STATES OF JERSEY

OFFICIAL REPORT

WEDNESDAY, 27th APRIL 2022

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption

1. Draft Proceeds of Crime (Amendment No. 7) (Jersey) Law 202- (P.51/2022)

1.1 Connétable R.A. Buchanan of St. Ouen (Assistant Minister for External Relations and Financial Services - rapporteur):

1.1.1 Deputy D. Johnson of St. Mary:

1.1.2 The Connétable of St. Ouen:

2. Draft Sanctions and Asset-Freezing (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Law 202- (P.53/2022) - as amended (P.53/2022 Amd.)

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

2.1.1 The Deputy of St. Mary:

2.1.2 Senator S.W. Pallett:

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

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

2.1.5 Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier:

2.1.6 Senator I.J. Gorst:

2.2 Senator I.J. Gorst:

2.2.1 Deputy R.J. Ward:

2.2.2 Deputy H.C. Raymond of Trinity:

2.2.3 Deputy G.P. Southern:

2.2.4 Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:

Deputy J.H. Perchard of St. Saviour:

Mr. M.H. Temple Q.C., H.M. Attorney General:

2.2.5 Senator I.J. Gorst:

2.3 Senator I.J. Gorst:

2.3.1 Deputy K.F. Morel:

2.3.2 Senator I.J. Gorst:

3. Draft Limited Partnerships (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Law 202- (P.54/2022)

3.1 The Connétable of St. Ouen (Assistant Minister for External Relations and Financial Services - rapporteur):

3.1.1 The Deputy of St. Mary:

3.1.2 Deputy G.P. Southern:

3.1.3 The Connétable of St. Ouen:

3.2 The Connétable of St. Ouen:

3.3 The Connétable of St. Ouen:

3.3.1 Senator I.J. Gorst:

3.3.2 The Connétable of St. Ouen:

4. Draft Non-Profit Organisations (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Jersey) Law 202- (P.56/2022)

4.1 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Minister for External Relations and Financial Services):

4.1.1 The Deputy of St. Mary:

4.1.2 Senator S.W. Pallett:

4.1.3 The Deputy of Trinity:

4.1.4 Deputy K.F. Morel:

4.1.5 Senator I.J. Gorst:

4.2 Senator I.J. Gorst:

5. Havre des Pas Lido (P.61/2022) - as amended (P.61/2022 Amd.)

5.1 The Connétable of St. Helier:

5.1.1 Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:

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

5.1.3 Senator S.W. Pallett:

5.1.4 Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier:

5.1.5 Deputy K.F. Morel:

5.1.6 Senator S.Y. Mézec:

5.1.7 The Deputy of Trinity:

5.1.8 Deputy R.J. Ward:

5.1.9 Deputy M. Tadier:

5.1.10 The Connétable of St. Helier:

6. Accommodation for temporary workers (P.62/2022) - as amended (P.62/2022)

6.1 The Deputy of St. Peter:

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

6.1.2 Deputy C.S. Alves of St. Helier:

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

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

6.1.5 Senator K.L. Moore:

6.1.6 Connétable R. Vibert of St. Peter:

6.1.7 Deputy I. Gardiner of St. Helier:

6.1.8 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

6.1.9 Connétable A. Jehan of St. John:

6.1.10 Deputy G.P. Southern:

6.1.11 Deputy M. Tadier:

6.1.12 Connétable J. Le Bailly of St. Mary:

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT

6.1.13 Deputy G.C. Guida:

6.1.14 Senator T.A. Vallois:

6.1.15 Connétable P.B. Le Sueur of Trinity:

6.1.16 Connétable M. Troy of St. Clement:

6.1.17 Deputy J.A. Martin:

6.1.18 Deputy K.C. Lewis:

6.1.19 Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville:

6.1.20 Senator L.J. Farnham:

6.1.21 Deputy K.F. Morel:

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

6.1.23 Deputy R.J. Ward:

6.1.24 The Deputy of St. Peter:

7. Suspension of Drive to ‘Net Zero’ (P.70/2022)

7.1 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

7.1.1 Deputy J.H. Young:

7.1.2 Senator K.L. Moore:

7.1.3 The Connétable of St. John:

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

7.1.5 Deputy R.J. Ward:

7.1.6 Deputy G.C. Guida:

7.1.7 Deputy L.M.C. Doublet:

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

7.1.9 Deputy M. Tadier:

7.1.10 Deputy J.H. Perchard:

7.1.11 Senator I.J. Gorst:

7.1.12 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

8. States Meetings - Remote Participation and Proxy Voting (P.63/2022)

8.1 Deputy I. Gardiner:

8.1.1 The Connétable of St. John:

8.1.2 Deputy M. Tadier:

8.1.3 Deputy J.A. Martin:

FAREWELL TO THE GREFFIER OF THE STATES

9. Deputy C.S. Alves (Chair, Privileges and Procedures Committee):

Deputy C.S. Alves:

Senator L.J. Farnham:

Deputy R.J. Ward:

Deputy C.S. Alves:

Deputy C.S. Alves:

Deputy I. Gardiner:

Deputy K.G. Pamplin:

The Deputy of Grouville:

Deputy J.H. Perchard:

Deputy J.H. Young:

Deputy C.S. Alves:

ADJOURNMENT

[9:32]

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

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption

1. Draft Proceeds of Crime (Amendment No. 7) (Jersey) Law 202- (P.51/2022)

The Bailiff:

We now continue with Public Business.  The next item is the Draft Proceeds of Crime (Amendment No. 7) (Jersey) Law, P.51, lodged by the Minister for External Relations and Financial Services, and I ask the Greffier to read the citation.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Draft Proceeds of Crime (Amendment No. 7) (Jersey) Law 202-.  A law to amend further the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999.  The States, subject to the sanction of Her Most Excellent Majesty in Council, have adopted the following law.

Senator I.J. Gorst (The Minister for External Relations and Financial Services):

Could my Assistant Minister act as rapporteur for this item please?

1.1 Connétable R.A. Buchanan of St. Ouen (Assistant Minister for External Relations and Financial Services - rapporteur):

We continue with great pace our preparations for the forthcoming MONEYVAL assessment and I am sure I do not need to remind the Assembly just how important a positive assessment is for the financial services businesses in the Island.  Under the F.A.T.F. (Financial Action Task Force) methodology we will be assessed against ... we need to demonstrate that money laundering activities are prosecuted in line with our jurisdictional risk profile.  For us, this means preventing criminals from exploiting some of the 33,000 companies registered here for money-laundering purposes.  Additional F.A.T.F. methodology requires that penalties are not just applied against natural persons but also against legal persons, which in plain speak are companies.  Therefore, this proposition, if adopted, creates a new criminal offence of a failure to prevent money laundering for legal persons which undertake financial services businesses.  Individuals should only be in scope for the new offence where they themselves act as financial services businesses under the Proceeds of Crime Law.  An example would be an accountant acting as a sole trader or where an individual consented for money laundering to be committed within a company.  The proposition would enable a more appropriate attribution of criminal liability to companies where those companies fail to have prevented associated persons for money laundering.  This of course means that for the offence to be triggered there needs to be proof of money laundering.  It is important to note that with the introduction of the new offence, no new compliance requirements are required for the financial services industry to be introduced.  All those requirements already exist.  But for companies who do not adhere to those requirements, and therefore allow money laundering to happen, they will be in scope for the new offence and can be prosecuted.  However, it is crucial to highlight the amendment provides companies with a reasonable steps defence by demonstrating, where money laundering has occurred, that companies adequately maintained and applied anti-money laundering procedures.  This amendment has been subject to pre-consultation with representatives from the main Chamber bodies and Law Society of Jersey followed by a full public consultation during which no major concerns were raised.  The new offence would help make better to meet the criteria under the F.A.T.F. methodology and presents a key building block to enhance the enforcement process and thus the overall anti-crime regime.  I make the proposition.

The Bailiff:

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

1.1.1 Deputy D. Johnson of St. Mary:

This is the first of 4 financial services related propositions coming before us today and, if I may, I will make a generic comment now to avoid the need to repeat it.  The panel is only too well aware of the image of the Island as one engaged in financial services activities, sometimes referred to as “tax haven” status, and I apologise for using that outmoded expression, and understands the importance of the financial sector in Jersey being compliant with international standards and meeting the regulations of F.A.T.F.  It is pleased to have been a part of the numerous pieces of legislation this compliance brings and to have had the opportunity to present its various comments papers to the States.  I advise that over the last 4 years the panel has presented a total of 15 comments papers to the Assembly in relation to such matters and, in addition to that, we have had briefings on even more pieces of legislation where we felt that a comments paper was unnecessary.  The panel is extremely grateful to the officers for their work in providing detailed briefings to allow the panel to undertake its work.  The panel is also aware of the upcoming assessment by MONEYVAL and the ongoing work that officers within the Financial Services Department still need to undertake.  I would like to think that the panel has shown its commitment throughout its dealings to properly scrutinise all matters coming before us.  To that extent, I am grateful to the Minister, the Assistant Minister, and the whole financial services team for their co-operation throughout this matter.  I am also grateful obviously to my colleagues on the panel and to the previous chair of the panel and other members of the panel.  Finally, and not least, I wish to record my appreciation to the present Scrutiny Officer and her predecessors for the work that they have done.  Only last week she was involved in balancing the need to issue 3 comments papers along with other requirements and, as with her other counterparts in Scrutiny, we are already indebted to the fact that they go well beyond the call of duty in this connection.  Finally, there was yesterday during the debate, reference to the role of Scrutiny and certain questions as to how it saw itself.  Certainly, as far as this panel is concerned, I think we have demonstrated that we are indeed a critical friend, we have aimed to be constructive, and I would like to think that the Minister and his team have had no cause to doubt that.  In addition to the financial services work, we have had to balance those requirements with other matters, particularly in relation to external relations, we do receive briefings as a matter of confidentiality.  We very much respect that need and I do not believe there has ever been cause to doubt our sincerity in that respect.  Again, I appreciate the efforts of the Minister in keeping us fully up to date on such matters and I would like to think we have discharged our duties appropriately. 

[9:45]

To the matter in hand, we have issued a comments paper on this matter, which I hope the Members have had the opportunity to read.  It is perhaps superfluous to say, but we very much endorse the rationale behind this proposition and urge Members to support it.

Deputy G.C. Guida of St. Lawrence:

Could I raise the défaut on the Deputy of Trinity?

The Bailiff:

Yes, the défaut is raised on the Deputy of Trinity.  Does any other Member wish to speak on the principles?  If no other Member wishes to speak on the principles I close the debate and call upon the Connétable of St. Ouen to respond.

1.1.2 The Connétable of St. Ouen:

I particularly appreciate the Deputy of St. Mary’s comments and I am a little disappointed that he feels that there should anywhere in the Assembly be any question mark against his panel’s integrity or commitment to assisting us because nothing could be further from the truth.  We have received nothing but the highest level of commitment from his panel and his comments about being a critical friend are entirely true.  He and his panel have raised a number of useful points, which we have taken on board, and we have had a number of extensive discussions which have made our process in producing this legislation which is before the Assembly.  From a personal perspective, I can only express my deepest thanks for all the help and commitment that he and his panel have given our team during this difficult time that we have had in preparing the extensive amounts of legislation for the MONEYVAL process.  I would just like to thank him very much and his panel for his help and commitment.  I have no other comments and therefore I call for the appel.

The Bailiff:

The appel is called for.  I invite Members to return to their seats and I ask the Greffier to open the voting.  Members remotely please participate in the normal way.  If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes then I ask the Greffier to close the voting.  The principles have been adopted.

I take it, Deputy of St. Mary, your panel is not calling the matter in, in view of what you said.

The Deputy of St. Mary (Chair, Economic and International Affairs):

No, thank you, Sir.

The Bailiff:

How do you wish to propose the Articles in Second Reading?

The Connétable of St. Ouen:

With the leave of the Assembly I would like to propose them en bloc, if possible.

The Bailiff:

Are they seconded for Second Reading?  [Seconded]  Does any Member wish to speak on the Articles or any of them?  No Member wishes to speak then I close the debate.  I propose to take this on a standing vote given the indication given on the last vote.  Members in favour kindly show.  Members against?  I think Deputy of Trinity and Deputy Perchard should you wish to indicate a pour. I would be content if you put your hands up instead of standing, if you wish.  Do you propose it in Third Reading, Minister?

The Connétable of St. Ouen:

Yes, Sir.

The Bailiff:

Is it seconded for Third Reading?  [Seconded]  Does any Member wish to speak in Third Reading?  No Member wishes to speak in Third Reading.  Then I close the debate and again we will do this on a standing vote.  Members in favour kindly show.  Those against?  It is passed in Third Reading.

2. Draft Sanctions and Asset-Freezing (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Law 202- (P.53/2022) - as amended (P.53/2022 Amd.)

The Bailiff:

The next item is the Draft Sanctions and Asset-Freezing (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Law, P.53, lodged by the same Minister.  I ask the Greffier to read the citation.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Draft Sanctions and Asset-Freezing (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Law 202-.  A law to further amend the Sanctions and Asset-Freezing (Jersey) Law 2019.  The States, subject to the sanction of Her Most Excellent Majesty in Council, have adopted the following law.

The Bailiff:

Is your Assistant Minister taking this one as well?

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

Not this one, we have 4 pieces and we are dividing it, as it were.  Who could have imagined when we first started contemplating improvements to the Sanctions Law to ensure that there was further clarity, so that we could be confident that it was compliant with F.A.T.F. standards, that such technicalities and such a piece of legislation would be in the international headlines?  I think that shows to us that even though these pieces of legislation can be technical and seem to be unrelated to Islanders everyday lives, when they are needed and when we face a global crisis, as we do, the reverse becomes apparent.  It is absolutely imperative that we, in Jersey, have legislation to give effect to ensure that we play our part, together with the international community, as we have seen, in regard to the economic fight against Putin’s regime.  Indeed, we do.  These amendments before us today will enhance that fight.  They will provide further clarification to some descriptions.  They will take pointers where we currently point to other pieces of legislation and put it on the face of Jersey legislation, that can only be right and proper, again showing ourselves to be co-operative international partners and playing our part.  I hope that Members will see that this draft law enhances and adds directly on to the face of the law descriptions of owned, held, controlled.  It also deals with civil immunity and makes that clear.  It changes some of the powers to amend via Ministerial Order, it deals with the implementation of exceptions and grounds for granting licences, something which we know has become, again in the fight against Putin in Ukraine, extremely important.  It enhances the meaning of terrorism.  It allows for automatic terrorist asset freeze designations.  It limits the de-designation of terrorism asset freezes by Ministerial Order and it expands reporting obligations in respect of attempts to breach or circumvent sanctions.  I commend the principles of these changes to the law to the Assembly.

The Bailiff:

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

2.1.1 The Deputy of St. Mary:

Members will be pleased to know I do not intend to repeat the comments just made in relation to the previous proposition.  We have on this occasion issued a comments paper that reinforces the comments just made by the Minister for External Relations and Financial Services, and the panel asks the Members to support this proposition.

2.1.2 Senator S.W. Pallett:

I just want to follow my Chair of the Economic and International Affairs Panel by saying that he mentions many other people who have been central to ensuring that this legislation and many other pieces of legislation have been properly scrutinised.  I would just like to add, because the chair is always the one that seems to miss out, that the chair, and I have to say the previous chair as well, have been exemplary in the work that they have done with the panel and I think need to be commended for the work that they have done.  I just want to add, because I know it has been brought up in the past that maybe we have not looked at detail at some of the legislation.  I just brought along the proposition that we are debating right now, my copy, and as you can see it is full of orange ink because I wanted to fully understand from the Minister about what he was putting forward.  He mentioned many changes in the legislation and we did, I think, grill his officers and the Minister in some depth.  In fact, I cannot remember a briefing recently that has not overrun because of the time we felt we needed to fully understand what was being put before us.  So if any Members feel that this is in any way a rubber stamp exercise, I can assure you it is not.  As my chair has said, the work that the officers have done in regard to putting some of these Comments papers together, again they needed to fully understand what they were putting together.  I thank them for their work as well.  But I have to add, the co-operation we have had from the Minister and Assistant Minister over my 18 months has been - I used the word “exemplary” with the Chair, I will use the same with the Minister - have been exemplary. 

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

I will ask one of the questions I am prone to asking myself, but this time I will ask it publicly and see what the answers are.  The question is: we are coming up to an inspection and therefore we are tightening up the laws and the rules around money-laundering, et cetera, why have we not done this 5 years ago?  What have the money-launderers been getting away with for the last 5 years that we are now tightening up on?  Could the Minister please explain.

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

I note that for administrative reasons, and understandable administrative reasons, a particular link in reference to European Community regulations is removed, but I was wondering if the Minister could confirm please whether this affects in any other way potential for E.U. (European Union) sanctions to be brought in under the law, as is the case at the moment?  It is just to confirm that this does not affect.

2.1.5 Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier:

This may be a question for regulations but I think it is important to talk about it before we come to the regulations so we know what we mean.  In terms of the definition of terrorism, it says that the Minister can define terrorism or a terrorist; I just wonder what definitions we are using.  Are they international definitions, are they simply something that comes from the U.K. (United Kingdom) and we abide with it or will Jersey be able to define its own terrorist organisations?  That is not a value-laden statement, it is a genuine question and I just wondered if we could address that.

The Bailiff:

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

2.1.6 Senator I.J. Gorst:

I understand in my absence - I am sure it was not because of my absence but I was absent from the Assembly yesterday - that there were, during the course of some debate, some disappointingly disparaging remarks about the Scrutiny function.  I have not heard them, I have only had them relayed to me but I know that the Chair of the panel that scrutinises me and my department alluded to them in his speech in the earlier proposition.  I am disappointed to hear that because I hold the panel that has scrutinised me in the highest regard.  It is currently chaired by a lawyer and I hope you will forgive me for saying this, he brings great technical and legal expertise to that panel but of course he is joined by other members who bring a great deal of common sense.  We have just heard from one of his panel members about that common sense that he brings to scrutinising, what can be very technical pieces of legislation.  But that being a critical friend, while it might be uncomfortable for those of us who are Ministers, is absolutely critically important for the good functioning of the democratic institutions of this Island.

[10:00]

I for one have never been in any doubt whatsoever that I could attend upon that panel and share the most confidential of information in a private setting and provide confidential documents to them and that it would never occur to them to do anything other than to treat them confidentially and with the respect that being a Member of this Assembly should bring to our functioning.  As I say, it has not always been comfortable, there have been questions that we have had to go away and provide answers to.  But I am extremely grateful to them for doing that function, I believe, as it was initially intended when this new system of Government was created.  As I say, it is absolutely fundamental to the good governance of this Island.  As uncomfortable as it is, it is not personal, it is about the legislation that Ministers are bringing forward.  I say it is not personal because the former cman of that panel, who acted in the same manner as the current chairman, did not disappoint me with the question that he raised.  It is not a personal issue, it is an issue that he feels passionately about.  I can give him comfort this morning that despite perhaps initially during this process a desire to remove that ability to be able to implement E.U. sanctions, it remains within the law and there is no amendment before the Assembly today to take that power away.  For all sorts of reasons here, and I disagree about whether we should or should not be implanting those sanctions or not, and I was questioned on that earlier in this sitting and I stand by those answers.  Deputy Ward asked about the meaning of terrorism and what we do and will do in extending that definition or inserting a new definition.  It is really around what we might think of as involved persons.  For some the actor, as it were, at the scene of the crime, as it were, it is quite clear that they are terrorists.  What is more difficult and needs the new definitions is really around involved persons, giving greater latitude to be able to capture involved persons in that definition.  We follow the international standard definition, we are not sat in Broad Street sharpening our pencils and exploring the English language, it is an international definition and if it were not an international definition then I think that we would in actual fact fail in those regards when the international review has come to make sure that we are complying with the international standards.  Deputy Southern likes to look at things through, from my perspective, the other end of the telescope and rather than welcoming these amendments to the latest developments in international standards wants to ask us what people have been getting away with while we were doing the consultation and the review and the law drafting.  He and I have argued in this Assembly previously where we are bringing forward these amendments.  I certainly do not accept the premise of his question because the majority of this piece of legislation - yes, the previous piece of legislation around failure to prevent - was a brand new offence in Jersey.  But what that does, it allows a strengthening as a deterrent for those in the financial services industry to think very carefully about the processes that they have got in place to prevent Jersey and their institution being used for the purposes of financing terrorism and anti-money laundering.  It is strengthening either existing provision ... this piece of legislation is strengthening and making it clearer.  If there were any doubt, I do not believe there were any doubt, I do not believe that the current legislation allows those within financial services to get away with anything.  But this and these amendments make it clear, and make it clear that we have in our legislation compliance with the latest international standards.  I commend these regulatory amendments to the Assembly this morning.

The Bailiff:

Thank you very much indeed, Minister.  Do you call for the appel?  The appel is called for.  I invite Members to return to their seats and I ask the Greffier to open the voting and Members participating remotely to vote in the usual way.  If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, then I ask the Greffier to close the voting.  The principles have been adopted.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Deputy Southern voted contre.

The Bailiff:

I take it, Deputy of St. Mary, that your panel is not calling it in in the light of what you have said.  Very well.  Minister, we come to Second Reading.  You have lodged an amendment to your own Articles in Second Reading.  Do you wish the Assembly to take those in Second Reading as amended by your own amendment?

Senator I.J. Gorst:

If I may, Sir, thank you, yes.

The Bailiff:

Members will have the opportunity of seeing the nature of the amendment and, therefore, I am assuming if nobody objects, then we will take the Articles in Second Reading as amended.  How do you wish to deal with them as amended in Second Reading, Minister?

2.2 Senator I.J. Gorst:

Sir, I will take them en bloc if I may and speak to the amendment.  What that amendment does is allow for designations under asset freeze by description, rather than just simply having to name an individual, which is currently that asset freezes work.  I hope Members will see that what that does is, for example, able to capture a director which is a description of a function, for example, rather than having to be in a position to name all of the directors as currently would be the case if you wish to designate directors of a firm, for example.  I will maintain them en bloc if I may.

The Bailiff:

Are they seconded for Second Reading?  [Seconded]  Does any Member wish to speak on Second Reading? 

2.2.1 Deputy R.J. Ward:

I welcome these actions to capture the proceeds, if you like, of terrorist activity and so on and recognise those designated terrorist organisations and terrorist groups and people.  But what I want to know about is consistency, for example - it is (1e) part and I am going to have to scroll down, which is what I did not want to do because now I will lose my place - in Article 18(1e) which talks about a link to paragraph (1c)(h) and, again, we have this interlinked piece of regulation which takes time to go through.  I compliment, again, the Scrutiny Panel on taking on that process.  But it talks about as part (b): “‘coercive action’ means abduction, enslavement, forced marriage, rape or sexual violence.”  What I would like to ask is, is this going to be consistent in jurisdictions where forced marriage, sexual violence, misogyny is rife?  We seem to do business and take account and have investment from areas where that can be said to be happening and, in particular, one person’s opportunity for employment is another person’s enslavement when, for example, you have no rights to your passport while you are there and you are, effectively, working as a modern-day slave in some jurisdictions around the world.  Therefore, I would welcome if Jersey’s Government had the clarity of thought and the cleanliness of its actions to say to these jurisdictions: “We are going to treat you in the same way as we would organisations that use that to fund terrorism.”  Because one could say that state terrorism and the action of individuals could be viewed in the same way.  I just want to know whether that part of the regulation would extend to those types of actions by nations.  Because at the moment we can all be very clear and say that the actions of leaders in Russia, we are all very clear about how wrong they are and we are very clear about certain terrorist organisations that are very clear, that we can define.  But there is a grey area here which is not a grey area, in my opinion, of the action on the individuals and the residents within certain nations where those things mentioned in these regulations, coercive actions, abduction, and there are situations that are reported in the media of abduction of particular members of families, for example.  Enslavement, one could interpret the building of certain buildings around the world for international events as virtual enslavement of the workers.  Forced marriage certainly is something that happens in some nations and rape and sexual violence has been a tool for nations to subject women for many, many, many years and still happens around the world.  I welcome this but we need to be consistent and I would like the Minister to give some assurances that we will be consistent in our approaches to all parts of the world, regardless of whether they become financially beneficial for us as an Island.

The Bailiff:

Thank you very much indeed.  The Deputy of Trinity, if you would like to speak from sitting you can.

2.2.2 Deputy H.C. Raymond of Trinity:

It is a clarification point more than anything else.  It mentions asset freeze; with regards to asset freeze, does the person or persons have to be named?  If they are not named as being part of something that is not right, can we still asset freeze the … it is difficult without giving an example but I am just concerned that the asset freeze would be on anything dealing with anything that could be deemed to be part of Russia or is it just specifically to the individual people?  If you could clarify that because there is an incident within the Island which just needs clarification and to clarify in the Assembly would be much appreciated.

2.2.3 Deputy G.P. Southern:

My eyes are drawn to a screen which is entitled: “Jersey and U.A.E. (United Arab Emirates) sign a treaty.”  Below a picture of our good Minister, who seemed to be looking particularly astute that day, I wondered whether that included “coercive action”; a source of coercive action, which means abduction, enslavement, forced marriage, rape or sexual violence included in this treaty with the U.A.E.

2.2.4 Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:

I think to just extend that point.  So, there is clearly a serious issue here and the previous vote showed that there is almost unanimous agreement on the issue that we should have the ability to take action on terrorist organisations and clearly one of those individuals in the world at the moment and in Europe or on the border of Europe is Putin.

[10:15]

We know that Putin is not just somebody who exercises a particularly harsh form of population control because there is a housing crisis in Russia but that he is a much more serious menace to the international community, including their neighbours or their close neighbours to Ukraine and Poland, whom we have had their Ambassador currently visiting today in Jersey, and I am sure he is most welcome and those international relations and strengthening of them are really important.  But I think it does raise a fundamental question here because we have a Minister for International Relations, we have a Minister for International Development and the name sometimes change; they no doubt work in slightly different areas but closely together.  Jersey does like to - and I think is right - try and increase its international personality and to exercise as much autonomy and decision-making for itself as it can whenever it can.  But in certain other areas, so we automatically pass these bits of legislation, which, again, is part of the Realpolitik and I have no criticism of that, yet it does not give us the discretion that we would seek and like to exercise in other areas.  The point is quite rightly someone like Putin and all of the oligarchs that it has to be said that we have been welcoming to Jersey in the past.  There was active recruitment for stupidly rich individuals who are not just wealthy in their own right but can change the course of economies if they want to.  They can buy up football clubs; that is the people we are talking about.  We have rolled out the red carpet in the past not thinking about whether or not the chickens might come home to roost at some point.  Because it is only now that Putin has become slightly deranged.  Did we think that in the past he was a stable person with whom to do business?  Clearly not because as a former Deputy in the Assembly, I think it was Deputy Trevor Pitman, somebody I miss greatly in this Assembly for his frank speaking; I think he made the comment that money has no smell but of course we know since that things have moved on.  One does have to question about definitions; should not Jersey really be taking a look at who it does business with.  Clearly, we do not want to be doing business with Russia at this point and we never should have been doing business with it.  But I look at a headline, here it was in the New York Times and it says: “Dubai ruler imprisoned his daughters and threatened one of his wives, the U.K. court rules.”  These are not just allegations, a U.K. court has ruled that this is the case, these are facts.  Yet only one year later we see a headline in the Jersey Evening Post with a big photograph of Senator Gorst there, the usual photo, it is a good photo, I wish they used such a modern one of me with my new Ian Gorst glasses but I have still got my little wiry frames from Louis Theroux, which are now passé unfortunately and ...

The Bailiff:

Deputy Tadier, I am not entirely sure that your choice in glasses is particularly germane to the debate.  If you could perhaps focus a little bit more.

Deputy G.P. Southern:

On the contrary, Chair, I find it fascinating.

The Bailiff:

It may be fascinating, but it is not germane.  Please, do carry on.

Deputy M. Tadier:

I did not say it was Germane, Sir, I said it was Louis Theroux.  [Laughter]  But I do not know who this Germane character is.  That notwithstanding I accept the invitation to come back to more salient matters.  The point is here there is only a year between the 2 facts and we have Jersey signing a treaty with the U.A.E.; it is a business treaty.  It is again saying, okay, let us get some U.A.E. money and we know that there are things that are not just dubious but that are demonstrably proven and have been to the court in the U.K. with what some of these people do.  These are not just questionable things which are hearsay, it is there in black and white: “Dubai ruler imprisoned his daughters and threatened one of his wives.”  We have all seen the video that one of the daughters sent and it went out virally on social media.  I am just asking the question, and I hope I do not get shot down for it, what happens if in 5 years’ time you get something that … what if the U.A.E. decides that they want to proliferate in their region, if they want to invade a country and then there are international sanctions?  Is it only then when we wait for the letter to come down from Whitehall and they say: “By the way, these people are now in the terrorist organisation.”?  We say, okay, let us rubberstamp that.  We had our suspicions before but now because you tell us that we have to do it we will do it, even though clearly in our law we can define who the terrorists are and even though this particular individual is sailing very close, I would say, to the definition of what a terrorist is.  Certainly he fulfils the traditional English definition of somebody who is not a particularly nice bloke and it is not somebody or particularly a jurisdiction that I am comfortable doing business with.  I do not need to have a letter from Whitehall to tell me in the future that we should not be doing business with some of these people just to absolve our consciences.

Senator L.J. Farnham:

No, Sir, thank you.

The Bailiff:

Sorry, I thought you indicated, it was Deputy Perchard.

Deputy J.H. Perchard of St. Saviour:

I have a question for the Attorney General, please.  The question is in the context where a treaty has been signed between 2 nations, what is the impact on that treaty of the introduction of sanctions?  If there was a conflict of content or even intent or the spirit of a treaty was somehow compromised by the introduction of a sanction, which one takes precedence?

The Bailiff:

It is a question about the contractual effect of a treaty as against the exorbitant jurisdiction of a sanction.

Mr. M.H. Temple Q.C., H.M. Attorney General:

Obviously in terms of international law the U.K. is responsible for our international relations, so we would need to get authority to enter into the treaty and then it would need to be ratified and extended to us on our behalf.  Obviously, it is quite a hypothetical question that the Deputy is asking but, in general terms, if there were to be a conflict between the terms of the treaty and the terms of sanctions, my instinctive answer is that the sanctions would take precedence.  I would think that there would be provisions within the terms of the treaty to deal with these sorts of situations and, for example, how disputes between the parties to the treaty could be dealt with.  Normally there are a series of provisions whereby the parties endeavour to negotiate differences by negotiation and then it goes from there up to international arbitration.  There should be mechanisms that deal with such a situation in the treaty but in general terms my view is that the sanctions should prevail.

The Bailiff:

Does any other Member wish to speak in Second Reading?  If no other Members wishes to speak in Second Reading, then I close the debate and call upon the Minister to respond.

2.2.5 Senator I.J. Gorst:

I will try and steer us back to the Second Reading of these amendments, if I may.  Sir, you have been very generous with the Assembly’s time this morning.  Perhaps I could just say, however, that I am certainly now looking forward to in a way I never envisaged seeing Reform Jersey’s election manifesto and lots of photographs of the Ian Gorst glasses and my sartorial style on their leaflets, bearing in mind the comments that they have just made.  I think we are going to enjoy this election, let us just say that.  There were some serious questions that were made.  If I could start with Deputy Ward, who asked about the reach of this legislation and I think he knows the answer before he asked it but he just wishes me to confirm it.  There is no extra territorial reach in this legislation.  It can only apply to individuals or companies registered or based in Jersey, as would be normal legislative process.  The Deputy of Trinity asked about designated persons and it is correct that sanctions law envisage designated persons or companies being designated and they are the ones, the individuals designated or the companies designated to which the freeze takes place.  I know there has been commentary locally about family members, about connections, and of course what my officials and those across the agencies are doing in the taskforce is making sure that the designated persons do not receive any benefit directly or indirectly from connections.  On the surface it is straightforward but we know that individuals with such magnitude of wealth are able to structure their affairs in various manners and it is important that we ensure that there is no circumnavigation of the sanctions regime perhaps in the way that the Deputy was indicating in his question.  I am not sure that this was really the point to debate Jersey’s common external relations policy.  I think that will come when there is a new Government and a new Assembly sitting in this place and, therefore, I will not rise to the challenge that my colleagues to my left have set for me this morning, rather I will maintain these amendments in Second Reading.

The Bailiff:

Do you call for the appel in the circumstances?

Senator I.J. Gorst:

If I can, Sir.

The Bailiff:

The appel is called for.  I invite Members to return to their seats and I ask the Greffier to open the voting and Members participating remotely to vote in the usual way.  If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes and I ask the Greffier to close the voting.  The Articles have been adopted in Second Reading. 

Do you move the matter in Third Reading, Minister?

2.3 Senator I.J. Gorst:

If I may, Sir, thank you.

The Bailiff:

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

2.3.1 Deputy K.F. Morel:

It is just a question, a technicality really.  With regard to the situation in Russia it is understood that large amounts of money have been moved from, say, European nations where financial services are well-known to other nations that offer financial services but are not in Europe or the U.S.A. (United States of America).  Is the Minister satisfied that when that movement of assets takes place and that Jersey is in a position or our financial services sector is in a position to ensure that we do not inadvertently end up with linked structures in some way in those third countries?  I am talking about money moving from Europe to other countries in the world ...

The Bailiff:

Deputy, I must interrupt you.  Is this about whether this law should be adopted in Third Reading?  Because if it is not about that that is the limit on the debate.

Deputy K.F. Morel:

In which case, Sir ... I thought it was, but maybe …

The Bailiff:

No, if it is, if you could tie it to whether this law should be adopted in Third Reading.

Deputy K.F. Morel:

Yes.  It is whether these amendments will indeed help us trace those or whether we can in fact uphold these sanctions, given the difficulty taken in tracing assets when they are moved around the world like this.  Does this law help us with that?

The Bailiff:

Thank you very much.  Does any other Member wish to speak in Third Reading?  If no other Member wishes to speak in Third Reading, I close the debate and call upon the Minister to respond.

2.3.2 Senator I.J. Gorst:

I do not want to side-track but the Assistant Minister points to a very important issue with regard to the economic war against Putin’s regime.

[10:30]

There is not a straightforward answer.  It would be wrong of me to suggest that these issues are straightforward.  What is important and is happening is that Jersey service providers, where they have a nexus to a designated person, that they put in place the freezes under the sanctions regulation.  What the agencies through the created taskforce is doing is doing further work along the lines that the Deputy is alluding to and also working with partners globally.  But of course a war is a war, whether it is a military war or an economic war and we need to make sure that the sanctions are in place appropriately and that we are ensuring also that there is no circumventing of those sanctions, which is the area that I think the Deputy is alluding to.  There is some strengthening around circumventing provisions or clarity in that regard.  But that really is the work that my officials and others right across all of the arms of Government are undertaking on a daily basis and that is what their full-time job is and it is what we have provided additional resource for them to do.  I maintain these amendments in Third Reading and will call for the appel.

The Bailiff:

The appel is called for.  I invite Members to return to return to their seats and ask the Greffier to open the voting.  If Members have had the opportunity of casting their vote, then I ask the Greffier to close the voting.  The law has been adopted in Third Reading.

3. Draft Limited Partnerships (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Law 202- (P.54/2022)

The Bailiff:

The next item is the Draft Limited Partnerships (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Law, P.54, lodged by the same Minister and I ask the Greffier to read the citation.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Draft Limited Partnerships (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Law 202-.  A law to amend the Limited Partnerships (Jersey) Law 1994.  The States, subject to the sanction of Her Most Excellent Majesty in Council, have adopted the following law.

Senator I.J. Gorst (The Minister for External Relations and Financial Services):

Sir, could I ask my Assistant Minister to act as rapporteur for this item?  Thank you.

3.1 The Connétable of St. Ouen (Assistant Minister for External Relations and Financial Services - rapporteur):

The Draft Limited Partnerships (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Law is a priority piece of financial services legislation.  The amendment law fulfils 2 key policy objectives, one to ensure it is fit for purpose for our funds sector and continues to provide an attractive and competitive legal framework within which our international funds business can operate and, secondly, to enhance the supervisory and enforcement powers of the registrar to meet the necessary improvements required from our next MONEYVAL assessment.  The amendment law will play an important role in ensuring Jersey remains competitive with other financial service centres which specialise in fund businesses.  The Jersey limited partnership is the preferred legal structure for fund managers and promoters to use for international funds managed out of Jersey.  Our fund sector is a core pillar of our financial services industry and a key growth area with over £460 billion in global assets under management.  Jersey is recognised internationally as a jurisdiction of choice for alternative fund businesses, primarily private equity.  The amendment law captures those changes identified by industry which are needed to ensure that Jersey maintains its competitive position.  Certain changes reflect recent enhancement made to our competitors’ limited partnership legal frameworks and to resolve ambiguities which have been identified in our law over time.  A key ambiguity industry identified was around the process for terminating a limited partnership.  The current process allows for dissolution to take effect first before the limited partnership is wound up.  This has left the limited liability status of the underlying investment fund as limited partners unclear.  This new amendment law, if passed, clarifies this.  It does this by setting out a new statutory process for the termination of a limited partnership.  This process overrides any provision in the limited partnership agreement or the customary law or ordinary partnership.  Under the amendment law a limited partnership now must first be wound up and its assets distributed and its creditors paid off before it is terminated.  Only the registrar can do this by cancelling its registration.  This is done upon receipt of a request made on behalf of the limited partnership or on behalf of the exercise with the registrar’s new powers to cancel the registration with a limited partnership if the general partner is in continued default of its statutory obligations.  Where the limited partnership is struck off with continued default of the general partner, the amendment law protects limited partner’s liability and the general partner’s power is restricted so that it can only be acted on to wind up the limited partnership or have it reinstated.  By introducing this new statutory termination process due consideration has been taken as to the potential harm which could be suffered in cases where a general partner has refused to act unreasonably or where a limited partnership has mistakenly been dissolved without realisation of all its assets.  The amendment law introduces a reinstatement process which gives the court full discretion to deal with its reinstatement as it sees fit.  Furthermore, this new statutory dissolution process reflects the position already adopted by other jurisdiction.  The effect of this new termination process, together with the introduction of an annual confirmation obligation, ensures that the register will be kept up to date and accurate.  This was an issue which has been identified by the registry team following a review of Jersey’s limited partnership regime.  It was found that a significant number of limited partnerships on the register were in default of their statutory obligations and believed to be inactive or fully wound up, where their registration had not been cancelled.  Under the current law the registrar has inadequate powers to remove them from the register and would enforce the statutory penalties contained in the law.  This amendment law, if passed, addresses these issues.  More importantly of all it will allow the registrar to demonstrate that he has exercised and implemented those new enhanced supervisory and enforcement powers by removing those limited partnerships which have been in default for years on by removing them from the register.  This will be critical in Jersey’s upcoming MONEYVAL assessment.  It will also benefit those investors whose monies have been tied up, whether as a general partner refusing to act, as they will now be able to take action through the statutory process and enable their locked funds to be released.  The overall effect of the amendment law will be that it ensures that investors are not disadvantaged in any way by their funds being invested in a Jersey limited partnership and the industry will be better held to account for their management of these structures.  This will protect and enhance our funds industry.  We have consulted extensively in the preparation of this amendment law.  Industry has been engaged throughout the policy development through a Jersey finance-led working group.  This group included representatives from the Registry, Law Officers’ Department, the Regulator and Government.  We also wrote to every single registered Jersey limited partnership to ensure that all relevant persons affected by the changes were aware of them and its public consultation.  A public consultation, a virtual Town Hall event, was held and attended by industry to go through the changes in the amendment law 2.  All concerns raised during this process have been addressed.  The amendment law will allow Jersey to modernise its limited partnership framework for funds businesses, align it to our competitors’ jurisdiction law and help with Jersey’s ability to demonstrate its compliance with international standards and the requirements of MONEYVAL.  I propose the principles.

The Bailiff:

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

3.1.1 The Deputy of St. Mary:

May I take the opportunity to thank the Minister and the Assistant Minister for their kind comments addressed to myself and the panel as a whole in the previous debate?  May I also thank Senator Pallett for his kind intervention and, by way of response, can I say that the panel has undoubtedly benefited from perhaps the unusual situation with having 2 members on it with Ministerial experience?  I thank him for that.  As to this matter, I did previously say that the panel has had briefings on a number of matters throughout its term, not all of which resulted in a comments paper; this is one such.  We did have a briefing, we prepared our own internal memorandum on it and taken note of the consultation process and we are happy to endorse the proposition.  I do urge Members to support it.

3.1.2 Deputy G.P. Southern:

Yes, I just raise the question of where in the bankruptcy process where these companies come and where indeed their workers come.  Is there any need for further protection of workers in circumstances whereby they would normally be receiving redundancy payments or the like?

The Bailiff:

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

3.1.3 The Connétable of St. Ouen:

If I can address the Deputy of St. Mary’s helpful comments first.  I thank him for his panel’s engagement on this subject, which was helpful in pulling all this together.  If I can come to Deputy Southern, I am a bit confused by his question; these structures are fund structures so they would have multiple investors.  I am unclear as to how this could affect individual workers’ rights because the companies are run by firms in the financial services industry in Jersey and they are protected by Jersey employment legislation.  Unless he is able to clarify his point in Second Reading, that is about as far as I am able to answer it at the moment.  With that I ask for the appel.

The Bailiff:

The appel is called for.  I invite Members to return to their seats and I ask the Greffier to open the voting and Members remotely to participate in the usual way.  If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, then I ask the Greffier to close the voting.  The principles have been adopted.

I take it your panel does not wish to call the matter in.

The Deputy of St. Mary (Chair, Economic and International Affairs Scrutiny Panel):

You are right, Sir, we do not, thank you.

The Bailiff:

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

3.2 The Connétable of St. Ouen:

I would like to take the Articles en bloc, please, Sir.

The Bailiff:

Is it seconded for Second Reading?  [Seconded]  Does any Member wish to speak in Second Reading?  If no one wishes to speak in Second Reading, I close the debate and I will take this on a standing vote.  Members in favour kindly show.  Those against?  It is adopted in Second Reading.  Do you take the matter in Third Reading, Assistant Minister?

3.3 The Connétable of St. Ouen:

Yes, I would like to take the matter in Third Reading.  I will just make a couple of quick comments of a more personal nature perhaps and I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong in making these comments but this is my last appearance in this Assembly with a piece of legislation and I should just like to thank Members for their understanding and consideration in presenting this to them.  With that I ask for the appel.  [Approbation]

The Bailiff:

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

3.3.1 Senator I.J. Gorst:

My Assistant Minister has rather taken my thunder, as it were, but I did just at this opportunity want to record publicly my personal thanks to him for the work that he has done in External Relations and Financial Services throughout this term of office.  As he said, this will be his last item presented and I am extremely grateful.  I hope he is proud of his service in my department and I will sorely miss him, whether I am in this Assembly or I am just loitering around L’Étacq.  I believe that he will be missed in St. Ouen as well, so I would like to record my thanks.  [Approbation]

The Bailiff:

Does any other Member wish to speak in Third Reading?  I call upon the Assistant Minister to respond.

3.3.2 The Connétable of St. Ouen:

I am slightly pink with embarrassment.  While this has nothing to do with Third Reading, as I am sure you will appreciate, I should so like to express my great pleasure working with the External Relations Department, they are a very professional and brilliant team and the Minister is incredibly helpful and supportive.

[10:45]

It has been a real pleasure to work with him and present the legislation that I presented, which I think has made a real difference in places to our financial services industry.  I ask for the appel.

The Bailiff:

The appel is called for.  I invite Members to return to their seats and I ask the Greffier to open the voting and Members participating remotely to vote in the usual way.  If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, then I ask the Greffier to close the voting.  The law has been adopted in Third Reading.

4. Draft Non-Profit Organisations (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Jersey) Law 202- (P.56/2022)

The Bailiff:

The next item is the Draft Non-Profit Organisations (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Jersey) Law lodged by the same Minister, P.56 and I ask the Greffier to read the citation.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Draft Non-Profit Organisations (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Jersey) Law 202-.  A law to amend the Non-Profit Organisations (Jersey) Law 2008, the Proceeds of Crime (Supervisory Bodies) (Jersey) Law 2008 and certain other enactments in relation to non-profit organisations.  The States, subject to the sanction of Her Most Excellent Majesty in Council, have adopted the following law.

4.1 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Minister for External Relations and Financial Services):

As the Greffier has just read, these draft amendments are concerned with non-profit organisations or N.P.O.s, as we refer to them, a sector which include those organisations who operate within Jersey and who raise or distribute funds for the benefit of others and include registered charities.  Globally it is recognised that terrorists and terrorist organisations may exploit the N.P.O. sector to raise and move funds or otherwise support terrorist organisations and operations.  Protecting the N.P.O. sector from terrorist abuse is both a critical component of the global fight against terrorism and a necessary step to preserve the integrity of the N.P.O. sector and donor community.  Unfortunately, recent events in Ukraine has seen a surge in scams where criminals masquerade as legitimate charities.  Ensuring that all N.P.O.s are registered will assist in shifting the genuine from the criminal and help to prevent criminals from taking advantage of an unfolding tragedy.  The proposal is that over the next few months there will be consultations with the N.P.O. sector about the changes to minimise impact.  Nothing will change until September but given that we are about to enter the election period it is prudent to start the legislative process now.  It is worth noting as well the F.A.T.F. recommendations are aimed solely at criminal or terrorist activity and should have minimal impact on legitimate N.P.O.s going about their activities in good faith.  While most of the changes are relatively minor, for example, amending the definition of a non-profit organisation to include legal person and arrangements or as to better align with the F.A.T.F. standard.  Some of the other changes are as follow: the J.F.S.C. (Jersey Financial Services Commission) will be designated with a full range of powers and mandate of an N.P.O. supervisor under the Proceeds of Crime (Supervisory Bodies) (Jersey) Law 2008.  The £1,000 per annum threshold for registration will be removed, so as to capture all N.P.O.s, including those just starting up.  A new power whereby the Minister for External Relations and Financial Services can impose obligations on vulnerable N.P.O.s by order.  A public consultation will be conducted again later in 2022 to determine what the appropriate obligation may be, as well as what will qualify as a vulnerable N.P.O. will be introduced.  The J.F.S.C. will be permitted to supply information which is not available to the public but has come into the J.F.S.C.’s possession when carrying out its obligations under the N.P.O. law to the Charities Commission and the Jersey Gambling Commission, as well as other competent authorities, both domestic and international.  The J.F.S.C. will only be able to supply information to these bodies mentioned if the J.F.S.C. is satisfied that the information will be used by the bodies solely in the exercise of its functions but are similar to the functions that the Commission may exercise under this law.  Once again, I am grateful for the work that Scrutiny has undertaken in regard to these amendments.  These amendments are important.  They will affect the N.P.O. and the charitable sector but, hopefully, as I have indicated and as Members will have seen in the questions and answer paper and the risk analysis work, we will do that or the department and the incoming Minister will do that in partnership with the N.P.O. sector because this is about protecting them from the possibility that those who wish to subvert their good intentions and their raising of funds are not able to do so.  I commend the principles to the Assembly.

The Bailiff:

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

4.1.1 The Deputy of St. Mary:

Very briefly, this is yet a further matter where we received a presentation, as a result which we did issue a comments paper.  As the Minister has just said, helpfully the department issued a question-and-answer paper only yesterday, which, hopefully, is of benefit to Members.  Just to summarise what we said in the comments paper, we very much support this and we hope Members will do so as well.

4.1.2 Senator S.W. Pallett:

Just very briefly about 2 particular issues, in the proposition it mentions towards the end that: “Should any N.P.O. find any difficulty in obtaining a bank account to contact the Minister.”  It is not exactly an N.P.O. but there are certain organisations that seem to find it very difficult to open bank accounts in Jersey and one of them seem to be political parties.  For the democratic process in Jersey it is important any new parties can open bank accounts.  I would urge the Minister to maybe meet with me at some point and see if we cannot come to some solution to that.  We have a U.K. bank account and it functions very well but that should not need to happen.  The other one around thrift clubs, and we have got a very strong community of social engagement in thrift clubs within a lot of pubs in Jersey and various other organisations.  It is important that that carries on.  I am really keen to ensure that any new regulation or red tape is not too heavy-handed in that.  Many people put in money into thrift clubs throughout the year so that they can cope and deal with some of the stresses and strains, financial strains around Christmas time.  I just want to know what the Minister’s thoughts are around ensuring that those can carry on.

4.1.3 The Deputy of Trinity:

It gives me an opportunity to follow the previous speaker.  A lot of the sports clubs and charity clubs get caught with regards to changing of the Treasurer and I would just like that to be brought in.  What I do not want to lose, the vast of majority of these organisations are done by people, let us say, who are retired, getting into their late ages.  There is quite a lot of paperwork to get involved with.  As long as we make it easy and as long as everybody understands where they are coming from, I just wanted to make it clear that it is not only, as I say, sporting bodies, it is also charities as well.  There are a lot of small sporting bodies and charities.  All I say is if we could just follow up from what the previous Senator said, that we try to make it as easy as possible so that everybody knows where they are coming from.

4.1.4 Deputy K.F. Morel:

Very much in the same vein, I appreciate this, we are passing a law and it will only be when the order comes in that the law takes effect, practical effect anyway.  But I note that the Minister is stating that stakeholder consultation will take place between now and September when the order is expected to be signed.  I am particularly interested on understanding what stakeholder consultation has taken place up until now because I know the Minister is very aware that whether it is local businesses, which I know are not covered by this or charities or thrift clubs, there is often a concern in Jersey that those organisations which operate purely locally are burdened by regulations which are designed to protect our international reputation quite rightly.  I am just interested in understanding how the Minister has engaged with stakeholders to date to ensure that this law, even now before it is brought into force by order, does not affect local organisations.

The Bailiff:

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

4.1.5 Senator I.J. Gorst:

I saw some nodding of the heads when Senator Pallett was asking about bank accounts for political parties, so perhaps he needs to speak to the bankers of Reform Jersey, they might be able to help.  But it was a serious point and I appreciate that, that small organisations, that charities are struggling now to open bank accounts because of all of the compliance issues, which was not the case a decade ago; it has gradually got more difficult.  I think we all understand the reasons that it has got more difficult.  In fact, we market ourselves on it being difficult to open bank accounts in Jersey for the very reason that we are meeting the highest international standards of compliance.  But I am more than happy to meet with the Senator and with any other party who is struggling likewise.  There are currently 900 N.P.O.s registered with the J.F.S.C., 83 per cent of those have no activity outside of the Island and, therefore, it is expected that it will not be necessary for the J.F.S.C. to require any more detailed information from them.  There has already been stakeholder engagement.  We in the department, and I suppose the Ministerial team in particular, thought long and hard about where this responsibility for supervising A.M.L. (anti-money laundering) and C.F.T. (combating the financing of terrorism) of the N.P.O. sector should sit.  On balance and having consulted with both the Regulator and the Charity Commissioner for all of the reasons, hopefully, that Members will understand, it was decided that the expertise required from a supervisory perspective of these matters sits already with the regulator and if we were to give these powers to the Charities Commissioner then we would be replicating the powers, the expertise which were already engaged and employed in the regulator.  Being involved in the charity sector in a personal capacity, I do understand the concern of particularly smaller N.P.O.s about the burden that our compliance with international standards might be bringing upon them.  Of course, looking at the other side of the argument, this is about protecting more vulnerable N.P.O.s from being used and abused by criminals.  It is the right thing for us to do to make these legislative changes and to continue with that stakeholder engagement and consultation before the order is signed in due course.  I, of course, cannot speak for any potential future Minister but I would expect them to take these matters very seriously indeed and to wish to be fully appraised of the feedback from the N.P.O. sector and to fully understand the implications and, just as importantly, the support available to the N.P.O. sector before giving effect to this order in due course.  I maintain the principles and call for the appel.

[11:00]

The Bailiff:

The appel is called for.  I invite Members to return to their seats.  I ask the Greffier to open the voting and Members participating remotely to vote in the chat.  Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, then I ask the Greffier to close the voting.  The principles have been adopted. 

I take it as usual, the Deputy of St. Mary, your panel does not wish to call the matter in?

The Deputy of St. Mary (Chair, Economic and International Affairs Scrutiny Panel):

You are correct.  No, we do not, thank you.

The Bailiff:

How do you wish to deal with the matter in Second Reading then?

4.2 Senator I.J. Gorst:

If I could take the Articles en bloc.  I have alluded to their content in the principles opening speech and I will endeavour to answer any questions as there may be.

The Bailiff:

Are the Articles seconded for Second Reading?  [Seconded]  Does any Member wish to speak in Second Reading?  If no Member wishes to speak in Second Reading then I close the debate.  Do you call for the appel?  I am prepared to take this, in light of the previous vote, on a standing vote.  Those in favour kindly show.  Those against?  It is passed in Second Reading.  Do you move it in Third Reading, Minister?

Senator I.J. Gorst:

If I may, thank you.

The Bailiff:

Is it seconded for Third Reading?  [Seconded]  Does any Member wish to speak in Third Reading?  If no Member wishes to speak in Third Reading I close the debate and again ask Members in favour to show.  Those against.  The law has been adopted in Third Reading.

5. Havre des Pas Lido (P.61/2022) - as amended (P.61/2022 Amd.)

The Bailiff:

We now come to the Havre des Pas Lido, P.61, lodged by the Connétable of St. Helier.  I ask the Greffier to read the citation.  There is one amendment lodged by the Minister for Infrastructure.  Connétable, are you accepting the amendment?  I think you indicated you were.

Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:

Yes, I am.

The Bailiff:

Are Members content that we take the proposition therefore as amended by the amendment from the Minister for Infrastructure?  Very well, I ask the Greffier to read the proposition as amended.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion (a) to ensure that the Property Holdings Department, in consultation with the steering group established in paragraph (b), upholds its full obligations as landlord of the Lido at Havre des Pas with immediate effect, including to make reasonable endeavours to maintain the facility as watertight in respect of rainwater penetration through the roof (barring extremes of weather) and ensuring that the public toilets at the pool are available all year round; (b) to establish a steering group to maximise the benefit of the Lido to the community and to resolve any issues arising in future, with the steering group to meet quarterly and its membership to include political representation from the Parish of St. Helier; and (c) to initiate negotiations with the current operator of the Lido facility for a new 9-year lease, with standard break clauses.

5.1 The Connétable of St. Helier:

Because this proposition has been accepted, there is an opportunity for the Assembly simply to approve it and allow matters to proceed.  Clearly, if Members want to spend half a day discussing the Lido and their relationship with it that is a matter for them.  But I am conscious that we have a busy agenda to deal with.  I will, in any case, attempt to answer any questions raised by Members.  I do have one question myself, which I would like the Minister to answer when he speaks, as I expect he will.  I had a useful meeting with the Minister at the beginning of this week at the Lido and we are very much of the same view that this is an amazing facility that Jersey and St. Helier are very lucky to have and it is being used increasingly, both as a flagship venue for events, and our tourism industry needs places like this for events to be held.  Members who may admit to watching the “Desperate Housewives of Jersey” will have seen the venue featured in that programme.  It has been receiving many bookings for events involving incoming tourists as well as local people wishing to have anniversaries, parties, weddings, and the like, on the venue.  So it is a very important venue in the hands of the current operator and it is being used very well.  I should also stress that the current tenant has really done a great deal to involve the community in the future of this building, so much so that the monthly meetings of the Havre des Pas Improvement Group, which used to take place at the Ommaroo Hotel and which had to stop due to COVID, have now been relocated to the Lido and we meet there every month for a discussion about how we can improve Havre des Pas as a district for residents, but also for visitors and Islanders in general.  The tenant has been happy to host those meetings and it is a very appropriate venue in which they take place.  I do not propose to go into the background of the breakdown of relationship between the tenant and the landlord.  This is, if one will excuse the pun, water under the bridge.  We need to move forward.  I am very pleased that the Minister agrees with me that forming a steering group with the key players after the election will be a way forward and that any future issues that arise can be resolved around a table and that we will see the venue go from strength to strength.  I am mindful that the venue is well used by local swimmers all year round.  As Members will know, there is an increasing trend of people to throw themselves in the sea in January first thing in the morning.  It is important that, despite the storm protection measures that have to be taken to protect the Lido during the winter months, the public toilet facilities operated by the States are kept going as far as possible all year around.  That is why that is in the proposition.  Together with a commitment that all reasonable steps will be taken by the landlord to keep the building watertight because the tenant has in the past seen lots of money invested in the building, in the interior of the building, wasted when water has come in through the roof.  But I believe that matters are well-advanced by Property Holdings to make sure that the building is going to be fit for purpose and I know that there has been considerable investment in the safety railings around the structure, which of course are very important to ensure public safety.  The other aspect of this is the importance of a sustainable budget, but clearly that cannot be agreed by this Assembly, but certainly it is something that I hope the next Government Plan will make provision for.  Because we do not want the Lido at Havre des Pas to suffer the same fate as some other venues, such as the Opera House, where insufficient funding for maintenance is laid up.  I would hope that this important venue for the Island has a bright future in the hands of the Government, working in association with the Parish and indeed with the community.  I make the proposition.

The Bailiff:

Thank you very much.  Is the proposition seconded?  [Seconded] 

5.1.1 Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:

I will begin by thanking the Constable for accepting my amendment to his proposition and for joining me at Havre des Pas Bathing Pool on Monday morning for a site visit.  While we were inspecting the roof of the Lido, there were several brave souls who took the morning dip in the pool, reminding us that this is indeed an all-year-round venue.  The Constable and I declined to join them.  The public conveniences are currently operated on a seasonal basis.  This is in keeping with the rest of the facility to protect from storm damage and, sadly, vandalism.  I appreciate the swimming community would benefit from access to the public conveniences during the winter months, so working with my officers I will commit to finding a solution for our sea-swimming community to have access to the public conveniences over the winter months before the next winter season begins.  Turning now to the maintenance of the facility.  A small team of contractors, as the Constable has just mentioned, were on site Monday morning and have been there for some time, working on the bathing pool.  This team are there to ensure that the wider fabric of the structure, the boardwalk, the sluices, the steps, and the toilets, are maintained for public safety and enjoyment.  The team have been performing a deep clean of the exterior areas and in my opinion the facility appears well-maintained.  While some will accuse my department of neglecting this facility, I am more than satisfied that we are maintaining this facility to the best of our ability using the budget allocated within the current Government Plan.  I will say no more about the maintenance.  I will however just remind Members that this is a Victorian structure with several extensions and additions, dating back to the first half of the last century.  The facility is enveloped by the sea twice daily and battered by severe storms throughout the winter.  Jersey Property Holdings are allowed to manage this facility in accordance with the mandate set for them by this Assembly.  I will support part (b) of the proposition to establish a political oversight group for the Havre des Pas Bathing Pool.  It will be for the next Minister for Infrastructure to work with the Constable and the political oversight group to look beyond the current Government Plan to ensure funding is secured to develop and maintain this facility for the benefit of future generations.  I will conclude by stating that I also accept part (c) of the proposition.  However, I will not be commenting on part (c) as it relates to the commercial interests of the small business owner and I do not believe it is appropriate to discuss this matter in the Assembly.

Deputy R.J. Ward:

May I have a clarification?

The Bailiff:

Will you give way for a point of clarification, Minister?

Deputy R.J. Ward:

The Minister just referred to point (b) and said a political oversight group.  The part (b) is to establish a steering group.  To me they are different things and I wonder if the Minister can clarify whether they are one and the same thing or different things, as the membership would be very different I think regards political oversight groups in this Assembly and the next.  Just for clarification, thank you.

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

I am content it is a steering group.  I would suggest it be made possible to be part of the Havre des Pas group, which is already set up.  I am content with that.

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

I will keep it brief because of the acceptance of the Constable.  I just wanted to add a few extra lines about the area and the pool.  It is a shame it has got to this.  Being that I represented Havre des Pas for a while and now the newly-formed waterfront, the residents feel, and it is the heart of the Havre des Pas, the jewel in the crown is the Lido, is being forgotten.  Just like everything else around this area where you just compare gaslighting to new L.E.D. (light-emitting diode) lighting on the waterfront.  I go a bit far there but we have literally just changed from gaslighting down at Havre des Pas, or that is what the residents feel.  So I really am sorry that it had to get to this, but having listened to many of the residents and the people that use the pool, the Constable was left with nowhere else to go.  It looks like we do have a solution, but I just wanted to mention this steering group will need to be set up, whoever represents down this area, and it needs to really come back with some force and some budget for the whole area and not just the Lido.  I will leave it there.

[11:15]

5.1.3 Senator S.W. Pallett:

Again, listening to the Constable, I will keep this brief.  Everybody wants the Havre des Pas Lido to be successful, which is why I am going to be supporting this proposition.  One of the things that we do need to do, and the Constable mentioned it, is commit funding.  It is a heritage site.  Our record, I am afraid, with heritage sites over the last 2 decades has been abysmal.  We do need to find sufficient funding.  This is one of the sites that it should not just come from the Infrastructure budget; we need to find it elsewhere and ensure this building is looked after properly.  I know from my time as Assistant Minister with responsibility for sport - I went there on numerous occasions - it is a very difficult building to keep watertight, but nevertheless we do need to make sure that whoever operates it can operate it successfully and to his needs.  I am glad that Deputy Ward picked up on the point about the steering group, because a political oversight group just will not hack it.  It needs to involve the community.  It is a community site and I absolutely accept that it is something that should be central to that part of town and Deputy Martin just made that point.  My last point is around sport.  It is a very historic pool of which it was our main pool for many decades.  Over recent years it has moved away from sport into more of an events-based type venue, and that is the right thing to do.  It does need to have a wide use, or a wider use, so that it is used all year round.  But there are many clubs that use the pool, open water, you have Polar Bears Club that use it on a regular basis all year round, water polo use it, Jersey Swimming Club do use it occasionally.  You have the Green Island to Havre des Pas Swim.  It is still very much a sports-based venue where it is used on a regular basis.  It is important, because there have been tensions in the past between users and the operator, around that the sports side of it is respected and those clubs can operate at times of the year when they need to.  Changing space is important and it is important that, as an open-water swimmer myself and somebody who likes swimming less and less in the cold the older I get, nevertheless it is good to have toilets on a site when you do go for a swim.  So I support this.  It is absolutely the right thing to do.  But the States and Government have to commit to looking after this building in the next political term.  It cannot just fall on the shoulders of the Minister for Infrastructure.

5.1.4 Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier:

I agree completely with the last speaker, Senator Pallett.  First of all I would like to thank the Minister for Infrastructure for his helpful amendment and interventions here.  He has my sympathy because he has so much call on his budget and this is an expensive but very special part of the Island.  It needs special allocation of funding and special treatment.  It is another building, I feel, that we take for granted in some respects, or have taken for granted in the past.  But it is extremely important.  Of its kind, it is globally in the top 10 Lidos around the world anywhere, maybe even the top 5.  While it was a Victorian structure to start with, the later additions, which I think might be 100 years old this year, in 1922, they have merit of their own too because they are classic and iconic of the Art Deco period.  So we all know it is absolutely stunning.  The aerial shots of it are used so often to advertise Jersey.  It could be a huge asset.  But it is desperately in need of major T.L.C. (tender loving care) and I do appreciate the difficulty with the leaking roof and that structure.  But we have to look after it.  It is our duty to look after it for future generations.  Let this generation enjoy it refurbished.  So I look forward to working on that too.

5.1.5 Deputy K.F. Morel:

I am concerned about the costs here.  I am delighted that the Minister’s amendment has been accepted by the proposer.  But I would like to have a better understanding of the costs that are going to be involved.  Not just for maintaining, as the proposition says, the rainwater penetration through the roof; so maintaining the roof and the public toilets.  But, as I understand it, until the exterior render of the granite blocks that support this Lido are dealt with, then anything we are doing is throwing good money after bad, so to speak.  Effectively every year we are going to have to be redoing this.  So the work that needs to be done is to change the render on the structure of this building and that is a many multi-million-pound project.  This is not being dealt with here at all.  That concerns me a great deal.  I fear that we are in danger of patting ourselves on the back and saying: “Look, we have all maintained the Lido,” when we will not have maintained the Lido.  We will have maintained a couple of structures on top of the Lido and the Lido itself will continue to rot underneath.  So I appreciate this is one of those opportunities where I would love the Minister to be able to respond again, but I appreciate he cannot.  But anything the Constable can say to enlighten the Assembly as to those costs, because the Constable’s proposition says: “Existing revenue budgets.”  Well that means something is not going to be dealt with within the existing revenue budgets for a start.  But I am concerned that this is a very, very short-term proposition where the longer-term problems for the Lido will render this proposition ineffective within a couple of years, 2 or 3-years’ time.

5.1.6 Senator S.Y. Mézec:

I do not want to repeat too much of what other Members have said.  Some extremely good points have been made in particular about the maintenance of this extremely important building, not just to the whole Island, but particularly this part of St. Helier.  I spent some time recently studying the Havre des Pas Village improvement proposals for no particular reason, just out of interest I have been examining that.  There are some extremely good ideas in this that would have a massive impact in improving that area, not just for the people who live there, but for visitors and really emphasise it as a destination within Jersey.  The Lido is of course a fundamental part of that.  But, as another Member said previously, this stuff does not really happen by accident, you do have to have a proper plan in place to make sure you get the funding in place for it; that you look at the area as a whole and all the other improvements that need to be made.  In particular in that promenade there is some good work that could be done there.  Then on that corner by Fort D’Auvergne as well that can really enhance the area.  So, as well as making sure that we have arrangements in place so that this building is protected and that it is maintained properly, and whoever the tenant is there at any given point gets a good relationship with Government so that their business can thrive, and all of the events and everything that go on there can be enjoyed by everyone, that whole area needs some special attention.  I would like to hear more in the future about where that funding will come from, how we will get that in place, so that whole area gets the regeneration that it needs.  Some of the work that has gone on there recently, and the road improvements, have been very well-received and that is a good thing.  But the rest of it cannot fall off the agenda just because that one good thing has been achieved.  So of course, I support the proposition wholeheartedly.

5.1.7 The Deputy of Trinity:

It would be wrong of me not to follow on from what has been said and the Minister for Infrastructure will follow me later.  But I have, with regards to the Lido, and the previous Senator said that sport controlled it.  I was concerned about 12 months ago when we took over looking at the Lido and it was interesting how the Lido fitted in with sport.  But I have now got to that point, which is another department.  But what I will say is that the whole point of the amendment is the fact to talk over everything that has been said.  We not only have lifeguards to look at, we have to look at the toilets, we have to look at the funding, and by setting up this committee we will get things moving.  Over the past 12 months, I have been trying to get everybody together.  I have been heavily involved.  Everybody wishes to go down that route of a committee.  Let us look at it and make sure that what has been said by everybody here today that we keep the Lido.  There is no question, from what I am seeing, and I see it appeared on Jersey Tourism, that the Lido is important and people like to go and see it as well.  So, it is vitally important that we look for funding and we look at how to run it.  By setting up this committee of people, we should be able to achieve something because, as what has been said, everybody wants to keep the Lido and wants to make sure that it stays in a very, very safe place and to look after the tenant, to make sure that he can do his events there.

5.1.8 Deputy R.J. Ward:

Just briefly, the Lido is important, I can remember watching Battle of the Bands there.  It was a great little venue.  It is really good.  I just want to make one point for the Constable.  He has accepted the amendment and it says: “To make reasonable endeavours to maintain.”  Those words concern me a little.  Because I just wonder whether I can ask the Constable whether he can confirm that his “reasonable endeavours to maintain” may be the same as the Minister’s and Property Holdings’ “reasonable endeavours to maintain”.  Because, as Deputy Morel said quite rightly earlier, this could in the short term look really good, but in the long term really not get what we need for this important piece of infrastructure.

5.1.9 Deputy M. Tadier:

There are of course going to be a lot of speeches which say the Lido is great, is it not, and we need to protect it.  But it does not really focus on the point of how we got to this point and what needs to fundamentally change in the future.  Because the Lido at Havre des Pas cannot be taken in isolation.  It is just one of a series of examples of how we have not got to grips over years, over decades, of maintaining our key public infrastructure, especially where there is a historical, a cultural, and a social, element to it.  So, we look at Lido, but we also look at the Opera House, we also look at Fort Regent, and I suppose it is slightly different, but we look at things like Elizabeth Castle, which does come under heritage.  These things require serious amounts of money to be put aside well in advance so that when a bill comes up, a bit like our own houses if you like, we do not have to scramble around and let the problem deteriorate so far that we then have to bring these kinds of propositions.  The proposition essentially, like Deputy Ward says, to ask the Minister to maybe do something about it at some point in the future.  Is that what it has come to?  Where you have an asset with black and white photographs, beautiful photographs that Jersey Heritage post, where you see the divers coming down almost swanlike into the water, unlike my father who I remember told me he dived into that once, banged his head and probably got half knocked unconscious, and he survived to tell the tale thankfully.  But there is a mismatch between the way we pay lip-service, and we genuinely in our hearts respect and want to preserve our heritage, but we do not do it in reality, even though we are a rich Island.  So I am just saying that, after the next elections, the Assembly needs to put something in place.  It is the same with the Opera House, is it not?  The Opera House should not have to come to Property Holdings.  The way I look at it, Property Holdings are the landlords, I think they are the landlord for the Lido, and if they are not the principle remains the same.  To take the example of the Opera House, they should not have to come to whoever is the Minister for Culture and say: “We have this problem.”  It is not to do with decorating it and doing the fine artwork.  It is something that the Minister for Treasury and Resources will know in her private life is about the painstaking work that needs to go into preserving beautiful artwork.  It is to do with the fundamentals of the rain is getting in.  How do we stop it getting in?  If it was a private tenant/landlord arrangement you would say: “You are the landlord.  Get this fixed otherwise I am not paying my rent.”  In fact what happens if the Opera House or the Lido say: “We do not pay our rent”?  It does not really help them because it means you have a building left sitting there doing nothing, as we have.

[11:30]

So we need some joined-up thinking.  We need pots of money to be put aside.  We have heard about the emergence and the potential for these pots of money in the Island Plan from developments that are going to be put through.  I have always thought that in some ways you can link that to the Percentage for Art.  Possibly that is just one way you do it.  But you also need lots more money than that.  So when a new development comes forward, when people are making money hand over fist on new developments because of rezoning, you say a certain tranche of that money is going to be put into these pots and it will be made available for these kind of repairs in future.  That is the kind of challenge that the next Government and the next Assembly I believe have.  We can of course support this wholeheartedly today but we must not expect that this is going to be a magic wand to fix all of those systemic problems that we have.

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

May I clarify part of my speech?

The Bailiff:

Technically, Deputy Tadier must give way so you can afford a point of clarification to your own speech.

Deputy M. Tadier:

I am happy to give way.

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

I misspoke earlier on.  Deputy Ward is quite correct.  I did say “political oversight group” when I should have said “steering group”.  Thank you.

The Bailiff:

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

5.1.10 The Connétable of St. Helier:

I am grateful to Members for keeping the debate relatively short, although some contributions were probably longer than mine.  I will just pick up on a few points that were made and answer the questions.  First of all I welcome the Minister’s commitment to finding a solution to keeping the toilets open all year round.  That is a really important point, as Senator Pallett mentioned.  He has of course experience of cold-water swimming that puts all of us to shame.  I am disappointed that he did not commit to getting the lease in place.  This is one part of the proposition which is very important.  There is currently no lease.  That means in this fine weather we are having the kiosk, for example, is not open to serve the public.  It is really important that, if this proposition is accepted, that a new 9-year lease is placed in front of the tenant as soon as possible with reasonable break clauses that you would expect in any other commercial lease, so that we can get this show on the road.  It is also important to mention that various Members spoke about the funding.  Clearly, the stability of this venue in terms of being well-managed by the tenant and overseen by a steering group, which is there to tackle issues that arise, that stability will be very important in its future, not only in getting those bookings coming in from Islanders and visitors, but also in attracting potential sponsorship.  This is the kind of high-profile building that, if it is working, will be one that is attractive for people to sponsor.  So, it does have a bright future.  I want to thank Deputy Martin and Deputy Labey, who are absolute stalwarts of the Havre des Pas Improvement Group, for their support.  They turn up to our meetings.  They recognise the issues that the community has in the area and particularly in respect of the Lido.  We are grateful particularly to Deputy Labey of course who is very concerned about heritage and indeed this is an important heritage building.  There is no question that we must do all we can to protect it and to invest in it.  Senator Pallett reminded us that there is an important sporting side to this.  Of course, so many Islanders learned to swim at the pool, at the Lido, as I call it.  Deputy Raymond was the only person who prefers Lido, but probably both forms are allowed.  Deputy Morel was concerned about costs.  I am not aware that the entire external render needs replacing.  It is the first I have heard of it.  Indeed, I have been told that work on the render was done a couple of years ago.  But clearly, if that needs to be done, then it must be done, because there is no question we cannot let this building fall into the sea.  I do not agree with him that this is a short-term proposition.  The fact that a steering group will be set up by the States going forward is a long-term commitment to this building.  Clearly what happens in terms of funding does depend on what States Members bring to successive Government Plans.  I would also point out that Havre des Pas probably has one of the longest-running resident and business improvement groups that I am aware of in the Island.  It was started back in the day by Senator Routier, so it has been running for over 20 years.  So, there is a long-term commitment by the community in Havre des Pas and it will be good to see that reflected in some Government prioritisation.  Senator Mézec referred to the village improvement scheme that was funded by the Parish a couple of years ago now.  He gave no particular reason for reading it but I am grateful to him for doing so because it allows me to point out that of course this set of improvements for Havre des Pas have yet to be picked up by Government.  There is no better body to do that than the Regeneration Steering Group, which I have been badgering for the whole of this term of Government to put some money into this kind of regeneration, rather than preferring to spend their time on prestige projects, which has clearly dominated most of the agenda time of the R.S.G. (Regeneration Steering Group).  Certainly, I would say that if I were in the next Assembly I would want to see the R.S.G. committing far more of its time and resources into real regeneration on the ground in places like Havre des Pas.  That probably covers most of the questions that have been raised.  But I thank Members for their support and ask for the appel.

The Bailiff:

The appel is called for.  I invite Members to return to their seats.  I ask the Greffier to open the voting and Members who are participating remotely to vote in the usual way.  If Members have had the opportunity of casting their vote, then I ask the Greffier to close the voting.  The proposition has been adopted.

6. Accommodation for temporary workers (P.62/2022) - as amended (P.62/2022)

The Bailiff:

We now come on to accommodation for temporary workers, P.62, lodged by the Deputy of St. Peter.  Deputy, you have lodged an amendment to your own proposition.  Do you wish the proposition to be read as amended?

Deputy R.E. Huelin of St. Peter:

Yes please.

The Bailiff:

Do Members agree that the proposition may be read as amended by the Deputy’s own amendment?  Very well, I ask the Greffier to read the proposition as amended.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion (a) that appropriate sites in the Island should be identified and made available for the provision of temporary accommodation to house between 200 and 500 temporary workers; (b) to request the Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture and the Minister for Treasury and Resources to initiate discussions with Jersey businesses in order that potential sources of private funding for the provision of such accommodation may be identified; (c) to request the Minister for the Environment to issue the necessary instructions, including any law-drafting instructions required, to ensure that planning permission may be granted to an application for the construction of such accommodation, provided that any such permission would be granted on the basis that the accommodation would be used for a maximum of 3 years; and (d) to request the Council of Ministers to establish a departmental investigation into longer-term solutions for the housing of temporary workers (beyond the use of temporary accommodation), with a view to a report on the options available being presented to the next States Assembly in December 2022.

6.1 The Deputy of St. Peter:

We have a real problem and I lodged the proposition and subsequent amendment to try to alleviate it.  This major issue was highlighted to me by Jersey Business and my findings and subsequent digging and listening are articulated very clearly in an open letter received by everybody in this Assembly from GR8 Recruitment and supported by Jersey Hospitality and the Jersey Care Commission.  It is obviously difficult to be exact with numbers but saying that 1,000 beds are required across all sectors, including hospitality, care workers, retail, construction, is not an unreasonable claim.  Without these migrant workers, we cannot deliver the key services this Island needs.  On the surface, we have seen restaurants opening at reduced capacity, some closing 3 days a week, however nearly all operating reduced opening hours.  We see retail businesses, including those offering essential services like pharmacies, working reduced hours.  Indeed, opening on fewer days in the week.  Due to the shortage, we do not see the excessive work and long shifts those who are here endure.  We do not see the 12-hour shifts with no break is uncommon.  We do not see the stressed and tired care workers who are so devoted to their task that they will not leave their patients when no one is there to relieve them.  We do not see the accommodation many are in today.  I am afraid I have not either.  Because of my profile, they are too scared to show me, because of potential repercussions.  What I do know from my research is the suggestions I make here will be better options open to many today.  We do not see that when they work for a specific employer their permit is linked to their accommodation and, should they wish to move employers, they need to find alternative accommodation.  That is not always available to all employers and they must therefore compete with the current housing stock to find suitable accommodation.  What is in it for these workers?  It is simple.  They do the numbers.  They look at the cost for a return flight and any visa costs.  They look at how much they are going to earn and what their costs will be, accommodation potentially being the biggest.  They consider healthcare, but that is a different debate altogether.  They then calculate how much money they will return home in their pocket and decide if it is good for them.  To many coming from afar, some leaving their home town for the first time, it is a big decision.  More importantly, it is a big risk.  It is essential for our future as an Island that the experience they have is a good one, so they return to us for another season and ideally recommend us to others.  I fear our reputation is not good.  May I cast Members’ memories to the experience of the Russian farmworkers a few years ago whose employment was cancelled after 3 months?  Yes, we fixed it, but it left a sour taste in the mouth.  Yes, we have had COVID and Brexit challenges.  The Island has seen an estimated 35 per cent reduction of European workers in Jersey remaining or returning or new workers being able to come and work.  However, it is still apparent that we need beds.  It is clearly laid out in the email we all received, as I have mentioned.  You will note the support on BBC News on Monday night, you will have seen adverts looking for non-qualified accommodation and estate agents receiving regular inquiries.  We must ensure we have enough beds to lay their tired heads every night and we must make sure they feel appreciated and respected.  So how do we get here?  Some will remember the days of the 1970s and the 1980s when we had 30,000 hotel and guesthouse beds.  Tourists came and mostly took full board.  All these hotels provided staff accommodation.  There were then very few restaurants and the culture of eating out by locals and tourists alike was very different.  Those working here during the season needing alternative accommodation who did not have quarters rented in one of the 800 lodging houses.  Fast forward to today.  We have about 10,000 hotel beds.  The well-established hotel groups provide staff accommodation.  But the new hotels like Premier Inn and Radisson do not.  Accommodation is outsourced.  Tourists and visiting businesspeople come here to enjoy the huge variety in the number of excellent restaurants we have.  Restaurants, bars, coffee shops, et cetera, small retailers, care agencies, do not have the wherewithal or the deep pockets to buy accommodation and they should stick to doing what they do best and not become reluctant landlords.  We now have less than 200 lodging houses and this number is continuing to decrease.  There has been a 180-degree change in our hospitality and service industry.  However, there has been almost no strategic decision by any recent Government to address and support this major swing.

[11:45]

Historians will probably correct me, but all I can find is some political activity in the early 1990s.  I believe the Public Health Committee reviewed this in 1990.  There is a Code of Practice review for lodging houses and staff in 1991.  In 1994 a survey of lodging houses and staff accommodation.  Apart from that, absolutely nothing.  We have drifted into a desperate situation.  I always resist using the word “crisis”.  I am beginning to learn about Jersey politics that something is only done when the situation is absolutely desperate.  I have therefore brought this proposition to the Assembly as something must be done now.  Now the detail.  The absolute crux behind this proposition is to give businesses the confidence to invest their time and money in finding a solution, in the knowledge that the outcome is likely to be successful.  I cannot stress this enough.  It is purely to enable and facilitate and encourage businesses to find that solution that does not disrupt the rest of the market.  After all, we have provided industry with a work permit process to recruit and retain staff, now we must address the fact that these workers need somewhere to relax, rest and sleep.  Government has acknowledged the need but we have only addressed part of the solution.  This proposition provides the perfect opportunity to complete the picture.  Why it is perceived by the Council of Ministers and social media that this is a request for government funding is a mystery to me.  This could not be further from the truth.  We as an Assembly pass piecemeal propositions and rarely appreciate the consequence.  As in my report, we see what is happening.  The C.O.M. (Council of Ministers) report says we should be sorting out accommodation for locals before this, a sentiment I can agree with, but the market is taking potential properties off the market and converting them into staff accommodation.  I hear of cases of 4 or 5-bedroom homes, family houses that we need, that have been most affected by house prices, being sold for staff accommodation.  We are approving planning for ex-hotels and guesthouses to be converted into small flats.  Yes, we must build more for our local population.  I have spoken often enough on balancing supply and demand in the market.  But this desire is having consequences on other parts in Jersey.  No staff, no service, no one will want to live here, which will sort the houses out, will it not?  Our businesses are great.  They are run by talented, clever people.  They will do whatever they can to survive, thrive and give a great service.  They are finding solutions.  They are unearthing workarounds for themselves.  These workarounds mean they are doing what they can to secure bedspace for themselves and, quite frankly, I do not blame them.  This proposition merely gives them wider scope to find more beds, alleviate the problem, and remove business needs to disrupt other stressed areas of the housing market.  I urge you all to get out to our businesses and do some listening.  Our reputation is blockers of initiatives and I take my hat off to all the businesses and entrepreneurs who succeed in spite of our best efforts to the contrary.  They do not want any money.  This will all be delivered by private investment.  If you read parts (a), (b) and (c), it is absolutely clear that this is to ask Ministers to listen and support a business case for investors aimed at alleviating this urgent problem.  I thank C.O.M. for supporting (d), which is to put a long-term plan in place, and I will be taking (d) as a separate vote.  While this works towards a long-term solution, which we really do need, we must still focus on the here and now.  I have mentioned some sites and Members will note I removed reference to greenfields in my amended report.  I mention ideas.  These are not recommendations.  This is for the board chaired by Lee Madden to ascertain and present to appropriate government bodies for approval.  I have suggested the Bunkabin solution.  I have also suggested temporary conversion of an office block.  This proposition is not prescriptive.  It is solely to give confidence to private investors to be creative, come to the Government with ideas, with the confidence that they are likely to be successful.  The irony is in the spring of 2020 we broke many of the rules that the Ministers, in their comments paper, have used recommending the Assembly votes against this proposition.  When in the space of 10 days they approved the Nightingale hospital.  It was a good decision at the time and fortunately was not needed.  We need the same attitude today, only this will be needed from day one.  The irony is that the comments paper acknowledges the problem, and I quote: “Will set in progress work to develop options, et cetera.”  This is needed today.  Business wants to deliver solutions today.  To quote Lee Madden on BBC on Monday: “We need to oil the machinery and adapt policies.”  Businesses are suffering, brand Jersey is suffering, and most importantly the great people who come to our Island and support us are suffering the most.  All this is within our gift.  I move the proposition.