Housing Regulations - reductions in qualifying periods (P.73-2003) - comments

STATES OF JERSEY

r

HOUSING REGULATIONS: REDUCTIONS IN QUALIFYING PERIODS (P.73/2003) - COMMENTS

Presented to the States on 1st July 2003 by the Housing Committee

STATES GREFFE

COMMENTS

1. D  ep utyHill's projet refers to three specific proposals, the first of which is –

T o r e duce the current requirement for Jersey-born and children of locally qualified persons to be resident

in the Island for an aggregate period from 10  years to 6 years in order to qualify under the Housing Regulations.

2. T h e HousingCommittee can seeno justification for this reduction. That 10 years features in various parts of the Regulations, indicates a consistentapproachwherebypersons qualifying can demonstrate a degree of commitment to the Islandwhich is both proven and justifiable. TheCommitteeisconcerned that the proposed reduction would be likely to have a significant effect ondemand as it would overnight enlarge the numberof people aroundtheworldwho would automatically have the right to return to the Island, being fully entitled to occupy controlled accommodationandbein receipt of any relevantsubsidies relating thereto. The Committee is already aware, as was highlighted in Mark Boleat's report, "A Population Policy for Jersey (1996)", that there is a substantialnumberof people who are already fully qualified underthesetwo specific Regulations and whocouldat any time return to the Island and take up controlled accommodation.IntheCommittee's view it would besheerfollyto take steps at this time to automatically increase this potential demand.
3. A n y reduction in the 10-yearperiod would impactonotherpartsoftheHousing Regulations. For example the current Regulations allow an approved essential employee to fully qualify after a continuous ten years of essential employment. Successive States and Housing Committee Policies have consistently been aimedat avoiding this situation as far as possible butif this proposalis approved Jersey-born children of essentially employed persons would automatically qualify once of full age even in cases where their parents would not. Once again the Committeeviews this as an unwarranted additional demandon the future housing stock whichwouldbe unsustainable. This would also create an undueimbalancebetween the qualifications of parents and children, and introduce an undesirable inconsistency into the Regulations.
4. A n other areaof the Regulations requiring 10-year residency is the automaticgrantingofqualifications to non qualified spousesof qualified persons.If approved theseproposalswouldallow children ofsuch relationships to qualify aheadof the non qualified spouse. Onceagain the purpose of the 10-year period is to demonstrate a commitment and a realclaim for localhousing status. In the Committee's view the proposed 6 year (or less) qualifying period does not indicate that strengthof claim.
5. T h e second proposal is to remove the requirement for the residence of a child of a qualified parent to commence prior to their twentieth birthday.
6. T h e Committeecanseeno justification for this amendment.The original HousingRegulations did not have this requirement, the twentieth birthdayconceptbeingincorporated into the Regulations following a wide rangeofpublicconsultationon the Regulations as a wholeby the HousingCommittee in 1992. The actual amendment took place in 1995 and followed theagreement of the States that the "child" of a residentially qualified personshould have commenced the required period prior to its twentieth birthday to demonstrate the strength ofconnectionorcommitment to the Island. It wasfelt that allowing a "child" to qualify when the commencing period ofresidenceoccurred when intheir forties, fifties or sixties was no longer credible.
7. T h e Committee is of the view that if this part oftheproposals were approvedin conjunction with part (a) there wouldbe a significant numberof people resident outside the Island who would beenabled to return to take up full residence because bysomequirkoffate they had resided inthe Island in the past,and now were in a position to either return fully qualified orbe in a position toso qualify after a very brief period of additional residence.
8. T h e third and final part of Deputy Hill's proposals directly links the aggregate period required for Jersey-

born children and children of Jersey-born parents to that continuous period required for persons with no other

connection with the Island.

9. T h e Committeedoes not accept that there is any justification whatsoeverfor this linkage. The ultimate position if this proposal were adopted would be that asthecontinuous period was reduced in the future (as it is intendedtobe),the qualifying period for thoseunder 1(1)(a) and 1(1)(h) wouldgraduallyreduce to zero. The Committee's view is that the two different periods ofresidence in the Regulations are required for reasons of enabling a degree of consistency and ensuring fairness and equality in the application of the Regulations themselves.
10. I n summarythe Committee does notsupport any of the proposalsfor changes in the Regulations as proposed.TheCommitteesees no justification for easing the ability of persons referred toin the projet to achieving local qualifications with the resultant additional demand on the Housingstock.The current housing situation isreasonablyunder control - these proposals can seriously undermine that position.The Regulations as they stand already provide a significantadvantage for Jersey-born children and childrenof Jersey qualified parents. Where there is a provencaseof genuine hardshipwhich befalls an applicant who does notmeet the current requirements, there isampleprovision within the Regulations to use discretion in such cases.Whilst accepting that the current continuous requirementof16yearsis greater than the Committee would wish,theCommittee feels it isreasonable to expectthosechildrenwho already havean advantage under the Regulations and only have to achieve an aggregate period of residence, to demonstrate that they have a fair claim to beafforded all the rights that go with full local housing qualifications.
11. T h e Committee is further of the view that in the absence of any proven inequality in the current requirements, to tinker with the Regulations in this manner prior to the imminent presentation and discussion of Policy and ResourcesMigrationPolicy, would bemisguided.