States Meeting Transcript - 30th June 2021

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT WEDNESDAY, 30th JUNE 2021

Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade : ................................................................ 4 Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin : ................................................................. 4 Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier : ................................................................ 4 Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:.............................................................. 5 Deputy M. Tadier : ................................................................................ 5

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption .................................................................. 6

1. Immigration Acts Consolidation and Extension to Jersey by Order in Council (P.44/2021) ................................................................................... 6

1.1 Deputy G.C. Guida of St. Lawrence (The Minister for Home Affairs - rapporteur):...... 6

1. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of St. Saviour : .................................................... 8
2. Deputy K.F. Morel of St. Lawrence : ...................................................... 9
3. Deputy D. Johnson of St. Mary : .......................................................... 10
4. Senator I.J. Gorst : ........................................................................ 10
5. Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade : ....................................................... 10
6. Deputy G.C. Guida: ...................................................................... 11

2. Draft Proceeds of Crime (Amendment of Law) (No. 2) (Jersey) Regulations 202- (P.45/2021) .................................................................................. 12

1. Senator I.J. Gorst (The Minister for External Relations and Financial Services): ....... 12

1. The Deputy of St. Mary : .................................................................. 14
2. Senator I.J. Gorst : ........................................................................ 14

2. Senator I.J. Gorst : ........................................................................ 16
3. Senator I.J. Gorst : ........................................................................ 17

3. Draft Income Support (Amendment No. 21) (Jersey) Regulations 202- (P.46/2021) .. 18

1. Deputy J.A. Martin (The Minister for Social Security): .................................. 18

1. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet : .................................................................. 19
2. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade : ................................................ 19
3. Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier : .......................................................... 19
4. Deputy J.A. Martin: ...................................................................... 19

2. Deputy J.A. Martin: ...................................................................... 21
3. Deputy J.A. Martin: ...................................................................... 22

4. Draft Proceeds of Crime (Amendment No. 4) (Jersey) Law 202- (P.48/2021) ......... 23

1. Connétable R.A. Buchanan of St. Ouen (Assistant Minister for External Relations and Financial Services - rapporteur):.......................................................... 23
2. The Connétable of St. Ouen :.............................................................. 25
3. The Connétable of St. Ouen :.............................................................. 26

5. Draft Proceeds of Crime (Supervisory Bodies) (Amendment) (Jersey) Law 202- (P.49/2021) .................................................................................. 27

1. The Connétable of St. Ouen (Assistant Minister for External Relations and Financial Services - rapporteur): .................................................................... 27

1. Deputy J.H. Young: ...................................................................... 28
2. The Connétable of St. Ouen:.............................................................. 28

2. The Connétable of St. Ouen :.............................................................. 30
3. The Connétable of St. Ouen :.............................................................. 31

6. Draft Proceeds of Crime (Miscellaneous Amendments No. 2) (Jersey) Regulations 202- (P.50/2021) ............................................................................ 32

1. The Connétable of St. Ouen (Assistant Minister for External Relations and Financial Services - rapporteur): .................................................................... 32

1. Deputy J.H. Young: ...................................................................... 32
2. The Connétable of St. Ouen :.............................................................. 33

2. The Connétable of St. Ouen :.............................................................. 34
3. The Connétable of St. Ouen :.............................................................. 35

7. Draft Restriction on Smoking (Standardised Packaging and Labelling) (Jersey) Regulations 202- (P.52/2021) .............................................................. 36

1. Deputy R.J. Renouf of St. Ouen (The Minister for Health and Social Services): ........ 36

1. Deputy M. Tadier :........................................................................ 37
2. Deputy L.B.E. Ash of St. Clement : ...................................................... 39
3. The Connétable of St. Brelade : ........................................................... 39
4. Deputy T. Pointon of St. John : ........................................................... 40
5. Deputy K.F. Morel : ....................................................................... 40
6. The Deputy of St. Ouen : .................................................................. 41

2. The Deputy of St. Ouen : .................................................................. 44
3. The Deputy of St. Ouen : .................................................................. 45

1. Deputy M. Tadier :........................................................................ 45
2. Deputy K.G. Pamplin: .................................................................... 46
3. Deputy K.F. Morel : ....................................................................... 46
4. The Deputy of St. Ouen : .................................................................. 47

8. Jersey Police Complaints Authority: Appointment of Member (P.55/2021) .......... 49

8.1 Deputy G.C. Guida (The Minister for Home Affairs): ................................... 49

1. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet : .................................................................. 49
2. Deputy M. Tadier :........................................................................ 50
3. The Deputy of St. Mary : .................................................................. 51
4. Deputy J.H. Young: ...................................................................... 51
5. Deputy G.C. Guida: ...................................................................... 51

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED ................................................... 53 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT .................................................................. 53

9. Les Quennevais Park Flats Loan Scheme (P.19/2021) – Rescindment (P.54/2021).... 53

1. Deputy M. Tadier :........................................................................ 54

2. Les Quennevais Park Flats Loan Scheme (P.19/2021) – Rescindment (P.54/2021): Amendment (P.19/2021 Amd.) ............................................................ 58

1. Deputy M. Tadier :........................................................................ 58 Deputy K.F. Morel : ............................................................................. 61 Mr. M.H. Temple Q.C., H.M. Attorney General: .............................................. 62
2. Deputy J.H. Young: ...................................................................... 62

The Attorney General: .......................................................................... 64

3. Deputy S.J. Pinel of St. Clement : ........................................................ 64
4. Deputy J.A. Martin: ...................................................................... 65
5. Senator S.C. Ferguson. ................................................................... 66
6. Deputy K.C. Lewis : ...................................................................... 66
7. Deputy R. Labey : ......................................................................... 68
8. Connétable J. Le Bailly of St. Mary : ..................................................... 68
9. The Connétable of St. Brelade : ........................................................... 69
10. Senator S.W. Pallett: .................................................................. 69
11. Deputy R.J. Ward : ..................................................................... 71
12. Deputy G.J. Truscott of St. Brelade : .................................................. 72
13. Deputy R.E. Huelin of St. Peter : ...................................................... 73
14. Deputy M. Tadier : ..................................................................... 73 Deputy M. Tadier : .............................................................................. 77

10. Draft COVID-19 (Election of Jurats) (Jersey) Regulations 202- (P.60/2021) .......... 77

1. The Deputy of St. Ouen (The Minister for Health and Social Services): ................ 77

1. Connétable A. Jehan of St. John : ...................................................... 78
2. Deputy J.H. Young: .................................................................... 78
3. Deputy M. Tadier : ..................................................................... 79
4. The Deputy of St. Ouen : .............................................................. 79

2. The Deputy of St. Ouen : .................................................................. 81

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS .................... 82

11. Deputy C.S. Alves of St. Helier (Chair, Privileges and Procedures Committee): ........ 82

11.1 Deputy S.M. Wickenden of St. Helier : ................................................... 82

1. Deputy M. Tadier : ..................................................................... 83
2. Deputy C.S. Alves : .................................................................... 83

ADJOURNMENT .................................................................................. 84

[9:33]

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

Yes, Deputy Tadier , there was a point of order?

Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

I would have intervened earlier but I was not officially here. I would like to ask that my party colleagues be marked on States business. They are attending to States business, and I think the courtesy should be reflected in what they are marked down as, if that is okay. I do not think it needs to be controversial.

The Bailiff :

Well, I suppose it is a matter then for the Assembly as to whether they are marked away on States business. What is the States business that they are doing, Deputy ? In other words, in what respect is it the business of the Assembly?

Deputy M. Tadier :

Obviously it is up to each States Member to decide on their workloads and it is part of their normal functions as parliamentarians. I know that other Members of the Assembly were meeting with Mr. Twigg yesterday and this is the only time they could find in his diary that was convenient for them to meet. So it is parliamentary business, I do not know exactly what they are discussing, but I will leave that to Members to decide.

The Bailiff :

Very well. It seems to be then that you are wishing for the Assembly to agree that this is States business. I will not take this as a proposition at this point. Could Members indicate either in the chat whether they wish to say anything about that otherwise .. the Deputy of St. Martin .

Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin :

This has come a bit quick to us this morning but I have to say for myself, I am a little bit uncomfortable about those 3 Members of the Assembly being marked on States business. It is usually my understanding that States business is where you are an official States committee or panel or ministry and you are performing a function on behalf of the States Assembly. I am not sure that this is that.

Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier :

It is absolutely not a problem that they were marked excused and not défaut or anything but I just ask the question. I know Mr. Twigg was a Labour M.P. (Member of Parliament) which he has probably got a lot to discuss with Reform, and I absolutely agree, but I do not know if they are discussing our States work, or they met him officially for our States work, and it just stretches it a bit. I would have kept quiet and I would have taken the excusé if I was Deputy Tadier but I just put that out there. I am not clear on what they are meeting for.

The Bailiff :

Well I think rather than have this long, drawn-out, Deputy Tadier , do you wish to make a proposition that they are marked on States business?

Deputy M. Tadier :

I do. Can I just sum up on these comments? The Bailiff :

No, it is all right, I am going to give other people the chance and then you can speak at the end. Is that seconded? [Seconded] We have heard from the Deputy of St. Martin and Deputy Martin, does any other Member wish to speak on whether or not the Members presently marked excusé, who are members of the Reform Party meeting with Mr. Twigg, should be marked as away on States business? If Members could indicate in the chat in the normal way.

Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier :

I think there is no reason why they should not be marked on States business. Stephen Twigg is here on Commonwealth parliamentary business. If they are speaking to him in his capacity, then I see no reason why it should not. I think if the States starts debating whether they are or not, we are getting very, very petty and it will cause problems further down the line.

The Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak on this particular proposition? Deputy Tadier to reply then. Deputy M. Tadier :

I think it is important to note that these are our colleagues, they are not getting their hair done, they are not watching a football match, they are meeting another parliamentarian who was announced to be in the States yesterday by the Bailiff , our President of the Assembly, as an honoured guest. He is here on parliamentary business with the C.P.A. (Commonwealth Parliamentary Association) and my colleagues and your colleagues are there to discuss parliamentary matters to him. I do think it verges on the petty because I remember a couple of years ago we excused Senator Le Fondré before he was Chief Minister for going on a prayer breakfast to the U.S.A. (United States of America) with the then President.

[9:45]

He was doing that not in any capacity as a States Member, nobody had delegated him to do that, and that I think went through without any challenge at all when it was agreed that he should do that. I think if we are going to agree to that then I do not see why we are not allowing our parliamentarians to take an opportunity when they are going to be back in the Assembly later to fulfil a role. The last point is we do not all choose what roles we get in the Assembly and I think Members have different workstreams and different workloads. I will leave it like that but happy to discuss it further with P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) and Members if it is an issue.

The Bailiff :

Could we put a vote in the link, please, Greffier? I note that Deputy Southern is now present. The vote is in the link, I open the voting, and ask Members to vote. The vote is on whether or not those members of Reform who are currently meeting with Mr. Twigg are to be marked away on States business or excusé. So a vote pour is away on States business or absent on States business. If Members have had the opportunity to cast their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. The proposition is adopted:

Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier :

I have just received a message from the Constable of St. Helier who is at the dentist this morning but will be joining the meeting after that appointment.

The Bailiff :

Well he is marked excusé and he will be present as soon as he gets here, so that will not be an issue, I hope.

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption

1. Immigration Acts Consolidation and Extension to Jersey by Order in Council (P.44/2021) The Bailiff :

We now move on to the next item of Public Business which is the Immigration Acts Consolidation and Extension to Jersey by Order in Council, P.44, lodged by the Chief Minister. For the purpose of this debate the main respondent will be the chair of the Children, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel. I ask the Greffier to read the citation.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion - to signify, pursuant to Article 31 of the States of Jersey Law 2005, that they agree that a request be made to Her Majesty in Council for the making of an Order in Council to extend to Jersey with appropriate modifications various provisions contained in the - (a) Immigration Act 1971; (b) British Nationality Act 1981; (c) Criminal Justice Act 1982; (d) Immigration Act 1988; (e) Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993; (f) Asylum and Immigration Act 1996; (g) Immigration and Asylum Act 1999; (h) Nationality, Immigration and Asylum  Act  2002;  (i)  Asylum  and  Immigration (Treatment  of  Claimants,  etc.)  Act  2004;  (j) Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006; (k) UK Borders Act 2007; (l) Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009; (m) Immigration Act 2014; (n) Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015; (o) Immigration Act 2016; (p) Policing and Crime Act 2017; (q) Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018; and (r) Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (E.U. Withdrawal) Act 2020, as summarised in the Chief Minister's report attached to this proposition.

1.1   Deputy G.C. Guida of St. Lawrence (The Minister for Home Affairs - rapporteur): I will be the rapporteur for this proposition.

The Bailiff :

I am sorry, I was not aware of that. Deputy Guida, yes.

Deputy G.C. Guida:

Yes, it needs to be lodged by the Chief Minister but it is of course a Home Affairs issue. First of all I would like to say that having presented this particular massive proposition might have something to do with the absence of competition for my post yesterday. It is long, complex, full of very, very important details and the sort of things that warrants careful scrutiny which was done. Against all appearances, this is going to simplify our immigration system and I hope that it will be clear that it also improves it quite a lot. Now on to the official document. This is a proposition under Article 31 of the States of Jersey Law 2005. Article 31 provides for the States Assembly to debate any proposition to extend a U.K. (United Kingdom) Act of Parliament by Order in Council. In this case, the draft Order in Council relates to the immigration Acts. These Acts lay down the framework for the rules on a person's immigration status and, crucially, where the Crown Dependencies are concerned, provide the legal underpinning for the Common Travel Area. Jersey has long agreed that the immigration Acts need to extend to Jersey by Order in Council as they do to Guernsey and the Isle of Man. The draft Order in Council presented along with this proposition does 2 things: it consolidates and updates the immigration Acts and it sets out the Acts in a much more accessible and readable format than the previous Orders in Council did. The last 15 years have seen 8 Acts of Parliament concerning immigration. Jersey freely chooses to extend the U.K. immigration Acts essentially because of the Common Travel Area. If a Jersey immigration official grants someone leave to enter or remain in Jersey, that leave is valid and effective throughout the U.K., Guernsey and the Isle of Man. Leave to enter or remain granted in U.K., Guernsey or the Isle of Man is likewise valid and effective in Jersey. The Immigration Acts are the basic legislative framework for the C.T.A. (Common Travel Area). The framework operates by each of the C.T.A.s extending the U.K. Acts rather than by each C.T.A. trying to enact its own domestic legislation. Jersey legal advisers and U.K. legal advisers have liaised in the preparation of the draft Order in Council covered by this proposition and it is right to record our appreciation of the time and consideration given by legal advisers both in the Home Office and in the Ministry of Justice. Members may recall that last autumn the Assembly debated another draft Order in Council which extended provisions to end free movement of E.U. (European Union) nationals, to protect the status of Irish citizens and to provide for consequential, transitional and savings provisions to be made. These provisions are now on the Jersey statute book with the agreement of the States. This proposition incorporates these amendments into the new Order in Council, it does not alter them. Most of the draft Order in Council is concerned with consolidation merely re-extending the immigration Acts. Members already know that control of residents and employment in Jersey is governed by the Control of Housing and Work (Jersey) Law 2012 which operates separately from the immigration Acts and applies just as much to British citizens as to anybody else but work permits for non-British persons come under the immigration Acts. Work permits are issued in accordance with work permit rules made in Jersey by the Minister for Home Affairs. The policy for work permits is not determined by anything in the U.K. immigration Acts but purely at local level in Jersey. The current rules will, under the new Order in Council, be made by order instead of by making rules. This is in fact only a technical procedural change but a notable change will be that the Minister, before he or she makes an order relating to work permits, will be required to consult with the Chief Minister. The Minister for Home Affairs will continue to make immigration rules as has been the case since 2017; however, the rules will now be presented formally to the States by way of a report containing a statement of changes. If a statement is disapproved by resolution passed at that sitting or at the next following sitting of the States, then the Minister will have to make appropriate changes and a statement of those changes will also be presented to the States. The draft Order in Council does not extend all provisions that the U.K. Parliament has chosen to enact. For example, U.K. immigration provisions associated with the so-called hostile environment such as banning an illegal immigrant from driving even with a valid driving licence will not be replicated on the Jersey statute book. I do wish to draw particular attention to provisions that will be made for enhanced protection for children, including additional restrictions on the detention of unaccompanied children, a statutory duty on the Minister to ensure that immigration, asylum or nationality functions are carried out having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare

of children in Jersey. The ability for the States to make regulations to constitute Jersey's own Independent Family Returns Panel; the existing Independent Family Returns Panel in the U.K. was set up because it was recognised that families with children no longer have a legal right to remain in the U.K., who have not chosen to depart when a child leaves and will face the prospect of a required or enforced return to their country of origin, face a number of potentially difficult and daunting issues. It is the task of the Independent Family Returns Panel to support and challenge the Home Office in ensuring that the welfare and safeguarding needs of children and family in these circumstances are appropriately met. Provision of the family returns process, which is humane, has an impact on the capacity of families to make a successful and effective return. It will be enshrined in statute that nothing in the immigration rules made by the Minister for Home Affairs can lay down any practice which would be contrary to the Refugee Convention. This is a step to ensure that Jersey provides statutory safeguard for the rights of refugees equivalent to other jurisdictions. For many years, the Bailiff has been able to grant warrants to immigration officers authorising arrest and/or entry on premises concerning suspected offences under the immigration Acts. These offences relate to illegal entry to Jersey and/or assisting harbouring an illegal immigrant. Under the new Order in Council, arrest and/or search warrants can be issued by the Bailiff . In further cases specifically: failing to report to a medical officer of health, attend, submit to a test, examination required by an immigration official, providing inaccurate or incomplete information in relation to a suspected illegal immigrant, to locate nationality and/or identity documents and travel documents. The original proposition for this consolidation project was lodged in September of last year. That proposition was withdrawn to make way for the urgent carveout proposition relating to the U.K.'s withdrawal from the European Union and now this proposition has been lodged finally to complete the project. The draft has therefore been pending effectively for 9 months and, as I have mentioned a few times, there have been briefings at which I hope that Members' queries and concerns will have been addressed. Of course, I do stand ready to answer questions today although I may need assistance from the Attorney on points of legal detail.

[10:00]

This Order in Council completes the job of consolidation of placing the legislation on the Jersey statute book in legible form without having to wade through large numbers of amending Orders in Council. It also completes the job of updating Jersey's legislative framework governing immigration status and controls and our immigration rules within the C.T.A. arrangements. I commend this proposition to Members.

The Bailiff :

Are the principles seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the principles?

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

I am speaking in my role as vice-chair of the Children, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel today. I wanted to thank the Minister and his officers for the briefings which the panel received. They were quite lengthy briefings, and quite rightly so, because this is a huge piece of work that has been undertaken. I think it is fair to say that we were taken through step by step the process that has been undertaken and the changes, looking at things how they were and how things will be. All of our questions were answered to our satisfaction, so the panel is satisfied with the rationale behind this legislation. We have produced extensive comments because we had so many questions, so I would advise Members, if they have not had a chance to look at those, just to open those now because within those comments there are headings about the specific areas that we had questions on. So before Members perhaps speak, if they have any specific things that they wanted to know about before they vote, yes, I would recommend that they have a look in the comments there. Just to highlight some of the questions that we had. So we questioned about the impact on children and families of this legislation and one of my own concerns was that, as we have seen in other jurisdictions internationally, families being separated, and I wanted to know whether that was something that would be introduced. We were taken through the "regard for children's welfare" that

is now contained within this and that is of course because of our commitment to the U.N.C.R.C. (United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child) so it is great that that is having an impact on a piece of legislation such as this. So it was confirmed that the aim would always be to keep a family as a unit but officers explained to us that they also had to be aware of trafficking situations and that a child that was arriving with adults may not be related to those adults. We were satisfied that that scenario had been thought through to such detail over what would happen in terms of ascertaining the identity of the children and the adults and whether they were family or not. The children and adults would not be incarcerated but there would be co-operation with the U.K. and Children's Services regarding the welfare of the children and establishing their identities, so we were satisfied with that. Some of the other questions we asked were around settled status and I think it was Deputy Ward that had lots of questions about that. It was confirmed that as long as an application for settled status had been made, regardless of whether it had been processed, individuals would not have any issues with immigration. Work permits; we also had questions about where a family relied upon a parent's work permit to live in Jersey if the family were to break down. It was noted that in such a situation the children and parent without the licence could be required to leave Jersey. But this is currently under the Control of Housing and Work Law and there are processes in place to make a welfare-based decision which is separate from the immigration legislation. So we were grateful for the clarification on that and we highlighted that co-ordination between those 2 systems was important; we were in agreement with that. We also raised concerns around the U.K. policy on "hostile environment" and that was discussed as being something that was not a part of this legislation. This was something that the previous Minister for Home Affairs had made a deliberate decision not to extend those parts of the U.K. legislation to us here in Jersey, so the panel were reassured to hear that. But we did then think ahead to if there was a future Minister, who wanted to create a hostile environment, could he or she do that by using this legislation? Again, it was explained to us that this would not be possible and could only be achieved by coming to the States Assembly, so we were reassured by that. We asked questions about visa requirements, also about Brexit, and specifically travel between Jersey and France, given the close relationship between our 2 nations. The changes that have happened as a result of Brexit, it was explained to us that those changes have already happened so this legislation is not going to make further changes there and that only a passport would be required for travel between Jersey and France, so that position remains unchanged. So, yes, I would advise Members to have a look at the comments because I believe that any issues that Members might have are likely to be addressed in those comments. I just want to thank once again the current Minister and his team and of course the previous Minister did a lot of work on this as well. We are so grateful to them for undertaking this huge piece of work and for briefing us thoroughly on it and answering all of our questions.

The Bailiff :

Before I move on, when Deputy Guida had finished, I asked if the principles were seconded. Of course that was a mistake on my part, it was the proposition seconded. There will be no Second and Third Reading, so if any Member wishes to speak, now is the opportunity for them to do so.

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

I was wondering if I could ask the Minister specifically about the provisions regarding refugees and asylum. From the perspective of refugees, if we cast our minds back a short while, Jersey had a fairly large Island-wide debate with regard to accepting refugees from Syria and I think at the end it was determined that Jersey would not accept refugees from Syria, fleeing the Syrian war. I was wondering how the adoption of these provisions would affect that aspect, Jersey's kind of optional choice as to whether or not to take in refugees or, perhaps it would be easier, what obligations does this place on Jersey to accept refugees. Would that debate that we had a few years ago be permitted or would it be something that we would have to do? I am just seeking to understand; I have no real position on that. Similarly with asylum, Jersey has got a history, as we know, of accepting political asylum seekers. We think of the Huguenots coming to Jersey from France and we think of people as famous as Victor Hugo coming to Jersey, fleeing political persecution. But it appears that this does not provide any further obligations from Jersey in that Jersey's position is still to return political asylum seekers which obviously stands in contrast to Jersey's history. I was just wondering if the Minister would be able to confirm what Jersey's obligations would be in regard to political asylum seekers as well.

3. Deputy D. Johnson of St. Mary :

I have a specific point regarding exclusion from the C.T.A., which was referred to on page 8 of the report. Could the Minister in his summing up kindly give some background as to how he envisages that particular paragraph might be invoked at any time?

4. Senator I.J. Gorst :

I just wanted to remind Members in relation to the question that Deputy Morel asked about the previous conversation about accepting refugees from Syria. I wish I could say "during the height of the civil war there" but of course it is ongoing and we know that civil wars like that on average run between 10 and 15 years. So, it was right that the Island have that wide-ranging conversation but the reason on balance that the Government did not propose accepting refugees at that point was because we were looking at the possibility of accepting a small number of families. In reviewing the domestic legislation in place, we would have created the possibility of not just a gateway for a small number of families, but equally for any of the Syrian refugees that had entered into the wider United Kingdom had we put in place special provision for accommodation and financial support and medical and hospital support, which of course is exactly what one would have to do if one were to accept refugees in that instance. So we were looking at 2 things: one simply offering hospitality to, as I say, a small number of families - around 5 - who had entered the United Kingdom through their specialised scheme which had been done as part of a global approach. We also looked at the possibility of offering hospitality directly to Syrian refugees individually from those rehoming camps on the ground. For all of the reasons, the latter was rejected - I am sure Members will understand why - and the former was also rejected because of the approach that would need to have been taken which could not in law have been limited to a simple, small number of households. I know that the current Government - Members will recall a member of the House of Lords who was himself a child refugee

- asked the Chief Minister to review the possibility of offering welcome to a small number of child refugees from conflicts around the globe. That of course was never progressed because it is fair to say that the response to allowing child refugees, I think, would have been within a different legal framework to the wider family and the benefits required because of the way the benefit system is. I hope the Minister is going to say that none of  those issues that we could rightly determine domestically are changed at all by the extension of this Order in Council.

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

Two things: firstly obviously to congratulate the new Minister, both on his election; also succinctly taking us through what is a really very complex piece of law but an important one. I think the question that I raised at the briefing meeting, the second one, I did not see it covered in the comments but I may have missed it. I would like the Minister, and indeed perhaps the Attorney General, to help me on the question of visa fees. Of course what we now have is a new world, as it were, where people that are not in the new E.U. settled scheme will need to have visas coming into the Common Travel Area. Of course we are used to people coming to work, places like Australia and others, probably the Far East, and having visas. But of course anecdotally over the years, people have spoken to me who are working in Jersey, ordinary jobs, and obviously having overseas citizenship, either being in Jersey because of relationships, family relationships, marriages or what have you, have to pay very, very high fees.

[10:15]

What I am troubled a bit about here is that when you look at the U.K. scale of fees, some of those frankly are swingeing up to several thousand pounds. I think the smallest fee I could see was about

£95 and then anything up to £3,500, and what have you. Of course there is a debate going on, I think, or will start to increase in the U.K., about if we are going to obviously have more people coming in from other countries whether or not to work, which we need, that is a cost that falls on probably the employers, I would guess, but nonetheless a lot of people will be faced with high fees personally. So the issue of principle I would like to know is by adopting this, are we automatically required to just apply the fee scales that the U.K. decides for us to apply to people in Jersey or has the Minister got the opportunity by whatever means, by order or anything of that nature, to be able to vary it? Or to even waive a fee where they think the circumstances are warranted, so I think I would like to know that. Because obviously the other part of the question, well, who receives the fee? Do the U.K. receive it? Do we receive it? Do we retain it or do we pay it over? It does appear to be that the costs in the U.K. are, I think, arguably, supposed to deal with the cost of processing the applications, the whole infrastructure and the like. So if the Minister could give me some guidance there, I would value that. But, again, this is really good news that this has all come together. Hopefully it is simplified but I think that issue of: what is the measure of our control where it sort of binds and affects our citizens and charging for things? It may well be that family members coming up here for short stays, long stays, extended families, elderly relatives, all this type of thing, is likely to bind on people in Jersey and that is what I would like to know.

The Bailiff :

I will not treat it as a question to the Attorney General but of course if Deputy Guida wishes to call for advice in order so that he can answer it, well then that would be a matter for him in his answer. Does any other Member wish to speak? If no other Member wishes to speak, then I close the debate, and call on Deputy Guida to respond.

6. Deputy G.C. Guida:

Firstly, I would like to thank Scrutiny again for their extremely comprehensive report. I went through it, I found a few questions that I had not asked myself, and it is absolutely true that they left no stone unturned, so I am really grateful to them for that. There were 3 main questions. One was about welcoming refugees to Jersey. This has not changed and, to be frank, this is a matter for the Assembly. If the Assembly decides that they would like to invite refugees from abroad into Jersey, it is something that is possible, it is left to their discretion. The new order does not change that, so that does not change at all. It was the same with political asylum. To explain a little bit, while there have been some claims made in Jersey .. first of all, we have very few illegal immigrants and when we do occasionally they claim political asylum but, as far as I know, in the last 3 years we have not had one claim that was justified. If they were, the law is extremely strict on how you must treat them and, of course, they would be welcome in Jersey, not only by tradition but by law. This is how we have to treat them. The third thing is about the visa fees and, indeed, there is a difference. There is a difference between immigration fees that are treated by the U.K. and the ones that we set for ourselves. So we can set our own but part of the process involves the U.K. and they set down, we must of course keep that one. I commend the proposition to the Assembly.

The Bailiff :

I ask the Greffier to place a voting link into the chat. 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 proposition has been adopted:

2. Draft Proceeds  of  Crime  (Amendment  of  Law)  (No.  2)  (Jersey)  Regulations  202- (P.45/2021)

The Bailiff :

The next item is the Draft Proceeds of Crime (Amendment of Law) (No. 2) (Jersey) Regulations lodged by the Minister for External Relations and Financial Services). For the purposes of this debate the main respondent will be the chair of the Economic and International Affairs Scrutiny Panel and I ask the Greffier to read the citation.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Draft Proceeds of Crime (Amendment of Law) (No. 2) (Jersey) Regulations 202-. The States make these Regulations under Article 1(9) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999.

1. Senator I.J. Gorst (The Minister for External Relations and Financial Services):

These amendments propose changes to the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law, which are designed to enhance the attractiveness of Jersey as a jurisdiction in which to carry out investment and management of financial services which link to cannabis-related activities in jurisdictions where the cultivation of cannabis is legal and which have appropriate global financial regulatory standards. Members of course will be aware of the policy position of the Government in relation to cultivation and licensing of domestic cannabis production and Members will also be aware that the Deputy Chief Minister is supporting and leading on that work. The work of course on domestic cultivation and licensing of cannabis is currently under review by the Economic and International Affairs Scrutiny Panel and they will be, in due course, issuing a formal report. This work is not directly linked to that cannabis work generally and therefore not linked to the Scrutiny review and my officials have engaged directly with the panel on this topic. I welcome that Members now have in front of them a comment on these regulations which are supportive. I am extremely grateful for the time that the panel have taken to undertake this review on these regulations directly aside from their wider review. I appreciate that greatly. Aside from the local growing potential, there is the separate but linked topic of the global market for cannabis investment. This proposition is not about cannabis cultivation locally but it is about creating an environment which is open in a responsible way to supporting an evolving global cannabis industry, which has significant potential value. Considering the potential size of the global cannabis industry and its potential value to the Jersey financial services industry, these amendments are designed to create an environment attractive to global investment in the area of legal cannabis production with appropriate risk mitigations in place. Around the globe, jurisdictions have made statutory changes with respect to cannabis which legalise either the production, supply or use of medicinal cannabis and even in some cases of course for recreational use. Jersey has acted for many years through its financial services industry as a location which pools assets for investment where we can use our experience to achieve global reach in delivering effective investment in a range of activities. The draft regulations are focused on the position outside of Jersey because it is not necessary to clarify the status of the proceeds for the production and supply of cannabis or cannabis derivatives within Jersey. In Jersey of course those activities are undertaken lawfully pursuant to licences under the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 and other legislation relating to the supply of medicines. Due to the global nature of the financial services industry, local financial services businesses can now be exposed to proceeds generated outside of Jersey which have a nexus to lawful cannabis production in places like Canada and the United States. This nexus can either be directly by processing proceeds from the production, supply or sale of cannabis or indirectly by processing monies related to investments in cannabis companies or investment funds investing in such companies. The cannabis industry has evolved to be global in nature, meaning that a single company may use products grown in multiple locations worldwide and therefore can be in receipt of proceeds which originate from more than one location. Under the current provisions of the 1999 law, any proceeds generated from the production, supply, use, export or import of cannabis or any of its derivatives outside of Jersey, have the potential to be considered criminal property in Jersey. It may not always be clear when an asset is required that this is a risk. Where a local financial services business considers that an investment may contain proceeds of cannabis production, this may lead it to file a suspicious activity report with the States of Jersey Police regarding these proceeds and to ask for permission to divest. Failure to submit such a S.A.R. (Suspicious Activity Report) can constitute a criminal offence. As the legal position is currently unclear, it may not be possible for the Joint Financial Crime Unit of the States of Jersey Police to give the respective financial services business any directions. Therefore, a situation has arisen where the F.S.B. (financial services business) might find itself unable to process the proceeds anymore or even to divest which might cause the proceeds to get stuck in Jersey, creating operational and legal issues for local F.S.B.s. I am using the term "F.S.B.", I hope Members find that acceptable, it is financial services business, and not any other F.S.B. that we might find those initials used for elsewhere around the world. This is undesirable both for the F.S.B. and more generally for the operation of the S.A.R. system in Jersey. These draft regulations are proposed in order to clarify which investment should not be treated as proceeds of crime by local F.S.B.s. It is intended to remedy this situation reflecting international

developments with regard to the legislative treatment of cannabis and cannabis derivatives. The draft regulations amend the definition of "criminal conduct" in the 1999 law to provide that the production, supply, use, export or import of cannabis or any of its derivatives is no longer considered criminal conduct provided that (1) it is lawful where and when it occurs and (2) it occurs in a jurisdiction outside of Jersey that the Minister holding my post may specify by order. Should, therefore, the States Assembly adopt these regulations today, I will make an order under these legislation which will be a list of jurisdictions which will be allowable. The list of countries in that order will be based on the outcomes of mutual evaluation reports carried out by the Financial Action Task Force and their F.A.T.F. (Financial Action Task Force) regional bodies such as MONEYVAL against the F.A.T.F. standards which are the international standards concerning money laundering, terrorist financing and financing of proliferation. The policy intention of the order will be to ensure Jersey only deals in proceeds where the origin of these proceeds is in a country which applies suitably equivalent money-laundering controls to Jersey.

[10:30]

These are the aforementioned safeguards which are necessary to protect our reputation. Financial services businesses will need to check when dealing with proceeds of cannabis production in Jersey that the jurisdiction in which a cultivation took place is on that list. The draft regulations require that in order for it to be clear the proceeds are not proceeds of criminal conduct, they must be generated from conduct which was lawful where and when it occurred. So, for example, proceeds of lawful licensed cannabis production taking place in Canada would fall within the provision even if the production took place before the draft regulations came into force. However, proceeds which are generated from conduct which was not lawful where and when it occurred do not benefit from the exemption of criminal conduct and remain proceeds of crime under the law. In view of this requirement, financial services businesses will need to check when dealing with proceeds of cannabis production in Jersey that the conduct was lawful where and when it occurred. Removing these legal hurdles and clarifying the statutory position will enable legitimate financial services business within the necessary safeguards. This will be for the benefit of local businesses and the overall economy. I commend the principles to the Assembly.

The Bailiff :

Are the principles seconded? [Seconded]

1. The Deputy of St. Mary :

As the Minister has just said, the Economic and International Affairs Scrutiny Panel has issued a comments paper on this proposition and I hope that Members have now had the opportunity to consider it. The one point I do wish to emphasise is that there is no direct link, as the Minister has already said, between this proposition and the nascent industry taking place at the moment on the Island. The panel has started its review into internal regulations and supporting measures. We have already had 3 public hearings as to this and we hope in the next 2 weeks or so to be able to issue our final report. But again I do wish to emphasise that that review relates to the internal workings of the industry and internal cultivation and, as such, is distinct from this particular proposition, which is concerned entirely with cultivation in other jurisdictions and those jurisdictions which the Minister will approve. I therefore refer you to the conclusion of the panel in its report that we do support the proposition as now lodged.

The Bailiff :

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

2. Senator I.J. Gorst :

I thank the Deputy of St. Mary in his role as chair of the Scrutiny Panel for his comments and for the wider comments of his panel, which are presented for Members' consideration. He is right to further clarify the difference between a local cannabis industry, which of course we know some Islanders are concerned about planning applications and environmental impact and all of those particular issues. That is separate from this. There is of course a school of thought that cannabis in its wider form, while of course having medicinal benefits - is what we are informed globally by the medical profession - can also for Jersey have economic benefits. I make no commentary about the economic benefits of locally or domestic cannabis production. I leave that to the Deputy Chief Minister. But I am, in my own mind, convinced that allowing and making these changes in the way that the regulations describe can mean that Jersey is supportive of these global projects and investments and we can, as a community, benefit from them and our economy can. When our economy grows, jobs grow, our standard of living is improved and we are able of course to support strong public services. I do believe that these changes today are going to have real and direct benefits for Islanders and for the wider economy. I commend them to the Assembly and I call for the appel.

The Bailiff :

The appel is called for. I ask the Greffier to place a vote into the link. I open the voting and ask Members to vote. Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes. Then I ask the Greffier to close the voting. The principles have been adopted:

The Deputy Greffier of the States: Deputy Lewis voted contre.

The Bailiff :

I am assuming, Deputy of St. Mary , in the light of what you said, your panel does not wish to call this in?

The Deputy of St. Mary (Chair, Economic and International Affairs Scrutiny Panel):

No, we do not.

The Bailiff :

We come to Second Reading, Minister. How do you move the regulations in Second Reading?

2. Senator I.J. Gorst :

I will move on en bloc. They are straightforward. The only point I would highlight to Members is that the regulations come into force 7 days after they are made.

The Bailiff :

Are the regulations seconded in Second Reading? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak in Second Reading? If no Member wishes to speak in Second Reading then I close the debate and ask the Greffier to place a vote into the link. I open the voting and ask Members to vote. Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes. Then I ask the Greffier to close the voting. The regulations have passed in Second Reading:

The Bailiff :

Do you propose the regulations in Third Reading?

3. Senator I.J. Gorst :

I do indeed and I thank Members for their support so far and thank again the Scrutiny Panel and my officials for the work. I commend the regulations to the Assembly in Third Reading.

The Bailiff :

Are the regulations seconded for Third Reading? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak in Third Reading? If no Member wishes to speak in Third Reading then I close the debate and ask the Greffier to place a link into the chat. 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 regulations have been adopted in Third Reading:

3. Draft Income Support (Amendment No. 21) (Jersey) Regulations 202- (P.46/2021) The Bailiff :

The next item is the Draft Income Support (Amendment No. 21) (Jersey) Regulations, P.46, lodged by the Minister for Social Security. For the purposes of this debate the main respondent will be the chair of the Health and Social Security Scrutiny Panel. I ask the Greffier to read the citation.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Draft Income Support (Amendment No. 21) (Jersey) Regulations 202-. The States make these Regulations under Articles 5 and 18 of the Income Support (Jersey) Law 2007.

1. Deputy J.A. Martin (The Minister for Social Security):

It is the responsibility of the Minister for Social Security to review income support, for example the level of the weekly component rates and also income disregards each year. The Minister - that is me

- has decided to propose increases to the income support components for 2021 and 2022 because of the election timetable next year. The next Minister will not be able to review income support or propose any changes in time for 1st October 2022. This year's uprates are a continuation of the first child component going up by £5. This brings the first child up to an extra £15 a week. The second increase is in the childcare rate and this is available to parents who work. I propose putting it up from £5.57 an hour to £6.70 an hour. This is in line with the proposed changes to the rate for the Nursery Education Fund that will happen later this year. Increasing most of the remaining income support components by 1.1 per cent to provide support to all households receiving income support, broadly in line with the annual increase in the cost of living. For 1st October 2022, I have just kept it a flat rate that all the components that will go up, will go up by 2.6 per cent. That is because we have some advice from the Fiscal Panel that is about what the cost of living will be next year. If these changes are approved, families will benefit most of all, but every low-income household will also benefit.

[10:45]

I would also like to thank my 2 Assistant Ministers, who have left now, Deputy Wickenden and Deputy Maçon, who started out on this journey of how we were going to cut the cake, but there are different ways to do it. It could have all been disparate, it could have been this, but we thought a bit of a change this year but completely do it a flat rate next year. I would just like to propose the regulations to the Assembly.

The Bailiff :

You propose the principles, Minister. Are the principles seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the principles?

1. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet :

I want to thank the Minister for this proposition because I think sometimes we talk a lot about putting children first and do not always put the investment behind it. So I am grateful to her for increasing these components. I had a question for the Minister and it is around the single parent component. The regulation, which increases most of the income support components apart from the single parent components, and I just wanted to know what the rationale was behind that. Especially given some of the statistics that have come out in recent years around single-parent families and having high levels of poverty, it is around 44 per cent of single-parent families are living in poverty. So they would seem to me to be the demographic that would need more support rather than not having an uplift along with the other criteria. So if the Minister could address that in her summing-up please?

2. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade :

My question to the Minister is whether she will be considering including long-term care provision in this. Clearly it is not included in this proposition. Will she be considering it in the future given that long-term care costs are continuing to rise?

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

I just want to make clear that the States business is now complete so I am back in the Assembly. I want to emphasise a point that Deputy Doublet had made regard to single-parent components and the reason for not having that increase as well. Just to re-emphasise the difficulty that is faced for single parents on income support. I would just like further clarification on why that is the case. Also, the £5 figure, where that came from, is it related to R.P.I. (Retail Price Index), is it related to the cost of particular items, particular areas of cost that have been recognised. Because, if there is a gap there, then obviously that £5 should be addressing it. I just want to know how that gap was measured. So it is a few more questions for the Minister.

The Bailiff :

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

4. Deputy J.A. Martin:

The single parent allowance has been taken out and put back in. There may be a better way to do it and you are right, it is not going up this year. I think it only came back in for the last year, maybe the year before. It has been frozen as what it is. As I say, because we think we could do something better for single parents. That is for a lot more discussion and it will probably be a new Minister that does that. Then the long-term care, from memory, did go up. The long-term care goes up, I think that is a regulation that is automatic. I could be wrong on that. But I know I brought something to the Assembly probably the end of last year or early this year about the rate for long-term care. That is really all I have to say.

The Bailiff :

In which case I ask the Greffier to place a voting link into the chat. I open the voting and ask Members to vote. 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 the Scrutiny Panel wish to scrutinise the matter, Deputy Pamplin?

Deputy K.G. Pamplin of St. Saviour (Vice-Chair, Health and Social Security Scrutiny Panel):

No, we received the regulations, which we were grateful for. We had a Scrutiny hearing with the department and the Minister only recently. So we are not looking to bring it in at this stage, thank you.

The Bailiff :

Thank you very much indeed. Minister, do you wish to propose in Second Reading?

2. Deputy J.A. Martin:

Yes, I would like to propose the 2 regulations in Second Reading, thank you.

The Bailiff :

Are the regulations seconded for Second Reading? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak in Second Reading? If no Member wishes to speak in Second Reading, then I close the debate and ask the Greffier to post a link into the chat. I ask the Greffier to open the voting and ask Members to vote. Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes. Then I ask the Greffier to close the voting. The regulations have been adopted in Second Reading:

The Bailiff :

Do you propose in the regulations in Third Reading, Minister?

3. Deputy J.A. Martin:

Yes, I propose the regulations in the Third Reading and thank so far for the Members' support. The Bailiff :

Are the regulations seconded for Third Reading? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak in Third Reading? If no Member wishes to speak in Third Reading, then I close the debate and ask the Greffier to place a vote in the chat. I open the voting and ask Members to vote. I ask the Greffier to open the voting and ask Members to vote. 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:

4. Draft Proceeds of Crime (Amendment No. 4) (Jersey) Law 202- (P.48/2021) The Bailiff :

The next item is the Draft Proceeds of Crime (Amendment No. 4) (Jersey) Law, P.48, lodged by the Minister for External Relations and Financial Services. For the purposes of this debate the main respondent will be the chair of the Economic and International Affairs Scrutiny Panel. I ask the Greffier to read the citation.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Draft Proceeds of Crime (Amendment No. 4) (Jersey) Law 202-. A law to amend further the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999. The States, subject to the sanction of Her Most Excellent Majesty in Council, have adopted the following law.

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

I would like to ask my Assistant Minister, the Constable of St. Ouen , to act as rapporteur for this item and the following 2, which are P.49 and P.50. Thank you.

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

This amendment will allow the Minister for External Relations and Financial Services to prescribe measures for preventing and detecting money laundering to be taken by persons, acting as trustees, who do not carry on financial services businesses. As Members will be well aware, our Island has a

long-term policy of compliance with international standards of anti-money laundering and the countering of the financing of terrorism as set out by the F.A.T.F., the international standard setter on financial crime policy. This Government remains absolutely committed to that policy and the furtherance of the worldwide fight against financial crime. As Article 37 of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 currently reads, it only applies to persons acting as trustees who fall within the financial services business definition. The F.A.T.F. recommendations require criterion 25.4 to apply to all express trusts which extends beyond the current provision in Article 37. An express trust is a trust clearly created by the settlor, usually in the form of a document normally known as a trust deed. The trustee therefore is clearly aware that they have been appointed as trustee as it is set out in the document. This means they are then under the obligations of this new legislation and able to identify themselves as acting as a trustee to a bank or other relevant party, such as a trust company, lawyer, accountant, or other regulated body. Trusts come into being by simple actions and are covered by the customary law of Jersey. For example, implied or constructive trusts are not covered by this amendment. This means the risk of an individual trustee having a legal obligation placed on them without their knowledge is limited. The F.A.T.F. standard is very clear that these obligations should only apply to trustees of express trusts so that they are aware of the obligations placed on them. If the States adopts this legislation today, the Government and the J.F.S.C. (Jersey Financial Services Commission) will also highlight the new obligations to the industry and more widely to the public. This amendment would allow the Minister to make an order, which would require express trusts to provide competent authorities with any information relating to the trusts and providing financial institutions,  designated  non-financial  businesses  and  professions,  which  includes  lawyers, accountants and estate agents, any information upon them requesting it, with information will be about beneficial ownership, the assets the trust held, or indeed managed under the terms of the business relationship. I hope Members will agree that this is a proper and sensible amendment and provides additional rigour to our powers to detect and prevent money laundering in line with the F.A.T.F. requirement. I commend it to the Assembly.

The Bailiff :

Are the principles seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the principles? If no Member wishes to speak on the principles, then I close the debate and ask the Greffier to place a vote into the link. I open the voting and ask Members to vote.

[11:00]

Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes. Then I ask the Greffier to close the voting. The principles have been adopted: