States Meeting Transcript - 12th May 2021

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT WEDNESDAY, 12th MAY 2021

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

1. Draft Eligibility for Election (Amendment of Laws) (Jersey) Law 202- (P.22/2021) - resumption ................................................................................... 4

Mr. M.H. Temple Q.C., H.M. Attorney General: ................................................ 4 Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier : .............................................................. 5 Deputy R.J. Renouf of St. Ouen : ................................................................. 6 1.1 Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin : ........................................................... 6

1. Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier : ............................................................ 7
2. Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré: ................................................................. 8
3. Deputy L.B.E. Ash of St. Clement : ........................................................ 9
4. Connétable K. Shenton-Stone of St. Martin : .............................................. 9
5. Deputy R.E. Huelin of St. Peter : .......................................................... 10
6. Deputy G.C. Guida of St. Lawrence : ..................................................... 10
7. Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat of St. Helier : ................................................... 10
8. Senator L.J. Farnham : .................................................................... 11
9. Deputy C.S. Alves of St. Helier : .......................................................... 12

2. Draft Legislation (Jersey) Law 202- (P.26/2021) ........................................ 14

1. Deputy C.S. Alves (Chair, Privileges and Procedures Committee):...................... 14

1. Deputy K.F. Morel of St. Lawrence : ..................................................... 15
2. Senator K.L. Moore : ...................................................................... 16
3. Deputy D. Johnson of St. Mary : .......................................................... 16
4. Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade : ....................................................... 16
5. The Deputy of St. Ouen : .................................................................. 17
6. Deputy M.R. Higgins: .................................................................... 17
7. Deputy S.M. Wickenden of St. Helier : ................................................... 17
8. Deputy C.S. Alves : ....................................................................... 18

2. Deputy C.S. Alves : ....................................................................... 19
3. Deputy C.S. Alves : ....................................................................... 21 Deputy J.H. Young: ............................................................................. 22 The Attorney General: .......................................................................... 22

1. Deputy S.M. Wickenden:................................................................. 24
2. Deputy R.J. Ward : ........................................................................ 24
3. Deputy C.S. Alves : ....................................................................... 24
   4. Deputy C.S. Alves : ....................................................................... 26
   5. Deputy C.S. Alves : ....................................................................... 28
   6. Deputy C.S. Alves : ....................................................................... 30
   7. Deputy C.S. Alves : ....................................................................... 31

1. Deputy J.H. Young: ...................................................................... 32
2. Deputy C.S. Alves : ....................................................................... 32

3. Pedestrian-priority in Broad Street, St. Helier (P.28/2021) ............................. 33

1. The Connétable of St. Helier : ............................................................ 35

2. Pedestrian-priority in Broad Street, St. Helier (P.28/2021): second amendment (P.28/2021 Amd.(2)) ........................................................................ 36

1. Deputy K.C. Lewis (The Minister for Infrastructure): ................................... 37
2. The Connétable of St. Helier : ............................................................ 40
3. Senator L.J. Farnham : .................................................................... 41
4. The Deputy of St. Martin : ................................................................ 41
5. Connétable A. Jehan of St. John : ......................................................... 42
6. The Connétable of St. Brelade : ........................................................... 43
7. Deputy G.P. Truscott of St. Brelade : ..................................................... 43
8. Deputy J.H. Young: ...................................................................... 44
9. Deputy K.F. Morel : ....................................................................... 45
10. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier : ...................................................... 46
11. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade : ...................................................... 46

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

Deputy K.C. Lewis : ............................................................................. 48 Deputy R.J. Ward : .............................................................................. 49 Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré: ...................................................................... 49 Deputy K.C. Lewis : ............................................................................. 50

12. Deputy R.J. Ward : ..................................................................... 51
13. Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré: ............................................................. 53
14. Deputy M.R. Higgins: ................................................................. 55
15. Connétable R.A. Buchanan of St. Ouen : .............................................. 56
16. Deputy G.P. Southern : ................................................................ 57
17. Deputy I. Gardiner : .................................................................... 57
18. Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier : ........................................................ 57
19. Senator S.Y. Mézec : ................................................................... 58
20. Deputy K.C. Lewis : .................................................................... 59

3. Pedestrian-priority in Broad Street, St. Helier (P.28/2021): amendment (P.28/2021 Amd.) ....................................................................................... 62

1. Deputy I. Gardiner : ....................................................................... 63
2. Deputy R.J. Ward : ........................................................................ 63
3. Senator K.L. Moore : ...................................................................... 64
4. Deputy J.H. Young: ...................................................................... 65
5. Deputy G.P. Southern : .................................................................... 65
6. Senator S.C. Ferguson: ................................................................... 66
7. Deputy K.C. Lewis : ...................................................................... 66
8. Deputy I. Gardiner : ....................................................................... 66

4. Pedestrian-priority in Broad Street, St. Helier (P.28/2021) - as amended ............. 68

1. Deputy L.B.E. Ash:....................................................................... 68
2. Deputy K.F. Morel : ....................................................................... 69
3. Deputy R.J. Ward : ........................................................................ 70
4. Senator S.C. Ferguson: ................................................................... 71
5. Deputy M. Tadier :........................................................................ 71
6. Senator L.J. Farnham : .................................................................... 72
7. The Connétable of St. Helier : ............................................................ 72

4. Jersey Police Complaints Authority - appointment of Members (P.29/2021).......... 75

4.1 Deputy G.C. Guida (Assistant Minister for Home Affairs - rapporteur): ................ 75

5. Regulation of Zero-Hours Contracts (P.32/2021) - as amended (P.32/2021 Amd.) .... 77

5.1 Deputy G.P. Southern : .................................................................... 77

1. Deputy J.A. Martin: ...................................................................... 80
2. Deputy K.F. Morel : ....................................................................... 80
3. Deputy J.H. Young: ...................................................................... 81
4. The Connétable of St. Ouen :.............................................................. 82
5. The Connétable of St. Brelade : ........................................................... 82
6. Deputy G.P. Southern : .................................................................... 82

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS .................... 85

6. Deputy C.S. Alves (Chair, Privileges and Procedures Committee):...................... 85

ADJOURNMENT .................................................................................. 86

[9:31]

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer. PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption

Deputy I. Gardiner :

I would like to advise that I will be representing States of Jersey Committee System at Lesotho Parliament workshop this morning and I will be back for voting at 11.00.

1. Draft Eligibility for Election (Amendment of Laws) (Jersey) Law 202- (P.22/2021) - resumption

The Bailiff :

So you wished to be marked away on States business, in effect? Thank you very much. We resume the debate on P.22, the principles, and the Attorney General was to advise. Mr. Attorney, are you in a position to advise the Assembly on the various matters that were raised prior to the adjournment yesterday afternoon?

Mr. M.H. Temple Q.C., H.M. Attorney General:

Yes, Sir, I hope you can hear me. My camera does not .. The Bailiff :

Yes.

The Attorney General:

I was asked I think 5 questions. If I may start with Deputy Tadier 's second question. He asked me to confirm that we are not inventing something new, i.e. the reference to "as being ordinarily resident in Jersey". I do give that confirmation. We are not inventing something new. The criteria of "ordinary residence" is already in the current version of Article 7 of the States of Jersey Law and in Article 4(b) of the Connétable Law. As regards Deputy Tadier 's first question about the meaning of ordinary residence and the effect of periods of absence, the concept of ordinary residence is not defined either in the States of Jersey Law or in the Connétable Law but, as I indicated yesterday, its meaning is clearly intended to mean ordinary residence for tax purposes. It is a well-known tax concept and it is referred to in Article 126 of the Income Tax Law 1961, which provides that every individual who is ordinary residence has been in Jersey shall be assessed and charged to income tax. Revenue Jersey gives further guidance on the meaning of the term. The guidance provides that someone is liable to Jersey income tax on their worldwide income regardless of where it arises, where they are ordinarily resident. Effectively it means someone who lives in Jersey permanently or who intends to live here for 5 years or more. As I indicated yesterday, it is effectively where someone's home is and where they regard as being home. Revenue Jersey's guidance also provides that a person can continue to be ordinarily resident if they live temporarily abroad on an occasional basis. But they would lose "ordinary residence" if they leave Jersey for a longer period and the guidance suggests a full year or longer. It does not mean, I would stress, that a person has to pay tax in Jersey in order to be ordinarily resident. It is how they are regarded for tax purposes and so that is a different concept in terms of being licensed or entitled to having permission to work for the purposes of the housing and employment law. In relation to the Constable of St. Ouen 's question about whether it was a clear definition; in my view, yes, it is a clearly defined and well-known concept. It is used fairly frequently in our legislation and I have not been able to find overnight any cases reported in J.L.I.B. (Jersey Legal Information Board) where there is a dispute concerning its meaning. That points to the fact that it is not really a contested term. It is one that is well-known. I think it is difficult to think of a practical alternative to the term in terms of defining residence. Fourthly, Deputy Martin asked a question where she cited an example of a child who is born in Jersey and then leaves to go to university and then comes back and wishes to stand for election, would that person be able

to stand. My answer to that is that on the current version of the law, which simply provides for .. it does not have a test of being entitled or licensed or entitled to work under the housing law. Under the current version of the law the person has 2 alternatives; they either have to have ordinary residence for 2 years or they can have 6 months ordinary residence up to the date of election providing they have an overall total of 5 years ordinary residence. On that definition, in my view, a person in those circumstances, the example cited by Deputy Martin, they probably would be able to stand for election because simply going away periodically to attend university would not be sufficient to break their ordinary residence for tax purposes. But alternatively, if that person goes away to work perhaps in the U.K. (United Kingdom) or another part of the world for one or more years, then that person would not be ordinarily resident but they would still be able to stand for election under the current version of the law because there is the alternative of just having ordinary residence for 6 months up to the date of the election and then a total of 5 years ordinary residence; so that person would probably be able to stand under the current version of the law. But then they would not be able to stand under the proposed draft law as set out in the proposition because they would also have to establish that they had 5 years of ordinary residence up to and including the date of election. So that is a different and higher threshold that is being introduced in the draft law. Lastly, Deputy Le Hegarat asked a question about whether someone could come to Jersey, live here for 2 years and whether they could stand for election despite not having entitled to work status in Jersey.

[9:45]

My answer to that is under the current law, as it stands, without the amendment, is yes, it is possible for that person to do that. Because under the current law a person simply has to establish 2 years ordinary residence, they obviously have to have British nationality as well, so that person would be able to stand despite not having entitled to work status or entitled status or licensed status. That person could stand under the current version of the law but, under the proposed amendment, my answer is that no, that person would not be able to stand because in addition to needing 5 years of ordinary residence they would also have to have one of those 3 categories under the Control of Housing and Work Regulations; namely licensed, entitled or entitled to work only status. So that person would not be able to stand under the proposed draft law as set out in this amendment. I would remind Members that earlier - I think it was in March - Members approved the migration policy in P.137/2020 and under the migration policy, which was just put to Members in principle, it was not setting out any legislation, so the legislation is to follow. But under P.137, Members approved in principle the abolition of the entitled to work status. If the proposition were to be adopted thought would need to be given to whether there would be some sort of specific exception for membership of the States in relation to entitled to work persons because those persons would not be able to stand if the proposition was adopted, and the legislation that would follow on from the approval of the abolition of the entitled to work status did not provide for some specific exception. I hope that answers all Members questions.

The Bailiff :

Thank you very much, Mr. Attorney. Deputy Southern , you have a question for the Attorney? Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier :

It is about the extent to which the ordinarily resident rules operate and what constitutes a gap in ordinary residence. The Attorney General appeared to be saying that for tax purposes one year out of the intended 5 would disqualify you. I am wondering whether that one year out of 5 would also mean that ordinarily resident would not apply to somebody trying to stand as a candidate if they took a break of a year.

The Attorney General:

The Deputy is correct. If the person was away for more than a year from Jersey then that would mean that they would not be able to stand under the proposed amended version of the law in this proposition. Under the current law, if the person was away for a year they might still be able to qualify to stand for the States because, as I said in my previous answers, the current law provides 2 alternatives as regards being ordinarily resident. Either the person has to have completed 2 years of continuous ordinary residence in Jersey or the second alternative is that they complete 6 months up to the date of the election but then they also have an overall total of 5 years of ordinary residence. So in the Deputy 's example, the person might qualify under that second alternative if they had the overall 5 years of ordinary residence and then in the 6 months prior to the election they were also ordinarily resident in Jersey.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

We appear to be digging a hole, is all I can say. Thank you for the advice. Deputy R.J. Renouf of St. Ouen :

May I ask the Attorney's opinion on a resident of Jersey who might be recruited into Her Majesty's Armed Forces and serve for a length of time, exceeding one year, and be living and establish a home in forces accommodation? There being no opportunity to serve in the forces locally, that person from Jersey necessarily has to reside away from the Island, would they be ineligible for election upon their return to the Island to live?

The Attorney General:

They might be able to stand for election under the second limb of ordinary residence under the current version of the law. So if the person could establish 6 months of ordinary residence up to the date of the election and then an overall total of 5 years of ordinary residence in total then that person might be able to stand for election or be able to stand for election provided they were a British national.

The Bailiff :

That would be under the current version of the law? The Attorney General

Under the current version of the law, yes.

The Bailiff :

And the proposed amendment to the law?

The Attorney General:

Under the proposed amendment, no, because the proposed amendment is that they have to have been ordinarily resident in Jersey for at least 5 years up to and including the date of the election. That is very clear. You have to have 5 years up to and including the date of the election. There is no alternative as under the current law of just 6 months up to the date of the election provided you also have an overall total of 5 years.

The Bailiff :

That ends questions to the Attorney General as presently notified. Next to speak is the Deputy of St. Martin .

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

I would not be so presumptuous to say that other States Members made a mistake and did not know what they were doing when they voted on the various votes on P.75. The States Assembly made a decision and that is why we are here today but I do know that, on reflection immediately after that debate, I had made an error in the confusion on those various votes in that debate, one that I greatly regretted. I am not in favour of greatly reducing the eligibility of people to stand for the States Assembly. I am definitely not in favour of reducing the eligibility and I do not want to go as far as Deputy Tadier proposed and allow almost anybody to stand. But I do believe that where we are at the moment with 2 years is probably about where we need to be and I have decided that I will be changing my mind from the votes I had made back on P.75/2020 and be voting not to bring this in today.

The Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak on the principles? If no other Member wishes to speak on the principles ..

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

I can see 2 in the chat.

The Bailiff :

I have Deputy Ward next and the Chief Minister after that.

1. Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier :

I wanted to thank the Attorney General for the clarity of that answer because I think for many of us who have been .. I know last night going home I was looking through this and just thinking I should have asked the Attorney General a question but they have been asked, which is great. It is clear that we have a current law, which although perhaps needs overhaul and needs looking at, we made a change or some voted for a change which does not improve where we are, given the context of where this Assembly is at the moment, and the context that we are looking forward in terms of encouraging candidates to stand, encouraging healthy, contested elections across the Island, so that we drive up the governance of the Island in terms of the quality of candidates who are here. There are a couple of things that I was surprised at some of the comments. I think meaning to be clear, that if you leave the Island, and it is clear now from the Attorney General for a year, regardless of whether you were born here, whether you moved here, regardless of all those things then this law means you have to stay here for 5 years before you can stand for election. Now if you have lived the vast proportion of your life here, you move away for a year for one of a myriad of reasons, be it work, be it to gain experience elsewhere, and we are always encouraging people to go and gain experience and bring that back to the Island, then what we are doing is then saying to those people: "By the way you have got 5 years of some sort of proof before you can stand." Currently it is 2 years and they are arbitrary times and I am not entirely sure why the 2 years are there. That is for another time. But this makes a step backwards. In the end I am not entirely sure, and I did rack my brains to try and think what is it that people do in those extra 3 years that make them more eligible or make them more appropriate to stand for election. Let us remember, it is about standing for election, not being elected. As many, many know those are 2 very different things because it is in the end the electorate who decide whether somebody comes and sits in this Assembly to represent them. You have to get your message across and you have to convince the electorate. The reality is if someone arrives in our Island with no background, et cetera, it will be more difficult because you have to get used to, and you have to have a reason for standing. We all have our own individual reasons for standing. Be it because of your experience in the Island, of family's experience that you want to improve; I speak for myself there. We all have our own experience of why we stand. They are very personal. Sometimes they are very collective when people work together as well. But we need to remember those. This change does nothing - absolutely nothing - to address that or it is totally irrelevant to that. The current law has the word "or" in it. That is the key. This change has the word "and". And as we have seen before in this Assembly a single word can make a lot of difference to the implications of a piece of legislation. That is certainly the case here. I do not think we can equate changing a decision on this with other decisions that came back to the Assembly. I think they were very different and there were very different reasons for people bringing back those debates. This one is something that has been recognised by a number of Members immediately after the debate and by P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee). Can I make this point about the political nature of P.P.C.? I would say we are all politicians by the way, I just remind you all of that. We are all elected politicians and so to say that you are apolitical I think is not true at all. But in terms of P.P.C. it is from across the Assembly. Anyone who has worked with Scrutiny or P.P.C. or P.A.C. (Public Accounts Committee)

knows that you cannot be the lone voice on that. You have to take people with you and you have to listen to other people. That is why it is good for us all to do Scrutiny and be involved with Scrutiny because it means that we do not exist purely in our own echo chamber. That is healthy for everybody in this Assembly. I object to that. I do not think that is the case. I think that is incorrect. By not voting for this we will have the opportunity to correct something, to go back to where we were, and with the clarity that we have got through this debate, and it is very interesting that we begin on Wednesday morning all fresh after a night's sleep with some clarity from the Attorney General and I know for one I am absolutely certain about my voting today; absolutely certain that this is not the change that is good and healthy for this Assembly. It is not a change that is healthy for this Island and it is not a change to attract those people that we want to, the diversity of this Island, and get to that point, which I think deep down we all want to be at, which is this Assembly genuinely reflects the population of this Island. That is what we need to have if we are going to have healthy governance and a healthy democracy. I urge people to reject this legislation.

[10:00]

2. Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

I am quite pleased to follow the last speaker. I was looking back at what Deputy Tadier , assuming I have got the right amendment, actually proposed. He basically said in the amendment that a person should have a continuous period of residence of 5 years and be entitled to work, et cetera, to be eligible to stand for basically an election, in those days, as Senator, Constable or Deputy . I think it was very clear that it was a continuous period of 5 years. I think what we have to remember is we are not talking about somebody applying for a normal job. One is applying here to represent the Island, represent the public, in a legislature, representing the Island and its culture and its community, sometimes internationally. There are quite significant responsibilities that come with this role, even though the public may not always recognise those. What was interesting, I was going back .. 2 things. One was what I said previously in the debate of the day and also what Deputy Tadier 's arguments were on the day in support of his amendment. As I said, we have to always recognise and remember, even though sometimes the media or certain sectors of the public may not realise it, it is an honour to represent the Island in this Assembly. It is hard work, we know that, but it is an absolute honour. What I would like to do is pick up a couple of arguments that have been made. What Deputy Tadier said, that he himself thought he was relaxed about the need for any length of residence or what that length should be. But he says: "I have been convinced to take 2 points into account which seem germane to the wider argument. The first is a technical argument .. Jersey has a longstanding policy that most jobs require people to have been in Jersey for 5 years to be employed. This is also the public sector. Some have pointed out to me that it is inconsistent that no such rule exists for standing for the job of States Member." That is quite valid. The second point, he makes the point we are not the British Parliament, we are the Parliament for the Bailiwick of Jersey and it could be argued intelligently that to be a Jersey politician you should simply have to be a Jersey citizen. He then carries on to say, for example, and cites the role of a police officer. He says they do need to be a Jersey citizen however with 5 years' residency. Obviously part of it was around British nationality but he does make that point. Then again, the same would be the case for any successful candidate who did not - in this case it is around nationality - after 5 years they will be Jersey qualified, they would take the oath of office and they would, among other things, make Jersey laws for Jersey residents. The argument of course Deputy Tadier was running as well is around British citizenship versus non-British citizenship and who should stand. But I find it slightly odd that the criteria for a British citizen should be any different for somebody who is not a British citizen and therefore harmonisation at 5 years, which is consistent with all our other roles, including that of a police officer, would seem to make sense. As I said, the role of a States Member, believe it or not, as in certain parts of the public will not agree with this or may not realise it, is an important one. It is representing the Island in all sorts of circumstances as we have seen in the last few days. It is about implicitly understanding that culture and how we operate. It is not inconsistent with other jurisdictions. The one I particularly cite, which was cited last time round as well, is the United States requires a member

of the House to be at least 25 years old and have been a U.S. (United States) citizen for at least 7 years. It then comes down to working through. Should we have a time restriction or a time threshold or should we not because one could go for the argument we should not have any restriction, in which case somebody can come into the Island on day one and stand for election on day 2. I would hope most people would consider that ridiculous. In which case, what is an appropriate level to have as a restriction? Five years would be consistent with a number of the other restrictions that we have in place. On that basis, I think I will keep my argument as short as I have got to, I see no reason for changing my vote. I did understand broadly what we were voting for. I think the argument Deputy Ward has just tried to run that, yes, we should, in the same way as Deputy Morel very carefully reminded us yesterday, there was criticism in the last debate on the electoral reform of people challenging the in-principle decision that had been made prior to that and I think that same argument runs today. The Assembly agreed in principle to make this change. It was a well-argued debate and frankly I think we should be sticking to that decision otherwise the alternative argument also falls. Let us be consistent and I will be voting for this proposition and supporting P.P.C.

3. Deputy L.B.E. Ash of St. Clement : Can you hear me there, Sir?

The Bailiff :

Yes.

Deputy L.B.E. Ash:

Excellent. Well I hope it is excellent. It depends whether people like what I have to say. I tend to greatly agree with what Deputy Morel said yesterday. This was not a mistake. It was a mistake on Deputy Tadier 's part, I think, and he admitted it himself. He had brought this. He had put that in, in the hope that by offering a 5-year fop that we would all agree to have non-British citizens sitting in the States. That was voted down and he ended up with a 5-year situation on his hands as well and thus we are now being asked to review it. Personally, I would like to see P.P.C. withdraw that. I think there is still time for them to withdraw it because I think we need to put considerably more around what this 5-year means. I personally think that if you were born here that that should be sufficient to expand. If you have left here, having been educated here and lived here for your whole life and joined the Armed Forces and worked away, then you should be eligible to stand. I think we need to put a lot more wrapped round what constitutes 5 years. The other thing I thought was very salient to this whole debate was made by Deputy Le Hegarat yesterday. I have a copy of the J.E.P. (Jersey Evening Post) here today. The Skin Clinic here is looking for a secretary/receptionist, 15 hours a week, successful applicant would need to be flexible - probably rule me out at my age - but one of the things it says down at the bottom there is all applicants must possess entitled to work status, i.e. you would have had to have been here for 5 years. What we are effectively saying with our laws is that to work as a receptionist for a skin care company you have to have been here for 5 years to do that job for 15 hours a week, but to work the many hours a week as a States Member and make the laws of the Island you merely need to have been here for 2 years. To me that does not make any sense at all. One of those 2 things are wrong and need to be addressed. That is why I feel that I would ask P.P.C. and, as I say, it is not too late to withdraw this, let us have a look at exactly how we phrase this 5 years and then bring it back more realistically.

4. Connétable K. Shenton-Stone of St. Martin :

I would just like to say from the perspective of being a Connétable that to become a member of the Honorary Police you only need 2 years continuous residency. We are fortunate to have a diverse H.P. (Honorary Police) membership that I, for one, am extremely proud of the Honorary Police in my Parish, as I know all the other Constables are. Surely if 2 years is long enough to police our lovely Island it is long enough to stand for election. We bring other people in, we can bring in a chief executive who has had no experience in the Island whatsoever and he or she is allowed to hold a very prominent position, but we are saying to our own people: "Actually you are not good enough unless you stay for 5 years." I just thought it was interesting that if you want to be a Member of the Honorary Police you need 2 years' residency.

5. Deputy R.E. Huelin of St. Peter :

I find myself with Deputy Morel and the Chief Minister insofar as the Assembly knowingly approved this in-principle proposition whenever it was, hence the purpose of the debates today, however I am struggling with a couple of things. I am really only jumping up metaphorically to speak to support Deputy Ash because I think we are so very nearly there. I do not know why at some stage something has slipped through the net here between Deputy Tadier 's proposition and then coming back to P.P.C. I do not know what it is because it is very interesting the amount of questions that have been raised by Members, which implies that maybe, and I am guilty of this as well, did not give enough thought to this particular proposition in advance. I think it could come back with absolutely the ideal - and I wish I had thought about it and brought the amendment - and Deputy Ward raised it, the difference between the word "and" and "or". Because if there was "and" I would not have been able to stand when I did in 2018 and if it was an "or" I would be able to. That is because I have entitled status because of previous tenure in the Island and birth right, but mainly the previous tenure in the Island by being brought up in Jersey. I am inclined to support, if push comes to shove, but I really would like P.P.C. to take into consideration Deputy Ash's words, and my support of those words, and come back with just a tiny bit of fine-tuning, which I think would really enhance it. Just that "and" and "or", I think would make all the difference. I thank Deputy Ward for drawing that to our attention.

The Bailiff :

Deputy Ward , do you have a question? Deputy R.J. Ward :

Yes, I do not how to balance this question but procedurally I do not believe that these regulations can be delayed and changed so we may be talking about something that cannot happen. I think it is really important when we get to these points to have a ruling on that. I wonder if I can ask.

The Bailiff :

The question is whether it is open to P.P.C. to withdraw?

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Yes.

The Bailiff :

The debate is open, P.P.C. can withdraw with the leave of the Assembly. Deputy R.J. Ward :

Thank you, Sir.

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

I can only talk about my own experience of being elected in 2018. I vividly remember having to go to Social Security to acquire a card that I had never had before, having been self-employed in the Island. What they asked for was an entitled card. They wanted an entitled to work card. They were not going to go with a simple registered one, which would have been my standard situation. This was quite difficult to obtain, despite my many, many years in the Island. I do not think that today it is legal to have somebody in the Assembly who is not entitled to work. I cannot see how that is possible and certainly Social Security was not going to let me get away with it and I had to get my card; I would not be in this Assembly.

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

I, like many, was confused the last time and did vote incorrectly but more importantly as well, I would just like to make a point that I think it was the Chief Minister made in relation to the States of Jersey Police. They are, I think you will find, able to be recruited as 3 years having lived on the Island because a probationary officer would then do 2 years of probation, which would take them up to the 5 years.

[10:15]

But I would also like to make the point, like the Constable of St. Martin did, the ability to have been able to recruit police officers, as an example, from across the Island and across the population has significantly made a difference to that service. Without a doubt, what they brought to the States of Jersey Police was significant from the ability to be able to deal with our community across the board. So therefore I think that it is important that the States Assembly also represents the Island's population as a whole. So I will vote against this today because I think it is the right thing to do. The questions I asked yesterday of the A.G. (Attorney General) was to ensure that I was able to vote for something that was legally right and the A.G. for me today has confirmed that this can happen, so I will vote against it.

8. Senator L.J. Farnham :

I am not sure I subscribe to the confusion that Members are claiming from the last debate. If the papers were read properly, the ramifications of the vote was very clear. It is odd to hear propositions being brought in line with the States decision but not really being supported by the bringers of the proposition. I am not being critical of the P.P.C. in any way, shape or form but I remember being chastised myself on a number of occasions and recently in the recent debate on electoral reform where those of us that brought or considered amendments and tried to change the law after an in-principle States decision had been made were heavily criticised. Yet it seems to be okay to do that in this instance and I do not necessarily disagree with that because I think these debates and the law is there to be changed when we want to and when we need to and we can be faced with different facts or different opinions. I have always said I am prepared to change my mind when faced with compelling new facts and there is nothing wrong with that. This Assembly is at the heart of Island life. It is not the same as serving the Island in many great ways such as in the Honorary or States Police. Those roles and the roles of many like that are to enforce the laws and policies made by this Assembly. The role of States Members is to create policy and approve laws and debate appropriately and I think it is really important that States Members have a really good understanding of our Island and our culture of the people. It is true that this Assembly needs to be representative of the people of Jersey. I think it is more representative than I have ever seen and it is certainly moving in the right direction but we will not do ourselves any favours if we do not encourage people to show proper commitment to this Island in this sort of transient world that we live in. Well, not recently with COVID but I think post- COVID, people are going to want to travel and move. It is really, really important that the people that serve in this Assembly understand the Island, the cultures and the society they serve. Whether you can do that by being here 6 months or 2 years or 5 years is a matter for Members to decide for themselves. The recent electoral reform has removed the Island-wide mandate. I think it has been made in an argument that to stand a chance of election, you need to have had a profile in this Island but I think the new electoral system will change that. That remains to be seen so I think it probably is important at this that stage we stick with the decision that the States made and support the proposition today.

The Bailiff :

Thank you, Senator. Does any other Member wish to speak on then principles? A point of clarification, Senator Vallois, from the previous speaker?

Senator T.A. Vallois: Yes, please, Sir.

What is your point of clarification? Senator T.A. Vallois:

He made a point about commitment to the Island. He did not expand on that in particular. I would just like him to clarify what he means by "commitment to this Island".

The Bailiff :

Are you prepared to clarify your meaning of that, Senator? Senator L.J. Farnham :

Yes, absolutely, Sir, and that is a fair question. I meant by length of residency. Commitment to the Island is moving to the Island and putting some time in as a resident so residency.

The Bailiff :

Thank you very much indeed, Senator. Does any other Member wish to speak on the principles? If no other Member wishes to speak, then I close the debate and call upon Deputy Alves to respond.

9. Deputy C.S. Alves of St. Helier :

I thank Members for their contributions and the Attorney General for the various clarifications he gave. I just wanted to address a couple of things that were raised yesterday by Members. Regarding Senator Ferguson saying people who had only been here for 6 months are able to stand straightaway, this is incorrect. As the A.G. stated, under the current legislation, candidates need to have been resident for 6 months preceding the election in addition to completing 5 years at any time for an additional period or periods totally at least 5 years. Something else I also wanted to raise and I thought was important to note was something that the Deputy of St. Peter briefly mentioned. This change could disqualify current Members in this Assembly from standing for the election. For example, if a Member were here for 6 months before standing for the election last time, the current requirements are, if they stood again, that they would not be able to if these changes were adopted as they would fall short of completing the 5 years residency. Shortly after the debate on Deputy Tadier 's proposition, the indication that I and others on P.P.C. received from a number of Members who voted in favour was that there had been some confusion and mistakes were made when voting, as Members like Deputy Young, Higgins and Southern stated yesterday and today. We have heard the same from the Deputy of St. Martin and Deputy Le Hegarat . The Deputy of St. Peter is asking for a point of clarification, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Yes, Deputy of St. Peter , a point of clarification from the chair of P.P.C.? The Deputy of St. Peter :

Yes, Sir. Can I just ask Deputy Alves to clarify that point because I think my point was I would not have been able to stand in 2018? But I most certainly would be able to if I stood now mainly because 4 years have elapsed and even under the previous rules, I would have needed 6 months or 2 years in order to be able to stand. Can she clarify that point and that is what she did mean to say because I do not believe that to be the case?

The Bailiff :

Are you able to clarify whether you were in fact saying that current Members could not now stand? Deputy C.S. Alves :

Not directly referring to the Deputy of St. Peter , I said it is possible, if Members had only just fulfilled that 6 months, that they would not be able to stand under this new change.

Please do carry on, Deputy . Deputy C.S. Alves :

I have to say that I am appalled by some of the insinuations from some Members yesterday that P.P.C. is being political or that I, as a chair, am using P.P.C. as a vehicle to project my own political views. I just want to make it clear that nowhere in the report or the speech did I or P.P.C. ask Members to vote against this proposal. We have simply stated the facts about the proposal and the consequences of adopting this law. This law will significantly restrict the number of people eligible to stand for election. This is fact and not opinion or political view. We have urged Members to consider carefully the consequences of this change. I am the chair of a committee with a mixture of Members on it. I would not have made the opening speech and the report would not have been published without a majority agreement in the committee and P.P.C. would not be doing its job if it did not make clear to Members the consequences of these proposals. The issues are clear and although the committee were not unanimous in its support, it was unanimous for the need for us to bring this back as our duty to the Assembly. To address Deputy Ash's contribution and a couple of others, it would not be appropriate to withdraw this now. Having a debate on policy position and the States fully supporting whether they knew or not what they were voting for gives Members the opportunity to have a second go when legislation comes forward. It does not mean that just because a Member may have voted for it in the first proposition that they have to vote for it in the legislation as they may have changed their mind. This is democracy. The fact is that this proposal was not thought through in this context as it was part of a deal to change the citizenship requirement. We think that the Assembly should express a view on this and if it is a "no" and somebody would like to have another go at it, they can do so. Otherwise, P.P.C. will be left in a difficult position of doing work which it does not agree with and with no clarity as to what that extra work will be. As always, I am in the hands of the Assembly and I maintain the principles and ask for the appel.

The Bailiff :

Thank you very much, Deputy . In which case, I ask the Greffier to put a link into the chat for voting. I open the voting and ask Members to vote. Any Members either online or in the Assembly who have not been able to register their votes, could those online please register them in the chat and those in the Assembly indicate their vote now? If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. The principles have been defeated:

2. Draft Legislation (Jersey) Law 202- (P.26/2021) The Bailiff :

Because the principles have been defeated, the proposition generally in the draft is deemed to be withdrawn and we move on to the next item of Public Business which is the Draft Legislation (Jersey) Law, P.26, lodged the Privileges and Procedures Committee. For the purpose of the debate, the main respondent will be the chair of the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel and I ask the Greffier to read the citation.

[10:30]

The Greffier of the States:

Draft Legislation (Jersey) Law 202-. The law to consolidate and supplement provisions about making commencements and repeal of legislation, to provide for the consolidation, revision and publication of legislation, to make provision about the legislative drafting office to amend and repeal certain other legislation and for connected purposes. The States, subject to the sanction of Her Most Excellent Majesty in Council, have adopted the following law.

1. Deputy C.S. Alves (Chair, Privileges and Procedures Committee):

The Draft Legislation (Jersey) Law may not immediately grab people around the Chamber as the most important or exciting piece of legislation we have ever debated. It is legislation about legislation but it underpins a fundamental feature of democracy that every citizen should be able to know the law of the land so that they do not unwittingly fall foul of it, they know how to benefit from it and they are protected by it. This law is primarily about access to the law, a fundamental right of the citizen that underpins the integrity of all other legislation that we pass and a right that echoes in the minds of the corn riots enshrined in the Code of 1771 which we are celebrating this year. One complaint of the corn riots was that the Royal Court and the Lieutenant Bailiff were enacting laws without publishing them, so people could not know how to avoid breaking the law. The 1771 Code, for the first time, gathered together all legislation, then enforced into a single document and established this Assembly as the law-making body for the Island instead of the Royal Court. Fast forward to 2003 for the next major piece of legislation about legislation, the Law Revision (Jersey) Law enabled our laws to be compiled with all current amendments added to the text or consolidated which is the term normally used. In fact, that law went further. It setup a body called the Law Revision Board which includes 2 Members of this Assembly. The board can make a limited number of changes to correct errors and improve the presentation of the statute book such as renumbering, moving provisions around and other improvements that stops short of changing the meaning of

enacted legislation. In 2004, the first revised edition of the laws of Jersey was produced using these powers. It was published both in print and on a website hosted by the Jersey Legal Information Board. The revised edition was updated once a year. That was a huge leap forward at the time but now the gold standard is to make the law available as it is today and not as it was last year. Technology has moved on apace since then and the J.L.I.B. website is now where people go to to find the current state of the law. For the past 2 years, a "current law" section of the website has presented a constantly updated version of the whole of the Jersey statute book but, at the moment, this section is not official in the way the revised edition was. If the Assembly passed this law, the current version will become official so it can be cited and used in court. The legislation editor and her team in the legislative drafting office work hard to prepare consolidations every time there is a change in the law. This change will enable the public and lawyers alike to use our legislation knowing that the version on the website reflects the current state of the law and can be used in court. This is a huge step forward in maintaining Jersey at the forefront internationally in offering up-to-date access to our legislation. Part 3 of the draft law underpins this consolidation work but the law also makes other improvements. Currently several different laws contain various provisions about making, amending and repealing Jersey legislation. Part 2 of the law brings them together with a few additions and improvements. Part 4 is about the legislative drafting office; the first time that name is used in legislation. It is no longer called the Law Draftsman's Office. The office does not belong to a law draftsman. It is an office of both lawyers specialising in drafting legislation and trained legislation editors. By the way, they are almost all women. It is not part of the Law Officers' Department but a distinct unit within the States Greffe. Its function is to serve all drafting needs, both for the Government and for committees, Scrutiny Panels and individual Members. The new provisions impose obligations regarding the drafting, consolidation and publication of legislation on the head of the office. That person is now titled the principle legislative drafter. In recent weeks, the office has received some attention in the media concerning delays in bringing forward new legislation. Something that has recently been confirmed was not due to any lack of drafting resources or resulting delays in drafting. There are many people involved in the process of turning policy into draft legislation that is fit to be brought to this Assembly or signed by a Minister. The drafting stage is just one part, though a hugely important part. This law rightly enshrines in statue the expectations and trust we place on the L.O.D. (Law Officers' Department) in drafting legislation and making legislation readily available. I understand that moves may be afoot to restore the legislation programme so that Members will be able to see the legislative priorities and the state of play of the various programme items. That should show whether any particular item is awaiting the preparation of drafting instructions, is being worked on by the drafter, back with the department for review or to go out to consultation. In the interests of transparency, the legislative drafting office is happy for its functions, its workload and its performance to be subject to Scrutiny. The drafters and editorial staff are proud of their achievements, particularly in drafting both for and during the pandemic. Indeed, without the current system of consolidating all legislation as soon as changes are made, it would not be possible for anyone to go on to the website and see the current COVID restrictions as they apply that day. With a number of these provisions attracting criminal penalties, this is not just an improvement but an essential improvement. It is something that I will now ask you to give legal authority to as the authentic version of the law. It is a rare thing for the legislative drafting office to be drafting legislation about its own work with the backing of P.P.C. of course. The principle legislative drafter asked me to state that this law was progressed only when other work was not delayed as a result. I commend this law to Members and I propose the principles of the draft law.

The Bailiff :

Thank you, Deputy . Are the principles seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the principles?

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

Like many people, I would like to thank the law drafters for their hard work and I would also like to thank the Jersey Legal Information Board for the work they do in keeping the website updated. I find it invaluable. I do, however, have concerns and it is not so much about the legislation but the practical implementation of that legislation and that is the issue with making the law as shown on the website official brings in issues of security. Should that website be changed by an external person, while it would be against the law, it would also pose problems for people who happen to be reading the law that had been hacked or amended by a third party maliciously. Maybe I have not read the law closely enough but the website itself places P.D.F.s (Portable Document Format) on the website as well as the H.T.M.L. (HyperText Markup Language) pages and I am not sure whether the law distinguishes as to which is the official version or not. This is one of the problems that we have with something updated on a website is that it then becomes prone to security issues and we have that issue with Hansard in not knowing what the most recent version is. I would really appreciate the chair of P.P.C. helping me understand what security measures have been taken and will continue to be taken to ensure that any reader knows that that is an unhacked entirely secure version of the law. Also, if she could respond to whether it is the P.D.F. or the webpage which is the official version, that would be very helpful.

2. Senator K.L. Moore :

I simply wish to share with the Assembly today that the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel has given some brief consideration to this law and we were in favour and felt that it was a good sense of progress. Saying so, I have to say that we had not taken into account the thoughts of Deputy Morel and, therefore, I thank him for raising the point in relation to security and look forward to hearing the response from the chair of P.P.C.

3. Deputy D. Johnson of St. Mary :

I speak as a member of the Law Revision Board to which I was elected to shortly after I became a States Member and I just simply wish to note that that board is continuing its services. We have previously had, I think it is fair to say, annual meetings so it is not an onerous task to deal with the various small points set out in schedule 1. It is a valuable service and I think that last year, because of COVID, we may not have had that meeting but following the passing of this law, which I am sure will be, I look forward to being summoned to go through the various alterations for our attention this year.

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

I want to speak also in praise of this proposal. I think the law officers and the drafting of laws is a crucial resource for the whole of government and it is absolutely right that we can have consolidated versions of laws available to the public. I certainly know that during my time working in our sister island in Alderney, I had to refer to the Guernsey legal resource site constantly where there are consolidated versions. Of course they have a more complicated situation because they have not just Guernsey. They have Bailiwick legislation, they have Guernsey, they have Alderney and they have Sark, and I think it really is a crucial resource. This year, when we have had so many law changes on, for example, COVID and others, it is really difficult to try to keep track of where we are. Otherwise, it means a trail through all the various amendments trying to work it out. I think it is a great move. I am really pleased that we have the publication now and the restoration of the programme of legislation. I think our law officers have been fantastic and I myself have made mistakes. For example, I have, at times, felt that there are important laws that I sought and it was not clear where the key points were in the critical paths which determine the length of time to get these things done. I think my comments were misinterpreted as under-resourcing in the law offices and I have withdrawn that and made it clear that was not correct. Clearly, there are so many other things that can happen. Drafting instructions are missing, drafting instructions are not quite right and the law officers have queries that need to be resolved that require a political input. Then you have the corporate side with all the machinations of what programmes can go into the corporate plan and so on which we have saddled ourselves in recent years which, frankly, I find is an overhead we could

do without. I am really pleased that we have this new arrangement to help clarify and Members can go forward. I am not au fait with the detail but just to reassure Deputy Morel , if one takes the Guernsey legal resource website as a model, they rely on P.D.F. files. I think what we have is the extra luxury of an H.T.M.L. index version and I think, frankly, we might even have both but I would have thought that is technically solvable.

The Bailiff :

Thank you very much, Deputy . To clarify for Members, in case there is any confusion and there may well not be, the Law Drafters Office is not the same as the Law Officers' Department. They are not connected. The Law Officers' Department does not control the Law Draftsman's Office. It is an independent office under the States Greffe just in case there was any confusion about that.

Deputy J.H. Young:

Sorry, Sir. I accept the correction. I was loose in my terminology and apologies for that. Sir. [10:45]

5. The Deputy of St. Ouen :

May I likewise commend all those who have worked in bringing forward this proposition and, indeed, over recent years on the online resource that is available to us now. Having our legislation online and consolidated in this way has been a huge assistance to the courts, to lawyers, to us as States Members but I think more importantly to the public. The laws that govern them, the laws that are made in this Island are available, are very accessible and comprehensible and there is great help on the website explaining how to navigate the pages and that is a huge advance. I well remember, as you will, Sir, as young lawyers before this online facility was available, trying to put together a consolidated version of a law that had been amended several times and ending up with several little bits of paper flapping about trying to take them into a master copy; wholly unacceptable and difficult for all to work. This has been a magnificent advance for the Island and for all who need to work with the law. Jersey is seen as a leading jurisdiction in this area of public engagement with its laws. I believe other jurisdictions have sought advice from the Jersey Legal Information Board and have sought to emulate our excellent website and facilities we have here. I will certainly support this proposition and with it and thank P.P.C. and all who have been involved in bringing forward our legislation in this way.

6. Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I will be brief but I am fully supportive of this law and the work of the Jersey Legal Information Board and the law drafters. A number of years ago I brought a proposition to the States regarding laws that were in French being translated into English. Although I lost the proposition in the States, the former Bailiff at the time instructed the Law Officers' Department to provide an advocate who did unofficial translations and together with lawyers did come up with translations of the laws that are now on this website. When I brought the proposition the main point I was making was it was absolutely essential that the citizens of this Island know what the law is. How can we hold people responsible for laws when they are not accessible to them? This website and the translations has made that so. It also makes us very much in compliance with the European Court on Human Rights, which has got substantial case law on this. Yes, I will support this. I wish they will continue to translate some of the legislations in French. There are still many of them that need revising, although I know that the main ones to do with criminal justice have now been done. Again, some of them we may have to look at whether some of these laws are really suitable in this day and age. I think, if I remember correctly, the Code of 1771, for example, was talking about the mob and trying to deal with the mob attacking the Magistrates. I will leave it at that but fully supportive of the proposition.

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

I am fortunate enough, under one of my many hats, to sit on the Jersey Legal Information Board under your excellent chairmanship, Sir. I want to just say how hard working all of the members of that committee are. There is a lot of work coming forward that is about trying to make sure that everything is up to date on the website, that it is clear, that it is easy to navigate. We are also doing some projects working on how to make sure children can have resources to find out what their rights are and laws are. I just wanted to kind of stand up while we were dealing with this because it is part of what the Jersey Legal Information Board is about and give my appreciation to the hardworking team that is on there.

The Bailiff :

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

8. Deputy C.S. Alves :

I want to thank Members for their contributions. Deputy Morel raised a very good point, I think. The revised edition on the website is already the official version. The P.D.F.s are generated from the H.T.M.L., so it is automatically updated when the H.T.M.L. is updated, so they would always be exactly the same. There was a question regarding cybersecurity and being hacked. The current website is managed and run in the same way as the Government of Jersey servers, so the same security as the Government services apply to this website. I think that was all the queries that I noted down.

The Bailiff :

Thank you very much, Deputy . I ask the Greffier to put a vote into the link. The vote is on the principles of the legislation. The vote is there, I open the voting and ask Members to vote. If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, then I ask the Greffier to close the voting. The principles have been adopted:

The Bailiff :

Does your panel wish to call the matter in, Senator Moore ?

Senator K.L. Moore (Chair, Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel):

No, thank you, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Thank you very much. How do you wish to propose the Articles in Second Reading, Deputy ?

2. Deputy C.S. Alves :

As explained, the draft law will bring together existing provisions and supplement them with additions and improvements. The law is divided into 5 parts; part 1 is introductory. Part 2 covers how legislation is made and brought into force and repealed. Part 3 covers how legislation is consolidated, revised and published. It also introduces schedule 1, which lists powers of revision. Part 4 covers the Legislative Drafting Office and the functions of the principal legislative drafter. Part 5 contains the closing provisions and introduces schedules 2 and 3, which amend other laws. I intend to move each part with any schedule relevant to it en bloc, please.

The Bailiff :

Yes, so you are looking to move all of the Articles en bloc, together with the schedules. Deputy C.S. Alves :

The parts, yes, so

The Bailiff :

Sorry, do you wish to deal with it part by part or do you wish to deal with it in the entire Articles? Deputy C.S. Alves :

Part by part, please, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Very well. You wish to deal with part 1 and there are no schedules associated with part 1. Is part 1 seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the Articles in part 1 of the draft legislation? That simply asked for one of the drafts.

Deputy C.S. Alves : That is right, Sir. The Bailiff :

If no Member wishes to speak, then I close the debate and ask the Greffier to post a link on part 1 into the chat and I open the voting and ask Members to vote. If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, then I ask the Greffier to close the voting. The Article in part 1 has been adopted:

The Bailiff :

Do you propose part 2?

3. Deputy C.S. Alves :

Yes, please, Sir. Part 2 is titled "Making, amending and repealing Jersey legislation". Just to give some detail around each Article; Article 2 describes how Jersey legislation is made. It continues to allow budget laws to be treated as laws before they receive Royal Assent. It allows the Assembly to make regulations to change the procedure from making subordinate legislation as future-proofing for new technology like electronic signatures. Article 3 covers how legislation is brought into force. It removes an existing problem with legislation coming into force retrospectively at the start of a day, even though it is not made until later that day. The Article also adds an express power for the Assembly to allow regulations to be brought into force by order. Article 4 absorbs a provision from the Interpretation Law 1954 to prepare for a law coming into force. This Article allows regulations and orders to be made, bodies established, people appointed, consultations held and so on. Article 5 absorbs other provisions from the Interpretation Law. They deal with the effect of legislation being repealed or expiring. Article 6 is another provision from the Interpretation Law. It enables references to repealed legislation to be read as referring to the legislation as re-enacted. Article 7 is a clarifying provision; it ensures that if a law amends subordinate legislation, then that subordinate legislation can still be amended afterwards by other subordinate legislation. Article 8 absorbs and clarifies the Legislation (Amending Powers) (Jersey) Law 1999, it allows regulations to amend laws when there is an overlap between the lodging and making of 2 laws. Article 9 absorbs and improves more provisions from the Interpretation Law dealing with subordinate legislation. The improvements include ensuring repeals can be brought into force in stages. The Article also avoids having to repeat powers to make incidental, supplemental and consequential amendments. It also ensures subordinate legislation is treated as being made under all the available powers. Article 10 is new, it allows the Assembly to make regulations to enable subordinate legislation to incorporate documents of a technical nature, which are accessible to the public. For example, this could include British or international safety standards, technical guidance on health and safety, construction and use of vehicles, shipping matters or guidance on the use of pesticides. Article 11 absorbs and expands on the  Subordinate  Legislation  (Jersey)  Law  1960.   The  Assembly  can  annul  orders  and  other subordinate legislation not made by the Assembly but currently there is no time limit on that power, which can cause unintended effects if the legislation has been amended or relied on in other legislation. This Article sets a window for annulling the legislation, so it must be done in the next 3 sittings after the legislation is laid before the Assembly. After the window closes, a Member unhappy

with an order can still bring a proposition requesting the relevant Minister to repeal it and make necessary amendments. I would like to propose a vote en bloc for those, please.

The Bailiff :

Then is part 2 of Articles 2 to 11 seconded? [Seconded] Deputy Young, you have a question for the Attorney General and then you wish to speak.

Deputy J.H. Young:

Yes. I think the proposer probably touched upon my question on Article 11. I wanted to have clarified or explained perhaps by the Attorney General that the legislation does not in any way prevent any Member bringing forward a proposition to the States to annul an order which has been made by a Minister.

[11:00]

I wonder if that could be just clarified because obviously I think that is an important provision, which my understanding is that I think that provision is still there. I am not sure if it is made under Standing Orders or made under this law. But I would, if it is possible, to have that explained either by the proposer or the Attorney General and I would be grateful.

The Bailiff :

I mean the fact is I think this is a procedural matter. Members can bring a proposition asking that the law be changed and annulled and that the relevant Minister bring draft legislation back before the Assembly. I do not see anything in it that would alter that, Deputy , if that assists you.

Deputy J.H. Young:

No. Sir, if I may come back. My understanding and in fact when I signed Ministerial Orders I would always do so in the belief that Members can challenge that subordinate legislation by bringing a proposition, which would then both hold that order back and in effect then allow the States to vote to either confirm or otherwise; that is my understanding. Maybe that was not correct but that is what I was making; once the order has been made the opportunity for Members to put a proposition to set it aside.

The Bailiff :

Which Article are you looking at in particular, Deputy ? Deputy J.H. Young:

I will be frank, I am not clear. I think it came under Article 11 because the proposer spoke about Jersey subordinate legislation, which is clearly the orders. I am happy to leave that question for later if you wish, Sir, if it is a problem.

The Bailiff :

You originally proposed it, I suppose this is a question for the Attorney General. I thought it to be purely procedural but it may not be purely procedural. Mr. Attorney, are you able to assist?

The Attorney General:

I believe so. Sir, I agree with your interpretation when you gave guidance concerning procedural matters. The power that I think the Deputy is questioning is the power in draft Article 11, the States power to annul Jersey's subordinate legislation not made by the States. Article 11(1) provides that if there is subordinate legislation, such as a Ministerial Order, then that must be laid before the States as soon as practical after it is made and that is in accordance with the current procedure under the Subordinate Legislation (Jersey) Law as things currently stand. But then what is different is that if after no later than 3 sittings of the Assembly after the date on which it is laid, then if the States resolve that it be annulled then it ceases to have effect. The difference is the inclusion of the reference to the

3 sittings of the States, which provide the opportunity for the States to recall that legislation and for it to cease to have effect if there is a resolution of the Assembly to that effect. But in my view that, with one qualification, does not affect the ability of a Member to ask for subordinate legislation, such as a Ministerial Order to be debated by the States Assembly subsequently because there is no clear rule against doing that. The one qualification that I would mention is in Article 11(3) which seems to me to be intended to exclude subordinate legislation, which deals with the commencement of a piece of legislation such as a primary law. If, for example, a Ministerial Order deals with commencement of that legislation, then it seems to me that Article 11(3) excludes the ability for a Member of the States to bring that Ministerial Order bringing into effect and commencing legislation after 3 sittings of the States Assembly had passed. In my view, that is appropriate and provides for certainty because it would be unfortunate if perhaps years down the line a Member of the States seeks to bring back a ministerial order, which commences legislation or commences the effect of bringing into effect the legislation years down the line, then that would be unfortunate. I can quite see why that has been carved out from the current procedure by Article 11(3). In summary, the only difference to the current situation appears to me to be Article 11(3), which deals with the commencement of legislation. I hope that assists.

The Bailiff :

Does that assist you, Deputy ? Deputy J.H. Young:

Thank you. Thank you for a very full answer, it really is very helpful. Can I just make sure I understood, please, correctly 11(4)? There is now restriction that rescindment motion on an order has to be brought within 3 sittings of the States. Can I just check that at the moment there is no such provision, that Members can bring that? This now means it has to be done within the 3 sittings.

The Bailiff :

Simply to comment upon the wording, this appears to me to simply say that to the extent that there is Jersey subordinate legislation that was made before the commencement of this part of the law, then when this law commences any rescindment of it must be brought within 3 sittings. In other words, it is simply saying you take 3 sittings as dating from the commencement of this law and not from the lodging of any subordinate legislation made before the commencement. Does that assist?

Deputy J.H. Young:

I think I have got it, Sir, thank you.

The Bailiff :

Thank you very much. Did you wish to speak then, Deputy ? Deputy J.H. Young:

No, I am going to leave it at that, Sir. I think I have got clarification. My anxiety and why I raise it is that I do think there is a case where I think historically there will be old Ministerial Orders that, potentially, are out of date and circumstances do arise when that is painfully obvious. At the moment my understanding was that Members do have the right to bring that to the States if there is an order that is a problem and have it varied. But it may be that that is no longer the case, in which case the Ministers will just have to be more on the ball at keeping the orders up to date.

The Bailiff :

I think there is nothing to prevent a Member of the Assembly bringing a proposition to the Assembly asking the Minister to change a current order. But that is not a rescindment of the current order, that is asking the Minister to do it and I think that can be brought at any time if it is out of date.

Deputy J.H. Young:

Thank you, Sir, for that point.

1. Deputy S.M. Wickenden:

I think it is important to say that Ministerial Orders fall under the Subordinate Legislation (Jersey) Law 1960, which is a different law. There still are the rules that set out that after any Ministerial Decision is publicised, so it has to be publicised online, then there is a 15-day period where it is no longer enacted and to allow States Members to bring in a proposition. If they do bring in a proposition against that subordinate legislation, then that legislation gets halted even further until the debate has happened to see if it has been repealed. I think that is my understanding and maybe Deputy Alves will be able to clarify that or not but I am pretty sure, just trying to help out, that that is what it is at the moment.

2. Deputy R.J. Ward :

What I was going to just ask: it is 3 sittings of the States Assembly for a rescindment and I understand that. That is a very different period of time if we have 3-week sittings or 2-week sittings, particularly with breaks in the summer. I just want to confirm it is a sitting. Is that the beginning of the sitting and this may sound a little pedantic but I think it is quite important if you ever do want to rescind something because you can miss it? Is the sitting in terms of the beginning part of the sitting, i.e. when you constitute the sitting and 3 sittings later on, on that point? Because I think it is just clarity for people in terms of the timespan they have available if one does want to rescind a Ministerial Order. I also hope that those Ministerial Orders are more transparent now because of this change and I absolutely welcome that because that is very much needed, rather than having to subscribe to an email to Jersey Law site every day and check them, as I do; just that detail.

The Bailiff :

I think 11(1) is, I think, tolerably clear inasmuch as any rescindment motion must be laid before the States as soon as practicable and if the States sitting within 3 months deals with it. If, for example, a rescindment motion was lodged within a week, then the States could annul it within 3 sittings.

Deputy R.J. Ward : Thank you, Sir. The Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak on this part of the Articles in Second Reading? If no other Member wishes to speak, then I close the debate and call upon Deputy Alves to respond.

3. Deputy C.S. Alves :

I am just going to thank Members for their contributions and the clarifications. Deputy Wickenden's comment about orders being delayed for 15 days, currently they come into force and then get annulled later. A Minister responsible will normally not act on an order once there was a proposition for debate to annul it but that is down to the Minister concerned and it is not always possible. I am just going to provide a little bit of background around this Article. Article 11 would incorporate an existing provision contained in the Subordinate Legislation (Jersey) Law 1960, which requires secondary legislation not made by the States to be laid before the States and enables the States to resolve that it be annulled. Judging by other jurisdictions, it is unusual for this power to be totally open ended. This Article is a slightly amended version on the current provision. It limits the window to annul the legislation to the next 3 sittings. To have a provision enabling legislation to be annulled after it has been on the statute book for any number of years contrasts with, for example, the Westminster provision whereby Parliament has only 40 sitting days to annul statutory instruments laid before it. Of course, as it has been stated already, if Members are unhappy with the provisions of an order, they are still able to at a later date bring forward a proposition inviting the relevant Minister to repeal or amend it.

The Bailiff :

Thank you very much indeed. I ask the Greffier to put a voting link into the chat. The vote is on part 2 and I open the voting and ask Members to vote.

[11:15]

If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, then I ask the Greffier to close the voting. Part 2 has been adopted:

The Bailiff :

Do you propose part 3?

4. Deputy C.S. Alves :

Yes, please. Part 3 is entitled "Consolidation, revision and publication of legislation". I move that with schedule 1. Article 12 introduces the various categories of legislation, "as-enacted legislation" is the original text, including as it is first published. Consolidated legislation is a version in which all current amendments are incorporated to show the legislation as it is in force on a given date. Revised legislation, which I shall come on to in a moment, is a type of consolidated legislation. Article 13 requires the principal legislative drafter to produce consolidated versions. Article 14 sets out the editorial changes that can be made in consolidating legislation, they include the removal of commencement and spent provisions and the correction of obvious errors in typography, such as grammar, spelling, punctuation, numbering, cross-referencing or alphabetical ordering. They also include correcting errors from previous consolidations and adjusting punctuation and formatting or other presentational features. This Article strikes a balance in enabling minor and routine corrections to made editorial, while keeping proper checks and balances for significant changes to the text of legislation. The intent is to act with caution. It is fundamental that these changes are incapable of altering the legal effect of the legislation. The Legislative Drafting Office has been making these editorial changes in the unofficial consolidated versions for 2 years now and has not had any problems. Article 15 continues the Law Revision Board, which was established under the Law Revision Law. Schedule 1 sets out powers available for the board to revise legislation. These powers are reproduced from the Law Revision Law. The changes made by a revision have effect as if made by amendment and the minutes of the board must be laid before the States within 2 months. The board used to produce a full revised edition each year 12 to 15 months in arrears but Article 14 will mean that editorial consolidations can be made straightaway and be treated as official. The plan is generally to use the board's wider revision powers only on an ad hoc basis to revise individual pieces of legislation as and when needed. Article 16 requires the principal legislative drafter to publish legislation; as-enacted legislation must be published as soon as practicable after it is made. The last revised edition was to 1st January 2019, so consolidated legislation prepared after that date must also be published as soon as practicable. This removes the need for separate notice in the online Jersey Gazette. The Jersey Law website is a more obvious place to look for legislation changes with an option to subscribe to email updates. Article 17 achieves the aim I stated at the beginning of this debate, namely the creation of an official version of consolidated legislation or as-enacted legislation, an official version. Consolidated legislation is an official version if it contains a statement to that effect. In both cases the official version must be from a website where it is displayed under the authority of the principal legislative drafter or in a printed copy issued by or on behalf of the principal legislative drafter. An official version can be used in court and is taken to set out the legislation in its current form. If it is consolidated then it is taken to be correct, unless the contrary is shown. Article 18 provides the States to make Statutory Law Revision Regulations. Those regulations can clarify ambiguities and reconcile inconsistencies to enable corrections to be made without need to use a law and obtain Royal Assent. No amendment may be lodged to a proposition containing the

regulations if the Bailiff considers that it would go beyond these powers. Other jurisdictions commonly use these Statute Law Revision Bills to make corrections to legislation; that is the inspiration for this new power. In summary, there are 3 levels of changes that may be made to legislation; the minor editorial changes under powers given to the principal legislative drafter, the continued law revision powers of the board and the new power given to the States to make changes to the law to correct ambiguity or inconsistencies.

The Bailiff :

Are Articles 12 to 18 and schedule 1 seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on those Articles or that schedule? If no Member wishes to speak, then I ask the Greffier to place a voting link into the chat and I open the voting and ask Members to vote. If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, then I ask the Greffier to close the voting. Part 3 has been adopted:

The Bailiff :

Do you propose part 4, Deputy ?

5. Deputy C.S. Alves :

Yes,  please.   Part  4  is  entitled  "Legislative  Drafting  Office".   Article 19  continues  the  Law Draftsman's Office as the Legislative Drafting Office. The law draftsman is renamed as the principal legislative drafter. The office is to have the objective of producing high-quality legislation that can be easily understood and is readily accessible to all. The principal legislative drafter is responsible to the Greffier of the States for his or her functions but not in relation to current drafting practice. A legislative drafter must have passed the assessments for barristers or solicitors in England and Wales that have formed part of the requirements for admittance as a Jersey advocate. Alternatively, he or she must have passed assessments that the principal legislative drafter considers are equivalent in Ireland or a Commonwealth country. The enshrining of current arrangements in legislation is not intended to remove flexibility, so the requirements can be amended by regulations. Article 20 sets out the functions of the principal legislative drafter. He or she is responsible for the drafting of all Jersey legislation, preparing consolidated and draft revised legislation, advising the Greffier of the States on the drafting of Standing Orders, arranging the publication of legislation and of current drafting practice and promoting access to legislation. The publication and access function is intended to lead to further refinements, an example is access to legislation on given dates in the past, which would be a useful tool for legal practitioners and other users of legislation. A recent amendment to the States of Jersey Law passed by the Assembly means Standing Orders will no longer be treated as legislation. The Greffier and his senior staff are experts in the operation of the Standing Orders. The Legislative Drafting Office will continue to make itself available to advise on that drafting instead of drafting them. Article 21 enables the principal legislative drafter to delegate his or her functions. There is a deputy head of the office to whom functions could be delegated to cover absences. Specific functions can be delegated as necessary, such as work of producing consolidated legislation and publishing it to the website; that naturally evolves on to the legislation editor. Article 22 gives legal professional privilege to confidential communication between a drafter and a person providing instructions. This gives the same protection from disclosure as for legal advice. It also covers drafts of legislation. It applies to States Members using the services of the Legislative Drafting Office in the same way as to policy of officials in departments. Article 23 enables the Assembly to amend part 4 by regulation. We consider this provision necessary to allow for future changes in the structure, reporting lines and functions of the Legislative Drafting Office.

The Bailiff :

Thank you very much indeed. That part of the law, is it seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on this part 4 of the law? If no Member wishes to speak, then I close any debate and invite the Greffier to place a vote into the link. I open the voting and ask Members to vote. If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, then I ask the Greffier to close the voting. Part 4 of the legislation has been adopted in Second Reading:

The Bailiff :

Do you move part 5, Deputy ?

6. Deputy C.S. Alves :

Yes, please. Part 5 is entitled "Closing provisions" and I would like to move it with schedules 2 and

3. This part contains Articles 24 and 25, which just introduce schedules 2 and 3. I have already described schedule 1 in connection with part 3 for the powers to revise legislation. Part 5 also contains Article 26, which gives the name of this law. Article 26 also enables the Assembly to bring the law into force by passing an Act to specify a date which will be when the Jersey Law website is ready to go live with consolidated legislation labelled as official. Schedule 2 contains consequential and miscellaneous amendments to other Jersey legislation. These changes include updating the provision  that  gave  the  Assembly  copyright  in  Jersey  legislation. There are  changes  to  the Interpretation Law. Some delete provisions that have been moved into the new draft law, one change inserts a new provision which can be used for powers to appoint people. It would save repeating provisions about terms of appointment, about removal, suspension, reappointment, reinstatement and about vacancy, absent or incapacity. It is based on recent Scott ish and New Zealand legislation. Any particular law can still make any different provision if that is wanted. Changes to other laws include deleted provisions are no longer considered to be needed, such as the requirement to publish in the Jersey Gazette. Some reflects the change of title of the principal legislative drafter. There are also various changes to the States of Jersey Law 2005 relating to how Ministers are given new titles and how functions are transferred between them.