States Meeting Transcript - 14th June 2023

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT WEDNESDAY, 14th JUNE 2023

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

1. Health and Community Services Interim Board (P.19/2023) - as amended (P.19/2023 Amd.) (P.19/2023 Amd.(2)) - resumption .................................................. 4

1.1 Deputy K. Wilson of St. Clement (The Minister for Health and Social Services): ........ 4

2. Draft Stamp Duties and Fees (Amendment of Law – No. 6) (Jersey) Regulations 202- (P.22/2023) ................................................................................... 8

1. Deputy K.L. Moore of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter (The Chief Minister):.......... 12
2. Deputy K.L. Moore :...................................................................... 12
3. Deputy K.L. Moore :...................................................................... 12

3. Draft Domestic Abuse (Jersey) Law 2022 (Appointed Day) Act 202- (P.23/2023) .... 14

3.1 Deputy H. Miles of St. Brelade (The Minister for Home Affairs): ...................... 14

1. Deputy M. Tadier :........................................................................ 15
2. Deputy C.D . Curtis of St. Helier Central : ................................................ 15
3. Deputy R.J. Ward : ........................................................................ 15
4. Deputy H. Miles :.......................................................................... 15

4. Draft Social Security (Amendment of Law No. 18) (Jersey) Regulations 202- (P.24/2023) .................................................................................. 17

1. Deputy E. Millar (The Minister for Social Security): .................................... 17

1. Deputy R.J. Ward : ........................................................................ 19
2. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet : .................................................................. 20
3. Deputy S.Y. Mézec : ...................................................................... 20
4. Deputy M.R. Ferey of St. Saviour : ....................................................... 21
5. Deputy E. Millar : ......................................................................... 21

2. Deputy E. Millar : ......................................................................... 23

5. Draft Limited Partnerships (Continuance) (Jersey) Regulations 202- (P.25/2023).... 24

1. Deputy E. Millar (Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources - rapporteur): ........ 24
2. Deputy E. Millar : ......................................................................... 26

6. Jersey Overseas Aid Commission: Re-Appointment of Commissioner (P.26/2023) .. 28

6.1 Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville and St. Martin (The Minister for International Development): ............................................................................ 28

1. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier : ................................................ 28
2. Deputy C.F. Labey : ....................................................................... 29

7. Draft F.B. Playing Fields (Jersey ) Law 202- (P.27/2023) ............................... 30

1. Deputy L. Stephenson of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter (Assistant Minister for Infrastructure - rapporteur): .............................................................. 30

1. Deputy R.J. Ward : ........................................................................ 32
2. Deputy S.G. Luce : ........................................................................ 33
3. Deputy B. Ward : .......................................................................... 33
4. Deputy M.R. Scott : ....................................................................... 34
5. Connétable D. Johnson of St. Mary : ...................................................... 34
6. Deputy L.V. Feltham of St. Helier Central : .............................................. 34
7. Deputy M. Tadier :........................................................................ 35
8. Connétable M. O'D. Troy of St. Clement : ............................................... 36
9. Deputy A. Curtis : ......................................................................... 36
10. Deputy J. Renouf of St. Brelade :...................................................... 37
11. Deputy T. Binet : ....................................................................... 37
12. Deputy L. Stephenson : ................................................................ 38

2. Deputy L. Stephenson : .................................................................... 41

1. Deputy R.J. Ward : ........................................................................ 42 Mr. M. Jowitt., H.M. Solicitor General: ........................................................ 42
2. Deputy A. Curtis : ......................................................................... 42
3. Deputy S.G. Luce : ........................................................................ 43
4. Deputy M. Tadier :........................................................................ 43
5. Deputy L. Stephenson : .................................................................... 44

8. Provision of a free hopper bus service for Active Card holders to Springfield Stadium (P.33/2023) .................................................................................. 46

8.1 Deputy R.J. Ward : ........................................................................ 46

1. The Connétable of St. Helier : ............................................................ 48
2. Deputy L.V. Feltham : .................................................................... 49
3. Deputy S.G. Luce : ........................................................................ 50
4. Connétable A.N. Jehan of St. John : ...................................................... 50
5. Deputy L. Stephenson : .................................................................... 51
6. Deputy T. Binet : .......................................................................... 52

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

7. Deputy S.Y. Mézec : ...................................................................... 53
8. Deputy J. Renouf : ........................................................................ 54
9. Deputy M. Tadier :........................................................................ 55
10. Deputy S.M. Ahier of St. Helier North : ............................................... 57
11. Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf of St. Saviour : .................................................. 57
12. Deputy R.J. Ward : ..................................................................... 58

9. Breakdown of Gender Pay (P.31/2023) - as amended (P.31/2023 Amd.) .............. 62

9.1 Deputy M.B. Andrews : ................................................................... 63

1. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet : .................................................................. 63
2. The Connétable of St. John : .............................................................. 64
3. Deputy H. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : ................................. 64
4. Deputy M. Tadier :........................................................................ 65
5. Deputy M.B. Andrews : ................................................................... 66

10. Provision of carpets in Andium Homes properties (P.34/2023) - as amended (P.34/2023 Amd.), (P.34/2023 Amd.(2)) .................................................. 68

10.1 Deputy R.J. Ward : ........................................................................ 68

1. Deputy E. Millar :...................................................................... 70
2. Deputy S.Y. Mézec : ................................................................... 72
3. Deputy M.R. Ferey : .................................................................... 73
4. Deputy M. Tadier : ..................................................................... 73
5. Deputy D. Warr of St. Helier South : .................................................. 74
6. Deputy L.V. Feltham :.................................................................. 74
7. Deputy R.J. Ward : ..................................................................... 75

11. Grindadrap Festival in the Faroe Islands - condemnation of the hunting of sea mammals (P.35/2023) - as amended (P.35/2023 Amd.) .................................. 80

11.1 Deputy L.J. Farnham : .................................................................... 80

1. Deputy M. Tadier : ..................................................................... 82
2. Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf : .................................................................. 84
3. The Connétable of St. Saviour : ........................................................ 85
4. Deputy K.F. Morel : .................................................................... 85
5. Deputy S.G. Luce : ..................................................................... 87
6. Deputy M.R. Scott :.................................................................... 87
7. Deputy A. Curtis : ...................................................................... 88
8. Deputy J. Renouf : ...................................................................... 88
9. Deputy A. Howell of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : ............................ 90
10. Deputy L. Stephenson : .............................................................. 90
11. Deputy M.B. Andrews : ............................................................. 90
12. Deputy S.Y. Mézec : ................................................................ 92
13. The Connétable of St. Clement : .................................................... 93
14. The Connétable of St. Brelade : ..................................................... 93
15. Deputy L.V. Feltham : .............................................................. 94

ADJOURNMENT .................................................................................. 97

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer. Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier Central :

Before we start, may I ask - I do not know if it is the right time - I have 2 propositions one after the other, and I just wondered if I can move one so that I have a short break in between the 2 propositions.

The Bailiff :

That is a matter entirely for the Assembly. It depends how merciful people are feeling, I suppose. Deputy R.J. Ward :

I propose to the very pleasant Deputy Max Andrews that I may move mine to before his, and I just wondered if he would be happy with that.

The Bailiff :

This is P.33 and P.34, is it?

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Yes, Sir.

The Bailiff :

The hopper bus service and the Andium Homes? Deputy R.J. Ward :

Yes, I wondered if I could move the hopper bus service to before the gender pay gap, just so that there is a short break in between the 2 propositions. I would appreciate that.

The Bailiff :

That is a request to change the order of business, which is perfectly open to you to do. Is that seconded? [Seconded]  Does any Member wish to speak on that? Deputy Andrews , you are the one probably most affected by it; no? Those in favour of making that small change to the Order Paper? Those against? Very well, we will take them in a slightly different order.

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption

1. Health and Community Services Interim Board (P.19/2023) - as amended (P.19/2023 Amd.) (P.19/2023 Amd.(2)) - resumption

The Bailiff :

Now we continue with the debate on P.19 and does any other Member wish to  speak on the proposition? If no other Member wishes to speak on the proposition then I close the debate and call on the Minister to respond.

1.1   Deputy K. Wilson of St. Clement (The Minister for Health and Social Services):

First of all, I would like to thank Members for all of the points raised in our debate yesterday. It was a really helpful and constructive debate. Without repeating points at length, I would just like to respond to a number of issues. I think, most importantly, I cannot emphasise strongly that the board does not diminish or interfere with my political oversight of the department. I remain accountable. I cannot also emphasise clearly enough that the matter at hand is not a statutory board or an arm's length organisation. The terms of reference before the Assembly were for an advisory board. I would urge Members not to judge this proposition on the basis of what you think about statutory boards in Jersey or whether or not they have been a good thing for Jersey. This is not what is before us today. The board is an advisory board, it was always constructed as one and I inserted the word "advisory"

into the title because I was asked to make more clarification. As Deputy Renouf kindly noted, I listened and I responded and it was suggested that inserting the word "advisory" had resulted in potential candidates not applying for the non-executive posts. Given that we have received over 110 applications for the 5 roles, and given the assurances I have received about the calibre of the candidates and the fact that their applications clearly demonstrate their understanding of the role of the board, I think the Assembly should be encouraged by the interest in what we are trying to do here. I also amended the proposition to place an explicit commitment on the board to meet with the Council of Ministers at least every 6 months. This is because, in response to the points raised by Deputy Ozouf yesterday, it is recognised that the health and well-being of Islanders is not a matter for me alone. It is a matter for all Ministers and for this Assembly. The board will collaborate with Ministers, with Assembly Members, with all relevant partners. This is not something I am just reiterating now but it is set out in paragraph 4 of the terms of reference. What I want to assure Assembly Members is that I, as the Minister, am committed to this collaboration. Deputy Jehan pointed out that the terms of reference include that the board will direct the department. He is absolutely correct in that. That is because the board includes the executive directors who are currently responsible for directing the activities of the department. This will continue as Members of the Assembly would expect. The chief officer of the department will, as a member of the board, continue to provide the direction in the day-to-day running of the department but will do so with the benefit of the collective knowledge, advice and support of the board around it. This does not equate to the board determining health policy or strategy for the Island. I do that as the Minister with support of both the Council of Ministers and Members of this Assembly. Much has been said about whether the costs as set out in P.19 are correct, particularly in relation to the chair's remuneration. The costs in the proposition are correct but it was apparent that the information provided was not clear. I clarified for Members that the 2023 cost for the chair's remuneration as set out in P.19 includes both the remuneration of the fixed term chair and the substantive chair that we were going to point on. Deputy Howell asked if the current fixed term chair is conflicted and Deputy Jehan questioned both how much we are paying him and his contractual arrangements. I think we all understand that the terms of reference are not about one individual, as Deputy Ward noted. But I would like to assure Members that I nevertheless have heard the concerns previously raised about potential conflict. Recognising that the perception of conflict can be as damaging as conflict itself I have agreed with the chair of the Jersey Appointments Commission that the fixed term chair will not sit on the selection panel for the non-executive directors. I would like to clarify the role of the change team. The change team are health service experts who are embedded in the department and are working along with the senior executives. They are providing the executives with the additional capacity needed to deliver urgent reform, such as the development of a financial recovery plan. They are not filing an end-of- year report. Nor are they responsible for the ongoing clinical and corporate governance of the department. That is not their role. That is the role of the board. Some Members spoke about an additional layer of bureaucracy, and I understand these concerns but not a single member of staff or health provider consulted on the proposals have raised this concern with me. It has been exactly the opposite. They have all expressed support for the board. They want to see it in place. This includes the change team whose work and expertise Members acknowledged during the course of yesterday's debate. The people in the system recognise that good governance removes layers of bureaucracy and ineffective management. It does not add to them. I accepted, as it was said yesterday, that some members of the public believe the department is top heavy. But it is also the case that the public are rightly outraged when we get it wrong.

[9:45]

As was so well articulated by the Minister for Social Services, the costs of getting it wrong significantly outweigh the costs of managers time and time again. So the board will cost. Health boards cost money the world over. But that cost is accepted in jurisdictions because it is recognised that boards are an effective mechanism for ensuring and assuring grip and control. There is no reason

to assume why it will be any different here in Jersey. But if that were to be the case we can change things in 18 months' time, thanks to the chair of the P.A.C.'s (Public Accounts Committee) helpful collegial amendment. I would ask Members also please do not lose sight of the fact that the Minister for Treasury and Resources tells us that the board represents value for money. No one more than me understands the need to get our health finances under control or delivering value for money. At this stage, I believe that the board offers a proportionate response to a very challenging set of circumstances. The Connétable of St. Lawrence is correct. It is the responsibility of senior officers to run the department effectively and efficiently but we know that competent, highly-qualified managers have not historically succeeded in delivering what we need. We could just keep blaming them, dismissing it as their job. But that has not worked and it will not work in the future. We need to learn and we need to try something different from what has gone before. Independent oversight is critical to ensuring that the information we receive at face value is reliable and we can trust it. The Connétable of St. Mary specifically asked me if there had been liaison with insurance companies, and I apologise if I did not fully catch his point, but it is the case that there is a regular liaison with our insurance arrangements. What we do know is that when there are clinical failures they are hugely costly. We need significant changes in our healthcare system for our patients and for our staff. No single Member of this Assembly has refuted that point during yesterday's debate, despite the points of contention raised and the understandable concerns about the cost. It is also the case that no Member of this Assembly has challenged the need to tackle the poor working culture in the department. You all recognise the need for staff to feel safe, respected and valued. Deputy Warr raised the issue of trust and how important it is to build this trust not only in our workforce but also between the public and the service. This is going to be a key responsibility of the board. I ask Assembly Members to support this proposition. The public needs to know and trust that we can deliver good healthcare. Deputy Luce talked about the need for solid foundations. I propose that this board offers the foundations needed to rebuild our health service and support our staff to do their best work. As the Chief Minister highlighted yesterday when recalling her own experience, the need to build clinical knowledge and understanding about what is happening in our healthcare system is critical to its success. This is a vote about whether we, in the Assembly, take our duty to Islanders seriously to assure them of safe services or not. As Deputy Morel put it yesterday, we have an urgent need to face the challenges of the future: ageing population, workforce challenges, new diseases, new drugs, new treatments. We have to be prepared and equipped not only now but for the future. We need all the advice we can get from this board to help us navigate this. I urge you to vote for the board. Patients need it, our staff need it, and the Island needs it. I would like now to move to the vote.

The Bailiff :

Will you give way for a point of clarification, Minister? Deputy K. Wilson :

No, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Do you call for the appel?

Deputy K. Wilson :

Yes, Sir.

The Bailiff :

The appel is called for, I invite Members to return to their seats. The vote is on P.19. I ask the Greffier to open the voting and Members to vote.

Deputy K.F. Morel of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : Can we raise the défaut ..

The Bailiff :

The défaut is raised on Deputy Farnham , yes.

The Bailiff :

The voting is open, I ask Members to vote. If Members have had the opportunity of casting their vote then I ask the Greffier to close the voting. I can announce the proposition has been adopted: 28 votes pour, 16 votes contre, no abstentions.

The Greffier of the States:

Those voting contre: the Connétable s of St. Brelade , Trinity , St. Peter , St. Martin , St. John , Grouville , St. Ouen and St. Saviour , Deputies Luce , Le Hegarat , Ahier , Farnham , Rose Binet , Howell , Tom Binet and Barbara Ward .

2. Draft Stamp Duties and Fees (Amendment of Law – No. 6) (Jersey) Regulations 202- (P.22/2023)

The Bailiff :

We now come to the Draft Stamp Duties and Fees (Amendment of Law – No. 6) (Jersey) Regulations lodged by the Chief Minister. The main respondent will be the chair of the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Sorry, to interrupt. I should have done it earlier. I just wondered as we go through today whether I can raise the issue of men removing their jackets when it gets too hot. It is reasonable at the moment but the temperature is going up and up during the day. I know for myself at the end of yesterday I baked all day, and I recognise your own attire, and you are doing very well.

The Bailiff :

Three layers. Deputy R.J. Ward :

But I just wonder whether at some point we do have to address this issue of comfort in the Assembly as well because people are getting lethargic by the end of the day and it does not make for good decision-making. I just wondered if I can raise that.

The Bailiff :

The answer is I think it must ultimately be a decision for Members as to the standard of dress within the Assembly. Traditionally the Assembly has maintained an appropriate standard of dress throughout and I cannot recall any occasion on which jackets have been removed, no matter how difficult it has become. That is simply I cannot recall it. That does not mean it is there or not. Perhaps it has happened in the past. I would suggest the right thing to do is to leave it for the time being but if there is an interjection further along the line the Assembly can take a vote for the purposes of this meeting only and if arrangements need to be changed then P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) .. of course it does mean what will the Chair wear? I am not entirely sure.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

The last thing I want is a long debate on this but it was just simply an appropriate time where the Assembly decide we just remove jackets. It did happen before when the temperatures were very high. It is a very high temperature in here at times. As for yourself, Sir, I think it is entirely your choice. I will ignore the comment about a suit of armour.

The Bailiff :

Yes, I was about to stay there is a suit of armour waiting at home for me. Deputy Scott , do you have a ..?

Deputy M.R. Scott of St. Brelade :

I just wondered if I could make a proposition to that effect right now. I know we are being filmed but I think it would almost be a celebration of the fact that we can recognise that there is an inequity that I am dressed like this and other Members of the Chamber who happen to be of the male gender

are wearing jackets. I would like to make that proposition, if somebody is prepared to second it, and if it is allowable please. [Seconded]

The Bailiff :

A proposition has been made. I cannot say that it is out of order. It seems to be in order because it is to do with the States conducts its business. It is seconded. Does any Member wish to speak on the proposition?

Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

I think there are obviously 2 sides to this story but I think however Members decide to vote it is good that it is being recorded for posterity, because I know this is one of the recurring debated that happens in the Assembly and when youngsters come to visit, in particular, they are told about this debate that we have constantly about men having to wear jackets, the Bailiff having to wear heavy thick robes and the women can wear skimpy tops, as Deputy Scott has put ..

The Bailiff :

I think the proposition is only about men's jackets. I am not sure it is about the ladies' attire at all. Deputy M. Tadier :

I think however we vote, it is good that there is a public record, that the Greffe now has official footage of it, which I think Deputy Ward must have known as well.

Connétable K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour :

To my recollection, this has only come up once in the past officially when the then Deputy Le Main asked the then Bailiff , now Deputy Bailhache , if jackets could be removed as it is so hot. The then Bailiff declined and Deputy Le Main pointed: "Well the ushers are not wearing jackets" and the Bailiff looked round and said "Yes, but they are working." [Laughter] The attire was maintained, Sir.

The Bailiff :

It would never have occurred to me to say that, Connétable . Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade :

At the risk of being pompous about this, I think the risk affecting the decorum of the Chamber, and I would not feel inclined to support the proposition.

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

Just to aid the Constable's memory, I have raised this twice previously and the first time was with a previous Bailiff and that Bailiff raised the Standing Order himself without any debate from Members and it was a very swift decision. And we moved on. The second time I raised it we did have a debate which took a length of time, which I do not think we should do today. I just think it is a matter of common sense and I do think it is within your gift, Sir, to do it without debate. But here we are.

The Bailiff :

It is now a matter for debate so it is outside my gift now, I think, because it is a matter now for the Assembly. Does any other Member wish to speak?

Deputy S.G. Luce of Grouville and St. Martin :

I will not be long but I just wish to point out that if Members think it is hot it could get considerably hotter. This will not be a debate that ends just with removing jackets today. It will be a debate that ends with dress code for this Chamber for time moving forward. I will not vote in favour of this.

Deputy A. Curtis of St. Clement :

Very quickly, I will point out to the Constable of St. John that if my decorum is so insufficient from removing my jacket that I shall inform him at the end of the day.

The Bailiff :

I am not sure that I understood that speech.

Deputy E. Millar of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity :

I am being slightly flippant but perhaps we could look to our cold weather bonus and cold weather payment legislation and introduce a temperature chart for when jackets may be removed.

The Bailiff :

There is not going to be a reference back motion or anything of that nature. Does any other Member wish to speak on the proposition? No other Member wishes to speak on the proposition. I close the debate. Deputy Scott , did you wish to say anything in response?

Deputy M.R. Scott :

I thank Members for their contributions and I consider decorum has been respected insofar as Members of the Chamber, including me, arrived wearing jackets. If, in the event that the vote is not carried, I would also wish consideration to have the doors over there opened just to allow people to work in a more comfortable atmosphere.

The Bailiff :

That is an entirely different issue.

Deputy M.R. Scott :

That would be a second proposition, Sir, of course. Thank you. I urge Members to support this vote.

The Bailiff :

Those in favour of removing jackets for gentlemen kindly show. The appel is called for. A vote pour is to remove jackets for this sitting only. It is of no general application. It is for this sitting only and a vote pour is to remove jackets for gentlemen or leave to do so, and 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 proposition has been adopted: 29 votes pour, 13 votes contre, one abstention.

[10:00]

I am sorry, Deputy Miles , it did not apply to ladies. [Laughter] The Chair was being slightly flippant, as I think the ladies can exercise a discretion about this without any difficulty at all.

Deputy M. Tadier :

Can we have the 13, I think it is probably one of the more interesting votes. The Greffier of the States:

Those voting contre: the Connétable s of St. Helier , St. Brelade , Trinity , St. Peter , St. John , Grouville , St. Ouen , St. Mary and St. Saviour , Deputies Luce , Gorst , Andrews and Deputy Ozouf online.

The Bailiff :

It would be arguably interesting to hear that vote broken down by gender but probably that would be for analysis on another day.

Deputy M. Tadier :

I am resisting to ask about waistcoats now. The Bailiff :

I think that might apply only to me so the answer is we will not do that. I think we have all the flippancy the day can stand and we are now on the Draft Stamp Duties and Fees (Amendment of Law – No. 6) (Jersey) Regulations lodged by the Chief Minister. The responder is the chair of the Corporate Services scrutiny Panel. I ask the Greffier to read the citation.

The Greffier of the States:

Draft Stamp Duties and Fees (Amendment of Law – No. 6) (Jersey) Regulations 202-. The States make these regulations under Article 3 of the Stamp Duties and Fees (Jersey) Law 1998.

1. Deputy K.L. Moore of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter (The Chief Minister):

The Stamp Duties and Fees (Jersey) Law 1998 contains regulation-making powers whereby the States may amend schedules 1, 2 and 3 of the law. Schedule 1 is concerned with the scope and level of judicial fees and currently permits the Viscount to charge for certain services provided in connection with insolvency procedures whereas other insolvency services are currently not within scope. These draft regulations seek to amend schedule 1 to include certain further functions which are administered by the Viscount Department's insolvency team. These services are subject to practice directions of the Royal Court and are functions for which the Viscount currently has no statutory power to charge. The functions referred to are fully explained in the accompanying report. They relate to applications for aid in bankruptcy and insolvency matters and relate to recognition in or out of the Jersey Court, dégrèvement applications, and assisting the Jurats with remise de biens applications. The revenue that will be generated by these fees would be part of cost recovery helping to offset the cost of administration of the functions. I should emphasise that the new fees being proposed, which are only one, the £45 fee for dégrèvement applications, would be fixed. The remaining fees would be discretionary, allowing the Viscount to take a view as appropriate, depending on the circumstances. For each of these functions to which those draft regulations relate, applications must be drawn to the Viscount's attention ahead of them being filed with the Royal Court. The Viscount's role is to filter the applications and to draw to the attention of the applicant any possible errors or omissions prior to them being presented to the court. In addition, either the Viscount or a member of the insolvency team will be available to assist the court when applications are presented, which is especially important when they relate to contentious and/or complicated matters. I move the principles.

The Bailiff :

Are the principles seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the principles? Those in favour of adopting the principles kindly show. Those against? The principles are adopted. Does the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel wish to scrutinise the matter?

Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier South (Chair, Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel): No, Sir.

The Bailiff :

How do you wish to deal with the matter in Second Reading, Chief Minister?

2. Deputy K.L. Moore :

I shall make a brief speech, if I may, just to relate to the 2 draft regulations, which require little further explanation than I set out when I moved the principles. Perhaps we should take them en bloc.

The Bailiff :

Are they seconded for Second Reading? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak in Second Reading? All Members in favour of adopting the regulations in Second Reading kindly show. Those against? Do you propose in Third Reading, Chief Minister?

3. Deputy K.L. Moore :

Before I move to the draft regulations in Third Reading, I would like to thank the Viscount and the senior manager of the insolvency team for their input and their co-operation in progressing these regulations. I move the regulations in Third Reading.

The Bailiff :

Are they seconded for Third reading? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak in Third Reading? Those in favour of adopting the regulations .. the appel is called for. I invite Members to return to their seats and ask the Greffier to open the voting. The vote is on the adoption of P.22 in Third Reading. If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. The regulations have been adopted in Third Reading: 40 votes pour, no votes contre, no abstentions.

3. Draft Domestic Abuse (Jersey) Law 2022 (Appointed Day) Act 202- (P.23/2023) The Bailiff :

The next item is the Draft Domestic Abuse (Jersey) Law 2022 (Appointed Day) Act, P.23, lodged by the Minister for Home Affairs. The main respondent is the chair of the Children, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel and I ask the Greffier to read the proposition.

The Greffier of the States:

Draft Domestic Abuse (Jersey) Law 2022 (Appointed Day) Act 202-. The States make this Act under Article 19 of the Domestic Abuse (Jersey) Law 2022.

3.1   Deputy H. Miles of St. Brelade (The Minister for Home Affairs):

If approved this Act will bring into force the Domestic Abuse (Jersey) Law 2022, which was approved by the previous Assembly on 28th April 2022. The key elements of the legislation are the creation of an offence of domestic abuse, which is defined in part 2 of the law. Article 3 creates the new offence of domestic abuse with a penalty of up to five years' imprisonment and an unlimited fine. Domestic abuse will be an offence where both parties are personally connected, they are aged 16 or over, and on more than one occasion one person is abusive to another. The abusive act or failure to act must cause or be reasonably likely to cause harm,. We will also include acts committed outside of Jersey if the offender is usually resident in Jersey. Very importantly, the law captures behaviour which is coercive or controlling as abusive. Article 4 requires the court that is sentencing a person convicted of domestic abuse to treat the presence or involvement of a child or a pregnant woman as an aggravating factor that increases the sentence. This recognises the significant harm to children from being exposed to domestic abuse. The second key element is the new powers for the courts to impose domestic abuse protection orders. This is dealt with in part 3 of the law. Article 5 allows a court to issue a domestic abuse protection order against a person aged 18 or over who has been convicted of a relevant offence. Domestic abuse protection order will only be issued where the court considers that on the balance of probabilities there is a risk of further abuse and it is necessary to protect the victim. The court is required to also consider the well-being of any children involved and any views from the suspect, the victim or the householder. Part 3 also contains the governance arrangements around these orders, including the right of appeal and the right to apply to vary or revoke such an order. The law also gives the court the power to impose notification requirements on people convicted of domestic abuse or similar offences. This is intended as a mechanism for risk prevention, following the same structure was the Sex Offenders Law, and the court may order such a person to provide the police with relevant details or any relevant changes for a specified time. I should note as well, that the Domestic Abuse Law has been fully reviewed for E.C.H.R. (European

Convention on Human Rights) compliance. Although I think that the note in the report says no human rights issues arise, I think this downplays the detailed and comprehensive analysis of the human rights issues engaged, which was carried out by the Law Officers' Department at the time and which found the law to be compatible. Domestic abuse is deeply damaging, invidious behaviour, and we know that it causes much harm in our community. The previous Assembly acknowledged that when they voted in favour of this draft Domestic Abuse Law over a year ago. I can only apologise to Members but, more importantly, to victims that it has taken some time to bring this law into force. The delay was not expected and I and my team have done our best to get things back on track. I am grateful to all those who have worked hard on the law and to prepare to bring it into force. This is a very important piece of legislation, which will significantly improve the protection available to victims of these horrible offences. I ask the Assembly's support in bringing this law into force.

The Bailiff :

Thank you very much, Minister. Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the proposition?

1. Deputy M. Tadier :

I note that the Minister did address that there was a delay and I was thinking of asking a question, and now that she has mentioned it I thought I would ask for clarification on that point. We know that the previous Assembly adopted the law on 28th April last year and that it was sanctioned by the Privy Council on 19th July that year, and then it was registered in the Royal Court on 5th August las year. I think there is still about 9 or 10 months. Can I just ask why there are delays and if there is something that we should know about? Does the department need more resources or is there a technical issue or issues that can explain this delay?

2. Deputy C.D . Curtis of St. Helier Central :

I just want to say that the Children, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel supports this law being brought into force as a priority. It was approved by the States Assembly in April 2022, scrutinised by the previous Scrutiny Panel, and the current panel has questioned the Minister at length. It seems it is ready to go and very much needed.

3. Deputy R.J. Ward :

Extremely briefly, it was the previous panel that scrutinised it, we gave it our full support and this is a much needed change to our laws.

The Bailiff :

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

4. Deputy H. Miles :

I thank Members for their contributions and their support. In answer to Deputy Tadier 's question, the delay in bringing this legislation is regrettable. The Assembly was previously advised in response to an Oral Question 24/2023 that the law required Rules of Court to be prepared and in place prior to implementation and that this was the source of the delay. Such rules are developed by the Law Officers' Department and made by the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee. However, further to my liaison with the law officers and the judiciary, officers were advised that the courts would be able to manage procedures so that the law can be brought into force ahead of rules being in place. On that basis, I maintain the proposition.

The Bailiff :

Do you call for the appel?

Deputy H. Miles : Yes, Sir.

The Bailiff :

The appel is called for, I invite Members to return to their seats. The vote is on the adoption of P.23, the Appointed Day Act for the Draft Domestic Abuse (Jersey) Law. 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 Appointed Day Act has been adopted: 41 votes pour; no votes contre; no abstention. I beg your pardon, 42 votes pour; there was one in the chat who has voted.

4. Draft Social Security (Amendment of Law No. 18) (Jersey) Regulations 202- (P.24/2023) The Bailiff :

The next item of public business is the Draft Social Security (Amendment of Law No. 18) (Jersey) Regulations, P.24, lodged by the Minister for Social Security. The main respondent is the chair of the Health and Social Security Scrutiny Panel and I ask the Greffier to read the citation.

The Greffier of the States:

Draft Social Security (Amendment of Law No. 18) (Jersey) Regulations 202-. The States make these regulations under Articles 50 and 51 of the Social Security (Jersey) Law 1974.

1. Deputy E. Millar (The Minister for Social Security):

I would like to propose the Draft Social Security (Amendment of Law No. 18) (Jersey) Regulations. I am bringing these regulations to the States to clarify some specific references in the Social Security (Jersey) Law 1974.

[10:15]

Under Articles 50 and 51 of that law, the Minister for Social Security has the power to amend the law by regulations. The 2 regulations clarify different aspects of the law so I will speak to each regulation of course and will ask for separate votes. That said, I hope that Members will agree that both regulations are simple and represent sensible housekeeping changes. Regulation 2 aligns the calculation of contribution factors in the law with the original policy intention and current operational practice. If we do not do this we will need to reconsider the current approach to these calculations which could lead to additional costs to the Social Security Fund. Regulation 3 separately amends that part of the law that prevents a person from doing any work when they are in receipt of short-term incapacity allowance. This will make it possible to make a change by Order that will give Jersey workers the option, as they would in other places, of doing limited or adjusted duties in the workplace while they are recovering from an illness. Although the majority of changes will be accomplished through that Order, I will explain how this will work and I do that because I want Members to be sure that any changes will be sensible and beneficial. In particular, I would emphasise again that the changes absolutely do not change or remove a person's entitlement to sickness benefit, they do not

introduce new conditions to obtaining the benefit or force people to do anything new in order to receive it. As confirmed yesterday, there is no sanction regime associated with this change. I very much welcome the supportive comment lodged by our Scrutiny Panel who have taken the time to consider both regulations in detail and make helpful observations about the impact of these changes. I welcome their engagement with the reasons behind these changes and will go into further detail about how I propose to meet the recommendation. Turning first to Regulation 2, this regulation, if passed, will amend Article 8A in the Social Security (Jersey) Law 1974 to provide that the rounding of the contribution factor will be according to the usual rules on rounding and not always rounded up. A contribution factor measures how much of a contribution record an individual has over a period of time. This determines their eligibility for and the value of any contributory benefits or social security pension due to that person. In the last step of calculating contribution factors they are, in practice, rounded up or down to the nearest third decimal place according to the normal rules of rounding applied in many financial calculations. The law currently requires all calculations to be rounded up; however, this was not the intention when Article 8A was added into the Social Security Law in 2012 as part of a list of minor housekeeping changes alongside the main changes required in the law at that time. If the Assembly approves this regulation no one will be made better or worse off because the law will be aligned with how we have always carried out these calculations. If the Assembly does not approve the regulation, then I will need to consider the reasons for this and what further legal or operational changes may be required. This might require providing slightly larger pensions by 24 pence per week, which is roughly £13 a year, and if so this would cost the fund eventually an extra £200,000 to £300,000 per year with the expected increase in the number of pensioners in the future. It would also create an issue regarding some of the contribution factors we have calculated and rounded down; again, we are talking about 24 pence a week since the law was changed in 2012. This will be difficult to resolve in a manner that is cost-effective to both contributors and pensioners generally. Turning now to Regulation 3. If passed, Regulation 3 will allow a person to claim short-term incapacity allowance on a day if it is prescribed as a day of incapacity by the Minister. This will ultimately remove the prohibition on a person claiming short- term incapacity allowance on a day on which they work. At present, a day of incapacity is currently defined as one on which no work can be done at all. Article 15 of the law includes a provision that a person is not entitled to S.T.I.A. (short-term incapacity allowance) or more commonly being signed off work sick for any day on which he or she works. This includes voluntary and even therapeutic work and means when someone is ill they are obliged to remain at home, not working or volunteering or doing anything that may improve their health condition. This regulation removes this prohibition without any further change to Article 15. As we discussed yesterday, removing this provision alone will not affect claims to short-term incapacity allowance because the current wording of the Social Security (Incapacity Benefits) (Jersey) Order 2004 contains a very similar provision as set out in the report to the proposition. If these regulations are passed, I intend to go on to amend that Order to allow that a day may also be a day of incapacity and thus a person may claim short-term incapacity allowance if a person does some work but only under specific conditions. This is how comparable benefits work in other places such as the U.K. (United Kingdom) and Guernsey and represents an essential modernisation of the Jersey system. It will have benefits to workers, their employers and Jersey's economy. I intend to make changes by Order that only allow a person to do some work if it is agreed that it will support their recovery from illness and management of a health condition. This will be part of an approved return-to-work plan. In order to qualify under the short-term incapacity rules, this plan will be agreed between the worker and their employer and, where appropriate, with input from relevant medical professionals responsible for their care. It will be designed to reflect modern medical understanding that a work-related activity can benefit recovery and management of some health conditions and it will be agreed by a specially-trained officer in Customer and Local Services. If these conditions are met, the worker will be able to do some work while also receiving short-term incapacity benefit. They will remain fully protected by the benefit and can return to complete absence from work if the return-to-work plan is not successful. There will be no penalty to

any person who decides that this type of return to work is not right for them. There is no question of a person being forced back to work when they are not well enough to return. This is the first stage of a major overhaul of benefits and a key part of my Ministerial agenda. Jersey faces significant challenges in skills, job vacancies and the difficulties that workers and their employers have in managing some long-term health conditions, in particular mental health and muscular skeletal problems. Our current system makes it harder for people to manage these common health conditions and others. Some of them are conditions that should not necessitate total absence from activity. This is causing some people to leave work permanently and I believe we have to offer more help. While there is evidence that amended or adjusted duties could help the person recover from their illness and could help them manage it across their working life, there is no sense in our benefit system enforcing total absence from the workplace. I am conscious that this speech is quite long, so I am going to shorten it a little, unless people have any questions, or would you like me to ..

The Bailiff :

It is entirely a matter if you are satisfied you have dealt with the principles. So there will obviously be the opportunity for anyone to ask you questions in connection with the specific regulations when you get to Second Reading.

Deputy E. Millar :

Yes, and I am conscious that Members will hear more about the new scheme in due course, so I will continue. The Scrutiny Panel have also asked that we work to expand the referral process to other healthcare professionals. I am happy for that to be something that we explore throughout the launch period of this new service. Scrutiny have also asked me to communicate the scheme very carefully so that workers, employers and healthcare professionals are all aware that they have a role to play in this new system. I absolutely agree with that and have asked officers to ensure that this recommendation is met. I would like to thank our Scrutiny Panel for their constructive engagement on this topic. I am sure you will appreciate that the detail of this new service is a lot to cover although it relates to a small change to our legislation. I am pleased to offer all Members a briefing with our specialist medical adviser and the policy officer leading the project and I believe that invitations for everything in the near future have already been issued. My officers and our adviser will be able to explain all the ways in which this new system will help Jersey workers and our economy. These regulations come into force 7 days after they are made. At that point, I will make the Order that enables the new scheme. I am aiming for the new service to be operational this year. I would like to propose these regulations. Thank you.

The Bailiff :

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

1. Deputy R.J. Ward :

Just briefly on behalf of the panel, I will not go on for ever because I know that every Member of this Assembly would have read the comments paper, the wonderful 5 pages of prose. I would like to publicly thank the officers who behind the scenes work on these comments papers to produce a coherent set of information, often with some very complex things going on in the background and a quite significant workload, so I would like to thank the members of the Greffe staff who do that. Just a few things on Regulation 2; I am not even going to try to detail it. I do recommend you read the parts of the comments paper because it does sum it up very well, the changes, but the panel did not have a significant problem with that at all. It was something that should have been done many years ago, we believe. In terms of Regulation 3, there were some key points. I think the intention of this, and this is why I speak in the principles of this area, was to improve recovery, mental health and give control over the circumstances by the individual who is off sick. That is a very important part of recovery and I think that if this system works well, that can be a very significant positive outcome.

It is very important that all parties have agreed and that people are not forced back to work, and we were very pleased to hear the Minister say exactly that on the public record. We would certainly keep a watch for that because that is not the intention of this and it is very important that the employee themself has control over that return to work. There are also a couple of extra things. Support for businesses in navigating through the new rules is very important. The communication that comes with this change is going to be vital, particularly as people need to know what it means and to get the nuances of that not forcing people back to work. I think that is going to be a very important part of the work done by the department itself. Finally, the notion that a phased return to work may be agreed by others other than G.P.s (general practitioners) I think is something that is going to happen without changing healthcare systems and the increased role of things like physios, for example, and the return to work. The panel had no problem with that but we do need to keep again, the classic phrase of a Scrutiny Panel, a watching brief over what is going on in those circumstances to ensure that it works. Also, the phased approach through a range of conditions, I think that it is very important to make clear that not every condition is included at the beginning of this process. I think that phased approach is sensible so that it works and the information about how the system will work for employees and employers is very important as we move into the future. So, on behalf of the panel, I think I can pretty much say that we are unified in saying that we do approve this and we would recommend these regulations.

2. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet :

I just wanted to ask the Minister for clarification on a phrase that she used. She mentioned that those who are claiming incapacity benefits should stay at home and not work. I just wanted to clarify that because it is something that has been raised with constituents in the past whereby they have been signed off work and their workplace had told them that they must stay in their house, yet their G.P. is saying to them: "It is important that you get out for fresh air. It is important that you go and meet with people so that you are not becoming lonely." Indeed, I am aware of a pilot - I am not sure what happened with the pilot or whether it was continued - of social prescribing which I think happens a lot in the N.H.S. (National Health Service) more often where the kind of emotional and social aspects of well-being are being learnt about by G.P.s and taken into account when they are prescribing and recommending treatment. So I just wanted the Minister I am sure she will reassure us that if they are unwell and their G.P. has recommended that they get fresh air or spend time with loved ones and that is important for their recovery that they are permitted to do that while claiming that benefit.

3. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :

Whenever I see changes proposed to the benefits system I get very nervous and I do so because the rules are littered unfortunately with some very silly rules, from time to time, rules that I have come up against in my constituency case work where totally illogical and unnecessary hardship is often visited upon claimants because of rules that just do not work in practice or do not take into account people's individual circumstances.

[10:30]

So when I see something like this lodged I am very keen to give it a look and see whether it is going to make things better or worse for vulnerable people. I do that in the context of the changes which were made to long-term incapacity allowance in 2015 which I regarded as being cruel and caused hardship to many constituents who I had to support down at the Social Security Department and which I never want to see a repeat of. Having listened to what the Minister for Social Security has said and what is written in the report, I think what she is proposing makes a great deal of sense. She has provided a very helpful reassurance in her words on that where there may well be plenty of cases where there are people who are claiming short-term incapacity allowance where it would be good for them, and the community, to be assisted back into work without having to face any kind of sanctions or anything if they attempted to do that. We cannot construct a system to support them through that

while this prohibition of them working remains in the law, so the Minister for Social Security's drive to remove it from the law makes perfect sense and then that gives her the flexibility to come up with a scheme that will help those people. I think the reassurance that she has given in her words, the intentions behind that, to not resemble some of the schemes that have been tried in the U.K. that have been based on coercion and that have been based on sanction rather than looking at people's individual needs and finding out what is best for them and supporting them through that, that is fundamental. So I speak only to reiterate, request to her to just be absolutely clear as that work goes on so we can have confidence that it does everything that it sets out to do and we can be confident that there will not be situations where people who are ill inadvertently face hardship because of rules not being appropriately tailored to their circumstances. But what is proposed in these regulations today makes perfect sense and, as things stand, I am fairly confident that it is helping us move in a positive direction there, so I am happy to support them.

4. Deputy M.R. Ferey of St. Saviour :

Like the Minister, I urge Members to support these regulations. I would like to speak in particular to Regulation 3 which helps modernise our sickness benefits system. This is a system which most of us will use at some point in our lives but it has not evolved to keep pace with working life as it is in the modern age. I have a personal interest in this because, as well as the understanding that I have gained through working with disability groups and within the third sector, I hope that Members will forgive me for drawing on an anecdote from much earlier in my career. My first role at the Social Security Department was that of a visiting officer and I would regularly encounter people who would quite happily have done some work but were prevented from doing so by our benefit rules. Although this has been some time ago, it is a sad fact that Jersey's benefit system is very much rooted in an earlier age. I think we have a great opportunity here to help to change this. The awareness that doing some work would be helpful is counter to the image that perhaps some people might have about benefit claimants or even about people who are signed off from work. Most people like to be active. Even when they are not at their best, they prefer to reduce activity rather than to stop doing everything. This is definitely the case for certain types of illness that affect more and more people in their working life. I am talking about mental health and back pain. People may not be able to cope with a full working week but that does not mean that they need a week in bed. These ailments are all growing but our current system is not doing enough to help. It is good to rest when you need to but in lots of cases people miss the routine of work and worry about the jump from being totally signed off to being back into full-time work and assuming their full duties. They stop being physically active and under our current rules they cannot even take up voluntary or therapeutic work. We know that lots of conditions and a gradual return is going to benefit people. This is what the health advice says and that is what these changes will allow people to do. I say "allow" because it will be optional. We want to give people a service that they can choose to take up. We want to support them and understand what will work in their own particular bespoke case and to come to an agreement with their employer. We want to support employers too, to help them to understand how these changes can benefit them all in a time when employers finding suitable employees is becoming increasingly difficult. I think this is a really positive step and I am glad to see that our Scrutiny Panel feel the same way. I would urge all Members to support these proposals.

The Bailiff :

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

5. Deputy E. Millar :

I would like to start by thanking everyone who has spoken and in particular for their, I think, generally supportive comments on these regulations. If I could just touch on one or 2 points, please. Deputy Ward mentioned support for employers and that will very much be part of this scheme. I know from

having been a manager how it can cause employers some anxiety if you have an employee who has been off for weeks or months, particularly with things like mental health conditions, and they want to return to work on a phased basis, that that can cause concerns to how you get that person back into the workplace safely and in a way which promotes their recovery and does not make them more unwell than they have already been, so we will certainly be supporting employers through this process and helping them with getting their employees back into work. Deputy Doublet , thank you for that, that is a very strict interpretation of the rules. I think the rules do not say, or should not be interpreted as meaning, that a person must stay at home because, again, I know as a manager often people, if they do have mental health or muscular conditions, that their G.P. will be saying to them: "Get out in the fresh air, go for a run, go to the gym, because these are all things that will help your recovery" and our current rules should not stop people doing that but it does stop them, for example, volunteering in the charity shop or a charity café or doing any work. Yes, it should also help with concepts like social prescribing and it lets people have a much more normal life during their period of ill-health. Deputy Mézec , yes, I agree nobody hears a silly rule more than me. I am confident that this scheme will make things better for employees and employers and I assure him that we will monitor the scheme closely to make sure that there are no negative or unintended effects. So, I thank Members for their comments and I ask Members to support the proposition. I maintain the principles and call for the appel, please.

The Bailiff :

The appel is called for, I invite Members to return to their seats. The vote is on the principle for P.24, and I ask the Greffier to open the voting. If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, then I ask the Greffier to close the voting. The principles have been adopted: 44 votes pour; no votes contre; no abstentions.

I take it, Deputy Ward , from your previous intervention, your Scrutiny Panel does not wish to call the matter in?

Deputy R.J. Ward (Chair, Health and Social Security Scrutiny Panel): No, Sir.

The Bailiff :

How do you wish to deal with the matter in Second Reading, Minister? You have obviously already explained the regulations, it is up to you.

2. Deputy E. Millar :

Yes, I think I did say I would propose the regulations individually because they are different but if Members were happy to take them en bloc I would be happy to propose en bloc. I think given they are generally supportive, I will propose en bloc, please.

The Bailiff :

Very well, are they seconded in Second Reading? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the regulations in Second Reading? If no Member wishes to speak, I close the debate. Those in favour of adopting the regulations in Second Reading, kindly show. Those against? The regulations are adopted in Second Reading. Do you propose in Third Reading?

Deputy E. Millar : Yes, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Very well, are they seconded for Third Reading? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak in Third Reading? Those in favour of adopting the regulations in Third Reading, kindly show. Those against? The regulations are adopted.

5. Draft Limited Partnerships (Continuance) (Jersey) Regulations 202- (P.25/2023) The Bailiff :

The next item of public business is the Draft Limited Partnerships (Continuance) (Jersey) Regulations, P. 25, lodged by the Chief Minister. The main respondent is the chair of the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel, and I ask the Greffier to read the citation.

The Greffier of the States:

Draft Limited Partnerships (Continuance) (Jersey) Regulations 202-. The States make these regulations under the Order in Council dated 28th March 1771 and the Order in Council dated 14th April 1884.

Deputy K.L. Moore :

Deputy Millar will be the rapporteur for this item.

1. Deputy E. Millar (Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources - rapporteur):

I propose the Draft Limited Partnerships (Continuance) (Jersey) Regulations, otherwise "the regulations" during this speech. I am going to go off-speech for a moment just to say that these regulations, to a significant degree, reflect a law that has been in place since the early-2000s and allow companies to continue. Those continuance regulations have been well-used in the corporate sphere and I would just like to make the comment that I have always hated the word "continuance" and it would be much easier if we used "redomiciliation" because that is what we are talking about, but anyway that is just a personal bugbear. These regulations are a part of a piece of Financial Services Regulation which are intended to renew the existing Limited Partnerships (Continuance) (Jersey) Regulations passed previously by the States as triennial regulations in 2020 and which are due to expire on 17th July 2023. The regulations fulfil 2 key policy objectives. They will allow foreign unincorporated limited partnerships wishing to exit their existing jurisdiction of registration and migrate to Jersey, so basically redomicile from their current seat into Jersey and, secondly, to ensure our legislative framework continues to offer an attractive and competitive legal framework within which our international funds business can operate. The regulations play an important role in ensuring Jersey remains competitive with other financial services centres which specialise in funds business. The Jersey limited partnership is the preferred legal structure for fund managers and promoters to use for international funds managed from Jersey. Our funds sector is a core pillar of our financial services industry and a key area of growth with over £488 billion of global assets under management. Jersey is recognised internationally as a jurisdiction of choice for alternative fund business, primarily private equity. The regulations permit Jersey to capture opportunities where funds wish to exit from another jurisdiction and to relocate their operations and redomicile the fund to Jersey. This may be because of, for example, the European listing process or for some other

reputational, political or business reasons. The regulations create a statutory process by which a foreign limited partnership can continue and be registered as a Jersey limited partnership and be afforded the protections and benefits provided by our Limited Partnership Law. This statutory process reflects equivalent continuance provisions in competitor jurisdictions' laws. The regulations supplement our existing Limited Partnership Law and the Control of Borrowing Order. They were originally passed as triennial regulations due to the urgency and technical restrictions in amending the Limited Partnership Law in 2020. Since that date, the Limited Partnership Law has been updated with the amended law coming into force in July last year. However, within the timescale and resourcing constraints as a consequence of our MONEYVAL assessment this year, it has not been possible, regrettably, to bring them into permanent law. The decision to renew the current regulations is also partly due to industries' own desire to extend the original regulations to include continuance out as well as continuance in provisions which would require further resource in time.

[10:45]

What I mean there is just simple reciprocity which allows a Jersey limited partnership to redomicile to another jurisdiction should it so wish. The original regulations passed by the States Assembly in 2020 were substantively in the same form as the regulations before you. They have been updated to account for changes to the Limited Partnership Law since they were passed and to modernise the drafting in line with current drafting standards. The financial services industry supports the renewal of the regulations and the revisions made to the original regulations. The draft regulations were shared with and worked on together with industry and approved in their final form. Furthermore, Government, before deciding to renew the original regulations, has sought the feedback of industry, the registry and the Financial Services Commission's supervisory team on their experience and use of the original continuance regulations. Industry has confirmed that they have enhanced Jersey's fund offer and that there has been business arising from their introduction. The registry and J.F.S.C.'s (Jersey Financial Services Commission) supervision team confirmed that their experience of the original regulations had not raised any concerns and they did not object to the renewal. It is a ministerial priority for the regulations to be incorporated into permanent law once the current constraints no longer apply and officers will be working on doing that from next year. If I could summarise briefly how the regulations supplement and add to the Limited Partnership (Jersey) Law as amended and associated law. They introduce a concept of an eligible foreign limited partnership. This is a foreign limited partnership which qualifies for continuance under the regulations. This requires it to be solvent, not in a state of being wound up, in administration or deregistered in its home jurisdiction and to be legally entitled to migrate out to another jurisdiction under its own laws. The regulations introduce an application process for eligible foreign limited partnerships to continue as a limited partnership under Jersey law. There are certain documents and statements which need to be filed before an application for continuance can be approved by the registry and a certificate of a continuance issued. This includes an application for the limited partnership to be registered as a limited partnership under our law and for an application for a consent to be made under the Control of Borrowing Order. This is to ensure that proper disclosure has been made of its beneficial ownership and to enable it to qualify if required as a Jersey private fund. The regulations set out the way the J.F.S.C. will determine any application for continuance and the basis on which appeals can be made by an applicant if an application is rejected. The Financial Services Commission is expressly given a mandate to reject an application on the grounds of it being contrary to public interest. The regulations also require that before any application for continuance can be made that an application for consent under the Control of Borrowing Order is granted and a consent issued. The registration of the eligible foreign limited partnership as a limited partnership in Jersey and the issuance of a certificate of continuance is made simultaneously. A certificate of continuance confirms that the eligible foreign limited partnership is from the date of the certificate continued as a limited partnership within Jersey and that it has complied with requirements of the regulation. This will give it proper standing in other jurisdictions as a Jersey limited partnership. The regulations also set out

the statutory effect of continuance. This provides certainty that it remains the same limited partnership that previously existed under the foreign jurisdiction's laws. This is important for tax reasons and also gives certainty as to the ownership of its assets, the validity of the contract as entered into, and its liability to third parties for its acts and omissions before its migration out. The regulations give the J.F.S.C. power to charge fees and publish forms and other documents for the continuance application and it introduces an offence for any person who provides or helps provide false or misleading information to the Financial Services Commission in relation to the application. The maximum penalty mirrors the equivalent provision under the Limited Partnership Law. It provides that the regulations will expire on 17th July 2026, the third anniversary of their commencement. The regulations will allow Jersey to maintain its competitiveness for funds business and keep it aligned to our competitor jurisdictions' laws. I propose the principles.

The Bailiff :

Are the principles seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the principles? If no Member wishes to speak on the principles, those in favour of adopting the principles, kindly show. Those against? The principles are adopted. Does the Scrutiny Panel wish to call this matter in?

Deputy S.Y. Mézec (Chair, Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel):

No, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Before we move on to Second Reading, Deputy Miles , I think you are Deputy H. Miles :

Guilty as charged.

The Bailiff :

Yes, guilty as charged. Thank you very much indeed. The Greffier welcomes the contribution to the fighting fund. How do you wish to deal with the matter in Second Reading, Minister?

2. Deputy E. Millar :

May I propose the regulations en bloc? The Bailiff :

I am sure you can, yes. Are they seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the regulations in Second Reading? Those in favour of adopting in Second Reading, kindly show. Those against? The regulations are adopted in Second Reading. Do you propose in Third Reading, Minister?

Deputy E. Millar :

Yes, I propose the regulations in Third Reading. The Bailiff :

Are they seconded for Third Reading? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak in Third Reading? If no Member wishes to speak in Third Reading, those in favour of adopting in Third Reading, kindly show. The appel is called for, I invite Members to return to their seats. The vote is on the adoption in Third Reading of P.25, the Draft Limited Partnerships (Continuance) (Jersey) Regulations, and 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 regulations have been adopted in Third Reading: 43 votes pour; no votes contre; no abstentions.

6. Jersey Overseas Aid Commission: Re-Appointment of Commissioner (P.26/2023) The Bailiff :

The next item of public business is the Jersey Overseas Aid Commission: Re-appointment of Commissioner, P.26, lodged by the Minister for International Development. The main respondent is the chair of the Economic and International Affairs Scrutiny Panel. I ask the Greffier to read the proposition.

The Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion to appoint Mr. Douglas Melville as a non- States commissioner for a further period of 3 years, in accordance with clause 7.4 of the Constitution of the Jersey Overseas Aid Commission as set out in Schedule 1 to the  Jersey Overseas Aid Commission (Jersey) Law 2005.

6.1   Deputy  C.F.   Labey  of   Grouville  and  St.  Martin  (The  Minister  for  International Development):

It gives me great pleasure to propose Mr. Douglas Melville as Commissioner of Jersey Overseas Aid. For those of you who do not know Mr. Melville , his day job is the Financial Services Ombudsman for the Channel Islands where he brings an extremely valuable skillset to Jersey Overseas Aid combined with a great deal of development aid experience, so I believe we are extremely lucky to have him on board. Mr. Melville has served as a non-States commissioner since 2015 and since 2018 has served as vice-chair of the commission. He will be joined by 2 other non-States commissioners, all of whom give their time in an honorary capacity. I make the proposition.

The Bailiff :

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

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

I hope this is relevant, I am sure you will tell me if it is not. I just wanted to use this opportunity to congratulate the Jersey Overseas Aid personnel for the tremendous work they are doing with the current crises that are facing the world, not only the situation in Sudan, but the ongoing crisis in Ukraine resulting from the invasion by Russia more than a year ago. I want to pay particular tribute to the Overseas Aid Commission for making sure that substantial funding is going to Ukraine and now in particular following the twinning of St. Helier and Mykolaiv. The funding is going into that part of the country and doing tremendous good, so it gives me great pleasure to support the proposition. Thank you.

The Bailiff :

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

2. Deputy C.F. Labey :

I thank the Constable for his very kind remarks. They are extremely relevant and I am always grateful for my excellent team that supports the endeavours of Jersey Overseas Aid. With regard to the funding for Ukraine, I think it was not only our own funding but indeed yours, Sir, through the appeal to the people of Jersey who gave very generously. Thank you.

The Bailiff :

Those in favour of adopting the proposition, kindly show. The appel is called for, I invite Members to return to their seats. The vote is on P.26, the re-appointment of the commissioner for the Overseas Aid Commission. 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 proposition has been adopted: 36 votes pour; no votes contre; and no abstentions.