I may ask.

The Bailiff :

Yes, that is fair enough, Deputy , and the Connétable of St. Mary , you have a question for clarification for the Attorney General.

The Connétable of St. Mary :

If a police officer was in a violent situation with his body-worn camera damaged does that mean he could not deploy his Taser in order to save his life or that of his colleague or member of the public?

The Bailiff :

Mr. Attorney, are you able to give answers to those questions? The Attorney General:

Yes, Sir. In relation to Deputy Perchard's follow-up question about whether it would be open for the Minister to issue some sort of exception as regards plain clothes officers, that would be difficult because this is a proposition that is expressing the will of the Assembly, and I think it would be difficult for the Minister to do that absent the Assembly's approval. As regards the clarification requested by Deputy Ward in relation to my previous answer, yes, I am sorry if I did not make it clear. The requirement to wear a body-worn camera by a plain clothes officer would of course be by a plain clothes officer who is using a Taser.

[11:00]

If the plain clothes officer was not using a Taser then I accept they would not have to switch on and record their body-worn cameras. As regards the last question from the Connétable of St. Mary , again that is governed by use of reasonable force and any officer in that situation would be entitled to use reasonable force and if that officer was equipped with Taser and obviously appropriately trained then the officer, if the Taser was out of battery or was out of service, and the officer was in a situation where they did reasonably perceive there was a threat to their life, yes they would be able to, in my view, use Taser to defend themselves.

The Bailiff :

There is a further call for clarification from the Connétable of St. Clement . The Connétable of St. Clement :

It was in response to the Attorney General's answer to Deputy Ward that implied that if the plain clothes police officer was not carrying a Taser then he would not have to use a body-worn camera. I presume the same would apply to a uniformed officer in the same position. As I read it, and perhaps the Attorney General can tell me if I have it wrong, the amendment (d) does not require an officer to be carrying a Taser to use a body-worn camera. All it requires him to do is to be attending the situation at which a Taser is also present. I wanted clarification for that.

The Attorney General:

I am almost tempted to advise that perhaps the wording of propositions is a matter for a ruling by the Presiding Officer.

The Bailiff :

I am perfectly content to take that if you wish, Mr. Attorney, because I think it is. I was thinking that myself. The wording of a proposition is probably a matter for the Presiding Officer. It seems to me that unamended the matter is entirely clear that any use of a Taser must be recorded on body-worn cameras by all officers attending the situation in which use occurs. Given your advice to the effect that officers relating must apply to uniformed and non-uniformed officers of the States of Jersey Police then that must be that if they are wearing body-worn cameras they must obviously all use them, whether they are deploying the Taser personally or not. I am not sure it is clear on the surface of the proposition whether that applies to officers who would not normally be wearing a body-worn camera but that is something that is not to do with the interpretation of the proposition at all. But the interpretation of the proposition to my mind is that all officers attending must be recording, whether they are using the Tasers or not. Deputy Perchard, did you wish to have a speech? You asked for one following your question.

11. Deputy J.H. Perchard:

Given the reminder from the Attorney General that this is not legislation passing but a principle I am quite comfortable supporting the principle that officers must turn their cameras on when using a Taser. I am also content with the response of the Attorney General that this is clearly a reference to States of Jersey Police officers and the reason for that is because I think in any profession where you have a responsibility for the lives of others it is important that we agree to higher principles with the understanding that on a case-by-case basis there may be instances where the principle is not upheld. For me it is important that in those cases there is some sort of process to identify why it was not upheld and to ensure for the safety and safeguarding of the officers themselves that those situations are avoided as much as possible. There is a reasonable analogy to be made with teaching and I know for many members this may seem a very different context, but it is the case that teachers are held to a higher principle when it comes to safeguarding children, for example. You have to take a register at the beginning of every single class and if you do not you are breaking a code of conduct that is written down and is of a national standard, and there is a disciplinary process that follows. That is because there have been situations, and I have experienced a situation where I have forgotten to take a register in a class and a child who was absent was at risk, had a very serious high risk. At the time I had to go through a process and I was held to account for forgetting. It was just a forgetful moment. The technology was not working. I could not do it. Registers are all electronic now, and instead of doing the right thing that was to stop, take a breath, write it down by hand and send it to the register's office, I just did not do it. I thought I will do it at the end of the lesson once I can get my computer turned on. The problem in that situation was not just for the child who was obviously the priority but also for me professionally it was a safeguarding issue for my own professionalism, and these kinds of standards you have to be held to because if you are not it becomes far too easy to not do them. I am not saying anyone would deliberately not take a register or, in this case, turn on their camera but I certainly did not forget again, having gone through that process. For me, of course, I could almost hear Members thinking it is not the same if you are in an emergency in a life-threatening situation on the street and you are rushing. I completely accept there are clear differences but the similarity is that child was at great personal risk and it was my fault for not upholding that standard. I accepted that at the time and I think that is the kind of culture we want to nurture. I think also it is important to remember that when a principle is not upheld it does not mean you will get fired or put in jail. It means you will go through a process, and I think it is right for the police or any job where people's lives are the responsibility of others. I think it is important that we have standards, we have processes and procedures and I would rather have a higher principle underpinning what we do followed by a process rather than a clause that allows the process not to happen. If you include "wherever practicable" what happens, there is .. if a principle is not upheld, there is not a review of why it was not upheld and there is not a learning experience from that. That is the problem for me with this. I would have preferred an amendment from the Minister that adds possible exceptions because I think some fair points have been made about situations in which it is very difficult, if not impossible, for officers. If you are a plain clothes officer and you are carrying a Taser and you do not have a camera, I understand that could happen. But given what the Attorney General said about the fact that the Assembly would have to support that I would say the Minister can bring that back shortly instead of just accepting "wherever practicable". Today I would rather accept the higher principle, with a view to the Minister bringing back for us to be approved and I would happily support him in approving exceptions where it is obviously really impractical. But I do not want to just agree to "wherever practicable" without knowing what that means, without knowing what that includes and without knowing what it does not include because that lack of clarity is not good for the public but it also is not fair on officers who need safety themselves. With that in mind, I will be supporting the panel on this vote by voting against the Minister's amendment but I do urge him to bring forward any necessary exemptions so we can address them specifically and clearly as an Assembly.

12. Deputy K.G. Pamplin of St. Saviour :

I will be brief. I want to address the amendment to the amendment and in his summing up if the Minister could just answer my questions. In the report attached to his amendment to the amendment he explains why he does not agree with the amendment to the amendment but I am reading, and I quote: "concern about the feasibility of requiring all use of Tasers to be captured on body-worn cameras by all officers present at the situation." I think that has been covered but it is the next section: "Unfortunately with all pieces of technology body-worn camera equipment is not infallible. Cameras can fail for a variety of reasons including problems with technology." This could be also the same. It could be argued about the Tasers themselves and police officers when using this equipment or any equipment that they are going out to protect themselves, and all of us and members of the public need the assurance that the equipment they are taking, whatever that is, is going to work and is fully tested. I would imagine a rigorous part of that process is testing that equipment regularly before it is issued and deployed. That would have to be the same for the camera technology, I would accept. For me and in the modern world we live in with how cameras can function now and how many hours they can record that can be simply checked and assured that it is all working before a police officer leaves with those pieces of equipment. Secondly, the bit where he mentions: "It is possible that in a fast- moving and potentially dangerous situation not all officers will be able to utilise their body-worn cameras in sufficient time." Then it was explained in the briefing, and also in the main proposition, the process that is employed when deploying a Taser. It seems a very calm procedural method why those trained officers would then initiate the process and with distance between them. It seems to me that one of those processes should be to ensure the officer's safety and check his equipment is working. I would like him to touch on those reasons why the use of a camera cannot be included in the processes that were outlined to us and how the Tasers are deployed. I hope that has made sense.

13. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet :

I wanted to thank Deputy Perchard for building on the questions I was asking the Attorney General and the point I was going to make she did touch on at the end of her speech. I want to reflect on the debate we have had today and for me the important thing here is clarity. On an operational level, for a police officer having something that they must do and they have been trained they must do is a lot more practical and more precise to apply to this kind of work. I think an officer who is thinking on their feet in an emergency situation should not have to assess whether or not it is practicable to turn their camera on. I think the clearer way forward is they must turn their camera on and that is a lot more practical in terms of the way these devices will be used and fairer to the officer. I think we should reflect on the way we ourselves have had to think about this and we do not want to pass that uncertainty on to officers. We want to give them clear direction, so I think we should go with the word "must" and I do not think we should approve the amendment to the amendment.

The Bailiff :

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

14. The Connétable of St. Clement :

I am grateful to all those who have spoken but it is interesting, is it not, that those who have been involved in law enforcement take a different view from some others who have not. We are all as one. We want, we need and we expect the police to use their body-worn cameras at every incident whether it involves the Taser, another piece of personal protection equipment, or it is just a straightforward, ordinary arrest, and the police want to do the same. The problem with this proposition if unamended is we are asking the police to do something they might not be able to do and that would be totally wrong of us.

[11:15]

Deputy Perchard mentioned fairness. It is not fair to put a police officer in a position of a potential disciplinary hearing because for whatever reason his equipment failed, and Deputy Pamplin must know we have seen technology being used in our State sittings and sometimes it does not work very well. A piece of equipment can fall off a police officer. It does not happen very often but it can happen and it can put the police in a ridiculously difficult position. We have heard a plain clothes police officer who is at an incident under the terms of this proposition unamended will have to wear a body-worn camera. That is going to ruin any undercover operations the police want to carry out, is it not? We are at one. It is simply making it practical for all the police to do the work. As I say, they want to use the body-worn cameras but I do not want to tell them that they cannot use the equipment unless everything is totally operational. Of course it is checked but things can go wrong and batteries can suddenly discharge, we have all seen that probably in our own lives. It is just a safeguard to protect the police and we are asking the police to do something that perhaps they should not do. I think it was Deputy Tadier , the burden of proof that a piece of personal protection equipment has been used properly is always with the police officer. Always with the police officer whether it be the baton, whether it be the handcuffs, whether it be P.A.V.A. spray, or be it a firearm, a rifle or a Glock pistol which they can use, or be it a Taser. They have got to document why it was used, how it was used, they have got to justify it, show that it was a reasonable and proper thing to do and, of course, lawful. I think it is worth mentioning, the Attorney General and the Bailiff mentioned, that we are not talking about legislation here, we are talking about policy, enforcing the policy on the police. Deputy Le Hegarat , well she spoke about probationary officers not using this piece of equipment, and I do tend to agree with her, but I have bent over backwards to help and support the Scrutiny Panel in this issue and obviously I have discussed these amendments with the chief officer of the States of Jersey Police. While we are uncomfortable about this, we do recognise - we do recognise - there are some people and there are some Members who are still uncomfortable and cautious about the use of this piece of personal protection equipment. Bearing in mind, if this proposition is adopted, the Minister for Home Affairs will be required to come back in 12 months' time with a report on the effectiveness and how the whole thing has panned out. We would be able to bring appropriate amendments to the policy that we are agreeing today at that time but what I wanted to do was to give all Members as much reassurance about the deployment of Tasers as absolutely possible. As I said, we are at one, really, and what is really good, what I am really pleased about, is being at one with Deputy Higgins as well because he is absolutely right when he says that the Taser is a less lethal weapon. So is P.A.V.A. spray, so is the baton, the ASP, a heavy metal bar. That is more lethal than the Taser when you stop and think about it because if you bash someone over the head with one of those you could kill them or you could certainly break bones. You cannot do that with a Taser. Deputy Higgins did get a little bit dramatic talking about deaths by Taser. I can tell the Deputy , in the United Kingdom there have been no deaths caused by Taser. There have been 2 incidents where a Taser has been involved in a death but the inquest always found that there were other reasons for the demise of the individual, so it is by far much less lethal than a Glock pistol or a sniper rifle or whatever. Where I totally agree with Deputy Higgins in his speech, he said body- worn cameras should be used. I totally agree with him and that is what my proposition, or my amendment, does. The amendment unfortunately does 2 things: it says "must" which can be impractical and, in some cases, impossible or very, very rarely, but it can happen and, of course, undercover detectives and plain clothes officers would also be required to wear cameras, which is not right. I cannot make exceptions. If the States approve this amendment unamended, I cannot change that, that is the States decision and I have to respect the States decision, so I move the amendment and I ask for the appel.

The Bailiff :

The appel is called for and I ask the Greffier to place a vote in the voting chat. I open the voting and ask Members to vote in the normal way. [Aside] Yes, did someone have something they needed to raise? No?

Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier :

Can you just remind the Assembly of what they are voting for? The Bailiff :

Yes, the vote is on the adoption of the amendment of the Minister for Home Affairs to the second amendment from the Scrutiny Panel. It is the inclusion of the words "wherever practicable" regarding the use of body-worn cameras to record Taser deployment. So a vote pour would be to adopt the Minister's amendment. Would people now stop voting and treat that vote as null? We are going to put the link up again and then we will count the vote from the moment the link goes up. The link is up, I open the voting again and I ask Members to vote in the normal way.

Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour :

Could we just have some patience, please, the system is running very slowly today? The Bailiff :

I am sorry, I did not hear what you said.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Two things: Deputy Maçon said it is running slowly today. Also, I just voted again and it says I have already voted in the vote .. [Interruption] Can we just confirm whether you have got the votes?

The Bailiff :

I think what we will do is we will start again. We will ignore once again any votes that are currently being cast, so we will start again with a new link and that will be put up in due course.

Connétable R.A. Buchanan of St. Ouen :

Does this mean you will be discounting all votes in the chat until the new link is up? The Bailiff :

Yes, completely because we are going to try and .. obviously if people cannot vote on the link, we will count the votes in the chat but only those that appear under the link when it is now posted, nothing that appears above. There we are: third time lucky. I open the voting and ask Members to vote in the normal way and if anyone cannot vote, then I will keep a running total of votes in the chat as well. Very well, we have 38 votes registered through the link and the number that I have noted in the chat. Therefore, if Members have had the opportunity of voting, I will ask the Greffier to close the voting. Very well, the vote is on the link: 31 votes pour for the amendment, 8 votes contre. I count another 7 votes pour in the chat and 3 votes contre; therefore, the amendment is adopted.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Those voting within the link voting contre: Deputy Gardiner , Deputy Perchard, Deputy Ward , Deputy Alves , Deputy Higgins, Deputy Tadier , Deputy Doublet and Senator Mézec .

4. Deployment and Use of Energy Conductive Devices (Tasers') by The States of Jersey Police (P.97/2020): Second Amendment (P.97/2020 Amd.(2)) - as amended

The Bailiff :

We now return to the debate upon the second amendment now as amended. Does any Member wish to speak on the second amendment? If no Member wishes to speak on the second amendment ..

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I put it up in the chat.

The Bailiff :

Yes, thank you very much, Deputy , it has just appeared.

1. Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Although I think probably most aspects have been discussed in the previous amendment, I would just like to make it quite clear to States Members, the Taser is a less lethal weapon. I know the Minister for Home Affairs said .. I cannot remember how many deaths he said there had been in the U.K. I know that just reading at the moment there were 2 the coroners have directly attributed to the Taser and there have been a total of 18 people who have died after a Taser was discharged against them by the police. Now, it may not have been the direct cause of the death, such as, for example, the electrical discharge causing a heart attack, but people have fallen, banged their heads and died as a result that way, so there is indirect effect of the use of a Taser. So, the whole purpose of having camera evidence, and I believe we have made a mountain out of a molehill earlier, was to get data to enable us to see how the trial goes. No one is saying the police officers should not have a right to defend

themselves if they are attacked. If the camera was not on at that particular moment in time, I personally am not fussed by it. If an officer is being rushed at with a knife or a sword and is in danger of serious injury, or a member of the public was, I say Taser them, take them down. But what I do want is to have evidence that we can look at in a year's time and we can see whether they are used appropriately. It is not the case of the violent offender in that sense in a life-threatening situation which concerns me, it is the fact that they may be being used against children, they may be used against people who have got a mental illness where they are not particularly a threat and also where, for example, they may be of various ethnic communities. In the U.K. that has been a major problem, so I think it is important we see the context. For example, if there is a large number of youths and they are vociferous but they are not making threats of physical violence, is the Taser appropriate? There are circumstances; we need to look at the circumstances where they are used. Again, going back to this idea of the officers present, I am not talking about plain clothes officers having to have a camera so they are no longer visible, we are not talking about other officers who are not part of the scene having to have a camera, we are talking about policemen on the beat. When they are out there and dealing with situations, it is a record of what goes on, so I think we have made a real mountain out of a molehill here. Let us have the study for the year, let us see what has gone on and let us have a look at the video evidence to see how they are being used. The important thing is to give the public reassurance on the use of the Taser.

[11:30]

Unfortunately, policing in recent years, maybe it is a sign of modern-day society, but policemen no longer wander around town in their white shirts and the old Bobby's hat during the summer months, they are now walking around, men and women, looking like Michelin men and women because they are all bulked up. They have probably got an anti-stab vest, they have got handcuffs, they have got the P.A.V.A. spray, they have got their baton and they are coming across to many people in our society, just in appearance, aggressive. I am not criticising the police for this, society have brought it, but by having officers with Tasers and if they are used inappropriately, then I am fearful that the public's trust in the police force may be ruined. So, as I say, I hope the States will approve the amendment so that we will be able to look in a year's time and see how they are used and if they are being used appropriately, great. Thank you very much.

The Connétable of St. Clement :

If it helps, I am accepting the amendment.

The Bailiff :

That is a very helpful indication, thank you very much indeed.

2. Deputy S.M. Wickenden:

I am pleased to follow the other speaker on some of the lines of what he said. Tasers are a lot less deadly than other options that are available to the police at the moment. I just wanted to talk on the bit about the probationary period. I know the chief of police and the police have discussed it and they are happy to accept it to try and assist along the way. But we do have to remember this, probationary is 2 years' long, police do go through rigorous training, they do have to record what is going on. The other option we are now giving to any new police officer rather than a less-deadly force, is the use of equipment such as a baton. Now, a Taser will put somebody down, they will feel uncomfortable and they will be stopped for a minute or 2 and then they will be up and talking, and that is how it really goes. But if you have to have somebody coming at you with a knife or is extremely aggressive, or any type of weapon, and you are a probationary officer, now the only option you may have in your tools is a baton. Hitting someone with a baton causes a lot more damage than a Taser does and it comes across as more of a brawl. It does not have the same effect as we have seen with Tasers. When a Taser is deployed and a red dot is put on somebody, they think a lot harder

than they do about getting into a ruckus or: "Can I get the baton?" or the likes. So what we are doing with this probationary area is really kind of changing the toolset to probationary officers to use a more damaging piece of equipment. That can have months of fiscal therapy afterwards to deal with that and it could be somebody that is drunk and lack of judgment or the likes. So I am a little bit uncomfortable with the probationary period area because of what it does but the police have said they accept it. There was a presentation, a demonstration given for the panel, the Scrutiny Panel, before they lodged their amendment and they chose not to attend to go and see how Tasers are deployed and what the process is and how the warnings happen and the different situations that could be there. So it was a shame that they did not attend before lodging an amendment because I think the extra information for Scrutiny would have been helpful. Of course, body-worn cameras are used whenever a Taser is deployed, that is part of the process, but any police officer that chose or did not put on a body-worn camera would go through the disciplinary process, of course. But the disciplinary process for the police can also be about administrative leave and we have got to be careful we do not start reducing our police force by setting up rules that are too prescriptive in some way that causes a problem there. So I will support the amendment, I am not overly comfortable with it, but, yes, I will happily deploy it. I am just uncomfortable about allowing police officers to have less-deadly options to be able to stop and save a life.

The Bailiff :

Thank you very much, Deputy Wickenden. There is a point of clarification sought from you by Deputy Ward , I had better take that point of clarification.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

If it is a point of clarification. If it is, yes, fine.

The Bailiff :

Well, that will be for me to determine. A point of clarification, Deputy Ward . Deputy R.J. Ward :

There were 2. One is: is the Assistant Chief Minister aware that I, as Chair of the panel, did attend the briefing? Second, is the Assistant Chief Minister aware that this is not extending the use of Taser to all police, only a select few?

The Bailiff :

I do not think either of those are points of clarification of the Deputy 's speech. They are points of information that we are giving to him.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

A point was made that the panel did not attend. Perhaps it is a point of order and I think that is just simply not the case and could be seen to be misleading the Assembly, as I did attend. I think it is really important, given the work that we put into the report as a panel.

The Bailiff :

Deputy , you of course are going to sum up at the end of this part of the debate, so you will be able to make all of the points that you need to on that occasion.

Deputy M. Tadier :

I just wanted to clarify, we are only debating on this part, the requirement for a probationary period, is that correct?

The Bailiff :

This is the debate relating to the second amendment as amended. so it is both the amendment to page 2, paragraph (a) and page 2, paragraph (c). The first part of that is only issued to a police officer who has completed a Taser course to the national standard and who has also completed their probationary period. Then the other part relates to the use of body-worn cameras, at this point now, wherever practicable.

3. Deputy M. Tadier :

That is what I understood. There is not a lot to add, we have had the debate on body-worn cameras and what the level of compulsion should be for them. I do not think it is unreasonable for an officer who is going to deploy a Taser to have completed their probationary period first. That seems reasonable, it has been accepted by the Minister and I will leave it there because I think some comments have been going into a wider debate.

4. The Connétable of St. Mary :

This legislation is to issue Tasers to our police, not to be conditional on a body camera. It appears that there is a design fault here. If the camera was incorporated into the Taser we would not have this problem. This could be done quite easily and maybe it already has somewhere else. If not, surely in the not-too-distant future it will be or should be.

The Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak on the second amendment as amended? If no other Member wishes to speak then I close the debate and call upon Deputy Ward to respond.

5. Deputy R.J. Ward :

Forgive the jumper, it is very cold in my house. I thank everybody for the debate. It is always difficult when you have amendments of amendments of amendments to stick to the topic and I will not talk for very long on this as it has been accepted by the Minister. There are just a couple of things to make a point. I think it is very important that I can make the point that I did attend the briefing and, as the Minister has said, the panel is engaged fully at all times with the Minister, the police and many other stakeholders in producing this review. I am concerned that these questions about Scrutiny keep arising when we have an incredibly dedicated team and dedicated Members, who are all part of the Scrutiny Panel, from across the Assembly, so I think it is important to say that. I will just say 2 quick things on this. This part of the amendment is not about how many police receive a Taser and whether we have Tasers, they are there. The 2 key points as amended now are body-worn cameras, which is now as appropriate, and that has been accepted by the Assembly. I think there is a very important point about probationary officers and I think the panel see this really as a protection for those officers, and I point again to our concern about officers being sent out on lone patrols with a Taser changing the nature of that. I think that has been shared with the Minister and our concerns there. This is about ensuring the safety of the police and the public and to get that support from the public for a change, which is a delicate change. Part of that is to protect our probationary officers as well and so that is where this amendment comes from and I will remind the Assembly that it has been accepted by the Minister. On that, I would like to ask for the appel. Thank you.

The Bailiff :

Deputy Wickenden, you have a point of clarification?

Deputy S.M. Wickenden:

Just from the previous speaker, I am aware that there was a presentation demonstration given .. The Bailiff :

No, no, sorry, Deputy , that is ..

Deputy S.M. Wickenden:

There were 2 demonstrations, one earlier before the amendment was lodged and one afterwards. The Bailiff :

Deputy , please stop. A point of clarification, I am assuming you are asking a point of clarification of what the rapporteur, Deputy Ward , has said in his speech. If he has made other points in response on more points of your own, that is not a proper use of ..

Deputy S.M. Wickenden:

The Deputy disputed that I may have been misleading the House and I wanted to make sure it was clear that I said that there was a presentation before the amendment was lodged that was not attended. Could the Deputy please clarify?

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Sorry, I do not know what I am clarifying. They were both the same presentation and I went to the presentation. We have also engaged fully with the police, we have had briefings from the police as part of the panel, we have had briefings from many people as part of the panel. It was a thorough piece of Scrutiny work produced in a 61-page report in short order. I am very proud of the report, I am proud of the panel's work on the report and I am very proud to be associated with the officers who ..

The Bailiff :

Very well, I think that is sufficient clarification. I ask the Greffier to put the link into the voting and Members will see the link is there. I open the voting and I 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 second amendment as amended has been adopted: 35 votes pour; one vote contre and I count another, at least, 9 votes pour in the chat and therefore that has been adopted.

The Bailiff :

We now return to the debate on the main proposition .. The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Within the link it was Deputy Le Hegarat who voted contre and the Connétable of St. Mary voted contre in the chat.

5. Deployment and Use of Energy Conductive Devices (Tasers') by The States of Jersey Police (P.97/2020) - as amended

The Bailiff :

Yes, we now return to the debate on the main proposition as amended. Does any Member wish to speak on the main proposition?

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

I just wanted to say if any Members are still concerned about this proposition as a whole, I thought it may be useful to understand how I came to the point where I will be voting in support of this proposition.

[11:45]

It all started with a visit for a briefing up at the T.A. (Territorial Army) Centre at La Collette and where I made the classic political schoolboy error of informing the Minister and the Assistant Minister that there was no way on earth that I would possibly vote for this proposition. Fast forward an hour and a half and I came out thinking: "I am going to vote for this proposition." The reason for that was, number one, I stand humble, and the reason for that was a set of presentations given by 2 very informative and very approachable police officers who did answer all of my questions directly. It is a refreshing change and I was very pleased with that. Ultimately in my head, the aspect that convinced me that it is right to allow the wider use of Tasers within the police force came down to this idea that as employers, or the police, through the States Employment Board, I had to ask myself, what right, if as a legislator, I deny the police officers the use of Tasers or broadly the use of Tasers,

what right do I have to deny them that when the alternative is basically asking police officers to engage with people, potentially violent people, upfront, very close, hand-to-hand wrestling, punching, biting and scratching? That sort of thing is what I am asking them to do if I deny them the use of Tasers which, while not perfect, are less than lethal. They do, it appears, although I have not experienced it myself, but from what the police officers were saying the pain is temporary and does only last a length of time, 5 seconds precisely apparently that the Taser is discharged. In one of the videos they showed us, and I have to trust the police on this, they did say that the person who the Taser was used upon who was self-harming at the time, did say that they saved his life by doing that. That was an interesting video because it was someone who could have become violent, who had an offensive weapon but was using it on themselves but obviously could have taken their own life or changed and used it on the police officers. So, yes, it came down to that idea: what right do I as a legislator have to say: "No, I am not going to allow you to use this defensive weapon"? It is a defensive weapon, it is not an offensive weapon, when the alternative to allowing a police officer to use that defensive weapon is to force them to engage in essentially hand-to-hand combat, although "combat" is probably the wrong word, but hand-to-hand fight in some way, shape or form with members of the public. I realised I could not ask them to do that knowing there was an alternative available to the Island and I do believe the Minister has gone about this in the right way. It is a measured use, it is not deployment to all police officers. I also am incredibly grateful to the Children, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel, I think they have done an excellent review and their amendments are really spot-on in my view. Had they not brought the amendment, particularly on the monitoring side and the reporting in a year's time, et cetera, I would have brought that myself but I am much happier they did that for me. So that is how I ended up going from someone who would never vote for this proposition to someone who will be voting for this proposition, and I thought it might be helpful to let the Assembly know about that. I would just like to thank those police officers who gave us that briefing, not just because they won me around but because they were very informative, they were very open to questioning and we could all take a leaf out of their book when it comes to giving direct answers to the questions. They did that and I am very grateful for them doing so. Thank you.

2. The Connétable of St. Ouen :

I think I am pleased to follow the previous speaker, not least because he probably pinched most of my lines. I think firstly I would just like to congratulate the Minister on the demonstrations that he laid on up at Mount Bingham. I think for those Members who were not aware how the Taser would be used and when it would be used, it gave a very clear illustration of, not only the safeguards involved, but the situations where an officer may have to use a Taser and the protection it would give that officer, as Deputy Morel has pointed out, where they may otherwise have to engage hand-to- hand with somebody who could have a bladed weapon and could inflict serious damage on that officer. So I would endorse the comments Deputy Morel has made about safety of officers and how this will protect those officers. I think for those Members who may think: "Well it does not happen very often in Jersey" I think if you were to go out on patrol on a Friday evening when the pubs are turning out, you would probably change your mind quite quickly. We are generally a peaceful Island and we do not have a great deal of violent crime but there are instances where violent crime does take place, and we have incidents of domestic abuse where bladed weapons are produced, and we have instances in town late at night where some members of the public can become very violent and can endanger officers' lives. So I think I would endorse what Deputy Morel says, this is an essential move to provide trained police officers with a method of protecting themselves and I think I would urge the Assembly very strongly to support it. Once again, I would like to thank Scrutiny for their report, it was very clear and comprehensive and highlighted a number of areas that I had not thought of. I spent 11 years as an Honorary Police officer and have had to ask the States police to come and assist me with a number of violent incidents so I can claim some first-hand experience in this matter. So, in summary, I would ask Members to support this proposition. It is well-constructed, it has a

large number of safeguards in terms of the use of the Taser and we will be receiving a report back in a year's time, which we will be able to scrutinise and understand how the Taser is used and on which groups of people it is going to be used. So I think it is a good well-rounded proposition and should be supported by all Members. Thank you.

3. The Connétable of St. Lawrence :

At risk of repetition, I would like to also thank the Scrutiny Panel for their excellent report and for the subsequent amendments that they have brought to the Minister's proposition. As a Constable, I am responsible for the effective and efficient policing within my Parish. Put simply, that means I am required to provide my officers with the tools that they need to do their job effectively and efficiently. So, in my view, that is simply what the Minister for Home Affairs has done by bringing this proposition to the Assembly, it is to request us to allow his States of Jersey Police officers to have the right tools that they need to do their job. I have a question for the Minister which is, in connection with those people who experience the use of P.A.V.A. spray or the use of Tasers upon them, I am not sure whether they are advised by the States of Jersey Police following the use of those tools whether or not they are able to, if they feel that they had been used inappropriately, whether they are referred to the Police Complaints Authority as a matter of course. I would like the Minister to answer that because clearly, although we are likely to approve the proposition as amended, there is the possibility of the use of Tasers when a member of the public feels that they have been used incorrectly upon them and they would want to make a complaint to that effect. So I do feel that it is almost incumbent upon the States of Jersey Police to advise members of the public about the Police Complaints Authority as a body and what they are able to do on behalf of members of the public who have a complaint against the police. So I would like to know from the Minister, is it the norm that they are advised about this or are they not advised? I think we need to hear from the Minister on that.

4. Deputy M. Tadier :

It is probably worth mentioning, I know we have heard from a police officer today, a former police officer in the States, and like one of the Deputies of St. Lawrence , Deputy Guida, said, that it is always important to listen to people with operational experience. I was pleased to be able to see a former States Member this week, former Deputy Bob Hill who used to be the Deputy of St. Martin for many, many years who was a police officer in London. Bob was somebody who was always really instrumental in my younger years as a States Member in forming some of the ideas and looking at these kind of things in a balanced way. Incidentally, it was his 80th birthday over the weekend and I am sure we would like to wish him a happy birthday. He showed us the photos, et cetera, of the time when he was in the Met, he received the Queen's Medal, the B.E.M. (British Empire Medal) and something he used to talk about, because he was really interested in human rights, was the idea and the notion of policing by consent. I think that is a really important one because I remember back in the day when we had the first debate around the initial introduction of Tasers, this is something that came up quite a lot and there was some resistance. Certainly, a lot of Members realised that it was a grey area because while the idea of needing Tasers theoretically and also for training purposes, because of course we know that the police officers will not necessarily always stay in Jersey and they might need to apply for jobs elsewhere and progress, that it is important that they get training in all of the tools that are available to them, but there was also the counter-idea that in Jersey, which still remains a small and relatively peaceful community, that the need for this had not really been justified. So, when Deputy Morel asks: "Who am I to legislate against a police officer being able to use a Taser?" so we are parliamentarians, we are the legislators and it is absolutely right, and we do have an absolute right to make these kind of decisions because they always are balanced ones. For me, the concern is not simply that the police have the tools that they feel they need but also the relationship between the police and the wider public and the psychological aspect that might come into question when we see, let us face it, it is an increased militarisation, I think, of the police force. Deputy Higgins, who I know has got some experience in these matters, he is interested in them and speaks

on them often and has done in the past. I think he was quite right when he slightly comically perhaps talked about the police officers becoming like Michelin men and women. It does seem sometimes that they do seem over-encumbered and that is understandable, that is the way things have moved. My concern with the Taser is that, first of all, the Minister himself started off by mixing the language. He first of all called it a "non-lethal option" and then later on quoted the term, which is correct, it is "less lethal" and it is not less than lethal, it is less lethal because Tasers can and have and do kill on occasions. Personally, I would much prefer to be met by a policeman or woman in the street with a gun than with a Taser because I know that they are less likely to use the gun and they would only use it in extreme circumstances. It has been put across as some kind of positive that it is a threat, so as soon as you get the red dot on you, et cetera, people are more likely to comply. But the thing is, I do not necessarily want to comply in public, I want a public who are well-behaved, who have a respect for the police and for whom the police have a mutual respect, knowing full well that we do not live in a perfect society and that police officers have a very difficult job. I do not want the public to generally become more fearful than they need to be about a police force who should continue to police by consent. So this is my concern that, even though it is not necessary to the proliferation that some might think, we need to be able to speak about these things openly. It should not be in any way implied that this is an impugnment of the integrity of the police. I thought Deputy Perchard hit the nail on the head really when she talked about the, some would call it, red tape that teachers have to live with under safeguarding issues and it is done primarily for their benefit but also because they are there primarily to look after the safety of children as well as teach them. I think exactly the same thing needs to apply to all of our public institutions.

[12:00]

So, it is absolutely right that we do legislate and we do proffer opinions, sometimes opinions that may be counter to the mainstream or counter to the majority of other politicians, but I am very concerned that there needs to be that ability for the public to interact. There will be cases, I presume, it has certainly happened elsewhere, whereby police officers always need to act within the realms of the law. It is conceivable that a police officer might request a member of the public to do something that they do not necessarily have the right to do and a member of the public might wish to challenge a police officer on their right to ask them to do something which they do not think the police officer has the right to do. If a Taser is put into the equation, how quickly could it become a police state, and I am not saying this would happen just because of what we are introducing today, but police states do not happen overnight. I think it is something that can happen gradually, so I for one am not comfortable with this increased proliferation. I do not think the case for Tasers has been fully made in Jersey and it is interesting that the Constable of St. Mary said: "Look, the Honorary Police officers do not want Tasers" according to him. I am not saying that operationally they are exactly the same, but increasingly they are of course. If the Honorary Police, who do tend to police by consent, do not feel the need for this, I am wondering why we are introducing it for all other officers. I caveat that by saying, of course, I know these are not absolute areas, there are compelling arguments which have been made and which I am still swayed by for the use of Tasers but, for me, I still come down on the side of voting against this legislation because I do not agree with the way this is taking us in terms of the relationship between the public and the relationship between the police. I think that is very important, not just practical or theoretical deployment issues.

5. Senator S.W. Pallett:

I am going to be brief. I have got absolute respect for, I think, the intentions of the States of Jersey Police within this proposition and I am going to support the further use or further authority of the use of the deployment of Tasers. But when I first read the proposition, I suppose as the Minister at the time responsible for mental health, I had worries about what the effect would be on vulnerable people and especially those with mental health needs. I have got to say the Scrutiny report covers this, I think, in a really excellent way in terms of what the risks are and how those risks can be mitigated. I

think the amendment does mitigate those risks by at least providing a reporting system that at least in a year's time will give us some idea of how often it has been used and who it has been used on and also included in that is those that may have mental health problems. I think with everything, any force has to be proportional and I think when it comes to dealing with incidents regarding mental health I cannot stress enough that the States of Jersey Police really need to consider what level of force they use with somebody that is clearly showing a mental health crisis or mental health issues. I think we would all expect people experiencing a mental health crisis to be listened to and heard. I think they are, more often than not, crying out for help and before force is used on anybody with a mental health issue, you would expect the States police to assess the situation and use the appropriate force. I have got confidence in the officers on the Island that they will do that but there have been occasions, and we have seen, I think, footage nationwide of situations where unfortunately that has not happened. I really do hope that the reporting system that is put in place will assist the States of Jersey Police in making the correct decision when they consider what levels of force should be used. One of the things I think that also does concern me a little bit is that we do want and we do need people that have got mental health issues to come forward and address their issues and we also need to remove the stigma around mental health. Again, I have got some concerns about whether the police being able to use Taser more widely might affect or might stop some people potentially coming forward and seeking help. I do not think that is the case. If I did really think that was the case then I would not vote for this but I think there is a risk that there may be some that may feel that they could not come forward, but that is only going to be borne out I think as we move forward. What also comforts me I think, and something that States Members are probably already aware of, is we have got much closer working relationships between Adult Mental Health and Children's Mental Health as well and States of Jersey Police. Our street triage I think is working extremely well and it does provide the support that people who are suffering do need and, yes, Adult Mental Health do provide that necessary support and close support to the States of Jersey Police. The police are better informed than they were and I think they are better trained in terms of identifying mental health issues and, again, that comforts me. But I think all I would ask is that training is .. and I would ask the Minister to ensure that officers carry on understanding even better some of the issues involved around mental health so that we can reduce the risk of anybody unnecessarily being tasered. We do have better intervention services and I think we all realise that we are working much better with some of our third-sector partners and the police do as well. So, I am comforted by the amendment, I thank the Scrutiny Panel for bringing that amendment and I am going to support the proposition because there are wider issues at stake here. There is the wider issue around making sure that our States police officers have the ability to defend themselves at all times and it will be another important tool in the box. But as much as having another tool in the box is important, we do need to understand whether it is being used appropriately, and I think the amendment does do that. So a big thanks to the Scrutiny Panel and I will be supporting this proposition. Thank you.

6. Deputy R.J. Ward :

I will just speak very briefly because we have said enough really. I wanted to just add one element to the report that we put out and I think it is something that Senator Pallett has touched upon. That is that we hope that by recording the data as we have, what it does is it opens the dialogue among the professional police that will be using the Taser to think about their use and the situations and how they can manage them even better than they do already, and so we are hoping it is a very constructive amendment. It will come back in a year's time with data for us to reconsider and I think those checks and balances are very important and it is for one simple reason: we do not have to follow just blindly other jurisdictions. We can absolutely create a system here that is right for Jersey and right for our police and for our population to maintain the community support for our police but at the same time maintain people's safety. So I would urge people to support the proposition as amended because I think it gives a good way forward.

7. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet :

Just briefly I wanted to touch on something that, I think it was Deputy Tadier mentioned, and he mentioned the concept of policing by consent. Now I happen to live with a police officer, which is something that I have declared many times in the past and do so again today, and I had some misgivings about the extension of Tasers such as we are debating today, I think similarly to Deputy Morel . I have changed my mind as well for some of the same reasons that Deputy Morel outlined but also because I do have the privilege of knowing personally, not just one police officer but many. Over the years I have come to understand the passion and the dedication that police officers show when they are carrying out their roles. This concept of policing by consent, as I understand it, is something that is at the heart of policing in Jersey and, while I can understand some concerns that might be felt by those who do not want us to have a police state, I do not think that is anything we have to fear in Jersey. It might be something that is a problem around the world, and we have seen some of these issues with some of the Black Lives Matter protests; that is not the situation here in Jersey. Looking at the 9 principles of policing which I think it was Robert Peel, although that is disputed in the research I have done on this, this is a very, very old principle from the 1800s where every police officer recognises that their power to fulfil their functions and their duties, their power is dependent on public approval. I do think that is the situation that we have got in Jersey, that the police do police by consent and I think the fact that the police already have - again, this was mentioned by other speakers - weapons which are potentially lethal and harmful, I think that Tasers are reinforcing the notion of policing by consent. Because personally I would much rather be .. I think anybody who is in the situation where they are contending with the police would not like to be hit by a great big metal bar which of course could be lethal. So the fact that the technology involved with Tasers has come later than the weapons that the police have today does not mean that the Taser is more severe. So, yes, just to return to the policing by consent, I have great respect for police officers and I think that the principles of policing by consent are quite deeply held among our police force. I think the respect that is shown by our police force to the public, I want to mirror that respect and give them that trust to use this equipment in an appropriate manner. Of course, the amendments from the Scrutiny Panel which is being led by Deputy Ward , which I think Deputy Ward has done some fantastic work on this and he has really looked in-depth to this, with those amendments I think that every Member should vote for this with confidence and put the trust in our police force and in the integrity of our police force, which I believe they do demonstrate on a daily basis and I thank them for that integrity.

The Bailiff :

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

8. The Connétable of St. Clement :

Can I thank all Members who have spoken but, if you do not mind, in particular the last 2 speakers, Senator Pallett and Deputy Doublet , for the kind but absolutely right words that they said about the States of Jersey Police? Like Deputy Doublet , I have got the greatest admiration for the work that they do. I was speaking to the police chief not so long ago, I do obviously on a regular basis, and he has had a career of working for various forces in the United Kingdom. As Members will know, this year in fact, we have had 30 new recruits joining the States of Jersey Police and he was telling me how delighted he was with the high quality of people who have applied to join the police and have been successful. So I hope that reassures Senator Pallett as well because he is absolutely right about the mental health issues. I think the police, probably more than any other organisation, understand the issues around mental health because for so long - for so long - they have been the service of first resort and of last resort for dealing with people with mental health problems.

[12:15]

So the more support, if Senator Pallett comes back to the Health Department with regard to mental health, I hope he will work with the police because they are not really the ideal people to do that although they are very much there. Deputy Tadier , it amazes me, he seems to think that we live in Utopia. We think that everything out there is sweetness and light and we do not need to protect ourselves, we do not need the protection of the States of Jersey Police. Well I wish he would come out, like I have done a few times on a Friday night, to see what goes on. I do not think he came to the presentation that we did for the Tasers, and he would have seen some of the body-worn camera videos to show sometimes what our States of Jersey Police have to face. I think if he saw that and understood that, he would not have made the speech that he made today. Even with that speech, I do not think that he will be shot or tasered in the very near future. He spoke about the Honorary Police. I tell you what, as a Constable, I have great involvement with the Honorary Police and they all do a terrific job but I would not expect my Honorary Police - and I am sure it will be true of all Constables

- to go and face someone with mental health problems who is swinging a samurai sword around. We have professionally trained police officers who would deal with that sort of issue but I do not expect the Honorary Police to deal with swords, knives and guns. They are community officers. They will assist of course wherever possible but they will not be on the front line. I thank Deputy Morel for his words. I do not always agree with Deputy Morel but I do give him credit for what he said because it is not always easy to change your mind when you have made such a commitment as to where you stand. It is not always easy to do that and I value and appreciate what he had to say. To the Constable of St. Lawrence , I can say: "Yes." Anyone who is subject to P.P.E. - it might be handcuffs, it might be P.A.V.A. spray, it might be the baton and it might be the Taser - they are always firstly checked on site for medical situations. They are checked by a medical examiner when they go back to the police headquarters and they are advised of their rights and advised if they wish to make a complaint, and that is done as a matter of course. Finally, once again - and I hope this does not sound like the mutual admiration society- but I thank Deputy Ward and his Scrutiny Panel because there is no doubt, and he would confirm this if necessary, that we had robust, challenging and forceful exchanges during the lead up to this debate. I am so grateful for the way that they conducted their investigations and for the review, which was fair and balanced. I also thank them for the amendments which I was able to support and I am grateful to the States for what I think will be their support too. I maintain the proposition.

The Bailiff :

Thank you very much. Very well, I ask the Greffier to put a voting link in the chat. It is there and I open the voting and ask Members to vote in the normal way. Very well, if Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. Those voting pour 34, contre one.

The Bailiff :

The proposition is accordingly passed and Deputy Tadier asks for the one contre vote. The Deputy Greffier of the States:

In the link, that is Deputy Tadier .

4. Draft Wildlife (Jersey) Law 202- (P.110/2020)

The Bailiff :

We now come to the next item of Public Business, which is the Draft Wildlife (Jersey) Law, P.110, lodged by the Minister for the Environment. For the purpose of this debate, the main respondent is the Chair of the Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel and I ask the Greffier to read the citation.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Draft Wildlife (Jersey) Law 202-. A law to make provision relating to the conservation and protection of wild animals, birds and plants and a promotion of biodiversity in Jersey and for connected purposes, the States, subject to the sanction of Her Most Excellent Majesty in Council have adopted the following law.

I understand, Deputy Guida, you are to be rapporteur in this case.

4.1   Deputy G.C. Guida (Assistant Minister for the Environment - rapporteur):

Yes, Sir. It is barely a year ago that the world finally sees the realisation that climate change was a serious problem. Of course, this has to be put aside while we have dealt with a much more pressing international crisis like what our C.E.O. (chief executive officer) does in his free time, but the climate emergency has not gone away and will require massive effort from all of us if we want to minimise its effect. I would like to remind the Assembly of what some of these effects are. The disappearance of 1 million species, the destruction of most of the world's coral reefs and the loss of most of its rainforests. In short, the biggest damage to the planet's biodiversity since the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction. The Assembly may have noticed that I did not mention human beings. This is because we are the most resilient species on the planet and one which will adapt easily to the change. If there is any loss to us, it will be the loss of our natural environment. Given that the fossil fuels which propelled us for going ahead in society, the spacefaring civilisation in less than a century, will mean nothing if we do not properly protect our natural environment mostly from ourselves. The proposed Wildlife Law updates the Conservation of Wildlife (Jersey) Law 2000. It is more complex, it is more detailed and stronger than its predecessor. It endeavours to fix some of its mistakes and, crucially, it is much more malleable and viable than the 2000 law. I am proud to present this today as a more modern and up-to-date version but we have to be aware that we are barely catching up. The U.K. adopted its first Natural Protection Law in 1869, the Seabirds Preservation Act. The Congrès International pour la Protection de la Nature in 1923 first suggested protecting endangered species and creating natural reservations. The I.U.C.N. (International Union for Conservation of Nature), famous for its red list, was created in 1948. By the early 1970s, almost all of the countries in Western Europe protected their most vulnerable animals and their environment. Our first Nature Protection Law was in 2000. We are catching up but we are still late. Either directly or through the U.K., Jersey is a signatory of a large number of international conservation agreements. My understanding is that we are participating in a little bit less than 50 of them. For example, the Convention on Biological Diversity 1993, the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habits 1979, the Convention on the Migratory Species of Wild Animals 1983, the African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement 1995 and the Agreement on the Conservation of Population of European Bats 1994. I will not go through all of them but each of these agreements carries with it a very strong requirement from its signatories. For example, Article 6 of the Convention on Biological Diversity says that: "Each contracting party shall, in accordance with its particular conditions and capabilities, integrate, as far as possible and as appropriate, the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity into relevant sectoral or cross-sectoral plans, programmes and policies". Basically, integrate conservation in your Government Plans. Article 3 of the Bern Convention says: "In particular, the parties should promote, co-operate in and support research relating to migratory species and shall endeavour to provide immediate protection for migratory species included in Appendix 1." It goes on and on. We do not sign up to these conventions for fun. We promise to do things. We started with the 2000 law, which was a very good start for protecting species in Jersey but we have to evolve it. The way that we evolved it in this draft is in many different notions. First, we will elaborate to the notion of deliberate action. This is important as it is key to committing an offence throughout the law. For example, a person acts deliberately if he or she was aware that unless reasonable precautions were taken, his or her act presented a serious risk of a result prohibited by this law. It is tempered by reasonable protections, which means steps that were reasonable in the circumstances known to the person for the person to take to reduce the risk of his or her actions giving a rise to a result prohibited by law. Deliberately does not excuse being careless but it is considered within the understanding of the person in the case. Another important change is that we are using easily amended schedules throughout. For example, we have a schedule 1, which is the list of protected wild animals. We have a schedule 5, part 2, which are that wild birds with breeding sites and resting sites are protected when