States Meeting Transcript - 17/07/2007

STATES OF JERSEY

OFFICIAL REPORT

TUESDAY, 17th JULY 2007

PUBLIC BUSINESS - RESUMPTION...........................................................4

1. Social Housing Property Plan 2007-2016 (P6/2007)........................................4

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):.......................................................4 Deputy G.W.J. de Faye of St. Helier:..........................................................4

1. Senator T.J. Le Main (The Minister for Housing): .......................................4
2. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en of St. Saviour:................................................6
3. Connétable S.A. Yates of St. Martin:....................................................7
4. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................10
5. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................11
6. Connétable G.F. Butcher of St. John:...................................................12
7. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:..................................................13
8. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:................................................................15
9. Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier:.........................................................17
10. Deputy P.N. Troy ofSt.Brelade:.......................................................18
11. Senator F.E. Cohen:....................................................................19

12. Deputy J.J. Huet:.......................................................................19
13. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade:...............................................19
14. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :..........................................................20
15. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:...............................................21
16. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. John : ........................................................24
17. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :........................................................25
18. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................25
19. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:..........................................................29
20. Deputy A. Breckon of St. Saviour:......................................................31 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................36

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................36 Social Housing Property Plan 2007-2016 (P6/2007) (continued).............................36

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................36

1. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier : ....................................................36
2. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................37
3. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................37
4. Senator T.J. Le Main:................................................................39
5. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en:...........................................................40
6. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement:............................................40
7. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier:...............................................41
8. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen : ......................................................42

9. Senator F.H. Walker :................................................................44
10. Deputy P.N. Troy : .................................................................45
11. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:............................................................45
12. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..............................................................46
13. Deputy A. Breckon:................................................................47

21. Deputy C.H. Egré of St. Peter:..........................................................51
22. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:......................................................51
23. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................52
24. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................53
25. Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen:....................................................54

25. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................54
26. Connétable T.J. du Feu of St. Peter:....................................................55 Miss. S.C. Nicolle Q.C., H.M. Solicitor General:.............................................55
27. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................56
28. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin : ..........................................................57
29. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence : ............................................57 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................57
30. Senator T.J. Le Main: ..................................................................57 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................57

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE - THE CHIEF MINISTER ..............................59

2. The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):................................................59

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................59 Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):...................................................59
2. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................60
3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................60
4. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................60

2.4.1 The Deputy of St. John:................................................................60

5. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................60
6. Deputy P.J.D. Ryan of St. Helier : ......................................................61
7. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:...............................................61
8. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian :..............................................................61
9. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................62

2.9.1 Deputy J.J. Huet:.......................................................................62

10. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................62
11. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................63
12. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................63

STATEMENTS ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY........................63 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................63

3. Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):.............................................64

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................65
2. Deputy J.B. Fox:........................................................................65
3. The Deputy of Grouville :...............................................................66
4. Deputy A. Breckon:....................................................................66
5. The Deputy of Trinity :..................................................................66
6. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................67
7. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................67
8. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:................................................................67

PUBLIC BUSINESS - RESUMED..............................................................68

4. Composition of the States Revised Structure and Referendum (P.75/2007)...........68

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................68

1. Connétable D.F. Gray ofSt. Clement (Chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee): ............................................................................68
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................69

1. Deputy J. Gallichan of St. Mary:........................................................70
2. The Connétable of St. Ouen:............................................................70
3. Senator M.E. Vibert :....................................................................71
4. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................71
5. Senator L. Norman: ....................................................................71
6. Deputy A. Breckon:....................................................................71 Mr. W.J. Bailhache Q.C., H.M. Attorney General:............................................72
7. Deputy P.N. Troy : ......................................................................72

8. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................72
9. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................73
10. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................73
11. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................74
12. The Connétable of St. Brelade:......................................................75
13. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................75 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................75

ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED.................................................................77 Senator M.E. Vibert :..........................................................................77 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................77

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................77

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer. PUBLIC BUSINESS - RESUMPTION

1. Social Housing Property Plan 2007-2016 (P6/2007)

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

The Assembly yesterday had commenced consideration of the Social Housing Property Plan and the Minister was half-way through his speech. I am sure Members would agree it is appropriate to continue [Laughter] More than half-way - we shall see. I am sure Members will agree to continue this debate and revert to the questions for the Chief Minister in the statement later in the sitting. So, Minister I call on you to continue. Deputy de Faye.

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye of St. Helier :

With great respect to the Minister for Housing, a number of papers have arrived on our desks this morning and, although I am a great believer in Scrutiny and I believe Scrutiny should be as wide- ranging as possible, I am confronted with a paper from the States of Guernsey Scrutiny Committee. Sir, is there some explanation for this?

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Perhaps the President of the Chairmen's Committee could just have a word. Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St. Brelade (President of the Chairmen's Committee):

Yes, I think the particular paper from Guernsey will be relevant to our discussions on the Code of Practice and I would ask that Members have a quick read through it before the debate.

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

I am grateful for the explanation. Senator J.L. Perchard:

With respect, again, to the Minister for Housing, in future when papers are put on our desks in the morning can the provider of the papers please make themselves known?

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair): Very well.

1. Senator T.J. Le Main (The Minister for Housing):

I am glad you said I was half-way through my speech. I really have got the mood of the Assembly this morning and last night that, perhaps, you would like me to wrap it up as quick as possible. [Approbation] So, I am going to do just that because I respect all Members and I respect this Assembly so much that I am going to do that. First of all, Sir, I am going to say that Members are well aware that in this Plan, as is proposed, we are proposing a shared equity scheme where the purchaser buys a whole property between 75 per cent and 100 per cent of the first-time buyer value at the time of the purchase. Secondly, any balance is recouped by the States at the next conveyance and no legislation is required. A second charge will be secured against the property and the acts of alleviation will be contained in the contract of sale to ensure that on the happening of certain events the States will be reimbursed with its share, the 25 per cent or otherwise as agreed or through inheritance. First-time buyer conditions are attached to all the properties for sale in perpetuity and, as I said before, Sir, sitting tenants will have first refusal. They buy if they wish; they do not if they do not want to. Remember, we have a large turnover in States rental, Sir, approximately 500 [Interruption] Sir, we have a large turnover in States rental of approximately 500 homes a year. So, there will be plenty of opportunity over the next 10 years for tenants to buy their home, or people now that are being able to save up and see that in the future - within the next 10 years - they are going to be able to buy one; their own home, or an empty one in another estate. Sir, I can give an assurance to Members that categorically no one will require to move as a result of these proposals. These properties will be offered, as I say, to people in situ, people who occupy their own homes at the moment, or when a property becomes vacant and everyone will be treated with compassion and respect. It is their choice - our clients' choice - at the end of the day. As I have explained, I am not going to go through all my figures, but the need to acquire sheltered housing within this Plan is so important. I explained yesterday that it does not look as if we will have one sheltered unit or sheltered accommodation come on line on rezoned sites until at least 2010 or 2011. This is so important if we are going to continue to be able to offer sheltered housing, lifelong homes to clients of ours: this is so important. So, I am not going to go through the whole issue again. The other issue, Sir, is that we do not believe there should be any further transfer of stock to the Housing Trusts. They have made a significant contribution by providing homes to Island residency needs, Sir, and, of course, that will continue. Each day that passes the financial position of the Trusts improves in the terms of their borrowings. We have got one Trust that is half-way through many of their borrowings and they are accumulating funds where, in fact, they will be able - without letters of comfort, without any States support in the future - to continue to pick-up some of the demand that may come on line in the future and this is a very important point that Members must consider. The issue is that they will continue to provide new homes, their funding will improve and the States will then take a step backwards. We believe, Sir, that there is no benefit in moving transfers of property to the Trusts because that would only just compound the problem that we have at the moment. Finally, Sir, as regards Scrutiny, perhaps, I may make a little bit of an apology this morning that I probably have been a little bit hard on my comments on Scrutiny yesterday. But let me just say that I do respect all Members; I really respect all Members and the roles they have to play and Scrutiny, in my view I have to say I was disappointed with the outcome of this, but I think it is a learning curve. It is quite clear that the experience that I have learnt for the first time being really involved with Scrutiny has given me a great insight in the way that we can move forward with Scrutiny. There is no doubt about it that there were many issues raised by the Scrutiny Sub-Panel that, as I say, did not have any relevance to the Plan or raise issues that really in future I urge Scrutiny members to please call us back a second time or third time, so that we can give an explanation to some of the issues that were raised. I mean there were issues raised in the Scrutiny Panel's report that we were unaware of until we read it and we would like to feel that in future that the aims of When I first spoke to Deputy Power it was that please can we work together, can we get this policy together - this Property Plan - can we take it to the States joined-up, so that we are both on line. We will pick up some of the issues you may raise if they are

relevant and we will work with you and we can go to the Assembly jointly both agreeing. Unfortunately, I understand that Deputy Power and others will not be supporting the Plan and I feel very sad about that because I think this is a good Plan. It is for the people, as I say, we all represent. This is a bold Plan, Sir. This is Plan that tackles the issues facing the department and puts forward current evidence-based solutions. We cannot keep asking for more reports, more facts before we make up our minds. States tenants, Sir, have waited far too long for their homes to be repaired. They have waited far too long for an opportunity to be able to buy a home of their own and yet, remarkably, some would have them wait a little bit longer, just so that we can keep talking and avoid our responsibilities. No, Sir, we cannot. I came into politics to make things happen and the public are saying out there: "Make decisions, run with them, make them work" and we cannot continue as we have done in the past. So, I conclude, Sir, with the phrase which appears in the Property Plan which, for me, sums-up what we are trying to achieve: for the greatest good of the greatest number. Sir, I urge Members today to consider that we are talking about real, ordinary people. We are talking about young people with families who would like the opportunity to be a

homeowner. We cannot continue for ever and ever subsidising the many millions of pounds. I mean something like £24 million or £25 million - £500,000 a week - £500,000 a week in subsidies, £25 million a year in housing subsidies plus the other subsidies that have gone to Trusts and other issues. It is an enormous thing. We need to create more home ownership. We need to give stability to the people. We need these people to be part of the estates when we are going to be now selling-off - if you approve this - selling-off, making home-owners in the States. It is going to change the structure in all the estates where homeowners will take part with tenants and clients, where they will have tenants' associations. It gives us a wonderful opportunity of having better quality, less bad behaviour and issues like that. So, I have made considerable notes to continue, but I am going to finish with that, Sir, that I urge all Members, in the interests of the people they represent, to please support this Plan. Thank you.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair): Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier :

Could I ask for a point of clarification? The Minister seemed to refer yesterday to having brought down the rent rebate total. I think he referred to some millions. I have had a look in the book and it says there has been a reduction from 2005 to 2006 of £50,000 and that is it, and it is rising into 2007. But would the Minister clarify what he means by having brought down the rent rebate?

Senator T.J. Le Main:

All I said was we had reduced in 2005 the rent rebate where we were advised by the Scrutiny Sub- Panel that the rent rebate subsidy was out of control. We reduced it in 2005 from 2004 and it is anticipated this year that there will be a further saving on 2006 by approximately £1.6 million.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

The figures do not say that.

Senator T.J. Le Main:

Well, I can give you an assurance that is correct. Deputy S. Power:

Just a point in clarification, Sir. Can I just tell the Assembly that all 5 Members of the Sub-Panel will be speaking separately. We will not be duplicating. We are all covering separate sections of the Business Plan.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair): Does anyone wish to speak on the proposition?

2. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en of St. Saviour :

This Property Plan makes important and necessary links with the physical and mental well-being of Islanders. Members will know that originally I had fears that those States' tenants currently living in the 800 homes for sale would over the next 10 years, if they could not or did not wish to purchase their homes, have to move elsewhere. The Minister has given this House and the public an assurance that this will not be the case. I am, therefore, able to give the Property Plan my wholehearted support. I would also like to say that I believe that the questionnaire sent out by the Scrutiny Panel was excellent and is to be commended, and I also understand that it was much appreciated by the States' tenants. I support more home ownership and a shared equity scheme will offer more States' tenants this opportunity. I am also pleased that the Housing and Planning Ministers will be offering similar schemes to some tenants in the private sector in future. As Assistant Minister for Health, I have 2 overriding concerns. Firstly, catching up on the maintenance and undertaking the refurbishment of States' housing is important. It is right that the Housing Minister aims at the very minimum to achieve the U.K. (United Kingdom) Decent Homes Standard for all States' housing by 2016. The annual report of the Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Rosemary Geller, in a chapter called "Safe as Houses", lists housing problems which includes cold, damp and cold, indoor air pollutants and infestation, overcrowding and beside each of these categories she lists related health impacts. She continues in her report on page 41 regarding the figures from the Jersey Annual Social Survey. I quote: "In 1999, 45 per cent had at least one problem with the quality of their accommodation rising to 50 per cent in 2006. Lack of space was the biggest concern with lack of light and heating growing in importance." She ends the paragraph by stating: "In 1999, 4 per cent considered that their housing conditions had made their health worse, increasing to 7 per cent in 2006." Dr. Geller continues: "The 2006 survey also highlighted the link between housing and mental health issues. Mental health complaints almost doubled when comparing those who reported living in satisfactory accommodation with those who live in unsatisfactory accommodation." The second and a very major concern is the need to agree that the Housing Department should plan for the creation of additional sheltered housing through conversion of existing stock and acquisition where appropriate - Part 4 of the proposition - and this works hand-in-hand with the draft Health and Social Services Strategy New Directions. As stated in the Draft New Directions on page 36: "We know that the number of people aged 85 years and over is predicted to double during the next 20 year period and this is irrespective of migration scenarios." It is, therefore, patently clear that we cannot afford to be complacent about our housing standards. We need to align the housing stock, taking fully into account the predicted demographic

changes, the need for lifelong homes and sheltered accommodation. The latter will obviously free- up larger properties for families. We need to keep people living at home for as long as possible. This is a major part of the New Directions strategy and, therefore, it is vital that there is the availability of the most appropriate housing in order to achieve this. Sir, I support this Property Plan now in its entirety. It offers a chance for tenants to become home owners and it will achieve a better standard of accommodation overall. It will also enable, as is already happening, the Housing Minister,  Planning Minister and the Health and Social Services  Minister to  work together  to provide sufficient and the right type of accommodation for couples, families and the elderly. It will certainly be the catalyst for establishing and maintaining a better healthy homes environment. Thank you, Sir.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Does any Member wish to speak? The Constable of St. Martin .

3. Connétable S.A. Yates of St. Martin :

This is a well-thumbed copy of P.6. In fact it is the second copy because I wore the first one out. My aspirations and ambitions for social housing in Jersey are virtually identical to those of the Housing Minister. I agree with the 4 points listed on page 3, namely; the serious refurbishment problems have got to be sorted out; the realignment of stock to take the demographic bulge of the elderly; putting the budget of the Housing Department on a sound footing; and increasing the level of home ownership in Jersey. When I first read the Property Plan I thought: "This is quite good. Now, where is the business plan in this?" On page 6 I came upon this statement: "However, unlike other social rental landlords the Housing Department currently also has responsibility to administer and fund rent subsidy schemes both in the private and public sector. This is rent abatement for States tenants and rent rebate for private tenants. The demands on the annual housing budget to the point where a reasonable provision for repairs and maintenance of the States rental stock has been and continues to be compromised." On page 7 there is a statement: "With the imminent transfer of rental subsidy administration to the Social Security Department there is an opportunity to look at the Housing Department budget afresh." Well, I certainly agree with that. On page 13 we are looking at the Housing Department revenue budget. We see that the gross rentals are £32.23 million and rental subsidies are £25 million or £50,000 a week. I make that about 78 per cent of gross rents are spent on subsidies to States' tenants, private rental tenants and social rental tenants in Housing Trusts and all this money comes out of States tenants' rents. At the bottom of that page it says: "It is easy to see the disproportionate impact on this budget of private and public sector rent subsidy schemes. When savings have to be found they cannot be drawn to any significant degree from rental subsidies without creating the very hardship which subsidy schemes are designed to alleviate." I find this to be absolutely unbelievable. The very reason that has brought this finance of the Housing Department to its knees has been dismissed in 2 lines as being impossible to change. I do not believe it. I would like to speak for a minute about private rental market from my 15 years experience as a rates assessor. Up until 2003 we were required to reassess each property in the Parish every year, including private lets with declared rentals and this was in order to calculate the hypothetical equivalent States' fair rental value in order to obtain an assessed rental value. Now, by way of an example, if you have 2 identical properties in a road and one was owner occupier and the other was a private let rental and the private let rental was let for £26,000 a year, for instance, would it be right to assume the assessed rental value on the owner occupied was £26,000 quarters? No, it would not, because the £26,000 might be a highly inflated rent. So, what we would be required to do is to put an assessed rental value on the declared rental and to do this we would look at States' fair rentals, look at a typical 3-bedroom house - perhaps, take it apart into bedrooms, bathrooms, kitchens, sitting rooms, lounges, lounge/diners, et cetera - and give them all a value room by room. By this method we could look at any property basically and get a hypothetical States' rental for any house. Obviously, location means something because you might have a wonderful view of the sea or the countryside and there has to be a little bit of adjustment in this. So, your £26,000 private rental would probably come down to about £14,000, assessed rental £14,000 on a £26,000 declared rental and the law says 2 identical properties must carry the same assessed rental value or the assessed rateable value, so that is the law; you have got to do that; so you have got to see what a hypothetical States' rental would be on a private let. Now, it was always with a strong sense of injustice that I saw year after year the difference between States' fair rental values and open market rents. The difference was about 50 per cent to 60 per cent average - not maximum, average - certainly not the 10 per cent to 20 per cent that has been mentioned recently. There is no doubt that the rent rebate scheme keeps private rentals at an extraordinary artificial high level and it is the States' tenant who pays the cash for this all for the comfort and profit of the private landlord. This is crazy. I am not saying that the rent rebate scheme should be scrapped. What I am saying is it should be taken under control with drastic steps to force rents down. This Plan shows no will to do this. At the present time a private landlord can

say to a prospective tenant: "If you earn less than £46,800 a year, you are entitled to rent rebate." Not much incentive to keep rentals down there then. I find it an extraordinarily high income bar.

Deputy J.J. Huet of St. Helier :

Could I just ask that the speaker a point of order on these rents, he obviously knows what he is talking about and I would like to just ask something.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair): If he is willing to give way, Deputy .

The Connétable of St. Martin :

I did not quite hear your question.

Deputy J.J. Huet:

I hear that the speaker is talking about houses. Does this apply to flats or apartments as well? The Connétable of St. Martin :

Flats.

Deputy J.J. Huet:

Apartments?

The Connétable of St. Martin :

It would, yes.

Deputy J.J. Huet:

Thank you, Sir.

The Connétable of St. Martin :

Now, on page 21, near the bottom of the page, we have the statement again about the rental subsidy: "Even after rental subsidy function is taken over by the Social Security Department, rent rebate will still be a cost to the States as a component of the new low income support scheme." So, that basically is telling us what is going to happen. Page 31: "A budget transfer of £25 million will take place from Housing to Social Security, reference income support to reflect current costs of rent rebate and rent abatement." That is telling us what is going to be done: "A £75 million investment is sufficient to bring back retained stock up to a standard that is sustainable in the long run assuming that an annual increase of £2.5 million in the revenue maintenance budget pro rata to the revised stock figures." The cost of putting the stock up to standard of £75 million is over a 10-year period. I am going to, perhaps, come back to that but it does seem to me that the money could be found elsewhere. Turning to page 32, and we are looking at the departmental budget in 2016, at the end of the Plan. We see that rents and other income are £28,356,000 as compared to £32.23 million in 2006, so rent has gone down by about £4 million. The budget transfer re income support costs - hello, this is the same figure, £25 million and £50,000 - still the same and I calculate that difference as being you started off with 78 per cent of the rental income and it is now 88 per cent of the rental income to be used on rental subsidies. If you think that is bad, I am afraid it is going to get worse. If 800 of the better-off States' tenants who pay full or near full rentals take the opportunity to purchase their houses, it occurs to me that there will be less cash rent and the requirement for rental subsidy will increase, and when income support comes in, a person will not have to wait 12 years to obtain rent subsidy as now, but will be able to apply for income support - including the housing component - after only 5 years. I will leave you to ponder the implications of what I have just said. When I joined the Rates Assessment Committee in 1991 rate assessors all over the Island were saying that this scheme is a licence to print money. We realised that it was a measure to take the pressure off the Housing Department's waiting list, but we thought it would be somewhat of a temporary measure while the Housing Department got its development act together and could have been phased-out over 5 or 10 years, but it is still with us. What has happened, in fact, the scheme has been let go out of control and has become a monster which has taken over the Housing Department budget almost entirely, in fact, Housing can do nothing because of it. It was during the Sub-Panel meetings that it was implied that the income bar for rental subsidy was £900 a week and this was confirmed at an Income Support presentation to Constables about 2 months ago. I think you probably have seen these graphs. The top one is housing benefit, the middle one is family allowance and the bottom one is welfare. You will note the yellow one at the top. It has a cut-off point for £900 a week earnings. When you earn nothing you can get £200 a week housing benefit. The family allowance in the middle cuts off at just over £300 and the welfare at the bottom cuts out at £330. The actual difference between those graphs is obvious. Why has the housing got that enormous income situation? At the presentation I questioned the Minister for Social Security and his Chief Officer as to whether the income cut-off point would be lowered under the Income Support Scheme. They said it would but they could not tell me what the level would be. I asked about existing recipients. Would the grant be cut to the lower limit for existing recipients? I was told "no." It would be allowed to taper-off over the transitional period. I think somebody has got to get hold of this because it seems to me we are just allowing it to go on. It is what has brought the Housing Department's budget to its knees. It is not good enough. This is one of the essential planks in this proposition. I am in favour of what the Minister for Housing says that he wants to do about social housing, but the actual finance just does not stack-up. It is too wobbly. I do not think it is sustainable when you have got these extra demands on rent rebate. If you open the customer base to a 5-year residency, from 12 years as it is now, I am not sure it is going to work. What we need is somebody to stand up and chop the head off this monster. We need a bold champion. I think personally that our Minister for Housing should do this and I am sure that the Minister for Social Security should do it or could do it. The Treasury Minister and the Chief Minister should take this and look at it and see exactly how feasible all this is. I cannot honestly support this proposition until I see where that income bar is in relation to the £900 at the moment. When I see where it is, I can then make another assessment. But I am going to say I cannot support this and I would advise all Members to think very carefully and do likewise. Thank you.

Senator F.H. Walker :

May I ask a question of the speaker please without sacrificing my right to speak? The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

If it is to clarify a point the Constable has made?

Senator F.H. Walker :

Yes, it is, Sir. I understand the points made by the Constable, but I am struggling to see the relevance of them to the actual proposition that is before us today. I wonder if he may inform me and the House of that, Sir.

The Connétable of St. Martin :

I am afraid that, having read this proposition, it is so inextricably linked with income support that I cannot explain it any more than that, Chief Minister. It is absolutely intermeshed with income support.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Well, that is the Constable's view. Senator Routier.

4. Senator P.F. Routier:

I think it is appropriate that I do say a few words. The criticism of the rent rebate scheme - the existing rent rebate scheme - is valid. I entirely agree with the speaker. What I am a little bit surprised about is, after having been to some of the presentations which we have had on income support, it is not recognised that the support for rent for those high incomes is not being accepted as that is what is going to happen under income support. That is what is happening. The existing limit of people being able to get support for rent up to £46,000 is going. It is going over a transitional period. It is happening. So, I really do not understand how the Connétable can continue to think that that is not going to be the case. The amount of [Interruption]

The Connétable of St. Martin :

We have been asked to review the document. I have asked questions directly to the Minister for Social Security and his Chief Officer at presentations and I have not received answers and I have mentioned it in my speech, Sir.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair): The Minister perhaps could elucidate now. Senator P.F. Routier:

I have to say that the comments which are made by the Chief Minister about how it relates to this proposition I am still struggling to see that, you know, that is something that there is a link, but certainly the income support system will be shifting the amount of money that is being spent on rental subsidies, being spent for a number of years, that money will be used to support people further down the income ladder with other areas, like childcare and carers' allowance - a new carers' allowance - and it will be used in a different way, but it will not be being used to support people's rent. What we need to recognise, I think, is that well I think it is generally recognised - and the speaker himself has said it - that the existing rent rebate scheme just cannot continue and it will not continue under income support, but what will happen with regard to supporting people for rent they will receive an appropriate amount which is according to their needs. It will not be fuelled in the opposite direction which the current system has. It will be something which will be an amount which is appropriate to their own income. It will not be the reverse. This is not an income support debate, this is a Housing Property Plan debate, but I am being asked to comment about it. The income support will require people to work, whereas in the current system there has not been a requirement to work under the housing scheme, so people will be expected to be trying to help themselves and not making a claim for so much support for their housing benefit. I do not think there is any need for me to say much more. I do not know if I am going to convince the Constable, but there is no link with income support and this Property Plan. I will leave it at that, Sir.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Does any Member wish to speak? If not, I will call on the Minister. Deputy Ferguson.

5. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:

The Chief Minister's comment on the relevance of finance and financial planning: this is the very heart of a policy. If you have not got your finance and your money planned, then what on earth are you doing? You are talking through the back of your head. I am concerned in this Plan with the rent rebate argument, as everybody else is. We have already heard the private sector rent rebate is, in effect, taken out of the public sector rents at the expense of maintenance. But nowhere have I seen in this Plan a comment on the fact that the reduction in rebate will undeniably lead to an increase in the social housing waiting list, particularly if we are bringing the limits down to 5 years. In fact, can we afford to sell 800 units? I am not sure that we can. The Minister talks about the use of Housing Trusts. Well, I am not sure that those are of value to the Island because tucked away in the accounts is something like an £8 million loss on La Coie in the transfer to the Housing Trust.

The Minister may like to comment on that. We talk about sheltered housing. It is not good enough to want to build in green fields. The sites suggested in St. Brelade are not near shops, not near the library and are well off the bus route. We are just establishing a prison for the old folk: no way. I also wonder about the demand to build new sheltered housing. First of all, we look at the utilisation of current stock, which I believe the Panel will be commenting on the Caesarea Court and Convent Court argument. Finally, the Housing Department - the Minister - seems to be focusing on social housing. Now, I am of the understanding that the 1949 Law required the Housing Department to look at the Island-wide housing requirements. I will await more comment from other Members and the Minister, but I am very much inclined not to support this proposition.

6. Connétable G.F. Butcher of St. John :

Just to advise the House I have been a States' tenant in my early years of marriage. I bought my first home with the benefit of a States' loan. I repaid the total subsidy that I have received when I needed it and that home was purchased on a single income. I think if a scheme like that was in place now we would not be seeing the first-time buyer problems that we have at the moment. In more recent years I have been involved in property development in the U.K. The Senator well knows that housing has been an interest of mine over many years for my own family. I have been to the Senator's house for coffee in the past. I did not accept last week's invitation I have to say. [Laughter] What I would like to talk about, Sir, is the case for demolition of Convent Court. The Senator states that to refurbish Convent Court it would cost something in the region of £5 million. That, Sir, equates to £52,000 per unit. The Senator, again, plays the concrete cancer card on this one. I would assume that as he has gone to the trouble of getting costings to refurbish this building that the building is structurally sound. Also in the Property Plan he states that to refurbish Clos de Roncier would cost somewhere between £25,000 to £45,000 per unit. These units are 3-bedroom properties. So, I fail to see that a £52,000 cost to refurbish a one or 2-bedroom flat can be correct, Sir. It does not make sense. The bottom line, Sir, is that I think that these refurbishment costs are probably overstated to bolster the case for demolition. I am not convinced, Sir, that the case has been made regarding the demolition of Convent Court which must be structurally sound. As at the present time, Sir, there are 96 units of accommodation there. This plan is proposed to spend £4.33 million to demolish it and replace it with 9 three-bedroom houses which are proposed to be sold. If they were sold at say £225,000 per unit, this would produce £2,250,000 which would mean that the 12 one-bedroom units remaining would stand the Housing Department in at £191,000 a piece. This does not make economic sense in my mind, Sir, and that takes into no account the land value. It would also mean if that one was demolished there would be a loss of 84 potential units for sheltered accommodation. I, Sir, would suggest that the £5 million would be better spent on redesigning and making secure Convent Court and Caesarea Court to accommodation for sheltered housing, purely for the sheltered housing or last-time buyer market. I mean a similar set of equations applies to Caesarea Court, Sir. I would suggest that if these 2 units are demolished there is a potential loss of 142 units for sheltered housing and, as many Members will know, I have put out a call for evidence for the great need for sheltered housing. My understanding is now that the Senator is saying that there are 544 units needed. You would almost think that the way this list has gone up that the Minister is importing elderly people. As I said, Sir, I recently put out a call for evidence for St. John because I know there is a push to try and use green field sites in the country parishes. There was a half-page article in the Evening Post. I did 3 nights of advertising as well as a spot on the radio and I have had the staggering response of 4 which I have added to my list. At the same time, Sir, I wrote to the 25 people that were on our list already because we constantly phone around every time we have a vacancy. People do not want them, they do not want to move yet, they want to stay where they are. I have had 12 back out of the 25, so I now have a list of 16, instead of potentially 29. So, needless to say, Sir, I do not have a lot of faith in lists in this way because I do not think they give you a good figure. I will move on from that. Just lightly on the

subject, the Minister also talks about wanting to realign his stock. I fail to see that that can be done properly when the Minister does not know the tenant profile or income band of 27 per cent of his clients, so I find that difficult to believe that an accurate figure could be done there in realignment, Sir. The Minister talks in the Plan about this being to help home ownership. Now, I do not disagree that there is a great need to increase the home ownership in the Island. My view is that if stock needs to be sold that complete estates should be cleared, people moved, and the estate put up to everybody, because there are a lot of other people other than States tenants out there that would like to buy a property, Sir. We talked about the rent subsidy. We know where a lot of the maintenance money has gone from, Sir. I do not agree with the principle of selling-off capital assets to pay for revenue expenses. That would not be the normal case in any sort of business world. Treasury for some reason have given this permission at the moment. Equally, I would say, that Treasury could give permission for the Housing Department to borrow money to renovate their property, so at least we could see if there is a proven need to sell-off some of their property because I cannot believe, Sir, that in an Island where we have an increasing population that we are going to need less social housing stock. It just does not seem to equate in my mind, Sir. Moving on, the Senator is talking about the vast urgency that he needs to get on with this Plan. If this Plan were defeated today, there is nothing stopping him carrying on with what he is proposing because he has already got £30 million I think approved by Treasury to carry on with it. He would have no problem with selling off the 22 odd-ball units, although I feel that he has shot himself in the foot a little bit by agreeing that tenants can stay in these units for a period of time. He stated yesterday that he had only given assurances to 4 people. I understand there are 5 in my Parish alone that have had those assurances and I have only got 5 social housing units in St. John. I think, Sir, that the whole way that Housing are being funded in the subsidies that they have had to give to people, Sir, is totally wrong. Housing should be run on a business footing. It should be that the rent comes into Housing, they maintain their properties and any surplus they have got goes back to Treasury. We have talked about Social Security. We have talked about various things like that. I think those are arguments that need to be dealt with between Treasury and Social Security and I think that Housing

should be allowed to run their business in that manner, Sir. Thank you.

7. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour :

Some Members of this House will recall some 12 years ago, when I was a member of the then Housing Committee along with other members such as Senator Kinnard and Deputy Breckon and, indeed, Senator Le Main, the ideas that have come forward today were first being spoken about. Questions were being raised, somewhat unpopularly with Members, as to whether or not the 4,000- odd properties were either sufficient for the Island's social renters or, indeed, whether or not we had too many properties. There were discussions then which rambled on as to whether or not shared equity was a sensible programme beginning to be thought about and, perhaps, if we could find the courage to do so, implemented for Jersey tenants. I am very, very pleased, therefore, that those ideas have found a realisation in the document that we see before us today. It is not perfect by any means, but it is a sensible step in the right direction. That more tenants should be encouraged to stand on their own feet is, Sir, the essence behind the new Income Support Scheme, so it seems absolutely right that a similar expression or interest or push forward should really happen for housing as well. For most of us, buying a house will be our biggest personal investment and, for those who manage to do so, it does put you in a very secure position once the property is paid-off. We have the roof over our head, so the other issues that have to be addressed in terms of living expenses are entertainment - well probably not in that order, but food will come next presumably, then education and entertainment and a whole host of other things besides. But for those who do not manage to find themselves in the fortunate position of becoming home owners, those Members are committed to a life where they are always struggling to make ends meet and I think it is absolutely wrong that in such an affluent Island that we should not be in a position - having espoused the capitalist way of the world - to be trying to encourage as many people to get on the band wagon of home ownership which, as I say, will set them up and their families for life. I am heartened under 5 that there will be no further transfer of stock to the Housing Trusts unless explicitly agreed by the States Assembly. The transfer of stock to Housing Trusts was a cause of a

previous downfall of the Housing Committee because it did not represent a good deal. I am heartened by the comments, and there have not been too many as yet, but notably by the Constable of St. John, that the Housing Department should be put on to a business or commercial footing. That is absolutely right. In passing over a sizeable chunk of our property to Housing Trusts, we did not really get it right. The penny has dropped. It has taken, as I said, a long while for it to drop, but I think in putting forward proposition part 5 that there should not be any further transfer of stock to the Housing Trusts, unless it is explicitly agreed by the States Assembly, hits the nail absolutely on the head. We heard yesterday, and I do not think the Minister was saying these things in order to secure my vote - I certainly hope not - but we did have the assurances that he gave quite freely to this Chamber in his speech, and he did not have to be asked for them in his summing-up and that is a notable turnaround, that he would hope to work with as many Members of the House as possible, should they have ideas in order to improve the framework that has been put forward. As I said, Sir, it is not perfect by any means. There are chunks of further work that need to be undertaken, particularly in relation to rent rebate, but this debate is not about rent rebate at the moment. It is about setting up a framework that we can all buy into that spreads the goodwill of owning property as far as possible and rebalances the department and the way it handles its property and puts it on a firmer footing. We heard yesterday, Sir, that in relation to the proposed demolition of high-rise buildings that the 3 suggested were Caesarea Court, Convent Court and De Quetteville Court, that the Minister has said that the demolition programme is not cast in stone and that he would be happy to work with any Members of the House, myself included, and Deputy de Faye and others, to come forward with any plans that would bring forward a betterment of that particular site. This, Sir, I think is the key thing which is going to allow me to support in total the whole of the housing plans that are put before us today. If there is an attitude shift in the way that the Minister of the department is suggesting, where he is happy to work with all Members of the House to come forward with the best that we can possibly get, then I think that in itself deserves the support for this proposition today. We have had those promises, Sir, from the Minister and I think we should support him on that basis. That said, I would like to possibly push the boat out a little bit more and suggest that I do have strong reservations about the sheltered housing programme. I think if we look on page 18 of the report, under "1.12 - Encouraging Homeownership" it does state the somewhat evident - if Members are prepared to go and look into the issue - ideas that mixed tenure estates tend to be socially stronger than those which consist of social rental units and it also suggests that an increased sense of pride leads to reduced resource demands in the form of maintenance bills and costs generated by vandalism. For years, Sir, we have populated our housing estates by people who have to rent and that brings along with it I think a social stigma which we really should try to get rid of. In the private sector, we look over our shoulders at our neighbours, and we do not look down at them in terms that they are only able to afford to rent their properties or look up to them perhaps if they own their properties, it is a big mix. I think one of the things that I would like to see in terms of the continuation of the housing programme with the H2, H3 sites and, indeed, the H4s that are beginning to be spoken about, is that we move strongly away from this idea of providing social rental housing estates, built on housing estates and filling them up with people who can rent or people who have problems or people who have too many children or other difficulties and start to consider community building. Housing is about creating communities, not just about building houses and this is one of the things that my particular Scrutiny Panel has been covering in its Design of Homes Review and Members will have heard yesterday that the final review will be on Members' desks within a short period of time. If we can have an assurance from the Housing Minister, in addition to the one he gave us about the potential improvements to the suggestions for the high-rise demolition programme or refurbishment programme, then indeed he will encourage these housing officers to look into ways - and I do not think he will have to encourage with any great difficulty, because from the officers I have spoken to there is a very

strong interest in doing these things already - to move in the direction of building communities. Then I think again, with this move towards assisting those who can purchase their own property, we will have a further strand of improving the lives and the lots of those persons who do remain in

a tenant situation. Finally, Sir, there was just one other point and there seems to be a little bit of difference or incongruity with the figures. It was suggested yesterday by the Minister himself that we had some 4,600 properties and that some 800, I think it was, were going to be sold-off, but at the same time some 400 new were going to be replacing those over a 5-year period or a 10-year period. But on page 31, Sir, we do have under the Financial Implications of the Property Plan the suggestion at the bottom of page 31 that a retained stock level of 3,500 units is sufficient to clear demand - need that is - for social housing into the long term. Now, this is a key issue, Sir, that has to be addressed. I do not think it has as yet, but I am hopeful that it will be. The Island has to determine the extent to which it requires rental units and those rental units to be provided by the Housing Department or the Property Services Department, whatever you are going to call it, and indeed the private sector through Homes Trusts. With that in mind, Sir, I think if we can move away from this idea of just building boxes, I think we will have taken the arguments to a new height and I am hopeful that the improvements that by doing this will be spread and shared more evenly among the population. So, with those things in mind, Sir, I am going to give this particular proposition my wholehearted support and look forward with other Members to working with the Housing Minister into the future. Thank you, Sir.

8. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

I think one of the difficulties that Members regularly face in this Assembly is often the way propositions and strategies are brought to the House and one of the difficulties in this particular debate - which is in some respects wide-ranging - is that we have never sat down and debated the principle and concept of home ownership and all that entails; the consequences that follow of saying that home ownership is something that we as a government should strive for. Today, we are looking at a particular aspect of home ownership within the social housing sector and I thought it was curiously coincidental that a well known journalist writing in the Sunday Times of 15th July wrote - in I think an interesting and helpful way - on the alleged housing crisis in the United Kingdom. Now, I say immediately that, of course, the situation with the local controls that we have is not directly apposite to the U.K. situation, but nevertheless, Sir, with your permission I will just read a couple of paragraphs because it certainly helped me focus my mind. The journalist in question is a highly reputable gentleman know as Simon Jenkins and he writes: "There is no housing crisis, there is just a housing market, there is housing demand and housing supply and the assumption that every adult citizen has a right to a decent home that they can afford courtesy of the Government' must be the last hangover of post-war socialism." It goes on to say: "Yvette Cooper, the Labour Government Housing Minister, assumes that this right is reflected in a fixed stock of housing need unrelated to price or any other financial variable. Indeed, the Labour Government has identified a so-called shortfall between demand and supply of 40,000 units nationwide for people wanting a house they have not got but would like at a price they can afford. Mr. Jenkins briefly concludes by saying: "Thank goodness this approach is not applied to roads or foreign holidays as the government would then find itself approving lower fuel tax and cheaper air fares." I think that helps put things in context in terms of this debate because it all depends on how you look at things. I find it interesting if we reflect upon what the Housing Minister said when, early on in his speech, he said: "We are providing homes for 800 new homeowners at no cost to the States." Now, it

depends on how you look at things, because I do find it difficult to see how selling 800 publicly- owned homes into the private sector can be at no cost to the States. It seems to me that there in fact is a cost. There was certainly a cost of building those homes in the first place and there will be implications of changing the social housing matrix. So is it at no cost? It depends how you look at things. In the same vein, I have been quoted apparently as saying that I am in total support of the Social Housing Plan despite a few hiccups on the way and I hasten to add that the Housing Minister and I are still good colleagues, we merely, as I think everybody now knows [Interruption] - indeed, at the moment - indulge in what we best describe as robust email exchanges. So do I have total support? In a sense I do, but in reality I have qualified support for this Plan. For while I can see all the benefits of allowing States tenants to have an interest in their homes, I am concerned that

we may not have appropriate criteria for determining which States tenants should have interests in their own homes. The Assistant Minister for Housing took me up on this point and outlined, I think in a very helpful way, a story of a single mother, who lived in States' housing as a tenant some 20 years bringing up the children and how they regarded it as a family home. My, perhaps predictable, response was: "Well, that is clearly a deserving case for someone to want to change rental accommodation into home ownership", but an interesting potential criteria has been introduced in that here was someone who had lived in her home for 20 years and that is, it seems to me, a reasonable criteria to set. Why do I think there should be criteria? Because I do want to make sure that home ownership goes to the right people. One of my concerns about the Social Housing Plan is that it is restricted in its scope. It does leave out a large chunk of our society, in some respects some might say the most hard working and put upon, those who struggle to obtain mortgages, those who are in private rental but not paid so badly that they fall within States subsidy, who are saving for their deposits, hoping to get on the home ownership market. I retain a strong concern for them but I was very pleased that the Housing Minister, with the support of the Minister for Planning and Environment, gave me specific assurances saying that these people in our society - in some respects as I say, the most put upon, those who will be hit by 20 means 20 probably more than any other section - they have not been forgotten and that in short order appropriate shared equity schemes will be put forward for that section of first time buyers among us. I welcome that assurance but I have to remind both Ministers that assurances are all very well and I have enormous faith in Senator Le Main, he is a man of the people: indeed if I did not know that he had a mother you might be forgiven for saying that he could well have been quarried from Jersey granite. He is a robust gentleman. But if he keels over next week his assurances are not going to be much good. So I want everyone to know that this is not an issue that I am simply going to leave in a hedgerow to be quietly forgotten about. But that is the point of principle within this that I have had issues with and that I have now gratefully received assurances on. There are 2 areas of perhaps more specific detail where I have had very helpful exchanges with the Minister and the Housing Department, and again I am grateful for the assurances that have been made in that respect. Firstly, I have got concerns over the future of Caesarea Court and Convent Court, perhaps not in the obvious sense. There are clearly intentions by the Housing Department to deal with both these properties, I understand, primarily by demolition and replacement by low rise or that form of new construction. In broad terms, that seems to be quite a sensible and reasonable thing to do, particularly if it does help, as is hoped, regenerate those parts of St. Helier. My concern, however, and I am grateful that the Housing Minister has indicated he is keeping an open mind on this, is that these are currently high rise properties and they must intrinsically have a planning value on the basis that they are high rise. It seems to me that as soon as you demolish them and turn them into low rise, you have eliminated a significant part of the intrinsic value of those sites. Therefore I would be urging the Minister before final decisions are taken to investigate the possibility of selling those sites into the private sector, thereby saving the States itself of any considerations or costs of the demolition hopefully having the potential to enhance the overall value of those sites as high rise sites and having the potential to spend the capital accrued elsewhere in the sort of low rise sheltered

housing bungalows that the Minister has in mind for the development of his housing plans. Secondly, and this is really drilling-down into the very tight detail, I would like the Housing Department to take another look at Westmount Park. For Members not familiar with Westmount Park, it is located on People's Park, just on the other side of the road, it is right next to one of St. Helier's old people's homes. It does seem to me to have potential for sheltered housing. Regrettably, I note that the current position of the Housing Department is that this site of 55 units is proposed to be disposed of during the tenures by way of shared equity sale. Now, one of the difficulties with that particular site - and I do not know how many Members are intimate with it - is that there are 5 substantial blocks and one very large main block. A peculiar feature of the individual blocks - and as I say there are 5 of those - is that they have lift shafts but no lifts. It has been a source of constant frustration for residents who live there that these lift shafts have existed as effectively a kind of square gap down the front of the buildings, anyone with a modicum of

architectural sensibility would realise that 5 glass-fronted lifts would not only enormously enhance the architectural value of those sites in an aesthetic way, but they would also change currently exposed balconies into internal balconies and realistically open up all the floors to potentially disabled access. So I would like the department to look again at that issue, particularly the issue of installing the lifts that were never installed in the past, doubtless for financial reasons. It would be very difficult in the future if all those blocks were split up into independent shared equity homes to get all the tenants, or rather the new owners, to agree to install lifts. Frankly, if it is ever going to happen the time is now before it is all split-up in whatever way it may be split-up. But I do feel that there is an opportunity here to have another look at whether this should be looked at in terms of sheltered housing or not. After all it is right next to an old people's home, there must be an opportunity for sharing of facilities and I just have a concern that we may be going in the wrong direction. Having said that, Sir, I think that, given the assurances that have been made, given that the Minister for Housing is with us for many more years, I am content that I can support the totality of this Social Housing Property Plan. It is more than a step in the right direction but it should be regarded as such, it is the first step of many more steps to come and I will be watching the progress.

9. Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier :

The Minister in his speech yesterday talked a lot about the consultation that he had carried out among his tenants. A couple of weeks ago - or more than a couple of weeks ago now - I spoke to him about this consultation and asked him how many people had been to his surgeries and he told me 6. I have consulted with 95 out of about 235 households within my constituency who live in properties designated to be sold within the Plan and thus feel I have a good idea about the confusion and concern among these tenants because of the lack of information. So when I hear how much the Minister cares about his clients, I start to get rather nauseous. I would like to inform the House that most tenants in Convent Court want to stay there and all they really want is some new windows. But apparently the department has not got any money. They have a £75 million backlog of maintenance with a shortfall of £2 million a year. The Housing Minister has pleaded poverty while he has, with the Treasury, wasted millions during his tenure. I would like to refer to sales that have been given to Housing Trusts during the Minister's tenure. In 2000 the sale of the old La Motte Ford Garage site to Jersey Homes Trust was £10. In 2001 a sale of numbers 8, 12 and 12a Lempriere Street to the Christians Together in Jersey Trust was sold for £400,000. Numbers 12 and 12a were bought and redeveloped for just over £300,000 and number 8 was bought and redeveloped for £155,000. In 2003 the sale of Bas Du Mont flats in Pier Road was for £10 to the Christians Together in Jersey Trust and we have to remember how much we lost with the Le Coie site - £8 million was written-off. This is just a sample of where money has been lost in this way to Jersey Housing Trusts. To add to this, Sir, the department and Treasury also agreed to pay-off capital interest on loans that Trusts have taken out with private companies, originally agreed if the rate was over 4 per cent but was later changed to 6 per cent. For the years 1999 to 2006 this has cost the States approximately £9 million. The States have also provided a number of grants to the Jersey Homes Trust to facilitate certain developments. These grants amount to £10 million. From information given by the department, I understand that once a loan is paid-off after whatever the agreed term of years, a Trust is obliged to pay back the subsidies or it is required to provide more social housing. Why is it, Sir, that this is left up to the Trusts to prove this to the States? It should also be noted here that such agreements with Housing Trusts have now ceased mainly due, I believe, to the exponential rise in rent rebates to Housing Trust tenants. I would also like to bring up the issue of what the Minister has said about how there is a surplus: we have too many States properties. With the possibility of the creation of 500 jobs a year and 250 people on the housing waiting list and the reduction in years of housing qualification, the Minister says we have far too much housing so we will sell 800 States' homes. This Property Plan has been sold mainly by the 1,000 best well-off tenants as the Minister has often referred to. In a question I tabled to the

Minister in June, he talks of these 1,000 best well-off tenants, 404 are aged between 41 and 50, 371 are aged over 60. How many of these people of these ages are going to get a mortgage out? How realistic is it at that age? I fear that those families whose children are leaving home with a 2- bedroom property will be ousted due to the policy of the Housing Department of downsizing. I know it is their policy but does it meet the U.K. Housing Standards to allow a quality home that meets the needs of families i.e. where you have a 2-bedroom house, the children have left home and they want to come back and stay, if they are moved into a one-bedroom house, where do they stay? Furthermore, Sir, the Minister has spoken of these better-off tenants in terms of their income, he mentioned yesterday £42,000 is the income of many tenants. In that, Sir, he has not considered their disposable income. I am certainly not against home ownership as I was brought up in a States house myself and knew how much my parents wanted to own their own home. However, I have strong reservations about this Plan and think there is a lot that needs to be thought properly through. In finishing, Sir, as I oppose this Housing Property Plan, will the Minister, as he threatened Deputy de Faye, consider resigning?

10. Deputy P.N. Troy of St. Brelade :

Just having a little chuckle at that, Sir. I think I need to address certainly I will address one of the things that the last speaker said, which was regarding the sale of properties in the past at £10 to Housing Trusts. I think that where the previous speaker has gone wrong is that you must look at it as it was a need at the time to provide social housing and how were we going to do that? We owned land and it was considered that we, as the government, could subsidise the provision of social housing and this is how we worked in partnership with the Housing Trusts to create social housing. When we pass land to Housing Trusts at £10 we were not losing a lot of money. If there was a site, maybe it had a value of £2 million, we might have passed it to the Housing Trust for £10 but we were not losing £2 million. We were providing a social benefit, we were providing people with housing, we were providing what was needed at the time. There was a cost to it for the government, but it was worth it because it was important at the time that we provided that housing. Of course now the Housing Trusts have filled a very important part in the community, there has been enormous social benefit, a major community benefit which cannot be measured in pounds alone. Next, I would like to move on to reiterate some of what Senator Routier said regarding the fact that the rental subsidy budget is being moved from Housing across to our department at Social Security and will be utilised in a different way and people at the upper end of the scale who are earning significant amounts of money will have the amount of financial support that they receive reduced. Then those funds will be diverted elsewhere to people at the lower end of the income scale so that we can provide people who are at the worst income levels with increased benefit. That is a different debate but that does not impact on this, the Property Plan, because we are purely dealing here with the property and not dealing with the rental subsidy. I wanted to look at the actual proposition and of course what is happening here - what Housing are trying to achieve - is that they will firstly sell all of their non-core stock. So they will sell property which has been identified as either surplus or not quite fitting into the future housing strategy and that core stock will be sold. The first part of that is to create a shared equity scheme and you can offer property to the tenants. With the shared equity scheme what is superb about it, of course, is that anyone who manages to purchase their own property they get ownership of their property and it is everyone's dream to own their own home. You then, from that, get pride in your own property. You care for it, you love it, you enjoy it and so you have pride in your own property and then that creates stability for families. They have a permanent base, you have your family around you and you have a commitment to a home and family lifestyle and that is very important. It enriches the whole community if we have developments where people take on their own homes there will be an increased pride in where they live and it will have again a social benefit. Then, of course, from the sale proceeds we will then have funds - or Housing will have funds - to carry out a proper refurbishment and regeneration programme. Those properties that will remain can be refurbished and regenerated and again that will be good for the tenants that are in there. Then finally, the creation of sheltered housing. The sheltered housing element is quite important in that those who move into sheltered housing will possibly even sell a property of their own which may release more

properties on to the market for other families who are desperate in the market place to get homes. We have all heard the results in the last few months of the need for sheltered housing. There has been a need identified and it is important that we now do something to meet that need and Housing are doing their best on that. So, I think this has been a major piece of work, a lot of thought has gone into it and I would like to congratulate the Minister and his staff at the department because this will give stability within the housing market. It gives it new direction for the Housing Department and congratulations to the Minister.

11. Senator F.E. Cohen:

The principles of this proposition are first class and they have my full support. The principles are elegant and will deliver a refurbished stock of homes together with a significant increase in home ownership. Shared equity was first proposed, I understand, by Senator Ozouf in his election manifesto in 2001. He was well ahead of many other jurisdictions that have since implemented the principle so successfully. I made shared equity a key principle of my election manifesto in 2005 and I have been working since my appointment as Minister together with the Housing Minister to find mechanisms to deliver this. Literally every week there have been discussions to work out how best to deliver shared equity to Island families. This Property Plan will deliver the dream of home ownership to States' housing clients at their option. For my part, I will shortly be bringing a proposition to the States to deliver shared equity on all rezoned sites and I will, subject to States approval, be making a start with the development presently underway at Goose Green. Delivering home ownership to Islanders is one of the greatest opportunities available to States Members. The Plan also lays the foundation for a proper solution to the provision of homes for the retired. The increasing dependency ratio is one of the great issues facing the Island and this Plan puts in place a proper resolution to the provision of retirement homes. The Housing Minister is passionate about his obligations to deliver better housing and extend home ownership. I assure you that he has many sleepless nights worrying about States' housing clients and I hear from him on a weekly, if not daily, basis about matters relating to housing to push me to deliver shared equity as quickly as possible and to push me to endeavour with him, as a partner, to deliver retirement homes. His Plan will fundamentally improve the lives and circumstances of many Islanders. This is a win-win proposition for everyone. He has my full support and I hope Members will join in supporting this proposition.

12. Deputy J.J. Huet:

I am not sure that I like to follow Senator Cohen because he always sounds so kind, reasonable, intelligent and everything else. But we will have to do the best we can. [Laughter] I am not after any favours, Sir. I am not joined to the hip to Deputy de Faye though we are Parish Deputies - or 2 of them - but we do have similar concerns on some things. The ones that he has brought up, I have to say I have exactly the same concerns. I also include La Collette low rise of 36 two-bedroom places and Westmount of 47, making a total of 83. To me, Sir, especially the Westmount ones, it is not only as he - Deputy de Faye - says next to an elderly folks' home, it is also next to a park. It is also next to a chemist, a pub, little shops, a florist. It has got everything there that one needs for our senior citizens. It is on a bus route and as Deputy Ferguson said, we do not want our senior citizens cut-off, out in the far countryside where there is nothing. These 2 places, to me, should not be sold. They should be for our senior citizens. A lot of them are 2-bedroom ones and again I have heard people standing in this Chamber saying: "People should be in 2-bedroom places so that there is a place for their family to either stay with them or look after them or whatever." I have greatest admiration for the rest of the Plan and I believe, in conjunction with the Social Security Minister, that it will be a brilliant success. But I would ask for these 2 properties to be looked at again because I am not convinced that Westmount should be sold. It should be kept for our senior citizens with the lifts installed in the position it is in.

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

I  appreciate the difficulties the Minister for  Housing  finds  himself  in and also  the necessary sensitivity in dealing with people's homes, which, by necessity, are a fundamental part of their lives and well-being. Any decisions made by this House regarding the selling-off of States' property will have far reaching effects on many local families who have worked all their lives but never been in the privileged position of owning their own house. I would also remark, Sir, that I, for one, take the Scrutiny Panel's report seriously. I am aware of the experience that the members of the Panel have in property and housing matters and consider the Minister's posturing somewhat inappropriate and reminiscent of a small child throwing his toys out of the pram because he cannot have his own way. I will comment on the proposed property disposals in St. Brelade particularly because I am familiar with them; 108 and 109 Clos des Sables are a pair of houses opposite Acorn Lodge at Les Quennevais School, which we agreed to dispose of as part of the Treasury Minister's Property Plan some time ago, so I do not really have any difficulty with this; 30 Clos des Sables and Belleville, properties more appropriately owned within the private sector. However, Sir, I am horrified to see a proposal to dispose of 163 to 170 Clos des Sables.  Members will be interested to note that these 8 bungalows are on the periphery of Clos des Sables, adjacent to the railway track and within easy reach of the community facilities and shops at Les Quennevais and they display a remarkable similarity to the retirement homes that the Minister wants to rezone green fields for in other areas. These 4 properties may not be in good condition but their site value is high and I would urge the Minister to reconsider the disposal of these properties because, it seems to me, entirely illogical. We must not dispose of these, they should form part of a refurbishment programme; it must be less expensive to do this and it is not compatible with paragraph 4 of the proposition. Many problems the Minister has inherited are a result of poor management and control in the past and I understand that this Assembly must agree a plan to permit the Minister to improve the present situation. The analysis of figures is somewhat subjective and based on questionnaires which can be slanted to suit the needs of the day. I am not comfortable with the numbers produced as they are not corroborated at Parish level. One does detect an element of desperation in this Plan which does have holes in it which have been alluded to by previous speakers. Nevertheless we must allow the Minister to move on in a fair manner which is not only fair to those already in States' accommodation, but also to those who aspire to their own property one day. Any subsidy by means of shared equity, I feel, or any other means must be fair to those taxpayers who have struggled to purchase their own properties in the past at considerable personal sacrifice. The present Plan could be viewed as simply a numbers game which simply favours the few who are presently States' tenants and who the Housing Minister is keen to get off his books. I would say that the present situation must not be allowed to continue and I would prefer that the Minister was slightly less blinkered with regard to the Scrutiny Panel report. I think the House has been rushed into agreeing to this somewhat flawed