States Meeting Transcript - 10/07/2008

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT THURSDAY, 10th JULY 2008

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption ...............................................................4

1. Jersey Homebuy Housing: amendment to Island Plan Policy H1 (P.74/2008)..........4

1. Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):......................4

1. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade : .........................................................7
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : ...................................................9

2. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:....................................................11

1. Senator T.J. Le Main: ..................................................................13
2. Connétable T.J. de Feu of St. Peter:....................................................14
3. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en of St. Saviour:...............................................14
4. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement:.......................................................14
5. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:...............................................15
6. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :..................................................16
7. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:.......................................................16
8. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement : ...............................................18
9. Deputy A. Breckon of St. Saviour:......................................................19
10. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................20
11. Deputy S.Power:....................................................................22
12. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye of St. Helier : ................................................23
13. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................24
14. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity : .......................................................25
15. Deputy A.J.H. Maclean of St. Helier:................................................25
16. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. John:......................................................26
17. Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St. Brelade:................................................26
18. Senator F.E. Cohen: .................................................................27
19. Connétable P.F.M. Hanning of St. Saviour:..........................................28
20. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen : ......................................................28
21. Senator F.H. Walker :................................................................28
22. Connétable S.A. Yates of St. Martin:................................................29
23. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................29 The Bailiff :...................................................................................30

3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................31
4. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................31
5. The Connétable of St. Martin:..........................................................32
6. Senator S. Syvret:......................................................................33

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................37 The Bailiff :...................................................................................37

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................37

PUBLIC BUSINESS (continued)................................................................37

7. Deputy R.C. Duhamel: .................................................................37 Mr. T.J. Le Cocq Q.C., H.M. Solicitor General:..............................................37 The Bailiff :...................................................................................38 Deputy R.C. Duhamel:........................................................................38
8. The Connétable of St. Peter:............................................................40
9. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................41
10. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................42
11. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................42
12. Senator L. Norman: ....................................................................43
13. Deputy J. Gallichan of St. Mary:........................................................44
14. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade:...............................................46
15. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................46
16. Senator T.J. Le Main: ..................................................................47
17. The Deputy of Trinity :..................................................................49
18. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................49
19. Deputy J.J. Huet:.......................................................................50
20. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................52
21. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................53
22. The Connétable of Grouville :...........................................................53
23. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence : ............................................53
24. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :........................................................54
25. The Very Reverend R.F. Key, B.A., the Dean of Jersey:................................54
26. Connétable J.L.S. Gallichan of Trinity :.................................................55
27. Senator F.E. Cohen:....................................................................55 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................58

2. Strategy for Inclusive Vocational Day Services and Employment (P.101/2008).......59

2.1 Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................60

1. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................61
2. Senator S. Syvret:......................................................................63
3. Senator M.E. Vibert :....................................................................63
4. The Connétable of St. Brelade:.........................................................64
5. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian :..............................................................64
6. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:........................................................65
7. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................66
8. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................66

9. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................66
10. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier : .......................................................67
11. Deputy P.N. Troy :...................................................................67
12. Senator J.L. Perchard: ...............................................................67
13. Deputy I.J. Gorst :....................................................................68 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................68

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................69

3. Connétable D.F. Gray ofSt. Clement (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee): .........................................................................................69

1. Senator S. Syvret:......................................................................70
2. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................70
3. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................70 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................70
4. Senator W. Kinnard:....................................................................70

5. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin : ..........................................................70
6. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................70
7. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................71
8. The Connétable of St. Brelade:.........................................................71
9. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................71
10. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................71 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................71
11. Senator M.E. Vibert :....................................................................71
12. Deputy A. Breckon:....................................................................72
13. Senator S. Syvret:......................................................................72
14. Senator F.H. Walker :...................................................................72
15. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................72 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................72
16. Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen:....................................................72
17. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................72
18. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................72
19. Deputy J.A. Hilton:.....................................................................73
20. Senator F.E. Cohen:....................................................................73
21. Deputy J.B. Fox:........................................................................73
22. Deputy A.J.H. Maclean: ................................................................73 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................73
23. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................74 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................74

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................75

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer. PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption

1. Jersey Homebuy Housing: amendment to Island Plan Policy H1 (P.74/2008) The Bailiff :

We return to Public Business on the Order Paper and the next item for debate is Projet 74, Jersey Homebuy Housing: amendment to Island Plan Policy H1, in the name of the Minister for Planning and Environment. I ask the Greffier to read the proposition.

The Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion to refer to their Act dated 11th July 2002 in which they approved the Island Plan 2002 and, inter alia, policy H1 and to amend that policy to include provision for Jersey Homebuy Housing within the definition of category A housing for the remaining H2 housing sites and to agree to, on page 8.3 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002, (a) to insert, after paragraph 8.18, the following new paragraph: "8.18a: there is also a need for housing which addresses the need of those with incomes too great to be eligible for social rented housing, but who are unable to afford to buy the cheapest first-time buyer home even with the assistance of a loan. In order to meet this need a category of housing will be introduced which will enable first-time buyers who fall within this range to buy first-time buyer properties without paying the full first-time buyer price. There will be appropriate arrangements for the repayment in due course to the vendor of the balance of the purchase price." And on page 8.4 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002, (b) insert, after the bullet point: "States, Parish and Housing Trust Rental Housing (including sheltered housing)" a new bullet point as follows: "Jersey Homebuy Housing." On page 8.13 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002, (c) in the third paragraph of policy H1, Provision of Homes, after the words "first-time buyer homes" delete the word "and" and after the words "social rented homes" insert the words "and/or Jersey Homebuy housing, in such proportions as the Minister shall determine, having regard to the most recent available evidence on housing need and housing supply."

Deputy P.N. Troy of St. Brelade :

Before the Minister speaks, as a builder/developer, Sir, although I do not own any H2 sites at the present time, there is always the possibility that I might negotiate to purchase some at some point in the future, so I think it best that I withdraw from this debate, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Very well. Deputy Troy declares an interest and withdraws.

1. Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):

The concept of the introduction of shared equity housing was one of the main commitments of my election manifesto in 2005. During the election, and since, I have been contacted by more people desperately wanting this form of affordable home purchase than about any other single matter. Furthermore, and much more importantly, today's proposition emanates from a key commitment of the Strategic Plan approved by this Assembly in 2006. Point 3.8.8 undertook: "To introduce a shared equity and, if appropriate, potential discount scheme initially using existing Housing Department stock to increase home ownership." The Minister for Housing has already introduced a scheme for the Housing Department stock and this is about delivering the second part of that commitment. Bringing forward these proposals today has taken a great deal of work due to Jersey's unique property law, but I am pleased to inform the House that I believe our shared equity scheme known as Homebuy is the best in the British Islands. It is the most affordable, offers the best discounts, and provides the highest form of security to the Homebuy purchaser. May I begin by clarifying a few issues. Firstly, although I have used the term "shared equity", this scheme could also be known as a discounted purchase scheme, as in our proposals, the purchaser owns 100 per cent of the house, albeit that they have only paid 65 per cent of the price. Most importantly,

unlike the U.K. (United Kingdom) schemes, they do not have to pay an annual interest on the discounted element. This is a very important factor of defining affordability, as in other U.K. schemes, the purchaser has to pay a monthly interest charge on the percentage of the property they do not own. In our case, they do not pay anything. Secondly, the proposition before you is only about amending the Island Plan to make provision for the principle of Homebuy as a recognised form of social housing in the Island Plan. It is not about the fine detail of the scheme. To be absolutely clear, there are many fine details of the scheme that need to be agreed with the Housing Scrutiny Sub-Panel, if the House approves this proposition. I have given an absolutely clear commitment that we will not proceed with the scheme until Scrutiny is happy with the mechanisms of operation. This is simply about amending the existing Island Plan to establish the principle that we can add Homebuy shared equity as an approved type of social housing. I am very pleased that the Chairman of the Housing Scrutiny Panel has informed Members that Scrutiny will be supporting the principle of the Homebuy, subject to my undertaking to finalise the details with the Scrutiny Sub-Panel. To be absolutely clear, Deputy Power, as chairman of the sub-panel, has informed me that despite the wording of the final sentence of the panel's comments published yesterday, it is not their recommendation that the matter be brought back to the States, but that the details of the scheme be agreed with Scrutiny prior to the implementation of the scheme. Subject to the Scrutiny Sub-Panel's agreement, I propose to form a working group comprising Planning, Housing and Scrutiny to work on finalising the details of the operation of the scheme. Moreover, once the scheme is in operation, I would intend to keep the group going to review and adapt the mechanisms in the light of operational experience. I look forward to working with Deputy Power and other members of Scrutiny on finalising the details. I hope Members will understand that in terms of amendments to the Island Plan, it is perfectly appropriate to bring forward the principle of an amendment to the States and finalise the detail after approval is received. An example is rezoning of land where, of course, a proposition to rezone is not accompanied by the development plans and only after the States accept the principle of rezoning would the development plans ever be prepared. In Jersey, the average cost of many 3-bedroom first-time buyer homes is over £400,000. This is 13 times the average income. Home ownership is not only out of reach of the

less well off, but, perhaps, more surprisingly, out of reach of many Islanders earning well above the average income. What option do these Islanders have? They remain living with their families, they turn to the rental market where instead of applying their savings and income to getting on the housing ladder, they give it to their landlord and never make any progress towards home ownership. Home ownership in Jersey is pitifully low at approximately 51 per cent of households. By contrast, in the U.K. it is 70 per cent and in Guernsey, 75 per cent. Is it acceptable that we should lag so significantly behind our poorer neighbour jurisdictions? This Assembly committed in Jersey's Strategic Plan to introduce a shared equity or discount scheme to widen home ownership. This proposition, I repeat, is about delivering this commitment. The Minister Housing started the process in the Social Housing Property Plan; it will see the sale of approximately 800 States homes to tenants at a discount over a 10-year period. It is already proving very popular. 84 properties, I understand, have been sold, a further 30 tenants are actively seeking to purchase. It has dispelled the myth that buyers would have difficulty securing a mortgage. We live in a society where to some extent the way we feel about ourselves, and the way others see us, is driven by whether or not we are home owners. This is not the case in many other jurisdictions, but in Jersey that is just the way it is. Homebuy is a way of delivering the dream of home ownership, initially to around 60 Island families who otherwise would remain in the rental market. It will deliver self pride, a sense of personal achievement, and a more contented society. There have been significant changes in the housing market conditions over the last 5 years. The 2007 Housing Needs Survey confirmed what many had expected. Over the next 5 years there will be a shortfall of many 2, 3 and 4-bedroom properties to buy, against a shortfall of less than 100 for social rented 2, 3 and 4-bedroom homes. The change is primarily due to the significant number of new social rented houses constructed on the category A sites zoned in the 2002 Island Plan; 2 rezoned category A housing sites at Bel Royal and La Moye are yet to be completed. As it currently stands, the Island Plan will require that 55

per cent of the homes built on these sites are sold to first-time buyers, with the remaining 45 per cent being for social rented occupation. However, Housing are of the view that there is now little demand for these social rented houses. If the plan is to be relevant and deliver value to Islanders, it must be amended so we can meet actual need, not a historic need identified 6 years ago. The purpose of this proposition is to match supply with housing need now. This will deliver about 60 homes to qualifying Islanders under the Homebuy scheme. It is only a start and if the scheme is successful it will be extended in the new Island Plan proposals to many new housing sites. Thus, States Members will get a second chance to debate the concept when they debate the Island Plan review. I believe that there is a significant opportunity to deliver large numbers of Homebuy units over the coming years. In fact, it is my ambition that we should deliver an element of affordable housing in most large developments in the future, not just on rezoned sites. Landowners and developers stand to make significant profits as we deliver essential housing to accommodate our population. It is entirely appropriate that they should be expected to deliver an element of affordable Homebuy housing on most large sites in the future. To reiterate, this proposition is only about amending the current Island Plan to enable us to make an immediate start on Homebuy and that is now. I will now go over how the Homebuy scheme will work, subject, of course, to working out the fine details in consultation with the Housing Scrutiny Sub-Panel. Jersey Homebuy housing is defined in the report and proposition as: "Housing where the purchaser buys the whole property, but initially pays only such part of the first-time buyer housing value as may be determined by the Minister for Planning and Environment." As is presently the case, the developer will sell 55 per cent of the units constructed to first-time buyers at a full first-time buyer price. The remaining 45 per cent of houses on the Bel Royal and La Moye sites will be sold as Homebuy homes. This will deliver around 60 Homebuy homes. The developer will sell the Homebuy properties at an agreed price to an approved not-for-profit organisation: a housing trust, Parish, or a not-for-profit company specially established for the purpose of Jersey Homebuy. A set of criteria for classification and the legal arrangements for establishment are being prepared by the Law Officers' Department. All Jersey Homebuy sales will be carried out by the not-for-profit organisation to householders qualifying through the Housing Department's Gateway. The role of the Housing Minister is

critical. His department will operate the Gateway to ensure, by means testing, that prospective Homebuy purchasers are genuinely unable to buy a suitable property in the open market. I believe that initially the discount off the full value should be 35 per cent. The remaining 65 per cent is the amount at which the not-for-profit organisation will purchase the homes from the developer and will be the price at which the approved Homebuy purchaser will acquire the property. To be absolutely clear, the purchaser acquires the whole property outright, but will pay only 65 per cent of the market value of the property. They will have the full benefits and the liabilities of property ownership, such as uplift in value of their share and, also, they will have the maintenance responsibilities. Their mortgage lender will have the first charge on the property. The not-for- profit organisation will take a second charge on the property, equivalent to the 35 per cent discount, which may only be redeemed under certain conditions stipulated at the time that the not-for-profit organisation is established. Basically, it is only at the time that the Homebuy purchaser decides to sell the property that the 35 per cent value is realised by the not-for-profit organisation. At that time, 35 per cent of the sale proceeds will go back to the not-for-profit organisation and they will be required to re-invest that money in the provision of further affordable housing, in consultation with the Minister for Housing and the Minister for Planning and Environment. I will clarify a few points. We are not seeking to be too prescriptive about exactly what type of affordable housing the not-for-profit organisation will be required to re-invest the proceeds in. It is envisaged that the majority of Homebuy purchasers will retain their homes for many years, thus the 35 per cent sale value will not materialise for a long time. As market conditions change over time, it would be folly to be too prescriptive at commencement. This Homebuy proposal does not mean that there will be no more social rented housing. It merely provides the flexibility to deliver either Homebuy shared equity units, or social rented homes as dictated by market demand. I again make it clear that on the 3 remaining sites that were rezoned in the 2002 Island Plan, it will be my intention to require the

social element to be delivered on a Homebuy basis. The price from which the 35 per cent will be deducted will not be a price dictated by the house builder. I will repeat that: it will not be a price dictated by the house builder. Housing will carry out a valuation of houses that are proposed for sale as Homebuy. This will be based on long-term trends and it is from this figure that the 35 per cent will be deducted. Currently, I understand that Housing are expecting a 3-bedroom Homebuy unit to be sold at around £260,000. This is a huge discount to the prices currently being asked for first-time buyer homes and will come as a huge relief to those who qualify for Homebuy purchase. The Homebuy proposal will deliver higher sales prices to the house builder. The guide figure of £260,000 is significantly more than the price of units previously sold to housing associations under the Social Housing Scheme. There are important reasons for this. Firstly, the Homebuy units will be identical to the full price first-time buyer units and you will not be able to tell the difference. The specification will be exactly the same. Unless a Homebuy purchaser chooses to tell you that he had purchased under the scheme, you would not know by looking at the house. Secondly, it would be inequitable and an abuse of power to simply require house builders to sell units on the Homebuy scheme at the same rate as they were required to sell social rented units to housing associations. There are all sorts of other factors that need to be taken into account when assessing the total cost to the community of Homebuy against social rented. One, of course, is the cost to the public purse of rent subsidies or discounts, which, of course, is not applicable to houses purchased under the Homebuy scheme. Another is long-term maintenance costs, which of course under Homebuy does not fall in any way to the community. The precedent in the U.K. is that shared equity units are sold by house builders at significantly higher prices than social rented units. Furthermore, and importantly, Planning do not develop policy with an imperative of increasing or decreasing house builders' receipts. We develop policy based on the needs of Islanders. This is the first piece in the jigsaw to significantly increase the number of Island families who are home owners. It was, as I have said, a key commitment of the States Strategic Plan. It is, however, only a start. Therefore I have commissioned an independent expert to assist in drafting a new policy based on an assessment of the Housing Needs Survey, the local legal framework and the state of the local property market. This should result in the Minister for Housing and I bringing forward a policy to enable us to procure affordable housing of various types as a proportion of most future private sector developments. I hope this will be debated as part of the Island Plan review. This proposition will set us on the path of delivering the dream of home ownership to many Island families. Once the fine details of the scheme are agreed with Scrutiny it will enable us to make an immediate start on delivering our commitment. It is intended as just a start and over the coming years we can deliver affordable home ownership to many, many more families. We must set out target as being at the top of the home ownership league tables and truly bringing the benefits of our economic prosperity to a much larger proportion of our hard working community. There are many Island families anxiously waiting for the outcome of this debate. As I understand it the developers of Bel Royal and La Moye sites are maintaining lists of families who hope to qualify once the Gateway and delivery mechanisms are finalised. So I hope that today will mark the beginning of the Homebuy Shared Equity Scheme, delivering a new form of affordable home ownership to Jersey. In the same way as our predecessors introduced the States loans system many decades ago to deliver home ownership to a 20th century generation, this is our opportunity to deliver affordable home ownership to a 21st century generation. I will endeavour to answer Members' questions and I

maintain the proposition.

The Bailiff :

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] I saw Deputy Power.

1. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade :

The Sub-Panel has had a number of robust meetings with both the Minister for Housing and his departmental officers, the Minister for Planning and Environment and his departmental officers, and as late Friday, the 4th, a very robust meeting with both Ministers and officers. Members will

note, if they have read our comments on P.74, that we were unable to come up with a full Scrutiny response to this proposition because of the lack of detail. The sub-panel therefore presents its interpretation of this policy and this proposition in our comments to this proposition. We say in our comments that essentially this is an evolving situation, an evolving policy by both departments. Both Ministers have said that they will give an unconditional undertaking to the sub-panel that they will commit to submitting detailed plans to the sub-panel before this is taken any further. So Members have choices, and these choices are fairly simple. The first choice is do Members support the principle of shared equity and Homebuy and the inferred principle of developing policy as we go. The second option is do Members reject the principle of Homebuy as it is presently presented and ask that both departments go away and come back with a definitive set of comprehensive  worked out policies. Do Members accept the principle of swapping out social rented housing in favour of the home buy model? Do Members accept the statement that there is minimal demand on the Island for family sized social rented housing? Are Members happy with proposals that will retrospectively apply to the H2 sites referred to? Are Members happy to accept that there is a shortage of homes for sale in the first-time buyer market? So Members will realise that this has been a difficult proposition and discussion document to approach because simply of the lack of detail. As Senator Cohen has said, this is to a large extent an experimental proposition. This is an experimental policy document that you are asked to support this morning to see if it works. So can the Housing Department's model of shared equity with their social rented housing stock be extended to a developer situation? That is what you are being asked to look at this morning. One of the things you are being asked to look at. The only way that developers can be brought into the Homebuy model, which has been outlined this morning, is with this non cash transaction, and it is one of the areas that the sub-panel has difficulty in getting detail on. I do not want to go over this Homebuy comments document, but we have identified the issues in terms of the non-profit organisation, the detail that is not there is on how that is structured, the lack of detail

on the legal side and how the Housing Department assess the candidates for the Homebuy scheme. Essentially we are looking at 65 to 66 houses and that will have a home buy at one third equity portion that will be deposited into a non-profit, non-cash transaction of somewhere in the region of £8 million and we want to know a lot more detail on that. On the other hand you have the straightforward first-time buyer model of a house that will be valued somewhere in the region of £420,000 to £450,000 depending on who you are talking to and that seems to be straightforward. The £450,000 house, or the £420,000 house will essentially subsidise the £260,000 or the £290,000 house. So you will have a number of houses that are identical, identical fit-out, identical specification, in the same estate and there will be £120,000-£150,000 differential. [Interruption] I would prefer to finish if the Deputy does not mind. I would prefer to finish. However, if it is the wish of the Assembly to support this proposition then the majority of the Housing Sub-Panel will give an undertaking to the Assembly that it will give its best efforts to work with both the nister for Planning and Environment and the Minister for Housing to evolve and develop a strategy that will work. Please understand, therefore, that if Members support this proposition today, it is the view of the sub-panel that it will not need to come back to the Assembly, and I therefore wish to point out to Members that the last sentence of the comments on P.74 is misleading in that if you support this proposition today it does not need to come back to the Assembly. The 5 members of the sub-panel do not agree on this proposition. As you will all be aware, one Constable and one Deputy have major reservations about this and I ..

The Bailiff :

Can you speak through the chair, Deputy . Deputy S. Power:

Sorry, Sir. The 5 members of the sub-panel do not agree and at least one Constable and one Deputy have reservations. I hope Members will take the points that I have made, that the Housing Sub- Panel have made, and realise that there are issues to be resolved in this proposition. Members should also take into account one point the Minister for Planning and Environment has said in that there are many, many local families listening to us this morning waiting to buy an affordable home and the sub-panel does take this into consideration. As I have already said, the sub-panel felt that there was insufficient detail to do a full Scrutiny Report on this and it now looks to the Assembly this morning for direction as to whether the Assembly supports this proposition. The Sub-Panel has gone to a great deal of analysis of the proposition and, as I said, we felt that we could not come to a full Scrutiny Report on this but if it is the Assembly's wish we will work with the 2 departments. Thank you, Sir.

2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier :

I think first of all I would like to say what a pleasure it has been to have Senator Cohen in the States of Jersey, his speeches are full of clarity, enthusiasm and I think reassurance. I would declare that I do not have a home and I also declare that I would be possibly in line for a home if a scheme was to be approved under the Island Plan, so I might have to under an Island Plan scheme consider my position in that case. But I feel that it is in such a generic state at this stage I can contribute to the debate and possibly offer Members a sense of what it is like to be in the position of a first-time home buyer on a reasonable income and have the burden of embarrassment, if nothing else, of not having one's home as one's own. I remember when my mother and my father first purchased our first - our only home .. when they purchased our house, and when we moved in we were lucky, we got .. my mum and dad got a house from a little old Jersey couple who were offered more money but honoured the first bid from my mother because of the fact that the lady appreciated the fact that we were a young family and she very kindly kept the price. I remember my mother being in tears when she had heard that there had been another offer and the people wanted to speak to us. We were called to the house and we were fully expecting to be told, in a polite way, to our faces that the house was going to somebody else, which was a bit distressing because we were living under the current conditions that many people are living in today; cramped conditions, not owning a house, and 2 children in very cramped conditions. So when the lady told my mother that she was honouring her agreement with her from the first offer my mother cried again with joy and I can remember that day quite clearly. We then went on through our lives with a family of 5 children that were on relatively lower income but we had the pride of home ownership. The one thing that we did feel that Jersey offered us, as a family that was made up of a Jersey man and a Scott ish woman, was what I believe it still offers people today, and that is an opportunity. I believe that is why people have been coming to Jersey over the last 60 or 70 years, because it offers an opportunity. Now, sadly, in recent times that opportunity has been edged out by the voracious appetite of the finance industry. I have said this before, while we may not all like the finance industry, we have to recognise that it looks after the ones that we love. So we must respect what it does provide for us. But at the same time we cannot keep silent on the effects that it has been having on the community. We have had a recent survey conducted that identifies that 49 per cent or 51 per cent, somewhere along those lines, of people leaving Jersey have got housing qualifications. An absolute bizarre state of affairs when one considers how many people are screaming out for them. Only 24 per cent of those returning have those qualifications. So we are seeing a net exodus of people with housing qualifications as people realise that their modest, low .. or not modest, just above average incomes are not going to be able to afford to purchase themselves a house. I remember the delight in my wife's eyes when she came to Jersey and she thought the way ahead of us was pretty much a rosy garden path, you know. Then to watch over the last couple of years as that rosy garden path has been, well, bypassed, yes. Overgrown with brambles, I do not

know how to put it.

The Bailiff :

Deputy , I think you ought to come back to the proposition, please. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

I am talking about home ownership, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Well, talk about the proposition, not about home ownership. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Sir, with respect, there is no point in me standing up to try to give my view as somebody who does not have a home, Sir, unless I can put my view.

The Bailiff :

You are perfectly entitled to refer to your personal situation, Deputy , but I do not think Members need a family history. You must address the proposition in relation to ..

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

With respect, Sir, in response to the comments of the Minister who said that home ownership reflects on the standing of the individual in the community, I was trying to give a personal side to that. I speak today with my hand on my heart for many people in the community who do not have their own homes. This scheme represents the first opportunity of restoring that opportunity of achieving home ownership for people such as myself that might be on a modest to good income. It also allows people that are on a poor income to achieve that position. The details that have been outlined in the Minister's speech this morning should be part of any briefing documents, I believe, that move forwards with this proposed working group. Because in his speech it set out quite clearly the way the scheme would work. I shall not repeat the elements of his speech. I appreciate we have had 2 long days. When he got to the part of his speech, however, that said that a 3-bedroom house would be available at something in the region of £260,000 and that would be a huge relief to those in need, that was the part I was going to say would have lit the eyes .. it lit my eyes, it would have lit my wife's eyes if she would have been listening - I do not suppose she would have been - to the actual affordability and possibility of once again having that option that one comes to this community for, that chance of owning a home; that chance, that opportunity. Three bedrooms, £260,000; if there were a 3-bedroom house out there today for £260,000 the queue would be 3 miles long. I think that it is important for us to recognise that this was part of the States Strategic Plan but also part of our States Strategic Plan has been that we will have an equal society without favour and without discrimination, and I would put it to Members that the figures outlined in the Minister's speech this morning representing the dire level of home ownership in Jersey has more underlying issues than just affordability. I think it is something that we really need to get on and tackle. There may be issues about social rented housing and there may be a demand for social rented housing, and hopefully the various Scrutiny Panels will be able to eke out what the demand is through evidence. As this is planned to be retrospective and as the chairman of the sub-panel has spoken about the detail not being present, it may be that that part of what he is looking for, where is the money in the first tranche coming from, could be considered, or has been considered in the following way. I am not great at maths so maybe I will ask my colleagues who are great at maths to prepare their calculators because I would like them to supply me with a calculation if they would be so kind. But if we took, for example, the 60 houses that are proposed to be operated under this Homebuy scheme, that are in the retrospective H2 sites, and we took that 35 per cent that has been removed from the cost of those houses and required the developer to put that into the scheme as a cash deposit when they make that house available then from day one we would have 2 pots of equity; we would have the money from the mortgage lender and we would have the money from the developer to help that scheme kick start. Now, my question is how much money - because I have worked on a couple of calculations and they have varied - would this 35 per cent from 60 houses put into the coffers? Maybe in their speeches they could do the calculations. But there are various ways of doing it. Do you do 35 per cent of 250 or do you do 35 per cent of 450? Either way we are talking about money - millions of pounds of money - in the kitty from the developer day one. Maybe it is not possible. I am being told by accountants shaking their heads that it is not possible.

Senator T.A. Le Main:

A point of clarification. The houses would be valued at social first-time buyer prices by independent valuers and that would be the price that it will be discounted from.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

So obviously it is a theoretical notion at the moment, but once that has been done, once the independent analysis has been done by the valuers then I am suggesting that if we were to request or demand upon the developers that 35 per cent of that value is contributed by them into the kitty, then we have something from them. After all, in the previous developments on the H2 sites, where these social rented houses were restricted to the developer's profit and sale of £165,000, if these new Homebuy houses are allowed to be sold for £300,000 there was going to be a substantial increase in profit to the developers. This would offset that retrospective unfair application that was forced upon previous H2 developers and would also provide, in the kitty, money for ongoing housing. The reason why I suggest something so drastic is because it is a retrospective application, it is predominantly for companies that are not necessarily going to feel the pinch at this level, and we have to recognise that there has been identified a need for 1,115 first-time home buyers houses from the recent Housing Needs Survey. So 1,115 houses need, 60 provided. We are still 1,055 short so any money towards tackling that target I am sure would be most welcome and put to good use. We have to go further, we have to look realistically at supporting the propositions that are coming up ahead of us, and we have to ask the Minister to look seriously at more rezoning. The States of Jersey has embarked upon a growth policy and unless it wants more disunity in this community, unless it wants more people walking around the streets of Jersey that feel, in the Minister's words "they are not equal" and that their home ownership reflects on their standing, unless we want to stoke that sense of indignity then we must do this. I congratulate the Minister for Planning and Environment and his Assistant Minister and also the Minister for Housing and his Assistant Minister, for their work and they have my full support. I do hope that States Members can see that this is the first step on the way to achieving the 1,115 homes that have been identified that we are in need of supplying.

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

I realise after 2 days of hard debate we are due to have some precision in our debating and I will try to do that, but I want to focus here on the process. Look at what is happening here. We are supposed to be examining policy and propositions which come before us through the Scrutiny Panel and I must say I was very disappointed in the lack of clarity that was brought to the debate by the Scrutiny Panel. It seems to me that here they say: "The Sub-Panel considers that there is insufficient detail presented in the consultation document to enable it to be evaluated at a satisfactory level." There is not enough in the content of this proposition for it to be properly evaluated by Scrutiny. What does that say about this proposition? It says it is empty. "Whereas", they say: "there appear to be so many areas of uncertainty, impossible to draw any positive conclusions." So many areas of uncertainty. Again, impossible even to start the Scrutiny process. "Whereas a number of substantial concerns arise which are not addressed." A number of substantial concerns and they are then listed. So here we have an empty proposition, an in principle, if you like, that the Minister is seeking approval for from this House, which is so empty that it cannot even have the Scrutiny process started on it because there is nothing to look at. The Minister says: "Of course, now we have got a new way of working with Scrutiny. Instead of having Scrutiny analyse what we are proposing and come up with some sort of answers, an evaluation of what is a good idea and what is a bad idea, how it might be changed, we have got to accept this in principle and we will work with Scrutiny later." That is a novel way of working with Scrutiny. [Interruption] No, I am not giving way at all. It is a novel way of working with

Scrutiny, and not one I think that we should be recommending. So the Ministers for Planning and Environment, and Housing have offered an unconditional undertaking to the sub-panel that if the principle of Jersey Homebuy was accepted by the States they would commit to submitting the detailed plans for Scrutiny approval before taking further action. Scrutiny could reserve sign off on the proposals at some later date, and we have just heard, I believe, the Scrutiny Chairman say that, in fact, this need not come back to the House. So, hang on, this House is being asked to approve in principle something which need not come back to the House in terms of practice where already the Scrutiny Panel themselves have identified a number of substantial concerns which are not addressed. Let us examine just briefly some of those concerns because they are indeed serious and substantial concerns. Let us start at the back end of the list. Off the list, it says: "No economic review has been undertaken of the significant effect that Jersey Homebuy could be expected to have on the overall market if the scheme were to be extended." No economic review of the impact on the housing market of tinkering with this mechanism with the housing market. That is a substantial concern, completely unaddressed. We are told then, to return to the list, number 2 on the list of reservations and we are told the Minister for Housing, in the words of the Minister for Planning and Environment, is of the view - is of the view - that there is no longer a need for the social rental element of these particular developments, no longer a need for social renting. How come then that I personally know of 3 families desperately seeking a move, a transfer, to adequate 3 bedroom housing? I know of 3 families now desperately seeking a move to 3 bed housing, social renting. Yet the Minister for Housing says: "As far as I am concerned there is no demand for social rented housing." It is simply not true. But worse still, there has simply not been evidence produced that that is the case. What we are proposing here, because we are not talking about building new housing, we are talking about taking houses that were allocated for social renting provision for the very poorest in our society, people who would never be able to buy, and we are going to reallocate them to those who were moderately less well off who might be able to buy, who will be able to buy, under this scheme. Is that really what we want to be doing on the say so of the Minister without any evidence? I do not believe it is. Then we are told, further down, point 6: "The legal framework for sales under Jersey Homebuy is yet to be established." A serious issue; what does it mean legally? Worse still, 7: "The procedure for assessing applicants, the Gateway, is still under development and the policy for allocations has yet to be established." How much of a pig in a poke are we prepared to take? There is no substance here at all and we are asked to accept this in principle and that it might not come back in practice before this House. This is a strange way of running any government and proposing policy. If we do accept this approach we are acting blind. Then finally: "The non-profit organisations which are intended to administer the scheme have yet to be identified." So where have the conversations just taken place? With developers, with housing associations, with Parishes? Not even started. Now these are serious reservations. If it were not happening I think I might be dreaming it. But I presume I am not going to wake up and find that this is not real. It is real. This Minister has brought a completely empty proposition that cannot even be scrutinised, saying: "Trust me, accept it, this is what will go ahead" and it might never come back to the House again. We cannot proceed in this way. I accordingly, nice and early in the day so we can get it over and done with it, think this should be referenced back on the grounds that there is insufficient information there, on the grounds that an economic review of the impact on the housing market must be performed before this is brought back, that the absence of need for social renting housing is evidenced and they need to come back and prove that. The legal framework needs to be .. we need further information on that. The Gateway needs to be set up with the levels so that we can see how it is going to work and at what levels, who it will apply to, and then the non-profit organisations that are going to hold this pot of money - which is a serious move, it is substantial money - must be identified and agreed and arrangements must be identified for them to come on board. There are, I believe, 5 points there that need further information before this House, I believe, can come back. I propose a reference back to the Minister for Planning and

Environment and I would seek a seconder.

The Bailiff :

Is the reference back of Deputy Southern seconded? [Seconded] Is there any debate?

1. Senator T.J. Le Main:

Can I speak on the reference back? Well, Sir, I have never heard such misleading rubbish in all my life. [Laughter] Quite honestly, you know, what are we talking about? Deputy Southern knows it all. Always knows it all. Typical J.D.A. (Jersey Democratic Alliance) absolute rubbish. [Laughter] Sir, I just cannot believe what he is saying. He knows of 3 people wanting to be moved into family homes. We have got sites, Sir, that are coming on line now, Field 690 at Maufant, 18 or 20 3-bedroom homes for rental, we have got 30 or 40 more homes on those sites. We have got at this present time, Sir, enough homes to meet the current urgent needs, 34 at the moment. The position is quite clear that the Housing Department have got many, many homes, which Deputy Southern well knows, that are being blocked because we just cannot unlock some of the one and 2-beds that we need to move people out of 3-beds to release them. This is taking place at the moment. Currently the Housing Department, Sir, have around £120 million worth of capital work taking place at the moment on many schemes and proposed schemes due to start. To say that this cannot be scrutinised .. what we are asking today, Sir - and this is desperate - we have got hundreds and hundreds of people that are on incomes that would like to buy homes. Sir, we want to put in place today a tool that allows the Minister for Planning and Environment in the Island Plan to be able to either, in the percentage of the planning obligation .. to allow the Minister for Planning and Environment, on the evidence at the time, whenever, that he can decide whether the percentage is for social renting or it is another tool to provide affordable homes on a Homebuy scheme. Sir, I only hope that in this year's elections that public out there, the 800 people who desperately want to be home owners, all the young people in this Island and their families, do not vote for the likes of Deputy Southern and the Jersey Demolition Alliance. Because that is what they are trying to do, they are trying to destroy the young people in this Island who have aspirations to own a home. I am absolutely mad to think that the way that they continue, continue to mislead this House .. mislead this House as he has done this morning. No evidence. The evidence for any Member who wishes to come and talk to my officers is quite clear, we are not in desperate need of 3-bed family homes at them moment for rental. We can, with the new sites coming on line, achieve this. Sir, to delay this .. when the Island Plan is in the process of being developed very soon, we need this tool in the armoury to be able to move forward. The other details will take place, Sir. They will take place with full consultation with any Member of this Assembly. I give an open invitation for any Member to come and talk the Minister for Planning and Environment and myself. But for Deputy Southern to continue to wreck upon wreck upon wreck on any issue .. he voted against the property plan, wonderful opportunity for people to become home owners, people that often were in receipt of housing subsidies are now becoming home owners. Go and have a look at those families living down in Le Marais and Le Squez that are now home owners. How wonderful it is to be able to achieve home ownership. [Approbation] Sir, I am sorry, but I am just getting absolutely to the end of my tether with the likes of Deputy Southern and his ilk. Quite honestly we have to look after the people of this Island. The home ownership is 50 per cent, 51 per cent, it is 70 in other countries. That is why we have got such a huge social bill that needs to be covered every year with

income support and all that, because the likes of Deputy Southern wants everybody to be in rental. You know, we have got housing trusts now, 1,000 units of accommodation in housing trusts. Some of them have paid off their mortgages. Huge amounts of income, they will be going out in the next 2, 3, 4, 5 years and purchasing extra rental properties if they are needed. There is a mechanism, and that is why we supported housing trusts, so when they paid off their mortgages to, like, the Jersey Homes Trust, huge swathes of money coming in that will be able to go out. It would relieve the public sector in providing homes all the time. But quite honestly, Sir, I urge Members to allow the Minister for Planning and Environment to have this tool in his armour so that at any stage there is an obligation there that either can continue to provide social rented homes, if needed, but also to make an affordable mechanism. It is high time we did something. We have done nothing to help and assist first-time buyers since we brought out the States loan 30, 40, 50 years ago and it worked wonderfully then. It is out of date now and the States cannot afford to be lending money as such. But this is a mechanism that is being applied everywhere else in the world. A home buyer shared equity system. Sir, the Housing Department are being very successful in selling off their homes on exactly the same kind of scheme. As I say, Sir, this is just a proposition today to allow the tool to be put into the Island Plan and then the other issues will come back to this Assembly. The issue could not be clearer than that. Sir, I urge Members to really  .. this ridiculous mad Jersey Democratic proposal to reference back and delay everything and make no decisions  .. urge Members to support the Minister for Planning and Environment.

2. Connétable T.J. de Feu of St. Peter :

Now we have had the emotional view of the Minister for Housing I would like to perhaps bring everyone back to a sane position and feet firmly on the ground. The principle that has been proposed, no one can quarrel with at all. It is an extremely good proposal and it has tremendous merit and is indeed good news for everyone, Sir. But it does not alter the fact that I am very concerned at what appears to be a tremendous amount of work in the detail still to be carried out as identified by Deputy Power. On not one but a number of aspects, particularly with emphasis maybe on the legal side and on the actual financial aspect, and we had good overview by the Minister in his proposal of the motion. I think it is important that the detail is very clearly in place before such a scheme would commence. If I could be assured that nothing would happen until every detail is in place I would feel more comforted. But that is not the message that has come through up to this moment. The mention of the property reverting to the mortgage lender, or the mortgage lender having first charge on it, I have looked in the proposition, in the detail of the proposition, and I do not find a clear inference other than have to agree that it is in perpetuity on the whole transaction. But is the mortgage lender obliged to absolutely every conditional aspect on such a transaction. I think that is key and fundamental because we have seen all too often abuses being made of people who set out with the good intent and everything looking good and rosy for it only to find that there are loop holes which are exploited in certain directions. It is somewhat unfortunate, Sir, that Deputy Southern moved a motion for a reference back perhaps so early in the debate. I would have thought that perhaps the most progressive way on this particular proposal would have been to have asked the Minister to take it back, get together with all his interested parties which clearly have a vital role to play in this detail, and then come back with a full and total completed working outline of how it is going to all work and then I am sure that all the Members would feel a lot more comforted in the knowledge that we are not going to be caught at the end of the day on something which in be it 5 or 10 years time or whenever, will come back and someone will say: "Well, if only we would have looked at the detail in more depth then we would not be in this problem today." We have experienced that sort of nonsense far too often over the years and I do not want to see that repeated for anyone's case or in concern of the young people that will get the opportunity to have their home ownership. I want everybody to be in a position of creating a home, creating the security of it, but I want to make sure that it is absolutely watertight from day

one, that there are no problems to go after, Sir.

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

I do not support a reference back. People want the possibility of buying their own home now, as we have heard from Deputy Le Claire. However, I believe that the Minister for Planning and Environment does need to regularly update Members on progress and obviously be fully cognisant of the Scrutiny Report. The Scrutiny Report can inform the process and I believe the House needs to be kept informed but I think that for anyone .. if we reference this back what does it say about this Government? I think that we have to give a positive vote to this but we obviously will need to be kept informed of both the Scrutiny work and the detail. Thank you, Sir.

4. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement :

I well understand some of the concerns that the mover of this reference back outlined. However, I feel that probably they fall into 2 broad areas; that is I was not clear from some of his opening words whether he was in favour of the principles. Some of the comments he was making were about social rented housing and the Homebuy scheme so I am not sure if he is in favour of this scheme or its principles. But I will put that to one side. His main objections appear to me to be about the role of Scrutiny within this process. Sir, if I might be, for one moment, somewhat controversial. It seems to me, and has for a while now, that one of the faults - or perhaps I should say failings - of Ministerial government is that of the relationship between Ministers, the Executive and some of the Scrutiny function. I am a believer that that relationship should be strengthened and we should be moving towards a closer working relationship with Scrutiny perhaps being involved much more at the start of policy development and decision making. If I look at the proposal that we have before us today, I believe that the Minister for Planning and Environment and the Minister for Housing are proposing such a model. They will, we have heard, work hand in hand with the Scrutiny Panel on all the details until all the parties are content that every - dare I say this, Sir - i is dotted and every t crossed. Yes, there are details missing from this proposal but I fundamentally and wholeheartedly support the principles of this proposition and I believe that with this proposition we are presented with an opportunity to show that the relationship between Ministers and Scrutiny can work, perhaps in a more positive way, and I urge Members to reject this reference back and allow the principles to go forward, and allow this, shall I say, new, more positive relationship to be formed. Thank you, Sir.

5. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour :

Deputy Gorst 's sentiments are indeed very fine and they are based on the notion, the one that I talked about a few weeks ago, that at the end of the rainbow, Sir, we can indeed get consensus. Part of the problem with Scrutiny at the moment, and we in a sense saw it manifest in the last couple of days, is that there are some Members who are clearly, either inadvertently or advertently, using it as a foundation for political opposition, and there are others who will buy into the basic assumptions of a Minister and say: "Let us see if we can move on and get a mutually acceptable solution." I am afraid where Scrutiny consists of people who have mixed approaches to these issues, and depending on the mix and the chemistry of the group, you are going to get collisions and you are going to get some people at some point, and that is what is happening at the moment, who are going to say: "Fundamentally, I do not agree with the Minister's view", for example, about social housing or: "I do not agree with his analysis of why the housing market is in the overheated state it is." While these arguments persist, and they came out for example in the last couple of days on another issue, you will never get, much as I would like it, this Nirvana that Deputy Gorst aspires to. That said, Sir, I think there are issues here. I am on this panel, although I was not at the Ministerial meeting where this deal was worked out, about which I was very hesitant. That said, Sir, I think unless the details, as the Constable of St. Peter said, are worked out, it is not just a question of the details being worked out almost to the point of self destruction, which is the way we often work out details in this House. It is a question, Sir, as Deputy Power said, there are some major issues of social almost jealousy built into this. If we are going to get people buying houses who feel, rightly or wrongly, or the first-time buyers feel rightly or wrongly, that they are giving a heavy subsidy as inferred by Deputy Power to the shared equity people, there are going to be horrendous problems in how we manage that, Sir. That is my worry that perception or reality-wise we are sort of going to set against people, for example. I think that until that is worked out the Constable of St. Peter is absolutely right, we have to be able to say that this is a solidly worked out policy. There are no hidden subsidies for a particular group and developers are not going to recoup their money by overcharging the first-time buyer group. Because that is the real issue, Sir, and I think this could get horribly derailed, and the Minister for Planning and Environment - whose enthusiasm I admire as much as Deputy Le Claire does, I should add - I know feels very bad when people start criticising. He could find himself in the middle, Sir, quite bluntly, of a social war, because the supply and demand situation is totally out of sync for first-time buyers in this Island

and we know that we put obstacles in the way of Senator Le Main who wants perhaps to grab at green fields more than some of us do. We know that but unfortunately, Sir, there is intense emotion around this issue, the danger here that we will set up jealousies between one group and another, both of whom have very valid reasons and very valid aspirations to get on the housing ladder, is truly horrible. What I would say, Sir, is aside of this issue, with some of Scrutiny in opposition and some of it working to consensus because it happens to agree with what its particular Minister says. What I would say, Sir, I would say a better solution might be if the Minister for Planning and Environment were prepared to say: "I will go away and work with Scrutiny and then re-bring this matter to the House." I think face would be saved there, Sir. We do want .. I think unfortunately Scrutiny  has got  itself  into a  bit of  box. I was one  of  those dissidents that Deputy Power mentioned. I think it has got itself into a bit of box, but given that we have, I think we could work with the Minister, we could even work with the Minister for Housing if things became desperate, and he would work with us, I am sure, Sir, because at heart he is a compassionate and consensus- seeking man. I am sure we could work to see whether we could come to a resolution. Because quite bluntly, Sir, the issues are bigger than the issues that are coming out here. We do have Members on our panel who have fundamentally different views about the way the housing market works and we have got to investigate these things in more detail. I would hate to see what in some sense is a good idea derailed under the heading of lack of detail when we know in fact there are more serious differences at play. If the Minister, Sir, would be prepared to withdraw so that we could work on this and give our feedback, otherwise if he goes to the wire my view is this could be ugly and we will have missed a chance to build what consensus is available. I do implore him, do not get into this false macho-to-the-wire tactic which the Executive has been using a lot recently. It is very unbecoming of the Minister for Planning and Environment. I would also remind him, Sir, of another little issue which, as he knows, is troubling me. When policy is not formed clearly we can get into all sorts of trouble. I have been lobbying him and he has been in listening mode about the enabling development policy, for example, which I feel seems to have crept in a rather strange way and could lead again to unforeseen consequences. It is posing, I know, problems for him. I would counsel him, Sir, here we have another issue which is quite bluntly building-up to problems, although I know he is keen for a resolution. Because we went for vague general policies and we decided we would put the detail on the hoof and then we end up with these big public spats. Thank

you.

6. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :

I think this is a very praiseworthy attempt to solve what is a pretty desperate problem for first-time buyers at the moment and I am all in favour of it. There is, of course, the question of the detail which several speakers have referred to and in my own experience I suggest to them, before they start looking too heavily into the detail they first of all find a financial institution which is happy to lend first mortgages, knowing there is going to be a second charge created virtually immediately I think that is very important. They might well do themselves some favours to tie-up with an institution that will do this. That is the only advice that I would have to give, Sir, at the moment, and I think it is a praiseworthy effort and I think we should back them 100 per cent and then let them get on with doing the detail. Thank you.

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

For the avoidance of any doubt from Deputy Gorst and the Minister for Housing, I am fully, in principle, in support of this proposition. But [Laughter] no I am sorry, Sir, we have heard a very passionate speech from Deputy Le Claire, the Minister for Housing and even Deputy Scott Warr en, but as I say, we are here to be sensible and to pass schemes that work. I am on the main panel, I am not on the Housing Sub-Panel and I took no part in the consultation on this or on the housing sell- off, and I did not take part in the debate. But my problem is, Sir, one, we have a proposition here and comments to the effect that I thought the devil of the detail would be coming back to this House. I am told by the Minister for Planning and Environment and the lead for Scrutiny that this

is not the case. Now, this is a Scrutiny Panel or Sub-Panel who are totally divided on the comments. The Constable is not here today but if you have checked your e-mails the Constable of St. John .. again, on the panel, is divided. The other Constable will probably speak on this and I am not sure of his views. So who are we .. if we do not refer it back or do not get a guarantee from the Minister for Planning and Environment, that all this detail will come back to the House, I see it as a 3-man band, the Minister for Planning and Environment, the Minister for Housing and probably Deputy Power. I am sorry, Sir, this is millions of pounds. I have had questions put to me, even by some of the housing trusts in the consultation, they were concerned and say developers should not profit. I do not know if they are going to profit. I do not know if it is reasonable they should or not. Of course people who build houses want to make a profit and people who are buying houses want them as cheaply as possible, I fully understand that. My question as well - as the Minister for Planning and Environment has got a time to speak - they went out to this fantastic scheme, as he said it was in his manifesto so I presume .. I know he has been a bit busy doing other things but from when he got elected he has been looking at schemes. So let us say 2 years. This consultation went out in March and it came back in May, and as it is pointed out in the Scrutiny report, nothing has changed. Too many questions. Now, the one point that he did say - and I did pick up on, and it is a point on the reference back, Sir - is this non-profit organisation. In the actual proposition on page 5 in the last paragraph it states: "The likelihood is that the non-profit body will accumulate capital it receives to be spent on new affordable housing developments." The likelihood is. The Minister, Sir, did go a little bit further in his opening speech but he did make it quite clear we cannot be prescriptive - or too prescriptive - on what the non-profit organisation can spend this money on. So we are told, blindly, that we must agree that there is no further need for social rented housing at the moment. We were told after the Housing agreed to sell 800 properties, of which only 80 of them have been sold, they do not know what tenure they are. Are they 1, 2, 3- bedroom flats? I do not know, the Minister for Housing does and the Minister for Housing has failed to inform us. But when they do sell the 800, I would say with people now also being able to qualify at 12 years, which, by the way, should have gone down to 11 but cannot, either because we have not enough houses to buy or because we do not have enough social rented housing. Which is it? Nobody has delivered this evidence to me. So, as I say, unless the Minister for Housing in his speech tells me that this, the full proposition, the Gateway scheme .. I have heard figures of up to 60,000, well, 61,500 .. if you are not in the Gateway scheme you cannot buy the £260,000 house you have to buy the £450,000 house. As Deputy Le Hérissier has just said, what will that do to neighbours? I mean, talk about no jealousy: "I am a renter and you are a buyer", what about: "You have got £150,000 subsidy and living in the same house as me"? I hear the Minister for Housing

say there is no subsidy and people should not be concerned .. Senator T.J. Le Main:

Misleading the Assembly again, I totally disagree.

Deputy J.A. Martin:

I really am not giving way.

The Bailiff :

Members really must comply with Standing Orders and should not interrupt Members who are speaking unless they are prepared to give way. [Approbation]

Deputy J.A. Martin:

No, Sir, if I thought I was at all misleading the House I would have given way and if I thought the Minister could give me any points that were evidence I would have also given way. Unfortunately, he spoke and I heard none of that in his speech. The fact is some people will be buying and having a mortgage for £260,000 and a neighbour will have a mortgage for £450,000, and I am sure the Minister for Planning and Environment used the word "subsidy" in his opening speech - he did.

They are subsidised housing, or a subsidised scheme  .. sorry, discounted not subsidised. A discount is not a subsidy; I will have to look that one up in the dictionary. Anyway, I think I have made the point. In principle I fully support it. I cannot believe that we would allow this to go where Deputy Gorst thinks we have now gone, beyond Scrutiny scrutinising the proposition. They are going to work up the finer details with the Minister. As I said, I think that what is left will be Scrutiny, one man and a Minister and another Minister. If you are all prepared that the work has not been done - they have had the time to do it and this is what is on the table - if you think that they are going to get this done in the next week because we are told it is urgent, I think we were even told by the Scrutiny representative: "Let us remember there are people out there waiting for us to make a decision so they can sign on the dotted line." Well, the dotted line is not ready, Sir. I am sorry, even if we pass this today nothing had better happen until we and everybody else has seen the dotted lines. The Minister is smiling. I do not want to see it, I want it approved by everybody in the House and that is the only way to make sure it will be done and unless I get that assurance it will probably be debated in the first week in September, if we decide to sit then, which is looking like we should be. But, of course, I am prepared to come back early to work for the people who need to buy the houses. Let us see how many in a later debate would be prepared to come back on 3rd September. I will support the reference back.

8. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement :

As far as I am concerned, there are too many holes in the Minister's proposition. As far as I am concerned, the comments of the Scrutiny Panel now seem to be diluted or retracted. As far as I am concerned, what they said says it all, which is that the sub-panel found it difficult to assess the merits or otherwise owing to lack of detail. In their conclusion they say that they had insufficient detail presented in the consultation document to enable it to be evaluated at a satisfactory level. There appear to be so many areas of uncertainty it is impossible to draw any positive conclusions where a number of substantial concerns arise which are not addressed. The Homebuy proposition was subsequently lodged substantially unchanged. I think that should be a matter of concern. I do agree with Deputy Southern .. well I do not know what he is standing for in the next election .. that Scrutiny should be evaluating what the Minister is doing and not acting as a Mr. Fixit. I will come back to that in a moment. There are too many unanswered questions in the Minister's proposition. I have to ask, why are we rewarding developers? Why are we giving them £270,000, or thereabouts, for houses they expected - and budgeted for - to get only £160,000, or was it £165,000? I thought we were trying to keep down developers' profits; not so long ago we were considering a tax. But now the proposition does exactly the opposite. I believe the proposition might very well have a similar effect as the infamous rent rebate scheme. Ultimately, by removing market forces it could drive-up future house prices if these are not addressed. The mechanism by which it will operate is so unclear I am really surprised that the Minister has brought this proposition in the condition it is. I have to ask whether there will be legal challenges by previous developers since the goalposts have been moved after the game started. How will the housing provider be chosen or how will they operate? I am sure, and I think Deputy Martin said that as well most of us, if not all, support the idea of shared equity but the trouble is they are trying to bring it forward in this incomplete fashion and that is simply not acceptable because we are being asked to agree something with no idea how it is going to work. Deputy Gorst suggested we have a problem with the way Scrutiny and Ministers operate but I diverge from him thereafter because it seems to me that if Scrutiny acts as the Ministers' Research and Development Department it undermines thereafter its ability to assist Members. It cannot therefore be objective and give us a clear analysis of the proposition before us. That means that Members simply will not get an accurate assessment. We are told it may not even come back to the Assembly. I think that is far too cosy an arrangement. I cannot support that type of work which is why I support the reference back. I do also take on board Deputy Le Hérissier's comments and would agree with him that really the Minister, I think, would be well advised to withdraw the proposition and bring it back when it has the necessary details with it, because I think the alternative is he will probably lose it. This is not an in principle debate, as some Members have suggested, it is, in fact, a dangerous test run.