STATES OF JERSEY

OFFICIAL REPORT

WEDNESDAY, 9th SEPTEMBER 2020

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption

1. Draft Public Health and Safety (Rented Dwellings) (Licensing) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.106/2019) - resumption

1.1 Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade:

2. Draft Taxation (Implementation) (International Tax Compliance) (Mandatory Disclosure Rules for C.R.S. Avoidance Arrangements and Opaque Offshore Structures) (Jersey) Regulations 202- (P.129/2019)

2.1 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Minister for external Relations)

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

2.1.2 Senator I.J. Gorst:

3. First Tower Park: protection from States development (P.92/2020)

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

4. Les Écréhous and Les Minquiers: prohibition on the landing of domestic animals (P.94/2020) - as amended

4.1 The Connétable of St. Martin:

4.1.1 Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin:

4.1.2 The Connétable of Grouville:

4.1.3 Deputy J.H. Young:

4.1.4 The Connétable of St. Martin:

5. Draft Community Costs Bonus (Jersey) Regulations 202- (P.95/2020)

5.1 Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier (The Minister for Social Security):

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

5.1.2 Deputy J.A. Martin:

6. Draft COVID-19 (Social Security - Reduction of Contribution Rates) (Jersey) Regulations 202- (P.96/2020)

6.1 Deputy S.M. Wickenden of St. Helier (Assistant Minister for Social Security - rapporteur):

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

6.1.2 Deputy S.M. Ahier:

6.1.3 Deputy G.P. Southern:

6.1.4 Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour:

6.1.5 Senator S.Y. Mézec:

6.1.6 Deputy K.F. Morel:

6.1.7 Deputy S.J. Pinel of St. Clement:

6.1.8 Senator L.J. Farnham:

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

6.1.10 Senator K.L. Moore:

6.1.11 Deputy G.J. Truscott of St. Brelade:

6.1.12 Deputy M. Tadier:

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

6.1.14 Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

6.1.15 The Connétable of St. Mary:

6.1.16 Deputy S.M. Wickenden:

7. C.I. Lottery - Allocation of 2018 Balance (P.99/2020)

7.1 Deputy M. Tadier (Assistant Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture - rapporteur):

7.1.1 Deputy K.F. Morel:

7.1.2 Deputy K.G. Pamplin:

7.1.3 Deputy S.M. Wickenden:

7.1.4 Deputy M. Tadier:

8. Minimum Wage Increase and Productivity Support (P.100/2020)

8.1 Deputy G.P. Southern:

8.1.1 Senator S.Y. Mézec:

8.1.2 Deputy R.J. Ward:

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT

8.1.3 Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

8.1.4 Connétable R.A. Buchanan of St. Ouen:

8.1.5 Deputy S.M. Wickenden:

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

8.1.7 Deputy I. Gardiner of St. Helier:

8.1.8 Deputy M. Tadier:

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

Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:

Deputy K.F. Morel:

Deputy G.P. Southern:

The Connétable of St. Ouen:

Deputy M. Tadier:

Deputy R.J. Ward:

8.1.9 The Connétable of St. Mary:

8.1.10 Deputy J.A. Martin:

8.1.11 Deputy K.F. Morel:

8.1.12 Senator L.J. Farnham:

8.1.13 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

8.1.14 The Deputy of St. Martin:

8.1.15 Senator T.A. Vallois:

8.1.16 Deputy G.P. Southern:

9. Millbrook Playing Fields and adjacent agricultural fields to the north: Protection from development (P.102/2020)

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

10. Reduction of minimum lodging period

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

11. Draft COVID-19 (Amendments - Extension, Suspension and Repeal) (Jersey) Regulations 202- (P.103/2020)

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

11.1.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

11.1.2 The Deputy of St. Ouen:

11.2 The Deputy of St. Ouen:

11.2.1 Deputy J.H. Young:

11.2.2 The Deputy of St. Ouen:

11.3 The Deputy of St. Ouen:

11.4 The Deputy of St. Ouen:

11.4.1 Deputy R.J. Ward:

11.4.2 The Deputy of St. Ouen:

11.5 The Deputy of St. Ouen:

11.6 The Deputy of St. Ouen:

11.6.1 Deputy K.G. Pamplin:

11.6.2 The Deputy of St. Ouen:

11.7 The Deputy of St. Ouen:

11.7.1 Deputy J.H. Young:

11.7.2 The Deputy of St. Ouen:

11.8 The Deputy of St. Ouen:

11.8.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

11.8.2 Deputy D. Johnson of St. Mary:

11.8.3 The Deputy of St. Ouen:

11.9 The Deputy of St. Ouen:

11.10 Draft Covid-19 (Amendments – Extension, Suspension and Repeal) (Jersey) Regulations 202- (P.103/2020): amendment (P.103/2020 Amd.)

11.10.1 Deputy R.J. Ward (Chair, Children, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel):

11.10.2 Deputy J.H. Young:

11.10.3 Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement:

11.10.4 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

11.10.5 Deputy K.F. Morel:

11.10.6 Deputy T. Pointon of St. John:

11.10.7 The Connétable of St. Helier:

11.10.8 The Connétable of St. Lawrence:

11.10.9 Deputy M. Tadier:

11.10.10 Deputy R.J. Ward:

11.11 Draft Covid-19 (Amendments – Extension, Suspension and Repeal) (Jersey) Regulations 202- (P.103/2020) - as amended

11.11.1 The Deputy of St. Ouen:

11.12 The Deputy of St. Ouen:

12. Draft COVID-19 (Enabling Provisions) (Amendment) (Jersey) Law 202- (P.104/2020)

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

12.2 The Deputy of St. Ouen:

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS

13. Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier (Chair, Privileges and Procedures Committee):

13.1 Deputy K.F. Morel:

13.1.1 Deputy R. Labey:

13.2 Deputy R. Labey:

ADJOURNMENT

[9:30]

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

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption

1. Draft Public Health and Safety (Rented Dwellings) (Licensing) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.106/2019) - resumption

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

So we return this morning to the debate on P.106/2019, Draft Public Health and Safety (Rented Dwellings) (Licensing) (Jersey) Regulations 201- lodged by the Minister for the Environment.  We are debating the principles and I would ask if any Member would wish to speak on the principles?  If no Member wishes to speak I will call on the Minister to reply to the debate.

1.1 Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade:

I am going to begin by thanking Members for the debate, so we are going to have the vote, and that is, from my point of view, a very important step.  I said yesterday that I respected those who oppose what is being recommended here on principle.  Of course what I was meaning there was about underlying political ideology.  Thankfully we do not get that many before this assembly, in a small Island, that raise these issues but clearly this is one.  But that is not a concession that I make when those arguments are advanced on false arguments.  Arguments based on misinformation and, in particular, I am going to start with the issue of inflation.  It has been said, and I just circulated a note, that somehow I must have misled our economic advisers, not given them the right information, not listened to the debate we had on the reference back from Deputy Huelin, our new Assistant Chief Minister, and you have seen ... well, clearly the Hansard question was put and of course the truth is, as Senator Mézec says, it is the answer that is not liked.  That is what it is.  There are 2 issues obviously from my point of view, which are practical ones on inflation.  One is whether the fee is likely to be inflation and the second is whether or not the works that people have to do to bring into compliance, which they should be doing already, is inflationary.  Now what we have there is the commonest views are not mine.  Of course I am a bit disappointed there, I had hoped that the new responsibility would leave us to have a more ... recognise the importance of balance in our Council of Ministers when we have to judge conflicting issues.  There are occasions, in fact there always should in my view, those balances should override no sectorial interests.  So I hope this is not a trend.  Of course, economists, you do not like the answer, we all know that there are lots of different types of economists.  There are all different schools of thoughts, Keynesian, and what have you; I think there is no perfect solution there in the world of economists.  What I try to do is be pragmatic and practical.  I like the Constable of St. Brelade, I get on with him well, I respect him, he is a great Constable in my Parish but when I hear him say: “I am not taking a blind bit of notice of landlords” it really rankles.  He knows, although he was not there, I met them last February.  I met them, I have had follow-up meetings with them.  I gave them undertakings then and I said I would reduce the cost of what was proposed because the previous figures were higher.  I changed the annual licence to 2 years, recognising that I needed to bring a more lighter touch.  I changed the law to alter the electrical inspections to every 5 years, where there was any ambiguity over that.  I schemed down, I kept it simple.  What I did is I said: “Okay, if this is now changing for existing properties is it not fair that those people should be protected for an initial period?” and so I introduced a grandfather arrangement and I made that grandfather arrangement, it was always going to be a couple of months.  It is 6 months and free.  I have done that against the advice of my officers who tell me: “Oh my word, we have got to do cost recovery because that is the policy that we have had for a long time.  All regulatory services should be fully cost recovered” but no, this is about the public interest and those political judgments have been made.  But to say: “I am not taking a blind bit of notice” that is not justifiable.  The truth of course is that the Jersey Landlords Association do not want a register or do not want licensing.  That is clear.  I respect that.  They are entitled to that view and it is one where we have a sector or interest that has to be weighed against other sectorial interests.  Of course, the Scrutiny Panel itself, I have bent over backwards, Constable, to meet with the panel’s requirements.  I have got a long list here since last October.  Thirty-two occasions; meetings, letters, correspondence exchanged, answering questions, arranging for the officers to come in and deal with points, and my belief is all of the things that were substantively raised, bar one, which is the amendment that the Scrutiny Panel have already lodged, it has been lodged for a long time, to extend the licensing period to 5 years, which I think is worthy of consideration, and I have told the Constable that, that it is worthy of it.  I have responded to all of those issues raised in their Scrutiny report, which was published many months ago.  I have to accept though the logic that I have changed the scheme a lot in response to the Scrutiny Panel.  I see, since that work many months ago, why the Scrutiny Panel might want to have another look at it.  But I have a question: if it is their intention to effectively try and negotiate or rework a scheme that completely utterly turns the principle about what we are trying to do here, which is to establish a register so we have a good system of ensuring compliance with the minimum standards, and nothing else.  I am absolutely for consultation.  Everything I do is I work really hard to do that.  But Ministers do have to balance.  When they get the consultation responses they do have to balance the issues that are set by one interest against others.  They have to make a judgment and that is what I have tried to do here.  Then of course throughout the whole debate we had the myth, it is amazing where this happens.  A Member says it and other people pick it up and it becomes true.  Six extra staff.  Rubbish.  Not true.  Look, any of you who have worked with Environmental Health teams know that housing is one of the majority pieces of work they do.  They do it anyway.  50 per cent at the moment of this Environmental Health team is spent on housing-related issues.  I mean is it that they go out and they go out policing everything and have to search.  No.  They respond to complaints.  Where do those complaints come from?  I asked them.  I have got a list there.  Citizens Advice Bureau routinely refer issues to Environmental Health, the police, the fire service, social workers, Family Nursing, charities, even agents ask people to go round and sort these issues. 

[9:45]

They are providing this work already but the key thing is they are having to do it, and I think Senator Mézec summed it up beautifully in his outstanding visionary speech.  I wish I could speak like him but I cannot.  I have to deal with practicalities.  We want to turn from a reactive system to a proactive one where we can be more organised and efficient and effective in trying to ensure we achieve compliance.  Of course, at the moment what we know about the complaints level, 448 complaints since the standards have been in.  Of course a lot of these issues are not just straight housing issues.  They are also combined often with issues of statutory nuance issues, noise, problems like that, dust, fumes, very complex.  The housing officers are trained.  We have those staff in place.  They have been built up and I suppose Members might be critical, those Members that do not like it, they have been built up over the years.  Some 20-plus years, some 3 years, we have got trainees there.  We have those people in place now.  What we can do and what I have said is there will not be new resources brought to this task.  We can use our current team, and we will, more effectively and more efficiently.  So the suggestion, for example, that we are going to go out carrying out thousands of inspections is a nonsense.  We have already inspected 2,700 properties through Rent Safe.  Only properties put up for rental for the first time will require inspection before the licence is issued.  Grandfather dwellings, as I said, which is going to be the majority - it will probably be 90 per cent - are excluded from the need to inspect and they will be subject to inspections based on complaints and a very small random sample.  There is no army of inspectors waiting to do this.  I think we should really lay this.  This idea that we are going to throw all these extra staff resources is simply not true.  Now I can see a counterargument that I can hear now, and I thought, blimey, you get hung whichever way you do it in this Assembly.  I take the costs away, I reduce the costs, I move it away from a full cost recovery scheme to a scheme where I have given the benefit to the landlords by reducing those costs.  Then what?  I am criticised.  “Oh this has got a cost to the public sector.”  Well I think it is in the public interest because what is at stake here is people’s health.  Health and safety, nothing else.  Of course what a shame.  It is almost as if the Environmental Health team is being treated in some derogatory way.  We respect them when they do the work on food standards, when there is an outbreak of food poisoning in this Island.  Environmental Health people get the support from the public.  In COVID, their work has been outstanding, absolutely outstanding, and they have kept everybody safe.  Yet when it comes to housing, no.  Of course we can have regulation in financial services, that is okay because we make money, it is our principal earner.  But regulation in people’s homes, ooh no.  I think there are some real issues.  The I.T. (information technology) issues; it is said that we do not need a register because we already have the information.  I ask Members, please, again, to read the reports that are published.  We do not.  This is a register only of properties which are rented out, rented dwellings.  Nothing else.  Not about the tenants, they are not recording those.  Those are for other systems.  It is true that we could build a complex system using integration from all the various ragbag of systems that the States have got in different areas but I ask, at what cost and time?  What is wrong with a simple low-tech solution that is proposed here?  A very simple register.  Of course, if in time the grand design gets built, as is asked for, then it can be easily integrated into it.  So why do we always have to spend millions of pounds on grand design I.T. to deal with simple problems?  I am a pragmatist and so I think the regulation, and the way we tend to work it, does that.  It is a simple job.  Of course suggestions that the Minister will change the conditions in a licence.  Absolutely not.  I need to deal with Members who raise the issue of delegation.  Of course there is delegation.  They say this is a bad law because it does not deal with it.  Because everybody knows that the powers of delegation apply right across the suite of legislation.  It is obviously sensible.  You have got to get Ministers involved there but there are some points which I will speak to about that in a moment, which I think are very valid points that can be subsequently looked at.  Of course there is a fear here that the number, we will dry up.  The number of new landlords and new rental properties will dry up as a result.  I have looked at some figures the other day.  I think Members saw them in a written answer.  I thought they were very impressive indeed.  Just take the example of dwellings in the waterfront area.  Harbour Reach, out of 39 dwellings 27 rented.  Le Capelain House, out of 133 dwellings 88 rented.  Millais House out of 193 dwellings 134 rented.  Now what it is going to be in Horizon, in the new scheme?  Obviously buy-to-let for investment is really a very significant trend.  The truth is that there is a constant flow of new landlords, and that is a good thing because what we are seeing, we are seeing a trend of improvement.  We are seeing a trend away from poor conditions, badly constructed and sometimes unhealthy older properties or where they have not been maintained to the standards or adapted to new purpose-built building by-law qualified standards.  This is really good.  I think we have said, I want to pay tribute to our building industry, we have massively improved standards and I think that is a continual process that will go on.  There will be properties drop out and there will be new ones come in.  It is important to have that market.  Inspections: why do we need to inspect all of those new flats?  Of course you do not.  It is just when a new block gets built you just have a look at one.  A sample.  It is sensible, there is no bureaucracy intended here.  There is no need.  But of course if somebody does have a problem with the premises that is causing fumes or something like that then it would have to be followed up and dealt with.  I think comparisons have been made to schemes in Liverpool and so on.  We have a small population.  I think the estimate being spoken of, 20,000 properties, is way higher than the numbers I have been advised to expect.  I have been advised to expect about 10,000, and I am advised to expect about 9,000 people will be grandfathered, i.e. in the first 6 months 9,000 will come forward and register and none of those will be inspected.  There were some contributions which were much more, I think, balanced and I want to answer those Members because I want to try and see if I can persuade them.  Of course Deputy Gardiner said she was in 2 minds.  I do understand that because they are complex issues here.  She raised the question of lodgers and I have asked about it, and it did occur to me that lodgers share accommodation.  They share premises with the householder.  Of course what they are is they are all enjoying the same conditions in their premises.  So in terms of the purpose of the law, there does not seem to be any need or benefit seeking to include them in this licensing arrangement because we are only interested in the actual main property.  Of course if the person that has that lodger, the householder controls that.  There are tenancy issues but of course that is nothing to do with this law.  All the tenancy-related issues all come under the Minister for Children and Housing.  I have it for my sins.  I have the Environmental Health portfolio.  That is the only issue that these regulations are designed to deal with.  So that change to the primary law that Deputy Gardiner suggested.  I think it would be difficult and complex but, above all else, I think it would be a huge extra chunk and it really would be bureaucratic if we had to go and regulate every lodger in every ... I think that would be a really high level of intervention.  So I think that is not right.  The Deputy of St. Mary raised a very important point.  Yes, I absolutely agree with him that having appeals to the Royal Court is a retrograde thing  We should be having a tribunal.  Members will know that many years ago I led the move away from Planning Royal Court hearings into planning inspectors.  It did not quite come out as I wanted.  I wanted a tribunal but we ended up with a single inspector.  I am not in command of the Council of Ministers work plan on this.  I am frustrated by that and other important matters like the Ombudsman are not progressing.  I am very unhappy about that.  But I think this is where I look to perhaps our new Assistant Chief Minister in his elevated role.  Perhaps he could provide some vim and effort in that to progress those things.  I think the Deputy of St. Mary is right but there are some things that I think we could do in the meantime.  For example, in the planning side, a kind of halfway house appeal was introduced, whereby if a decision was appealed ... if it was a delegated decision it would be appealed to a Minister.  I think that is something that could be done by a protocol.  Even if it cannot be done as an official appeal I think it can be done.  I think it is probably done as well on the Population Law issues as well.  So I think there are some processes that I could look at to find ways to provide pragmatic and practical ways where challenges can be made and somebody does not have to go straight to the Royal Court if they do not like an officer’s delegated decision.  I will think about that, how we might do it.  It might be a Minister, it might be an Assistant Minister.  It might have a little group of Members, I do not know.  I like to be very pragmatic in doing them.  Then I think Deputy Pamplin, he is such an independent thinker and I think it is really important we have that.  He said he did not like the tone.  I do not like it either.  I am having to speak in a way which is foreign to me.  I am not a person who likes to have to deal with conflict of opinion.  I like consensus.  I build consensus.  I try to do things by agreement.  So I am having to work in a very foreign mode and I do not like it.  My duty, and sometimes in life you have a duty to do it, and it is my duty to see this through on behalf of those people that are not enjoying their full share of decent housing standards.  So I hope Deputy Pamplin will come on board with us on that because he is right, we all want to see safe places for people to live but please, we do need to have the means of doing it.  I am going to thank another excellent speech in favour of Deputy Martin.  As long as I can remember Deputy Martin has been the outstanding champion of the people.

[10:00]

Right from the early days when Deputy Martin was a Deputy and I was a mere civil servant at the time, I remember it.  The Deputy was in absolute lead in terms of dealing with ordinary people in their lives and housing.  That has been a theme.  Thankfully we have seen improvements.  We have seen improvements in housing standards and some of those problems are less prevalent but they are still there.  I think when the Deputy says that we need this I ask Members, please, to listen to what the Deputy says.  This is not coming forward unnecessarily.  This is really important.  Of course, Deputy Wickenden; yes, you are right.  Of course delegate.  Of course it needs delegating powers.  I hope you will come on board - this is another one of our Assistant Chief Ministers -.I hope you will.  We all need protocol on that.  We will do that and we have time to do it.  I think issues of lodging houses has been raised, the spectre of lodging houses.  Lodging houses of course are not under this law.  They have to be dealt with by the same team, of course.  They are under the Minister for Children and Housing and of course they have been a source of trouble and problems over the years.  Primarily of course my proposals are not intended to do that.  The intention of course is to repeal that law, as I understand it, but it is not in my responsibility.  So the Constable complains about heavy-handed processes that he has had experience.  There are lots of things I could say but I respect the Constable of St. Ouen here and so I am not going to say things about his experiences, which I do not think is the right thing to do, but I ask him please, recognise that the lodging house issues are, I do not believe, the same and they are not the same as the rented dwellings issue.  I had the issue of what you might call an intermediate-type issue, which are not lodging houses, where you have shared accommodation, which is part of people’s employment, which are not risks of lodging houses but they share accommodation, and I have stripped that down to a charges structure that makes sure that all the fears that people had about agricultural industry getting charged huge sums of money on a per unit basis, none of that will happen.  That kind of halfway house is ... there are not many of those and of course there are not that many lodging houses either.  I think the vast majority are people’s ordinary homes.  If I may just have a pause, I will just check my notes to see if there is anything else I may need to deal with before it goes to the vote.  I am asking Members please try and set aside the ideology, please support this.  If the Constable decides he wants to call it in, so be it.  I cannot oppose that.  It is his right.  If he does, I will work with him again to try and see if he has found something new in this scheme where it can be altered but I think within the framework of what we have got here, we have got a scheme which I think, as I said, is ready to go, low cost and will not cause the fears that some Members are seeing.  I want this to be a success because I am not ... I have spent a lot of my life as a civil servant doing regulatory work, and I do not do bureaucracy.  Systems need to be proportionate and no more level of intervention than what is required, and I have made that quite plain to the officers here and I believe we have got it to that point.  Thank you.  Can I propose the regulations in principle and ask for the appel?

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

So the Greffier will add a vote in the chat channel shortly.  The vote is on the principles of P.106.  Please try to vote using the forms.  I will keep the vote open for a fair period but if you do have a problem you can vote in the chat channel so long as the vote is open.  Once the vote is closed that is the end.  So I will keep the vote open until we have sufficient numbers to be able to close it.  We have had 44 Members using the online form, so I will just leave it another couple of seconds, anyone can still vote.  Anyone who has struggled, this is your chance to cast your vote in the chat otherwise I will ask the Greffier to close the vote.  Having done that, the Greffier will now publish the results in the chat channel.  So the result is that the principles have been rejected.

2. Draft Taxation (Implementation) (International Tax Compliance) (Mandatory Disclosure Rules for C.R.S. Avoidance Arrangements and Opaque Offshore Structures) (Jersey) Regulations 202- (P.129/2019)

The Bailiff:

The next item is the Draft Taxation (Implementation) (International Tax Compliance) (Mandatory Disclosure Rules for C.R.S. (common reporting standard) Avoidance Arrangements and Opaque Offshore Structures) (Jersey) Regulations, P.129/2019, lodged by the Minister for External Relations.  Members will recall that the principles were adopted on 16th June and then it was referred to the Economic and International Affairs Scrutiny Panel.  We therefore now return to consideration of this matter in Second Reading and, for completeness, I will ask the Greffier to read the citation again.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Draft Taxation (Implementation) (International Tax Compliance) (Mandatory Disclosure Rules for CRS Avoidance Arrangements and Opaque Offshore Structures) (Jersey) Regulations 202- (P.129/2019).  The States make these Regulations under Article 2 of the Taxation (Implementation) (Jersey) Law 2004 , and following the decision of the States, taken on the day these regulations are made, to adopt P.129/2019.

The Bailiff:

Minister, how would you like to propose the regulations?

2.1 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Minister for External Relations):

I will take them en bloc and speak to them briefly, if I may.  I would like to start by thanking Scrutiny for the work that they have undertaken over just before summer and during the course of summer.  I recognise that it has been a difficult time but I am very grateful for the work that they have done because they have articulated some of the questions which were put to me, and it gave an opportunity to address those questions more fully than it would have done had we just proceeded directly into Second Reading.  These are obligations, which the Island has signed up to, but it is important that we consider our competitiveness and the effect that it might have on business here and whether, of course, the regulations that we are bringing forward are modelled on the international standard, and to ensure that we are giving appropriate authority but not excessive authority.  If we deal with Regulations 1 to 5, that is the interpretation provisions, and these definitions are taken from the O.E.C.D.’s (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) model rules for mandatary disclosure regime.  Regulations 6 to 12, these are the requirements to disclose common reporting standard avoidance arrangements or opaque structures, and these regulations describe the substance of what intermediaries are required to do by the regulations, what is the obligation when the disclosure needs to be made and the information required.  Then Regulations 13 to 20 provide for penalties if these obligations are not met and the appeals process.  I maintain these regulations in Second Reading.

The Bailiff:

Are the regulations seconded in Second Reading?  [Seconded]  Does any Member wish to speak on the regulations or any of them in Second Reading?

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

It is just to say that, as the Minister mentioned, Scrutiny have undertaken a fairly extensive scrutiny on this Proposition on these regulations and we have finally received the answers that we were looking for from the department, and we have reached out to finance companies and other stakeholders who, to be honest, in their lack of response has led us to believe that they are happy with these regulations.  So with our questions answered we are content with the regulations and would support their adoption by the Assembly.

The Bailiff:

Does any other Member wish to speak on the regulations?  Then I call on the Minister to respond.

2.1.2 Senator I.J. Gorst:

As I said, I thank the Chair and his panel for the work that they have undertaken.  I also thank officials, not only in my Financial Services division but in the Revenue Jersey division as well for the constant work that they undertake in this complex but vitally important area, and I call for the appel.

The Bailiff:

In a moment the Greffier will add a vote to the chat channel. 

[10:15]

The vote has now been added and it is open and I ask Members to cast their votes in the usual way.  Forty-two Members have indicated their vote.  If anyone has had any difficulty, of course, please do indicate also in the chat channel.  I will wait a moment or 2 longer.  I now ask the Greffier to close the voting and the results will be posted in the chat shortly.  The regulations have been adopted in Second Reading.

The Bailiff:

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

Senator I.J. Gorst:

I maintain the regulations en bloc in Third Reading.  Thank you.

The Bailiff:

Thank you.  Are the regulations seconded for Third Reading?  [Seconded]  Does any Member wish to speak on the regulations in Third Reading?  If no Member wishes to speak in Third Reading then again I will ask the Greffier to add a vote to the chat channel.  It is there, I open the voting and I ask Members to cast their votes in the normal way.  Thirty-nine votes have been cast and I will wait a moment or 2 longer.  I now ask the Greffier to close the voting and the result will be posted shortly.  The regulations have been adopted in Third Reading.

3. First Tower Park: protection from States development (P.92/2020)

The Bailiff:

Very well, the next item is First Tower Park: protection from States development, P.92, lodged by the Connétable of St. Helier and 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 request the Council of Ministers to remove First Tower Park, St. Helier, from its shortlist of potential sites for Jersey’s new hospital.

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

As Members will be aware, the subject of this Proposition First Tower or St. Andrew’s Park has been removed from the shortlist; however, I would like to say a few words about the Proposition as I believe it is my right to do.  I would first of all note that there are no comments from the Council of Ministers on this Proposition and it seems to me that the Council of Ministers has now so little respect for Back-Benchers that they simply do not bother to put comments to Back-Bencher Propositions and if they do they always leave it to the last moment.  I would also add that any last vestiges of trust in the new hospital site selection process were destroyed when a park such as First Tower or St. Andrew’s was deemed fit for consideration as a potential building site.  If I could refer now to the report that accompanies my Proposition because I am not convinced that all Members of the Government have read it.  I would like to quote a few paragraphs from it before winding up.  I say in my report to P.92 that: “It is regrettable that the Government of Jersey does not appear to understand the value of public parks despite the many debates that have taken place in recent years and despite decisions by the States Assembly over the years not only to protect those parks which we have but also to add to the quality and quantity of green space in the Island.  In putting forward a shortlist of potential sites for Jersey’s new hospital that includes People’s Park, the Government is attempting to disregard the decision of the States Assembly taken last year on 13th February (P.5/2019 amendment) which specifically rules this out.  It may be argued that it is ‘the process’ that leads the Government to do this, but I would argue that this latest round of site selection in the expensive saga of Jersey’s new hospital project has already failed, unless, of course, this is but a cynical ploy to divert public attention away from other sites on the list which have not already been ruled out by the legislature.  So much for People’s Park, which cannot be left on the new hospital shortlist because the States has so decreed.”  It will seem clear to Members that when I wrote this projet to protect First Tower Park, I believed that People’s Park was already protected because the States had taken a decision to do so.  It begs the question if First Tower Park had not been removed by the Government, and if this Proposition now was debated and won, would it mean anything at all because it is clear that the Government does not pay any attention to decisions made by the Assembly.  This of course is a far, far cry from the days of certainly when I joined the States when a Back-Bencher or any Members’ Proposition, once adopted by the States, meant something and woe betide any committee of the States that sought to unpick or simply ignore a decision of the States, they would very quickly be facing a vote of no confidence.  I have to ask the question, given that the Government, the Council of Ministers, has simply chosen to ignore a decision of the States, why is the Council of Ministers not facing a vote of no confidence for the way it has behaved?  I am now going to go to the end of my report: “As with the reappearance of People’s Park on the new hospital shortlist, the inclusion of this public park may be designed to whip up a storm of public protest that will make people who object to the other sites on the shortlist struggle to get their voices of objection heard.  An alternative reading of the situation is that the decision to consider First Tower Park ripe for development shows a breath-taking lack of understanding of the importance of public green space in urban communities.  I am not going to rehearse here the arguments which are set out in the Island Plan on why public parks matter, or the principles to which the Government ought to subscribe to as it has signed up to them on many occasions, for I do not believe that there is a realistic prospect of Jersey’s new hospital being constructed on the site of First Tower Park.”  I simply want to wind up by saying that it really would behove the Council of Ministers to go back to its strategic commitments to urban green space.  It is not fair to expect the Parish of St. Helier to take the burden of the Island’s development, and 3,000 new units are being planned by Andium alone in the next decade, and to deprive St. Helier of the urban green space which is so essential for the quality of life of residents and those who visit and work in the capital.  So with those words I would now seek to withdraw this Proposition because it has been overtaken by events, though clearly I remain extremely unhappy about the situation in which we find ourselves.  Thank you.

The Bailiff:

Thank you very much, Connétable, you are entitled to withdraw the Proposition because the debate has not yet opened and therefore that Proposition is now withdrawn.

4. Les Écréhous and Les Minquiers: prohibition on the landing of domestic animals (P.94/2020) - as amended

The Bailiff:

The next item is Les Écréhous and Les Minquiers: prohibition on the landing of domestic animals, P.94, lodged by the Connétable of St. Martin.  Before I ask the Greffier to read the Proposition, I am conscious that there is an amendment and an amendment to the amendment and could I begin by asking the Connétable whether the amendment is to be accepted.  I am going to test the mood of Members to take the Proposition as fully amended if the various proposers accept the amendments.  So, Madam Connétable, would you be accepting the amendment of the Connétable of Grouville?

Connétable K. Shenton-Stone of St. Martin:

Yes, I am very happy to accept the amendment of the Connétable of Grouville.

The Bailiff:

Would you personally be content to have your Proposition taken as thus amended?

The Connétable of St. Martin:

Yes, I would, thank you.

The Bailiff:

Connétable of Grouville, will you be accepting the amendment to your amendment as proposed by the Deputy of St. Martin?

Connétable J.E. Le Maistre of Grouville:

I will indeed.

The Bailiff:

So can I take it therefore, Members, please indicate to the contrary, they are content that we take the entire Proposition in its amended form, as both of the proposers accept the amendment?  So if anyone does not want that to happen, could they please indicate on the chat now?  Very well.  Well of course the Connétable of Grouville will be able to speak to the main Proposition when it is read out and make all the points that need to be made, as indeed will the Deputy of St. Martin.  So I therefore ask the Greffier to read the Proposition as fully amended.

The Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion ...

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

Sorry, I have lost the Greffier.

The Bailiff:

It is all right, the Greffier has stopped, you have not lost any ...

The Connétable of St. Saviour:

Bless him, thank you.

The Bailiff:

I think the Greffier is just trying to find the definitive wording to read out.  I thought there was a statement as to what the Proposition would look like if amended.  Greffier, will you read the Proposition, please?

The Greffier of the States:

Right, I will give this a go.  The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion (a) to request the Minister for the Environment to bring forward primary legislation to provide (i) a framework for the restriction of certain activities on Les Écréhous and Les Minquiers to include, but not be limited to, prohibiting the landing of dogs and other domestic animals, as well as anything else which the Minister for the Environment considers might cause disturbance to wildlife; and (ii) the Minister for the Environment with the power to implement specific restrictions by Order, after consultation with the relevant Scrutiny Panel (b) to request the Minister for the Environment to make an Order without delay (once the primary ...

Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:

The Greffier is not audible, he appears to be breaking up.

The Bailiff:

I apologise.  Greffier, I am afraid you are going to have to read that again but more loudly and more slowly, if that is possible.

The Greffier of the States:

Okay.  The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion (a) to request the Minister for the Environment to bring forward primary legislation to provide (i) a framework for the restriction of certain activities on Les Écréhous and Les Minquiers to include, but not be limited to ...

The Bailiff:

No, I am afraid other Members still cannot hear you, Greffier.  The Deputy Greffier will read it out.

[10:30]

The Assistant Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion (a) to request the Minister for the Environment to bring forward primary legislation to provide (i) a framework for the restriction of certain activities on Les Écréhous and Les Minquiers to include, but not be limited to, prohibiting the landing of dogs and other domestic animals, as well as anything else which the Minister for the Environment considers might cause disturbance to wildlife; and (ii) the Minister for the Environment with the power to implement specific restrictions by Order, after consultation with the relevant Scrutiny Panel (b) to request the Minister for the Environment to make an Order without delay (once the primary legislation is in force) to prohibit the landing of dogs and other domestic animals on Les Écréhous at any time.

4.1 The Connétable of St. Martin:

As Constable of St. Martin I am in the privileged position of having Les Écréhous reef within the Parish.  Les Écréhous enjoys global recognition for its history and biodiversity and as a Ramsar site and O.S.P.A.R. (Oil Spill Prevention, Administration and Response) Marine Protected Area, O.S.P.A.R. Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic, it is critical that the Assembly ensure that the reefs are afforded the protections they need to maintain its standing.  It is clear that we can go further than what is currently in place.  Over the past year, as I have noted in my report, Members of the States and the public will have noticed increased coverage of the environmental protection to the wildlife on the reef and how these protections could be improved in order to bring further protections including to the local tern and seal populations.  It is my duty to care for Les Écréhous and to protect the reef from harm and the Constable of Grouville holds this responsibility for Les Minquiers.  I have brought this Proposition to the Assembly in order to strengthen the protections for our Island’s reefs.  As I said, Les Écréhous is a critical breeding habitat for a rich tapestry of wildlife, including seals, roseate terns, which are so rare that they are the holy grail of terns, common terns, cormorants, shags, great and lesser black-backed gulls, heron gulls, oyster catchers and rock pipits.  Through this biodiversity, as mentioned, the reefs have become globally recognised Ramsar sites as well as an O.S.P.A.R. Marine Protected Area; however, it is clear that there are concerns over the level of protections currently available to Les Écréhous and its sibling reef.  It is critical that this Assembly ensure that these reefs are afforded the protections needed.  This Proposition requests the Minister for the Environment to bring forward legislation that would prohibit the landing of dogs and other domestic animals on Les Écréhous and by accepting the Constable of Grouville’s amendment, this gives the Minister for the Environment the power to extend this legislation to Les Minquiers as and when needed and to have the ability to ban other nuisance or threats to wildlife.  By adopting this Proposition the States Assembly extends a clear and simple message to all that the native wildlife must be respected and we as an Assembly will do our utmost to protect it.  Although Islanders have been strongly discouraged from bringing animals on to the reefs in previous information releases from the Government, there has never been a legal precedent to prevent Jersey owners from bringing animals on to the reefs.  French visitors, on the other hand, are already barred from this as a result of existing regulations on rabies.  This legislation would therefore ensure that this ban on animals becomes universal and we are able to respond to new challenges when they arise.  I have been in close contact with Les Écréhous Residents Association and they are fully supportive of my Proposition, as is the National Trust whose chief executive officer Charles Alluto has kindly offered me the following statement to read to you today: “Given the presence of ground-nesting birds and seals on the offshore reefs, we would be supportive of any measures which helps mitigate the risk for these animals and their ability to successfully survive without undue disturbance.”  Likewise, the St. Martin’s Conservation Trust have offered their full support in the following statement to the Assembly: “The Parish of St. Martin and its Conservation Trust have a duty of care for its precious offshore reefs and takes this responsibility very seriously.”  I am extremely grateful that the Connétable of Grouville supports my Proposition and I am happy to accept his amendment.  I also have no problem with the Deputy of St. Martin’s additions to the Constable of Grouville’s amendment and am pleased that the Constable has accepted this amendment.  The Parish of St. Martin’s Honorary Police keenly expressed their support for this Proposition during our meeting on Les Écréhous last week.  Finally, the Minister for the Environment, his officers and I have held constructive meetings on this issue.  It is encouraging to see in his response to my written question that the Ministerial Decision to lodge the Draft Wildlife Law for debate was signed 2 days ago.  I am also pleased and grateful to the Minister that he supports this Proposition and amendments and in his comments paper encourages Members to vote for this Proposition.  We are all fully aware of the beauty, fragility and priceless environmental value of Les Écréhous and Les Minquiers.  By voting pour Members will be sending a clear message of support for a natural environment and the willingness to protect and safeguard it for the future.  I hope you all vote pour.  Thank you.

The Bailiff:

Is the Proposition seconded?  [Seconded]  Does any Member wish to speak on the Proposition?  Deputy of St. Martin.

4.1.1 Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin:

I will not speak for long, my Constable has said everything that I really wanted to say.  I hope Members will appreciate the beauty, the rarity, the uniqueness of, not only the Écréhous but the Minquiers as well.  When I was the Minister for the Environment, I worked hard to protect the reef, more particularly underwater than above water, and the benefits of extending a “no mobile gear” zone which means the banning of dredges from a larger area around the Écréhous is already starting to show benefits.  I just wanted to speak very, very briefly on my amendment to the amendment to the Constable of Grouville and it was mainly to make sure that the many different people and wildlife are all represented when we come to make changes to the way the Écréhous are administrated.  In my short report to my amendment, Members will see that there is a not exclusive list of the very different types of people that visit there.  Not only do we have our hut owners but we have commercial and recreational fishermen, commercial and recreational divers, boat owners, the Parish, the Crown, the States, the Government departments, all have a representation there and all have a voice that needs to be heard and I just wanted to make sure that changes ... and changes will be needed, because let us be very clear, the pressures on the reef from all different directions, whether that is commercial, recreational and pressures on wildlife, they are going to continue to increase as we move ahead.  Those people all need to be heard and it is important that we take the right measures at the right time, that we hear everybody’s view and we move forward together.  Thank you.

4.1.2 The Connétable of Grouville:

I will not speak for very long either but just an explanation as to why I think the Minquiers should be treated slightly differently at this moment in time, although my amendment does allow for regulations to be brought in on the Minquiers if that should be necessary in the future.  I consulted with the Chairman of Les Minquiers Association who is a parishioner, a well-respected parishioner, and he told me that he thought the status quo should remain at the moment.  He was aware of one couple who used the reef probably as much or more than anybody else, who do take their dog there.  The couple contacted me and I do know them well enough to know that they are very responsible and, as the Chairman of the Association told me, they make sure their dog is well-managed while they are down there.  If they were not allowed to take their dog there they probably would not visit so much and they, for want of a better word, conduct the policing of the reef inasmuch as when other visitors visit the reef who do not know it, they will explain to them where the areas are that they should not be going and explain to them how they should behave while on the reef.  So if they were not allowed to go so often because they could not find somebody to look after their dog, environmentally it would be counterproductive.  The Minquiers are also very different to the Écréhous.  All of the huts are on one island on the Minquiers and there is not really room where you let a dog off the lead so that it would worry the wildlife whereas on the Écréhous the huts are spread out over 5 plateaus, I believe, and when the tide goes out there is a very big area where if a dog was let off its lead, you could understand why the wildlife would be worried.  So I am very grateful to the Constable for accepting my amendment and I think that the safeguard of the Deputy of St. Martin’s amendment to my amendment is worth having, to be honest.  The current Minister for the Environment does listen to people.  We have had a couple of meetings with him over this subject and if it was this Minister in the future, I think he would have consulted widely anyway.  But we do not know who the Ministers for the Environment will be in the future, so I think the Deputy of St. Martin’s amendment is a good one.  So, with that, I hope all Members will support the amended Proposition.  Thank you.

4.1.3 Deputy J.H. Young:

I think I would like to say just a few brief words as the sitting Minister for the Environment, as it were.  I have been very pleased to work with the Connétable and the Connétable of Grouville and also the Deputy on this because I think they have all come together in what is a very practical proposal, one which I can wholeheartedly support because certainly there is not just local attention on the Écréhous but it is very much an interest, if you remember, we have had reports in national newspapers about where issues do arise.  Of course, it is one of the benefits of - no, it is not one of - the COVID pandemic has meant that for a period the wildlife dramatically increased in the reef and we had exceptional numbers.  But of course things are going more back to as they were before and so those pressures are renewed and potentially can be even greater, so having the tools to be able to manage that pressure is important.  Now the Proposition calls for primary legislation.  Looking at what we have on the stocks in this Proposition, I think, I cannot guarantee, but it looks to me that the draft new Wildlife Law which, if Members have read my comments, I am sure they have, that has already been lodged.  Well, I am not sure it has gone through to final lodging but I have certainly signed it off to be lodged.  Members may see the draft in a short while.  That will provide, if it is agreed by the Assembly, the framework to achieve the objectives within the amended Proposition in full.  Of course it makes it plain that whatever powers are in that law are exercisable by the processes in it and also that obviously will include consultation under the law.  Because if you make restrictions, that is normal, the legal processes require it, so I would be confident that that law when it is debated will provide the means of doing it.  I hope that this law has a better chance of success than the one which we have previously spent debating yesterday.  So I ask Members to bear that in mind, that there is already work done in place to enable this and so it is not just a theoretical commitment, it is a very practical one.  So I wholeheartedly support and also I think I must make the point that because we are dealing with obviously an isolated reef, I think the work done by the Connétable, the Deputy and the Honorary Police and other members of the Parish, have really made the difference in terms of being able to manage those pressures in a pragmatic and sensible way and I want to put on record my thanks for that.  Of course, I have been able to support with the Fisheries team.  Although they have got huge amounts on at the moment, the Fisheries team, I am pleased to try to continue that as best we can. 

[10:45]

Personally, I would quite like a webcam but not to spy on people, but a webcam there to watch the wildlife like the one up in Alderney.  You can look at Burhou and places like that.  You can see the puffins ... well you can see whatever species are there but that is clearly not possible to do.  Nonetheless I wholeheartedly support this but I make that point about the Wildlife Law to come.  Thank you.

The Bailiff:

Thank you very much, Deputy.  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 Connétable of St. Martin to respond.

4.1.4 The Connétable of St. Martin:

I would like to thank the Deputy of St. Martin for his support and his comments and the Connétable of Grouville for his comments and the Minister for the Environment for his support and the support of his team as Environment who we meet with regularly.  I would also like to thank all those I mentioned in my speech, the Honorary Police, who really do take safeguarding the reef very seriously, the National Trust and the St. Martin’s Conservation Trust and Les Écréhous Residents Association who I have met with regularly and it is really important to them that this legislation passes today.  It is very important for the uniqueness of the reefs and we are so fortunate to have them.  Thank you very much to all Members, I hope you will support this.  Thank you.

The Bailiff:

Well, I would ask the Greffier to put the voting link into the chat in the normal way.  The link is now there and I open the voting and ask Members to cast their votes.  I have 38 Members who have recorded votes already and I will leave it a moment or 2 longer.

The Connétable of St. Martin:

Excuse me, Sir, some of them are having difficulty voting.

The Bailiff:

Yes, if there is any difficulty voting, could people indicate their votes, please?  Could Members indicate their votes on the chat?  We have 44 who have been able to vote through the voting link and obviously when the results are fully published then those who are voting in the chat will be counted in as well.  But if Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting, and the result will be placed in the chat box fairly shortly.  The Proposition has been adopted.

5. Draft Community Costs Bonus (Jersey) Regulations 202- (P.95/2020)

The Bailiff:

Very well, the next item is the Draft Community Costs Bonus (Jersey) Regulations 202-, P.95, lodged by the Minister for Social Security and I ask the Greffier to read the citation.

The Greffier of the States:

Draft Community Costs Bonus (Jersey) Regulations 202-.  The States make these Regulations under the Order in Council dated 28th March 1771.

5.1 Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier (The Minister for Social Security):

Triennial regulations have been used a number of times to provide an annual G.S.T. (Goods and Services Tax) bonus and more recently a food cost bonus.  The food cost bonus for 2019 was paid to just under 1,200 Islanders.  The previous regulations which covered 2017, 2018 to 2019 expired on 30th June 2020.  Under these new triennial regulations the eligibility for the scheme will remain unaltered.  Households who do not receive income support but do not pay income tax can make a claim as long as they satisfy the 5-year residency condition.  Following the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel amendment which was approved by the Assembly during the debate on the Government Plan last year, the bonus will be paid at an increased level for the next 3 years at £258.25 a year, a total cost estimated in 2020 of £364,000.  With some very minor drafted amendments, the regulations remain the same as the previous set of regulations approved by the Assembly.  I would like to thank both the Corporate Services and Health and Social Security Panels for their time in scrutinising these new regulations and also for the Corporate Services Panel’s published comments.  I am pleased the panel are supportive of this legislation.  I am glad to answer any questions by the Members and I propose the principles.  Thank you.

The Bailiff:

Are the principles seconded?  [Seconded]  Does any Member wish to speak on the principles?  If they could indicate in the chat box, please. 

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

The unamended Government Plan of 2020-2023 would have continued the bonus at a level last reviewed in 2014 without taking into account the impact of inflation.  The Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel amendment rectified this.  Following the input from the Citizens Advice Bureau, a calculation of retail price index increase of 13.8 per cent led the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel to propose an increase of the bonus from £226.95 to the new level of £258.25.  We are pleased to see the implementation of our amendment, which will help to protect low income households from the impact of G.S.T.  We are slightly disappointed that the Proposition does not increase the value of the bonus in line with R.P.I. (Retail Price Index) for each year of the new triennial regulations running through to 2022.  However, following a briefing from officers we are satisfied that this is primarily due to the administrative strain of lodging new regulations for each year and using a fixed amount based on the R.P.I. of the previous 3 years is an effective way of bringing the regulations forward.  We expect that should the bonus continue past 2022, as is hoped, then a new value in line with any overall increase of R.P.I. during the 2020-2023 period will be used.  In conclusion, we are supportive of the Proposition.  Thank you.

The Bailiff:

Very well, does any other Member wish to speak on the principles?  If no other Member wishes to speak, then I close the debate and ask the Minister to respond.

5.1.2 Deputy J.A. Martin:

Yes, and I thank Deputy Ahier for reminding us of where we were and there were comments, as he has just said, from the Citizens Advice Bureau and something that was brought to the Government’s attention.  From memory, I think the panel’s amendment was absolutely accepted and I also accept where we are, it is a fixed amount for the next few years and again in 2022 when there will be a new Council.  I do not know where I will be but I am sure, again, these bonuses, if they are still there, should have to rise again in line with that inflation.  So I thank him for the comment but I maintain the principles.  Thank you and I ask for the appel.

The Bailiff:

The appel is called for.  I ask the Greffier to add a voting link to the chat box in the usual way.  It is there; I open the voting and ask Members to cast their votes as usual.  Very well, if Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting.  The principles have been adopted.

Does the Health and Social Security Scrutiny Panel wish to scrutinise the matter, Deputy Le Hegarat?

Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat of St. Helier (Chair, Health and Social Security Scrutiny Panel):

No, thank you.

The Bailiff:

Thank you very much indeed.  Then how do you wish to deal with the matter in Second Reading, Minister?

Deputy J.A. Martin:

Could I take the Regulations en bloc, please, and if there are any questions I will try to answer them.  Thank you.

The Bailiff:

Very well, are the regulations seconded for Second Reading?  [Seconded]  Thank you very much.  Does any Member wish to speak on the regulations or any of them in Second Reading?  If no one wishes to speak, then I close the debate and ask the Greffier to put a voting link within the chat in the normal way.  The link is there, I open the voting, and ask Members to vote in the normal way.  Forty-one votes have been cast.  I will leave it a moment or 2 longer before closing the voting.  If Members have had the opportunity of voting, I ask the Greffier to close the voting.  The regulations have been adopted in Second Reading.

The Greffier of the States:

The Member who voted contre was Deputy Ahier.

Deputy S.M. Ahier:

I apologise, I voted the wrong way.

The Bailiff:

Right, well, there we are.  It will not be the first time that has happened, Deputy, for Members of the Assembly.

Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:

It happens most times.

The Bailiff:

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

Deputy J.A. Martin:

Yes, I really only just need to add again and absolutely do say that it was an amendment from the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel that brought this to our attention.  I thank them and I also thank again the Health and Social Security Panel for looking at this legislation.  Thank you.

The Bailiff:

Are the regulations seconded for Third Reading?  [Seconded]  Thank you very much.  Does any Member wish to speak in Third Reading?  If no Member wishes to speak in Third Reading, then I ask the Greffier to put a voting link into the box.  I open the voting and I ask Members to vote in the usual way.

[11:00]

Forty-three Members have voted through the link so far.  I will leave it a moment or 2 longer.  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.

6. Draft COVID-19 (Social Security - Reduction of Contribution Rates) (Jersey) Regulations 202- (P.96/2020)

The Bailiff:

Very well, the next item is the Draft COVID-19 (Social Security - Reduction of Contribution Rates) (Jersey) Regulations 202-, P.96, lodged by the Minister for Social Security and I ask the Greffier to read the citation.

The Greffier of the States:

Draft COVID-19 (Social Security - Reduction of Contribution Rates) (Jersey) Regulations 202-.  The States make these Regulations under Article 2 of the COVID-19 (Enabling Provisions) (Jersey) Law 2020.

Deputy J.A. Martin:

My Assistant Minister Deputy Wickenden is going to act as rapporteur for this.  I did let the Greffe know, thank you.

6.1 Deputy S.M. Wickenden of St. Helier (Assistant Minister for Social Security - rapporteur):

Good morning, everybody.  I probably will not make too much about this because it is very self-explanatory, but back in July the Council of Ministers proposed a £150 million fiscal stimulus package.  A big part of that is what we agreed in Social Security, which was a temporary reduction in the contributions paid to Social Security from employees.  This effectively will help the increased take-home pay of around 55,000 workers in Jersey, basically giving them a 2 per cent pay rise for a short period of time to help boost the economy and put more money back in people’s pockets.  There was an amendment, could I ask that we could propose this as amended, please?

The Bailiff:

Well that will happen when we reach Second Reading when we deal with the Articles, Deputy.

Deputy S.M. Wickenden:

Okay, thank you.  So, yes, this is just a temporary 9 month 2 per cent reduction in contributions to help boost the economy.  I do not think I need to egg on more than that so I will just propose this Proposition.

The Bailiff:

Very well, are the principles seconded?  [Seconded]

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

I will start by saying, because I cannot miss the opportunity, to Deputy Wickenden, my good friend, in response to my first Proposition when he said that speaking simply I get to say the same back to him with good faith.  Speaking on behalf of the Scrutiny Panel here, I would like to thank the department for notifying us in July following, as the Assistant Minister said, the Council of Ministers, when they proposed their fiscal stimulus support package, so we would like to thank the department for sending across information to the panel.  We had a quarterly hearing with the Minister and their team where we spoke at length about this Proposition.  We did not have time over the summer to have a specific briefing on this but, again, I would like to thank the department for their briefing note to the panel on 3rd September.  Also pleased to see the amendment that then took away our concern at the beginning so we did not have to bring one, so we support the amendment.  Obviously the legal description as in the comments paper is quite self-explanatory.  The one issue that we - well it is not an issue, so to speak - it is obviously a concern in terms of the long-term effects of the quick turnaround stimulus that the Government is putting forward and very much like the emergency legislation during the pandemic, this is all unprecedented times.  So you need to act fast, especially with the pressures that are clearly out there in terms on the economic effects facing all Islanders, and the actual demands on the Social Security Fund are real.  Again, I thank the department and the head of the policy for engaging with us this morning because realistically the current demands on the fund will have an impact, there is no getting away from that, and the need to consider the action, if any, and were that needed we hope has been part of the discussions.  If the Assistant Minister can talk about that, about the potential of further ... in the future when the time is right, to make up this reduction, what discussions were had, what options are there realistically if needed to put some pressure off the fund to replace the 2 per cent reduction?  That said, the Reserve Fund holds significant assets, it remains in a very strong position.  We agree with that as a panel, so there is no absolute need right now for urgent action.  So in principle we do support this, we just raise that red flag of caution for the future impacts and what discussions and what impacts could happen to the fund.  For example, will we see an increase in social security contributions spread over a period of time?  That is for another time but we just want to put that out there but wanted to say that at this time.  Thank you.

6.1.2 Deputy S.M. Ahier:

The report states that this action will help the economy to recover as quickly as possible.  I can see no evidence that this will be the case.  This Proposition asserts that it will help people and businesses to recover quickly but it will in fact only reduce employees’ social security charge by tuppence, meaning that the employers’ contribution will remain unaffected.  The impact on businesses will likely therefore be minimal.  It is also worth mentioning that pensioners, disabled people and the unemployed will likewise remain unassisted.  I believe that we should be using fiscal stimulus to benefit society more widely with policies that will bring noticeable economic gains to all.  Consequently, I believe that this Proposition is not the fairest way of stimulating the economy, particularly when many households are chiefly concerned with repaying debts that they have accumulated during the lockdown and when the cloud of prior year basis tax still looms darkly on the horizon.  The expectation is that this Proposition will pump money into local businesses and will accordingly boost trade on the high street.  In my opinion, this is unlikely to happen.  It seems to me that this Proposition is based on a rudimentary form of trickle-down economics which assumes that the tuppence saving will immediately be reinvested into the economy.  In fact, I believe that most employees in the Island might have already recognised the importance of exercising fiscal prudence at this time, especially given that local restaurants, pubs, nightclubs are not yet operating as normal.  If that is the case, then £26 million will have been needlessly wasted.  The question therefore becomes: is this really an effective use of public funds?  It is my belief that the economic consequences of this proposal have not been fully thought through.  I therefore suggest that we vote against this imprudent measure and wait to see the effect of the £100 voucher scheme first.  I will be voting against this Proposition.  Thank you.

6.1.3 Deputy G.P. Southern:

Yes, contrary to the previous speaker, I am fairly confident that this move in reducing, albeit temporarily, the social security employee contributions will put more money in workers’ pockets and that is the most direct and simple way to try to kickstart the economy by getting the economy moving and income and wages circulating and people spending.  That has been shown to be effective, it is not trickle-down economics at all, it is building from the bottom up.  But I really cannot allow the Assistant Minister to get away with a one-sentence introduction to this Proposition because there are concerns about what we are doing with the Social Security Fund in this case and what we need is an assurance that the Social Security Fund will not be raided again in the future when we get any other particular crisis or need to get some capital out of the system.  The fact is, that Social Security is paid for by workers and employers to contribute to their pensions and ought to be strictly and should be, must be, strictly ring-fenced.  So, while we are reducing the amount going towards the fund (a) that must not be seen to damage future pensions and (b) must not set a precedent, as was tried earlier in the year, of taking money out of the fund to do something else with because we want to.  That must not be allowed to happen and I would seek the complete and utter assurance of the Assistant Minister that this is not a precursor of some other raid on the Social Security Fund that does put our pension fund effectively at risk.  Thank you.

6.1.4 Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour:

I just want to respond to the points raised by Deputy Ahier, just simply to say, I want to remind Members that this move is part of a package of measures that the Government is taking forward in order to support the Island and the economy.  So, for example, we have already released £100 to pensioners on Pension Plus on income support, for example.  Now, again, while that was targeted, of course it would not affect everyone, whereas this element would not have gone, for example, to help workers, whereas this measure will.  So, again, if you take these things in isolation there is that criticism but the thing is it has to be seen as a part of a package, and this is one constituent part of that wider package which targets different groups in order to encourage that spending behaviour.  So while in some ways business might not get a direct advantage to this of course they will benefit in other ways and that workers will have a greater spending power which they can use, so I just wanted to make that point.  The points that Deputy Southern raises about what is happening with the Social Security Fund, which has a very good balance as far as the last actuarial review, which of course Members will have read and be aware of, is obviously something which of course as the team at Social Security we are very much aware of and there is a review going on which will be part of the Government Plan and more information will follow then.  But those are the points I wanted to make, thank you.

6.1.5 Senator S.Y. Mézec:

There will always be potential alternatives that we could argue about to decide what would be a more effective measure to put more money in people’s pockets or to stimulate the economy, get people spending, so is this the perfect Proposition in front of us?  Quite possibly not and, as Deputy Maçon said though, there are other measures being taken at the same time and Members will have multiple different views about what is the best way to achieve this.  But I will be voting in support of this and I disagree with what was said by Deputy Ahier. 

[11:15]

I agree wholeheartedly with what Deputy Southern said and just want to add a few extra points to what he said.  But it is quite funny, I guess, that the irony of having a regressive social security contribution system where the wealthiest people in Jersey get to pay the lowest rates, the irony of that is that when we undertake a measure like what is proposed today it ends up being progressive in that the people proportionately who will benefit the most from it are the people whose earnings are beneath the standard earnings limit.  This is a more effective way and a more progressive way of getting money into people’s pockets than an alternative like, for example, cutting income tax would be because there are allowances in that system so the lowest earners would not benefit from that whereas they will under this measure, and that has to be a welcome thing.  It is obviously stated to be temporary and that is right because we will have to take a long-term view at the Social Security Fund.  What Deputy Maçon said before about having it at a healthy balance at the moment is correct but we have made some decisions in the last few months about not putting extra money in that fund and now this decision about reducing the rates for many thousands of people means at some point when the future is a bit more certain we will have to have a real think about the Social Security Fund, what position we think it ought to be in decades to come to make sure that there is the funding in there necessary to do what a civilised society needs to do and be able to support not just the vulnerable but ordinary working people when they might fall on hard times or retire or anything like that.  When it comes to that point I hope we will have the guts to do what quite frankly we ought to have been doing before this crisis hit, which is to look at making the entire social security contribution system more progressive and ask those who are most capable of contributing more into it to be able to do so.  The fact that we are proposing this as a measure that is meant to help the economy, and is clearly an acceptance of the fact that it is better to support those on lower incomes to help stimulate the economy rather than the real scandal of an idea of trickle-down economics, that if you simply stack things in favour of the rich then everything else will magically just fix itself and they will be the ones who lead economic growth when quite clearly that is not the case and this Proposition itself accepts that that is not the case.  When we get to that debate those will be the points that we will need to seriously consider and I hope Members will support this Proposition today as a good step, the right move at the right time but still look to the future, and know there are very important decisions we will have to make and frankly they will need to be brave and have the guts to take on the vested interests who will not be happy about that when it gets to it but do what is right for the Island.

6.1.6 Deputy K.F. Morel:

I have to admit this is not as easy a measure as one would have wanted for part of a fiscal stimulus package because, to be honest, it is not a great fiscal stimulus measure that is being proposed here.  Yes, it will give Islanders more cash in their pockets, £26 million, and yes, it will benefit the self-employed and for that I am thankful because the self-employed have found it very difficult during this period and will continue to find it difficult in the next year or 2 to come.  But the Investment Appraisal Board has rated the risk of leakage of this measure at 5 out of 5.  It is basically 100 per cent risk of leakage for £26 million that will be put into Islanders pockets.  Much of this will be saved by those on higher and middle incomes, those who feel they currently have enough money to put aside and given the uncertainty that lies ahead will think: “Let us put this in the bank because we do not know in a year’s time whether we will be earning quite as much as we are today.”  We know that a lot of this will be saved.  We also know that a lot of this £26 million will be spent with off-Island businesses.  Large multinational retail companies will benefit from this £26 million.  There is no question about that and that is backed up by the Investment Appraisal Board.  It is noticeable that the Minister does not provide an estimate of how much she believes will be spent in the local economy of what proportion of the £26 million will be spent locally.  Why does she not provide that estimate?  Quite simply because she has no idea because it is impossible to tell.  We just know that not all of it will be.  This means essentially because she does not know how much will be spent locally in Jersey that it is not a targeted measure.  It may well be timely but it is not targeted.  Also the question has to be asked why are employers not being helped to employ people by cutting employment costs through a cut in the employers’ social security contribution?  I think that is something that may well have been discussed by the Council of Ministers and I think it is a shame that at a time when you want people to continue employing there has not been a move to try to encourage that employment by cutting the costs of employment.  One good thing that is within this measure is that with more than 50 per cent of employees in Jersey being women this is a gender-balanced fiscal stimulus measure because it will put more money in women’s pockets as well as men’s.  That is an important point because fiscal stimulus often when it is concentrated, and we will see this in future measures, on capital projects, namely construction and technology projects, they put money in men’s pockets at the expense [Interruption] ... I apologise, Sir, that was not my phone.  Construction and technology fiscal stimulus measures put money in men’s pockets at the expense of women’s pockets so I definitely see this as welcome in terms of being gender balanced.  In summing up, in my view this is a hit and hope measure rather than a truly targeted measure and I also have to agree that we have to be concerned that, as Deputy Pamplin rightly raised the issue of how would this be balanced in the future, it is a shame the Minister is silent on this point because will we see an increase in social security contributions in the future?  Is that how this will be repaid or will we just go back to the same levels as before and have a constant diminishment so to speak, in the value of the Social Security Fund?  In summing up, I am loath to vote against it because I do want to see Islanders given the protection they can, the financial protection they can be given in the coming couple of years, so in that sense I will probably vote for this but I believe the Minister could have done more research and perhaps could have chosen other measures that would be more likely to be spent locally.  It is very far from being a perfect measure and with that, Deputy M is right and sometimes you just do have to hit and hope.  But it is a shame that more research was not done and more finessing of this measure was not undertaken.

6.1.7 Deputy S.J. Pinel of St. Clement:

I would like very briefly to speak in favour of this part of the fiscal stimulus package that was launched by the Government, being bold, expensive and much needed to inspire confidence and encourage people to shop, support the economy and invest in employment.  The previous speaker mentioned that this would not extend to the employers’ contributions but the employers have been very successful and, with many complements, happy to cope under the payroll scheme that was introduced in March and still continues, so employers have had quite a large investment.  I think a faster and better recovery will also help in our public finances in the years to come and I am quite sure this temporary reduction in contributions will help to do this.

6.1.8 Senator L.J. Farnham:

I too hope that Members will support this given the somewhat catastrophic impact that COVID-19 has had across the economy and the impact it has on some members of our society and community, especially those in the lower income sectors who appear to be the hardest hit.  I would argue that it is in line with our timely, targeted and temporary approach because we are asking this be put in place for 9 months and those 9 months are estimated by our economists to be the time that we are going to see some vital recovery required during that period.  We have possibly been through the hardest part of it although I think many of us are planning for a long, hard winter but hoping it is not going to be as bad as it might be.  As we hope to see a reduction in COVID-19 we are hoping for a vaccination, we are hoping for the situation to improve as we get towards Easter as Dr. Ivan Muscat and Dr. Susan Turnbull have mentioned on numerous occasions.  It is timely insofar as it will be available.  That £26 million, which will be increasing the take-home pay across all working households will be available when the economy needs it most.  While I understand the comments made about targeting, I just want to push the point that this is not a benefit ... sorry, not a benefit, it is fiscal stimulus.  When I say “benefit” I mean it not in the words of a benefit as such but it will be a benefit to all working households.  In relation I think it was Deputy Morel that talked about saving.  The benefit of stimulus can be constrained by the extent of savings but households on lower incomes save much less than those on higher incomes.  Again, this is going to help the working population on lower incomes who have been hardest hit.  Another aspect of this being targeted relates to the capacity of the economy, especially the sectors within it to absorb the stimulus without higher inflation and I know that is another area close to many Members’ hearts.  We need to make sure that the stimulus we do put into the economy is not going to have an unwelcome impact on inflation.  I think that has all been taken into consideration and while not a perfect solution this is a good solution and it will put £26 million into the pockets of working families across all genders, across all working households across the Island, and I hope Members will support it during these really challenging times.

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

I would like to first comment on the concept of sustainability.  I think part of the problem some Back-Benchers seem to have with this is that it does not provide a sustainable answer to the current situation.  I appreciate that in a time of crisis sometimes we just strive to find sticking plasters but I do not see how this is a sustainable policy, and for that reason I do not understand the rationale for putting it forward in its current form.  I think the most socially responsible thing to do is to develop sustainable policies that ensure that people on the lowest incomes are supported throughout their lives and that their children are also able to access opportunities that they themselves may not have had access to and, for me, that requires legislation and policy that looks over a much longer time period. 

[11:30]

It is my belief that in a time of crisis we should be looking to develop sustainable policies.  I think this is exactly the right time to start thinking about the long-term impacts of what we are going through and what we currently have to live with.  Tax and social are minefields when it comes to understanding the intricacies of the systems, particularly if you are not an expert or of you do not work in social services or the Tax Department.  It can sometimes be difficult to understand exactly what has been calculated and how and when but for me the distinction between the 2 is simple.  The Tax Department is where we make money, where revenue comes in and for me social services is where money goes out.  We make money through tax and then we support people through social.  While you could argue that cutting social contributions is a method of support I do not think it is a demonstration of tax and social coming together and working in that complementary fashion.  That is probably my main issue around this kind of policy in general terms.  It is about sustainability but also the very function of social services versus the function of tax.  It would maybe be really helpful to me to understand how the Minister will attempt to balance out this reduction and is it the case that there is an intent to put contributions back up and if so to what level will they be put up beyond the current level in the future in order to redress the balance?  If that is so then I would not be in favour but if that is not the case and there is another method of balancing that loss then I would like to know what it is.  Are we intending just to take money out of the Reserve Fund?  What is the method by which we pull that money back because you cannot just spend that money without knowing that?  If that question can be answered that will go a long way to enabling me to support the Proposition but as it currently stands I do not feel like I have enough information to support it.

6.1.10 Senator K.L. Moore:

I am very pleased to follow the previous speaker who has very succinctly set out the argument and the concerns that Members have with aspects of this Proposition that is a £26 million spend when we do not know how the money will be recouped in the future.  To touch on the further point that our Reform colleagues have highlighted, which is the distribution and effectiveness of such a measure, it is worth just doing the simple maths here and the maximum impact to somebody on an average wage of this measure would be a discount of about £10 a week in their pay packet, obviously leading to almost £600 over the year.  But those higher earners at the upper earnings limit will be the ones who benefit from the greater discount to their contributions over the 9-month period and that could be up to £5,000 discount over the year from those people who have most ability to spend without receiving some of this £26 million of public money that will have to be found at a future point to replenish the reserves.  Deputy Morel quite rightly pointed out the Investment Appraisal Board’s advice to Ministers, and without wanting to reiterate the very fine points, it leaves us as Members in a very difficult place and albeit we can see that in some ways it may benefit some people who will need it, it is not a targeted measure and we do not know how it will be repaid.  Therefore I will have great difficulty in supporting this.

6.1.11 Deputy G.J. Truscott of St. Brelade:

I am generally supportive of this measure.  There is a well-known U.K. (United Kingdom) supermarket that has a slogan that every little counts and I think we are in unprecedented times.  The economy is on its back, people’s wages and their incomes are dramatically decreased and I think this little injection, this little extra little bit of money that they can take home I am sure will be most welcome.  I too, like Deputy Southern, have concerns regarding the funds and it is relatively easy to spend £26 million and it is so much more difficult to put £26 million back.  I have to say while I was at Social Security we kept an eye plainly on the funds and while times were good some of the funds could return well over £150 million a year. In that context, and should the markets return, this could be replenished quite quickly.  There is one fund I have particular concerns about, the Long-Term Care Fund, which does rely on tax take and I think that we should all keep an eye on going forward.  The Fiscal Policy Panel indicated we should do as much as we can to stimulate the economy and I think this goes a way to doing that.  I am happy to support the measure.

6.1.12 Deputy M. Tadier:

I thought it was necessary to speak after some of the comments from the liberal party members in the States building.  I am very pleased to follow my St. Brelade colleague because he understands that this is essentially fiscal stimulus and it also has the benefit of putting money into the pockets in a timely fashion of those who will spend it back in the economy and those who have been struggling.  That is part of a wider package that this Government has done and it is never going to please everybody.  Interestingly the one argument that is put forward by some people who seek to critique this, and it is a valid critique but if only they were consistent in their ideology and in their policies when they say they cannot support this, for example, because it might mean that some rich people at the top end of the earnings cap get something that they do not need.  It is up to those members of the liberal party to therefore present changes to the tax regime or the Social Security Fund because we know there is a cap there for a start so the cap in itself is inherently regressive because it means the very wealthiest do not pay the full contribution in the first place.  These are perhaps arguments for another day but we cannot expect this to be all things to all people and rather than calling it a blunt tool I would just call it a broad-brush approach.  I understand that there are those who prefer means testing but means testing itself has significant costs in administration.  It is bureaucratic.  I think we should support what the Government are trying to do because this is not just a Social Security issue.  This is just one of the mechanisms to returning money into people’s pockets and that should appeal to those of us who have a tradition of supporting working class people, those who are struggling.  But also the conservatives in the Assembly who think it is better for people to decide how to spend their money than the Government to do that.  The question, of course, about affordability is the right one but we have been reassured by the Minister that there are sufficient funds at the moment and the Government can afford to do it and it is the right time for the fiscal measures and the balancing act to take place.  I think it should not be that controversial and it is not going to be perfect but it should be something we can all support.

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

I was not going to say anything on this but there just a few points I think do need to be made.  I will be supporting this simply because it is a gesture towards giving people who are really struggling a little bit more money in their pockets.  Let us be honest about this, people are struggling not only because of COVID-19 but longer term because of the structure of our society and the way that incomes are distributed on this Island.  What this does is it gives a small amount of money for people and they may be able to do something with it and I see it as part of a package.  What I am concerned about, and I share the concern, is that a cut in social security contributions now, what is going to happen long term?  We are 2 years away from an election and perhaps some of the decisions made now, the consequences of them will not be taken on by the next Assembly and we are unsure as to what that will be.  I would like to have seen a genuine addressing of the inadequacies and the inequalities in our system and the unfairness of the social security contribution, and the cap is one example of that.  We have a decision to make as we repair the damage to the Social Security Fund in the long term.  Are we going to do more of what we have now, which is unfair and uneven, or are we going to be brave enough as an Assembly to make a progressive step forward?  Already today we have shown we are not willing to do that so that is my concern in the background, but I will be supporting this.

6.1.14 Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

To try to bring some of the strands of the debate together, and some Members have already said it, do not forget this is part of the overall package and it is laid out on page 4 of the report.  It is worth remembering we started this in July with the payments to what is described as low income households including pensioners of £100 per affected person.  The vouchers again go to everybody on the Island and those I believe are being delivered, the delivery started today.  This is another element of the wider package that is detailed in P.96 and it is around we all know in everything here we have had to move at pace.  We would have loved to have done more consideration, taken more time.  We have not had the time to do that so this is about getting in the right measures with the best economic advice we had and, as I speak, I have just been joined by the person giving that advice, to give support to the overall package.  In summary, what we were told at the time was go soon, go big and go bold because it is better to go early on this rather than be too late.  That is the measure we put in place and I certainly absolutely stand by that advice.  That is what we have done.  It will help households and this element of the package will give certainty.  It is for a 9-month period if the Assembly approves it and rather than, for example, while the vouchers once they are in their hands there is certainty but you do not know what is coming down the line.  This, if the Assembly approves, is in legislation.  It is for a fixed period of time.  The whole point of fiscal stimulus is the 3 Ts.  It is about being timely and it is about being temporary and obviously targeted but what we are dealing with here is overall the economic and fiscal stimulus package.  Just to give some comfort, the Social Security Reserve Fund, as a ballpark, is around £1.7 billion to £1.8 billion.  What we are talking with this measure is about £26 million but that does not mean the comments around the long term and securing like funding and things like that are relevant and is part of that discussion that we are bringing back to Members in the Government Plan.  There is one thing I do want to verify, which has just been confirmed to me, the comment I sent to them all, I think is not quite right because if Members look at the legislation it is capped basically at the standard monthly earnings limit.  Therefore I am informed that the maximum is in the order of £800 over the 9 months and I think that is just for clarification.  That will be seen in the Articles when we go there.  I do not have much more to say except I reiterate the advice, go soon, go big, go bold.  That is what we have done.  I thank the Members who have made a positive comment and hope Members will support this. 

[11:45]

It will be of great benefit to around 50,000 Islanders and in the whole package measures, if I remember correctly depending on the type of family household, was worth around £1,350 over the period we are dealing with, and that included the vouchers and other measures that we are putting in place.  But that is illustrative, it does indicate we are serious about helping Islanders, which helps employers, particularly through things like the co-funding payroll scheme.  This is about helping Islanders directly.  I absolutely support the Proposition and I hope all other Members will do so.

The Bailiff:

Thank you, Chief Minister.  Deputy Ward, I am not sure, you call it a question of procedure, is it a point of order?

Deputy R.J. Ward:

I was not quite sure what to call it, Sir.  But I just note that some time ago we had a situation where officers were present in the States Chamber and we made a decision that they would not be.  I just wonder whether officers are becoming more and more present with Ministers, as they are speaking.  I wonder whether we are going against that decision, whether the officers should be declared and so their presence when we are doing this for transparency.  I am afraid I cannot quote the Proposition number that we took on but I can remember it.  It just seems to have been lax, Sir, and I did not know where to raise it but I thought now would be a time to do that.

The Bailiff:

Thank you very much.  Deputy, it does not call for a ruling from me at the present time but what I would say is that my recollection of the desire to remove officers was to prevent those officers interfering, and I use that in the most general sense, not deliberately interfering but causing interference, as it were, to other Members who were going in and out and not to prevent people from consulting with them.  It seems to me that it would be artificial to say that if people are in a private room under current circumstances an officer could not be with them if they wished it because they could obviously take advice electronically in any event.  But that is a matter for Members and I do not make any ruling on it at this stage.  Of course that was a direction from my predecessor, as rightly observed in the chat, but this is not an opportunity for debate on that matter.  I would simply ask now, does any other Member wish to speak on the principles?

Connétable J. Le Bailly of St. Mary:

A very quick word, Sir.

The Bailiff:

I am sorry …

The Connétable of St. Mary:

John Le Bailly, Constable of St. Mary.

The Bailiff:

We normally indicate a desire to speak, Connétable, by mentioning that in the chat.  Are you looking to speak on the principles?

The Connétable of St. Mary:

Yes, please.

6.1.15 The Connétable of St. Mary:

I would just like to say that I fully endorse the wise comments of Senator Moore.  We need to target the needy, not hand out a bonus to those who clearly do not need this.  At some stage this will have to revert, thereby the people on the lower wage will suffer the most.  There is a mechanism in place at Social Security to help people who are struggling; that is the way to go in order to avoid hardship in the future.  That is all I wish to say.

The Bailiff:

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

6.1.16 Deputy S.M. Wickenden:

I would like to thank everyone for their participation and comments in this debate on the principles.  I am not going to go through person by person or States Member by States Member because there are some very clear themes that ran through a lot of the challenges to this Proposition.  Firstly, I would like to say that this is part of a package of measures for economic stimulus and recovery.  There has been a challenge about the gradual reduction in the reserves but if we do not do something now about the economy and supporting in many different ways, as what we are doing in these packages, the loss to the Social Security Fund could be even greater than what we are doing here now.  The Social Security Fund is in a very strong position for this and we take long-term sustainability at Social Security with this fund extremely seriously.  We would not be bringing forward this package of measures or this part of the package of measures if we thought that it would have a serious long-term effect on the fund.  There have been words like raiding of the fund at the moment and I think we need to clear up that we are not pulling money and we have not been pulling money out of the fund.  This part of it has been about making sure that less money goes in so that people have it in their pockets.  We have agreed not to put money into the fund through the Council of Ministers and the Government Plan so that we can use that money on things like health, mental health, education and other areas of support that had long been underfunded.  Again, we would not be putting that request through if we thought that it was going to have a long-term effect on the fund.  The many, many amazing staff at Social Security do look at this day in and day out and they certainly would not be advising this position if it was going to have a long-term detrimental effect.  There has been talk about this not being a very well-targeted approach and that people could spend it out of the Island or they could save it.  I have got to say that the Members that mentioned that, I would say I have got a lot more faith obviously in Islanders because we have seen over this COVID period that Islanders have all got together and they have really done what is in the best interest of the Island in so many ways, and we should all be very proud of how the Islanders have got together and reacted and behaved during this time.  There was concern that Tax and Social were not working in alignment but all along with the economic recovery work we have been working with Tax and Social and Economic Development to make sure that we know what each other are doing.  There has been strong alignment between the 2 departments in looking at this and trying to work in the timely and targeted manner.  This is a 2 per cent increase in wages for working people and I think many, many Islanders will appreciate it at this time and over the next 9 months.  I think with that I will stop talking and I will propose the Proposition.

The Bailiff:

Very well.  I would ask the Greffier to put a voting link in the chat box in the normal way.  The link is there.  I ask Members to cast their vote and open the voting.  There are 42 votes cast thus far.  I will leave it a moment or 2 longer to see if more can come through.  If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting.  The principles have been adopted.