States Meeting Transcript - 9th September 2020

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

WEDNESDAY, 9th SEPTEMBER 2020

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption .................................................................. 5

1. Draft Public Health and Safety (Rented Dwellings) (Licensing) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.106/2019) - resumption ............................................................. 5

1.1 Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade : ........................................................ 5

2. Draft Taxation (Implementation) (International Tax Compliance) (Mandatory Disclosure Rules for C.R.S. Avoidance Arrangements and Opaque Offshore Structures) (Jersey) Regulations 202- (P.129/2019)...................................... 10

2.1 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Minister for External Relations):................................ 10

1. Deputy K.F. Morel of St. Lawrence : ..................................................... 11
2. Senator I.J. Gorst : ........................................................................ 11

3. First Tower Park: protection from States development (P.92/2020) ................... 14

3.1 Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier : ................................................ 14

4. Les Écréhous and Les Minquiers: prohibition on the landing of domestic animals (P.94/2020) - as amended.................................................................. 15

4.1 The Connétable of St. Martin : ............................................................ 16

1. Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin : .......................................................... 18
2. The Connétable of Grouville : ............................................................ 18
3. Deputy J.H. Young: ...................................................................... 18
4. The Connétable of St. Martin : ............................................................ 19

5. Draft Community Costs Bonus (Jersey) Regulations 202- (P.95/2020) ................ 21

5.1 Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier (The Minister for Social Security): .................... 21

1. Deputy S.M. Ahier of St. Helier : ......................................................... 21
2. Deputy J.A. Martin: ...................................................................... 22

6. Draft COVID-19 (Social Security - Reduction of Contribution Rates) (Jersey) Regulations 202- (P.96/2020) .............................................................. 26

6.1 Deputy S.M. Wickenden of St. Helier (Assistant Minister for Social Security - rapporteur): .............................................................................. 26

1. Deputy K.G. Pamplin of St. Saviour : .................................................... 27
2. Deputy S.M. Ahier : ....................................................................... 27
3. Deputy G.P. Southern : .................................................................... 28
4. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour : ...................................................... 28
5. Senator S.Y. Mézec : ...................................................................... 28

6. Deputy K.F. Morel : ....................................................................... 29
7. Deputy S.J. Pinel of St. Clement : ........................................................ 30
8. Senator L.J. Farnham : .................................................................... 30

9. Deputy J.H. Perchard of St. Saviour : ..................................................... 31
10. Senator K.L. Moore :................................................................... 31
11. Deputy G.J. Truscott of St. Brelade : .................................................. 32
12. Deputy M. Tadier : ..................................................................... 32
13. Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier : ....................................................... 32
14. Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré: ............................................................. 33
15. The Connétable of St. Mary : .......................................................... 34
16. Deputy S.M. Wickenden: .............................................................. 35

7. C.I. Lottery - Allocation of 2018 Balance (P.99/2020) ................................... 39

7.1 Deputy M. Tadier (Assistant Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture - rapporteur): .................................................................... 39

1. Deputy K.F. Morel : ....................................................................... 40
2. Deputy K.G. Pamplin: .................................................................... 40
3. Deputy S.M. Wickenden:................................................................. 41
4. Deputy M. Tadier :........................................................................ 42

8. Minimum Wage Increase and Productivity Support (P.100/2020) ..................... 43

8.1 Deputy G.P. Southern : .................................................................... 44

1. Senator S.Y. Mézec : ...................................................................... 45
2. Deputy R.J. Ward : ........................................................................ 47

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED ................................................... 48 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT .................................................................. 48

3. Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré: ................................................................ 48
4. Connétable R.A. Buchanan of St. Ouen : ................................................. 49
5. Deputy S.M. Wickenden:................................................................. 50
6. Deputy L.B.E. Ash of St. Clement : ...................................................... 52
7. Deputy I. Gardiner of St. Helier : ......................................................... 52
8. Deputy M. Tadier :........................................................................ 53 Mr. M. Jowitt., H.M. Solicitor General: ........................................................ 55 Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier :............................................................. 56 Deputy K.F. Morel : ............................................................................. 56 Deputy G.P. Southern : .......................................................................... 57 The Connétable of St. Ouen : .................................................................... 59 Deputy M. Tadier : .............................................................................. 60 Deputy R.J. Ward : .............................................................................. 60
9. The Connétable of St. Mary :.............................................................. 61
10. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................... 61
11. Deputy K.F. Morel : .................................................................... 63
12. Senator L.J. Farnham : ................................................................. 65
13. Deputy M.R. Higgins: ................................................................. 66
14. The Deputy of St. Martin : ............................................................. 66
15. Senator T.A. Vallois: .................................................................. 67
16. Deputy G.P. Southern : ................................................................ 68

9. Millbrook Playing Fields and adjacent agricultural fields to the north: Protection from development (P.102/2020) ........................................................... 71

9.1 Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence : .......................................... 71

10. Reduction of minimum lodging period ................................................... 72

10.1 Deputy R.J. Renouf of St. Ouen (The Minister for Health and Social Services): ........ 72

11. Draft COVID-19 (Amendments - Extension, Suspension and Repeal) (Jersey) Regulations 202- (P.103/2020) ............................................................ 73

1. The Deputy of St. Ouen (The Minister for Health and Social Services): ................ 74

1. Deputy M.R. Higgins: ................................................................. 76
2. The Deputy of St. Ouen : .............................................................. 76

2. The Deputy of St. Ouen : .................................................................. 78

1. Deputy J.H. Young: .................................................................... 78
2. The Deputy of St. Ouen : .............................................................. 78
   3. The Deputy of St. Ouen : .................................................................. 80
   4. The Deputy of St. Ouen : .................................................................. 81

1. Deputy R.J. Ward : ..................................................................... 81
2. The Deputy of St. Ouen : .............................................................. 81

5. The Deputy of St. Ouen : .................................................................. 83
6. The Deputy of St. Ouen : .................................................................. 84

1. Deputy K.G. Pamplin: ................................................................. 84
2. The Deputy of St. Ouen : .............................................................. 85

7. The Deputy of St. Ouen : .................................................................. 86

1. Deputy J.H. Young: .................................................................... 86
2. The Deputy of St. Ouen : .............................................................. 87

8. The Deputy of St. Ouen : .................................................................. 88

1. Deputy M.R. Higgins: ................................................................. 88
2. Deputy D. Johnson of St. Mary :....................................................... 88
3. The Deputy of St. Ouen : .............................................................. 89

9. The Deputy of St. Ouen : .................................................................. 90

10. Draft Covid-19 (Amendments – Extension, Suspension and Repeal) (Jersey) Regulations 202- (P.103/2020): amendment (P.103/2020 Amd.) ........................ 91

1. Deputy R.J. Ward (Chair, Children, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel): 92
2. Deputy J.H. Young: ................................................................ 92
3. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement :............................................. 93
4. Deputy M.R. Higgins: .............................................................. 94
5. Deputy K.F. Morel : ................................................................. 94
6. Deputy T. Pointon of St. John : ...................................................... 95
7. The Connétable of St. Helier : ...................................................... 95
8. The Connétable of St. Lawrence : ................................................... 95
9. Deputy M. Tadier : .................................................................. 96
10. Deputy R.J. Ward : .................................................................. 96

11. Draft Covid-19 (Amendments – Extension, Suspension and Repeal) (Jersey) Regulations 202- (P.103/2020) - as amended ............................................. 98

11.11.1 The Deputy of St. Ouen (The Minister for Health and Social Services): .......... 98

12. The Deputy of St. Ouen : .................................................................. 99

12. Draft COVID-19 (Enabling Provisions) (Amendment) (Jersey) Law 202- (P.104/2020) ............................................................................................. 100

1. The Deputy of St. Ouen (The Minister for Health and Social Services): ............... 101
2. The Deputy of St. Ouen : ................................................................ 103

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ................... 105

13. Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier (Chair, Privileges and Procedures Committee): ........ 105

1. Deputy K.F. Morel : ...................................................................... 106

1. Deputy R. Labey : .................................................................... 106
   2. Deputy R. Labey : ........................................................................ 107

ADJOURNMENT ................................................................................. 108

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

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption

1. Draft Public Health and Safety (Rented Dwellings) (Licensing) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.106/2019) - resumption

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

So we return this morning to the debate on P.106/2019, Draft Public Health and Safety (Rented Dwellings) (Licensing) (Jersey) Regulations 201- lodged by the Minister for the Environment. We are debating the principles and I would ask if any Member would wish to speak on the principles? If no Member wishes to speak I will call on the Minister to reply to the debate.

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

I am going to begin by thanking Members for the debate, so we are going to have the vote, and that is, from my point of view, a very important step. I said yesterday that I respected those who oppose what is being recommended here on principle. Of course what I was meaning there was about underlying political ideology. Thankfully we do not get that many before this Assembly, in a small Island, that raise these issues but clearly this is one. But that is not a concession that I make when those arguments are advanced on false arguments. Arguments based on misinformation and, in particular, I am going to start with the issue of inflation. It has been said, and I just circulated a note, that somehow I must have misled our economic advisers, not given them the right information, not listened to the debate we had on the reference back from Deputy Huelin, our new Assistant Chief Minister, and you have seen .. well, clearly the Hansard question was put and of course the truth is, as Senator Mézec says, it is the answer that is not liked. That is what it is. There are 2 issues obviously from my point of view, which are practical ones on inflation. One is whether the fee is likely to be inflation and the second is whether or not the works that people have to do to bring into compliance, which they should be doing already, is inflationary. Now what we have there is the commonest views are not mine. Of course I am a bit disappointed there, I had hoped that the new responsibility would leave us to have a more .. recognise the importance of balance in our Council of Ministers when we have to judge conflicting issues. There are occasions, in fact there always should in my view, those balances should override no sectorial interests. So I hope this is not a trend. Of course, economists, you do not like the answer, we all know that there are lots of different types of economists. There are all different schools of thoughts, Keynesian, and what have you; I think there is no perfect solution there in the world of economists. What I try to do is be pragmatic and practical. I like the Constable of St. Brelade , I get on with him well, I respect him, he is a great Constable in my Parish but when I hear him say: "I am not taking a blind bit of notice of landlords" it really rankles. He knows, although he was not there, I met them last February. I met them, I have had follow-up meetings with them. I gave them undertakings then and I said I would reduce the cost of what was proposed because the previous figures were higher. I changed the annual licence to 2 years, recognising that I needed to bring a more lighter touch. I changed the law to alter the electrical inspections to every 5 years, where there was any ambiguity over that. I schemed down, I kept it simple. What I did is I said: "Okay, if this is now changing for existing properties is it not fair that those people should be protected for an initial period?" and so I introduced a grandfather arrangement and I made that grandfather arrangement, it was always going to be a couple of months. It is 6 months and free. I have done that against the advice of my officers who tell me: "Oh my word, we have got to do cost recovery because that is the policy that we have had for a long time. All regulatory services should be fully cost recovered" but no, this is about the public interest and those political judgments have been made. But to say: "I am not taking a blind bit of notice" that is not justifiable. The truth of course is that the Jersey Landlords Association do not want a register or do not want licensing. That is clear. I respect that. They are entitled to that view and it is one where we have a sector or

interest that has to be weighed against other sectorial interests. Of course, the Scrutiny Panel itself, I have bent over backwards, Constable, to meet with the panel's requirements. I have got a long list here since last October. Thirty-two occasions; meetings, letters, correspondence exchanged, answering questions, arranging for the officers to come in and deal with points, and my belief is all of the things that were substantively raised, bar one, which is the amendment that the Scrutiny Panel have already lodged, it has been lodged for a long time, to extend the licensing period to 5 years, which I think is worthy of consideration, and I have told the Constable that, that it is worthy of it. I have responded to all of those issues raised in their Scrutiny report, which was published many months ago. I have to accept though the logic that I have changed the scheme a lot in response to the Scrutiny Panel. I see, since that work many months ago, why the Scrutiny Panel might want to have another look at it. But I have a question: if it is their intention to effectively try and negotiate or rework a scheme that completely utterly turns the principle about what we are trying to do here, which is to establish a register so we have a good system of ensuring compliance with the minimum standards, and nothing else. I am absolutely for consultation. Everything I do is I work really hard to do that. But Ministers do have to balance. When they get the consultation responses they do have to balance the issues that are set by one interest against others. They have to make a judgment and that is what I have tried to do here. Then of course throughout the whole debate we had the myth, it is amazing where this happens. A Member says it and other people pick it up and it becomes true. Six extra staff. Rubbish. Not true. Look, any of you who have worked with Environmental Health teams know that housing is one of the majority pieces of work they do. They do it anyway. 50 per cent at the moment of this Environmental Health team is spent on housing-related issues. I mean is it that they go out and they go out policing everything and have to search. No. They respond to complaints. Where do those complaints come from? I asked them. I have got a list there. Citizens Advice Bureau routinely refer issues to Environmental Health, the police, the fire service, social workers, Family Nursing, charities, even agents ask people to go round and sort these issues.

[9:45]

They are providing this work already but the key thing is they are having to do it, and I think Senator Mézec summed it up beautifully in his outstanding visionary speech. I wish I could speak like him but I cannot. I have to deal with practicalities. We want to turn from a reactive system to a proactive one where we can be more organised and efficient and effective in trying to ensure we achieve compliance. Of course, at the moment what we know about the complaints level, 448 complaints since the standards have been in. Of course a lot of these issues are not just straight housing issues. They are also combined often with issues of statutory nuance issues, noise, problems like that, dust, fumes, very complex. The housing officers are trained. We have those staff in place. They have been built up and I suppose Members might be critical, those Members that do not like it, they have been built up over the years. Some 20-plus years, some 3 years, we have got trainees there. We have those people in place now. What we can do and what I have said is there will not be new resources brought to this task. We can use our current team, and we will, more effectively and more efficiently. So the suggestion, for example, that we are going to go out carrying out thousands of inspections is a nonsense. We have already inspected 2,700 properties through Rent Safe. Only properties put up for rental for the first time will require inspection before the licence is issued. Grandfather dwellings, as I said, which is going to be the majority - it will probably be 90 per cent - are excluded from the need to inspect and they will be subject to inspections based on complaints and a very small random sample. There is no army of inspectors waiting to do this. I think we should really lay this. This idea that we are going to throw all these extra staff resources is simply not true. Now I can see a counterargument that I can hear now, and I thought, blimey, you get hung whichever way you do it in this Assembly. I take the costs away, I reduce the costs, I move it away from a full cost recovery scheme to a scheme where I have given the benefit to the landlords by reducing those costs. Then what? I am criticised. "Oh this has got a cost to the public sector." Well I think it is in the public interest because what is at stake here is people's health. Health and safety, nothing else. Of course

what a shame. It is almost as if the Environmental Health team is being treated in some derogatory way. We respect them when they do the work on food standards, when there is an outbreak of food poisoning in this Island. Environmental Health people get the support from the public. In COVID, their work has been outstanding, absolutely outstanding, and they have kept everybody safe. Yet when it comes to housing, no. Of course we can have regulation in financial services, that is okay because we make money, it is our principal earner. But regulation in people's homes, ooh no. I think there are some real issues. The I.T. (information technology) issues; it is said that we do not need a register because we already have the information. I ask Members, please, again, to read the reports that are published. We do not. This is a register only of properties which are rented out, rented dwellings. Nothing else. Not about the tenants, they are not recording those. Those are for other systems. It is true that we could build a complex system using integration from all the various ragbag of systems that the States have got in different areas but I ask, at what cost and time? What is wrong with a simple low-tech solution that is proposed here? A very simple register. Of course, if in time the grand design gets built, as is asked for, then it can be easily integrated into it. So why do we always have to spend millions of pounds on grand design I.T. to deal with simple problems? I am a pragmatist and so I think the regulation, and the way we tend to work it, does that. It is a simple job. Of course suggestions that the Minister will change the conditions in a licence. Absolutely not. I need to deal with Members who raise the issue of delegation. Of course there is delegation. They say this is a bad law because it does not deal with it. Because everybody knows that the powers of delegation apply right across the suite of legislation. It is obviously sensible. You have got to get Ministers involved there but there are some points which I will speak to about that in a moment, which I think are very valid points that can be subsequently looked at. Of course there is a fear here that the number, we will dry up. The number of new landlords and new rental properties will dry up as a result. I have looked at some figures the other day. I think Members saw them in a written answer. I thought they were very impressive indeed. Just take the example of dwellings in the waterfront area. Harbour Reach, out of 39 dwellings 27 rented. Le Capelain House, out of 133 dwellings 88 rented. Millais House out of 193 dwellings 134 rented. Now what it is going to be in Horizon, in the new scheme? Obviously buy-to-let for investment is really a very significant trend. The truth is that there is a constant flow of new landlords, and that is a good thing because what we are seeing, we are seeing a trend of improvement. We are seeing a trend away from poor conditions, badly constructed and sometimes unhealthy older properties or where they have not been maintained to the standards or adapted to new purpose-built building by-law qualified standards. This is really good. I think we have said, I want to pay tribute to our building industry, we have massively improved standards and I think that is a continual process that will go on. There will be properties drop out and there will be new ones come in. It is important to have that market. Inspections: why do we need to inspect all of those new flats? Of course you do not. It is just when a new block gets built you just have a look at one. A sample. It is sensible, there is no bureaucracy intended here. There is no need. But of course if somebody does have a problem with the premises that is causing fumes or something like that then it would have to be followed up and dealt with. I think comparisons have been made to schemes in Liverpool and so on. We have a small population. I think the estimate being spoken of, 20,000 properties, is way higher than the numbers I have been advised to expect. I have been advised to expect about 10,000, and I am advised to expect about 9,000 people will be grandfathered, i.e. in the first 6 months 9,000 will come forward and register and none of those will be inspected. There were some contributions which were much more, I think, balanced and I want to answer those Members because I want to try and see if I can persuade them. Of course Deputy Gardiner said she was in 2 minds. I do understand that because they are complex issues here. She raised the question of lodgers and I have asked about it, and it did occur to me that lodgers share accommodation. They share premises with the householder. Of course what they are is they are all enjoying the same conditions in their premises. So in terms of the purpose of the law, there does not seem to be any need or benefit seeking to include them in this licensing arrangement because we are only interested in the actual main property. Of course if the person that has that lodger, the

householder controls that. There are tenancy issues but of course that is nothing to do with this law. All the tenancy-related issues all come under the Minister for Children and Housing. I have it for my sins. I have the Environmental Health portfolio. That is the only issue that these regulations are designed to deal with. So that change to the primary law that Deputy Gardiner suggested. I think it would be difficult and complex but, above all else, I think it would be a huge extra chunk and it really would be bureaucratic if we had to go and regulate every lodger in every .. I think that would be a really high level of intervention. So I think that is not right. The Deputy of St. Mary raised a very important point. Yes, I absolutely agree with him that having appeals to the Royal Court is a retrograde thing We should be having a tribunal. Members will know that many years ago I led the move away from Planning Royal Court hearings into planning inspectors. It did not quite come out as I wanted. I wanted a tribunal but we ended up with a single inspector. I am not in command of the Council of Ministers work plan on this. I am frustrated by that and other important matters like the Ombudsman are not progressing. I am very unhappy about that. But I think this is where I look to perhaps our new Assistant Chief Minister in his elevated role. Perhaps he could provide some vim and effort in that to progress those things. I think the Deputy of St. Mary is right but there are some things that I think we could do in the meantime. For example, in the planning side, a kind of halfway house appeal was introduced, whereby if a decision was appealed .. if it was a delegated decision it would be appealed to a Minister. I think that is something that could be done by a protocol. Even if it cannot be done as an official appeal I think it can be done. I think it is probably done as well on the Population Law issues as well. So I think there are some processes that I could look at to find ways to provide pragmatic and practical ways where challenges can be made and somebody does not have to go straight to the Royal Court if they do not like an officer's delegated decision. I will think about that, how we might do it. It might be a Minister, it might be an Assistant Minister. It might have a little group of Members, I do not know. I like to be very pragmatic in doing them. Then I think Deputy Pamplin, he is such an independent thinker and I think it is really important we have that. He said he did not like the tone. I do not like it either. I am having to speak in a way which is foreign to me. I am not a person who likes to have to deal with conflict of opinion. I like consensus. I build consensus. I try to do things by agreement. So I am having to work in a very foreign mode and I do not like it. My duty, and sometimes in life you have a duty to do it, and it is my duty to see this through on behalf of those people that are not enjoying their full share of decent housing standards. So I hope Deputy Pamplin will come on board with us on that because he is right, we all want to see safe places for people to live but please, we do need to have the means of doing it. I am going to thank another excellent speech in favour of Deputy Martin. As long as I can remember Deputy Martin has been the outstanding champion of the people.

[10:00]

Right from the early days when Deputy Martin was a Deputy and I was a mere civil servant at the time, I remember it. The Deputy was in absolute lead in terms of dealing with ordinary people in their lives and housing. That has been a theme. Thankfully we have seen improvements. We have seen improvements in housing standards and some of those problems are less prevalent but they are still there. I think when the Deputy says that we need this I ask Members, please, to listen to what the Deputy says. This is not coming forward unnecessarily. This is really important. Of course, Deputy Wickenden; yes, you are right. Of course delegate. Of course it needs delegating powers. I hope you will come on board - this is another one of our Assistant Chief Ministers -.I hope you will. We all need protocol on that. We will do that and we have time to do it. I think issues of lodging houses has been raised, the spectre of lodging houses. Lodging houses of course are not under this law. They have to be dealt with by the same team, of course. They are under the Minister for Children and Housing and of course they have been a source of trouble and problems over the years. Primarily of course my proposals are not intended to do that. The intention of course is to repeal that law, as I understand it, but it is not in my responsibility. So the Constable complains about heavy- handed processes that he has had experience. There are lots of things I could say but I respect the

Constable of St. Ouen here and so I am not going to say things about his experiences, which I do not think is the right thing to do, but I ask him please, recognise that the lodging house issues are, I do not believe, the same and they are not the same as the rented dwellings issue. I had the issue of what you might call an intermediate-type issue, which are not lodging houses, where you have shared accommodation, which is part of people's employment, which are not risks of lodging houses but they share accommodation, and I have stripped that down to a charges structure that makes sure that all the fears that people had about agricultural industry getting charged huge sums of money on a per unit basis, none of that will happen. That kind of halfway house is .. there are not many of those and of course there are not that many lodging houses either. I think the vast majority are people's ordinary homes. If I may just have a pause, I will just check my notes to see if there is anything else I may need to deal with before it goes to the vote. I am asking Members please try and set aside the ideology, please support this. If the Constable decides he wants to call it in, so be it. I cannot oppose that. It is his right. If he does, I will work with him again to try and see if he has found something new in this scheme where it can be altered but I think within the framework of what we have got here, we have got a scheme which I think, as I said, is ready to go, low cost and will not cause the fears that some Members are seeing. I want this to be a success because I am not .. I have spent a lot of my life as a civil servant doing regulatory work, and I do not do bureaucracy. Systems need to be proportionate and no more level of intervention than what is required, and I have made that quite plain to the officers here and I believe we have got it to that point. Thank you. Can I propose the regulations in principle and ask for the appel?

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

So the Greffier will add a vote in the chat channel shortly. The vote is on the principles of P.106. Please try to vote using the forms. I will keep the vote open for a fair period but if you do have a problem you can vote in the chat channel so long as the vote is open. Once the vote is closed that is the end. So I will keep the vote open until we have sufficient numbers to be able to close it. We have had 44 Members using the online form, so I will just leave it another couple of seconds, anyone can still vote. Anyone who has struggled, this is your chance to cast your vote in the chat otherwise I will ask the Greffier to close the vote. Having done that, the Greffier will now publish the results in the chat channel. So the result is that the principles have been rejected.

2. Draft Taxation  (Implementation)  (International  Tax  Compliance)  (Mandatory Disclosure Rules for C.R.S. Avoidance Arrangements and Opaque Offshore Structures) (Jersey) Regulations 202- (P.129/2019)

The Bailiff :

The next item is the Draft Taxation (Implementation) (International Tax Compliance) (Mandatory Disclosure Rules for C.R.S. (common reporting standard) Avoidance Arrangements and Opaque Offshore Structures) (Jersey) Regulations, P.129/2019, lodged by the Minister for External Relations. Members will recall that the principles were adopted on 16th June and then it was referred to the Economic and International Affairs Scrutiny Panel. We therefore now return to consideration of this matter in Second Reading and, for completeness, I will ask the Greffier to read the citation again.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Draft Taxation (Implementation) (International Tax Compliance) (Mandatory Disclosure Rules for CRS  Avoidance  Arrangements  and  Opaque  Offshore  Structures)  (Jersey)  Regulations  202- (P.129/2019). The States make these Regulations under Article 2 of the Taxation (Implementation) (Jersey) Law 2004 , and following the decision of the States, taken on the day these regulations are made, to adopt P.129/2019.

The Bailiff :

Minister, how would you like to propose the regulations?

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

I will take them en bloc and speak to them briefly, if I may. I would like to start by thanking Scrutiny for the work that they have undertaken over just before summer and during the course of summer. I recognise that it has been a difficult time but I am very grateful for the work that they have done because they have articulated some of the questions which were put to me, and it gave an opportunity to address those questions more fully than it would have done had we just proceeded directly into Second Reading. These are obligations, which the Island has signed up to, but it is important that we consider our competitiveness and the effect that it might have on business here and whether, of course, the regulations that we are bringing forward are modelled on the international standard, and to ensure that we are giving appropriate authority but not excessive authority. If we deal with Regulations 1 to 5, that is the interpretation provisions, and these definitions are taken from the O.E. C.D .'s (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) model rules for mandatary disclosure regime. Regulations 6 to 12, these are the requirements to disclose common reporting standard avoidance arrangements or opaque structures, and these regulations describe the substance of what intermediaries are required to do by the regulations, what is the obligation when the disclosure needs to be made and the information required. Then Regulations 13 to 20 provide for penalties if these obligations are not met and the appeals process. I maintain these regulations in Second Reading.

The Bailiff :

Are the regulations seconded in Second Reading? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the regulations or any of them in Second Reading?

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

It is just to say that, as the Minister mentioned, Scrutiny have undertaken a fairly extensive scrutiny on this Proposition on these regulations and we have finally received the answers that we were looking  for  from  the  department,  and  we  have  reached  out  to  finance  companies  and  other stakeholders who, to be honest, in their lack of response has led us to believe that they are happy with these regulations. So with our questions answered we are content with the regulations and would support their adoption by the Assembly.

The Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak on the regulations? Then I call on the Minister to respond.

2. Senator I.J. Gorst :

As I said, I thank the Chair and his panel for the work that they have undertaken. I also thank officials, not only in my Financial Services division but in the Revenue Jersey division as well for the constant work that they undertake in this complex but vitally important area, and I call for the appel.

The Bailiff :

In a moment the Greffier will add a vote to the chat channel. [10:15]

The vote has now been added and it is open and I ask Members to cast their votes in the usual way. Forty-two Members have indicated their vote. If anyone has had any difficulty, of course, please do indicate also in the chat channel. I will wait a moment or 2 longer. I now ask the Greffier to close the voting and the results will be posted in the chat shortly. The regulations have been adopted in Second Reading.

The Bailiff :

How do you wish to deal with the matter in Third Reading, Minister? Senator I.J. Gorst :

I maintain the regulations en bloc in Third Reading. Thank you. The Bailiff :

Thank you. Are the regulations seconded for Third Reading? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the regulations in Third Reading? If no Member wishes to speak in Third Reading then again I will ask the Greffier to add a vote to the chat channel. It is there, I open the voting and I ask Members to cast their votes in the normal way. Thirty-nine votes have been cast and I will wait a moment or 2 longer. I now ask the Greffier to close the voting and the result will be posted shortly. The regulations have been adopted in Third Reading.

3. First Tower Park: protection from States development (P.92/2020) The Bailiff :

Very well, the next item is First Tower Park: protection from States development, P.92, lodged by the Connétable of St. Helier and I ask the Greffier to read the Proposition.

The Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion to request the Council of Ministers to remove First Tower Park, St. Helier , from its shortlist of potential sites for Jersey's new hospital.

3.1   Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier :

As Members will be aware, the subject of this Proposition First Tower or St. Andrew's Park has been removed from the shortlist; however, I would like to say a few words about the Proposition as I believe it is my right to do. I would first of all note that there are no comments from the Council of Ministers on this Proposition and it seems to me that the Council of Ministers has now so little respect for Back-Benchers that they simply do not bother to put comments to Back-Bencher Propositions and if they do they always leave it to the last moment. I would also add that any last vestiges of trust in the new hospital site selection process were destroyed when a park such as First Tower or St. Andrew's was deemed fit for consideration as a potential building site. If I could refer now to the report that accompanies my Proposition because I am not convinced that all Members of the Government have read it. I would like to quote a few paragraphs from it before winding up. I say in my report to P.92 that: "It is regrettable that the Government of Jersey does not appear to understand the value of public parks despite the many debates that have taken place in recent years and despite decisions by the States Assembly over the years not only to protect those parks which we have but also to add to the quality and quantity of green space in the Island. In putting forward a shortlist of potential sites for Jersey's new hospital that includes People's Park, the Government is attempting to disregard the decision of the States Assembly taken last year on 13th February (P.5/2019 amendment) which specifically rules this out. It may be argued that it is the process' that leads the Government to do this, but I would argue that this latest round of site selection in the expensive saga of Jersey's new hospital project has already failed, unless, of course, this is but a cynical ploy to divert public attention away from other sites on the list which have not already been ruled out by the legislature. So much for People's Park, which cannot be left on the new hospital shortlist because the States has so decreed." It will seem clear to Members that when I wrote this projet to protect First Tower Park, I believed that People's Park was already protected because the States had taken a decision to do so. It begs the question if First Tower Park had not been removed by the Government, and if this Proposition now was debated and won, would it mean anything at all because it is clear that the Government does not pay any attention to decisions made by the Assembly. This of course is a far, far cry from the days of certainly when I joined the States when a Back-Bencher or any Members' Proposition, once adopted by the States, meant something and woe betide any committee of the States that sought to unpick or simply ignore a decision of the States, they would very quickly be facing a vote of no confidence. I have to ask the question, given that the Government, the Council of Ministers, has simply chosen to ignore a decision of the States, why is the Council of Ministers not facing a vote of no confidence for the way it has behaved? I am now going to go to the end of my report: "As with the reappearance of People's Park on the new hospital shortlist, the inclusion of this public park may be designed to whip up a storm of public protest that will make people who object to the other sites on the shortlist struggle to get their voices of objection heard. An alternative reading of the situation is that the decision to consider First Tower Park ripe for development shows a breath- taking lack of understanding of the importance of public green space in urban communities. I am not

going to rehearse here the arguments which are set out in the Island Plan on why public parks matter, or the principles to which the Government ought to subscribe to as it has signed up to them on many occasions, for I do not believe that there is a realistic prospect of Jersey's new hospital being constructed on the site of First Tower Park." I simply want to wind up by saying that it really would behove the Council of Ministers to go back to its strategic commitments to urban green space. It is not fair to expect the Parish of St. Helier to take the burden of the Island's development, and 3,000 new units are being planned by Andium alone in the next decade, and to deprive St. Helier of the urban green space which is so essential for the quality of life of residents and those who visit and work in the capital. So with those words I would now seek to withdraw this Proposition because it has been overtaken by events, though clearly I remain extremely unhappy about the situation in which we find ourselves. Thank you.

The Bailiff :

Thank you very much, Connétable , you are entitled to withdraw the Proposition because the debate has not yet opened and therefore that Proposition is now withdrawn.

4. Les Écréhous and Les Minquiers: prohibition on the landing of domestic animals (P.94/2020) - as amended

The Bailiff :

The next item is Les Écréhous and Les Minquiers: prohibition on the landing of domestic animals, P.94, lodged by the Connétable of St. Martin . Before I ask the Greffier to read the Proposition, I am conscious that there is an amendment and an amendment to the amendment and could I begin by asking the Connétable whether the amendment is to be accepted. I am going to test the mood of Members to take the Proposition as fully amended if the various proposers accept the amendments. So, Madam Connétable , would you be accepting the amendment of the Connétable of Grouville ?

Connétable K. Shenton-Stone of St. Martin :

Yes, I am very happy to accept the amendment of the Connétable of Grouville . The Bailiff :

Would you personally be content to have your Proposition taken as thus amended? The Connétable of St. Martin :

Yes, I would, thank you.

The Bailiff :

Connétable of Grouville , will you be accepting the amendment to your amendment as proposed by the Deputy of St. Martin ?

Connétable J.E. Le Maistre of Grouville : I will indeed.

The Bailiff :

So can I take it therefore, Members, please indicate to the contrary, they are content that we take the entire Proposition in its amended form, as both of the proposers accept the amendment? So if anyone does not want that to happen, could they please indicate on the chat now? Very well. Well of course the Connétable of Grouville will be able to speak to the main Proposition when it is read out and make all the points that need to be made, as indeed will the Deputy of St. Martin . So I therefore ask the Greffier to read the Proposition as fully amended.

The Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion ..

Connétable S.A. Le Sueur -Rennard of St. Saviour :

Sorry, I have lost the Greffier.

The Bailiff :

It is all right, the Greffier has stopped, you have not lost any .. The Connétable of St. Saviour :

Bless him, thank you.

The Bailiff :

I think the Greffier is just trying to find the definitive wording to read out. I thought there was a statement as to what the Proposition would look like if amended. Greffier, will you read the Proposition, please?

The Greffier of the States:

Right, I will give this a go. The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion (a) to request the Minister for the Environment to bring forward primary legislation to provide (i) a framework for the restriction of certain activities on Les Écréhous and Les Minquiers to include, but not be limited to, prohibiting the landing of dogs and other domestic animals, as well as anything else which the Minister for the Environment considers might cause disturbance to wildlife; and (ii) the Minister for the Environment with the power to implement specific restrictions by Order, after consultation with the relevant Scrutiny Panel (b) to request the Minister for the Environment to make an Order without delay (once the primary ..

Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier :

The Greffier is not audible, he appears to be breaking up. The Bailiff :

I apologise. Greffier, I am afraid you are going to have to read that again but more loudly and more slowly, if that is possible.

The Greffier of the States:

Okay. The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion (a) to request the Minister for the Environment to bring forward primary legislation to provide (i) a framework for the restriction of certain activities on Les Écréhous and Les Minquiers to include, but not be limited to ..

The Bailiff :

No, I am afraid other Members still cannot hear you, Greffier. The Deputy Greffier will read it out. [10:30]

The Assistant Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion (a) to request the Minister for the Environment to bring forward primary legislation to provide (i) a framework for the restriction of certain activities on Les Écréhous and Les Minquiers to include, but not be limited to, prohibiting the landing of dogs and other domestic animals, as well as anything else which the Minister for the Environment considers might cause disturbance to wildlife; and (ii) the Minister for the Environment with the power to implement specific restrictions by Order, after consultation with the relevant Scrutiny Panel (b) to request the Minister for the Environment to make an Order without delay (once the primary legislation is in force) to prohibit the landing of dogs and other domestic animals on Les Écréhous at any time.

4.1  The Connétable of St. Martin :

As Constable of St. Martin I am in the privileged position of having Les Écréhous reef within the Parish. Les Écréhous enjoys global recognition for its history and biodiversity and as a Ramsar site and O.S.P.A.R. (Oil Spill Prevention, Administration and Response) Marine Protected Area, O.S.P.A.R. Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic, it is critical that the Assembly ensure that the reefs are afforded the protections they need to maintain its standing. It is clear that we can go further than what is currently in place. Over the past year, as I have noted in my report, Members of the States and the public will have noticed increased coverage of the environmental protection to the wildlife on the reef and how these protections could be improved in order to bring further protections including to the local tern and seal populations. It is my duty to care for Les Écréhous and to protect the reef from harm and the Constable of Grouville holds this responsibility for Les Minquiers. I have brought this Proposition to the Assembly in order to strengthen the protections for our Island's reefs. As I said, Les Écréhous is a critical breeding habitat for a rich tapestry of wildlife, including seals, roseate terns, which are so rare that they are the holy grail of terns, common terns, cormorants, shags, great and lesser black-backed gulls, heron gulls, oyster catchers and rock pipits. Through this biodiversity, as mentioned, the reefs have become globally recognised Ramsar sites as well as an O.S.P.A.R. Marine Protected Area; however, it is clear that there are concerns over the level of protections currently available to Les Écréhous and its sibling reef. It is critical that this Assembly ensure that these reefs are afforded the protections needed. This Proposition requests the Minister for the Environment to bring forward legislation that would prohibit the landing of dogs and other domestic animals on Les Écréhous and by accepting the Constable of Grouville 's amendment, this gives the Minister for the Environment the power to extend this legislation to Les Minquiers as and when needed and to have the ability to ban other nuisance or threats to wildlife. By adopting this Proposition the States Assembly extends a clear and simple message to all that the native wildlife must be respected and we as an Assembly will do our utmost to protect it. Although Islanders have been strongly discouraged from bringing animals on to the reefs in previous information releases from the Government, there has never been a legal precedent to prevent Jersey owners from bringing animals on to the reefs. French visitors, on the other hand, are already barred from this as a result of existing regulations on rabies. This legislation would therefore ensure that this ban on animals becomes universal and we are able to respond to new challenges when they arise. I have been in close contact with Les Écréhous Residents Association and they are fully supportive of my Proposition, as is the National Trust whose chief executive officer Charles Alluto has kindly offered me the following statement to read to you today: "Given the presence of ground-nesting birds and seals on the offshore reefs, we would be supportive of any measures which helps mitigate the risk for these animals and their ability to successfully survive without undue disturbance." Likewise, the St. Martin 's Conservation Trust have offered their full support in the following statement to the Assembly: "The Parish of St. Martin and its Conservation Trust have a duty of care for its precious offshore reefs and takes this responsibility very seriously." I am extremely grateful that the Connétable of Grouville supports my Proposition and I am happy to accept his amendment. I also have no problem with the Deputy of St. Martin 's additions to the Constable of Grouville 's amendment and am pleased that the Constable has accepted this amendment. The Parish of St. Martin 's Honorary Police keenly expressed their support for this Proposition during our meeting on Les Écréhous last week. Finally, the Minister for the Environment, his officers and I have held constructive meetings on this issue. It is encouraging to see in his response to my written question that the Ministerial Decision to lodge the Draft Wildlife Law for debate was signed 2 days ago. I am also pleased and grateful to the Minister that he supports this Proposition and amendments and in his comments paper encourages Members to vote for this Proposition. We are all fully aware of the beauty, fragility and priceless environmental value of Les Écréhous and Les Minquiers. By voting pour Members will be sending a clear message of support for a natural environment and the willingness to protect and safeguard it for the future. I hope you

all vote pour. Thank you.

Is the Proposition seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the Proposition? Deputy of St. Martin .

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

I will not speak for long, my Constable has said everything that I really wanted to say. I hope Members will appreciate the beauty, the rarity, the uniqueness of, not only the Écréhous but the Minquiers as well. When I was the Minister for the Environment, I worked hard to protect the reef, more particularly underwater than above water, and the benefits of extending a "no mobile gear" zone which means the banning of dredges from a larger area around the Écréhous is already starting to show benefits. I just wanted to speak very, very briefly on my amendment to the amendment to the Constable of Grouville and it was mainly to make sure that the many different people and wildlife are all represented when we come to make changes to the way the Écréhous are administrated. In my short report to my amendment, Members will see that there is a not exclusive list of the very different types of people that visit there. Not only do we have our hut owners but we have commercial and recreational fishermen, commercial and recreational divers, boat owners, the Parish, the Crown, the States, the Government departments, all have a representation there and all have a voice that needs to be heard and I just wanted to make sure that changes .. and changes will be needed, because let us be very clear, the pressures on the reef from all different directions, whether that is commercial, recreational and pressures on wildlife, they are going to continue to increase as we move ahead. Those people all need to be heard and it is important that we take the right measures at the right time, that we hear everybody's view and we move forward together. Thank you.

2. The Connétable of Grouville :

I will not speak for very long either but just an explanation as to why I think the Minquiers should be treated slightly differently at this moment in time, although my amendment does allow for regulations to be brought in on the Minquiers if that should be necessary in the future. I consulted with the Chairman of Les Minquiers Association who is a parishioner, a well-respected parishioner, and he told me that he thought the status quo should remain at the moment. He was aware of one couple who used the reef probably as much or more than anybody else, who do take their dog there. The couple contacted me and I do know them well enough to know that they are very responsible and, as the Chairman of the Association told me, they make sure their dog is well-managed while they are down there. If they were not allowed to take their dog there they probably would not visit so much and they, for want of a better word, conduct the policing of the reef inasmuch as when other visitors visit the reef who do not know it, they will explain to them where the areas are that they should not be going and explain to them how they should behave while on the reef. So if they were not allowed to go so often because they could not find somebody to look after their dog, environmentally it would be counterproductive. The Minquiers are also very different to the Écréhous. All of the huts are on one island on the Minquiers and there is not really room where you let a dog off the lead so that it would worry the wildlife whereas on the Écréhous the huts are spread out over 5 plateaus, I believe, and when the tide goes out there is a very big area where if a dog was let off its lead, you could understand why the wildlife would be worried. So I am very grateful to the Constable for accepting my amendment and I think that the safeguard of the Deputy of St. Martin 's amendment to my amendment is worth having, to be honest. The current Minister for the Environment does listen to people. We have had a couple of meetings with him over this subject and if it was this Minister in the future, I think he would have consulted widely anyway. But we do not know who the Ministers for the Environment will be in the future, so I think the Deputy of St. Martin 's amendment is a good one. So, with that, I hope all Members will support the amended Proposition. Thank you.

3. Deputy J.H. Young:

I think I would like to say just a few brief words as the sitting Minister for the Environment, as it were. I have been very pleased to work with the Connétable and the Connétable of Grouville and also the Deputy on this because I think they have all come together in what is a very practical proposal, one which I can wholeheartedly support because certainly there is not just local attention on the Écréhous but it is very much an interest, if you remember, we have had reports in national newspapers about where issues do arise. Of course, it is one of the benefits of - no, it is not one of - the COVID pandemic has meant that for a period the wildlife dramatically increased in the reef and we had exceptional numbers. But of course things are going more back to as they were before and so those pressures are renewed and potentially can be even greater, so having the tools to be able to manage that pressure is important. Now the Proposition calls for primary legislation. Looking at what we have on the stocks in this Proposition, I think, I cannot guarantee, but it looks to me that the draft new Wildlife Law which, if Members have read my comments, I am sure they have, that has already been lodged. Well, I am not sure it has gone through to final lodging but I have certainly signed it off to be lodged. Members may see the draft in a short while. That will provide, if it is agreed by the Assembly, the framework to achieve the objectives within the amended Proposition in full. Of course it makes it plain that whatever powers are in that law are exercisable by the processes in it and also that obviously will include consultation under the law. Because if you make restrictions, that is normal, the legal processes require it, so I would be confident that that law when it is debated will provide the means of doing it. I hope that this law has a better chance of success than the one which we have previously spent debating yesterday. So I ask Members to bear that in mind, that there is already work done in place to enable this and so it is not just a theoretical commitment, it is a very practical one. So I wholeheartedly support and also I think I must make the point that because we are dealing with obviously an isolated reef, I think the work done by the Connétable , the Deputy and the Honorary Police and other members of the Parish, have really made the difference in terms of being able to manage those pressures in a pragmatic and sensible way and I want to put on record my thanks for that. Of course, I have been able to support with the Fisheries team. Although they have got huge amounts on at the moment, the Fisheries team, I am pleased to try to continue that as best we can.

[10:45]

Personally, I would quite like a webcam but not to spy on people, but a webcam there to watch the wildlife like the one up in Alderney. You can look at Burhou and places like that. You can see the puffins .. well you can see whatever species are there but that is clearly not possible to do. Nonetheless I wholeheartedly support this but I make that point about the Wildlife Law to come. Thank you.

The Bailiff :

Thank you very much, Deputy . 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 Connétable of St. Martin to respond.

4. The Connétable of St. Martin :

I would like to thank the Deputy of St. Martin for his support and his comments and the Connétable of Grouville for his comments and the Minister for the Environment for his support and the support of his team as Environment who we meet with regularly. I would also like to thank all those I mentioned in my speech, the Honorary Police, who really do take safeguarding the reef very seriously, the National Trust and the St. Martin's Conservation Trust and Les Écréhous Residents Association who I have met with regularly and it is really important to them that this legislation passes today. It is very important for the uniqueness of the reefs and we are so fortunate to have them. Thank you very much to all Members, I hope you will support this. Thank you.

Well, I would ask the Greffier to put the voting link into the chat in the normal way. The link is now there and I open the voting and ask Members to cast their votes. I have 38 Members who have recorded votes already and I will leave it a moment or 2 longer.

The Connétable of St. Martin :

Excuse me, Sir, some of them are having difficulty voting. The Bailiff :

Yes, if there is any difficulty voting, could people indicate their votes, please? Could Members indicate their votes on the chat? We have 44 who have been able to vote through the voting link and obviously when the results are fully published then those who are voting in the chat will be counted in as well. But if Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting, and the result will be placed in the chat box fairly shortly. The Proposition has been adopted.

5. Draft Community Costs Bonus (Jersey) Regulations 202- (P.95/2020) The Bailiff :

Very well, the next item is the Draft Community Costs Bonus (Jersey) Regulations 202-, P.95, lodged by the Minister for Social Security and I ask the Greffier to read the citation.

The Greffier of the States:

Draft Community Costs Bonus (Jersey) Regulations 202-. The States make these Regulations under the Order in Council dated 28th March 1771.

5.1   Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier (The Minister for Social Security):

Triennial regulations have been used a number of times to provide an annual G.S.T. (Goods and Services Tax) bonus and more recently a food cost bonus. The food cost bonus for 2019 was paid to just under 1,200 Islanders. The previous regulations which covered 2017, 2018 to 2019 expired on 30th June 2020. Under these new triennial regulations the eligibility for the scheme will remain unaltered. Households who do not receive income support but do not pay income tax can make a claim as long as they satisfy the 5-year residency condition. Following the Corporate Services Scrutiny  Panel  amendment  which  was  approved  by  the  Assembly  during  the  debate  on  the Government Plan last year, the bonus will be paid at an increased level for the next 3 years at £258.25 a year, a total cost estimated in 2020 of £364,000. With some very minor drafted amendments, the regulations remain the same as the previous set of regulations approved by the Assembly. I would like to thank both the Corporate Services and Health and Social Security Panels for their time in scrutinising these new regulations and also for the Corporate Services Panel's published comments. I am pleased the panel are supportive of this legislation. I am glad to answer any questions by the Members and I propose the principles. Thank you.

The Bailiff :

Are the principles seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the principles? If they could indicate in the chat box, please.

1. Deputy S.M. Ahier of St. Helier :

The unamended Government Plan of 2020-2023 would have continued the bonus at a level last reviewed in 2014 without taking into account the impact of inflation. The Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel amendment rectified this. Following the input from the Citizens Advice Bureau, a calculation of retail price index increase of 13.8 per cent led the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel to propose an increase of the bonus from £226.95 to the new level of £258.25. We are pleased to see

the implementation of our amendment, which will help to protect low income households from the impact of G.S.T. We are slightly disappointed that the Proposition does not increase the value of the bonus in line with R.P.I. (Retail Price Index) for each year of the new triennial regulations running through to 2022. However, following a briefing from officers we are satisfied that this is primarily due to the administrative strain of lodging new regulations for each year and using a fixed amount based on the R.P.I. of the previous 3 years is an effective way of bringing the regulations forward. We expect that should the bonus continue past 2022, as is hoped, then a new value in line with any overall increase of R.P.I. during the 2020-2023 period will be used. In conclusion, we are supportive of the Proposition. Thank you.

The Bailiff :

Very well, does any other Member wish to speak on the principles? If no other Member wishes to speak, then I close the debate and ask the Minister to respond.

2. Deputy J.A. Martin:

Yes, and I thank Deputy Ahier for reminding us of where we were and there were comments, as he has just said, from the Citizens Advice Bureau and something that was brought to the Government's attention. From memory, I think the panel's amendment was absolutely accepted and I also accept where we are, it is a fixed amount for the next few years and again in 2022 when there will be a new Council. I do not know where I will be but I am sure, again, these bonuses, if they are still there, should have to rise again in line with that inflation. So I thank him for the comment but I maintain the principles. Thank you and I ask for the appel.

The Bailiff :

The appel is called for. I ask the Greffier to add a voting link to the chat box in the usual way. It is there; I open the voting and ask Members to cast their votes as usual. Very well, if Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. The principles have been adopted.

Does the Health and Social Security Scrutiny Panel wish to scrutinise the matter, Deputy Le Hegarat ? Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat of St. Helier (Chair, Health and Social Security Scrutiny Panel):

No, thank you.

The Bailiff :

Thank you very much indeed. Then how do you wish to deal with the matter in Second Reading, Minister?

Deputy J.A. Martin:

Could I take the Regulations en bloc, please, and if there are any questions I will try to answer them. Thank you.

The Bailiff :

Very well, are the regulations seconded for Second Reading? [Seconded] Thank you very much. Does any Member wish to speak on the regulations or any of them in Second Reading? If no one wishes to speak, then I close the debate and ask the Greffier to put a voting link within the chat in the normal way. The link is there, I open the voting, and ask Members to vote in the normal way. Forty- one votes have been cast. I will leave it a moment or 2 longer before closing the voting. If Members have had the opportunity of voting, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. The regulations have been adopted in Second Reading.

The Greffier of the States:

The Member who voted contre was Deputy Ahier . Deputy S.M. Ahier :

I apologise, I voted the wrong way.

Right, well, there we are. It will not be the first time that has happened, Deputy , for Members of the Assembly.

Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

It happens most times.

The Bailiff :

How do you wish to deal with the matter in Third Reading, Minister? Deputy J.A. Martin:

Yes, I really only just need to add again and absolutely do say that it was an amendment from the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel that brought this to our attention. I thank them and I also thank again the Health and Social Security Panel for looking at this legislation. Thank you.

The Bailiff :

Are the regulations seconded for Third Reading? [Seconded] Thank you very much. Does any Member wish to speak in Third Reading? If no Member wishes to speak in Third Reading, then I ask the Greffier to put a voting link into the box. I open the voting and I ask Members to vote in the usual way.

[11:00]

Forty-three Members have voted through the link so far. I will leave it a moment or 2 longer. If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. The regulations have been adopted in Third Reading.