STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

THURSDAY, 11th SEPTEMBER 2025

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption .................................................................. 5

1. Extension of Assembly sitting times ........................................................ 5

1.1   Deputy S.M. Ahier of St. Helier North (Chair, Privileges and Procedures Committee): .. 5

1. Deputy R.S. Kovacs of St. Saviour:........................................................ 5
2. Deputy A. Howell of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : ................................. 5
3. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter : .................................... 6
4. Deputy I. Gardiner of St. Helier North : .................................................... 6
5. Deputy M.R. Scott of St. Brelade : ......................................................... 6
6. Deputy J. Renouf of St. Brelade : .......................................................... 6
7. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of St. Saviour : .................................................... 6
8. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade : .................................................. 6
9. Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat of St. Helier North :.............................................. 7
10. Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier Central : ................................................ 7
11. Deputy S.G. Luce of Grouville and St. Martin : ........................................ 7
12. Deputy P.M. Bailhache of St. Clement : ................................................ 7
13. Deputy M.E. Millar of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : ............................ 8
14. Deputy T.JA. Binet of St. Saviour : ..................................................... 8
15. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade : ....................................................... 8
16. Deputy K.F. Morel of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : ............................. 9
17. Deputy S.M. Ahier : ..................................................................... 9

2. Draft Residential Tenancy (Jersey) Amendment Law 202- (P.24/2025): fourth amendment (P.24/2025 Amd.(4)) - paragraph 6 - resumption .......................... 10

1. Deputy I. Gardiner of St. Helier North : .................................................. 10

1. Deputy J. Renouf of St. Brelade : ......................................................... 11
2. Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier Central : .................................................. 11
3. Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : ............................... 11

2. Draft Residential Tenancy (Jersey) Amendment Law 202- (P.24/2025): third amendment (P.24/2025 Amd.(3)) .......................................................... 13

1. Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : ............................... 13
2. Deputy M.B. Andrews of St. Helier North : .............................................. 14
3. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :......................................................... 14
4. Deputy M.E. Millar of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : .............................. 15
5. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier South : .................................................. 16
6. Deputy M.R. Scott of St. Brelade : ........................................................ 17
7. Deputy I. Gardiner of St. Helier North : .................................................. 17
8. Deputy R.J. Ward :........................................................................ 17
9. Deputy P.M. Bailhache of St. Clement : .................................................. 17
10. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter :................................ 18

11. Deputy J. Renouf : ...................................................................... 18

3. Draft Residential Tenancy (Jersey) Amendment Law 202- (P.24/2025): fourth amendment (P.24/2025 Amd.(4)) - paragraphs 7, 8, 10, 11(2),11(5) .................... 21

1. Deputy H.L. Jeune (Chair, Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel) of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity :....................................................... 21
2. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier South : .................................................. 22
3. Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : ............................... 22

3. Draft Children and Young People (Place of Police Detention) (Jersey) Amendment Law 202- (P.40/2025) ...................................................................... 25

1. Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat (The Minister for Justice and Home Affairs) of St. Helier North : ..................................................................................... 26

1. Deputy C.D. Curtis of St. Helier Central : ................................................ 27
2. Connétable R.P. Vibert of St. Peter : ...................................................... 27

3.1.2 Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :................................................................. 28

2. Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat of St. Helier North :............................................ 30
3. Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :................................................................. 30

1. Connétable M. Labey of Grouville : ...................................................... 31
2. Deputy P.M. Bailhache of St. Clement : .................................................. 31
3. Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :................................................................. 31

4. Draft Children and Civil Status (Consequential Amendments) (Jersey) Amendment No. 2 Regulations 202- (P.55/2025)........................................................ 34

1. Connétable R. Vibert of St. Peter (The Minister for Children and Families): ............ 34

1. Deputy C.D. Curtis of St. Helier Central : ................................................ 35
2. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of St. Saviour : .................................................. 36
3. Deputy M.R. Ferey of St. Saviour : ....................................................... 36
4. The Connétable of St. Peter : .............................................................. 37

2. The Connétable of St. Peter : .............................................................. 40

1. Deputy P.M. Bailhache of St. Clement : .................................................. 40
2. The Connétable of St. Peter : .............................................................. 40
   3. The Connétable of St. Peter : .............................................................. 43

1. Connétable M.A. Labey of Grouville : .................................................... 43
2. The Connétable of St. Peter : .............................................................. 43

5. Draft Elections (Senators) (Jersey) Amendment Law 202- (P.56/2025) ................ 45

1. Deputy S.M. Ahier of St. Helier North (Chair of Privileges and Procedures Committee): ............................................................................................ 45

1. Deputy M.E. Millar of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : .............................. 45
2. Connétable A.N. Jehan of St. John : ...................................................... 46
3. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :......................................................... 47
4. Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier Central : .................................................. 50
5. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier South : .................................................. 52
6. Deputy M.R. Scott of St. Brelade : ........................................................ 55
7. Deputy S.G. Luce of Grouville and St. Martin : .......................................... 56
8. Deputy S.M. Ahier : ....................................................................... 56

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED ................................................... 58 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT .................................................................. 58

2. Deputy S.M. Ahier : ....................................................................... 58

3. Draft Election (Senators) (Jersey) Amendment Law 202- (P.56/2025): amendment (P.56/2025 Amd.)........................................................................... 59

1. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier : ................................................ 59
2. Deputy S.M. Ahier : ....................................................................... 60
3. Deputy M.R. Scott of St. Brelade : ........................................................ 60
4. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence : .......................................... 61
5. Deputy M.E. Millar of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : .............................. 61
6. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :......................................................... 62
7. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier South : .................................................. 63
8. Connétable K. Shenton-Stone of St. Martin : ............................................. 64
9. Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier Central : .................................................. 64
10. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville and St. Martin : ...................................... 65
11. Deputy J. Renouf of St. Brelade :...................................................... 66
12. Connétable A.N. Jehan of St. John : ................................................... 67
13. Deputy K.F. Morel of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : ............................ 68
14. Deputy I. Gardiner of St. Helier North : ............................................... 69
15. Deputy L.J. Farnham of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter : ............................ 69
16. Deputy L.V. Feltham of St. Helier Central : ........................................... 70
17. Deputy P.M. Bailhache of St. Clement : ............................................... 70
18. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of St. Saviour : ............................................... 70
19. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter :................................ 71
20. Deputy S.G. Luce of Grouville and St. Martin : ....................................... 71
21. Deputy T.J.A. Binet of St. Saviour : ................................................... 71
22. Deputy C.S. Alves of St. Helier Central : .............................................. 72
23. The Connétable of St. Helier : .......................................................... 72

4. Draft Elections (Senators) (Jersey) Amendment Law 202- (P.56/2025): fourth amendment (P.56/2025 Amd.(4)) .......................................................... 74

1. Deputy M. Tadier : ........................................................................ 74
2. Deputy S.M. Ahier of St. Helier North : .................................................. 78
3. Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier Central : .................................................. 79
4. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade : ................................................ 80
5. Deputy M.R. Scott of St. Brelade : ........................................................ 81
6. Connétable K. Shenton-Stone of St. Martin : ............................................. 82
7. Deputy J. Renouf of St. Brelade : ......................................................... 82
8. Deputy C.D. Curtis of St. Helier Central : ................................................ 84
9. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier South : .................................................. 85
10. Deputy P.M. Bailhache of St. Clement : ............................................... 87
11. Deputy M.E. Millar of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : ........................... 87
12. Connétable A.N. Jehan of St. John : ................................................... 88
13. Deputy M. Tadier : ..................................................................... 88

5. Draft Elections (Senators) (Jersey) Amendment Law 202- (P.56/2025): second amendment (P.56/2025 Amd.(2)) .......................................................... 92

1. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade : ................................................ 92
2. Deputy S.M. Ahier of St. Helier North : .................................................. 92
3. Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier Central .................................................. 92
4. Deputy K.F. Morel of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity :............................... 93
5. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier South : .................................................. 93
6. Deputy M.R. Scott of St. Brelade : ........................................................ 94
7. The Connétable of St. Brelade : ........................................................... 94

ADJOURNMENT .................................................................................. 96

6. Draft Elections (Senators) (Jersey) Amendment Law 202- (P.56/2025): third amendment (P.56/2025 Amd.(3)) - as amended (P.56/2025 Amd.(3)Amd.) ............ 96

1. Deputy H.L. Jeune : ....................................................................... 96
2. Deputy S.M. Ahier of St. Helier North : .................................................. 97
3. Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier Central : .................................................. 97
4. Deputy J. Renouf of St. Brelade : ......................................................... 97
5. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade : ................................................ 98
6. Deputy M.R. Scott of St. Brelade : ........................................................ 98
7. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :......................................................... 99
8. Deputy K.F. Morel of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity :.............................. 100
9. Connétable R.D. Johnson of St. Mary : .................................................. 101
10. Deputy M.E. Millar of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : .......................... 101
11. Deputy H.L. Jeune :................................................................... 101

7. Draft Elections (Senators) (Jersey) Amendment Law 202- (P.56/2025) - as amended

 ............................................................................................. 103

5.7.1 Deputy S.M. Ahier of St. Helier North : ................................................. 103

8. Deputy S.M. Ahier : ...................................................................... 104

1. Connétable M.A. Labey of Grouville : .................................................. 105
2. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier South : ................................................ 105
3. Deputy M.R. Ferey of St. Saviour : ...................................................... 105
4. Deputy K.F. Morel of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity :.............................. 105
5. Deputy L.J. Farnham of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter : .............................. 105
6. Connétable K. Shenton-Stone of St. Martin : ............................................ 105
7. Deputy J. Renouf of St. Brelade : ........................................................ 106
8. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :........................................................ 107
9. Deputy M.R. Scott of St. Brelade : ...................................................... 108
10. Deputy L.V. Feltham of St. Helier Central : .......................................... 109
11. Deputy M.E. Millar of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : .......................... 109
12. Connétable A.N. Jehan of St. John : .................................................. 110
13. Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier Central : ............................................. 110
14. Deputy S.M. Ahier : .................................................................. 111

6. Extension of Section 75 (Electronic Travel Authorisations) of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 to Jersey (P.58/2025) ................................................. 113

6.1   Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat of St. Helier North (The Minister for Justice and Home Affairs

- rapporteur): ............................................................................ 113

1. Deputy K.F. Morel : ...................................................................... 115

2. Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier Central : ................................................ 115
3. Connétable K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour : .................................................. 116
4. Deputy L.J. Farnham of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter : .............................. 116
5. Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :................................................................ 116

ADJOURNMENT ................................................................................. 120

[9:30]

The Roll was called and the Greffier of the States led the Assembly in Prayer. Male Speaker:

Before we start, could I raise the défaut on the Constable of St. Helier ?

The Deputy Bailiff :

Are Members content to raise the défaut? The défaut is raised.

Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier South:

Could I raise the défaut on Deputy Southern as well?

The Deputy Bailiff :

Are Members content to raise the défaut on Deputy Southern ? The défaut is raised. PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption

Deputy S.Y. Mézec :

Sorry, Sir, would it be possible just to inform Members that before we crack on that due to some very constructive discussions I was able to have after we adjourned yesterday and this morning, including with the chair of the Scrutiny Panel, that I am happy to change my position on this amendment and say to the Assembly that I am happy for this amendment to be accepted. I thank the chair of the Scrutiny Panel for engaging with me and agreeing that we will meet very shortly and talk about what the best way forward on this is. I just wanted to inform Members of my change in position and the reasons why.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Thank you.

1. Extension of Assembly sitting times

1.1   Deputy S.M. Ahier of St. Helier North (Chair, Privileges and Procedures Committee):

Due to the heavy nature of the Order Paper and due to the time limitations that we have put upon us, notwithstanding the acceptance of the amendment by the Minister for Housing, I would like to propose that we extend the sitting until 8.00 p.m. today and to 8.00 p.m. tomorrow with a break between 5.30 and 6.00 on both days. I cannot emphasise enough how important it is that P.56, the Senator's law, is debated and a conclusion is reached within this sitting to concentrate people's minds.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Is that proposition seconded? [Seconded] Does anyone wish to speak on the proposition that we sit until 8.00 tonight and 8.00 tomorrow with a break of 5.30 for half an hour on both days?

1. Deputy R.S. Kovacs of St. Saviour :

I understand the importance of finishing all the business in this week and that we have a heavy agenda, but we also have to consider that we have parents in this Assembly and that school is off today. I cannot just find out on the day of the sitting that I have to extend care to my children that I already struggled to find for today. So if this is planned can it be planned in the future ahead so parents can plan accordingly because it is not something that we can snap our fingers and find care for. For me it is a no because today I really cannot. I could probably for tomorrow but today, I really struggled already.

2. Deputy A. Howell of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity :

I think some of us have a Parish Assembly this evening and it would be .. I understand that we need to carry on but could we perhaps do it without the break and finish earlier?

3. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter :

I appreciate the sentiment of Deputy Kovacs . Many Members in this Assembly have caring responsibilities of one description or another. I do wonder if it might be possible within Standing Orders for those who do have to leave for caring responsibilities to be given a remote link so that they can at least participate while they are caring. That would mean we could get through the business as well.

4. Deputy I. Gardiner of St. Helier North :

I am exactly at the same position. School are off and I do need to care for the child. I will be happy to join remotely if it is possible to continue until 8.00. I understand it is important and maybe we need to consider to continue on Monday next week. I know it would be a different proposition, but if we need to consider we need to be back at the Assembly.

5. Deputy M.R. Scott of St. Brelade :

Just going through the options, also whether the P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) has given consideration to perhaps asking some proposers to other work for that to be postponed to the next sitting.

6. Deputy J. Renouf of St. Brelade :

I do have some caring issues tonight, but I do want to slightly object to the idea that simply by giving a link Members can participate. That is not participation in a debate when you have caring responsibilities at the same time. I do not really accept that. My preference, for what it is worth - I will abide by what the Assembly decides - but I would prefer we grasp the nettle and said we are overrunning and gave people the chance to organise their time accordingly and reschedule for Monday. I know that will mean rescheduling a lot of business, not least some Scrutiny business which I am involved in, but I think that gives the chance for people to prepare, to make appropriate arrangements. It will be awkward and difficult, but in my view it is better than these rushed arrangements that we give up a night when many people are going to struggle to do it, and a second night when many people also have other arrangements.

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

First of all, I appreciate the chair of P.P.C. making this suggestion in the morning, rather than at the end of the day. I think that is helpful. I have 2 suggestions. The points raised by Deputies Kovacs and Gardiner apply to me also. I have already struggled to find childcare today. If we could possibly consider this over the morning, because there may be some Members of the Assembly with caring responsibilities that could make arrangements, given some notice, could we perhaps defer the vote on this until or just before lunch, so that those who maybe want to try and make arrangements can do so? Also, another suggestion that might help, because some Members may be able to participate fully from home, especially if there is a second parent who is able to help at home, some Members may not be able to do that and may need to use the parental responsibilities reason for being excused. In that case, would it be possible for you to have a roll call at the end of the day so that those Members who do need to use that could be in effect from perhaps a second roll call?

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

In pointing out to those who have mentioned sitting on Monday, I would not support that given that we have a scheduled Constables' committee meeting on that day. I would like to add that the P.P.C. might like to consider the items that follow on from the Senatorial debate, as to whether they could be deferred to another meeting.

9. Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat of St. Helier North :

Just to let Members know that the P.P.C. chair has already spoken to myself and the Chief Minister. I cannot push mine back any further and his cannot be pushed back any further either due to the timescales and, more importantly, next week some of us are on official businesses out of Island in France, which means that it would not be possible for us to be here because those arrangements are already made with our counterparts in Europe.

10. Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier Central :

I do not have caring arrangements apart from my dog, but I have got someone to look after him, but I would like to be an advocate for those who do have caring arrangements. If we are going to be a genuinely inclusive Assembly and get people from all walks of life, those who have children, those who have caring responsibilities, we need to take account of that. I would say 2 things therefore, that to say at the beginning of today until 8.00 I cannot support that because that is very short notice to get any sort of caring backing. Second as well, I would also warn against long, long days of sitting. By the end of yesterday I think we were all very fatigued, people were losing track of where we were. We have to give it our full focus and concentration throughout the time that we are here so that we do not make poor decisions, and we have big decisions to make. Therefore, I do not think going on for 11 hours, or whatever it is, is a sensible thing to do. If we do have to go on, on Friday, because there are specific things that are perhaps a little easier, then we can discuss that.

[9:45]

But I cannot support extending the day today until 8.00 for those who have responsibilities. I do not think it is suitable just to say: "I will go home and attend online." I think the Assembly here is here in person. I support people being able to attend online when they have responsibilities or they may be feeling ill or not spreading illness across the Assembly in such a small place, but this is not the time to do it. I am not going to support this. We can come back on Monday. We are here primarily to be Members of this Assembly. Meetings can be moved if we have meetings. I have meetings on Monday. I will move them. I have meetings tomorrow, I will move them, because this is the primacy of where we are. I understand that people are off-Island, but that is a risk you take if you do book something off-Island on those days, and if you are on States business, then you are allowed to be off on States business. I am sorry, I think we should be not extending today for those reasons.

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

The first thing I would like to do is to say that I have P.53 on the agenda, which I am happy to move to the next sitting, if that helps. The second thing I would like to say is, I think everybody in the Assembly must have known we were in for a huge week this week. Just looking at the agenda was quite clear. We have in our diaries Tuesdays and Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays are continuation days, but Monday is not a continuation day. We should be expecting to be here on a Friday when we have long States sittings. I agree with P.P.C., we need to go later, we need to get this agenda finished, but the only thing I would say in closing is surely we will look at shorter lunch hours before we extend the day.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Deputy Howell , I think you have spoken already, have you not? Deputy A. Howell :

Yes, I was just going to say we have a shorter lunch break.

The Deputy Bailiff :

You really cannot speak again.

12. Deputy P.M. Bailhache of St. Clement :

I just wanted to say, so far as it is material to this question, that for a number of reasons I propose to withdraw my amendment to the section 75 extension. I will be writing to the Greffier in that connection shortly.

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

I was going to partly echo Deputy Luce 's words. I do not think that anybody should be surprised that we are faced with working a bit longer. It was a very, very heavy agenda, and it was very apparent in the amendments and the subject matter that this was going to be a very long debate. I am surprised that anybody is surprised that they are being asked to work late. I would also like to make the observation that when I had a proper job [Laughter] I regularly worked until 8 o'clock at night. We are asked to be in this Assembly for 2 or 3 days every 3 weeks. I do find it surprising that people cannot arrange childcare and caring responsibilities for that time. There are people in the public and private sector who will be working from 9.00 to 8.00, and the notion that we cannot work beyond 5.30 basically looks absurd, that people regularly work overtime on their jobs and that we cannot not for various reasons. I am sure we should all be able to structure our days. We can stay late. Everybody else does it. I think us not being able to sit late sends a very poor message to the public.

14. Deputy T.JA. Binet of St. Saviour :

Like Deputy Millar , I have had other jobs. I have never had a job that provided me with an hour and a half lunch break and I would like to suggest that we could easily gain another hour if we just took 30 minutes to have a sandwich or a cup of coffee and perhaps stay on until 6.00, if Members can do that. We almost put in the same amount of time over the 2 days, but the 2 withdrawals, I should imagine, we would get through the same work. If people were careful about shortening their speeches and only saying what is required, I think we could be home early tomorrow.  

15. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

I am disappointed that Deputy Millar does not think that being a Member of this Assembly is a proper job. Perhaps when she becomes Senator she will think that is a proper role and a proper job, but maybe until then none of us is doing a proper job. I think the key thing here with employment law is that an employer in the public or private sector would never have something forced upon her or him saying: "We expect you to stay to 8 o'clock tonight, we expect all of you to stay to 8 o'clock tonight", without giving them proper opportunity to arrange childcare. I think normally good practice would be that you would at least give some notice that you are required to sit late, and I think this does give food for thought to our Privileges and Procedures Committee about what we should do. Certainly for my part I would be happy to sit until 8.00, and I would probably avail myself of an online link after 5.30 so I can go home and do some family responsibilities of my own while still listening and still fully participating. Because ultimately we can still speak and we can still vote online, and those are the most important things. Obviously being here is great but it is not essential, as Deputy Doublet is showing us now. She is participating from home and contributed to this part of the debate. It is entirely possible to balance those things, and we did it quite well over COVID. But I think making these decisions on the hoof is not good practice and it is not good family-friendly policy. I think at the very least we all know that we should be coming back tomorrow. I have certainly cancelled other engagements that I would have had on the Friday. I am not expecting to sit on the Monday but Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday are all continuation days where we should be available. I would suggest that we work until normal hours this evening, which I think a half an hour extension we accept as being entirely reasonable to finish off the part of the debates that we are working on so things do not hang over. I think if we had noticed that we were sitting into 8 o'clock tomorrow evening that would give us all the time to make reasonable preparations and then sit Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, if necessary. We do only meet every 3 weeks in this Assembly, it used to be every 2 weeks, and I question .. I have never supported that reduction in our sitting times and I would also ask my committee, via the chair, that we do put that on the agenda because we do

find ourselves in these pinch points at key times during the year where Assembly business just masses up, and meeting every 2 weeks would give us more flexibility. Where we are, my position is very clear, let us meet tonight up until 6 o'clock if we need to but tomorrow until 8 o'clock, and then come back Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, as we are supposed to be doing, as we are expecting to do, those are the continuation days.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Deputy Morel will be the last speaker and then I will ask Deputy Ahier to reply.

16. Deputy K.F. Morel of St. John, St. Lawrence and Trinity :

It is more just to say I would be grateful if we could all stop the comparisons to this Assembly and employers given the events of Tuesday morning because it is clear that we are neither. We are not friendly in many ways whatsoever and so this idea that we can compare ourselves to employers is just not appropriate whatsoever and I would prefer us to give up that pretence.

17. Deputy S.M. Ahier :

A vast host of opinions, which is unsurprising. I was asked if there were any items on the Order Paper that could be moved forward and whether I had engaged, and that is indeed the case. I have engaged, as was mentioned by the Minister for the Environment, and he has very kindly suggested that he may be able to defer P.53. I engaged with the Minister for Justice and Home Affairs as well, and she informs me that she cannot delay her proposition. Obviously, the concern about parental duties, we do have the online availability and that is purely for those very parental duties that we have been discussing. Planning ahead, that is very difficult for me. I do not know how the debate is going to go and I had no idea that the R.T.L. (Residential Tenancy Law) would be extended for such a long period yesterday. So this is really the first opportunity that I have had to make a suggestion about extending the time. Monday not being a continuation day, and obviously as the chair of the Comité has mentioned, it is the Comité des Connétable s on Monday, so there would be a possibility that we would not be quorate anyway. Deferring until lunchtime - Deputy Doublet mentioned that - I think it is important that we get clarification now if we are going to continue later today. Deputy Tom Binet mentioned the suggestion of lunch being reduced and staying until 6.00 p.m., which I think is a perfectly fine suggestion, but what I am proposing is that we stay until 8.00 p.m. I will maintain that standpoint, and if it fails then I am sure that Deputy Binet can make that proposal himself. I maintain my proposition, and I call for the appel

The Deputy Bailiff :

The appel has been called for. Members are invited to return to their seats. The proposition is we sit until 8.00 p.m. today and tomorrow with a break at 5.30 for half an hour. I ask the Greffier to open the voting. All Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes. I ask the Greffier to close the voting and the proposition has been adopted:

2. Draft  Residential  Tenancy  (Jersey)  Amendment  Law  202-  (P.24/2025):  fourth amendment (P.24/2025 Amd.(4)) - paragraph 6 - resumption

The Deputy Bailiff :

Returning to the debate in Second Reading. We were considering part 6 of the fourth amendment lodged by the panel, and the next Member listed to speak was Deputy Gardiner .

1. Deputy I. Gardiner of St. Helier North :

Actually, after the Minister's acceptance, I wanted to ask, before .. probably I will not speak. I will ask 2 things, if it is possible to be provided, I am not sure by the Greffier or by the Minister. One thing is: what are Ministerial powers by order included? To have like a screenshot, because I scroll through the .. like, for example, Article 23 gives several Ministerial powers to amend the law by

order, and I think they are pretty extensive. I also understand that the Minister can introduce to enact the law by order and not coming back to the Assembly. If it is possible to have a consolidated table what are the powers by order in .. what does it mean by order that Minister did make a decision to sign and it is happening that the Minister does not need to come back to the Assembly to understand before the third vote. I am not sure like everyone felt, but at some point yesterday I felt that I am losing track what we accepted and what we amended so, for example, periodic tenancy, what is the final version that we are going to vote in the Third Reading. You might know, but I am not entirely sure if it is .. I would like to see the law. I do not need to see, but I would like to see what we would be voting at the Third Reading, because there were so many amendments and it was so complex. I am not sure who can provide, how it can be provided, but I think it will help the final debate.

1. Deputy J. Renouf of St. Brelade :

I was going to speak in favour of the amendment, but the Minister has indicated he is accepting it, so I have no further need to talk.

2. Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier Central :

I was just going to say, I think, moving this debate on, I am pleased that the Minister has had this connection with Scrutiny, had that dialogue, and there have been changes as we have gone through this debate. I think that is a positive move forward and a really challenging thing. I think again there needs to be some credit given across Scrutiny and the Minister for that dialogue. I just want to make that point. I can accept the fact that it has been accepted as well.

The Deputy Bailiff :

I call upon Deputy Jeune to reply.

3. Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity :

Just for a reminder after we had a sleep on it, we are talking about amendment D1 on removing criminal penalties to secondary legislation. So the panel brought this amendment because both the panel's expert adviser and industry representatives warned this addition of Article 7 could lead to the criminalisation of otherwise compliant landlords based on vague or subjective standards around giving reasons for notice and the J.L.A. (Jersey Landlords Association) and Jersey Estate Agents' Association further questioned the need for criminal penalties, arguing that disputes over termination grounds are more appropriately resolved through civil courts, as in the case in the U.K. (United Kingdom). So after considering all the evidence the panel believes there is still a need for a proportionate enforceable penalties framework and, as the Minister has mentioned, we will be working with him on what that would look like. But we believe this cannot be achieved through the current drafting, and we are not confident a new criminal offence of this nature is ready for implementation without further definition and supporting mechanisms, as the Attorney General said yesterday and confirmed yesterday that criminal penalties can be contained in both primary and secondary legislation. This is what we are asking Members to support with this amendment, that this specific criminal penalty regarding giving false or misleading reasons to end a tenancy is moved to secondary legislation so that any expanding of the penalties regime can be done following proper consultation and for this Assembly to then approve a penalty framework that is proportionate, effective and targeted and well understood. I would just like to thank the Minister for his constructive discussions with Scrutiny and I hope that Members can support this amendment.

[10:00]

The Deputy Bailiff : Is the appel called for? Deputy H.L. Jeune :

Yes, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff :

The appel is called for. Members are invited to return to their seats and I invite the Greffier to open the voting. If all Members have had a chance of casting their votes I ask the Greffier to close the voting. I can announce that the amendment has been adopted unanimously:

2. Draft Residential Tenancy (Jersey) Amendment Law 202- (P.24/2025): third amendment (P.24/2025 Amd.(3))

The Deputy Bailiff :

We now move on to the third amendment lodged by Deputy Renouf , and I invite the Greffier to read the amendment.

The Greffier of the States:

1. Article 6 – (1) In Article 6, new Part 3A, new Article 7A(3) and (5), delete ", capped at 5 per cent".
   2. In Article 6, new Part 3A, new Article 7A(5)(a), delete ", but capped at a maximum of 5 per cent".

2. Article 19 – (1) In Article 19(1), delete new Article 24(1)(lb). (2) Renumber the remaining new sub-paragraphs and cross-references accordingly.

2.2.1 Deputy J. Renouf of St. Brelade :

When I wrote the report to accompany this amendment, I said it was a short amendment with a suitably short report. I confess the shortness of the report may have been partly motivated by the fact the deadline fell when I was on holiday, but happily I can say that this will be an even more suitably short speech. My argument, in essence, is that a 5 per cent cap on annual rent increases goes too far and, in a high inflation environment, would shift too much risk on to landlords. An inflation cap with exemptions is sufficient to protect tenants from draconian rent increases while allowing landlords to respond fairly to an inflationary environment. The Minister has accepted the amendment, for which I am grateful. I do not like to take the Assembly for granted, but I cautiously note that there seems to have been general acceptance that the amendment makes the Minister's proposals more acceptable. If I have got that wrong then I will say more in summing up, but I will stop there.

The Deputy Bailiff :

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

1. Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity :

The panel and the expert adviser found limiting rent increases to once per year with 2 months' notice and in many instances limited to R.P.I. (retail price index) was uncontroversial and were aligning with best practice. During a public hearing the Jersey Estate Agents' Association confirmed that annual reviews set at R.P.I. with 2 months' notice have been standard practice under the 2011 law and that enshrining them in the Amendment Law would merely formalise an existing convention. However, concerns were raised about the proposed cap of 5 per cent or R.P.I., whichever was lower. Key concerns included the strength of the evidence base supporting the policy, potential negative impacts on the rental market and rental supply, and risk of unintended consequences. After much discussion, the panel felt that the decision to change the percentage figure cap or remove it to be one for the Assembly. We therefore focused on developing amendment A1, which also makes an amendment in this regard, where it proposed to place a permanent floor under the percentage figure so that no further Assembly could reduce it below 5 per cent. The intention was to provide certainty, but Deputy Renouf 's third amendment offers a cleaner approach. By pegging increases solely to R.P.I., it removes the need for any additional percentage safeguard. It simplifies the law, making it more transparent and easier to enforce, and this approach is supported by the panel's report, which found that the mechanism for the rent increase limit was developed with the Government of Jersey's Economics Unit. That work, set out in the rent stabilisation paper, drew on existing analysis, historic R.P.I. data and established rental practices. It shows that R.P.I. alone is a credible and robust anchor for rent stabilisation, and for these reasons I urge Members to back the third amendment.

2. Deputy M.B. Andrews of St. Helier North :

That has been a very interesting amendment that Deputy Renouf has lodged, and I know there has been quite a lot of support among landlords and other members of the public as well. But I just wanted to really understand the rationale behind the amendment because, as it currently stands, of course, you remove the cap, but also say whether a landlord, the investment return, is going to be within the rate of inflation. I know if I was looking at any investment opportunities, I would be looking to derive a positive real return if possible, above the rate of an inflation. I think that would probably be encouraging investment in any investment opportunities that are available, whereas if you are only restricting an investment return within the rate of inflation, then potentially you are constraining investments. I just wanted to understand why the Deputy only addressed the cap. I thought if anybody was of the strong belief that investment returns should not be restricted, why was the R.P.I. measure still left within the amendment? That is all I have to say.

3. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

It is just a follow-on from the suggestion put forward by Deputy Andrews . There has been of course a strong theme in this that those who invest in property do it as an investment and therefore they expect to get certain returns. But of course we have also had the counter-argument that we are talking about homes here not properties. The other point that I made earlier is that not all landlords are homogenous. There are different landlords who become landlords in different ways, sometimes accidentally, sometimes by choice, sometimes it is a calculated business proposition, which they can do on a larger scale, other times it is on a small scale, as we have heard, something to put away as a private pension, perhaps in the absence of any other pension pot, or to add to a pension pot. This idea of inflation as being the benchmark would be fine if indeed all landlords were buy-to-let landlords and they were still paying off a mortgage. But we know that in Jersey, especially given the fact that Jersey has had no inheritance taxes since .. going back in all of our feudal times we have never had inheritance taxes. I am not saying that is a good or bad thing. The consequences, unlike other countries, that property then concentrates in families' hands over generations where the redistribution does not take place as it might in other places. So there will be lots of landlords out there who we can correctly attribute as being to the rentier class where they do not need to work, in the classical sense. You could say they have never done a proper day's work in their life, perhaps to paraphrase Deputy Millar , because they simply rely on rental income. I do not think they are in the

majority. I suspect that is not what the Jersey Landlords Association is about representing, but they do exist. They, in some cases, own hundreds of properties that they have never, ever paid for themselves, apart from perhaps to maintain, and they get all the benefits from it. That is how feudalism works. It is a great idea. Of course, R.P.I. is pretty much meaningless to them in the sense that they do not have any mortgages to service. Their properties might have been paid for hundreds of years ago and repaid by generations of tenants who they can get their income from. So, I think we do need to look at this R.P.I., and it is very difficult to have a one-size-fits-all because unless we are going to have a much more sophisticated Residential Tenancy Law, which actually looks into what a fair increase in your rent would be, and I think that is what a sophisticated and mature rent tribunal could do, they could look at the circumstances and say: "Look, okay, your landlord has an interest only buy to let and, of course, your landlord is going to be much more impacted by a 10 per cent R.P.I. figure than a landlord who has perhaps 100 properties or homes in their portfolio. They may not all be homes. Of course, some of them could be unoccupied, at which point they would simply be properties. They are less affected by the R.P.I. because they can take a longer view over time. It is not a simple picture as simply saying because R.P.I. is at such a level we need to make sure that landlords can charge at least what R.P.I. is. It is much more sophisticated, and I think that is why it is difficult, I suspect, both for the Minister and for anyone else trying to bring what might be a semblance of fairness into this whole argument, especially when we are dealing with private contracts and private property rights, to simply say that R.P.I. is a sound figure. So that does not necessarily help with the debate in any way about how one should vote. But I think it is not simply as saying that R.P.I. is always going to be the right figure. Of course, we also know that just because R.P.I. is running at whatever percentage, we have already heard that a lot of landlords do not put it up to that point in the first place. We do need to be careful about, as Deputy Millar has said, that the figure is seen as a floor rather than a ceiling. I would maybe suggest that in future, if there were possibilities, that we could have a much more sophisticated way deciding what a fair rent increase is, depending on what tenants can afford as well as what the landlord needs to recoup to have their profitability.

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

I would just like to reiterate my concerns about the whole question of trying to limit what landlords can do with rent. I do support Deputy Renouf 's amendment, but I do not really think that it goes far enough. Many people who are landlords have spoken to me and said that they do not apply rent increases. They can go for years without applying rent increases because they like their tenant, everything is fine and they are very happy with the arrangement. On the other hand, you will sometimes hear stories of people whose rent has gone up by 20 per cent. They will say: "My rent has gone up by 20 per cent", but that often masks the fact that the rent has not gone up at all for several years and the landlord is trying to catch up with the market. I do believe that when you put a restriction, if you say to someone: "You cannot charge more than X, you cannot increase something by more than X", people who would not otherwise make increases will increase by that amount. I think by the very creation of a limit, rents will go up. There will be landlords who will put rents up as a pre-emptive measure before the law comes into play. It will lead to an increase in rent before the law comes into effect, and it will lead to routine rent increases among landlords and for tenants who would not otherwise have had them, and I do think we have to bear that in mind. I know not everybody will agree with that assessment, but that is my very genuine fear, and I would be willing to put money now that that is what will happen. We also do have to remember, listening to Deputy Tadier , that these are civil contracts. We are talking about homes; yes, we are talking about someone renting a home. But these are civil private contracts, often between individuals, and it does not really matter whether someone is using it as an investment or whether they have inherited the property or how they come to have that property that they are letting out. It is a private arrangement. They are choosing to make that property available for rent. Everybody wants that arrangement to go well. In a landlord-tenant situation, both parties have clear interests in making that work and making that work fairly. Because if a landlord is heavy-handed the tenant may leave. If the tenant damages the

property or disturbs the neighbours, the landlord will want them to leave, because they will not want the grief of having to deal with the neighbours. Everybody has an interest in making that arrangement work. I do think we should be very cautious about establishing bodies who come in and make pronouncements about what and what is not fair on the basis of you need to have a vast amount of information about properties, the type of property. It will cost a fortune because a rent tribunal cannot sit there on the basis of this is a 3-bedroom house therefore the rent cannot be more than X. Three- bedroom houses come in literally all shapes and sizes and locations, and all of those things come into effect. We may be creating a tribunal, which will be the most expensive tribunal on the Island, because the Members will be going out every other day to look at properties and compare properties and decide what adequate market rents are. It is a very subjective point of view. Even though we are told that there is no bureaucracy, we could be creating a bureaucracy that just collapses on its knees because of the amount of work involved in trying to set what is a fair rent. I know that not everybody will agree with that, but I have genuine concerns about placing restrictions on landlords. I do believe it will lead to increases in rent and not maintenance at low levels of rent.

5. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier South:

I am grateful to Deputy Renouf for bringing the amendment. I want to provide Members with 2 reassurances. The first is that this as an option, as opposed to the option that was originally proposed in the law, was something that was examined very deeply in the policy work as we are building up to proposing a residential tenancy law.

[10:15]

It is not an option out of the blue just established for convenience sake. It was something that was deeply considered in that process, and I did send Members yesterday morning the document that examined all of that and showed the rationale behind it and demonstrates that this option is one that does rank highly in all of that. So it is not something just out of the blue. It is a credible option and one that I do believe represents progress here, so I am happy to accept it. The second reassurance I want to provide, and hopefully this goes to the points that Deputy Millar was just making, which is to reiterate - and it does need reiterating because of irrelevant comparisons with systems in jurisdictions that have been raised in the last few days - but what is proposed on the table is a completely passive system. It does not require any extra requirements to be met or bureaucracies or permissions or anything like that when it comes to landlords managing what kinds of rent reviews they wish to apply. They will have absolute freedom to propose to their tenants the rent review that they regard as being acceptable and appropriate. That is something that only if it contravenes that cap of R.P.I. that the tenant would have the ability, if they sought to use it, to ask an independent rent tribunal to look at. That tribunal will be independent, it will be composed of qualified people who have a deep understanding of the market and will understand all the nuances that there are in terms of different property sizes, locations, et cetera. There are absolutely clearly defined exemptions. One of those is catching up with rent when you have not increased it for several years. If you are a tenant who has had it good for a few years, not had your rent go up for a few years, and your landlord decides actually sorry now is the time for a bit of a realignment on here, they are 100 per cent free to propose it to that tenant unilaterally, and if that tenant has got any sense they will say: "This is a good deal because I have had it good for a few years, the landlord is not being unreasonable now in proposing catching up with that, and if I sought to go to a rent tribunal they are not going to side with me", what a complete waste of time and effort appealing to that tribunal would be. So that system 99.9 per cent of the time, or whatever it is going to end up being, will be one that people do not have to engage with. It will purely be there as hopefully a little thought in the back of the landlord's head that when they are calculating their rent increases and their rent reviews to just make sure: "Yes, this is necessary. I am justified in doing this" and not for people pushing their luck or trying to squeeze until the pips squeak basically. It will be a deterrent for that but that is probably as far as it will go in almost all circumstances and only really exist as a backstop. That backstop is as passive as you

could possibly get it. It is not a government bureaucrat coming around with a clipboard and saying to a landlord: "This is what you can and cannot do." It is not anything vaguely like that. It is as passive as you can possibly get it. That regime, I think, is the proportionate system for Jersey. It is far less imposing than the systems that Jersey has had in the past with previous rent tribunals, and it already reflects what is good practice across, because lots of people already have terms in their contracts that limit rent increases to R.P.I. that currently do not allow them to catch up if they choose not to implement that rent review on an annual basis. Actually this is probably better for them. But hopefully, it will give tenants peace of mind that ordinarily - not extraordinarily but ordinarily - and that if they get surprised with a massive rent increase that they just cannot seem to find any legitimate justification for that they will have an independent place to go to, to double-check that for them. That will provide peace of mind and hopefully make it easier for tenants to, when they are living in the private rental sector, to know that they have got a degree of predictability there. If they are to have a rent increase imposed on them that is higher than R.P.I., it is going to be for a good reason because the system allows and enables for that. I think this system is really something Members do not have to worry about, and we did look very, very carefully at it. I sent the document to Members yesterday, it is a comprehensive piece, and I do not share the concern of Deputy Millar that it is going to establish high rent increases as a benchmark because the element she was concerned about is well taken care of in the rules that are being proposed. I am happy to support the amendment from Deputy Renouf .

6. Deputy M.R. Scott of St. Brelade :

I am just going to follow up on what the Minister said. You have passive and active tenants in the case of this Rent Tribunal because you will have some tenants who, despite the fact they exist, despite the fact they have rights, will not actually go to the Rent Tribunal and will not be protected by it. You could have very active, aggressive tenants who say this rent increase rounded just above R.P.I. is not R.P.I. and actually going to the Rent Tribunal. I think that the actual benefits of creating something and quite how it supports tenants needs to be considered in this conversation too.

7. Deputy I. Gardiner of St. Helier North :

I wanted to ask a point of clarification but I understand it is impossible now, if there was Assistant Minister to the Minister might respond, about the passive. There are contracts that exist now, most of the contracts maybe not comply 100 per cent with what we would if it would pass so, for example, if it is rent increase, if it is a tenancy, we are talking about the passive. When the Minister expecting this contract to be amended and comply with existing law, and obviously to change the contracts that exist now, will take time, money and learning the law. Is it expectations that current contracts would be amended and if, yes?

8. Deputy R.J. Ward :

Again we have got an example of a question that was asked about what happens if somebody has not put the rent up for some time, and the law says if it is below market value, and that is the case, that is an exemption that can be used. I just urge Members to really look .. I know it was really difficult yesterday what was going on, but what the law actually says because we are going down some rabbit holes here that we do not need to. The law has got those exceptions in there and this amendment, all it does is link to inflation. It is a simple amendment and it does not stop those other exceptions if you are way behind the market rent. Or if you make significant improvements for the benefit of the tenant then you can also make exceptions to that increase in rent. Those things are in the law as protections in terms of improving the quality of housing. Just to remind Members of that.

9. Deputy P.M. Bailhache of St. Clement :

Would the Deputy explain why he has fixed upon R.P.I. as being the appropriate index to apply? The Consumer Price s Index is the internationally recognised measure of inflation, which is used by the United Kingdom and most O.E.C.D. (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries. It tracks the average change in prices of a fixed basket of goods and services typically bought by most households, and it excludes certain costs, such as mortgage interest, and is therefore a rather more consistent and comparable indicator of inflation in any community. I would like to ask the Deputy why he has fixed upon R.P.I.

10. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter :

It is nice to be getting to some amendments that one can support - I suppose I supported some yesterday, but the Minister just did not - because what is proposed here is certainly better, in my view, than what the Minister was initially proposing. As he said, he had his policy officers produce a document looking at various options so that he could bring forward from a policy perspective what he thought was the best policy when it comes to rent control. He circulated that document produced by policy officers again - I think he had already circulated it months ago - and his policy officers, as he said, produced that document. The reason I can support this amendment is because it has been a fascinating debate and we are not at the end of it yet, we have still got the votes on all of the Articles to go, because the Minister is, on one hand, quite right. We are getting to the situation in some parts of this law where it is representing what good landlords already do. It is representing what best practices and agents are suggesting to landlords. If we understand the rationale of the Minister correctly, he has never, in his own words, been seeking to penalise good landlords. It has always been about, in his words, rogue landlords or landlords that abuse their tenants, or whatever terminology you might wish to use. Therefore, I come back to the points I have been making throughout this debate. It cannot do what it has described on the tin as doing. Yesterday we heard from Deputy Bailhache right now people are experiencing bad landlords who are not even giving contracts, and yet the current law says landlords should give contracts. So we are producing a law which will have economic impact and unintended economic consequences that we do not know about. That is what the economic advice says, rather than the policy advice. We are producing this law to correct an evil, even though we cannot be sure that that is what it is going to do. I will be supporting this particular amendment but I still have grave concerns that Islanders will have finished this debate believing that they will not have what is described as excessive rent increases, and yet both the Minister and his colleague have said there are a number of black and white exceptions in the law which will allow for what some tenants will consider are excessive increases. Because if a landlord has not put their rent up for 5 years but the law allows them to come along and do a rent review and put it up by R.P.I. compounded at the end of that 5 years, no one can persuade me that when that tenant comes to the Minister for Housing and says: "Why on earth have you put my rent up by .. I have had a rent increase by 25 per cent" because that is what R.P.I. has done compounded, they are still going to be accused of being bad landlords even though they are going to be complying with this new legislation. A landlord puts a new heating system, for example, into a tenanted property. Who is that for the benefit for? Who is going to adjudicate about the benefit of that heating system? Is it adding value to the investment or is it improving the living conditions of the tenant? That will be the Rent Tribunal to decide. It is adding a whole host of uncertainty for good landlords who are already doing the basics, and this category of bad landlords that we keep hearing about will do, as I opined yesterday and as Deputy Millar opined today, they will use R.P.I. as their base for increasing their rents every year. I think I will be supporting the amendment because it is an improvement on the rent capping that was initially recommended by the Minister.

[10:30]

The Deputy Bailiff :

Does anyone else wish to speak on this amendment? Deputy Renouf to reply. Deputy Renouf .

11. Deputy J. Renouf :

I thank all Members who have spoken. I am encouraged by the fact that, despite all the points that were raised, I do not think I detected a single voice speaking against the amendment, but there were

some other points raised and I should address them. I think the Minister and a few other speakers have responded to some of them but I do want to tackle this idea that, even though the 5 per cent cap has been removed, we will still be in a position where landlords are able to and will choose to relentlessly increase rents by inflation every year just because they fear otherwise falling behind. I think there is a bit of a contradiction in this argument because the people who make that argument also usually make the point that many landlords have great respect for their tenants, want to keep good tenants and do not want to chase them away; they have a good stake in good tenants. It seems to me perverse that they would change their behaviours knowing in the law that there are at least 2 situations which allow them to raise rents: to catch up, first of all, as we have already heard, that is a specific reason allowed and, of course, when a new tenancy starts they can also re-base their rent at that time. I would say those who are minded to put up rents by inflation every year in response to this law probably overlap significantly with those who would also push their luck with above- inflation rises in the current environment. I do think also, with respect, it is scaremongering to suggest that the Rent Tribunal will be overwhelmed by cases coming to it. Most rents will be set within the inflation cap, as they are now, because R.P.I. is common practice. There will be even more cases where an above-inflation increase will be accepted by the tenant because the landlord will have explained the reasons and they are reasonable and the tenant knows that going to the Rent Tribunal will be a waste of time. But it is right that if an above-inflation rise is proposed that there should be some reason for it and the tenant should know what that is. I say all of that, of course none of it is directly relevant to this amendment. Deputy Andrews asked how I justified not allowing above-inflation  rises because it would mean damaging  potentially  the investment  potential of property. I think there are several answers, one of them is that of course above-inflation rises are allowed, as we have heard explained, under several exemptions, but the other point is that capital gain is a key part of why anybody holds property, and so that also needs to be factored in. As I say, the other point is that landlords also know that with a new tenant they can reset the rent as well. Deputy Bailhache asks why did I fix on R.P.I. A glib answer to that is that I did not, the Minister did, but I think the real answer is that R.P.I. is the standard that is used now, as I understand it, throughout most contracts anyway; the difference between the measures is technical. There may be a few occasions when they diverge significantly but overall over time when one rises by a greater amount, another one rises by a smaller amount. Over time the situations reverse and the measures do not massively diverge over a long period. To Deputy Gardiner 's point, it is the rent rise, I think, that will have to meet the terms of the law at the point when the law becomes law. I do not think contracts have to be rewritten at that point unless - unless - the contract happens to stipulate above- inflation rent rises, in which case I guess the contract would fall foul of the new law but, with respect, I think it is highly unlikely that many contracts include that clause. Deputy Scott 's point I think hinted at vexatious claims, and there will be rules to ensure that vexatious claims to the tribunal are not admissible. As far as Deputy Gorst is concerned, with the greatest respect, I am not going to rise to the bait because the most relevant point he made, I think, in terms of the debate on this amendment was right at the beginning when he said he supports the amendment. The other points I may return to in Third Reading. The reason I brought this really was because the landlords I spoke to all said their number-one concern with this law was the 5 per cent cap. Therefore, it was a relatively simple change to make, offers clarity, it reflects existing practice, it does not do serious damage to the Minister's overall intent and therefore it felt to me an appropriate thing to do. I am encouraged by the fact that nobody in the Assembly, so far at least, seems to have voiced an argument against removing the 5 per cent cap. I will call for the appel.

The Deputy Bailiff :

The appel has been called for. Members are invited to return to their seats and I ask the Greffier to open the voting. If all Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. I can announce that the amendment has been adopted unanimously:

3. Draft  Residential  Tenancy  (Jersey)  Amendment  Law  202-  (P.24/2025):  fourth amendment (P.24/2025 Amd.(4)) - paragraphs 7, 8, 10, 11(2),11(5)

The Deputy Bailiff :

We now move on to the final amendment in Second Reading proposed by the Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel. I invite the Greffier to read the amendment.

The Greffier of the States:

Part 7, Article 6. In Article 6, new Part 3A, new Article 7D(4), for "If this paragraph is applied by Order" substitute "If this paragraph is applied by Regulations". Article 11. In Article 11, new Part 4A, new Article 13B(4)(e), for "unless this requirement is excluded by Order" substitute "unless this requirement is excluded by Regulations". Part 10. In Article 18(2), delete new Article 23(2)(la) and (ld) and renumber the remaining new sub-paragraphs and cross-references accordingly. Part 11, (2) onwards. Part (2) In Article 19(1), after new Article 24(1)(lc) insert (ld) applying Article 7D(4) (so that certain exceptions to the limit on rent increases are determined by the Rent Tribunal); (le) excluding the requirement in Article 13B(4)(e) (for the Chair and the Deputy Chair of the tribunal to have a qualification in law); (3) Renumber the subsequent new sub-paragraphs and cross-references accordingly. (4) After Article 19(1) insert (2) After Article 24(1) there is inserted (1AA) Before lodging a proposition containing draft Regulations to be made under paragraph (1)(le), the Minister must consult the Judicial Greffier. (5) Renumber the subsequent paragraph of Article 19 accordingly.

1. Deputy H.L. Jeune (Chair, Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel) of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity :

The first running order, these amendments, A3 and A2, were taken separately. Subsequently, they have been put together because we were advised that if one does not pass, the other falls, but I will talk about them separately now. Amendment A3 is that the Rent Tribunal was designed to be a passive body responding to disputes, not actively regulating the market, and yet the Draft Amendment proposed by the Minister would allow the Minister to expand the tribunal's remit via order, which could be used to compel landlords to apply to the tribunal before implementing rent increases and rent increase exceptions. This risks transforming the tribunal into a proactive regulator contrary to its  intended  function.   Our  amendment  removes  this  order-making  power,  meaning  that  any expansion of the tribunal's remit should come through regulation, ensuring proper scrutiny and preventing mission creep. As amended, the tribunal would remain a passive body and the process for dispute resolution is clear: when a landlord issues a notice of rent increase the tenant has 2 months and 2 weeks from the date of notice to apply to the tribunal if they believe the increase does not comply with the law or if the increase lies incorrectly on one of the exceptions to the rent increase in

limit. This should now be much clearer for tenants to judge after Deputy Renouf 's amendment, as increases are now limited to R.P.I. only. It is then up for the tribunal to determine whether the increase is lawful and to rule accordingly. Importantly, there is no criminal offence if a landlord is found to have applied an unlawful increase; it simply means that the increase can be ruled invalid or the tribunal may set an alternative rent. We therefore welcome that the Minister has accepted this amendment and hope that Members will follow suit. Moving to amendment A2, the Rent Tribunal will play a pivotal role in adjudicating disputes and ensuring compliance. It is therefore essential that its Members, particularly the chair and deputy chair, possess appropriate legal qualifications. As it stands, the law allows the Minister to remove this requirement via Ministerial Order and we believe this is inappropriate. Our amendment requires that any change to tribunal member qualifications be made by regulation subject to Assembly approval and only after consultation with the Judicial Greffier. This ensures transparency, preserves judicial standards and protects the tribunal's independence. It is a safeguard against the erosion of competence and it reflects concerns raised by both our expert adviser and the Jersey Landlords Association. We again welcome that the Minister has accepted this amendment and I hope Members will follow suit on both amendments A2 and A3.

The Deputy Bailiff :

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

2. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier South:

Thank you to the Scrutiny Panel for proposing this amendment. There is always a balance to be struck between going for order-making powers and prioritising perhaps speed in times of necessity or instead going for regulation-making powers and prioritising accountability and scrutiny in that process. The Scrutiny Panel, having looked at these proposals, felt that the balance was better if it was weighed towards regulation-making powers, and I am absolutely fine with that. If that is a safeguard in there that gives Members greater confidence that any potential changes in the future will go through the democratic processes of this Chamber rather than order-making powers, then that is absolutely fine and I am very happy to accept that.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Thank you, Minister. Does any other Member wish to speak on the amendment? I call upon Deputy Jeune to reply.

3. Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity :

I will keep it brief. Thank you to the Minister for laying out his acceptance of this and I call for the appel.

The Deputy Bailiff :

The appel has been called for. Members are invited to return to their seats and I invite the Greffier to open the voting. If all Members have had the chance to cast their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. The amendment has been adopted unanimously:

We now have completed the amendments and return to the Articles as amended in Second Reading. Does any Member wish to speak on the Articles as amended in Second Reading? If no Member wishes to speak on the Articles as adopted, then is the appel called for?

Deputy I.J. Gorst :

Can I ask, are all the Articles being taken en bloc or can they be taken separately? The Deputy Bailiff :

Well they have been proposed en bloc. They are Articles of law so you would be entitled to ask for a particular Article to be considered separately, although you will remember what the proposer said about the consequences. They have been proposed en bloc by the proposer but Members will be entitled to ask for Articles to be looked at separately as a law.

Deputy I.J. Gorst :

May I do that, Sir, then, please? Article 7A, 7B, 7C, 7D, 7E. I think 7F and 7G could be taken together, please.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Is that the whole of Article 7?

Deputy I.J. Gorst :

Well, the thing is Article 7 is separate from Article 7A and

[10:45]

The Deputy Bailiff :

Well Article 7 has gone. Do you mean 7A to 7G inclusive, do you?

Deputy I.J. Gorst :

That is correct, Sir, thank you.

The Deputy Bailiff :

The new Article 7A to 7G.

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

Sorry, just to confirm, that is the new Article, not the old number? We have been here before. The Deputy Bailiff :

Minister, do you have any observations on permitting there being a separate vote on Article 7A to 7G inclusive?

Deputy S.Y. Mézec :

Obviously any Member is entitled to ask that Articles are taken separately but I have mentioned a couple of points during this debate that there is obviously a risk of ending up with a Frankenstein law if particular Articles are not accepted that would detract from the cohesiveness of the law and potentially Articles not being present, undermining the Articles that are left. Obviously I accept Deputy Gorst 's right to ask for a separate vote on this but I would highly caution against it because of the vitiating effect it may have.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Connétable of St. Lawrence , do you have something to say? Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence :

I found the last few days quite difficult to follow but I have managed that. What I do not seem to have in front of me is the proposed law as amended. Until I have that, I think I am going to find it very difficult - we are talking about specific Articles - but I really do feel that Members should have in front of them what is being proposed by the Minister as amended. Unless and until I have that, I will not participate in voting. Is that able to be supplied, please?

The Deputy Bailiff :

Well that is a matter, I think, for the Minister to respond to in a moment. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :

In which case, a point of order, I suppose, which is would it be appropriate to perhaps propose a brief recess so a consolidated version could be circulated to Members for that purpose.

The Deputy Bailiff :

You would need to propose a recess for that purpose. Are Members to content to how long would you need realistically to produce this? [Laughter] Minister, one solution might be to continue with other items on the agenda and return to this draft law because it may take officers longer than you expect.

Deputy S.Y. Mézec :

Indeed, Sir. Could I ask if it is Greffe officers I need to liaise with to obtain that? The Deputy Bailiff :

Yes.

Deputy S.Y. Mézec :

Okay, in which case I am happy to propose that we debate other items and come back to this. Thank you.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Yes. Are Members content to proceed in that way? We will return to this law once we have a copy indicating precisely where we are in terms of Articles that have been adopted and amended in Second Reading.

3. Draft Children and Young People (Place of Police Detention) (Jersey) Amendment Law 202- (P.40/2025)

The Deputy Bailiff :

We now move on to the next item of Public Business, the Draft Children and Young People (Place of Police Detention) (Jersey) Amendment Law, P.40, lodged by the Minister for Justice and 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 citation.

The Greffier of the States:

Draft Children and Young People (Place of Police Detention) (Jersey) Amendment Law 202-. A law to amend the Police Procedures and Criminal Evidence (Jersey) Law 2003 in relation to children and young people in police detention following the refusal of bail by a Centenier, and to amend the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 for connected purposes. The States, subject to the sanction of His Most Excellent Majesty in Council, have adopted the following law.

1. Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat (The Minister for Justice and Home Affairs) of St. Helier North :

I am pleased to bring these amendments before the Assembly today. If approved, they will amend the Police Procedures and Criminal Evidence (Jersey) Law 2003 to allow new options for children and young people being kept in police detention when they cannot be granted bail. The amendments will enable a Centenier to transfer children and young people to suitable accommodation provided by the Minister for Children and Families. The law will also amend the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 to allow the Minister for Children and Families to accommodate those children or young people. When a child or young person aged under 18 is arrested and charged, prior to appearing in court the Centenier must decide where the child or young person is placed. Under the law there is already a presumption of bail, either with or without conditions, and it is the expectation that in most cases children and young people will return to their home. However, there are those relatively rare occasions when a Centenier may feel they need to refuse a child or young person bail and place them in remand until their first appearance in court. As a former police officer, I know that every Centenier tries to avoid refusing a child or young person bail. On occasion it is, however, necessary. The grounds for doing so are outlined in the current law and include a belief that the child or young person is likely to commit an offence or that detention is necessary for their own protection. Once bail is refused, the Centenier currently has limited options. They can either place the child or young person in secure accommodation, in other words, Greenfields, or if Greenfields is not available, the only option is for that child or young person to be placed in a police cell, which I am sure all Members will agree is something we wish to avoid. In other jurisdictions, including the U.K. and Guernsey, there is a further option: to allow a child or young person to be placed in a non-secure accommodation, like a children's home. That is what these amendments will enable. The effect of this amendment would be to require a Centenier to consider transferring a child or young person to suitable non-secure accommodation provided by the Minister for Children and Families. They would be required to do so unless they have reasonable grounds for believing that the suitable accommodation would not adequately prevent the child or young person from, among other things, failing to attend court, injuring themselves, or committing a serious offence. If those risk factors existed, then they would go to the Greenfields, as they do now. On that final point, the threshold for remanding a child or young person to prevent him or her from committing an offence has been raised. Currently, bail can be denied where the Centenier has reasonable grounds for believing the child or young person may commit an offence. The amendment will require that the belief is that a serious offence may be committed. This means that a child or young person cannot be deprived of their liberty on the basis that they may commit a minor offence which would not in itself warrant detention. In my view, that would be disproportionate. These amendments will help to reduce the likelihood of a child or young person's liberty being taken away before they have even been before the court in line with our commitment to the U.N. (United Nations) Convention on the Rights of the Child, which requires that the arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for that shortest appropriate period of time. I am grateful to the Office of the Children's Commissioner who brought the gap in legislation to the attention of the Government, as well as the engagement of the commissioner and her officers as we have progressed this. I am conscious in making this speech that I have referred to the Minister for Children and Families on several occasions. The Minister takes significant responsibility to make this law operational, and I know that he will want to make a speech to the Assembly on these amendments. Finally, as well as improving P.P.C.E. (Police Procedures and Criminal Evidence) and

Children's Law, these amendments also make a minor change in Article 7 where the pronouns for the Judicial Greffier are gender neutralised. This is another minor but small change in language, and in particular the language of our legislation, to be more equitable and where there is no presumption of gender for a specific role. In this case, of course, the Judicial Greffier is now indeed a woman. Concluding remarks: these are small amendments which will provide a legislative option for Centeniers to use the least restrictive form of remand possible and by doing so reduce the likelihood of a child or young person being deprived of their liberty by being detained in secure accommodation or at the police station. I can only reiterate again, a police station is not suitable accommodation for a young person or child. I therefore ask that the Assembly gives their support to bringing these amendments into force.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Are the principles seconded? [Seconded]

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

The Children, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel supports this proposition, which is to provide a further option for suitable accommodation for children or young people charged with an offence and denied bail. Sometimes Greenfields is not suitable. The panel was concerned though that there may not be any alternative accommodation available, so could the Minister for Justice and Home Affairs or perhaps the Minister for Children and Families explain what progress there has been to ensure capacity in the system, for example, small children's homes or specialist foster care?

2. Connétable R.P. Vibert of St. Peter :

I am grateful to the Minister for Justice and Home Affairs for bringing these amendments to the Assembly and I hope Members will give them their full support. As already outlined by the Minister, these amendments do provide an important new option for Centeniers so that children and young people can be accommodated in the least restrictive environment prior to appearing in court. Once in the court system, it is then of course up to the court to consider the conditions of bail and not the Centenier. As a former Centenier, I know it is unusual to refuse a child or young person bail and that in most circumstances they will return home. To remand a child or young person in secure accommodation or, in extreme circumstances, police cells, is something that Centeniers want to avoid if at all possible. There are of course occasions when this is necessary, for example, when there has been an offence within the home and it is not considered safe for the child or young person to return home that evening or where the risk of further offending is significant. Where the risk of further offending is significant, or there are significant concerns or risk to a victim, et cetera, remand to the secure home might be required. However, there will be occasions when a lesser restrictive alternative might be considered. Where the young person waits to appear before the court in such circumstances, the new amendments will allow Children's Services to provide alternative suitable accommodation, which I fully endorse as the Minister for Children and Families. However, delivering the full intent of the new law will take time, as it requires extensive work to develop an alternative accommodation outside of the children's home or indeed outside of our standard children's homes.

[11:00]

That said, the law is an important step that allows for children and young people to be accommodated in a way that avoids secure accommodation where possible and appropriate. With that in mind, I want to assure the Assembly that my officers are already working on developing alternative routes for providing alternative suitable accommodation so the new law can be mobilised. This law already exists in the U.K. where suitable accommodation is provided in the main by commercial organisations who ensure that non-secure beds are available for 365 days a year. County councils pay a fee or a retainer of around £25,000 a year to be allowed to use these facilities. Of course, those facilities do not exist in Jersey. As the Minister for Children and Families, my long-term ambition

is to develop remand foster carers who would be able to offer accommodation for a young person in their home, but we do not have foster carers who are able to do this at the current time. It will take significant time to develop this option as currently we have very few foster carers looking after adolescents and we have not been successful in recruiting carers for adolescents, despite continued recruitment campaigns over the past 2 years. Given the length of time it will take to secure remand foster carers, my office have started to explore alternative routes which can provide such accommodation. The plan is to develop a non-secure children's home option which would provide an emergency bed for young people and accommodation for the carer for those children who need to come into care in an emergency. As I have said, it is not suitable to place a young person into a children's home in an emergency without notice where other young people are already currently living. That may cause problems with introducing an additional child at short notice and would disrupt the young people already living there. Also, it is quite possible that there would not be beds available in those children's homes and the bed in question needs to be available 365 days a year. Actions to develop a new emergency bed are being developed but, as I have said, will take time. We have identified a suitable property but any such arrangements will need to be registered with the regulator, the Jersey Care Commission. The new arrangement will also need to be staffed and the staffing will come from our own existing staff at this time. As I have said, the remand foster carer option cannot be developed due to a shortage of foster carers of the right type. In conclusion, the amendments brought by Justice and Home Affairs have my full support. They are a real and positive legislation step, ensuring we avoid depriving children and young people of their liberty whenever possible. I intend to work with my officers to help ensure that we can operationally provide the accommodation within the first half of 2026.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Thank you, Connétable . Does any other Member wish to speak on the principles? I call upon the Minister to reply.

3.1.2 Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :

I thank the 2 speakers. As the Minister for Children and Families has explained, this is ongoing work and his department will have this accommodation ready and available as quickly as possible. I would therefore like to call for the appel.

The Deputy Bailiff :

The appel has been called for. Members are invited to return to their seats. Members are voting on the principles of the draft law and I invite the Greffier to open the voting. If all Members have had the chance to cast their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. I can announce that the principles have been adopted unanimously: