States Meeting Transcript - 3rd March 2021

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT WEDNESDAY, 3rd MARCH 2021

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

1. Migration Control Policy (P.137/2020): second amendment (P.137/2020 Amd.(2)): amendment (P.137/2020 Amd.(2)Amd.) - resumption .................................... 4

1. Senator K.L. Moore : ....................................................................... 4

1. Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré: ................................................................. 4
2. Deputy I. Gardiner of St. Helier : .......................................................... 6
3. Senator S.Y. Mézec : ....................................................................... 7
4. Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat of St. Helier : .................................................... 7
5. Connétable K. Shenton-Stone of St. Martin : .............................................. 7
6. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier :.......................................................... 8
7. Senator L.J. Farnham : ...................................................................... 8
8. Senator S.W. Pallett: ....................................................................... 9
9. Connétable C.H. Taylor of St. John : ....................................................... 9
10. Deputy K.G. Pamplin of St. Saviour : .................................................. 10
11. Deputy R.E. Huelin of St. Peter : ...................................................... 10

2. Migration Control Policy (P.137/2020): second amendment (P.137/2020. Amd.(2)) - as amended .................................................................................... 13

1. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour : ...................................................... 14
2. Senator K.L. Moore : ...................................................................... 14
3. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of St. Saviour : .................................................. 14

3. Migration Control Policy (P.137/2020) - as amended ................................... 19

1. Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier : .......................................................... 19
2. Senator S.W. Pallett: ...................................................................... 21
3. Senator L.J. Farnham : .................................................................... 25
4. Senator K.L. Moore : ...................................................................... 26
5. Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin : .......................................................... 27 Deputy K.F. Morel of St. Lawrence : ............................................................ 28 Mr. M. Jowitt, H.M. Solicitor General: ......................................................... 29
6. The Connétable of St. John : .............................................................. 29
7. Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré: ................................................................ 30
8. Deputy J.M. Maçon: ...................................................................... 31
9. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier : ...................................................... 31
10. Senator S.Y. Mézec : ................................................................... 32
11. Deputy S.M. Ahier of St. Helier : ...................................................... 34
12. Deputy K.F. Morel : .................................................................... 35
13. Deputy G.C. Guida of St. Lawrence : .................................................. 37
14. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier : ................................................... 37
15. The Deputy of St. Peter : ............................................................... 38

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED ................................................... 46 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT .................................................................. 46

2. Jersey Overseas Aid Commission: Reappointment of Commissioner (P.4/2021) ..... 46

2.1 Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville (The Minister for International Development): ........ 46

3. Improvements to Road Safety (P.5/2021) - as amended (P.5/2021 Amd.) .............. 48

1. The Connétable of St. Martin : ............................................................ 48

2. Improvements to Road Safety (P.5/2021): second amendment (P.5/2021 Amd.(2))... 50

1. Senator S.C. Ferguson: ................................................................... 50
2. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour : ....................................................... 50
3. Deputy M.R. Higgins: .................................................................... 51
4. Deputy D. Johnson of St. Mary : .......................................................... 51
5. Deputy I. Gardiner : ....................................................................... 51
6. The Connétable of St. John : .............................................................. 51
7. Senator S.C. Ferguson: ................................................................... 52

3. Improvements to Road Safety (P.5/2021) - as amended (P.5/2021 Amd.) - resumption .............................................................................................. 53

1. Deputy R.J. Ward : ........................................................................ 53 The Deputy of St. Mary : ........................................................................ 53 The Solicitor General: .......................................................................... 54
2. Deputy M.R. Higgins: .................................................................... 55
3. The Connétable of St. Ouen :.............................................................. 55
4. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade : ........................................................ 56
5. Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade : ....................................................... 57
6. The Deputy of Grouville : ................................................................. 58
7. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence : .......................................... 59
8. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade : ................................................ 60
9. Deputy L.B.E. Ash:....................................................................... 60
10. Deputy K.C. Lewis : .................................................................... 61
11. Deputy K.F. Morel : .................................................................... 62
12. The Connétable of St. Martin : ......................................................... 63

4. Comptroller and Auditor General Board of Governance: Appointment of Chair and Members (P.7/2021) ........................................................................ 65

4.1 Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré (The Chief Minister): ......................................... 66

1. Deputy I. Gardiner : ....................................................................... 66
2. Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré: ................................................................ 66

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS .................... 68

5. Deputy C.S. Alves of St. Helier (Chair, Privileges and Procedures Committee): ........ 68

1. Deputy S.J. Pinel of St. Clement : ........................................................ 68
2. Deputy J.M. Maçon: ...................................................................... 70
3. The Deputy of St. Peter : .................................................................. 70

1. Deputy J.H. Young: ...................................................................... 70
2. Deputy K.F. Morel : ....................................................................... 71
3. The Deputy of St. Peter : .................................................................. 71
   4. Deputy K.F. Morel : ....................................................................... 72
   5. Deputy C.S. Alves : ....................................................................... 73

ADJOURNMENT .................................................................................. 73

[9:30]

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

PUBLIC BUSINESS

1. Migration Control Policy (P.137/2020): second amendment (P.137/2020 Amd.(2)): amendment (P.137/2020 Amd.(2)Amd.) - resumption

The Bailiff :

We now continue with Public Business and the debate on the Migration Control Policy. Currently under consideration by the Assembly is the Chief Minister's amendment to Deputy Doublet 's amendment. The next listed to speak is Senator Moore .

1. Senator K.L. Moore :

I simply wanted to assist Members by sharing with them a reflection on some of the Scrutiny work that has been conducted in relation to the work of the policy development board that formulated the majority of the policy before us in the migration control measures. I looked back at the report that was led by Deputy Perchard back in November 2019 and felt that some of the key findings there were quite relevant to this question of whether we should support the amendment brought by the Chief Minister or the amendment brought by Deputy Doublet today. Key finding 5 of that report said: "The diversity of the Migration Policy Development Board was not satisfactorily considered during the board's establishment." Key finding 6 read: "When the chair of the Migration Policy Development Board was asked about concerns regarding the board's lack of diversity his answer was unsatisfactory and did not appear to present a sufficient understanding of the problem." I share those points with the Assembly this morning just simply to identify how the group who have brought forward these policies simply have a lesser understanding than Deputy Perchard on this matter. It is indeed a very important matter because if I could quote from Matthew Syed, whose excellent book Rebel Ideas highlights exactly - and perhaps I ought to gift this to some Members of the Council of Ministers - he identifies really well the absolute necessity for diversity in our modern world by expressing this: "Harmonious thinking can be dangerous by clones who are individually intelligent but collectively stupid. Harness the power of diversity and the rebel idea. Bring people together who think differently to advance the collective brain and solve the world's wicked problems." Population, as we all know, is one of the Island's wicked problems and it is therefore of absolute importance that a diverse group is formed in order to push these forward. Therefore, for the reasons outlined, I will not be supporting this amendment but I will be supporting Deputy Perchard's amendment.

1. Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

I am glad I am following the last speaker and I acknowledge a number of the points she has made obviously, and this is very much going to be a decision for the Assembly. I think it is worth just pointing out that certainly finding 5 was around the diversity of the Migration Policy Development Board, i.e. the group I put together to do the work on the development of policy. It was not about the, as far as I am aware, actual amendment that we are talking about now. To bring us back to the point of the amendments and the debates we are having, obviously just to remind Members we are accepting, as we have said in our report to this amendment, essentially a change to part (b) and the new (c)(viii). So just to be clear, the only issue we have is around what is the wording of what we are calling paragraph (c)(vii). I think it is worth just making the point that one of the reasons for going for countries less than 500,000 versus islands less than 500,000 is that islands would not include the Isle of Wight and Staten Island. Obviously they do not, for example, have border control issues. Equally, as has been pointed out already yesterday, is that we are relatively in a unique position as an Island .. when I say "relatively in a unique" because the problem of population we have is a significantly increasing population whereas many islands are decreasing. We also have, and I mean this absolutely genuinely, world-class industries that need servicing and that is all relevant

when we are looking at the makeup and experience of the people who are going to be essentially providing advice in this area if this part of the overall proposition, as amended or as not amended, is finally approved by the Assembly. But what I wanted to do is just go back to the fundamental point of this particular part of the debate, which is the problems associated with having a very specific rigid criteria, for example as a gender balance panel, as opposed to the criteria of placing this under the guidance of the Jersey Appointments Commission, which is obviously consistent with all similar other such appointments that we, as an Assembly, essentially have put in place in the past. In fact, from memory, it goes back to .. I think it was Deputy Roy Le Hérissier who was probably one of the people behind certainly some of the things as to why so many individual issues were coming back to the Assembly and why would an individual put their name forward to then potentially .. obviously lots of personal details being put into the public domain by parliamentarians. But I think it is worthwhile essentially going over the slight history of how this amendment has evolved. Originally, in the original proposition that we lodged, it was to provide for an independent statutory expert panel to research and advise on population matters. That was it. Obviously the composition would have been done through the standard guidelines that we have, obviously absolutely aiming for the type of balance that we are all talking about and wanting to achieve. To an extent we are all in vehement agreement about the principles, the ramifications of the detail. What then came through was that the first amendment by Deputy Perchard read as follows: "To provide for an independent statutory expert panel [fine] that is representative of the population [i.e. we assume the Island's population] in terms of age, gender and ethnicity and includes locally resident expert advisers to research and advise on population matters." That was very rigid and did cause an issue because I think there were a combination of issues around whether that should be achievable in terms of what is a local expert adviser on population, you are narrowing your field, but also bear in mind that we were talking about potentially a panel of 3 or 4, how you get that representative in the way that we were talking about and what that means in terms of rigidity. For example, and this is a reasonable scenario, if one was to have a panel of 4 and there turned out to be 3 women and one man that ended up in the shortlisting process, even if the - for want of a better expression - third woman was eminently better than another man in that shortlisting you would not be able to select her if it had to be a gender-balanced panel. That is what we are saying. I will come back to the process of the Appointments Commission in a minute. Therefore the amendment that we are debating now is about having an expert panel appointed, subject to the oversight of the Jersey Appointments Commission, and obviously then at least one member of which has proven expertise in small country populations defined as less than 500,000.

[9:45]

That is just to give a broader base that we can select from. Obviously countries will include Ireland, so one can Google that if one wants to. But it does then just allow that sort of wider experience to be brought into what is meant to be an independent source of brainpower to give some advice - and I absolutely emphasise the "advice" - into what is really a multi-faceted and complex issue. Then just to come back to the final point in terms of again dealing with the Jersey Appointments Commission and, again, bearing in mind this is obviously in principle. In other words, any rules and regulations that come back around the makeup of the panel, if they are not satisfactory, obviously Members and, no doubt, Scrutiny, will have some quite detailed and specific recommendations at that point in time and obviously amendments can come through. So, that is why to an extent I think keeping it flexible at this stage might be to all of our advantages but again a matter for the Assembly. Anyway, as laid out in the report to our proposition, the Jersey Appointments Commission has a number of standards against which all appointments should be made. I think the key ones in their process are as written down but I will read them out because it is worth just listening to them: "2. The principles of equal opportunity and diversity must be inherent within the process. 3. Each role will be advertised in such a way to encourage applicants from all sectors and groups, especially those who are under-represented at senior levels in the public service. 4. Every prospective applicant must

be given equal and reasonable access to adequate information about the job and its requirements and about the selection process. 5. Selection techniques must be reliable, consistent and guard against bias and be in line with discrimination legislation. 6. Selection must be based on robust, objective criteria applied consistently to all candidates." For example, those guidelines are used to appoint the Comptroller and Auditor General and other very eminent posts and to date I do not believe anyone has raised any issues in that process. Therefore, I am slightly concerned when people might start trialling that process for these kind of specific areas. It either works or it does not work. If it does not work, very happy to again impart further information and have that discussion. But they are also very clear that once one has selected the pool based on those guidelines, which is about avoiding discrimination in any shape or form, it then should be on a merit basis because how would one feel .. and I use the example if one had a woman and a man, and the woman is the better post but having a gender-balanced panel, for example, would require, because of the way the numbers of the selection process has gone, the man to be selected. It works both ways but that is the fundamental issue I am attempting to grapple with here. So, for all of those reasons, as I said, this is not or should not be held out as a battle between people set in a mindset of the Dark Ages around diversity and people who are shining the light on the area and never agreement between the 2. We are all trying to achieve the same thing but it is around making sure that the process can work. As I said if, from a principles- based point of view, which is really what this proposition is about, there is a lot of regulation which we will have to come back to later in the year. If there are specifics that need to be made at that point, very happy to obviously have those discussions and see what we can tweak. I am also very happy if Members would wish to arrange a briefing and a meeting with the Appointments Commission to understand how that process works because I have obviously now been through it a couple of times and it is quite a thorough process that we see. I am going to stop there. I make the point there are ramifications for not adopting this amendment. I know there are Members who have concerns around the principle of having an independent panel, that is undoubtedly going to come up in the main debate, but in terms of trying to avoid unintended consequences, that is what we are trying to do by bringing this amendment. It is very much a matter for the Assembly whether they support it or not. I would ask Members if you would seriously consider that because of the very reasons I have outlined and which obviously Deputy Huelin will also sum up on.

2. Deputy I. Gardiner of St. Helier :

I am pleased to follow the previous speaker the Chief Minister as I agree it is not about a battle between Dark Ages and today. At the same time, I was listening to the debate with great interest yesterday and today and I am finding myself wondering are we in 2021 or are we in 1921; I am not sure. I am from an era before there were multiple genders. I am old enough to remember time before the internet, even as old as I am, moves to block gender-equal boards and panels is from a time in the past which I cannot personally connect with. Why? Are you really proposing that a male-dominated board will make fairer decisions, that can an equal number of men and women making decisions weaken the decision-making process? I believe it would be the same reason as a male-dominating board weaken the decision-making process. For me, equality, it should work, like the Chief Minister said, both ways, not prioritise one of the groups. Women are taking part of the workforce, women are competing in normal walks of life but it seems they are not wanted on board-making decisions that involve employment of men and women on such an important policy as immigration policy. This Assembly needs to look at the population of Jersey, all aspects of our government need to represent the people of Jersey as they are, all races, genders, ethnicities. To suggest that a board that are equally men and women is somehow less capable is an insult to half of the population in Jersey, including me. For me, and this is starting to drive me crazy, the best person for the job argument, I agree with this, but anyone who assumes the best people for the job would not be an equal split between men and women, well, are they saying that men are cleverer than women? We need to put processes in place which will result in the desired outcome, which is gender equality. Yes, we do have processes in the commission but somehow it does not work. Look at the top jobs in our civil

servants, somehow it did not work. I am not saying that there is something wrong, we have great people who are leading the Island to the hopefully good places, but the gender equality is missing. If you would expect an outcome on merit, you would expect to have more women than men on a senior position. If we look at the data of achievement, girls outperform boys in every level of education. It has been pointed out at the gender pay gap review. There is definitely something still wrong. What Deputy Perchard's amendment does is to put processes in to get the best panel we can get and therefore the best outcome for Jersey. The amendment from the Chief Minister completely negates the process that Deputy Perchard is trying to put in place. If we agree that men and women are equally capable when we are looking over the entire globe for a handful of people to form a panel, of course you will get equal numbers of men and women easily, not just to tell we want gender equality but we keep doing the same for a long time. Change is needed now. It has been a such important process, we need the best people for the job, I absolutely agree. We need people on their merit and it should be the gender-balanced panel to obtain the better outcome for the Island, we just need to work harder.

3. Senator S.Y. Mézec :

I will speak only very briefly on this. I have listened to both sides of the argument on here, one side suggesting what is essentially a quota and one side suggesting that we will just go by best of intentions and see how we go. It reminded me of the moment where I became convinced by an argument a few years ago in support of quotas rather than anything else. It was at a C.P.A. (Commonwealth Parliamentary Association) conference in conversation with a Welsh Labour M.P. (Member of Parliament) who explained to me in just 2 words why quotas are better. Those 2 words were "they work". It is as simple as that. If you go for Deputy Perchard's amendment, we will get what we are after in terms of that balance. If we go for the Council of Ministers' version, we will not, and it is as simple as that. It will be best of intentions, they may well be completely sincere, but unless there is a requirement for it to be representative, it is not going to be. If we are going to go down this path of having this sort of board, which I have got some scepticism about, but if we are going to go about it and want it to be representative, we have to go for Deputy Perchard's amendment very simply because it will work.

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

I, too, like Deputy Gardiner , have listened for nearly 3 years now about jobs on merit and, quite frankly, I am quite tired too about it. There is no doubt that at any process people will put forward those that are similar to themselves. I would also like the proposer of this amendment to outline for me, because I do not have it to hand, exactly the makeup of the independent Jersey Appointments Commission. That is because if we are going to have a position where they will oversee it, one assumes that they will ensure that their makeup is also diverse because obviously that would maybe be unfair if it was not. Of course, these things all come to interview and so it will be dependent on who maybe fares better in the interview on the day. It is well-known in the private sector that diverse boards are recognised for their value and I have to say I echo what Senator Mézec said in relation to the fact of nobody wants to work on the basis of quotas. However, I do have to agree with him that if we are going to get a proper balanced board we may have to do that. But it is interesting because if we are going to ask for applicants to be on this board, one assumes that when we look at those applicants we will see people that have got the criteria for the role that we are looking. So, therefore, one would assume that there will be a good balance of individuals and if there is not then maybe we need to look more broadly at where we are asking those applicants to come from. It is essential for us as an Island to make sure looking forward that we have diversity on our boards because if we do not we are never going to get out of the Dark Ages and we need to because it is important for all of our population within Jersey to feel that they are valued and that they are accepted. I think if we do not move forward on this, they never will.

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

I just wanted to echo some of the comments made by Deputy Le Hegarat and Deputy Gardiner . I would like to say that mindsets just have to change. As Deputy Gardiner says, we are in 2021, we are not in 1900. Women are not a minority group, and I will say that to the end of my days; we are not a minority group. The number of men and women in the world is roughly equal. Women make up half of the world's population so it makes no sense whatsoever to vote for this amendment. I will be voting for Deputy Perchard's amendment. It is not perfect but it is a way forward. So I will not be voting for this amendment, I will be voting for Deputy Perchard's amendment, we have to make some progress. We really do need to progress in this Assembly.

6. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier :

Yes, I was checking who sits on the Appointment Board last night. [10:00]

It is chaired by a woman, there are 5 other commissioners, and 3 of them are women, and really does that affect who they appoint? The overriding, as the Chief Minister said a few moments ago, is on the merits of the candidate. I was then pressured to speak, I thought everything had been said, until I heard Senator Mézec say that quotas work. Well, I would stand up against any man, any job that I went for and I want to be, and I will be, appointed on the merit that I am the better person for the job. I do not like the idea of quotas, I do not like the idea that you should have just because you are a woman, split it down the middle and they will be the right person for the job. Again, also I was prompted to speak by Deputy Gardiner who sees something in this amendment that is absolutely not there. She is talking about a male-dominated panel. No, this could be all women. Deputy Gardiner said: "Look around the world, we can find lots of women." Well, please - because I was on the board - let me know where these people are. If they are all women, so be it, but the actual amendment, Deputy Perchard's amendment, precludes that because we could not have all women even if they were best for the job. I was not going to speak but I have reheard again what Deputy Morel said yesterday and maybe the Chief Minister was a lot more polite than me. But I absolutely want to distance myself when he says he thinks he speaks for many Members in this Assembly, and I think I am quoting him correctly, that: "We do not believe the Jersey Appointments Commission should be overseeing top jobs because look at the terrible things they have done in the last 3 years." Well I would like to remind many Assembly Members that every board and panel we have, discrimination, employment, et cetera, has come to the Assembly and it has all been overseen by the Appointments Commission, all local people who are doing the jobs and they are doing them well. Yes, Deputy Perchard was right, when I brought, I think it was the Employment Forum positions to the Assembly, we were up at the Fort. I think we were having a funny day because we were up at the Fort for the first time and there was a pandemic going. I got questioned, and it was not on gender. Deputy Ward and Deputy Tadier questioned the, let us say, knowledge of the people I was presenting because if they had to decide on an employment issue: had they ever been unemployed? Had they ever done this? It was called back, I explained to everyone exactly how the process worked, it was overseen by the Appointments Commission, I do not get involved. It came back 2 weeks later and everyone was put in post and they are all there doing a fantastic job for the Island. So I absolutely disassociate myself with Deputy Morel but he is absolutely right. If he thinks that it is so terrible, he has it in his gift to bring a proposition any time or sit down with his Ministers, the Council of Ministers, then the Assembly and change it, not just take the headlines that everything has been bad. I will leave it there, thank you.

7. Senator L.J. Farnham :

I am finding this a surprisingly difficult decision because, as Deputies Doublet and Perchard will know, and other Members, I have been a willing and eager student to engage with this. Because I will be the first to admit that it took me some time, being a sort of middle-aged, however I am described from time to time, that cultures change. I feel I have made a lot personally, and the

Assembly and the Island, are making good progress in dealing with an unconscious bias and understanding why gender equity and diversity is important. But I am finding it difficult not to support this amendment in relation to the expertise, the small but important part of the amendment which refers to one expert or a group of gender-balanced experts. I think that pushes up against diversity and could restrict the selection process. Of course, we work with the Appointment Commission who are working within the States-approved policy and it is clear that that probably needs to be challenged or changed or amended in due course and that is going to be an important debate that I look forward to in the future. So, I just wanted to say that please do not misinterpret my vote on this today as a backwards step in relation to gender equity issues, it is in relation to the wording around the expertise. Either way, whichever way the vote goes, I think we will have a good way forward and we will produce a very balanced panel to deal with this. So that is all I wanted to say.

8. Senator S.W. Pallett:

I am pleased to follow Senator Farnham . A lot of what he says I agree with apart from where I think his decision is going to go. I am only going to speak briefly. It is not very often I change my position during a debate but this time I have. There have been some very good speeches around diversity and gender balance. I suppose the speech and the words that ring true most to me are something that Senator Mézec said around the meeting he had with a, I think it was a Welsh M.P., is that it is not working or does not work, and I think that is where we are. As much as I think the .. and I am not going to say anything negatively about the Jersey Appointments Commission because I think they do an excellent job, and I think we all do, but I do not believe diversity in any part of Island life is moving quick enough. I think this is an opportunity to perhaps give it a little nudge forward. The one issue I just wanted to briefly touch upon is that in terms of gender balance on this particular panel, many things to do with population control and migration control have equal effect to men and women and especially in terms of the effect it will have on families. I think the debate on the main proposition will, I suspect, talk a lot about families and families of migrant workers. I think it is important that families are considered in the right way and given in the right perspective. To do that I think you do need to have a gender-balanced panel, one that can assess both sides of the argument for both men and women, because there are different arguments to be made. But I think what is going to be important is that we do consider, both when we are considering where we are going to vote on this and also in the main debate, about the effect any migration controls have on family life and especially around the effect they are going to have on children because there will be an effect. Any controls we bring in will have an enormous effect on family life and children. I think the only way to ensure that we have got an independent panel, expert panel, statutory panel that really have both sides fully consider the effects of family life is to have a gender-balanced panel. I know some believe that might be too difficult to achieve. I do not believe that is the case. I think there are plenty of people that would be able to sit on this panel and provide the sort of expert advice we need. If that means we have to look a bit harder, then maybe that is what we should do. I think what has come out of this debate is that there probably needs to be a review of the criteria around the Jersey Appointments Commission. Again, I do not think they have done anything wrong; I think they do what we ask them to do. But once an organisation has been up and running for the time that it currently has, maybe it is a time to review the terms of reference that they have got and maybe we need to have a look as an Assembly about how we elect people to boards and to other bodies connected with the States. Because if we cannot get our act right and be seen to be doing it right, then what hope do we have of attracting more people into the States, attracting more women that are prepared to come into what can be a quite ferocious atmosphere of the States and the life that goes along with it. So, I have changed my mind, I am going to vote to reject this amendment because I think we do need to move forward in terms of diversity and I think this is an opportunity to do it.

9. Connétable C.H. Taylor of St. John :

I have noticed something creeping in that I am finding disturbing. I was born in South Africa and if you want to know about discrimination, well there is apartheid, and I am talking in the 1960s, it was rife. I have lived it and I know what discrimination is. I strongly support that all States Members should undergo discrimination training, especially the unconscious bias training. What we are seeing today, very sadly, is unconscious bias that we should have a gender-balanced committee. When I look at a committee I see a group of individuals who have ability, who are volunteers, who have come forward for whatever reason and are willing to put their shoulder to the wheel. That is what I look for. I do not care tuppence whether they are male, female, black, white, short, tall, bald, bearded or whatever, they are the individuals that I look for, and anyone who discriminates against a person for whatever reason is practising unconscious bias. That is why I urgently support this amendment to the proposition.

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

I will be brief. In reading the amendment to the amendment and the amendment itself, the original amendment says: "To provide an independent statutory expert gender-balanced panel" and I think that is all this is about. If you want the very best then why do we not have the very best female candidates, the very best male candidates, and the very best people come forward? That is my view on this. I do not think there is anything else untoward about it. My personal view though is I think members of the public and the Island are questioning how many expert panels do politicians need? We are elected by the people to make decisions and we obviously have to listen to a range of voices and I feel that is the bigger argument here that has been overshot. Why do we need to do this all the time? We are elected to make decisions and I think that is what I am more concerned about. I think that is where the Island is seeing us time and time again. Apart from S.T.A.C. (Scientific and Technical Advisory Cell) during the pandemic, which was a good idea to have experts in that field to guide the decision-making, the lines were being blurred of who is making the decisions and where is that information based on? The public themselves get confused of what we do as politicians and who makes those decisions and I think this is, for me, my personal view, the crux of this issue. We are seeking to form an independent statutory, that is what my take on this is, so why do we not encourage the very best and form the very best female candidates, the very best male candidates, and have a balanced independent statutory? But what I want to see more of is politicians just making decisions with policy that we debate and not a year before the election.

The Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak on this amendment? If no other Member wishes to speak on this amendment, then I close the debate and call upon the Deputy of St. Peter to respond. Deputy Doublet has asked whether or not the individual paragraphs can be taken separately. That is a matter entirely for you, Deputy of St. Peter . It is a matter within your decision and gift. They can, as a matter of logic, but it is up to you whether you wish to have them taken.

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

Thank you for that offer and I thank Deputy Doublet for the suggestion. I will review that towards the end of my summing up, if I may. I would like to thank all Members for their comments and a very, very involved and impassioned debate of where people stand on this subject.

[10:15]

All those stances are to be respected and appreciated. There was one specific challenge that I was given, which was from Deputy Le Hegarat, who wanted to know the makeup of the Jersey Appointments Commission. Deputy Martin stepped forward and she spoke afterwards and I can confirm that it is made up of 6 people, the Chair is a lady. I do not know if I am allowed to mention names in the Assembly but it is in the public domain. The Chair is a lady and there are 5 other members, 3 women and 2 men, so the makeup is 2 to 4 in favour of women. I would also like to say

I have had experience of the Jersey Appointments Commission because I worked with Deputy Gardiner on the appointment of the Board of Governors for the Comptroller and Auditor General. I believe later on in this Assembly we are to seek the Members' approval, or the Chief Minister is to seek Members' approval to appoint a new Chair and 2 new lay members. The result was the Chair is a lady member and the 2 lay members are male. Now, the makeup of that panel and that interview process, certainly for the Chair, was 4 people: 2 men and 2 women, and I recall very, very clearly during that process that we were focused absolutely solely on skill, expertise and the right person to do the job. I hope Deputy Gardiner will support me on that because I do not think the mention of gender came up once. We were focused on the right people to govern the most important role and function we have in this Island which is the Comptroller and Auditor General. So hopefully I have addressed that specific request from Deputy Le Hegarat . However, moving on, listening to this debate intently, I will be supportive of many, if not all, of the points put forward by many Members, especially Deputy Doublet and Deputy Ward . That will be if we were debating the recruitment or recruitment policy for government departments or if we were in private industry, working in finance or hospitality, regardless I would be totally supportive of the premise of the gender-neutral, as it were, recruitment process, giving everybody that opportunity. If that was a case of building a specific team together to be representative, a diverse representative of that company or government department, I would be totally supportive of this and I think, like Lyndon Farnham , I have advanced in my thinking. I would like to bring Members' attention back to the actual subject in hand; this is not based on recruitment policy for government or for industry, it is based on recruiting experts to help us and advise us in this very delicate subject. As Deputy Doublet says, we need the best experts in their field to help us navigate our way through, as I said, one of the biggest challenges facing us in the Assembly. I totally agree with her, we cannot compromise on the best experts that can give us advice against which we can make decisions as we go forward through the initial population policy and beyond. These individuals will already be experienced. We are not looking at recruitment or development of staff, we are already experienced in specialist academic areas such as labour economics, applied microeconometrics or intergenerational economic effects, for example. That was a mouthful. Now let me share a thought, and the Chief Minister came up earlier with a hypothetical situation of putting together a panel of people, well this is a real example. The U.K. (United Kingdom) already has a similar panel to the one we are debating today. This is the Migration Advisory Committee and it is made up of 5 absolute experts who we would be honoured if they would respond to our call for people to come and help advise us. Google them, they are professors, PhDs, they are so good in their field, on paper that is. However, there is a minor problem here, the panel of 5 is made up of 4 women and one man. Now if that was our shortlist today of the 5 people that we wanted to put forward, and what we are going to put forward to the Assembly, but there is an option for the Assembly, should we make that recommendation, to veto it or bring it to the Assembly, if we were to bring that shortlist we would have to drop one of those women and replace them for the next best man. That to me is a compromise and that would also leave one of those very talented women turned down from her role because of her gender. That, to me, I am afraid, is a real, real challenge. So under my amendment, or Chief Minister's amendment, we will cast our net far and wide to attract as many diverse candidates as possible and then we will be able to pick the best panel regardless of gender. Now, again, I challenge you. Would any of the aforementioned experts be comfortable applying to Jersey if they knew we had a selection policy that prioritised gender over their proven expertise - proven expertise - if you look at the C.V.s (curriculum vitae) as the examples of people we would hope to attract potentially? If you look at those C.V.s you will find out that has been built up over many years of rigorous work and relevant study to be able to be in a position to give us that advice, against which we make decisions, but that advice to represent us. I believe that the Appointments Commission takes full account of the need to have a diverse membership among States Members. This is clearly published in the guidelines which the Chief Minister read through earlier. The in-committee debate I am proposing will highlight the complexity of the challenges which we need to navigate. We will each have our own priorities and somehow we will need to end

up with a policy which manages all the tensions. The tensions are financial, health, our society and our environment. Population affects all ministries and departments, including Housing, Education, Health, Environment, Infrastructure, Social Security, et cetera. It is a tough problem to solve and, as my maths teacher would say, it is a meaty problem, which is why we need the very best population experts to analyse information and help us understand how we solve this very complex problem. I assure you, we will still make the skilled decision; however, it will be based on facts and evidence, we cannot afford to get it wrong. I am no great historian but I am obviously interested in my Island but the Island population dropped by 50 per cent in the 1850s, 1860s when our industry of the day, wooden hull shipbuilding, was surpassed by industries elsewhere, metal ships. There is only one thing worse than a rising population that we have today, and I assure you of that, it is called a shrinking population. Yes, islands may have different challenges. Antigua relies on tourism, especially those that come for about 2 weeks where we have an average stay of 3 days, totally different dynamic. The B.V.I. (British Virgin Islands) is finance, Bermuda is very much focused on the insurance industry as well as tourism, mainly from the States. Tahiti, a wonderful place that I have never been to, it is on the bucket list, but stuck in the middle of the Pacific. What we learn from them is about isolation. So to sum up, the States have legal status for the Appointments Commission in proposition P.99/2005 and they are now a legal body on the Employment of States of Jersey Employees (Jersey) Law 2005. There has been criticism of the Appointments Commission during this debate and if Members no longer support the way in which the commission operates then they are free to seek amendments to the law or challenge the guidance but I do not think it is appropriate for these issues to be raised in a debate on migration controls. I would ask Members to accept my amendment so that we can get the right experts to help us draw and collate the right information and data for a population policy that is right for our beloved Island. I ask Members to accept my amendment and I have to address Deputy Doublet 's request of how we take it.

The Bailiff :

As I say, it is entirely a matter for you. There is no right to call upon, you can take them separately, but taking them separately would simply change the wording, I suppose, in the paragraph.

The Deputy of St. Peter :

I am inclined to take it en bloc but I think it is only realistic to accept what is quite clearly going to be the Assembly's wishes to take it in the 3 parts. I have not got the numbers of how it is consolidated; however, the one to take separately is in the amendment as (c)(vii), as I understand it, which is the words that start: "To provide for an independent statutory expert gender-balanced panel" but will wait to confirm that is the case.

The Bailiff :

No, sorry, Deputy , we are not voting on the main migration policy, we are voting on the amendment. The request from Deputy Doublet is that the 3 parts of the amendment are each taken separately. They all relate to subparagraph (vii) and so the effect was that the first thing would be that the Assembly  would vote on the substitution for "gender-balanced panel" with the words "panel appointed subject to the oversight of the Jersey Appointments Commission", the second vote would be on taking away "who have proven expertise" and substituting "at least one member of which has proven expertise" and the third would be removing the word "Island" and substituting the word "country" all from subparagraph (vii) but it is a question of whether you wish to take those en bloc or whether you wish to take them separately.

The Deputy of St. Peter :

I think on review, having looked at the documents in a different light, I would like to take them en bloc.

The Bailiff :

Very well, in which case I ask the Greffier to place a voting link. The vote is on the Chief Minister's amendment to Deputy Perchard's amendment and I open the voting and I ask Members to vote in the normal way. If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, then I ask the Greffier to close the voting. The amendment has been adopted.

2. Migration Control Policy (P.137/2020): second amendment (P.137/2020. Amd.(2)) - as amended

The Bailiff :

We now turn to Deputy Perchard's amendment as itself has been amended and the first person who has indicated a desire yesterday to speak on this particular part was the Connétable of St. Ouen . Do you still wish to speak on this, Connétable ?

Connétable R.A. Buchanan of St. Ouen :

No, thank you for asking me, but I think the speech I made earlier was the one that I wanted to make. I was just confused as to which amendment I was going to speak to.

The second person who indicated a desire to speak yesterday before we moved on to the matter we have just discussed was Deputy Ash.

Deputy L.B.E. Ash of St. Clement :

Mine was for the second part. If I do not speak now, am I still able to speak later if this debate develops or not?

The Bailiff :

Yes, if you told me that you wished to speak on the one that you did in fact speak on. You have not indicated a desire to speak on this yet, it is open to you to do so.

Deputy L.B.E. Ash:

I shall reserve the right then, thank you. The Bailiff :

Well then I open the debate on Deputy Perchard's amendment as amended. Does any Member wish to speak? This is about Deputy Perchard's amendment as it has just been amended.

1. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour :

It is a question for the proposer. I am just struggling with this because I am conscious of the cost implications for this particular amendment. I wonder if the speaker, because she did not touch on that in the opening speech, could just talk to that a bit more. Given the place that Jersey is going to be with the costs going forward, we know we are going to be looking at an economic recession, whether this particular panel, among everything else we have got to do, is really the best use of public money. I wonder if the proposer could respond to that.

[10:30]

2. Senator K.L. Moore :

Just very briefly, I would urge Members to support this amendment. I appreciate Deputy Maçon's point about the costs involved. However, data and the collection of data to assist the formulation of contemporaneous policy decision-making and suitable reactions to it are really important and trump that. If we look at what has happened in terms of population in the past year alone, we, as an Assembly, no longer really know what the impact of events of the past year have been on the Island's population. We have a sense that a considerable number of people have left the Island; however, we do not have the relevant data. I think that is exactly the example of why this needs to be kept up to date and properly accounted for so that decision-making can flex and adjust to what can sometimes be rapidly-changing circumstances. That really is all I have to say in support of this amendment.

The Bailiff :

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

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

In answer to Deputy Maçon, absolutely this is something that should be done. I think the separate parts of the amendment, I believe that the Deputy is speaking to the citizen's panel that would be established. As an example, if we form convening panels around assisted dying and climate change, then we should certainly do so for an issue such as migration, which is arguably at the top of the priority list for many Islanders which, around election time, we will recall those conversations. So, yes, I feel this is absolutely a good use of public funds and Members should certainly vote for all parts of this amendment. I think it is a shame that the other part of the amendment has essentially been wrecked by the amendment to the amendment but that is where we are. I would like to ask that this is taken in parts. I maintain the amendment and ask for the appel, please.

The Bailiff :

How do you wish the matter to be dealt with in parts, Deputy ? Do you wish each of the 3 letter paragraphs or do you wish votes to be taken, and that will be quite an exercise, in connection with the Roman numeral paragraphs?

Deputy L.M.C. Doublet :

Just the 3 main parts of the proposition will be fine, thank you. The Bailiff :

Very well, thank you.

The Deputy of St. Peter :

May I make a request?

The Bailiff :

Yes, Deputy , what is that?

The Deputy of St. Peter :

Yes, can we just be reminded of what we are exactly voting on now? I believe it is the amendment to the amendment which has transformed to be the amendment, so there has been no change to it. But I would just like clarification of that so we know where we are.

The Bailiff :

I am sorry, you lost me with that characterisation. What we are voting on is Deputy Perchard's amendment to the migration policy as amended by the Chief Minister's amendment which has been passed.

The Deputy of St. Peter : As I thought, thank you. The Bailiff :

If that assists you. Just one moment. Very well, we can now put up part (a) for a vote and I ask the Greffier to put the voting link in the chat. I open the voting and I ask Members to vote in the normal way. If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. Part (a) of the amendment has been adopted.

The Greffier of the States:

The 7 votes contre were: Deputy Maçon, Deputy Wickenden, Deputy Martin, Constable of St. John , Constable of St. Mary , Deputy of Trinity and Deputy Labey .

The Bailiff :

I ask the Greffier to post a link into the chat. The vote is on part (b) of the amendment. I open the voting and I ask Members to vote.

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

Sorry, to interrupt, but when we announce Deputy Labey , could we just be told which Deputy Labey it is?

The Bailiff :

There is only one Deputy Labey . Sometimes Members refer to the Deputy of Grouville as Deputy Labey , that is a mistake, of course. The Deputy of Grouville 's title is exactly that, the Deputy of Grouville , and we should try to use that accordingly.

The Connétable of St. Saviour : That is all right. Thank you.

The Bailiff :

If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. Part (b) has been adopted.

The Greffier of the States:

Those Members voting contre were: Senator Vallois, Deputy Wickenden, Deputy Maçon, Deputy Pamplin, Constable of St. John and Deputy Martin.

The Bailiff :

In just a moment the Greffier will post a link for part (c). Probably is not time to pop out for a cup of tea or anything at this point but it will come along shortly. I have not yet opened the voting, Connétable of St. Saviour , for (c).

The Connétable of St. Saviour :

I know, I am sorry, but I have got to go to my funeral. The Bailiff :

Very well, thank you very much indeed. I am prepared to take that vote because it is clear what the Assembly is voting on.

The Connétable of St. Saviour : Yes, please. Thank you.

The Bailiff :

I open the voting and ask Members to vote in the normal way. If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, then I ask the Greffier to close the voting. Part (c) has been adopted.

The Greffier of the States:

Those Members who voted contre were: Deputy Maçon, the Constable of St. Mary and Deputy Wickenden.

3. Migration Control Policy (P.137/2020) - as amended The Bailiff :

We now return to the debate on the main proposition, the Chief Minister's policy as amended, and that was duly proposed and seconded and I had listed to speak Deputy Ward .

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

I just put in the chat about that, let me get my notes up. I wanted to speak early in this debate before it veers into the wider areas of discussion regarding population and I note that the press reporting last night and probably tonight will be on population where we are talking about a migration debate. In the last election, Reform and, I, as a member of Reform, stood on a manifesto where we made clear the need for a permit system to enable genuine and meaningful targets for migration to be set. "Genuine and meaningful targets" is really key there. We also made clear that targets set must be followed and successive governments have failed to follow and meet any of the targets they have set. This is where the proposition begins to become a real problem. There is a complete lack of detail in the proposition. Now I understand the concept of agreeing a principle that can then be developed but the very political nature of migration means we must have more clarity on the future direction and intentions of Government. At the moment, this indeed creates a greater issue. It does appear that the intention is to outsource the political discussion and decision-making around migration to an expert panel and I have a few serious reservations regarding this. First, I believe there is a serious difficulty in finding a specialist in small island migration and this has been mentioned in terms of fitting our situation. From my communications and interactions with small islands via the C.P.A. and at conferences, most small island communities face falling populations and do not have the issue of trying to limit populations, in fact, which jurisdictions that will match Jersey in any way do, and so that is a serious issue that we are looking for. More importantly, though, I have a serious concern that advisory panels very quickly become the political and policy lead as we have seen happening,

for example, the Fiscal Policy Panel. I cannot remember the last time a Minister for Treasury and Resources went against any decisions of the Fiscal Policy Panel and so we do seem to have non- elected officials driving the political discourse, and I think that is a real problem. Decisions on migration and population are political decisions that need to be made by elected Governments that were elected on the clear policy of what they will do.

[10:45]

In this way they are accountable for the decisions, of course take advice, but do not hide behind it or dissolve themselves of responsibility and I have a real concern regards that. We are in the final year of a term and this is the first time this has happened and I will come back to that point later on. Now the policy sets out 4 distinct permissions but within these are the words "may lead to permanent residents". In a briefing, there was a mention of an additional permission, the permission of 4 to 10 years and then permanency. I would like some explanation of this and how it may be used and by what sectors of our society and our economy. The biggest problem is the lack of detail, therefore context to what this means for long-term migration and for the workplace and for businesses and for service providers and for government services. For example, 9-month permissions without housing or residency rights, what are the protections for people who will come here to work? What sectors will they serve in? The reality is that these will be the people paid the least. I am sceptical that there will be 9-month contracts for accountants or C.E.O.s (chief executive officer) or workers in highly- paid areas. How many landlords offer 9-month contracts? What rights will they include and what standards will the accommodation be kept to? We still do not have a licensing system for landlords. Will this transient population have extra added to their electricity bills to cream off as much as possible while they are there, with no comeback if that happens? How will we prevent that? All of these details are very important for a meaningful migration policy. What work will happen from officers immediately after this debate? That is a question I would like the proposer to bring. Will we be seeing work on identity cards before the regulations come to the Assembly? I for one am very concerned about these identity cards and identity card fraud and that indeed was also in our manifesto. What will be the immediate next steps after this vote? With a lack of clarity, we end up with vacuums, which can be acted on by officers who are not accountable. I hope that does not happen. But I want to hear from the Assistant Chief Minister or the proposer so that we have some reassurances about that. We then have the 4-year permission. But it is not clear which sector of the economy is being targeted. Who will come for 4 years knowing there is no option to stay longer? Life can change a great deal in 4 years. We need to address those questions and have answers to them, have scenarios so that people know what they are getting themselves into. Also, we get back to housing again. Where will people be housed, with what rights? On a positive note, it would require businesses to constantly train new staff and succession plan, which perhaps is something that has not happened and not helped with population on the Island. The 10-year permission could be said to be clearer in that it enables the possibility of extension and long-term residency. I have no problem with this for essential workers. It is in many ways like what we have now. But will it be the Government or the advisory board that decides upon this demographic? If there is a demand for business or services, will there be a growth in population? There is also no detail on the proportion of each type of permission. So we have a tiered system, one could call it a caste system based upon economic value, a very British attitude one might say. What about those who are already living their lives in Jersey? We have had the process of registration for settled status, meaning that many who have worked and paid tax in Jersey for many years have had to go through the administrative process and some have found it unpleasant, an insult to be quite frank. But they have gone along because they have understood. But where do the lives of these people fit into this document? I would like an answer from the proposer. What about those who are already living here and what are the implications? I know that there will be many that will not be at ease with a system that could create, and probably will create, second and third-rate members of our society. This is a real risk. It is the detail that needs to be addressed so that we can be reassured that will not happen. We will, I am certain, hear

that this policy will address the problems of housing. It does not deal with the housing crisis. Issues of housing, the availability, the quality, have much wider causes than simply the numbers. Indeed, the theoretical numbers will not change, just the people filling the vacancies who will be a more transient population. The question is whether this further drives up rent as contracts change more often and the opportunity to increase rents goes with it. There is so much more that is causing our housing crisis. The concentrations of homes in the hands of developers and investors is a fundamental cause and will not go away with this change to migration policy. I am also concerned that this is designed to simply gain the headline that the Government is addressing migration before the next election. That is simply wrong. This is too serious a subject, too important politically, morally and for the future of Jersey. So, if this is agreed, there needs to be full development and consultation with States Members to ensure the long-term implications are seen. We have a context of Brexit and COVID recovery, which must be accounted for as we develop policies. I note the concerns expressed by some sectors of our economy already. I do not have much faith in the development of the government I.T. (information technology) systems, which seems to be over-budget and late regardless of what happens. There needs to be openness about the underlying political influences that drive this policy and a willingness to change if it is not appropriate. We have the bare bones of a possible migration policy here, full of uncertainty with a huge lack of clarity. The report does look like a last-minute dissertation produced with a deadline that suddenly became real, with a word count that needed fulfilling, 379 pages of material with so little specific detail, it is quite a piece of work. I would suggest to the proposer that we seem to be replacing a so-called leaky tap with a brochure of taps and remain undecided on what tap to purchase. So voting for this will leave me uneasy for the reasons I have outlined. But voting against will mean that we have no movement on tackling the issue of migration. The Council of Ministers have left us with an inadequate choice because it has been left too late and too close to the election. Too many Assembly Members of the past have failed to address this issue and who now complain about the lack of action. So I look forward to the debate and will listen for the answers of all of these issues I have raised. I will expect the proposer to answer the questions that I have asked. I urge Members to think very, very closely and really engage before voting on this proposition.

2. Senator S.W. Pallett:

I am pleased to follow Deputy Ward because, as usual, he has done his research and he has brought up a lot of very clear issues that we need to look at in more detail. I am sure that Members will. I am sure that Members will have had the opportunity to consider the review carried out on P.137 by the Migration and Population Review Panel that I was pleased to chair. I am not going to go into any great detail in regard to the findings and recommendations as they speak for themselves. But it is important to recognise the diverse views given by a broad range of stakeholders on P.137. I believe that many Members, like myself, and that of the members of the Migration and Policy Review Scrutiny Panel, have received many concerns in regard to P.137 from both businesses and individuals who may be impacted by these new migration controls. These concerns have been wide-ranging and cover all aspects of P.137. But one comment made by Jersey Finance that concern would lie around the clarity and application of the policy and permission process, some of the views that many of the stakeholders who have made submissions to the panel hold. Although Jersey Finance, among others, thought it sensible to provide more responsive controls and to remove automatic graduation, when commenting on around the lack of visibility and data around how people move across sectors under the current controls, they were concerned that the new controls could be cutting off a pipeline that will ultimately not solve the problem of increased population. There are concerns there is not a long queue of migrant workers, whether skilled or otherwise, who want to move to Jersey. Time-limited permits may cause issues to those considering coming to work in the Island. Especially to partners of workers and their families who would not only have the upheaval of moving but, for some partners, it might also have an impact on their own careers. It would be fair to say though that the general consensus of those who have responded to our call for evidence during the panel's review of P.137

was that there is a need for both migration controls and a common population policy. Citizens Advice echoed other comments that the current controls are not having the desired effect of controlling population levels. The new controls we are debating today, and any new population policy, must both be based on up-to-date evidence and data. Policies need to be nimble and flexible to ensure that local business can access the labour force it requires when it needs it. Many of us would agree that the levels of migration seen in recent years of 1,000-plus a year are unsustainable and are putting increased pressure on services such as health and education. The issue that is being called into question is what these controls need to look like and how and when they are applied. Only on Monday I was contacted by the Chamber of Commerce in regard to serious concerns their members have in regard to comments included in the foreword of P.137. The highlighted comments of the Chief Minister mentioned were: "Our focus in 2021 will be on developing the migration control proposals. Existing and new controls will be rigorously applied during this time to prevent a new influx of migrant workers as job opportunities start to become available again." This to me makes it clear that, should these migration controls be adopted by this Assembly this year, then the flow of migrant workers could be limited at a time when the concerns of Chamber members around the impacts of COVID and Brexit have not been fully assessed. The foreword also stated: "Initial estimates suggest that the number of workers has fallen several thousand between the summer of 2019 and summer of 2020 and it is likely that migration is likely to continue to be depressed during 2021 due to both COVID and Brexit." It is worrying therefore that we could be introducing rigorous controls at the same time that migration is likely to be depressed during 2021. Businesses in the Island need certainty and need our support to see them through the very rough economic waters that we are currently sailing through. Inconsistencies such as these are a real concern to business locally. These concerns are understandable and clarity is required from Government as to how and when new controls will be applied. There is no doubt that many sectors of local businesses suffer greatly, especially during the 2 periods of lockdown introduced quite rightly to reduce the limit of the impact of the pandemic. The timing of restrictions is not a debate for today. But the consequences have been dramatic on many parts of our local economy and we are at a point when we need, as an Assembly, to fully support our economic recovery. No unnecessary hurdles should be put in the way of that recovery in coming months. There is a potential that both the new immigration controls and the new suite of migration controls could impact that recovery if applied too severely and if not carefully monitored. The impact of Brexit is not yet fully understood. In particular, how any recent changes to migration rules might impact those who seek to work in the Island and the employers who need to recruit these migrant workers and their ability to survive have yet to be assessed. All of these issues are interlinked. We should be in a position where we fully understand how one affects the other before any further changes are made to our current housing and work controls. The Jersey Hospitality Association have made their concerns known very widely and believe the new immigration controls are the most significant change to control factors introduced in decades. Access to free-moving individuals who could have come into the Island without a border permission have been reduced by 85 per cent as a result of Brexit. This is already presenting acute challenges for the sector the work permit scheme contained in P.137 is setting out to achieve, and that may or may not be the case. But it does highlight the need to ensure that migration figures can be accurately monitored as soon as possible to ensure that local businesses are not disadvantaged when looking to recruit the necessary workforce. The J.H.A. (Jersey Hospitality Association) also make the point that these migration controls were developed pre-COVID and pre-Brexit. So some consideration should be made as to the impacts of both on these proposals and the potential timing for any implementation of new controls. To implement fairly and transparently both new migration controls and a new

population policy, it is vital that we have all the necessary information. [11:00]

Not only to inform the development of proposals prior to the implementation of any new policy, but it is also vital to have the ability to measure and record any impact that either policy will have on

both controlling the size of Jersey's population and the flow of migrant workers in and out of the Island. Being able to set controls that take changes in the local economy and factors outside our control into account will be vital if we are to have a thriving economy. To do this, Government need accurate data on the current population and data on the needs of local business. In the public hearing with the Chief Minister, the panel were told that an agile I.T. system was being developed to provide data that is currently not available. This is vital to ensure that data is available to inform decision- making and to assist the independent statutory expert panel in their work. This I.T. system must be able to accurately record the data required, including the movement of labour both in and out of the Island, and as importantly between sectors in the Island. Government will also need the information from the census that will take place in late-March this year to develop its population policy. It has been stated publicly that this information will not be available until early 2022. To accurately measure migration in and out of the Island, Government are committed to implementing this new I.T. system. Without its implementation, it will be difficult to understand how any new proposals could be adequately measured. This new I.T. system will not be online until the end of 2021. Without its development, it will be impossible to judge whether any new controls are working, be they under the new immigration controls or any new work permit system as set out in P.137. Looking individually at both a new population policy and any new work permit controls, there is uncertainty as to when either can be delivered. The timeframe for a new population policy that should be based on sound evidence and data will rely on the availability of information, both from the census and the development of any new I.T. system. In terms of new migration controls, these should not be introduced until we can measure and record the data. That can only be achieved when we have systems in place. As I have said, it is also potentially harmful to local business if existing controls are applied too rigorously under either the existing or new migration controls. So Government need to be and should be flexible in their approach to employment of migrant workers, at least until we have fully understood the effects of Brexit and new immigration controls and we have an I.T. system in place to fully record the impact of any changes that we are making. Looking at part (c) of P.137, in particular parts (i) to (iv), for some sectors of the economy, such as agriculture, construction and hospitality, it is unclear as to how the new work permit policy will either provide the workforce they require or what costs will be incurred under the new controls to their businesses. The lack of clarity needs to be addressed. If not dealt with as part of P.137, then the detail will have to be provided as part of developing the necessary legislation. P.137 has been described and is described as an in- principle proposition as it sets the vision for new migration controls. But to work in practice it will require the changes to be enshrined in law. To do this, a further proposition will be required setting out the law behind the proposals. When the necessary law drafting has been done, then any legislation will again be reviewed by the Migration and Population Scrutiny Panel. We have no doubt that at that time all the necessary detail will be required, not only by Scrutiny, but by the Assembly itself, if it is to be agreed. This detail will clearly have to set out how each permission will in practice work for each sector. If discretion is to be allowed for any sector, such as agriculture, hospitality and construction, to allow for their specific needs, that detail needs to be provided. To briefly touch on other elements of the proposition, the panel agrees that the enhanced criminal record checks should be introduced for migrant workers and identity requirements for all permit kinds should also be enhanced. But this needs to be done fairly and not be discriminatory in any way. The panel are supportive of the need for an independent statutory expert panel to be set up that is diverse - and we have just discussed that this morning - it needs to be diverse and representative of Jersey's population in its nature. This independent panel should be key to informing the Chief Minister and Council of Ministers in the development of a new population policy. But should also be key to monitoring how migration controls are working and whether such controls should be dialled up or down based on various issues, including the vibrancy or not of the local economy. It is important that this panel is independent and will listen to the views of all stakeholders, including representative bodies such as the Chamber of Commerce, when considering whether controls that are in place at any one time are working or whether they need to be reviewed. Any potential changes could be sector-specific or look

more generally at migration issues. But the implementation of this independent panel is of utmost importance if we are to ensure that controls are reviewed regularly and are in the best interests of the Island generally. The independent panel should be seen to provide the same level of guidance that, for example, the Fiscal Policy Panel provide to Government, which should show Members the level of importance that Government should give to population and migration issues moving forward. It is the importance of this panel that was at the forefront of the panel's decision to lodge an amendment to P.137 that requested that the States Assembly approve the membership of the independent panel. I want to take this opportunity to thank both the Chief Minister and the Privileges and Procedures Committee for their helpful comments on the third amendment, which has led to the panel withdrawing their amendment. We only had asked them to consider an amendment and accept that the process to appoint the panel, a process overseen by the Jersey Appointments Commission, is adequately robust. The last section of part (c) of P.137 provides for a committee of States Members to be responsible for determining applications under the Control of Housing and Work Law in a similar way that H.A.W.A.G. (Housing and Work Advisory Group) do now. We support the need for this new group that is more diverse in membership than at present and includes non-executive States Members, as is the case with P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) and other States bodies. This new committee should also include, where appropriate, input from representative organisations such as the Chamber and Jersey business to ensure that the impacts of any decision on a business are fully explored and appreciated. I have no doubt that some Members will be concerned about new housing and work controls being implemented at a time when new immigration controls have only just been introduced as a result of Brexit and the world is still experiencing the impacts of the pandemic. The panel's view is that there will be further opportunities to consider and review whether the controls contained within P.137 are appropriate when the legislation is brought back to the States Assembly for debate later this year. The Migration and Population Review Panel will continue meeting and consider when further reviews are required, whether it is the necessary legislation or the work to develop a new population policy. Some now hold the view that it is unlikely that there will be a long queue of workers to come to Jersey to work when travel reopens and that we do need to provide an attractive destination for any migrant workers and their families, whether they are highly skilled or less skilled. All migrant workers, irrespective of what job they do, contribute to the financial well-being of the Island and should be welcomed into our community. Policy development moving forward needs to have both European Human Rights and United Nations Rights of the Child Conventions at their forefront. Limiting these partners and children to accompany migrant workers will likely see Jersey fall foul of these conventions. But, more importantly, it will potentially have a huge impact on the family lives of migrant workers who move here, especially those that are less skilled and poorer. The Children's Commissioner suggests in her evidence to the panel that this policy fails to protect the family life of migrant workers and fails to meet the expectations of international law and conventions. Frankly, I tend to agree. We should accept that to get the best and most-committed migrants, it is vital to respect, promote and protect, the private and family lives of our migrant workers. We should be promoting Jersey as a jurisdiction that promotes good practice and a welcoming place for migrants to come. A place that supports family life, puts children first, and provides healthcare that is not discriminatory. To be clear, I will be voting in favour of P.137 as we do need to have the necessary mechanisms to limit migration. But to some degree I do so holding my nose as there is an enormous amount of work still required to get these controls over the line and an awful lot of detail, as the Deputy has always suggested, that is still required. I want to see how these controls work and how they will work practically. This is a view that was shared by many throughout the review. Business owners in agriculture, hospitality and construction, still need clarity as to how the proposed work permit scheme will work for them. For agriculture, there are major concerns around cost and how certain skills can be properly recognised within the 9-month, 4-year and 10-year permitted scheme. The panel, as part of its review, made a number of recommendations to the Chief Minister. We are pleased that the first 2 have been accepted and have led to the additional information provided to Members on Monday. We, as a panel,

appreciate the efforts that officers have gone to in providing this information. But I still believe there is some confusion that still exists over the relationship between the immigration permits and the potential new housing and work permits. If there are to be workarounds for any sector that finds the new 9-month Housing and Work Law difficult to operate, then any discretion needs to be clearly understood and decision-making seen as fair and transparent. I am pleased that the additional comments include a statement that: "Subject to the outcome of these important debates in 2021, clear policy and operational guidelines will be drawn up and published in line with the decisions that have been made and that these guidelines will ensure that businesses and workers have a full understanding of the controls and how they are being used." Because clarity is essential as businesses look to recover from the effects of Brexit and COVID. The panel will be keen to review any such guidelines as they need to provide information in a way that can be clearly understood whether you are a one- man or one-woman band or a large company that have human resources available to deal with such. I wish to reassure Members that we as a panel continue to keep a very close eye on how migration controls and population policy are developed in coming months to ensure that all stakeholders, including local businesses, are properly consulted with and that all controls and policy are fair and equitable. I just briefly want to take the opportunity to thank my panel colleagues, Deputy Ahier of St. Helier and Deputy Truscott of St. Brelade , and our dedicated Scrutiny officers, for all their support, guidance and hard work during what was a short and very focused review. I also want to thank the Chief Minister and Assistant Chief Minister for allowing a short deferral of the proposition to allow the panel to conclude its work. We intend to continue to work collaboratively with the Chief Minister and Assistant Chief Minister to ensure the best possible outcome for Islanders in regard to migration controls so that they do what they set out to do and support an economy that is so vital in the long-term prosperity of the Island, both financially and socially.

3. Senator L.J. Farnham :

I am very pleased to follow Senator Pallett. He has a strong grasp of the economic importance of what we are debating today. I am pleased to have worked with him for the last 6 years and we both have front line experience of the challenges faced in that time by some of our key industry sectors. Ironically, as I think the Senator alluded to, Brexit may well prove to have been enough to limit immigration in the longer term.

[11:15]

The flow of staff from the E.U. (European Union) has been absolutely crucial to maintaining a flow of really good people to come in and work and live in Jersey and work for our key industries. We have to continue to access good people. We cannot underestimate the problems and challenges that will be created if we do not. Brexit is going to be a major issue because we will still be able to access people from outside the Common Travel Area, but of course the process will be completely different. It will be a similar process to the work permit scheme we have now and we have to work hard to make sure it is as easy as possible to continue to provide that flow of good people with relevant skills to come and contribute to our economy and to Island life. The idea behind this is this is something that has been discussed for a long time, and do not forget this was discussed prior to Brexit, was to increase the flow of labour to those businesses and sectors that need it, while reducing pressure on the long-term impact of our population. At the moment, businesses have to apply for permissions and they are limited by the number of registered permissions they can have. Of course they can employ any number of locally qualified people, but of course there are pressures in the labour market with certain sectors being the preferred choice, which means that tourism, agriculture, retail, do rely on imported labour. So I would hope that this scheme can lead to the 9-month, the 4-year, the 10- year, with caveats, because there are ways to extend for staff that become crucial, to extend the permissions. But what it means is that we should be able to access many more people to come and work in those industries, many more than perhaps permissions granted now. But of course the difference is not all of them will be able to stay. Some will stay, want to make Jersey their home or

meet or marry local people or just progress and become skilled and essential employees and will eventually go to the 10-year process and become qualified. But I see this as a positive to increase the flow of labour to those markets while not putting undue pressure on the long-term population issues. Of course I am extremely concerned following Brexit that it is going to be much harder to draw from the European market with the new restrictions in place or the new processes in place. But we have to work hard to alleviate those as much as we can. Of course, this all has to be connected to many other key social policies, not least Housing, because it is absolutely not just essential but vital that people coming to live and work in Jersey that bring families can be accommodated properly. I do not envy the new Minister for Housing and Communities, but I know that he is thinking about these sort of challenges already. I just want to say that, notwithstanding Brexit and the additional challenges this brings to us, I see this as, in the medium to long-term at least, once the world has settled down following Brexit, I hope it will be a positive thing. Because it will enable businesses, albeit on 9-month permissions and 4-year permissions, to eventually get more staff to manage their businesses. Again without long-term pressure on the long-term population, which is the ultimate goal, and of which this is just one of the first debates we are going to have.

4. Senator K.L. Moore :

I would like to start by expressing my gratitude to Senator Pallett and the members of the review panel who have produced an excellent report. Senator Pallett gave an excellent and wide-ranging speech. I agree with most of the points, although unfortunately I do conclude that I cannot support the majority of this proposition. I will only be voting for part (b) as amended. It is my view that the removal of automatic graduation is inappropriate and particularly so at this time. I feel deeply uncomfortable by some of the proposals of this policy, particularly the introduction of the 9-month permissions. I very much struggle to see that the relevant industries have been consulted. In fact we know, and it is very clear, that industries such as agriculture and construction have not been adequately consulted in this process. Therefore, greater thought is needed. This is about timing and I will support part (b) because I believe it is correct to have a robust policy on this important matter and to then implement the controls once that policy has been properly defined. I find it abhorrent that the Children's Rights Impact Assessment has not been conducted by a Government who purports to put children first. That should have been one of the very first acts to have been completed in this piece of work. It is deeply disappointing that it has not been done. If Members have not seen the submissions of the Children's Commissioner to the Migration Review Panel, then I would really suggest that they take a look before they vote on this matter today. Deputy Ward described this as a caste system based on economic value. I have to say I do, with regret, identify with that description. That sense of what was coming became very clear when we saw the Estimating Government Receipts and Expenditure for Jersey Households report, which was produced by the Government in February 2019. That certainly set the stall out in terms of what the Government considered to be important criteria for those living in the Island. That most certainly does appear to be based on who contributes in terms of financial contributions to the revenue of the public purse and totally disregards the other important contributions that people make as individual members of a community in terms of skills, in terms of demeanour, in terms of diversity that we have all spoken about so passionately over the course of the past day or so. There are, as Senator Pallett highlighted, many uncertainties at this time and, as Senator Farnham just said, it is harder potentially to draw people to the Island in this post- Brexit, post-pandemic, or time of pandemic. We know that already many Islanders are finding the Island unaffordable and we are seeing people leaving the Island, taking with them their skills that we desperately need, because they seek to find a more affordable life for themselves and their families elsewhere. We are struggling to find people with the relevant skills that we need, important skills in healthcare and in education. So we need to, first of all, understand what skills we need here, how we can encourage people to live here and achieve an excellent quality of life for all, and especially for children who do not have the same choice that economic migrants themselves have. There are also impacts on single people. We often see people marrying or taking important decisions because of

the restrictions that Housing places upon them. All of these things need to be taken into account properly so that we can have a considered and careful policy, not measures such as are being proposed today by this Government. So I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate but I will only be supporting part (b).

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

It is a bit of an understatement to say that the general consensus across the Island is that there is a need for both migration controls and a new population policy. Along with housing, those subjects are probably the most discussed among Islanders. I think everybody is going to agree that it is vital that both these policies, immigration and population, whenever they come in front of us, must be based on up-to-date evidence and relevant current data. Almost everyone is going to agree that the levels of migration seen in recent years of over 1,000 per annum are unsustainable and they are putting increased pressure on all our services and infrastructure. Something needs to be done. However, there is no doubt that many sectors of local business have suffered greatly in the last 12 months and especially during the 2 extended periods of the COVID pandemic lockdown. Looking at the responses to the Scrutiny review, it is very clear that many of these businesses believe that the timing of both introduction of restrictions and their withdrawal, were not fully thought through and may well have unnecessarily damaged local business. We are far from back to work yet. We do not know who remains to fill the jobs that we hopefully will see coming back online and available very soon. Then there is Brexit. Clearly the impact of Brexit has not yet been fully understood. In particular, we do not yet know exactly how many changes will impact those who are both seeking work and employers who need to recruit their workforce from outside the Island. Both of these issues, Brexit and COVID, are interlinked and it is vital that we fully understand how one affects the other and how we are going to get our economy going again before any major changes are made to our current migration controls. I am clear that no unnecessary hurdles should be put in the way of Jersey's economic recovery in the coming months and that any new immigration controls that could impact that recovery, if applied too severely, should be resisted. We need to tread very, very carefully. Government must have accurate data on the current population, the size of the local workforce and the movement of labour, both in and out of the Island, before any final decisions are made. Government will also need all the information from the census to develop its population policy. The Chief Minister tells us regularly that he acts on data. But he cannot have the required information to make the decisions on population at this current time. New migration controls should not be introduced until we have accurate baseline information. Do we know the effects of Brexit? Do we know the effects of COVID? I would venture to suggest that we do not. The devil in the detail of any proposed policy, which will come to this Assembly at some time in the future, will clearly have to set out how each permission will work in practice for each sector of the economy and if any discretion will be allowed for specific sectors such as agriculture, hospitality and construction, to allow for their particular needs. It is likely there will soon not be a long queue of workers looking to come to Jersey. That might be because of Brexit, COVID, the exchange rate, our cost of living, a host of reasons. So we do need to continue to provide an attractive destination for any migrant worker and their families, whether they are highly skilled or less skilled. It is clear to me that all migrant workers contribute to the financial well-being of the Island and they should all be welcomed into our community. But we do need to have the right controls in place. Then I come to the issue of a reducing population.

[11:30]

A falling population can result in significant social and economic challenges. A shrinking labour force, a lowering of the tax base, all of those make it more difficult for us to maintain roads, schools, medical facilities and other public services, which in turn makes it difficult to attract those new immigrants that I have just been talking about and, for that matter, prevent Islanders from moving elsewhere. Continued migration from Jersey will in turn disrupt social ties by separating people from

their friends and their families. With fewer people paying our various taxes, there would be less money to spend on those public services and healthcare facilities. But maybe more importantly, private businesses, including small shops, restaurants and other establishments, are just less likely to operate. That in turn leads to a reduced standard of living. At the same time our population continues to age and increases the need for medical attention and the other specific public services. But now let us very briefly consider the loss of young people from our Island. Most people leaving small communities such as ours are either young adults between the ages of 17 and 24 or families with young children. Although they leave for a variety of reasons, the most common, to attend university, maybe to find jobs, or just to escape the cost of living or specifically the cost of housing in Jersey, which is getting greater and greater and more onerous on families, et cetera. The loss of young people and families, those that do not return, has far-reaching consequences for communities such as ours. Young men and women, those who stay or those who go away and come back, who would normally become part of our local workforce, establish their own local businesses or just generally contribute to Island life, if they go, then they have instead exported their talents and energies elsewhere. Without younger generations to replace the older ones it will eventually become even more difficult to run this Island, and that is putting it mildly. Sensible controls on the ability of anyone to come to the Island are important. But we just cannot go too far or make things too restrictive. Depleted of our younger generations, we will be left with an increasingly ageing population. Although populations on the whole are growing older, I accept that, the change is occurring much more rapidly in communities such as ours, as our population continues to age. If our young people and families continue to leave, the labour force will shrink even further and push local businesses and our economy into a deep decline. At the same time, the ageing population places greater demands on the already limited healthcare facilities and all this on top of COVID and Brexit. I will leave it there. We all complain about the increasing population and the effects of more and more people on our infrastructure. But, and I cannot stress this enough, the challenges we face with an increasing population are by far the best type of population problems we face. The alternative, a decreasing population, and the problems I have just outlined, would make the issues we currently face look small and insignificant. I am going to vote for this proposition today but I am not particularly happy to do so because it is so vague. But I will be looking very, very closely at the detail when it comes back. We have to do something to tighten up, I accept that, but keeping Jersey working, economically buoyant, happy, content , beautiful, and a place that others want to visit, is my priority. Let us move forward, work together on this. Let us keep inward migration low. But let us keep the economy functioning successfully. Most importantly, let us see the effects of Brexit and COVID before we make any decisions.

The Bailiff :

Deputy Morel , you have a question for the Attorney General? Deputy K.F. Morel of St. Lawrence :

Yes, if you do not mind. I believe the Attorney General might be able to help, it is with regard to part (c) of the proposition. The question I would like to ask is, should part (c) pass today, does the States of Jersey Law, or any other law, bind the Chief Minister to bring back legislation, which includes the detail of all those parts of part (c)? So the 9-month permission, the 4-year permission, and so on and so forth. Would the Chief Minister, should part (c) be passed, have any room in which to change those parts? So, for instance, he may wish to bring back a 12-month permission instead of a 9-month permission.

The Bailiff :

I can assist on that, Deputy , because it is a matter of construction in part of the proposition itself and that is a matter for the Presiding Officer. (c) is to request the Chief Minister to bring forward. The Chief Minister therefore does not have to meet that request. The consequence of not doing so may

be political consequences, but there are no legal consequences, because he is merely being requested. If he comes back with a different type of rule or regulation then, if that is justified to the Assembly, presumably the Assembly will be content with that variation.

Deputy K.F. Morel :

Thank you. So there is no law in the States of Jersey, no aspect that binds the Minister to carry out the proposition?

The Bailiff :

All I have done is construe the proposition. I cannot go further than that. So I will ask the Attorney if he wishes to add anything to that from a legal perspective.

Mr. M. Jowitt, H.M. Solicitor General:

It is the Solicitor General and, no, thank you very much, I have nothing that I would wish to add.

6. The Connétable of St. John :

It has been my very great privilege to work on and chair the Housing and Work Advisory Group and during that time I became aware of the shortcomings of the current immigration policy and the current housing and work laws. It is generally accepted that the population is increasing too rapidly and that in turn means that a stricter immigration policy is needed. The frustration on the Housing and Work Advisory Group, H.A.W.A.G., was the lack of control. Permissions would be given but there was not the ability to retract permissions so easily. What would happen was we ended up giving registered permissions, which in turn progressed to entitled permissions once that person had been here 5 years. Invariably, that business would lose that employee, but they would maintain the registered permission and so simply imported another person to employ in place of the person who has left, having gained entitled qualifications. It was that progression, which was very ably demonstrated to us by Duncan from the Statistic Unit, and it became known as the Duncan shuffle, and he illustrated that extremely well and it showed how the workforce coming to the Island as a registered worker moved to entitled worker and there was no means of controlling that. This proposition is to give greater control. That is the importance. It is not necessarily to decrease or increase the population. It is to give greater control so that we are able to increase the level of migration if it is needed as well as decrease it if it is not required. There was something else that concerned me considerably on the H.A.W.A.G. committee and that was that many businesses came requesting for a licence for a registered worker. The reason was purely financial. Because employing a registered worker meant that they could pay a significantly lower wage than an entitled person. That was discriminatory and it made me feel extremely uncomfortable. Because a business should pay a proper wage. It was people with business models that were not working that resulted in many applications to the H.A.W.A.G. committee. It has been suggested that we currently do not have a 9-month permission and is a 9-month permission correct? We do have a 9-month permission at the moment because many agricultural permits are 9- month registered permits. So there is nothing new in that. There was also a criticism that the agricultural industry had not been consulted. The chairman of Jersey Dairy was full of praise for the Policy Migration Panel because he said nobody had ever consulted him so intensely before. So I would strongly refute that allegation. Jersey needs to do something to improve its migration control. This is a good way forward and it will give us the control, the greater level of control, that we need. There are 2 particularly important aspects: one is that we will be able to now check the criminal backgrounds, or lack of criminal backgrounds, of individuals coming to the Island. That is important. Secondly, we will be able to hopefully welcome those who come to Jersey wanting to be part of our community, to welcome them into our community on a full-time basis. This is an in-principle debate and it is the principle of introducing a different mechanism. The Deputy of St. Peter described it as 2 leaky taps and we are replacing it with a new set of taps. That is precisely what it is. I would urge Members to support this because it is a positive way forward for the Island going forward.

The Bailiff :

Deputy Martin, do you have a point of order that you wish to raise? Deputy J.A. Martin:

Yes, I have put in chat. You asked if anyone else wants to speak. The Constable of St. John said he did and then Deputy Morel did and then there were 2 or 3 other speakers. Now Deputy Morel has said to ignore his request to speak. I put in chat: "Is that not to speak at this debate?" Because people are sitting on their hands. We do it in the Assembly. We need to do it on chat. But basically I am asking what is the ruling. It may not be a point of order but I think it is.

The Bailiff :

I am not sure there is a ruling that I can usefully make. The reality of it is that, if we were sitting in the States Assembly, Members would put on their lights, I would call on the next one in the old way, and then it would be up to Members whether they put on their lights again after the person has spoken. There can be a number of reasons why individuals choose to indicate that they do not want to speak, then or in the debate at all, or indeed at that point. I understand, from looking at the chat, Deputy Morel has suggested that the reason he wished to defer was that he wished to conduct some further research. It must be open to people, and I would not wish to see it being abused of course, that people who said that they wished to speak and then thought on reflection they needed to check something or look it up and did not want to be called on for that purpose, and to ignore it, I do not think that precludes them from seeking to speak later in the debate. The risk that individuals run if they sit on their hands, and I entirely take that point, Deputy Martin, is that I will say the debate is closed and it will be too late. We have done that on more than one occasion in the past. I do not think I can rule any further than that I am afraid.

7. Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

I was wondering if I might have dropped my paperwork to allow somebody else to go in front of me, but there we go. On a more serious note, can I start off by thanking the entire team that has put so much work into getting us to this stage. By that I reference absolutely the members of the original Policy Development Board, which was the Connétable of St. John , Deputy Martin, Deputy Young, Senator Ferguson and the Deputy of St. Peter . There are 3 other members of the public who gave their time voluntarily during quite a long process, who I presume it is not appropriate to name directly. But one was from the Chamber of Commerce, as nominated, and one at that point was nominated by the Institute of Directors as well.

[11:45]

But I absolutely do commend the work that they did. I certainly want to place great credit to the Connétable of St. John for the work he did in leading that panel. Deputy Martin did the final wrap- up. Then the Deputy of St. Peter was a willing volunteer, or at least he was when I asked him to take this work forward. I very much commend his work as well to the Assembly. I am looking at the report and proposition that has been filed and it is something like 337 pages, it is, I would suggest, an indication of the thoroughness that has taken place. I will make some minor points and then I will get to the nub of it. The minor points are obviously with some in agreement, vehement agreement with some speakers who have talked about the need for better data, which we have absolutely recognised as one of the pieces of work that came out of the work that has been done. In that instance, as we have said, in terms of the I.T. systems, a project manager is in place and the implementation is still scheduled at present for completion for this year. Then that will give the responsive information and data to enable future Assemblies as that policy develops to make and assess the impact of possible population policies. I am obviously looking ahead in about 5 years or whatever and then how they can be made more effective going forward. I think also to be clear, we have not been sector-specific in any of the permits. We have listened and the panels have listened. I think the Connétable of St.

John has referenced that to various other Members. But it is not a case of agricultural workers only on 9 months and the bankers only on 4 years, for the sake of argument, it can be applied across to whatever is flexible to the individual applicants. I make one correction, which was there was reference to I think it was one of the first reports issued by this Government - I believe it was the expression of the Government - which I assume was reference to the report which is entitled Estimating Government Receipts and Expenditure for Jersey Households and that was a report produced by Statistics Jersey. It is not, strictly speaking, a Government report, although we have obviously incorporated it because it was work commissioned in anticipation of the data, putting some data together where data did not previously exist. But if the Assembly votes for this proposition today it will represent a very, in my view, significant step forward in identifying a robust set of controls over population. But let us be clear; if we, as politicians, want to live to our commitments of starting to tackle population and if that means being able to reduce the growth, for example, that has taken place over the last 5 years, obviously excluding 2020, of over 8,000 people a year, then one has to have controls and we can then wrap the policy around that. We can be assured then that we will have a policy, whatever that policy is, that can be enforced. But also we must not be under any illusions that having effective controls will involve difficult and ethical challenges because at some point it will involve having to say no. Certainly and particularly from our experience as Ministers and as Assembly Members as well, over the last 12 months saying no is difficult and it will involve having political backbone - and that is to speak to an observation by Deputy Pamplin, with which I agree with - but making informed political decisions. Jersey has long been recognised for being calm and for making calm, rational decisions, and I very much hope that we will continue to be in that position. That involves having the data and the information to make those decisions and to base those decisions upon. I agree with much, for example, of what was said by the Deputy of St. Martin and others who said about supporting our economy in what has been difficult times and that is all about, in my view, the policies. It also shows, from all the comments that have been made, how difficult this subject is. But today is about controls, it is the tap - and the analogy has been used on a number of occasions - that can be turned on, it can be turned off or left as it is. The policy is how much and in what direction it gets turned. I am not going to spend too much time further. I will be listening with great interest as to the efficacy in which the Deputy of St. Peter sums up and addresses everybody's concerns, as in the summary position, on this debate. But I absolutely commend the very thorough piece of work that has been done to get us to this point of putting controls in place. On that basis, I hope many Members will be supporting this proposition.

8. Deputy J.M. Maçon:

A lot of my points have been covered, so I will stick to Standing Orders and do my best not to repeat anything. All I really wanted to add, I suppose, is recalling back to 2018 I remember being in the audience of the St. Helier No. 1 hustings and there was a young lady there, must have been between 20 and 30, she stood up and she put her question to the candidates and she said: "I have gone away, I am a teacher, I am qualified, I have come back to the Island because I want to work here but, for me, just the cost of living and being able to do all the other things I would like to achieve in my life, lay down a family, et cetera, et cetera, I just do not think is going to be achievable here." While I appreciate this is a debate on the control mechanisms, it is a bit of a chicken and egg situation, is it not, between what the population policy and what the controls are? For me, I have been in this Assembly almost 13 years and this has been on my manifesto at every election and this is something which I feel is something that the Island has been calling out for decades. I appreciate absolutely what the Chief Minister has just said, this will mean at some point saying no and perhaps saying no more often, which is obviously going to be uncomfortable and it is going to be difficult. But, again, if we want to retain the people that want to be here, the Islanders that want to stay here, we do need to start making these very tough political choices. Therefore, this proposition, for me, has my full backing because I think it is well overdue.

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

I will be very brief. This, as Deputy Maçon has just said, is part of a policy that has been long overdue. Again, we came into the States about the same time. We know people have been going on about population for all this time and we have not come up with a solution because repeated Governments have kicked it down the road. It is important it is addressed in this Parliament. What I will say is that many of the problems we have, other problems we have in the Island, are directly caused by population, an increased population. I am not one calling for a total ban, you cannot do that, but we have to have a measured way forward. When I talk about the problems that we have, just have a look at St. Helier . St. Helier is being piled high with apartments to try and cater for the housing needs of this Island. Certain areas of St. Helier are going to be so densely packed it is going to be ridiculous. Then we need schools, then we need more services. We are talking about an £800 million hospital. All these things stem from the need and the increase in population over the last 13 years has been criminal, in my opinion. We have had no controls, as we have heard from the explanation of why we need these new migration controls. We are told we had a leaky faucet, well we have had it for 13 years and repeated Governments have ignored it. I am going to support this part of the migration policy but what I will say though is I look forward to seeing what the Government is going to produce before the end of this year and I want to see that it is robust. Can I just say something for all the special interests that have been lobbying all States Members? Yes, we know that many of you do need employees but many of you are bringing in cheap employees, low- paid workers to make up for the fact that you are not paying reasonable wages to locals who do not want to work in your industries. It is not just simply population, it is about this Island and the values that we hold. If we do not pay people enough, for example, as we were saying yesterday in some of the questions dealing with social security, we end up paying £30 million to support rent and we are paying considerable sums of money to support other aspects of our society. We have got our values wrong, we need a total look at what we are doing. One of those, and I make no apologies for this, we need to look at our tax system. We need to see who is paying taxes, who is not and try to get the balance right. I will just say that the migration policy, yes, I will support at this time and I will be watching very closely what is coming forward when we get more data. But, as I say, all the special interest groups, yes, I know you want workers and you want the freedom to do it, start looking at your business models. You cannot always expect to get low-paid workers come in and then to that add additional pressures on to our Island economy and pressures in other services provided by Government. Let us have a total review, not just a population review. I will finish with that and just say I do support this proposition.

10. Senator S.Y. Mézec :

I must say I think there have been some cracking speeches in this debate, irrespective of whether I agree with all of the conclusions that all Members have put forward but some really have, I think, drilled down on some of the really important issues here. Just quickly in response to one of the points that Deputy Higgins made towards the end of his speech there about the tax system; he might want to have a look at the answers to the written questions I got for this States sitting, which show how unfairly distributed the tax burden is spread over different income brackets in Jersey. That is another issue that I think too many have had their heads buried in the sand over and how by resolving our tax and spend issues and how we fund our public services properly would inevitably have a huge impact on what sorts of population policy we would need or how we would need to react to the needs of businesses when they do need to bring skilled workers in, et cetera, so all these issues are interlinked. My corporate memory on this subject goes back to when I was first elected in the by-election in March 2014, so just before the general election of that year, where the then Government brought forward an interim population policy which set limits. I do not really know if the word "limit" is appropriate, maybe it was more of an aspiration that migration would be a maximum 350 a year. The States accepted that interim population policy on the basis that there was then, I think, just over a year after that, meant to be a full population policy that would come forward and it never did. The interim population policy eventually expired and in the time that it was in place the limits that it set

were never reached once and in fact they were exceeded in some years by over 3 times. It was only towards the end of that political term, the 2014 to 2018 term, that further population policy was published, although it never ended up being debated in the end and was withdrawn, withdrawn in deference to this political term, the 2018 to 2022 term, where we would once again convene to come up with a population policy. Here we are a year and a bit away from the end of this political term and at this point we are not even debating a population policy, we are debating a migration policy and one which we do have to say is rather thin on detail. The fact that we are here with this iteration of this debate, having spanned over what will essentially be 4 political terms because this proposition requires the next Council of Ministers to form a common population policy, as far as I can remember back in this subject, it is spanning 4 political terms with only one proposition adopted in that time but never abided by with multiple U-turns in putting its population policy together that have taken place in that time.

[12:00]

That must surely stand as a damning indictment of our political system that it has taken so long to get to this position, so many U-turns, over 4 political terms and here we are now debating not a population policy but a migration policy. I hope that people will start to get the memo that this is what you get when you have got such a rubbish political system like we do and this debate taking place so soon after the debate on the hospital, which, frankly, has been even worse than this in its conduct. If we want to see credible policies put in place, then we desperately need to reform how we do politics in the Island, so that we do not end up in the situation we have been in during that time where the longer the issue has gone unresolved, the longer we have been living in a situation where we have the worst of all worlds; no real control, no real understanding of the implications of the policy that is in place and no ability to tinker with it or direct it in a particular way that we think might be more in line with our needs as a community. That is frustrating because it is such a fundamental subject to the well-being of our society in every single way. Part (a) of this proposition, which, I guess, is the in-principle bit, while I might, I think, perhaps have some philosophical reservations about, it does make a point well that we would gain much greater control if we had the ability to have workers coming to the Island without the presumption that they will graduate to have full rights of establishment and work like the rest of us do. I have some philosophical difficulties with that but it is logical, it does make sense and it does give us greater control to, essentially, create a future that we can feel we will be better placed to deal with for the other associated issues. But the difficulty we find ourselves in with this particular proposition - I think Deputy Ward stated it very well in his analysis early on in the debate - is that there really is so little detail in this. We have got a proposal for a different system in terms of the 9 months, the 4 years and the 10 years; that is different to what we have got now. There may well be logic behind those specific suggestions but when you read through the report it admits that there is so much that is not to be decided at this point and will be reviewed later on. That is to do with things like what these people's rights to access healthcare will be when they are here, what rights their children will have, what rights they may have if their life gets turned upside down when they happen to be living in Jersey. I have to say that that really is not good enough to put us in that situation now. To ask the Assembly to agree with the principle of a system which does not allow the graduation of people to entitled status is something that we probably could have got our heads around much earlier in this term and agreed on and then set the Council of Ministers on to come up with the detail, so that we may be able to reconcile with our consciences that we are going to have people move to the Island and be treated like human beings and that is my concern with this. I simply cannot reconcile with my conscience the idea that somebody could come here and right now I cannot guarantee because of a political decision that has or has not been made that a person can come here and after a year get sick or end up in an accident where they are quite badly injured and will not have the full rights to healthcare without the astronomical costs that might otherwise come with it and be okay at the end of it. I have no guarantees of what could happen if somebody comes here on one of these licences, ends up falling in love and

having children with somebody, what rights will those children have and what rights will they then have if that was with somebody who was entitled but then they do not get their 4-year permit renewed or have to leave for a period of time in a really important moment in their children's life or something like that? When these moral questions remain unanswered I think that makes this debate utterly impossible, how this lack of detail means we cannot say that we know beyond any doubt that we are upholding our commitments on putting children first. Senator Moore , I think it was, who mentioned the lack of children's rights impact assessment, that we should have had at least some version of that at this point. When we have questioned Government Ministers in briefings, they have given some good words on that and I will credit the Deputy of St. Peter who, when I asked him about these issues, he gave an answer that I think aligned with my particular values on it but that is all it was. It was an answer in a briefing, not something that is featured in the wording of this proposition and not something that we can guarantee will feature in the legislation further on down the line. I think we have been let down by this process for that reason. There are businesses that have raised concerns about their ability to recruit and that will be understandable and there will be extremely difficult things to weigh up there because there does have to be a point at which you say to a business: "No, you cannot do this because it may well be in your business's interest but it is not in the interests of the wider community." From my time serving on H.A.W.A.G. I know how difficult that that can be sometimes but it is important to listen to those concerns anyway. Perhaps far less articulately than others have in this debate, I wanted to put those points on record that it really is not good enough, when we are talking ultimately about human beings and their lives, to put something before us that accepts the principle of these particular types of work permits or licensing arrangements, whatever you want to call them, which will then set off the full weight of the civil service to go ahead and begin preparing for and putting that work together without us having given a clear and unambiguous declaration of what we will expect for these people and their rights when they are here, to know that when they are coming to the Island that they will have the absolute best on offer or feel that it is worth coming here to work and know on the basis what understanding they are doing that. For us to risk then getting even closer to the end of this political term and having to rush something through or having to put up with something second rate because at that point the alternative will be we proceed with nothing and then where will we end up then? Perhaps this issue spreading over 5 or 6 political terms because we could not have dealt with it properly. I think the Assembly really is in a bad position with this proposition. I hope Members will think very carefully about how they vote on it. I hope that the proposer will take this in different parts so that he can get an understanding of what strength of feeling there is and what actions he will have to take to address those concerns, rather than just score it a cheap political victory through a different parliamentary tactic, and I ask him to consider doing that. I hope Members will have gone through this experience understanding how broken our political system is that ends up putting such inadequate propositions in front of us like this on such an important issue. That is all I have got to say.

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

This proposition is not, as some had hoped for, a form of immigration control. It is only a framework for changes to the Control of Housing and Work Law, which may provide a mechanism for controlling the level of migration in the future. It is not a population policy, which is what we have all been waiting for and which we may yet have to wait for a good deal longer. That said, it is imperative that the new permissions are clearly defined so that both business owners and those coming to seek work are fully aware of the regulations and how they will be affected. Given that this is a census year, one wonders whether this proposal could have been delayed until that vital information had been collated. Another unknown is the extent to which Brexit will impact our ability to attract seasonal workers and if this ability is greatly diminished it will have a damaging effect on the hospitality industry which relies so heavily on this resource. There is also the COVID factor to consider. Work practices are changing dramatically in response to the pandemic and it is possible that many businesses will choose to take advantage of this new reliance on working remotely, rather

than seek licences to relocate workers from elsewhere. All of these developments should have a bearing on a well-considered migration policy and it is of concern that we may be putting the cart before the horse in not passing a population policy first. Concerns have been raised by some businesses about the inflexibility of the new work permissions. Specifically, it has been queried whether discretion could be shown to certain industries based on their sensitivity to these proposed measures. It is certainly my hope that the policy to come will take into consideration the different needs of various sectors. Some examples include the construction industry where a building project might last for years and even overrun; the dairy industry, which would struggle to hire a herdsman if a permission were only to be valid for 9 months of the year; and the hospitality industry, for the reasons I have already mentioned. But it is accepted by most, if not all, that a common policy for migration and population is necessary for the sustainable future of our Island. The Migration and Population Review Panel has taken many submissions from concerned parties and engaged with each of the relevant sectors. Many we have spoken to said that they recognised some form of migration policy would be required but that further consultation and flexibility would be required if they feel they could support one. It, therefore, seems prudent to vote in favour of this proposition but I think I speak for all of us on the panel when I say that we look forward to readdressing these issues that I have raised today when the regulations are put to the Assembly. Jersey's chief statistician said only yesterday that he did not expect the results of the census to be published until early next year. I sincerely hope that the policy to emerge will take those findings into account.

12. Deputy K.F. Morel :

I would like to thank everyone who has spoken so far in this debate. There are a number of people whose thoughts have chimed very closely with mine and I will not be trying to repeat what they have said. But certainly a lot of what Deputy Ward said is along my lines of thinking and I share many of his concerns as well, the same with Senator Pallett and Senator Mézec as well. But also the Deputy of St. Martin , who quite rightly raised concerns about the impact on the economy, given there are so many unknowns. Life is always uncertain but life was more certain back in 2019 than it is today in 2021. We do not yet know the full extent of this pandemic on the Island's economy and, perhaps in many ways more importantly, on the global economy and how that will eventually filter back into the Island's economy as well. Before I go any further I would like to kind of place on record the request to split the votes into separate parts for this and so I hope the Assistant Chief Minister will give the Assembly the benefit of being able to vote on this proposition in separate parts and I will explain why now. Part (a) I think is something, although as Senator Moore has said she does not agree but most people are able to agree with and that is: "That action should be taken to provide more responsive controls on the number of migrants who acquire the right to settle permanently in Jersey and to remove the automatic graduation from one permission to another."

[12:15]

I think a lot of people in the Assembly are likely to be able to agree with that and so vote for that principle. The second part, part (b): "To request the Chief Minister to bring forward amendments to the States of Jersey Law 2005 to require the Council of Ministers to develop a common policy on population." Equally, I think, as we just heard from Deputy Ahier , many States Members agree with that. The problems that I personally have with this proposition all lie in part (c), which is why I would like this to be split when it comes to the vote. There are 2 principal reasons for this; the first is one I have spoken about already, which is the enormous uncertainty with regard to the health of Jersey's economy. The actual population we have as we stand here today, we do not know how many people have left the Island due to the pandemic. We do not know how many people have stayed. We have no idea of the reality of Jersey's population situation as we stand today. That is very important because we do not know how the population is able to work in the economy as we stand here today. We do not know where there are people missing for jobs, where there are not people missing for jobs, where there are too many people for certain types of jobs; we have no idea of that

as we stand here today. Part (c) is very prescriptive, it talks about introducing 9-month permissions, 4-year permissions, 10-year permissions and so on. The reason I asked the Attorney General - and I was pleased with his answer - about whether there is a legal binding on the proposer to carry forward those parts is because I do not believe we are in a position today to know whether those are appropriate permissions. They may well not be because we do know that the work undertaken for this proposition was done pre-pandemic. We know that these permissions are the same, essentially, that were brought forward in the interim migration policy back in 2019, I believe but I may be slightly wrong on that. Given that this is old work and the world has changed dramatically since then, I think it would be unwise of this Assembly to place any political pressure on the Chief Minister and the Assistant Chief Minister to bring forward specifically those permissions. It might be that in the course of the coming year that the work that is done confirms that these are the right permissions, in which case there will be no problem with the Chief Minister and the Assistant Chief Minister bringing these exact permissions back again as proposed legislation. But it might also be that they are completely inappropriate permissions going forward. For this Assembly to politically tie, if not legally tie, the Chief Minister to such a prescription I think is deeply unwise. I would ask the Assembly to not vote for part (c) because that will then give the Chief Minister the freedom to work during this year to come up with the very best permission statuses for the economy going forward, given the better understanding of the economy. This also chimes with representations that States Members have had from the Chamber of Commerce and also the Jersey Hospitality Association, who have quite clearly said that they are very concerned post-Brexit, post-pandemic that these extra controls would be inappropriate for a recovering economy. I do ask Members to join me in not voting for part (c), purely to give appropriate freedoms to the Chief Minister to adapt the Government's answers on the right permissions. The fact that we will have voted through part (a) still means that we expect permissions to be brought forward and we are just allowing them a blank page in terms of deciding which is the best way forward. Another part of part (c) that I feel is inappropriate, and I have said before, is part (vii) which provides: "For an independent statutory expert panel to research and advise on population matters." The reason I believe this is inappropriate is because, as we see with the F.P.P. (Fiscal Policy Panel), this is, effectively, an outsourcing of decision-making and an outsourcing of democracy in the Island. Ministers never, at least openly, question or oppose the F.P.P.'s advice. What the F.P.P. says goes, is from my observation of what has happened in this Assembly since I joined it. The trouble is, is for all the wisdom on the F.P.P. there is no accountability there. What we see is that Ministers are perhaps - and I use this in a broader sense - lacking courage to challenge the F.P.P. or to go against the F.P.P.'s recommendations and yet the electorate Islanders are unable to challenge Ministers because the Ministers always point to the F.P.P. and say: "They said this was the best way forward, so we are doing that." I believe strongly that it should be the right of the Government and whoever is the Chief Minister and whoever is the Minister for Treasury and Resources and whoever is any Minister at any time to make these decisions themselves. I believe the electorate wants Ministers to make these decisions themselves. If a future Chief Minister should decide that they want to create their own advisory panel, that is absolutely fine and they can do that but not to make it law is incredibly important. Because the moment that panel becomes law, that panel becomes the effective decision-maker. Yes, people will say or the Ministers will say: "But they are just advising." That may be so but, as we see with the F.P.P., they effectively become the decision-makers. I have had it up to here with this outsourcing of democracy in Jersey. It is inappropriate. Time and time again we are seeing that political leadership of this Island is being eroded by independent boards being placed at the decision-making end of the political process. Conversely, at the other end, the regulatory end, we see a lack. I mentioned the lack of an independent environmental regulator; that role still sits with the Minister. Regulation should be independent. Advice and decision-making should be political and should not be outsourced and I feel incredibly strongly about this. I do not want any Chief Minister to be bound by a statutorily established board that will mean that the Island is for ever .. the population policy basically being decided by that board, not by the political States Members that are elected by Islanders, it will be this board.

Essentially their appointment was overseen by the Appointments Commission and the obfuscation and lack of clarity that that brings. I ask Members, by voting for part (a) and part (b) you are in no way stopping the Chief Minister and the Assistant Chief Minister from bringing forward the 9-month, 4-year and 10-year permissions that are described in here. You are in no way stopping the Chief Minister and the Assistant Chief Minister from setting up their own board. But what you are doing is giving them the freedom to rethink, given the incredibly uncertain times we are in, given the fluidity of the world we live in at the moment, the Assembly would be offering them space to rethink and to rework the policies to make sure that we do in fact get the very best migration controls that serve both the economy and enable us to control population growth more effectively. I will reiterate that, please feel free, vote for part (a) and part (b) but please vote against part (c). Do not vote for part (c) because that ties the hands and there is absolutely no need to do that.

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

This will be a little bit awkward because I was intending to go strongly against the last speaker but I find myself completely in agreement with him. Basically, one thing about the measures that this proposition tries to introduce is that they are, in principle, the only one that we can introduce. There are tools and they have to fit with the British immigration laws, as we are part of the Common Travel Area, so we have to fit that and they have to fit with our own housing laws. Basically, the terms that are described there are what is possible. How we apply them, of course, is up to us. It is up to the policy that we still have to design. But those are the only tools that we really have available, so there is not much leeway in that either. I agree again with the previous speaker entirely that if we skipped paragraph (c) then we still leave the Government with an open book on what measures they want to use. Also, I completely agree with him on the fact that the panel should be advisory, that we really do not need statutory panels that is delegating our own work for the people and there is very, very little point on that and especially in a matter such as immigration, which is only of relevance to people already in the Island. It is very, very difficult to look at another country and say: "That is how you should manage yourself around immigration matters." I can imagine very, very good economists telling us what will happen to a sector of the industry if we apply a brake style a little bit too strong. But to be a statutory panel and tell us how we can accept people in or out of the Island, I really do not see that. First of all, I would like confirmation from the Assistant Minister on whether he is happy that getting rid of paragraph (c) still gives them the freedom of creating those tools, which are desperately, desperately needed. As I said, the only ones that we can bring, the only ones that can exist, and after that I would be very, very happy to vote for (a) and (b) and just keep (c) and give them the freedom that they need.

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

I will speak only briefly to express some of my concerns about what is going on here. The first thing is, is this is such an open-ended proposition, described as "in principle" but the principles are hard to define. The question in my mind is with such a lack of any detail whatsoever about rights or about obligations or about transfers, it seems to me that I must ask the question: what is this hiding? What is the real plan? Then that takes me on to the next stage, which is to say: and is it critical that this has a certain timing? When are we going to know if we have got a policy that works to keep our population down? We will not know until very close to the next election. Call me cynical but I think had this Council of Ministers not come up with something to say: "Look, we are doing something about population, it has been your concerns over the past 20 years and we have not dealt with it but now we are dealing with it." But in the timescale that this appears the answers, it will not be clear, that this plan is working either. That makes me think extremely cynically that all this is is a face- saver and that it enables the Council of Ministers to go up in the next elections and say: "Look, we are doing something about population and migration, vote for us." Whereas had they come with nothing, to have something to place in front of the electorate, they would have been slaughtered. That is the thinking, I think, which explains why this is such an empty proposition, an in-principle

proposition. Because it serves its purpose of getting this Council of Ministers through the next election and, I suspect, that that may be all it does, although I am tempted to say that with the lowest minimum wage of all our rivals and colleagues and neighbours and following from Brexit, it seems to me that rather than having too many people we too may be in a position of other small island communities where the problem is going to be attracting enough people to our shores because I think we are in for a tough time.

[12:30] The Bailiff :

Thank you very much, Deputy . Does any other Member wish to speak on the proposition? If no other Member wishes to speak on the proposition, then I close the debate. I note, Deputy Ward , you asked whether you could raise the question of the questions that you asked to be addressed in the summing up. I am afraid not; that would amount to a second speech. Doubtless, the rapporteur will address those that he wishes to address in his summing up. I call upon the Deputy of St. Peter to respond.

15. The Deputy of St. Peter :

Thank you everybody for taking part and those especially who listened in these really important debates. We have covered a lot here. I think, firstly, I would just like to reassure Members that while we have discussed the word "in principle", this is about migration controls. It does not mention any numbers up or down, it does not relate specifically to any specific industry, sector, government body, healthcare at all; that is not the point of it. It is purely, as I said earlier, about the taps. We have a leaky tap, our plumbing does not work and we need to fix that plumbing, fix those taps, so we have the ability to turn them on or off, hot and cold, depending on the needs of the Island. The purpose, in part, is to ensure that when we come to the Assembly with a population policy, which is we know as a result of P.120, the amendment and is part of this proposition by the end of this particular year, we are in a position to be able to make that policy meaningful. Because as we know, and it has been mentioned by many, that we have the uncontrolled migration of running at 1,000 a year or 1,200 a year. As Senator Mézec reminded us, in 2014 and I think it was part of the Island Plan in 2011, was based on an inward net migration of 325; that has not worked. This is merely the first stage of putting those controls in place. What we do after that, hopefully, I laid out quite clearly a plan to go forward to the end of the year. Part of that will be in principle, will come back as regulations towards the end of the year and that is obviously the time when more detail will be included. Many of which that was said today, hopefully, will be added to this and enhanced in many cases in the in-committee debate in 3 weeks' time, which I am hoping to lodge soon, when I have absolutely clarified my thoughts exactly about what it is going to be. But in principle, as I said in my summing up before, this is in the hard box. I am new, I have been here 2½, whatever, 3 years. This is a long-running saga, it is longer than Coronation Street, about the desire to have a population policy. We all know it is in the hard box because we have to, as I said before, manage those tensions of our finance, our society and our environment. It needs a collaboration of all of us, as an Assembly, both the Executive and the non-Executive, to have a will towards delivering that but that is for 3 weeks' time and ongoing. Today we are talking about the taps. I was delighted to listen to Senator Pallett, and I think Senator Pallett said this and others mentioned the word "collaboration", so there is a will, hopefully, within the Assembly to move this process forward. Data, I love data and do not ever ask me to come up with data because I will go back to the quote that I have used on many occasions on Jim Barksdale, the former chief of Netscape, which was an early runner to Google and did not quite win: "If we have data, let us look at data. If all we have are opinions, let us go with mine." I do not want to use my opinions or anybody else's opinions, I want to use the data and we will need our expert panel to help assess the data to enable us to make informed decisions based on that data. The lack of data, as Senator Pallett quietly pointed out, is holding us back and we need to get there as quickly as possible. But that, unfortunately, has a finite time. We cannot deliver that until the end of the year and we are

not going to have the census data until the end of the year but that is the will of the Assembly in asking us to bring a population policy by the end of the year. We will do whatever we can to make sure that is as relevant as we possibly can. Do not forget it will be fluid, if the population policy is frozen then we are missing this. It has to be dynamic as we work our way through the quagmire ahead of us of sorting this out. I will try and go through the individuals. Rob Ward , schoolteacher, gave me 4 very good questions, I am not sure I wrote them down properly and

The Bailiff :

I am sorry, Deputy . I must interrupt you, Deputy . Deputy of St. Peter . He cannot see anybody to do anything. Could you put in the chat, please, would he please stop speaking? Okay, turn his microphone back on. Deputy , I had to mute your microphone because I was trying to intervene, for a significant period you clearly were not looking and you clearly were not listening. You must have had your speakers

The Deputy of St. Peter :

I apologise, Sir. We have a technical thing here. Please, I apologise, Sir. The Bailiff :

Very well, but it is important that any speaking Member can be interrupted by the Presiding Officer, otherwise there is not much point to any Presiding Officer. The position was that you began your speech when you were talking about individual Members and you must provide a reference to a Deputy by his full name and clearly that is not the first time that this has happened. I was merely wishing to interject and the point is not perhaps as important as the fact that I could not be heard to interject. You should maintain the formalities and, please, it is not Rob Ward , schoolteacher, it is Deputy Ward . If you would please maintain the formalities as you continue to speak. Thank you very much.

The Deputy of St. Peter :

My apologies, Sir. I believe I have adjusted the technology whereby I can now hear you and also speak at the same time, which should not be too difficult in 2021. Had a bit of finger trouble between the finger and the keyboard, Sir, I apologise. To Deputy Ward , I think that is where I got up to, he posed 4 questions and I think I was at a point of saying he wanted reassurance that decisions be made by politicians; I think I covered that point with elected Members and how the new permissions will be used. He asked then about the next steps, which I believe I articulated. With an in-committee debate, returning to the Assembly in the summer with the migration controls fleshed out, I believe that public consultation would go up throughout the summer. One of the most important things is to go to all people that submitted, and more, to the Migration Policy Board because it is important we have what I will describe as a gap analysis between what was submitted before and any changes that have happened as a result of Brexit, certainly the unforeseen consequences of Brexit and obviously particular reference to COVID, which has dominated this Assembly for the last year. Yes, that was Brexit and COVID impacts taken into account, gathering data and the policy looked rushed. I do not know how to answer that. All I can do is give absolute credit to the policy board members and the officers who have brought this to the Assembly for us today for debate. I think a lot of what Senator Pallett was talking about, we need more details. I am delighted that he recognised that the majority of people who submitted to Scrutiny fully understand that we do require what do we require? Do we require such controls and they are necessary? I am delighted that that was recognised and also his support, which I am mentioning, for data. Again, that was again supported by Deputy Luce . Senator Moore , the Children's Commissioner has confirmed that this proposition of Control of Housing and Work Law fit within the rights of the child. However, we will be bringing an impact assessment to this proposition to ensure that that is the case and that is clearly a priority. Senator Mézec , I can only say that this has taken too long and this has taken too long because it is in the hard

box. All I can say is I ask for his support and his contribution as we go forward to ensure that we can deliver on something. I personally think there are only 2 people that would want to take on a population policy in this Island, you have either got to be incredibly bright or incredibly stupid and I do not know which one I am at the moment. But it really is a task that needs to be taken on and it needs some absolute courage and it also needs great support from the whole of the Assembly. Quite right to point out healthcare, children and family issues, and I thank you for the praise in the hearing that we had. I believe that we need to sell this Island for our migrant workforce. As I mentioned, gone are the days when people were queuing up to come here because there was a financial disconnect between other parts of the world and ours, where we could pay money that those people could take home to their families. I remember it clearly, my first job in the summer of 1977 working on a farm with some of the early Madeirans that were in this Island. That was a great learning experience for me socially, as well as it made it absolutely clear in my mind I did not want to be a farmer because it was far too much like hard work. But it was really clearly instilled in my mind the work that people were doing to send money home to their families. It is different now. We need to sell the Island and we need to ensure, as I said, if they come here and if they are working in a hotel and they cover themselves in chip fat or if they have an injury working in the fields, they must have healthcare at the outset. We must protect them and look after those things. Their social security contributions cannot be seen as a thank you, we will squirrel all those away and you can go away. I think that is immoral and I will not support that but thank you for reminding me of that.

[12:45]

Deputy Morel , we have our discussions and his views are quite well-known and he is concerned about the panel being a statutory panel. My advice is that it may be a statutory panel but it is not a decision-making panel, it is an advisory panel. Again, it is up to us as politicians as to whether we listen to that advice or roll over and accept it. We listen to it and we interpret that and make our decisions accordingly. Again, Deputy Guida is questioning that, but I see that this is so much in the hard box that we do - I fear that I am going to say something that I hate saying - have to reach out and seek the huge guidance and wealth of experience there to help us bring forward and continue to manage the population of this Island in an evidence-based way. Deputy Southern was cynical about timing. If I have missed anybody, I apologise. There is an enormous amount to take on. However, all I would like to do is to ask Members to support this proposition. It is the first in the latest stages of steps in order to get in the population policy that this Island wants and needs. We cannot kick it down any longer. We have to put our best foot forward and start the process of delivering on this. With that, may I call for the appel?

The Bailiff :

Two things arise. Deputy Ward has asked would you give way for a point of clarification, and that is the first point. Are you prepared to?

The Deputy of St. Peter :

I would like to take, if I may, parts (a), (b) and (c) to (vi) in one part .. The Bailiff :

I am sorry, Deputy of St. Peter ..

The Deputy of St. Peter :

.. and then (vii) and (viii) separately.

The Bailiff :

Deputy of St. Peter , are you able to hear me? Are you able to hear me? Clearly not. Could someone in the room with the Deputy of St. Peter , if anyone is there, give the Deputy the opportunity of being able to hear? Deputy of St. Peter, can you hear me?

The Deputy of St. Peter : Yes, I can hear you now, Sir. The Bailiff :

Thank you very much. I was again trying to interrupt but again the technology appears to have failed. The question that I was asking originally was: are you prepared to give way for a point of clarification from Deputy Ward ? That is the first point. Then the second point will be how you wish to take the proposition.

The Deputy of St. Peter :

On a ..?

The Bailiff :

A point of clarification.

The Deputy of St. Peter :

A point of clarification, yes, please.

The Bailiff :

Yes, you are prepared to give a point of clarification to the Deputy ? The Deputy of St. Peter :

Yes, of course.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Thank you for your patience. The point of clarification is whether the proposer, the Deputy of St. Peter , can respond to the question I put directly regarding how part (c) would apply to people currently on their own, whether he can answer that question in his response. I think it was very clearly put in my speech.