States Meeting Transcript - 13/05/2009

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT WEDNESDAY, 13th MAY 2009

PUBLIC BUSINESS – RESUMPTION..........................................................4

1. Draft Housing (General Provisions) (Amendment No. 26) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.45/2009)................................................................................4

1. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Helier : ..........................................................4
2. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:............................................................6
3. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour:......................................................6
4. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour:......................................................7
5. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:.......................................................7
6. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin : ...........................................................8
7. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:......................................................9
8. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : ..................................................12
9. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:.......................................................14
10. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................15
11. Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary:.................................................19
12. The Connétable of St. Clement:........................................................21
13. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade : ........................................................22
14. Deputy D.J. De Sousa of St. Helier:....................................................23
15. Senator S. Syvret:......................................................................23
16. Senator T.J. Le Main (The Minister for Housing): ......................................27

1. Senator J.L. Perchard: ...............................................................34
2. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................35
3. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................35
4. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................35
5. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................35
6. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................36

17. Senator T.J. Le Main: ..................................................................36 Mr. W.J. Bailhache Q.C., H.M. Attorney General:............................................37

2. Committee of Inquiry: Reg's Skips Ltd. – Planning applications (P.50/2009) ........42

2.1 Senator F.E. Cohen (Minister for Planning and Environment):..........................43

2.1.1 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................43

3. Committee of Inquiry: Reg's Skips Ltd. – Planning applications (P.50/2009) – amendment..............................................................................44

3.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................44

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................45
2. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................45
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................45

4. Committee of Inquiry: Reg's Skips Ltd. – Planning applications (P.50/2009) ........45

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................45
2. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................46
3. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................46
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................46
5. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................46
6. Deputy A.E. Jeune of St. Brelade:......................................................46
7. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................47
8. Senator F.E. Cohen:....................................................................47

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................49 Senator P.F. Routier:..........................................................................49

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................50

5. Family X: Placement in the United Kingdom (P.62/2009)..............................50

5.1 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................51

1. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter:...................................................51
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................51
3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................51

6. Code of Conduct for Elected Members of the States: review (P.63/2009) .............52

6.1 The Deputy of St. John:................................................................52

1. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................53
2. Senator S. Syvret:......................................................................56
3. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................58
4. Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier:.........................................................59

5. The Connétable of St. Peter:............................................................59
6. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................60
7. Senator F.E. Cohen:....................................................................60
8. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................61
9. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................62
10. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade : ............................................64
11. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary:................................................64
12. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................65
13. Deputy C.H. Egré of St. Peter : ......................................................68
14. Deputy A.E. Jeune : ..................................................................68
15. Deputy J.M. Maçon:.................................................................68
16. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:..................................................69
17. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................69
18. Connétable J.L.S. Gallichan of Trinity : ..............................................71 The Attorney General:........................................................................71
19. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................71

STATEMENTS ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY........................71

7. Statement by Senator A.J.H. Maclean, The Minister for Economic Development regarding the payment of compensation to a group of local residents who were victims of misleading advice from Alternate Insurance Services Limited: ....................73

1. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................74
2. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :..................................................74
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................74

4. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................75
5. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................75
6. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:..................................................................76
7. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................76

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................76

8. The Connétable ofSt.Mary (The Chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee): ............................................................................76

8.1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................77

1. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement:.......................................................77
   2. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................79
   3. Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................79

1. The Connétable of Grouville :...........................................................80
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................80
3. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................80
4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................80

4. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................80
5. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................81
6. The Deputy ofSt.Mary:................................................................81

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................82

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

PUBLIC BUSINESS – RESUMPTION

1. Draft  Housing  (General  Provisions)  (Amendment  No.  26)  (Jersey) Regulations  200- (P.45/2009)

The Deputy Bailiff :

We return then to the debate on the Draft Housing (General Provisions) (Amendment No. 26) (Jersey) Regulations. The Assembly was debating the principles.

Male Speaker:

Sir, before we start may I raise the défaut on Senator Cohen?

The Deputy Bailiff :

Does the Assembly agree to raise the défaut on Senator Cohen? The défaut is raised.

1. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

First of all I would like to join in the commendation our Deputy Bailiff yesterday gave to do with Liberation Day. I thought that it all went off very well. In particular, I thought the Bailiff gave a very good speech. The reason I allude to this is relevant to what I am going to say. I was pleased to note the inclusivity of the Bailiff 's speech and I think that was also sincere and something that was very apt to say on our national holiday, 9th May. I will quote .. I do not know if it is a direct quote but it is certainly what appears in the J.E.P. (Jersey Evening Post): "Islanders from all nations and creeds who contribute to Jersey have a right to think of themselves as Jersey people." I think these are words with which we would all agree. A cynic might add the following sentence: "But they do not have the right to buy or rent property and they will be marginalised to inferior jobs if they have been here less than 5 years." I know that in one sense we are discussing a very specific proposition here to reduce housing from 12 years to 11 years but I think it is also important that we put this into the whole context of the housing policy. One of the reasons I stood for election in the States is because in the years preceding my election I used to follow States business very attentively or certainly as attentively as I could do, either up in the gallery or at home with the very good service provided by the BBC. I would get frustrated and perhaps shout at my radio. A lot of the reason I would do that is because of what I would class as propaganda being spoken and I would get very frustrated that there was nobody there - or very few people in the House - to counter this very obvious propaganda. So I would like to start with the 1(1)(k)s. This is an area which conveniently politically people like to polarise. You are either in favour of 1(1)(k)s coming to the Island and, therefore, you are a loyal Jersey man or Jersey woman or you are not and you are an enemy of Jersey because of course we know that 1(1)(k)s contribute to Jersey not only financially but also socially. I am not going to comment on whether that is true or not. No doubt they do bring with them wealth that does go into the Island economy. That is not to be debated. They also bring skills no doubt - social skills - and other benefits to society. But the implication in this very statement is to say that other people do not do that. Now there is an old lady who lives across the road from me. In relative terms she is older, I do not mean that in any way to be disparaging. I know that up until recently she has been doing some very good work, giving up her free time to work in one of the many charity shops. This is obviously a common theme. You will get lots of the older generation, who strangely enough do not happen to be 1(1)(k)s, contributing to our society. I believe that there are also probably (j) category that contribute to our society. There are people of local (a) to (h) qualifications who contribute in other ways other than simply by contributing in tax terms. There are also people who maybe are unqualified who work in our restaurants, in our hotels, who do sterling work but for some reason because they are not 1(1)(k)s they do not get eulogised in the same way. I am concerned about this sycophancy that we have towards 1(1)(k)s. So let us put the facts on the table. I once talked about inequality in Jersey. Now equality and inequality are things that are bandied around easily because they are just words but the

deeper concepts are a lot more difficult to deal with. In all societies there are inbuilt inequalities. We may have ideals that we aspire to but of course we do not have any utopian societies in the world. There are some more perfect than others but I do not think that there are any that we would call perfect. However, the difference with Jersey is that we do not have inbuilt inequalities so much as the fact that we have built our society on inequality. Let me give a few examples. We have a system whereby we have a 20 per cent tax rate. We have heard that this has worked very well for a long time. I am not completely convinced but we have said we have a 20 per cent maximum pay so if you earn £80,000 - £100,000 a year, you will be paying pretty much on 20 per cent as your effective rate or certainly towards that. But we have a system whereby also we have housing qualifications that, for some strange reason, you have to be here a certain amount of time. That has fluctuated historically as we have seen in the literature from 20 years at some point and we are looking to go back down to 10.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Deputy , I am sorry but this is not a debate on whether to have housing restrictions. It is a simply a move on one year so I think you must bring this back

Deputy M. Tadier :

Okay, I will bring this back to the context. The reason I do apparently stray is that I would like to get reassurances from the Minister for Housing and I am by no means putting the blame in his lap. I realise that he has inherited a whole system which is full of contradictions. But why would we want to reduce it to 11 years? Why not 10? Why not 5? Why has this arbitrary figure been decided upon? What is the ultimate plan? I am worried that there are inconsistencies in the fact that people have to be here 2 years to vote, so they are considered Jersey people for voting rights after 2 years. For residential in a sense, which is a misnomer I believe, to be able to work here you have to be here for 5 years. Is that residential period going to be increased to 10 years because there is no parity there? There are all sorts of human rights implications about not being able to buy or rent property in Jersey when we as a society are saying: "We want you to come to Jersey. We want you to do work for us. We want you to contribute but you are not allowed to buy housing." I have heard mixed reports. Someone has told me it is going to go up to 10 years for residential so that there will be parity there. Other people have told me that this is going to be scrapped completely. Before I can vote today to reduce this one way or the other I would like to know what the overall plan is, if there is a plan for housing in general. Seeing as I have been precluded I think from using most of my speech because it has not been deemed relevant, I think I will simply leave it there because I have lost the flow of my speech. It was largely analysing the whole of the problems. But I seriously think that we need to have answers about where this housing policy .. I feel that I am being asked to reduce this on weak evidence. While I fully agree that there are people now on the waiting lists, there are also people who have been here for 9 years and 8 years. I feel in a very difficult position about simply reducing it to 11 years. I think the other point I was going to make and it has returned to my memory is about the whole government interference within the housing market. We seem to have in Jersey this strange marriage of a centralised Soviet style control of everything - and I am quoting Deputy Le Hérissier, just so I do not get told off for plagiarising - with rabid free market capitalism. Now which is it? Are we trying to control everything or are we free marketeers? I know this is a difficult thing to control in an Island but I think we really need to have an open and honest debate because I do not want people to be discriminated against. Like the Bailiff said, if people come to Jersey they are considered Jersey people. It is all well and good to say these kinds of things but if you do not have the same rights .. if Mr. X and Mr. Y have different rights .. and let me make the point that a local person may contribute in other ways than fiscally. So the old lady, the 40 year-old who works in a charity shop, the musician who gives up his free time to play at the zoo, in old people's homes, wherever, who does not make any money off that, does he or she then have the right to say: "I am contributing to society in other ways, therefore, can I reduce my tax rate? I will give you £10,000 flat tax and I

can earn what I want." So why are we having these double-standards? I think this is an underlying issue that we need to address once and for all in Jersey. We have one rule for another. I would also ask the Treasury and Resources Department, and I did not get the chance yesterday .. I will submit a question to find out what the effective rate is for 1(1)(k)s to find out what they are paying in effective rates so we can compare that to what other people are paying. I will leave it there. As of yet I am not decided as to how I will vote on this so I need reassurances as to where this is going as I do believe other Members also need reassurances of. I will leave it there and hopefully that will prompt some discussion.

2. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier :

This is a proposition I can support. We are moving in the right direction and I, too, would like to see the years come down so that we can get to equal opportunities for our residents as we can. We have so many people that will be essential, not only now but in the future, to the wellbeing of our Island. It is very essential that we also take positive steps to look after them as well as they are looking after us. On the question of the 1(1)(k)s, we do need the checks and balances. I have seen what the other side of the coin could be and believe you me you do not want them here in this Island. On the other hand you do not want to lose the good ones either. If it is more productive elsewhere they can move just like that. But if they are doing not just of the value of the income tax that is being given to this Island by their mere presence here but all the other social and economic reasons that these people put into the Island I have met many of them over the years that I know are giving considerable amounts of money and support to either individuals in this Island or collectively for the support of this Island. They are very proud to be here but we must recognise again that there are boundaries that if we do not get it right, they could move very easily. So it is a balance of checks and balances. I support this.

3. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour :

I did not realise I put my light on, Sir, but never mind.

The Deputy Bailiff :

You did yesterday.

Deputy J.M. Maçon:

Okay, fair enough. [Laughter]

The Deputy Bailiff :

But if I may so, Deputy , it is not obligatory for any Member to speak. [Laughter] Deputy J.M. Maçon:

I have got a few things to say. The Minister yesterday talked about the notion of social justice. He talked about to some extent the bad quality of unqualified housing. By passing this proposition we will not change that. By passing this proposition tenants will not improve their properties. In fact we will not have better regulations and upgrading and making these properties better. So although we may be able to remove some people from this bad housing, we will not solve the problem. I really would like an undertaking from the Minister for Housing that something will be done about this because I think we all agree people deserve better housing, qualified or unqualified, but I do appreciate that social justice does cost money. But this is something very important which does need to be taken forward. To clarify Deputy Tadier , I think we can all agree that Jersey is a desirable place to live. The reason why we have housing qualifications is one of our population controls. If we did not have it, that would greatly affect our population and that is why we have it. I do have a problem with the second part of this proposition; not because I have anything against 1(1)(k)s and not because I have anything against the Minister but I do have great concern because in a sense we are giving more power into fewer hands. That is a grave concern to me and I ask Members to consider these points.

4. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour :

I very much agree with what Deputy Maçon has just stated in regards to the justice grounds. We do have social injustice in the Island; not just within housing. I would just like to quote an email which was correspondence between myself and Senator Le Main. He mentioned: "Even if our States Members decide to reduce by one year on social justice reasons for those unqualified people wholly employed in Jersey, all paying taxes, many with Jersey born children, the majority paying taxes, living in hugely overpriced and unsuitable accommodation where the children can not bring or entertain their friends at home, we all know that the vast majority of those who will qualify will never, ever be able to afford to buy a home." This was in regards to there was a worry out there that by reducing the qualification would mean pushing up house prices. I just have a few questions that possibly Senator Le Main could answer for me. The social injustice grounds will still apply to those that have been here 1 year, 2 years, 3 years up to 11 years. How are we addressing this? When will this be addressed? With regards to the tenancy laws, when will they be coming to this House because, if anything, that needs to be addressed first? I agree that we have social injustice and we need to reduce it down. Just to clarify Deputy Tadier 's point, the migration policy P.25/2005 was stated to bring down the housing qualifications to 10 years over a period of time. I would just like to reiterate that there are bigger areas that need to be addressed first. I would possibly like to hear from the Chairman of the Migration Advisory Group as to when the migration law will be coming through as well. Addressing that area because these will be in relation to the tenancy laws as well. Until these issues are addressed I just do not believe that we are getting any social justice at all. We will slightly .. there are a minimal amount of people that will come in. But another question I would like the Senator to answer for me is with regards to the current economic downturn, does his Housing Department have sufficient capacity to take in a possible influx of newly qualified people on the housing list because even the (a) to (h) rentals in the private

sector are becoming severely overpriced?

5. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier :

I would just like to pay tribute to youth. It just shows that wisdom can be accompanied by the young, the youngish sometimes and the old. I really do not need to repeat too much because I think Deputy Maçon and Deputy Vallois have put those issues really incisively. I really want to echo also Deputy Le Hérissier's concerns. The Minister for Housing is of course not just the Minister for States housing, he has got to be fighting the good fight for all our residents. We certainly should not have people living in some of the squalor that I have seen in the election campaign. I hope we would all echo that sentiment and support the Minister for Housing as much as we can. I am sure I have got every faith in him. This proposition I think is really like a game of football; a game of 2 halves. I certainly support the first because it is the right thing to do. I recognise what Deputy Tadier has said. In some ways it does not make sense 100 per cent. Nevertheless, J.D.A. (Jersey Democratic Alliance) always on policies and issues not personalities so I will be supporting that. The 1(1)(k) issue though, I am afraid I simply cannot support this. Again it is nothing against 1(1)(k)s. It is just the fact that the way I read this, it is far too vague, far too wishy-washy. In my opinion, and with no intended slur on anyone, it is wide open to abuse; to corruption even. We are lucky we have got a Minister for Housing, as he has told us himself I think, who is a very honest politician. But can so much power such broad brushstrokes legislation be entrusted with so much power? It is too vague. I stand to be corrected but yesterday I was quite bemused to hear that people have in the past been accepted who do not even fit the economic criteria. Is that correct? Well, how do they justify it? I thought the main element of 1(1)(k) s is they would be contributing a substantial sum to our economy so if you do not have to do that, I think I will move out of the Island, move back and negotiate a nice tax rate. It makes no sense. I really would like the Minister to clarify that in his summing-up. As Deputy Tadier has said in his abruptly ended speech, it is not a case of being anti 1(1)(k)s. It is about ensuring that there is fairness in this Island. Social justice might cost money but it is certainly worth whatever money it costs. On my assessment of the figures given to my question yesterday from the Assistant Minister, the tax rate is roughly 6.5 per cent. Now that does not seem right to me. It makes no sense. Possibly there is another Member who will clarify that further. But I think there are more questions than answers contained in this and I would urge Members not to support this second part of the proposition and ask the Minister to come back with something a lot more defined and a lot more corruption-proof.

6. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin :

For the benefit of those who are in the House since 1995, it is the same record going out. There is another record going to go out next year. It will be the same speech. Maybe not next year, maybe the year after, but we are going to get there to 10 because that seems to be the safe, sensible idea of having equality. It probably bases right back to 1980 when the law was changed where it was decided because to combat the influx it be essential that Jersey men or anyone who had been born in Jersey had to live here for 10 years; then you were a proper Jersey man. That has stayed on ever since. So if you are born here, you still have to qualify. The fact you are born here does not give you the right to live here. That only gives you the right to buy, et cetera, once you have done your 10 years. A lot of people think that that is not right but that is a fact. From that we also introduced a 10 year rule. Then later on it was decided that, no, we are still having too many people coming in so we would make it that no one could qualify unless of course you had a good way of coming in. You were going to be a (j) where we could find all sorts of arrangements for you or we could have this wonderful (k) system, again where we could find all sorts of ways of getting you in if you were the right sort. But of course if you were not the right sort, we could find all sorts of ways of keeping you out and making it totally, I think, very divisive and certainly nowhere could we have equality. As I say we have had this record going on now and we are going to have another one coming on next year because I believe the only way we can do it is reducing it to help those people who as indeed Deputy Tadier reminded us of the Bailiff 's speech, we all have a part to play here. However, depending on what your background is or who you are or how much money you have got, you are deemed to be much more important and much more, I suppose, acceptable to those people who are deemed not to be quite so acceptable because they have got to do 10, 11, 12 years before they can qualify. Every time I have been here, what I do I squeeze my nose when I vote yes because I know I have got to vote yes. But really we are not going to sort out the problem. No disrespect to the Minister. He has been a Minister for 10 years. Unfortunately, we have not ever had a change and we are not going to have a change. Again, no disrespect to Senator Le Main. He is very sincere but I do not think he has the vision to bring in a proper policy change. We have had this population policy what has been setting for years. Again, no change. I can understand the frustration of newer Members because coming into it but I have been here for 15 years and it is the same record going round and round again. I really do get frustrated. I really feel also what a hypocrisy. Here we are, we are going to reduce the rate by one year for those people who have done their time and in the same proposition we are dealing with 1(1)(k)s. Does it not make you feel you have got to go and squeeze your nose? What are we doing with this? What is in the best interest of the community? I can understand what the Attorney General was saying because quite clearly if you have got to have some form of .. to keep people in or bring people out or whatever you want to do with but really what is the best interest of the community? Is it because they are lovely chaps? They know somebody? They know the Minister very well so that is why they can come in? I would ask Members not to support the second part until we really get it clarified really what it means because to bring this on the back of reducing the qualifying time for those people who have been here, justifiable to reduce it to 11 years. Please do not support part B because it is

coming [Interruption] ..

The Deputy Bailiff :

Thank you, Minister. You will have your opportunity to reply in due course. The Deputy of St. Martin :

I would hope the Minister will be separating it because if he does not I will be forced to vote against the whole thing which would be a shame because that will be doing no good for those people who I think deserve to be reduced from 12 to 11. So I would ask the Minister to think carefully before he puts it to the vote because he may well lose the whole lot and have to come back and the people who will really suffer are those people who are deserving of having their time reduced from 12 to 11.

The Deputy Bailiff :

If I can assist, Deputy , on a Point of Order. Of course these are regulations and, therefore, the individual regulations can be taken separately at the request of any Member.

The Deputy of St. Martin :

It will be separate?

The Deputy Bailiff :

Yes, because they are separate regulations. The Deputy of St. Martin :

That is fine, Sir. Anyway I have had my say and I would hope that Members will have heard what I have had to say and will vote accordingly.

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

I thought for one quite frightening moment yesterday that this whole thing would go through in quarter of an hour and that the Minister would be done and dusted by 5.30 p.m., I thought. Then I thought again, no, the House usually takes its time making certainly such important decisions as these. I think the theme developing is reflected by the Deputy of St. Martin's phrase, it is a moment to hold the nose, take the plunge and vote for even though you are not sure that it is quite right but you really have to take the plunge. Yet again I think we are making up our minds on the basis - as so often with housing issues in particular - so flue as to be .. it is like knitting with fog. What do the numbers mean? What do we know about the housing market? The answer is next to nothing. We very rarely get any improvement in the statistics that are produced. So we have got some figures there - 2006, 2007, 2008 - of transactions and numbers, out of which filters one little vague statement: "Following pre introductions in the qualifying period in both 2006 and 2007 it is estimated [which way is the wind blowing] only 3 per cent of all purchase consents were subsequently issued to persons who had taken advantage of the one year qualification." So at a running guess perhaps 3 per cent of purchases down to reductions in the period for housing qualifications. Now add to that the 7 to 8 per cent due to the change in (j) category rules which say most (j) category will now be permanent with a right to buy and you have got a 10 per cent factor increase in demand in the house purchase market; 10 per cent increase in demand. We know the laws of supply and demand because we are all arch capitalists. We know how it works. Increase the demand, given a limited supply the price goes up. But we are told later on the latest house price index reflects a slight downturn on turnover, yes, and prices. Oh no, it does not. House prices going up? Not at 20 per cent last year. Not at 13 per cent the year before. Not at 7 per cent the year before. Well, yes, back to normality; a 7 per cent rise year-on-year. March this year to March last year, a 7 per cent rise on which we are going to add just a few more potential purchasers into the mix. So what are we talking about? House price inflation again. We will be stoking it. Despite the recession that is hitting worldwide, the U.K. (United Kingdom) and ourselves, house prices in Jersey remain immune. They keep going up. Back to medieval times when the thing that was of value in Jersey was land. For land read housing. That is what is valuable in Jersey and it will ever be thus because we are an Island and we can only build so many flipping houses. But we are then told - and look at it: "This is particularly true in the present economic climate where it is reasonable to conclude that the already limited propensity to purchase of new qualifiers will be lower than it has in the past." They are all poorer. What it means, do not worry about it, do not worry about this impact because people will not be able to afford to buy anyway so it does not matter. We can do what we like. It matters not one jot. So on that basis, we are asked to reduce the housing qualification period from 12 years to 11 years. Now I, like many other Members, know of heartbreaking stories and tales about people living in high cost, lousy accommodation, cramped accommodation because they cannot afford accommodation in Jersey and they desperately need their qualifications. I, like many others, have taken many a (g) case - a hardship case - to Housing and had it granted. I said many; I, like many. Excuse me, just recomposing myself. (g) cases are new to the Minister for Housing. Well, that is news. He will get his chance to answer later. Many cases, yes. The most recent one I met and it is exactly on this issue. They have been granted 11 years. They have not quite got 12 years. The 2 kids are sleeping on bunk beds in the corridor on the way out to the front door in a one bedroom flat; dining and cooking and the kids sleeping effectively in the same area. They desperately want to move. So, yes, I have to hold my nose. Even given the paucity of information and understanding we have of this issue, I have to hold my nose and vote for this because I have to think of that particular family and they will get their qualifications and they will be applying for States accommodation because they cannot afford other. They cannot afford the private market so they will be at the Minister's door, knocking on his door saying: "I have got my qualifications. You brought the years down. I have got my qualifications. Please house me properly, adequately, in non damp conditions with enough rooms so that my kids can sleep separately from where we cook and eat and talk." We know those cases. There is another one but I will not go into details of that one. So many - yes, many - cases where people are living in inadequate conditions as the Minister knows full well. So, yes, I will be voting for the first part of this. But then we come to the second part and this is what the frightening moment was last night when I thought it might go through in quarter of an hour. He might get this. So change the regulations on 1(1)(k)s. A very different issue to the (g) cases we have just been talking about. So we will have to ask what is a 1(1)(k) for? It is a tax category. If you pay a certain amount of tax, we will let you live in our Island. You will have to buy a certain quality of house but effectively it is an economic decision. If you contribute X to our tax revenues, we will let you in. We will not let anybody else in unless we have got special cases but you can come in. We are told that we want to change this. We now want to give the Minister consent which can be justified on social or economic grounds or both and as being in the best interest of the community. So all of a sudden from economic grounds pure and simple - and that one is easy to judge - we are on to social grounds. What are those social grounds? We are given no indication whatsoever.

Social grounds like .. I do not know. I like rugby players.

Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement :

A point of clarification, Sir, if the Deputy will ..

Deputy G.P. Southern :

No, I will .. has the Constable made his speech? No. You will get your turn. The Connétable of St. Clement :

It is just that the Deputy is wrong, Sir. The law already says it is social or economic grounds. I was just trying to be helpful, Sir.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

I am looking at a change in the regulations. Substitute .. The Connétable of St. Clement :

The law says social or economic currently.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

And the regulations now say so it is a change - substitute - of the regulation and we are having a conversation during my speech [Laughter] and I have not given way.

The Deputy Bailiff :

It takes 2 to converse, Deputy [Laughter]. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Even after 7 years I still make the mistake of being drawn. It happened to Deputy Tadier this morning that he got directed and lost his thread by the Chair. How much he reminds me of myself 7 years ago [Members: Oh!]. Let us hope he makes a greater improvement than I did in my 7 years so far and learns not to get drawn into conversation with a Constable or a Minister across the Chamber because that is not the way we conduct business, is it? So here we are. Now what I heard yesterday I think was that we no longer demand a minimum of £200,000 from 1(1)(k)s. It used to be I thought you paid 20 per cent of full rate of tax on your first million of income that you put through Jersey. You pay 1 per cent on your second million should you decide to put it through Jersey and 0.5 per cent on your third or subsequent millions; around £200,000. I think I heard yesterday that the average of recent 1(1)(k)s arriving on the Island is around £100,000. I think I heard that so we have already lowered the drawbridge substantially. Now we want to introduce social grounds. We are told by the Attorney General ..

The Deputy Bailiff :

From the Chair, Deputy , I think I must intervene. That is simply not right. As the report says, the existing law is that consent can be granted in 1(1)(k) on social or economic grounds. If you read the report it is (2) that is being added; (2) is the new thing. So we have got to confine ourselves to that.

Senator T.J. Le Main:

Sir, could I assist the Assembly on this paragraph? The Deputy Bailiff :

Only if the Deputy gives way.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

No, I am not giving way. The Minister as he full knows because he has been here a good deal longer than I, he knows he gets a second go and he can correct anything I say when he does.

The Deputy Bailiff :

But I think on a point of clarification, Deputy , we need to be clear that the social is not new. Deputy G.P. Southern :

I accept that direction, Sir. "As being in the best interest of the community" is the new bit. The Deputy Bailiff :

Yes.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

Thank you, Sir. So let us focus on that then. What is in the best interest of the community? We are told that of course this is perfectly normal. We must be able to keep out people who happen to have gained their wealth by nefarious means. We could not possibly let them in. We can say, no, not in the best interest of the community to let you in. You are a wrong one. You might be rich but you are a wrong one. We will not have you. It makes us look cheap and nasty. I mean if Bernie Madoff who made off with quite a packet, came and knocked on our door, would we have him? If some notorious tax evader and avoider perhaps named Green came and knocked on our door, would we let him in, in the best interest of our community? Would we say even are we in a bidding war? We are in a bidding war on Zero/Ten with the Isle of Man so why not join a bidding war on 1(1)(k)s? It was mentioned yesterday about the regulations elsewhere. It was mentioned again

today. The old classic: but if we do not let them in, they will go somewhere else with their money. Yes, of course the old argument. Will we be in a bidding war? Would it be in the best interest for the community - and this is the change - to let somebody in who is only offering say £70,000 in tax money but what I will do is for example, if it were J.K. Rowling: "I will pay you £70,000 and I will sponsor a book festival." That will be in the best interest of the Island. We can have a good book festival. We get lots of people in and establish our name as a place of culture. That sounds like a good deal to me. Is that the grounds we want? Let us have a downward bidding spiral: "I will offer you £50,000 but I will sponsor this. I will sponsor all your arts for a year." Great. As my wife always says, you only need sponsorship because people are not paying their taxes properly. "I will offer you £50,000 and £50,000 sponsorship for something else. How about that? Good deal? Like it? It will be in the best interest of the Island." Is it? That is the sort of power we are giving to the Minister for Housing by this change in regulation. In his estimate is it in the best interest of the Island to have this person in? I hesitate to go there but I will go there, is it open to interpretation as possibly corrupt? Is there a deal going on that this person over here guaranteed their £100,000, they chipped into the pot; this person got in on only £70,000 or £50,000. What sort of deal did he do? No, it was just decided it was in the best interest of the Island. Is that transparent? Is that clear? Is it open to potential corruption? Not in the case of this Minister who is a man of total probity or any future Minister who will be equally measured on the same scale. Of course not. But could it be seen to be? The important thing is, are we in a potential downward spiral where people will come in as 1(1)(k)s paying less and less tax. That potential is there. Therefore, I and I urge other Members to vote against this change in the regulation.

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

The reduction by one year is a no-brainer. The items highlighted by Deputy Vallois and others in relation to the issues of inclusivity, as highlighted by Deputy Tadier and Deputy Southern , are issues that we need to address as a government and are issues that need to be investigated and brought forward. We have developed a new system of Ministerial government and we have got scrutiny panels. I have always considered that the scrutiny panel in charge of Housing, Social Security and Health has too wide a responsibility. Although there is synergy in some of the things that they look into, there is just far too much work for them to do. I am not absolutely certain about the (k) issue because it does call into question how it is going to be interpreted, under what circumstances and where is the policy that the Minister refers to in relation to this? As other Members have pointed out, I do not think it is going to change anything not approving it and I do not think it is going to change anything approving it. But if there are reservations that Members have, perhaps it could be called into scrutiny and they could sit down and do perhaps what they should have done and get the Minister into discuss and look for the evidence in relation to this. I do not know if that happened and I do not know if the Scrutiny Panel would be minded to do that. Unfortunately, the chairman of that panel is not in the Assembly today and I do not know who is on that panel apart from Senator Breckon.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Deputy , if the principles are passed I shall be as usual asking the Chairman whether he wishes to have it referred to his panel.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Migration and population is looked after by Corporate Services I am told. So there is obviously an opportunity for people to call it in if they are concerned at that stage and the Bailiff will then give everybody an opportunity to do that. There is a whole slate of issues that have been identified this morning. One of them has not been identified and that is the census; the absence of the census, the absence of information and what impact it will have. I am quite convinced that for once the economy does need a little bit of heat underneath it. There is evidence that the housing market is stalled or stalling in some categories. People are in chains waiting to buy houses and waiting for their houses to be bought. That is not a good position for any of us to be in even if we do not own houses. I do not own a house but it is not a good thing to be happening in the community because it does have an effect on the economy. The economy does not do well, we cannot take tax. If we cannot take tax, we cannot spend it on social improvements and social benefits. There seems to be this ludicrous idealism that you are either communist or you are capitalist. The rationale is if you make money, you can spend money on social services. So making money is good or you cannot have social services. Things that need to be looked at in the future would include the new opportunities in relation to assisted purchase schemes, buy to let, rent control which occurs in Guernsey. The rent and the accommodation in Jersey for the main part is inadequate; appalling in some circumstances. We speak of social justice. Ten years ago I came to the Assembly and was voted in after a few months as a Senator on the back of a campaign that ran predominantly on work permits. Then some spurious argument that they were illegal and against Human Rights was given

- which was incorrectly given - and that was put out to pasture and has not seen the light of day since. The migration policy is coming forwards we are told. Well, I sat in the 9th floor of Cyril Le Marquand House with Senator Le Main about 7 years ago, we were talking about identity cards and we asked when could it be brought in, to one of the civil servants, and ex Senator Pierre Horsfall pressed the civil servant for the answer when I did not get it and she said it could be introduced within 2 weeks. That is 7 years ago. I have made this remark with the Greffier in looking at past minutes recently in the States is that it just goes around and around and around and around and around. If you look at the minutes of the States 10 years ago on any given committee of that time, you will see exactly the same issues. Exactly the same issues were being talked about and shifted from department to department. One of them was air quality. I laughed at the air quality one being bandied backwards and forwards between the Health Committee and the Environment Committee. Then you go to taxis and that has been bandied backwards and forwards from Home Affairs to

other bits and pieces. Anyway rather than getting lost on the way, what I am trying to say is this. We need to reduce the qualifications down to 10 years. This is the first step towards getting that done and we should approve the 11 years. I would hope very quickly the Minister for Housing comes, with the Council of Ministers, with a set of proposals that maps out the future for all of these issues with a second proposition that reduces them to 10 years. [Interruption]

The Deputy Bailiff :

Minister, you will have your reply in due course. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

I have lost Senator Le Main. I will try to make this a little bit clearer. I am supporting the reduction as I have always supported the reduction. I am making a population/housing/social issues speech like I always do. But what I am saying this time - having been here 10 years I think I have learned a little; groans from the Constables' benches - is we need proper policies coherently tabled with the final reduction to 10 years that will also address all of the other issues. It is going to be a massive task. I do not think it is beyond the Council of Ministers and I am quite certain that they are capable of doing it. The (k) status .. I am glad Senator Breckon is back in the Chamber. I was saying earlier, for Senator Breckon's benefit, that I think maybe perhaps it might need to be called in and looked at as to what the policy is that the Minister is going to be looking at when he decides whether or not this is in the best interest of the community. I appreciate that it is something we should support and I appreciate the information that Her Majesty's Attorney General gave us yesterday in relation to the added ability to take into account people's backgrounds. I have no problem with that but obviously some Members do. So all I am saying is perhaps there needs to be policy guidelines that are written down for the Minister to refer to rather than just deciding at that point: "Oh, I think it is in the best interest of the community." So maybe Senator Breckon would agree to that. But I think, personally, we need to get the economy moving. This will help in some areas. It will create new home owners. It will move existing home owners that are trying to sell their properties on into other properties that are waiting for them to move into. It will stimulate the economy at an important time to stimulate the economy. It will improve the economy by improving the do-it-yourself, the B&Q, all the rest of it. They will be going out, they will be shopping, they will be decorating, they will be renovating. All of that helps the economy and all of that helps people and all of that gives people work and work gives people money. When people have money they do not need social services. When they have lots of money they pay taxes. When we have taxes we can help those less fortunate. So we need to support this today.

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

As one of the people who got into politics because I was absolutely horrified when I first came to Jersey and found out my 4 year-old son would never qualify because they had taken him away. I cannot stand here today and say I cannot support this - and I will support this - but do not anybody think just because we are going to reduce the qualifications by another year that we are going to solve a lot of hardship out there. This again is piecemeal. I would just like to quote the second paragraph on page 5 where the Minister says: "Although taken into account, the slight uncertainty of the effect on the housing market in these changing times, the Minister is swayed by the fact that this decision continues achieving equality and fairness as espoused in P.25/2005, a strong theme that is being currently progressed in the development of a migration policy." Well, I was with, I think, Deputy Le Claire, Deputy Southern on the scrutiny of that migration policy. This again is piecemeal. I want to know where is what was promised in that? We were going to have licensed, entitled, regulated people. We were going to have a robust population register set up before we increased the population. We did not have a census because we were promised this. We are talking 2005. We are midway through 2009 and we have nothing and we are getting nothing. They are stalling. They have a problem with the immigration policy because they cannot find out who lives in the back rooms of the houses in many of the urban parishes. They cannot find them. They have had this problem for 2 years since I was on the second sub-panel looking at migration and they have not come up with an answer. It is very hard. Now I would like to mention something Deputy Vallois said and a couple of other people have alluded to. Now we have the Minister for Housing telling us only 3 per cent of people took up purchasing once they were granted their qualifications. If the Minister for Housing had ever taken an invitation up to come to a town hall meeting, even as many as 4 or 5 years ago when qualifications were going down from 15 to 14, people were sitting there telling the likes of us: "Well, it is great they have reduced our qualifications but we cannot find anywhere to live and the criteria of Housing will not let us on." That is another thing. The Minister for Housing only a few weeks ago on the radio said we must get a criteria across housing trusts because housing trusts are telling me and everyone else they have now closed their lists. They cannot house any more people. They could house 1,000 in the bracket of between £30,000 a year and £45,000, possibly £50,000. It might sound a lot of money but when you have got 3 or 4 children, when you have been paying £200 or £300 a week for 2 rooms, you have not been able to save a deposit but you are also paying tax because of none of it is claimable against tax, this is a lot of money. The one thing that really sticks in my claw, for months and months and months now we have had this all-singing, all-dancing, bell-ringing, supposedly Professor Whitehead look into the need of housing in Jersey and where is it? I do not know. The Minister says we are in some economic crisis and he has had to delay it. Well, if we are in some economic crisis, is this the right time to introduce a reduction in housing; when, as somebody has already mentioned, I can see people losing their houses? I can see people knocking on his door for social rented housing, housing trust; while, at the same time, he is avidly pushing his sell-off of 800 homes of social rented housing without replacing any. So I am in a total dilemma. I mean we never, even we sat together, voted the same way but I am surprised at Deputy Fox because he thinks this is a good idea but he never votes piecemeal. If you can get any more piecemeal than this, well, you know. Trust me .. I do respect Deputy Le Claire but if he thinks that the people that are reducing their qualifications from 12 years to 11 in 7 days' time, if we pass this today, when the regulation comes into force, are going to be rushing down, buying their houses, giving money to

B&Q and the rest of the builders on the Island, he is still not talking to the same people I am. They cannot afford it. The housing prices are being, I would say, kept .. they are the same but, to me, there are people I know have been trying .. and through breakup of marriages, they have been trying to sell their house for 18 months, 2 years. It is stagnant out there. They will not sell for any less than what they need to buy and the buyer will not sell for any less than they need to buy and then the next chain and the next chain and the next chain. One day very soon, this is not going to do it, something is going to hit the fan and house prices will fall. I do not want to see that in Jersey but this is not the answer. As I say to the Minister, where is this report that we must have? I mean, one minute he is telling us that people are only waiting a few months for 3-bedroom houses, then he is telling people that the criteria has been moved; you only can get on the list if you earn around £30,000 to £35,000 and you have got 2 children, 3 children. Well, a lot of these people are paying £300 a week - a week - for a couple of rooms, as I have just said. So to the Minister for Treasury and Resources, who has not spoken, I want to know where this migration policy of licences are, entitlement which .. licence would be a (j) to (k), entitlement would be (a) to (h) and regulated would be anything. Another thing, if we are talking about equality, if anyone remembers P.25/2005 as clearly as I do, as housing qualifications were going down, the right to work was going to go up every year. So housing qualifications meant 10 years and working local, because it was going to protect people (local jobs for local people), was going to go up. Has anybody ever brought a proposition? Has it gone up to 6 years in the last couple .. No. Is it going up? No, it is not because it is totally against human rights and we know it is not going to go up. But when it espouses and when it suits the Ministers, that is what they tell us they are going to do. Well, I am sorry, as I said, my conscience, like it might and it will probably .. you know, a lot of us will be able to go home today and say: "We can sleep a bit better because we reduced housing qualifications by one year." In actual fact, it really, really will not make a lot of difference to a lot of people out there and that really, really worries me. As for Part 2, I got a shock yesterday and I knew there must have been some sort of change in the (k) category when it was from 16 to 17 people in 2004-05 to 120-something and the Deputy , who was answering the questions for the

Minister for Treasury and Resources, said: "It is 100,000 and that is 20 per cent of their earnings." I have been told that that is not right. So that then beggars the question: "Do we need the people here?" Obviously, you know .. or will we be using the new part which says .. let me get the wording right because I would not like to quote it wrong "as being the best  interests of the community" which, kindly the Attorney General said to us, was to protect us against robbers. But I think this is .. how do you define law? It is an opinion and it could be also used the other way. So I am definitely out on that one and I will not be voting for Part 2 of the proposition. Thank you.

10. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I, first of all, would just like to make a few comments about the second regulation in relation to (k)s and I think it is really important that Members do understand that this amendment is designed to give strengthened, improved safeguards to the Minister, as I think he tried to explain yesterday. There have also been some comments about the fact that Ministers simply take decisions, initiate decisions and the word "corruption" was used or "potential corruption" was used in relation to decision-making. I would just remind Members that Ministers have to act in accordance with the Ministerial Code of Conduct. It means that Ministers must act upon advice. They cannot initiate decisions themselves. The Minister for Housing simply cannot sit in his front room and decide to issue a (k) without having gone through proper process. There must be proper process, having taken advice from officials and the statutory consultees and the consultees that he is required to make in relation to (k)s. That is an important safeguard. While there is, of course, the ultimate decision-making by a Minister, let there be no doubt that Ministers must act in an appropriate way which is set out in the Ministerial Code. I do not know where Deputy Southern has been in the last 4 years in relation to (k)s because he seems to have forgotten the fact that, I cannot remember whether it was 3 or 4 years ago, the Assembly considered for the first time in the Budget the arrangements for (k)s. Now, there is no longer a discretion. One of those statutory consultees in relation to issuing of (k)s is the Comptroller of Income Tax and the Comptroller of Income Tax, in respect of any new (k), must be satisfied that the individual can meet the minimum tax contribution that is set out in the finance law. That is that all (k)s who are given consideration for admission to purchase a property in Jersey must meet the minimum of £100,000 in terms of capped contribution. In addition to that, the finance law sets out the arrangements of the taxation of the other worldwide income which they must pay, albeit obviously individuals will arrange their affairs probably in a manner which is organised that they will pay that minimum contribution. But there are cases .. I do not know, rightly so, the individual tax affairs of individuals but there are obviously some that pay significantly more than that. It is difficult, I would say, to answer the question of what the effective tax rate is for effectively somebody that has business interests around the world and organises their affairs in perfectly legitimate ways. But I want to assure Members that, as far as all new (k)s since that discretion was taken away, since there was no longer an option simply to negotiate an individual tax contribution, there is rigour, there are proper arrangements in place that are applied consistently and properly. I also just want to say very quickly that I regret the comments that the Deputy of St. Martin made when he is making decisions and holding his nose. I think that is an inappropriate thing, if I may say; a message to go out from this Assembly in the case that we somehow do not welcome, we do not value, the contribution of all Islanders and particularly (k)s. The Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources set out yesterday the tax contribution that is paid to the Exchequer in Jersey from (k)s that have recently, under the new arrangements, have been put in. It is millions of pounds. It is millions of pounds that other Islanders, all of us, do not have to pay and (k)s contribute to improving our commercial environment, investment in businesses, et cetera. This is not a differential. This is not anything that they are any different. I recognise their contribution among many others in Jersey. I will also say, finally on this point, that the Assistant Minister and I are signalling a review of the (k) policy, both in terms of its current arrangements and the arrangements that have been put in the past. I will not go into any more detail. Suffice it to say that a review is underway and something that I think many Members have called for, for a long time. But we must act appropriately and we must act upon advice in relation to any review. In relation to the decision, I urge Members to look very carefully at the wording of that second regulation. We are being asked to put an additional safeguard in place that the Minister for Housing, upon advice, can rely upon. I would ask Members to recall the fact that we have had incidents of (k)s that perhaps with the benefit of hindsight, perhaps now with the new strengthened checks that are made on individuals that might not have been made, might not have been given admission. Members will recall that there is a very high- profile (k) that has been subject to court proceedings in the United Kingdom and perhaps it would have been the case that if checks would have been carried out that would simply not be simply on economic grounds that one would have been able to do. This ability gives the Minister for Housing an additional protection, to protect the interests of Jersey. It says "as being in the best interests of the community." That is carefully crafted language which gives the Minister the ability to make decisions that are not only on that minimum economic test and on the issue of social grounds, they are very rarely given. It would be wrong to cite the individual cases. They are very rarely given and clearly there must be a persuadable case of a significant social contribution in art or culture made to the Island. That is not a new provision. It is an existing provision. That Regulation 2 is to assist both of those to protect the Island's interests. There is one thing that is absolutely clear in any States debate on population or immigration, is that all Members want social justice. Members want to give all Islanders .. whether they have been here as long-term residents or whether they have been short-term residents, there is a requirement and a desire, I sense, among Members to give equal treatment to people. I think that if you are an Island resident you should have the right to a front door key. I think that you should have the right to some security of tenure. I think that you

should have, after a period of time, the reasonable aspiration to set down permanent roots in Jersey. At the same time, we have a difficult issue of dealing with the fact that this is a desirable Island and we have obligations in terms of needing to .. I have the U.K. stamp in my passport and I have rights of establishment in the United Kingdom. So do E.U. (European Union) citizens in Jersey. The whole of this make-up of which this decision today is part of, the complicated arrangements that we have in place, must adhere to that requirement; that we have access and we allow access of E.U. citizens into our Island. We have built up a complicated system of housing and job controls that is not easy, that is a tightrope of dealing and having the trade-offs between our obligations and the rights of individuals and the need to make the economy work. This bringing into .. is a further step of a single unified qualification period of 10 years. It is a complex system and Deputy Vallois, Deputy Hilton and Deputy Le Claire have been right to point out about the importance of the migration policy and a huge amount has been done. This is just one step in improving the whole area. Maybe Senator Routier, who chairs the Migration Advisory Group, will comment about what else is being done in parallel to this issue because huge progress has been made. Members want, clearly perhaps, a harmonised system. Some Members would be the first to criticize if one would give all new arrivals effectively the right to access the normal housing qualified market in Jersey. There is extreme sensitivity in the amount of (j)s that are issued. If Members want to give all people access to the same housing market, the corollary of that, the only way of achieving that, is to give everybody (j)s and giving everybody that right to eventually have access to the qualified market. This is very difficult. There is a balance of considerations that must be given. I absolutely think that we should be moving to a unified system but at the same time we have work to do in terms of raising minimum standards for non-qualified accommodation. We need to put more supply into the market for all types of accommodation, qualified and unqualified, and I want to hope that we have ultimately a single market for all residents of the Island but it is difficult. No doubt some Members .. and I will finally just say something about the House Price Index which is linked today.  Members need to be able to make the decision to reduce the qualification period to 11 years in the context of whether or not they think it is going to further aggravate the situation of house prices. We have seen the House Price Index published this morning. I do not think Deputy Southern has read the figures correct. It does show that figures have certainly reduced from their dizzy, frankly unsustainable levels, of the second and third quarter last year. There has been a cooling in the housing market and I hope and express the hope that there is a continuing cooling of the housing market over the forthcoming months. Unfortunately the reality is that a successful economy does get capitalised into how high houses prices are and we need to learn some lessons of other places in the way that house prices are affected by improper lending, imprudent lending. The whole subprime mortgage market in the United States and the U.K. is at the heart of the economic problems that the international community have seen and I am afraid to say that Jersey is no different. There is much more work to be done on understanding our housing market, on making changes to it and improving standards. But there will be difficult decisions. In raising minimum standards for non-qualified there will be people that are likely to be put out, literally on the street, because the landlords will  not be able to do it. This is a sensitive area which needs strong leadership, strong decision-making from a unified Council of Ministers of which this decision is part of an improvement plan which has already taken 5 years and will probably take another 10 years. There are too many people that slept in accommodation which was not acceptable to any of us in Jersey last night and we need to improve that and we need to make changes. I am with Deputy Martin absolutely in all of the things that she has called for over the years on that. There

has been work done. There is more to be done. This is a single step in the right direction. Senator S. Syvret:

Just on a point of clarification, the previous speaker disputed the figures, the percentage in average house price increases, that was mentioned by other Members. Could he, for the avoidance of doubt, just state what the percentage is in increase?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I do not have the report in front of me. I think Senator Syvret has a copy. If he gives it to me I will tell the Assembly what the number is. The point that I was making is that Members will see that, as far as 3-bedroom houses is concerned, they reached .. 2-bedroom houses, I have not got the figures in front of me, they reached higher levels than they are now. House prices have fallen back over the last few months.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

That is misleading the House. That is not true. There was a 7 per cent, on average, rise year-on- year. March this year to March last year, a 7 per cent rise, on average.

Senator S. Syvret:

That is my understanding. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

The Deputy and the Senator are attempting to put words into my mouth. I have said, very clearly, that house prices have come off the dizzy height that they saw in the second and third quarter of ..

Deputy G.P. Southern :

House price inflation has come off. The Deputy Bailiff :

One moment, Deputy .

Deputy G.P. Southern :

Not house prices.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Deputy Southern , please stop speaking when I am addressing you. As you said earlier, we do not want to have a conversation with everyone speaking at the same time.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I just mentioned the facts in terms of the house price level that have come off the top. The Deputy of St. Martin :

Can I seek clarification from the Senator? He put, again, words into my mouth. When I said I have to squeeze my nose, it was nothing to do about the 1(1)(k)s. I said I was voting against it. What I said was I have to squeeze my nose because I know that what we are voting for does nothing to ease the housing difficulties of other people. Now, possibly we will get that correction made by the Senator.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I accept the Deputy 's qualifications.

Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John :

Sir, could I put the 30-minute rule into place, please, under Article 84(1) of Standing Orders? The Deputy Bailiff :

You are giving notice that in half an hour you will move for closure?

The Deputy of St. John :

Yes, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff :

I had you down to speak next, Deputy , but if you do, you will not be able to move your closure. The Deputy of St. John :

That is quite all right, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff :

So you do not want to speak for the moment. Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence :

Sir, the point that I wished to raise have already been covered by the Minister for Treasury and Resources, thank you.

11. Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary :

The point about the Deputy of St. Martin has just been made by the Deputy of St. Martin because I was going to make the same point as a sort of preparatory remark. I do find it sad that we are here approving a measure, by which I mean the first part, the first regulation of reducing the qualifying period from 12 years to 11 years, and some Members have talked about holding their nose or equivalent phrases: "We are voting something that we are not happy with. We want this to happen but we are not happy with the context." That is not very good. It happened yesterday with P.17. We had people voting reluctantly for something and I hope this does not become a habit; that we vote for things that we are not really happy with. As a new Member of this House, I read this proposition and I thought: "No doubt this one has been in front of Members before. This is another of those one-year reductions and how can one possibly vote against that?" The problem is that in voting for this, which I no doubt will, and I say again: "Part 1," what we are doing is maintaining the 2-tier society that we are not happy with and that is the problem. You know, whatever we say, the fact is (and many people have alluded to it) the 2-tier society is there and I will come to what the Minister for Treasury and Resources said about that later on in my speech. I want to pick up a point .. well, no, not pick up a point; it is a new point, about some people are more Jersey than others. I do think that is, in a sense, true. If someone has been here and they can trace themselves back to May Trevus(?) or somebody. I think they have more toe-hold; more say, really, in the Island than perhaps I do, who have only lived here 50-60 years. I do not want to say exactly how many. But, leaving that aside .. and I think it is an important issue in the context of other debates; that some people are and should be regarded as more Jersey than others and I know that it is controversial. So I will just leave it there because I want Members to know that that is a marker that I want to put down.  But on rights to housing, we cannot really negotiate. The right to a fair tenancy agreement, which we have not talked about much .. we have been talking about the right to buy; but the right to a fair tenancy agreement, I have come across this in my own personal life recently twice and it is just not on, the way we treat the lodging sector. I have a personal story of somebody who worked here; lives in York, worked here for a number of years and went back to the U.K. unbelieving that we could have the legal structured in place that we do, realising that at any moment she could be on the street. In fact there was an issue, and I forget the exact details, whether it was dog or children .. it was noise, I think it was noise, and the landlord had powers that were just unacceptable. So there are real issues here and she .. finding that she had no rights and if we reduced the qualifying period by one year then the number of people in that situation reduces a tad then that is, no doubt, a good thing. So what is the problem? Why is it that we are voting for something, as we no doubt will, and yet we are not happy? I think the key to this is the issue of population and I am glad that the debate has broadened out into that area and, in particular, the Minister's recent speech. By supporting this proposition, said the Minister for Housing, there will be no increase in population at all. The Minister said that this would have no impact on population directly. Well, that may be true but the problem is that the context of this proposed regulation is an ever-increasing population. Deputy Le Claire referred to this. The fact is it goes round and round and round. The public do not say they want an increase in population, they say the reverse, but it just carries on and it just carries on. We are in a bad place because of the policy of running this Island like a pressure-cooker and I welcome the Minister for Treasury and Resources' commitment to social justice. Interestingly, he also said that he would like to see a single market for all residents, which is the conclusion that I had come to. It is, of course, right. It is the only justifiable end-point. But how can you have this commitment to social justice and this commitment to a

single housing market when you are running the Island like a pressure-cooker? The fact is you cannot. There should be a full debate on population before the strategic plan. I do not suppose there will be but I think some of us will be taking steps to see that that can happen. But I would just point out that .. a full debate will happen, either as part of the strategic plan or before it. But I would just point out that this failure to resolve the population issue, the continued allowing of it to rise against the wishes of the population - which we know is the case from surveys - puts pressure on our countryside and we saw the result of that with the recent zoning on the hoof of vergées after vergées of the countryside to provide more housing and it puts pressure on our town. I asked an oral question to the Minister for Planning and Environment and Members may have noticed that he gave a written reply, with my agreement, and in the written reply refused to answer the question. The question was .. he, having gone on for a page putting in the background, then said: "I cannot," or: "I will not" which is not the same thing: "I will not tell the Deputy and Members how much open useable space there is in St. Helier per head of urban population." But that is the kind of thing that we need to know; just how many people are we going to shovel in and how much space have each of them got. That is the kind of issue that we are ducking and that is the kind of issue that lies alongside this regulation and which makes me very uneasy. As I said, I will be voting for Part 1, but with reluctance. I come now to the 1(1)(k)s and I want to go to the actual text of the regulations on page 7 and firstly subparagraph (i): "on social or economic grounds or both." Now, we have had some comment on this and I just wanted to, in fact, ask the Minister a question because we do not hear much about the social grounds for letting people in or we have not in the past. I am coming to subsection (ii) in a minute but subsection (i): "on social or economic grounds." Now, we have heard .. and most people outside this Chamber, and I think most people inside it, only really consider the economic grounds. The Minister for Treasury and Resources said that now they have tightened up; they even have an exact figure on it, it is 100,000 and it is so much and it is so much and the criterion is quite clear and really tightly drawn. Of course, it is easy to draw tight criteria with economics. You just count the number of pound notes. But it is not so easy with the social grounds, which we are told have existed for years. But I would like the Minister to just mention to the House, make clear to us, how many 1(1)(k)s have been let in, in the past, on these social grounds; because I fear that we are in the position of saying, or pretending almost, that we take into account social issues when we are letting in 1(1)(k)s but in fact it all boils down to the word "economic". So I would like his comments on that in summing-up. The second part which we are talking about is adding "as being in the best interests of the community." Now, the Minister for Treasury and Resources made much of the fact that there will be a review. There will be something which will help the Minister for Treasury and Resources in his decisions on this and I quote from what the Minister for Treasury and Resources has just said. He said: "This clause as being in the best interests of the community' will provide improved safeguards to the Minister." But many of us have been pointing out that in fact the Minister has very, very large discretion and the clause is very vague "best interests of the community." But we also know from yesterday from the Assistant