States Meeting Transcript - 30th March 2022

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT WEDNESDAY, 30th MARCH 2022

COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER ........................................ 5

1.1 Tribute to Mr. Nigel Quérée:............................................................... 5 PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption .................................................................. 5

2. Draft Children (Convention Rights) (Jersey) Law 202- (P.19/2022): second amendment (P.19/2022. Amd.(2)) - resumption ........................................... 5

1. Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier (Chair, Children, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel): ...................................................................................... 6

1. Deputy S.M. Wickenden of St. Helier : .................................................... 7
2. Senator S.Y. Mézec : ....................................................................... 7
3. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier :.......................................................... 8
4. Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade : ........................................................ 8
5. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade : .......................................................... 9
6. Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré: ................................................................ 10
7. Senator T.A. Vallois: ..................................................................... 10
8. Senator K.L. Moore : ...................................................................... 11
9. Senator I.J. Gorst : ........................................................................ 11
10. Deputy G.C. Guida of St. Lawrence : .................................................. 12
11. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade : ............................................. 12
12. Deputy K.G. Pamplin of St. Saviour : .................................................. 12
13. Deputy R.J. Renouf of St. Ouen :...................................................... 13
14. Connétable A. Jehan of St. John : ...................................................... 13
15. Deputy J.H. Perchard of St. Saviour : .................................................. 13
16. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence : ...................................... 14
17. Deputy R.J. Ward : ..................................................................... 15

2. Draft Children (Convention Rights) (Jersey) Law 202- (P.19/2022) - resumption .... 17

2.2.1 Deputy S.M. Wickenden:................................................................. 17

3. Draft Children (Convention Rights) (Jersey) Law 202- (P.19/2022): third amendment (P.19/2022. Amd.(3)) ....................................................................... 19

1. Senator T.A. Vallois (Children, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel - rapporteur): ............................................................................... 19
2. Deputy S.M. Wickenden:................................................................. 20
3. Senator T.A. Vallois: ..................................................................... 21

4. Draft Children (Convention Rights) (Jersey) Law 202- (P.19/2022) - as amended .... 22

2.4.1 Deputy S.M. Wickenden:................................................................. 22

5. Deputy S.M. Wickenden:................................................................. 23

1. Deputy R.J. Ward : ........................................................................ 23
2. Senator S.Y. Mézec : ...................................................................... 24
3. Deputy M. Tadier :........................................................................ 24
4. Deputy S.M. Wickenden:................................................................. 25

3. Draft Police (Complaints and Conduct) (Jersey) Law 202- (P.22/2022) ............... 26

1. Deputy G.C. Guida (The Minister for Home Affairs): ................................... 27

1. Deputy R.J. Ward : ........................................................................ 29
2. Deputy K.F. Morel : ....................................................................... 29
3. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier : ................................................ 29
4. The Connétable of St. Brelade : ........................................................... 30
5. The Connétable of St. Lawrence : ........................................................ 30
6. Deputy G.C. Guida: ...................................................................... 30

2. Deputy G.C. Guida: ...................................................................... 32

1. Deputy K.F. Morel : ....................................................................... 33
2. Deputy G.C. Guida: ...................................................................... 33
   3. Deputy G.C. Guida: ...................................................................... 34

4. Draft Criminal Procedure (Consequential Amendments - Access to Justice) (Jersey) Regulations 202- (P.4/2022) ............................................................... 35

4.1 Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré (The Chief Minister): ......................................... 36

1. Deputy S.M. Ahier of St. Helier : ......................................................... 36
2. Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré: ................................................................ 36

5. Draft Control of Housing and Work (Amendment) (Jersey) Law 202- (P.13/2022) .. 38

1. Deputy R.E. Huelin of St. Peter (Assistant Chief Minister - rapporteur): ................ 38

1. Senator L.J. Farnham : .................................................................... 40
2. Senator S.W. Pallett: ...................................................................... 40
3. Senator K.L. Moore : ...................................................................... 42
4. Deputy G.C. Guida: ...................................................................... 42
5. The Deputy of St. Peter : .................................................................. 43

2. The Deputy of St. Peter : .................................................................. 45

1. Senator S.W. Pallett: ...................................................................... 47 Mr. M. Jowitt, H.M. Solicitor General: ......................................................... 47
2. Deputy R.J. Ward : ........................................................................ 48
3. The Deputy of St. Peter : .................................................................. 48

3. The Deputy of St. Peter : .................................................................. 49

6 Rate Appeal Board: Appointment of Members (P.16/2022)............................ 51

6.1 Deputy S.J. Pinel of St. Clement (The Minister for Treasury and Resources): .......... 51

1. Senator S.W. Pallett: ...................................................................... 51
2. Deputy K.F. Morel : ....................................................................... 52
3. The Connétable of St. Lawrence : ........................................................ 52
4. Deputy S.J. Pinel:......................................................................... 52

7. Amendment to Standing Orders - Inclusion of Island Identity Statement (P.17/2022)

 .............................................................................................. 54

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED ................................................... 54 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT .................................................................. 54

7.1 The Deputy of Grouville : ................................................................. 54

1. Senator S.Y. Mézec : ...................................................................... 55

2. Deputy D. Johnson of St. Mary : .......................................................... 55
3. The Connétable of St. John : .............................................................. 56
4. The Connétable of St. Brelade : ........................................................... 56
5. Senator S.W. Pallett: ...................................................................... 56
6. Deputy K.F. Morel : ....................................................................... 56
7. Deputy M. Tadier :........................................................................ 57
8. Deputy C.S. Alves of St. Helier : .......................................................... 58
9. Deputy S.M. Wickenden:................................................................. 59
10. Deputy J.H. Young: .................................................................... 59
11. Deputy R.J. Ward : ..................................................................... 59
12. The Deputy of St. Ouen : .............................................................. 60
13. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour : .................................................... 60
14. Connétable J. Le Bailly of St. Mary :.................................................. 61
15. Deputy I. Gardiner of St. Helier : ...................................................... 61
16. The Deputy of Grouville : .............................................................. 61

8. Maintenance of Jersey's credit rating (P.18/2022) ...................................... 63

1. Deputy K.F. Morel : ....................................................................... 63

2. Maintenance of Jersey's credit rating (P.18/2022): amendment (P.18/2022 Amd.) ... 64

1. Deputy S.J. Pinel (The Minister for Treasury and Resources): .......................... 65
2. Deputy J.H. Young: ...................................................................... 65
3. Deputy S.J. Pinel:......................................................................... 65

3. Maintenance of Jersey's credit rating (P.18/2022) - as amended ....................... 67

1. Senator K.L. Moore : ...................................................................... 67
2. Deputy K.F. Morel : ....................................................................... 67

9. Draft Banking Business (Amendment No. 9) (Jersey) Law 202- (P.20/2022) .......... 69

1. Connétable R.A. Buchanan of St. Ouen (Assistant Minister for External Relations and Financial Services - rapporteur):.......................................................... 69
2. The Deputy of St. Mary : .................................................................. 70
3. The Connétable of St. Ouen :.............................................................. 70

10. Draft Employment (Amendment No. 12) (Jersey) Law 202- (P.21/2022).............. 74

1. Deputy J.A. Martin (The Minister for Social Security): .................................. 74

1. Senator S.Y. Mézec : ................................................................... 74
2. Deputy K.F. Morel : .................................................................... 76
3. Deputy J.H. Young: .................................................................... 76
4. The Connétable of St. Ouen : .......................................................... 76
5. The Deputy of St. Ouen : .............................................................. 77

6. Deputy G.P. Southern : ................................................................ 77
7. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................... 78

2. Deputy J.A. Martin: ...................................................................... 80

1. The Connétable of St. Ouen : .......................................................... 80
2. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................... 80

11. Draft Income Tax (Amendment of Law - Limited Liability Companies) (Jersey) Regulations 202- (P.25/2022) .............................................................. 82

1. Senator I.J. Gorst (Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources - rapporteur): ....... 83
2. Senator I.J. Gorst : ........................................................................ 84

12. Draft COVID-19 (Enabling Provisions) (Amendment No. 4) (Jersey) Law 202- (P.27/2022) .................................................................................. 86

1. The Deputy of St. Ouen (The Minister for Health and Social Services): ................ 87 Deputy R.J. Ward : .............................................................................. 88 The Solicitor General: .......................................................................... 89 Senator S.Y. Mézec : ............................................................................ 89

1. Deputy G.C. Guida: .................................................................... 90
2. Deputy S.M. Wickenden: .............................................................. 90
3. Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier : ........................................................ 90
4. Deputy M. Tadier : ..................................................................... 90
5. Deputy K.G. Pamplin: ................................................................. 91 Deputy R.J. Ward : .............................................................................. 92 The Solicitor General: .......................................................................... 92
6. Deputy J.H. Young: .................................................................... 93
7. Senator L.J. Farnham : ................................................................. 93
8. Senator T.A. Vallois: .................................................................. 93
9. The Connétable of St. Ouen : .......................................................... 93
10. The Connétable of St. John : ........................................................ 94
11. Senator S.Y. Mézec :................................................................ 94
12. Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin : .................................................... 95
13. The Deputy of St. Ouen : ............................................................ 95

2. The Deputy of St. Ouen : .................................................................. 97

13. Draft COVID-19 (Amendments - Extensions to September 2022) (Jersey) Regulations 202- (P.28/2022) ........................................................................... 100

1. The Deputy of St. Ouen (The Minister for Health and Social Services): ............... 100

1. Deputy R.J. Ward : .................................................................... 102
2. Senator T.A. Vallois: ................................................................. 102
3. The Deputy of St. Ouen : ............................................................. 102

2. The Deputy of St. Ouen : ................................................................ 105

1. Deputy R.J. Ward : .................................................................... 105
2. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................. 105
3. Deputy J.H. Young: .................................................................. 106 The Solicitor General: ......................................................................... 108 Deputy C.S. Alves : ............................................................................ 110 Deputy J.A. Martin: ............................................................................ 110 Deputy J.H. Perchard: ......................................................................... 110 The Connétable of St. Ouen : .................................................................. 110 Deputy I. Gardiner :............................................................................ 110 Deputy M. Tadier : ............................................................................. 110 Deputy K.F. Morel : ............................................................................ 111 Deputy C.S. Alves : ............................................................................ 111 Deputy M. Tadier : ............................................................................. 111

ADJOURNMENT ................................................................................. 111

[9:30]

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

The Bailiff :

1.1  Tribute to Mr. Nigel Quérée:

Members may have heard of the death on Monday of former Senator Nigel Quérée. He died at home in St. Ouen , the Parish into which he was born in 1954 and to which he was devoted. Indeed his first election to public office was as a Constable's officer in that Parish. His was a farming family and it was this to which he attributed a love of the environment for which he became so well-known. He was educated at Les Landes School, Victoria College and Salford University and, on returning to the Island, became an active member of the environmental group Concern, as well as supporting the campaign to prevent the flooding of Queen's Valley. This sparked his interest in standing for the States. He was elected as a Senator in 1990 and he combined a working life as an I.T. (information technology) manager and later director of the builders' merchants, Normans, with active participation in this Assembly. He was very quickly elected president of the Telecommunications Committee and was also a member at various times of the Education, Agricultural and Fisheries and Policy and Resources Committees. It was his passion for planning and the environment, however, and his tenure as president of that committee from 1996 for which he may be best remembered. Given this Assembly's debate over the last 2 weeks, it is notable that it was he who introduced the 2002 Island Plan. That plan contained a new approach to development in which zoning was streamlined, the green zone strengthened, and new policies introduced to minimise waste. Environmental impact assessments, countryside character appraisals and a robust historic buildings policy were other new aspects of the plan. It formed the basis of the next Island Plan in 2011 and its policies are the bedrock of the bridging Island Plan, which the Assembly agreed last week. His committee also modernised the Island's planning law, which had not been updated since 1964. It started the proper listing of buildings, designated S.S.I.s (sites of special interest) and produced a conservation of wildlife law. It moved towards creating the Channel Islands first wetland of international importance under the Ramsar Convention and wrote a masterplan for Les Mielles, and prepared the ground for planning meetings to be held in public. I know that those who observed his work feel that it transformed the way planning was viewed by practitioners and by the public. Following his retirement from politics, he remained heavily involved in environmental matters and was a trustee of the Gerard Le Claire Environmental Trust and chair of the Jersey Environment Forum. It was the Quérée family - himself and his wife - who, when attempts to buy the old holiday camp at Plémont in order to return it to nature had stalled, re-energised that campaign. The resulting restoration of the land for the people of Jersey spoke to his special love of his home Parish of St. Ouen . Today our thoughts are with his wife, Judith, daughter, Taryn, and son, Piers. I hope they will be comforted by the fact that the work undertaken by Nigel Quérée in this Chamber lives on, and that he is remembered with affection and admiration by those who served with him. I would now ask the Assembly to stand for a minute's silence in his memory. [Silence] May he rest in peace. [Aside] Yes, the défaut is raised for the Deputy of Grouville .

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption

2. Draft Children (Convention Rights) (Jersey) Law 202- (P.19/2022): second amendment (P.19/2022. Amd.(2)) - resumption

The Bailiff :

We now resume the debate on P.19. We are dealing with the second amendment, that is amendments to Article 6 and Article 7. The citation was read by the Greffier prior to the adjournment so it is now for Deputy Ward to propose the amendment and for it to be seconded and proceed to debate.

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

I would like to start off by thanking the Minister and the officers for bringing forward the main proposition in all of its areas, and particularly in this area that proposes that C.R.I.A.s. (child rights impact assessments) are required for propositions that are lodged in the States Assembly because I feel it is a step forward in our consideration of the U.N.C.R.C. (United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child) content and what it does is it makes us, as Members, consider those parts of the U.N.C.R.C. as we bring forward propositions and changes to the law in this Assembly, which will affect children and young people on this Island. We do support that main amendment. I do thank the officers because of the amount of time that they spent briefing the panel and the interaction that we have had, right from the beginning, and indeed all previous Ministers who were involved in this piece of work because I know it has been a long and winding road, as they say. The amendment, I am hoping, is a positive one, and the panel hopes this brings a positive discussion in this Assembly and, again, brings the rights of children in the U.N.C.R.C. that this Assembly adopted with P.63/2017 right at the forefront of our discussions.

[9:45]

The panel is bringing this amendment to extend the need for C.R.I.A.s to amendments and to amendments to amendments of main propositions. I must first of all explain that C.R.I.A.s come in 2 stages. I think it is important that Members understand this. The first one is a preliminary assessment. That is a very quick assessment of whether anything extra is needed with regard to C.R.I.A. and for amendments to propositions it will be referenced to the original proposition and the C.R.I.A. that goes with it to say: "Do I need anything else?" It is at that stage that the Member themselves can decide whether a full assessment is needed because the impact of that amendment is great enough to require that full assessment. The concerns over increased workload or increased obstacles need to be considered in that context. This initial assessment is very quick and all it does is it makes us refer to exactly the C.R.I.A. that has already been produced. There are a number of reasons why the panel brought this forward. The draft law, and I would hope the Minister would agree with this, is the start of a cultural shift to fully consider children's rights from a legislative and policy perspective. The panel's amendment will put the concept of children's rights firmly at the heart of decision-making in the States Assembly by requiring this to be made at all stages of the democratic process. That is what this amendment does. We all have a lot to learn about C.R.I.A.s and child rights impact assessments and the best way to enable them to happen and the most positive way for them to happen. If I can give an example, and I wracked my brains for an example as to where this would fit in. I looked back to the bridging Island Plan debate last week and one of the things I considered was the amendment to how far play space should be from development. The Minister came up with a number to say it should be this far and there was an amendment from one of the Members to say it should be a little closer. That initial amendment from the Minister would have had a C.R.I.A. attached to it that said: "These are the parts of the U.N.C.R.C." and in that consideration of how that affects children in that case, it strengthens and enriches that proposition and the Minister could say: "We are addressing the issue that children have an entitlement to play space." Wonderful, it ticks that box, looks at that point and says: "Yes, we are considering that, that fits in really well, I will bring that to the Assembly, this is enriching my proposition." The amendment to the amendment will come along and say: "I am looking at the original amendments, the C.R.I.A. absolutely covers it, all I am doing is decreasing the distance so my preliminary assessment is I do not need another C.R.I.A. I will get on with my amendment." It is that simple. But the consideration has taken place in the same context. However, if the amendment was to say you do not need to think about that at all then it might require a more detailed impact of how does that fit in with the U.N.C.R.C. in children's play space. I think that will be a consideration we would need to make. In both of those cases this is a very positive thing for us to do. I urge Members not to see this as an obstacle to anything, but to see it as a tool for enabling things to happen. For many

amendments there will not be the necessity for a C.R.I.A. The amendments coming forward today from Senator Gorst , many of those are about banking and liable companies and so on, probably do not need that much of a child rights impact assessment. So there is not an obstacle to many of the things that we do. But we do need to consider, as an Assembly, that if we are to bring something forward in this Assembly that affects children and affects young people in their development and their future, we have adopted the U.N.C.R.C. standards and convention of rights for children. Therefore, we do have a duty, if we are to do this work well, to consider those when we bring forward our propositions. I am going to leave it at that for now and I hope this can be a really positive debate because this is a really positive thing that we are doing. I cannot see any negativity in it. I hope that when Members speak they do so positively. I ask Members to consider and to support the amendment from the panel. I make the proposition.

The Bailiff :

Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the amendment?

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

I am not accepting the second amendment and I am asking Members to reject it. This amendment will significantly extend the scope of the duty introduced by Article 6 of the draft law. This duty will apply to every Member of the Assembly and will require the preparation of a C.R.I.A. preliminary assessment or screen for every amendment to a non-exempt proposition. To be clear, the scope of this change includes amendments to propositions, amendments to amendments and any subsequent amendments to amendments. I believe the draft law introduces appropriate balance and proportionate duty to C.R.I.A.s. The effect of this amendment will be significant. Members will need to consider what this will mean for themselves. If adopted the second amendment will require the preparation of approximately 75 preliminary assessments each year, based on 2019's propositions lodged. However, in the case of particularly complex propositions, say the last 2 weeks of the Island Plan, which we have just debated, Members would have been required to prepare C.R.I.A. preliminary assessments for every one of the 113 amendments lodged. So why am I, the Minister for Children and Education, opposed to this amendment? Firstly, I believe it risks reducing the C.R.I.A. process, a process that I am deeply committed to seeing introduced to a tick-box exercise, which creates an additional burden of work that results in less benefits. Secondly, the amendment will remove the opportunity for Members to exercise their discretion by choosing to prepare a C.R.I.A. preliminary assessment for the amendments they propose. This discretion should involve consideration of the C.R.I.A. published alongside the original proposition rather than additional duty by default. I think we should walk before we run on this new process and make sure that all Members, their support either in the Greffe or in the Ministerial unit are ready, prepared and understand the C.R.I.A.s before we go to such levels. Finally, as Members will be aware from the first amendment lodged by Scrutiny, the draft law includes the mechanisms to change the schedule of propositions that were exempt from C.R.I.A.s. In time it may be an appetite to remove the exemptions but I do not believe this should be our starting point. Therefore I ask Members to reject the second amendment and again, I say, could we walk before we run and make sure that we can embed a culture of C.R.I.A.s appropriately into our process? This can be extended at a later date. This is not prohibitive of any Member from lodging a C.R.I.A. if they choose to, during an amendment, but it does not make it by default.

2. Senator S.Y. Mézec :

I am very surprised that there should be opposition to this amendment. Deputy Wickenden said that we need a culture of creating C.R.I.A.s first. It strikes me as illogical to think that we will create that culture by providing carve-outs for more opportunities where Members will not have to consider child rights impact assessments. The Deputy is absolutely right that there should not just be a tick- box exercise. They should require Members to sit down and have a good think about what it is they

are proposing and understand what impacts it may or may not have on children and, in many instances, propositions will come to this Assembly where there simply is no impact on children. But some amendments can have a drastic impact on children. Deputy Ward gave an example of a recent one that talked about where play space would be provided for children but a Member may bring a proposition that has a clear and direct impact on children and somebody brings an amendment that attempts to scupper the intentions of that proposition or to delay the implementation of that proposition, which very clearly would have an impact on children's rights. It is right that if the initial proposition is required to account for itself in what impact it would have on children's rights then so would those who seek to change the nature of that proposition or the specifics of it. As Deputy Ward said, it really does not have to be an onerous thing. If your amendment is similar, in many respects, to the main proposition a large part of that child rights impact assessment could very well be a copy and paste job but maybe with a couple of extra sentences where you will have to account for those differences. Having had to go through the process of thinking about it and trying to understand yourself what impact it will have on children will help embed that culture that we are trying to build, where we consider the impact on children in everything we do, whether it is government departmental or whether it is us as States Members with the propositions that we bring to this Assembly. It really will not be onerous. We have a fantastic support team in the States Greffe, which has been expanded in recent years, that is more than capable of helping us if we think any of this might be tricky at any point. But requiring us to ask ourselves the question: how will this impact on children so that we can reference that in a debate and have all of us, as Members, understand the impact that the decisions we make have on children can only possibly be a good thing. I am very surprised that there would be opposition to this, it is not onerous, it does not turn it into a tick-box exercise, it just asks us as States Members to be more cognisant of the potentially extremely important impacts of our decisions on the children who we have signed up to put first. I am wholeheartedly in support of this amendment.

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

I have been to all of the States Members briefings and I have had a couple of separate briefings on different issues because of an interest I had before. This was spoken about and was it not going far enough but then was it going too far because it is a lot of extra work. Then my mind was made up by what Senator Mézec has just said. The proposition will have a full detailed C.R.I.A. Anything that comes after that, if it can have, it is not prohibitive, somebody can still do one, but if it is an amendment that the Senator describes as something that would completely alter what the Minister for Children and Education, I would imagine, or Housing or anything that affects children's lives in Jersey is so preposterous and so out of the box it would not get voted through anyway, but why then the step back was literally sometimes you see a little thing in a proposition that you only want to lodge or only have to lodge an amendment to amendment I think a week, maybe 2, and it is urgent you get this in but you cannot do a C.R.I.A. You would do it obviously if you are taking away the rights because you would have to try and make your argument. The argument should be in here. I think in the Minister's mind, the officer's mind, and I know there is moral support been put into the Greffe, it was about not stopping Back-Benchers who may not have so much support to be able to bring these amendments on the floor of this Assembly where the decision is made, if that person who has brought the amendment has basically thrown the C.R.I.A. out with the bathwater. It is a start. I am erring on the side of the Minister having spoken to all of the officers who were trying to be helpful, trying to make sure that there are no rights taken away from a Back-Bencher at all. It is up to the Assembly, I do think it will just you heard the Minister say: "Let us do this for a year or 2 and if it is abused obviously you make it compulsory." I do not think it is necessary at the moment and I really do think it could have unintended consequences. Deputy Ward and Senator Mézec are all about defending the democracy of this Assembly and anybody could bring anything but only if you have a C.R.I.A. It does not make sense to me on an amendment to an amendment.

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

I was not able to go to the Ministerial briefing and I am grateful to the Minister for Social Security for telling us what was what. I can agree with both sides here and am a little bit troubled that we are forced to make decisions.

[10:00]

Clearly it is right that we do these assessments, it is part of the commitments and journey, but I think what I would ask the proposer to address when he sums up, what prevents anybody that is bringing an amendment getting the right assessment and making their case anyway? Nothing. Obviously if you are going to bring an amendment to something which is a change in government policy you are going to have to make your case. If there is a great big hole in it because you have not done the work, you know, as the Minister said, you are not going to get there. I think the question is that in my sort of working life I have always worried about creating over complex procedures. Certainly, when you hardcode them into a law, and this is a law. I think the kind of approach that I would have felt more comfortable with is where you can do these things by regulation or order because it allows more flexibility to adapt. Do you need to hardcode this degree of detail into a law which has to go through the Privy Council and all that stuff? Do you need that? That is the question I would ask the proposer to speak to. I can understand both points of view. We need these assessments. But there we are, I will make the decision on how I vote when I hear the arguments in summing up.

5. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

I think we have started off on the wrong foot here because the way I look at this, this amendment makes entire sense. The equivalent I think is the financial and manpower impact assessment like we already have on all propositions and not all amendments. You can argue against the financial and manpower if you want to, as you can argue against the child rights impact assessment, but we are not talking about that now, we are talking about the amendment to this. It makes entire sense. Of course, if you were to bring a proposition which amended something and had financial manpower implications which were different to the original proposition, of course you would say that in your amendment because you are talking about the money. You are talking about this project of the Minister was going to cost or save £200,000, my amendment requires us to spend £100,000 more so you need the Assembly to know about that. If it is required of any Member who lodges the main proposition to put a child rights impact assessment in it and then an amendment comes along, either it does not affect the child rights, therefore you just say that. You say: "Refer to the main proposition which says this and in fact this amendment does not change it." But if, in fact, the amendment does affect child rights let us give an example from yesterday. Imagine a Member puts in an amendment to a proposition saying the police should be allowed to use Tasers on 12 year-olds in exceptional circumstances. That completely changes the child rights impact assessment statement that would have been given on the main proposition. Similarly, if you were to do something opposite in a different proposition. I think Members are arguing at cross purposes and I would say there is a valid debate to be had on the main proposition about where do you stop. Deputy Ward will not mind me saying that we have had these discussions in our group when thinking about the wider issues because, of course, you would not want to see a whole load of obstacles coming up that mean that when you a lodge a proposition or an amendment you have to consider financial manpower, human rights implications, child rights implications, maybe the effect on Jersey's international identity. You might have to put in a statement about how it affects Jersey tourism and tourists coming to the Island and the perception of Jersey. It may be Jersey's image as a finance centre around the world. Where does it stop? Those are legitimate arguments to be made against the C.R.I.A. per se but it has nothing to do with this amendment. The amendment is just asking for consistency in approach. I would say to the Members like Deputy Young and Deputy Martin, these arguments are not for this particular amendment. To be consistent this amendment only makes it better and a coherent position should be taken. But, of course, if you do not like the Minister's proposal then we are at liberty to not support that.

6. Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

Just briefly, I know some people are trying to make light of it but I was particularly struck by the comments from the Minister to the amendment, which basically does say, for example, that this amendment would have captured most, if not all, of the amendments in the Island Plan debate that we have just finished over the last 2 weeks. Is that something that Members think is a balanced approach to what obviously is a new law. That is what the comments say and I think therefore it is the unintended consequences of what Deputy Ward is seeking to achieve. If the Assembly want to go that way then that is what the Assembly want to do but it is the consequences of opening up, bearing in mind as Deputy Young referred to, there is nothing that inhibits a Member putting a C.R.I.A. in if they wish to outside the original proposals in the original proposition. It is a matter for the Assembly but there is that point about unintended consequences and that could mean time, it could mean resource and all those type of things. Yes, it is about putting children first but I would have said that the path suggested by the Minister is a balanced one in terms of where we are going, which is completely new territory.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

May I just have a point of order? It is not my amendment, it is an amendment from the Children, Education and Home Affairs Panel. I think that is an important point in terms of the personalisation of the amendment. It comes from the panel, not just myself. Just to make that point.

The Bailiff :

I do not think that really is a point of clarification but it is arguably a point of order that the current originating proposition should be identified. It has been done now.

7. Senator T.A. Vallois:

I am speaking as a member of the Scrutiny Panel and I think it is very important to make it very clear what the amendment is trying to achieve because in some of the speeches so far it has referred to C.R.I.A.s as a whole. What we are asking is that what we have is a preliminary assessment, which is just the very first step of the C.R.I.A. process. That is to be undertaken on all forms of propositions and amendments to propositions and amendments to amendments. It would not, however, require a duty bearer to undertake a full C.R.I.A. if the preliminary assessment identifies that one is required. The discretion to do so rests entirely with the duty bearer themselves and, of course, if we refer to the Children's Commissioner's advice with regards to this legislation they do refer to, I believe it is Article 12, that is of course the children rights scheme and the expectations on Ministers as duty bearers that there should be some form of guidance as to when a full C.R.I.A. should be applied. The Children's Commissioner has referred to the expectation that they will have as an office to monitor this discretion. I think it is important for me to read for the Assembly Article 6(8) which the Children's Commissioner refers to in her advice: "Nothing prevents an Article 6 duty bearer from completing a full assessment should they wish to do so. This introduces discretion. Article 6 duty bearers are Ministerial duty bearers." The Children's Commissioner would suggest that a proper assessment of the impact of policy and law decisions on children's rights should always been the choice of Ministerial duty bearers and suggests that the children's rights scheme provides guidance, which I have already referred to. They could decide not to carry out a C.R.I.A. even if it is abundantly clear that the decision will have an impact on children. Research suggests that where a C.R.I.A. is discretionary there is a tendency to disregard its application even to policies likely to impact on children. The Children's Commissioner understands that the risk of requiring a C.R.I.A. for everything is that the quality and value of the C.R.I.A. is diminished and it becomes a mere tick-box exercise, which is of course what the Minister referred to. However, they also go on to say that there is a balance to be struck. The reason why I read that out is because I believe what we are trying to achieve as a Scrutiny Panel here is having that balance and asking for a preliminary assessment. This is going to require a cultural change and a need to ensure that Members are up to scratch with regards

to considering children's rights when bringing forward propositions. The forthcoming of this legislation in terms of its enactment will not be achieved until such time as, at the moment, bearing in mind we have another amendment to bring forward as a panel, a Ministerial Order is made to enact parts of the legislation. That will give Members the appropriate time to determine, especially under the children's rights scheme as well, which the Minister will have a duty to put together and have guidance under, a clear expectation on how that preliminary assessment and the full scheme, in terms of the full C.R.I.A. will work. I just wanted to make it very clear that it is not a full C.R.I.A., it is a preliminary assessment and I would ask Members to just consider having that discretion as to whether what we are trying to do here is actually to have a balance and to try and encourage that cultural change just by having that preliminary assessment.

8. Senator K.L. Moore :

I entirely endorse the comments of Senator Vallois so I will be extremely brief. But taking very seriously our commitment to putting children first, at the beginning of this term the Scrutiny Liaison Committee set out to include the impact upon children in every single one of our scoping documents and I believe that the Children, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel are doing exactly that in bringing this amendment and impressing upon the Assembly the importance of taking children's rights into account at every step along the legislative process, whether that be in an amendment or an amendment to an amendment. I will certainly be supporting them.

9. Senator I.J. Gorst :

I am pleased to follow Senator Vallois but I think I am more in the position of Deputy Young. This is a difficult area to get right. Providing a C.R.I.A. is not as straightforward as it might on the surface appear and Government is resourcing itself to be able to do justice to the policy intent of providing C.R.I.A.s. On the other hand, there is an argument that says that the legislation before us has been - this is not a parliamentary term - in effect watered down to the lowest possible common denominator in order for us to start somewhere. That is always a valid position to take when you are changing something as dramatically as we are changing and taking children's rights seriously in the processes of this Assembly and of Government. There is no shame in that per se. This is the difficulty that Members face today. Is it at the right level or should there be obligations on Members who are bringing  forward amendments or amendments to amendments to also consider the impact on children's rights and start to do a preliminary assessment? The reason it is a difficult question to answer is because it has to be somebody appropriate to do a preliminary assessment and then, if necessary, to do a C.R.I.A. We have become a little bit used, it is fair to say when it comes to financial and manpower implications on propositions, to being much more lax than we were 15 years ago. Fifteen years ago when I first started in this auspicious place propositions were rejected because there were not detailed financial and manpower implications and they were not sufficient. You jolly well knew that you had to properly sharpen your pencil and provide the detail in conjunction with Treasury otherwise, Sir, your office would say no.

[10:15]

But of late it is fair to say, and we all do it for political ends, we have got into the habit of saying: "We do not really think there are manpower or financial implications with this particular amendment because later down the line someone will have to do something else and that will give effect to the financial and manpower implications." Later today or tomorrow, or who knows if we all keep speaking at the length, I am doing it might be later next week, the Deputy of Grouville is asking us to amend all propositions which would put in and consider Island identity proposals. That perhaps is slightly more straightforward because that is very subjective. Very subjective. I am not sure that your office will be able to do anything other than wave those through however flimsy they are because otherwise you are putting yourself into the political domain. That is a discussion we will have when we get there. I do think there is a legitimate argument that Members who vote in favour of this

amendment, and I am getting to where I might be, there is a legitimate argument to say that it will curtail the freedom of Members to, on a Friday afternoon, lodge an amendment, send it to the Greffe on Sunday afternoon after they have had a good think about - I will not say after a good lunch - during Sunday and then expect it to be lodged on Monday. That will not be possible if we accept this amendment. That is not necessarily a bad thing because we should be appropriately considering children's rights in what we are doing because we have undertaken as a legislature or as a Parliament and as a Government to do just that. It will be more bureaucratic. I take the view the bureaucracy per se is a bad thing unless you can see a very positive action orientated outcome from it. I see what the Minister is saying in regard to let us just start with where we are and then revisit later to get the overall clear writing and assessments right. I do worry about this. I worry that Members will just amend proposals that have C.R.I.A.s in them and have no obligation to consider the child rights in that amendment. Therefore, the argument will simply be political and subjective on the floor of this Assembly. Yet that is the very thing that we are trying to move away from when it comes to the effect upon child's rights across our community. For me it is a finely-balanced issue, but I do ask this: that Members make their decisions with their eyes open. There are great positives of accepting the Scrutiny Panel's amendment but we must also be clear with each other that there are what some would perceive as negative implications and curtailment potentially of the freedoms that we, as Members of this Assembly, have enjoyed for many years, that they would be curtailed in the interests of children. I think that would be legitimate reason to curtail them.

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

Very quickly, just a couple of things. The first one is that of course this was my single term in the States so I do not know how things happened in the terms before but my memory of this is that I have never had a comfortable time lodging anything, whether it was a main proposition or a law or an amendment, it was always done in the last minute because it takes a long time to prepare, it takes a long time to react to a main proposition and it takes some time to go the Greffe. Then it gets lodged and for some reason it always seems to happen 10 minutes before the lodging deadline. So I feel that adding anything to slow down the process is going to be very damaging to people presenting amendments to amendments, and even worse amendments to amendments to main propositions. Again, I think it will be quite dangerous to slow down that process. The other thing, and it has already been mentioned, is the fact that the main proposer, having done a proper C.R.I.A., will be extremely familiar with what is in it and, of course, extremely familiar with their own proposition and therefore able to find, in an amendment, any problems with that assessment. If the proposer of an amendment has not done all their homework on a children's right assessment it would be extremely easy for the main proposer to take that apart during the debate. So, in the principle of allowing Assembly Members a quick pass to amendments I would rather vote against this amendment.

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

While I endorse the sentiment behind the proposition and the panel what worries me is, as Senator Gorst indicated, bureaucracy. Over many years there was an inclination of the Government to reduce red tape. This is increasing red tape and surely it does no one any good. I think any States Member who brought a proposition or amendment to a proposition or an amendment to an amendment without considering the C.R.I.A. in any shape or form would be very misguided and the amendment would be very unlikely to succeed. In truth, we are creating a little bit of an increase in red tape unnecessarily so would be inclined to vote against the amendment.

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

I came to this debate with an open mind and listening to both arguments but I just come back to the point of perception for me. This is the Assembly where decisions are made, as Senator Gorst alluded to, and it would be, for me, a very strange perception that an amendment or an amendment to an amendment on a proposition that may directly or indirectly impact children that the person who

thought very hard and had done their own research does not decide that it deserves to be done at the same time when we are talking about children. I just think that, for me, is the stronger argument at this point. We are either committed to the things that people have signed or we are not. I think it is being seen as an obstacle. I do understand the bureaucracy, as Deputy Guida explained, being only here for 4 years but as somebody who has lodged amendments I have great faith in the Greffe staff and the people who are committed to seeing this through. Surely it is a question of equality and the history of this Island that we do this because we are all equal in this Assembly and anybody has the right to bring an amendment or an amendment to an amendment committed to the things that we all agreed, surely it is the perception that sends the message out to this Assembly that we are committed to doing these things. I understand the argument about we have to take sometimes more incremental steps to increase but when I think about what we are talking about there, the rights of the children, surely it should not be seen as an obstacle. If it takes extra resource and an extra thought process for the impact on children then I think it is worth all of that and more.

13. Deputy R.J. Renouf of St. Ouen :

I would like to pick up that point about perception that Deputy Pamplin has made. I think there is equally another perception that could arise, which is the fact that we mire ourselves in red tape. I would have thought remembering an amendment is not a new proposition, it is not introducing a new concept, it is part of the same debate. I would have thought the proposer's C.R.I.A. would have covered all aspects should and I am sure those drafting it and assisting with it would ensure it covers all aspects of the subject insofar as concerns children's rights. The proposed amendment may not impact on children's rights to that extent so to mandate a further C.R.I.A., why would that be necessary, why would all that work be necessary. The perception that we just mire ourselves in red tape because we are terrified perhaps of not showing that we always consider putting children first. We can put children first without having a plethora of C.R.I.A.s during a debate because the primary C.R.I.A. in the proposition should encompass all aspects. As has been said, if the person amending thinks that a further C.R.I.A. should be added then its within his or her ability to do that but to make it a mandatory rule in a piece of legislation that we are putting before the Privy Council to endorse, which we cannot change at all without so much fuss afterwards, well that is just a perception I think we should not go down.

14. Connétable A. Jehan of St. John :

We have heard a lot about slowing down the process. I do not think it is about the speed, I think it is about the quality and if we can improve the quality of the process then we should do all that we can. Senator Gorst said we are going to be debating the Island identity later in this sitting. That is about our brand. Our brand is based on our values and if putting children first is part of our values we should live by our values and do exactly that. Someone else spoke about bureaucracy. I would like to call it governance; not bureaucracy, governance. I would suggest best practice is something this Assembly should follow at all times. I have been shocked at the quality of some of the reports I have seen, some of the statements I have seen. This is an opportunity for us to demonstrate that we have thought about the proposition, the amendment, the amendment to the amendment, et cetera. The amendment is coming from the Scrutiny Panel. The Scrutiny Panel do not have the resource that the Minister and Government have but it is the Scrutiny Panel that is putting this forward and I would urge Members to support this amendment.

15. Deputy J.H. Perchard of St. Saviour :

I think it would be very helpful in the summing up if the proposer could address some of the comments made by the Minister for Health and Social Services. I do question the validity of the point that amendments are surely covered by the C.R.I.A. of an original proposition. I do not think that that assumption is necessarily true in all cases but I would like the proposer to clarify whether in the cases where that is the case, where amendments or amendments to amendments are in fact covered

by the C.R.I.A. of the original proposition whether a simple statement to that effect would be suitable and sufficient in terms of that Member providing a C.R.I.A. if this adopted. I think if that is the case it makes this a lot easier for the Members who have spoken against it to support to it. Of course it is problematic and Deputy Tadier outlined some of the concerns that I had around the question of where do we stop. Are we going to start introducing a requirement for Members to carry out an environmental impact assessment, which is obviously what I was thinking of with my current hat on as Assistant Minister for the Environment? I think while these problems are real I do not think that this debate is relevant to the discussion of those problems and that is because, as Deputy Tadier rightly said, this debate is about extending something that the Minister is proposing for consistency in the same way that we have financial and manpower requirements on everything that we lodge.

[10:30]

I think that argument for me was the most powerful because I do share a lot of the concerns that have been raised that this debate is not going to address that either way. Those concerns are not going to be solved by voting for or against this amendment. This is simply, for me, about making what the Minister is proposing consistent around everything that we lodge. That makes a lot of sense to me. I think a conversation does need to be had around these kinds of things, these additional assessments Members have to make. Obviously, there is a fundamental difference between the financial and manpower requirements and this, I suppose arguably the financial and manpower statement is an internal reflection on our resources to deliver a proposition. Do you we have the money? What impact is it going to have on officers? Do we need to recruit someone to fulfil it? That is an internal reflection on resource whereas this an external reflection on the impact of a group. So, there is that fundamental difference and one could argue that the former makes a lot of sense but the latter is problematic because, as we have already alluded to, where do you stop, what other groups should we be considering? Should we be talking about the impacts on women? Should we be talking about the impacts on the elderly population, the vulnerable, those on low incomes or the environment? That question does need to be addressed at some point by the Assembly and, in terms of process and procedure, that is a legitimate question and concern. Maybe in the future we will decide that there is a different way but the 2 things I would say about that are, firstly, if Members are not thinking about the impacts of their propositions in that level of depth to start with I think there is a problem. I think that every time we lodge something we should have considered the impact on society and its groups, and paid particular attention to the vulnerable members of society. Whether or not we have to evidence it is another question and whether or not that evidence needs to come in this format is a third question. But I think the most convincing argument we have heard in this debate is from Deputy Tadier , which is this is not about those questions, this debate is about extending something that has already been proposed for consistency across how we lodge things. For me, while there are issues and problems and questions this is not about this debate and just on an unemotive level, on a practical and logical level, I just think it does not make sense not to support this.

16. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence :

I just want to speak briefly because when I saw the amendment it seemed pretty straightforward to me, I thought I would be able to accept it and I was surprised when the Minister spoke against it. We have heard a variety of views, I am not quite sure how it is I think it may be evenly split from those who have spoken but a couple of speakers caught my attention. One was Senator Gorst when he said that I understood him to say that additional resources are needed to manage this change and I think by that I took it that he meant that potentially additional staff will be needed within Ministerial departments to manage this. He was not clear but that struck me. It does seem that it is going to be certainly a task that requires some thought. Deputy Martin caught my attention as well when she mentioned the potential difficulties that Back-Benchers may face. Deputy Ward has brought this as chair of the panel, as he has reminded us on a couple of occasions, but he brings many propositions and indeed amendments in his own right. I would like him to offer us his thoughts on

what the impact could or would be on Back-Benchers. The other Member that caught my attention was the Constable of St. John when he said this is about good governance. That is what we should be aspiring to in everything we do, whether it be within this Assembly or in our responsibilities that we have outside of this Assembly. I am torn at the moment as to which way I am going to vote on this amendment. I would say to Deputy Ward that it does depend on how he sums this up for me.

The Bailiff :

Thank you, Connétable . Does any other Member wish to speak on the amendment? If no other Member wishes to speak, I close the debate and call on Deputy Ward to respond.

17. Deputy R.J. Ward :

It is a nice place to finish, it depends how I sum up. There is no pressure then. I think I will start with that. Yes, this was brought from the panel and I have brought a number of things as a Back- Bencher, I produce C.R.I.A.s with everything I have produced because I think they enriched the work that I did and it links on to good governance, which was mentioned by the Constable of St. John . I did that because I think it is the right thing to do because we have incorporated the U.N.C.R.C. and so therefore it is within my role to account for that where it is necessary. I did that by getting help from the Greffe and the extra staff in the Greffe that have done that anyway and will help with these assessments. You could also use the Children's Commissioner and her office who are quite happy to consult with you. In doing so, yes, it may take me a little bit of extra time but it enriched what I did. I think I came to this Assembly with a greater argument and to some extent it made me persist in what I believed in and come back again and again because I thought it was the right thing to do for children because I have been looking at that. So, I hope that reassures. That brings me on to a key part of this. A number of speakers, and I will not go through all the names because I want to make this as quick as possible, talked about this being bureaucratic and red tape. This is about a cultural change and I think those expressions from Members in this Assembly, very experienced Members of this Assembly as well, that this is about bureaucracy and red tape demonstrates the desperate need for this to happen in order that we understand this cultural change. This is not about red tape and bureaucracy, this is about us adopting the U.N.C.R.C. charter on rights for children seriously in this Assembly and considering it in everything that we do. The process itself is only as onerous as we make it and we do not have to make it onerous. The point Deputy Perchard said about the main C.R.I.A., the Deputy was absolutely spot on with the question that was asked there and that question about can you refer to the main C.R.I.A.? The answer is simply yes. If you are bringing an amendment which does not affect the main C.R.I.A. on the proposition I would suggest that the C.R.I.A. that I would produce is: "Please refer to the main C.R.I.A. in the proposition." End of conversation. But what that has meant is that I have read the main proposition and considered what is in it when bringing my amendment, thus enriching what I am doing and it brings good governance. That is a very important thing to do. I do not think the C.R.I.A.s have to be particularly difficult. However, if I am bringing an amendment which is particularly affecting that main amendment and the impact on children, if I am genuinely to be committed to putting children first and adopting the U.N.C.R.C. I have to produce a proper assessment of that. Let me ask this one question of Members of this Assembly, and this is a point that came to me, if we adopt an amendment it becomes the proposition and the unintended consequences of not producing C.R.I.A.s or referring to a C.R.I.A. as a preliminary assessment in the amendment will mean we could adopt a proposition amended that has not therefore had an appropriate C.R.I.A. attached to it. There is a logic to this which we need to follow through and I think that is very important. That is a very important point to be made. The key thing is that, and I urge all Members who have talked about red tape to consider this, we are looking at a preliminary C.R.I.A., i.e. I look at a proposition and I think I would like to amend a couple of words in that because I think it will be more successful if it is the case, I look at the C.R.I.A., I look at my preliminary C.R.I.A. and think: "Do I have to change anything in that? No, I do not, I can refer to this now with my preliminary C.R.I.A. and say my C.R.I.A. is saying I do not need a full

C.R.I.A. on my amendment." That is it, that is the end of it. But, again, and this a very key point, if my amendment is changing it so significantly that the impact on children is completely different and we are genuinely as an Assembly to consider the impact on children, then I am afraid, yes, I do have to produce a C.R.I.A. and that is a piece of work I have to produce. I do not see it as an extra piece of work, I see it as a different piece of work. I think that is what the panel was trying to bring forward. A cultural change is about looking at things differently and the difference we are making is we have adopted the U.N.C.R.C. human rights convention for children and we have said we will put children first. I think it is very important that we make that key point. I thank the Minister because he has brought this we do support the idea of C.R.I.A.s and I did say: "Let us be positive in this." To the Chief Minister, I believe that the bridging Island Plan did have a general C.R.I.A. to it, a large C.R.I.A. that was accompanying it. I believe the Government Plan would have that. I would say to the Chief Minister that that important piece of work done by Government in those plans enables Members to very quickly say: "Can we refer to that C.R.I.A. in our amendments and just bring a simple C.R.I.A. to it?" I see the Chief Minister shaking his head, I do not understand why. There should be C.R.I.A.s attached to those things if we are going to produce them. In the main proposition, which I hope is accepted - and I do hope you accept this amendment - then that will happen. This is not about just added bureaucracy or red tape, I am someone who really does not want red tape in what we are doing. I am someone who has talked about resources for Back-Benchers and will continue to bring, as long as I am in this Assembly, propositions as a Back-Bencher but I genuinely do not see this as anything other than improving what I am doing because I am considering something very carefully when I bring my propositions. I think, and I would urge, as we have committed to put children first, we have accepted the U.N.C.R.C. rights. There is one big difference with this, it is based upon an internationally recognised agreement, the U.N.C.R.C. and a set of criteria. It is not something generic or non-specific, there is something genuine and real behind it that we have adopted. I say to Members, if we do not do this then we are only going half the way to where we want to be and this is an opportunity for us to send a clear message to people out there, a clear message that says we are serious about taking children rights seriously and we will do it in everything that we do without making it an onerous and bureaucratic process. I make the proposition and I urge Members to accept the amendment.  

The Bailiff :

Very well, the matter goes to the vote. The vote is on the second amendment. The Members will remember it amends Article 6 and amends Article 7 and schedule 2. The vote is on that. I ask the Greffier to open the voting and Members who are joining by Teams, please indicate their vote in the chat. If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting.  

[10:45]

The amendment has been adopted.

2. Draft Children (Convention Rights) (Jersey) Law 202- (P.19/2022) - resumption The Bailiff :

Minister, do you now move Articles 7 to 15, the next amendment being related to Article 16, so 7 to 15, Article 7 of course being moved as amended?

Deputy S.M. Wickenden:

Yes, please, if I can.

The Bailiff :

Do you wish to speak to them at this point or simply to take questions?

2.2.1 Deputy S.M. Wickenden:

I would like to speak to them. I think it is worth reading out their effects. Article 7 provides further clarification about the duty to prepare C.R.I.A.s and establishes a 2-stage C.R.I.A. process. Article 7 also sets out the C.R.I.A. requirements for duty bearers who are seeking the urgent debate of a proposition. Following the adoption of the second amendment that we just debated, duty bearers who are formulating an amendment to a non-exempt proposition will be required to prepare and publish a C.R.I.A. for every assessment but may choose to complete a full assessment where the decision is likely to have an impact on children. Article 8 extends the due regard duty of Ministerial duty bearers. This requires them to have due regard when discharging any of their functions and when formulating all types of policy. Unlike Article 6, preparation of a C.R.I.A. is not a statutory requirement under Article 8. Article 9 requires the public authority duty bearers named in schedule 1 to have due regard for making decisions about the discharge of their functions or the provision or regulated activities or services. Article 10 describes the general obligations of duty bearers. These are to promote knowledge and understanding of the convention, to ensure complaints are handled in a child-friendly manner, to have due regard to the views of children affected by the decisions they make and with the exception of elected Members duty bearers to report regularly on how they have fulfilled their due regard duty. Article 11 establishes the Minister for Children and Education's general obligations under the draft law. These are to oversee the implementation of the draft law and the operation and revision of the children's rights scheme and to promote the States fulfilment of its

obligation as a state party to the U.N.C.R.C. Article 12 requires the Minister for Children and Education to develop a children's rights scheme as the statutory guidance document to support duty bearers to fulfil the due regard duty. The scheme will include arrangements for the provision of training  and  support,  presentation  and  annual  reports,  completing  and  publishing  C.R.I.A.s, evidencing the due regard duty when a C.R.I.A. is not undertaken and any other matters the Minister considers appropriate. Article 13 establishes the requirement for the Minister for Children and Education to revise the children's rights scheme. This must take place in the year following each periodic report cycle for the U.N.C.R.C. and requires the Minister to consult named stakeholders on any proposed major additions to the scheme. Article 14 establishes that powers under the draft law to  amend  a  provision  includes  the  power  to  make  any  consequential  amendment  considered necessary. Finally, Article 15 of the draft law will amend the Commissioner for Children and Young People (Jersey) Law 2018 to update references to the Public Accounts Committee and its chair and the Scrutiny Liaison Committee and its president. With that I propose the Articles.

The Bailiff :

Are the Articles 7 to 15 seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on Articles 7 to 15? If no Member wishes to speak on any of those Articles then I close the debate and open the voting and ask Members to vote either in the Chamber in the normal way or in the chat as appropriate. If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, then I ask the Greffier to close the voting. Articles 7 to 15 have been adopted.

There is an amendment that is proposed to the final Article 16. You are not accepting the amendment, are you, Minister?

Deputy S.M. Wickenden:

No, I am not.

The Bailiff :

Very well, would you like to propose Article 16? Deputy S.M. Wickenden:

I will just propose Article 16 and then move to the amendment, I will follow on if it is amended from there.

The Bailiff :

Indeed, is Article 16 seconded? [Seconded]

3. Draft Children (Convention Rights) (Jersey) Law 202- (P.19/2022): third amendment (P.19/2022. Amd.(3))

The Bailiff :

There is an amendment to Article 16 and I ask the Greffier to read the amendment.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Article 16 - In paragraph (3) for "the Minister by Order" substitute – "the States by Act". Deputy R.J. Ward (Chair, Children, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel): Senator Vallois will be acting as rapporteur.

1. Senator T.A.  Vallois  (Children,  Education  and  Home  Affairs  Scrutiny  Panel  - rapporteur):

This amendment proposes a change in the manner in which the draft law is brought into force. Currently as worded it states that the remainder of the legislation, other than Article 15, which is due to come in in 7 days would be brought through via Ministerial Order. The panel is concerned about

the use of orders to bring legislation into force. Although the Minister has given assurances that all parties will be communicated with prior to the law coming into force to ensure readiness of all duty bearers, we believe there is a risk that this approach may not be adopted by a future Minister. It is important to note that the implementation of this draft law will straddle 2 States Assemblies. Given the possibility that the make-up of the Assembly may be considerably different after the election, including potential new Members of the Assembly without prior knowledge of this legislative development, it is a vitally important that all Members within the new Assembly are provided with adequate information as to their duties in relation to this legislation. One key component - and it states in the report to the legislation itself - is this being about significant cultural change. The importance for Members to understand their duties under this legislation and have the requisite training that should be available to them before the remainder of this legislation comes into force, I believe, will be extremely important for all Members going forward. The panel's amendment, therefore, provides an opportunity for the future Assembly to confirm its readiness or not prior to the draft law and its associated duties being brought into force. I make the amendment.

The Bailiff :

Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the amendment?

2. Deputy S.M. Wickenden:

I do not accept this amendment which proposes that the majority of the draft law should be commenced by an Act of the States rather than a Ministerial Order. For clarity, just 2 Articles of the draft law, Articles 15 and 16 will come into force 7 days after its registration. These deal with the arrangements for commencement and make certain amendments to the Commissioner for Children and Young People (Jersey) Law 2019. Following the election the next Minister for Children and Education will need to determine the readiness of all groups of duty bearers identified in the draft law. The Minister will also need to ensure that appropriate training and resources are available to support these duty bearers to prepare for the law to come into force. Commencement of the law by order will not take up valuable Assembly time in a new Assembly but will instead require the new Minister to determine when it will be most appropriate to enact the remainder of the law. This will, of course, be based on an assessment of readiness in consultation with duty bearers. I believe that if we approach the duties instituted by the draft law as a shared endeavour this will ensure its successful implementation but we must make sure that we are not setting up the duty bearers to fail before we have begun. I am confident that the Minister can identify an optimal date that balances the need to prepare for our shared ambition to see this legislation is enacted. I feel that there is a fear, certainly in the proposer's speech, that whoever the next Assembly votes in as the Minister for Children and Education might not support the values of writing the order and following through on the decision of this Assembly to enact the U.N.C.R.C. in creating C.R.I.A.s and duty bearers but the same would happen you would be expecting the new Minister for Children and Education to bring forward a proposal to the Assembly in the same order so that trust should be on both sides. If the new Minister for Children and Education is not aligned they will not bring forward the enactment date to the Assembly like they will not bring the order, but it will be up to the new Assembly to challenge the new Minister for Children and Education that put themselves forward for that position on such. The new Assembly when it is created will have to be dealing with a lot of setting up of the Assembly and I think that this will take up valuable time. I know there are some Members who do not like orders in the Assembly and they feel that absolutely everything should come to the Assembly. There are inherent risks in such that would, could and possibly might change what we are trying to achieve today, therefore I ask Members to reject the third amendment.

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 Senator Vallois to respond.

3. Senator T.A. Vallois:

Just briefly to respond to the Minister, and I respect what he is stating, but there is concern, and I believe it is a valid concern, around bringing forward primary legislation by a Ministerial Order. I just want to remind Members what that means, is that if the Assembly are not happy with regards to the legislation coming in at a certain date, the only way and the only recourse they have with regards to that is bringing forward an annulment with regards to that specific area of the legislation. I would argue that the U.N.C.R.C. is not just the responsibility of one Minister, it is the responsibility of all of us, all elected representatives, to ensure that we are ready to take on this duty and we should all be partaking in that and ensuring that we understand our responsibilities. I believe because where we are, and straddling an election, I think it is more appropriate for a whole States Assembly, the full 49 elected States Members who will come in after the June election, to determine their readiness as to the duty that is placed upon them to bring forward a child rights impact assessment. This is what this amendment is asking, it is asking for an Appointed Day Act and I would argue it would not take up that much valuable time but it would give the opportunity for Members to show their readiness and understanding of what is being placed upon them. I make the amendment and I ask for the appel.

[11:00] The Bailiff :

The appel is called for. I ask the Greffier to open the voting and Members to vote. If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, then I ask the Greffier to close the voting. The amendment has been adopted.

4. Draft Children (Convention Rights) (Jersey) Law 202- (P.19/2022) - as amended The Bailiff :

We now return to Article 16 as amended. Does any Member wish to speak on Article 16? If no Member wishes to speak on Article 16 then I close the debate. I will take this on a standing vote; it seems very clear. All those in favour, kindly show. Those against? It is clearly adopted on a standing vote. Very well, do you propose the law in Third Reading, Minister?

Deputy S.M. Wickenden:

Do you want me to read out about the schedules or do I need to propose them? The Bailiff :

Yes, I beg your pardon, that is correct. I had assumed they had been covered by all of the amendments but I do not think they have. So, yes, do you propose the schedules, Minister?

2.4.1 Deputy S.M. Wickenden:

Yes, please. Let me just speak briefly to them. Schedule 1 lists the public authorities which have a duty under Articles 9 and 10 of the draft law and schedule 2 lists the exempt decisions under Article 6, duty to prepare a C.R.I.A. when formulating a proposition. It is as simple as that and I propose the schedules.

The Bailiff :

The amendment to schedule 2 was dealt with by the passing of the second amendment? Deputy S.M. Wickenden:

Yes, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Are the schedules seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the schedules? If no Member wishes to speak on the schedules then I close the debate and again I

Deputy S.M. Wickenden:

Can we have the appel for this one, please? The Bailiff :

The appel is called for. I ask the Greffier to open the voting and 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 schedules have been adopted.

The Bailiff :

Do you move the law in Third Reading, Minister?

5. Deputy S.M. Wickenden:

Yes, please.

The Bailiff :

Is it seconded for Third Reading? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak in Third Reading?

1. Deputy R.J. Ward :

Just very briefly to say thank you again to the officers who have done the work on this and the Minister and Ministers who have brought this forward. I think it is a very positive step forward for this Assembly and I recommend that we adopt.

2. Senator S.Y. Mézec :

I am very pleased to be supporting this in Third Reading, especially as the law has been slightly enhanced by the amendments which were accepted from the Scrutiny Panel. I am hoping of course that its adoption in Third Reading is a formality but this will mark a very important moment for Jersey in our journey towards putting children first and trying to move on from the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry and all of the recommendations that they made to us. I wanted to take the opportunity, assuming that this will be adopted now, to remind Members that this particular law to impose a due regard model on public authorities, the Government and States Members, was just one of the options which was considered at the start of this and that this may not be the end of our journey but in fact, I am hoping, simply the beginning of it. We do not have to simply settle for what is essentially an indirect incorporation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in Jersey law. There are other options including full incorporation of that convention into Jersey law, much like the European Convention on Human Rights is, which would provide, in my view, even greater protections for children's rights and would provide a very clear route of challenge for when Jersey law is at odds with children's rights and enable those who fall victim to those breaches to have some form of redress through the court system. I am hoping that upon the adoption of this and it being embedded into our culture that we will be ready for that next step, which is the full incorporation of it into Jersey law and I hope that day comes sooner rather than later.

3. Deputy M. Tadier :

As Senator Mézec has already alluded to, this piece of legislation here brings us effectively full circle as to where we really started in the Assembly at the beginning of this term with the debate on the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry. I think this can be seen in many ways as a direct consequence of that, certainly the former would have catalysed the latter. I do add my thanks to all those who have been working, whether in the Assembly or elsewhere for this, and also to acknowledge now we are in hopefully, certainly a different, but in a better place than we were 4 years ago; we have a Children's Commissioner. I think it does not mean that everything in the garden is rosy or that all the problems have been solved but what it does mean now is that we have a proper framework in place. Here we have the black and white, the theory of the law, but it is really important that the practice on the ground is put in place by all of us and we have each got a job to do whether in the Assembly or in wider society. I will simply make this point mindful that it is the Third Reading but mindful of the fact that the law as it stands in itself is not enough, it is about how we practise that law and the wider philosophy behind it. There will be some interesting moments in the future with different strategies about to be launched and it will bring into focus how in the past perhaps we have not treated all children equally. I am particularly mindful of the children and families of immigrant extraction in the Island who do not have full rights in this Island. That is going to be something that needs to be looked at again and again, which is not an easy square to circle because we know that the Island wants to have some kind of population control, but at the same time it cannot be at the expense of vulnerable children and their families. I do say at this point when it comes to I do not want to stray too far because I am mindful

The Bailiff :

Well, you have referred to the fact that this is Third Reading twice, Deputy , and I think you must be alive to the idea that a debate in Third Reading should be entirely restricted to whether or not the Assembly should adopt the law in Third Reading. I have allowed rather a lot of leeway but in view of the amount of work we have got to do, I wonder if you could bring that to a close if you have nothing to add on that point.

Deputy M. Tadier :

I will; I will make these final remarks. I am mindful that I should be sitting down when you talk to me; I am standing up when I talk to you so I think that we have also become slightly lax in that regard recently. The point I would make in deciding as to whether to adopt this in the Third Reading, we have to just decide whether we are simply ticking a box and saying: "Okay, the law is in place now, my duty as a States Member has come to an end" or in fact what I would suggest is that, yes, absolutely vote for this in the Third Reading but be aware of the fact that we do need to continue. When it comes to those really difficult, practical decisions that maybe some Ministers in the future need to make about how we deal with those thorny issues around those families who have been here for less than 5 years, and I see the Minister shaking her head. I will give a practical example about somebody who is an immigrant worker on a 9-month contract. She may or may not have family here, young children, just injured her leg, a very bad injury, may need to get her leg amputated. She has been invited to Jersey to work for us, no healthcare, no insurance. How does that leave a vulnerable family potentially with young children in that situation? We are quite happy for families to come to Jersey in the abstract and practically to work for us but when these situations happen, how do we link that to the law that we have just passed today? I leave those comments there and I thank you for your indulgence.

The Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak in Third Reading? If no other Member wishes to speak in Third Reading then I call upon the Minister to respond.

4. Deputy S.M. Wickenden:

I thank the speakers for their comments and speeches. The Draft Children's (Convention Rights) (Jersey) Law 202- represents our enduring - my enduring - this Assembly's enduring commitment to putting children first and will secure meaningful consideration of children's rights within key decision-making processes. The draft law represents a robust model of indirect incorporation of the U.N.C.R.C. and has been welcomed by the Children's Commissioner and our partners at U.N.I.C.E.F. (United Nations Children's Fund) U.K. (United Kingdom) I am grateful to my Ministerial colleagues and especially the members of the Children, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel who have worked tirelessly alongside me and my officers and supported the development, the creation, the improvements to this draft law and I commend them for that. As the Minister for Children and Education I am extremely proud to commend this draft law to the Assembly and I propose it in Third Reading.

The Bailiff :

I ask the Greffier to open the voting and Members to vote in Third Reading. If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes then I ask the Greffier to close the voting. The law has been passed in Third Reading.

3. Draft Police (Complaints and Conduct) (Jersey) Law 202- (P.22/2022) The Bailiff :

In accordance with the decision taken by the Assembly yesterday, the next item of public business is the Draft Police (Complaints and Conduct) (Jersey) Law, P.22, and the main responder will be the chair of the Children, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel, and I ask the Greffier to read the citation.

[11:15]

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Draft Police (Complaints and Conduct) (Jersey) Law 202-. A law to replace the Jersey Police Complaints Authority with the Jersey Police Complaints Commission; to make provision in relation to complaints about, or matters concerning the conduct of, or death or serious injury matters involving police officers or persons undertaking certain functions of police officers; for the disciplining of police officers; to amend the States of Jersey Police Force Law 2012 and for connected purposes. The States, subject to the sanction of Her Most Excellent Majesty in Council, have adopted the following law.

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

This Draft Police (Complaints and Conduct) (Jersey) Law is intended to provide a framework for an enhanced and modernised system to manage the conduct of people exercising police powers and complaints against them. Police officers hold a unique place in the community. We rely on the police force to keep us safe and to maintain the conditions for a stable and prosperous community. Police officers can carry out these tasks effectively because they are given powers to involve themselves in the lives of Islanders to use investigatory powers and even to use force on citizens where necessary. These exceptional powers mean that we need to hold police officers to a high standard of conduct, which is reflected in the need to have specific legislation in place to address how the conduct is monitored and how complaints against them are managed. This legislation will affect any person who can use police powers, including officers of both the States of Jersey Police and the Honorary Police forces. It will also encompass the use of specific police powers by civilians, for instance, when civilian investigators take statements from witnesses. It is in everyone's interests to ensure that there is a robust oversight of the police; however, we need to recognise that police officers are regularly asked to enter into potentially dangerous and volatile situations relying on their own training and instincts to take critical decisions on the spot. To reflect this, the law will provide a framework, not only for overseeing the behaviour of police officers and others, but also to establish protections and rights, for instance, the right to be kept fully informed about the progress of complaints alongside the complainants. Legislation is also required because in order to reflect the independence of the police forces from Government, police officers are not defined as States employees under the Employment of States of Jersey Employees (Jersey) Law 2005. Additionally, police officers require a degree of legal protection because they are so critical to the maintenance of a functioning society that they are forbidden from joining a trade union or engaging in industrial action. Currently, complaints against the police are dealt with under the Police (Complaints and Discipline) (Jersey) Law 1999 with disciplinary procedures for the Honorary Police and States of Jersey Police forces set out in respective orders. Separate arrangements for complaints against the chief officer and deputy are dealt with by the States of Jersey Police Force (Chief Officer and Deputy Chief Officer) (Jersey) Regulations which are a modernised framework dating from 2017 and are not affected by this legislation. There have been considerable changes in practice in other parts of the British Isles as well as internationally since the current legislation was introduced in 1999. The U.K.'s Independent Police Complaints Commission was created by the Police Reform Act 2002 to replace the former Police Complaints Authority. This is something that we will mirror here. Later in 2005, the  Review of Police Disciplinary Arrangements report led to a simplified and more transparent regulatory approach. Finally, in 2020 the U.K. made further changes to ensure complaints are dealt with quickly, effectively and proportionately. The purpose of this law is therefore to modernise the current framework for dealing with complaints against the police and it is difficult to be consistent with that best practice elsewhere in the British Isles. The intention is to create a consistent approach and provide equity of treatment for all those who can exercise police powers and to establish common standards and provide improved clarity for those making and handling complaints. It is important to maintain reasonably similar systems to those in place in the rest of the British Isles as staff transfer and mutual aid is often given between the various jurisdictions. That being said, it is not possible or desirable to simply copy the complaints and conduct systems in the U.K. due to the differences between the structures in place. In particular, the existence of the Honorary Police with the Attorney General as its titular head and the relationship between the honorary forces and the Connétable s requires specific arrangements to be made to reflect the history

and constitutional arrangements. The legislation allocates duties with this in mind to ensure that the responsibility for the forces rests with the appropriate party. The chief officer of police would be required to obtain and preserve relevant evidence concerning a complaint or conduct matter against the States of Jersey Police force in line with the arrangements established by the deputy chief officer until the matter is resolved or until the deputy chief officer launches an investigation. It will also keep a register of the nature, handling and outcome of all complaints. The deputy chief of police will be responsible for maintaining suitable arrangements for the handling and recording of complaints and suitable arrangements for obtaining and preserving evidence in respect of complaints against both the States of Jersey Police and the Honorary Police forces and also for keeping the commission and the Comité des Connétable s and the Comité des Chefs de Police informed about those arrangements. They must also keep records of every referral, disciplinary proceedings and potential criminal offences by police officers. The deputy chief officer will also be responsible for determining whether or not it is necessary to investigate specific incidents of deaths or serious injuries. This power of discretion is granted to the Deputy Chief Officer as the scope of what is treated as a D.S.I. (Death or Serious Incident) is very wide and includes any deaths or serious injury however caused, whether or not there is any realistic possibility that the harm resulted from interaction with the police. Regardless of whether an investigation is launched, the deputy chief officer must notify the commission without delay if necessary with an explanation of why an investigation is not warranted. They will also be responsible for keeping the complainant, police officer or other interested parties informed about the progress of the investigations. Each Connétable will be responsible for maintaining such statutory arrangements to handle complaints against the Honorary Police force of their Parish and they will also keep a register of the nature, handling and outcome of all complaints. They will be required to obtain and preserve relevant evidence concerning a complaint in line with the arrangements established by the deputy chief officer until the matter is resolved or until the deputy chief officer launches an investigation. They will need to keep the commission and Comité des Connétable s informed about those arrangements to ensure that they continue to be suitable. The Attorney General will be required to maintain suitable arrangements for the handling of complaints against a member of the Honorary Police during any investigation into this complaint and keep the commission and Comité des Connétable s informed about those arrangements. They must also keep records of every referral, disciplinary proceedings and potential criminal offences by the Honorary Police officers. All of these arrangements will be overseen by the Jersey Police Complaints Commission which will replace the existing Jersey Police Complaints Authority while retaining the same membership. The commission will make recommendations concerning the arrangements in practice and complaint handling and will report to the Minister on the overall operation of the overall complaints system. It will submit an annual report on the system to the Minister for presentation to the States. The commission will have an enhanced role in the event of a person suffering death or serious injury when it must immediately be notified by the deputy chief officer and will be engaged throughout the ensuing process. Ultimately, the draft law sets out duties and roles to provide a framework within which the complaints and conduct system is going to be developed in greater detail by subordinate regulation. Those regulations are attached in draft for Members' consideration. I would like to go a little bit deeper into this. This is an enabling law and there is very little depth to it. Everything that it will allow will be contained in the regulations. There is an example of what those regulations could look like provided in the proposition, all 100 pages of it. These are an indication of where they could be but they have not of course been subject to well they have been subjected to scrutiny but not in depth and they have not been subject to consultation. We are also not discussing them today. None of them will be enabled or enacted today or will be part of the law and this will be for the next Assembly to decide upon probably in 9 to 12 months' time. With this I propose the law.

The Bailiff :

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

1. Deputy R.J. Ward :

Just very briefly from the panel. I would refer Members to the comments paper from the panel which I hope they have read. There were 2 points: one point was this is very close to the election and we were concerned about that, but we do really understand it was delayed classically due to COVID. But I just want to refer to the conclusion in the report and I just want a few words from that: "This draft law is the first step in the legislative process and lays the foundations for an updated system to address how complaints and conduct matters are handled within the States of Jersey and Honorary Police. The panel is satisfied that the framework is sufficient; however, it is in the regulations that the detail as to how each process will operate will be set out. As such, the panel would recommend that, should the draft law be adopted, a full review is undertaken of the draft regulations as and when they are brought forward in the next States Assembly. The panel will ensure this is detailed as an area for consideration of its successor panel in its legacy report." I think that is a really key point to say, is the regulations in this case, the devil is in the detail of these regulations and they do need to be before Scrutiny in the next Assembly. I would urge whoever is chairing that panel to take on those regulations at the time but at the moment we are satisfied that this is sufficient framework for future movement.

2. Deputy K.F. Morel :

Really it is a question to the Minister with regard to death or serious injury. I appreciate the regulations are not here, this is not an enabling law, but it does go into a little depth in this area. It appears that there is a choice to be made as to whether investigation or not is undertaken should a death or serious injury occur in police custody. I find that interesting that there was a choice. In my mind, that is something that if there is a death or serious injury in custody or while arrested by a police officer there should be an automatic investigation regardless, whereas at the moment I understand that the proposed law suggests that a recommendation is made by the police before the J.P.C.C. (Jersey Police Complaints Commission) would decide whether or not to undertake investigations. So, I am a bit perturbed by that because for me if there is a death in custody then investigation should take place.

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

I hope it will be acceptable for me to use this proposition as a chance to recycle a speech I made during the bridging Island Plan debate. Members will recall that there was a discussion about the future of the St. Helier Honorary Police headquarters in Nelson Street and I used that opportunity, which I suspect was rather lost because it was scarcely relevant, but I think it is more relevant today because we are talking about complaints against the police which of course includes the Honorary Police. I simply want to say that of course it is absolutely right that this legislation is being updated and that the very highest standards of behaviour will be expected of all police officers in Jersey.

[11:30]

But I think all Members would agree with me that this is a rare occasion and that 99 per cent of the time our police officers carry out their onerous duties with a combination of professionalism and dedication. I was reminded this morning, Sir, when you said those very kind words about the late Senator Quérée that he began his career as a States Member by being a Constable's officer in St. Ouen . So many Islanders choose to devote some of their time to honorary service and some of them to Honorary Police service, and that is a debt that we are enormously grateful for and lucky to have. Perhaps we need to remind ourselves sometimes that we are the only place where such a tradition exists. It does not even happen in our sister Island. It is quite a remarkable feature of policing in Jersey that we have the Honorary Police and what is remarkable, during COVID in particular to me as Constable of St. Helier , was that 4 centeniers in St. Helier did all of the charging for the entire Island throughout the pandemic by arrangement with the other Constables. It was an enormous amount of work and that is why I just wanted to repeat my thanks to those centeniers in particular for

the work they did during the pandemic, and to all Honorary Police officers [Approbation] and to States of Jersey Police officers for the work they do and for their professionalism which means that complaints such as we are discussing today are very rarely made.

4. The Connétable of St. Brelade :

While endorsing the comments of the previous speaker I would like to just shoehorn in the remark that I made in a presentation to States Members last week that, while I support the principles of the complaints process, let us not make it too onerous, let us make it swift and to the point. There will be always a number of vexatious complaints which have to be dealt with but the effect on the officers complained about can be quite profound. I think we must take notice of that and ensure that anything is dealt with in an efficient, swift manner and that the effect on those particular officers is also accommodated in the law in the best way that we can.

5. The Connétable of St. Lawrence :

Very briefly just to say of course this is about good governance, it is about transparency and accountability for the States of Jersey Police and the Honorary Police. We cannot be too transparent, I believe, in our dealings with the public but particularly in the way in which complaints are handled. The public need to be reassured that their voice will be heard and will be clearly taken into account and not overlooked, not forgotten about. They need to know that both the States of Jersey Police and the Honorary Police are accountable for their actions. I would just like to endorse the words of the Constable of St. Brelade regarding the length of time that it can take for complaints to be dealt with and the clear detrimental impact that that length of time has on the officer concerned, particularly if it turns out at the end of the investigation that there is no come-back on the officer that they may not have been at fault. But I have seen it and I know the severe impact it has on their well-being. The difficulty from an Honorary Police perspective of course is that the complaint is investigated by States of Jersey Police and there is no way that the Constable who has responsibility for the well- being of their officers has any impact on the speed at which the investigation takes place. I have in the past lobbied former Attorney Generals when investigations have, to my mind, been taking too long but they too have been tied and not been able to approach the States Police, I would say, to ask them to maybe work more quickly on the complaint. So, I am not sure how that can be mitigated, I really do not know, and perhaps it is something that we need to look at when we consider the regulations which are to follow. But also to endorse the words of the Constable of St. Helier and to thank and give praise to those members of the public who do sign up to be Honorary Police officers. It is important that one of the most important things that I do when I interview prospective officers is to draw their attention to the fact that they are indeed accountable under the Police (Complaints and Conduct) Law, that they must go away and read it before they decide to sign up for it so that when they do get sworn in they are completely aware of their responsibility and accountability to the public.

The Bailiff :

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

6. Deputy G.C. Guida:

First to the Scrutiny Panel, I would like to thank them for having taken on this project knowing that it was very close to the election. They are absolutely right that the regulations are going to be a massive piece of work and that this needs to be scrutinised in depth. Of course, yes, the devil is in the details and those details will have to be looked at by the next Assembly when it happens. We thought that it would be useful to that next Assembly to propose the law now so that they will have a framework and would be able to work straight into the regulations next. To Deputy Morel , I think there is a small misunderstanding. A death or serious injury incident is any death or serious injury

that happened with the slimmest relation to a police action. For example, if somebody has a heart attack 2 weeks after having been interviewed by the police, that is a death or serious injury incident and needs to be investigated. There might be the smallest chance that their death was related to the interview in the smallest way but you want to have a look at that. This is so wide, it catches so wide a net that there must be an agreement between the D.C.O. (deputy chief officer) and the Police Complaints Commission on whether it warrants an investigation or not otherwise hundreds of cases would have to be fully investigated. Any death or serious injury in police custody is investigated as a matter of fact but that is a completely different matter from what is a general death or serious injury. I would like to join the Constable of St. Helier in thanking our Honorary Police force. They have been essential to the workings of Jersey and I hope they last for many, many years to come. I hope that our successors will look at these regulations in a balanced way to ensure that the principles, the code of conduct are followed but that also both the States of Jersey Police officers and the Honorary Police officers are treated well. The Constable of St. Brelade and the Constable of St. Lawrence mentioned that fact that the officers should be treated correctly. One of the things that we need to ensure the regulations include are what the British rules tried to do as well, which is that complaints must be quickly, effectively and proportionately dealt with and the "quickly" is important. There was also the notion that there must be a cut-off point, that is important, and I hope that will be somewhere in the regulations. There must be a cut-off point where all avenues have been used and there is no further route for complaint after it has been fully investigated. I think I have answered all the questions and I maintain the proposition.

The Bailiff :

Very well, I ask Members to return to their seats and I ask the Greffier to open the voting. The vote is on the principles for P.22. If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes then I ask the Greffier to close the voting. The principles have been adopted.