States Meeting Transcript - 17th November 2010

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

WEDNESDAY, 17th NOVEMBER 2010

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption................................................................3

1. Income Support: mortgage payments (P.149/2010) - resumption.......................3

1.1 Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement:........................................................3 Mr. T.J. Le Cocq Q.C., H.M. Attorney General: ...............................................6 Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:............................................................6

1.1.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins:....................................................................6 The Attorney General:.........................................................................8

2. Rezoned Sites: assessment of housing needs (P.152/2010)..............................11

1. Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John : ........................................................12

2. Rezoned Sites: assessment of housing needs (P.152/2010) - amendment (P.152/2010 Amd.)....................................................................................14

1. Connétable J.L.S. Gallichan of Trinity :.................................................14
2. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:.......................................................15
3. Senator F.E. Cohen:....................................................................15
4. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:...............................................15
5. Deputy A.E. Jeune of St. Brelade:......................................................15
6. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : ..................................................16
7. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................17
8. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :..........................................................17
9. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................18
10. Senator T.J. Le Main:................................................................19
11. Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary: ..............................................20
12. Connétable P.F.M. Hanning of St. Saviour:..........................................21
13. Deputy D.J. De Sousa of St. Helier : .................................................21
14. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:................................................21
15. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................22
16. Connétable S.A. Yates of St. Martin:................................................23
17. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:...................................................23
18. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary:................................................24
19. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:.............................................................24
20. The Connétable of Trinity :..........................................................25

3. Rezoned Sites: assessment of housing needs (P.152/2010) as amended................27

1. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................27
2. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................27
3. Connétable G.F. Butcher of St. John:...................................................28
4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................28
5. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :..................................................29

6. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................30
7. Senator F.E. Cohen:....................................................................32
8. Deputy A.E. Jeune :.....................................................................32
9. The Connétable of St. Saviour:.........................................................33
10. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier : ....................................................35
11. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :....................................................36
12. Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen:.................................................38
13. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter:................................................39
14. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade : ............................................40

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................40 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................40

The Connétable of Trinity :....................................................................41

15. The Deputy of Trinity : ..............................................................41
16. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ...........................................................42
17. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................43
18. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................45
19. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................47
20. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................49 The Attorney General:........................................................................50
21. Senator T.J. Le Main:................................................................51
22. Deputy R.C. Duhamel:..............................................................53
23. Senator A. Breckon:.................................................................54
24. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................56

3. Napier Report into the suspension of the former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police: action on findings (P.166/2010)..................................................60

3.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................60

1. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................67
2. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................68

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................78

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

1. Income Support: mortgage payments (P.149/2010) - resumption

The Bailiff :

Very well, then we return to the debate on Projet 149 Income Support: mortgage payments lodged by Deputy Southern .

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

I must admit, as my intervention suggested yesterday, I am slightly confused about what it is that the proposer is trying to achieve because it was indicated I think in his speech, and other Members picked up on it, that he was trying to achieve one thing but his proposition quite clearly seeks to achieve something else. What the proposition seeks to achieve is for me to increase or change the special payment criteria regulation to include mortgage payments within that list. If that is the case then that is not the same as saying that anybody who knocks on the door of Social Security can be entitled to a mortgage payment if they find themselves in a difficult situation. It would mean, however, that officers would look at the list with this payment included and only those individuals which currently meet the requirements to benefit from income support and 10 per cent above that would be entitled to these payments. I see the proposer, he is shaking his head but that is the criteria for the special payment regulations. I am not sure really whether the proposer wishes me to include it in that list or he is wishing for something much wider. That gives me certain problems and I believe that it gives States Members a problem in ascertaining exactly what it is that the Deputy wishes for. I must, however, go on and address my remarks on the assumption that what he wishes for is what is in the proposition and that means that he is requesting me to change this special payment regulation to include mortgage payments for a 6-month period. There has, over the last number of weeks since the Minister for Housing revealed or announced that his waiting lists for social rented housing have increased - it is probably fair to use the word "considerably" - over the last 2 years although we know that the increase currently in 2010 is less than the increase in 2009. There has been a number of questions raised, and rightly so, about social housing, about the provision of social housing and how we, as an Assembly, a Government and thereby community, deal with those issues. That is something that I am only too aware of and something that I am working with the Housing Department upon. But it is an issue which we probably need to go back to some basic concepts, bearing in mind that we know that housing in Jersey, relatively, is expensive. We know that housing costs are expensive and we also know that it is the housing .. where you have high housing costs that becomes a barrier to those on benefits from becoming fully self-supported because they have such a high hurdle to get over when it comes to housing costs. My personal thoughts on this matter perhaps are that we need a much wider social provision of housing, something that we have seen with the creation of the associations, but whether we should have 2 different categories; we currently have States provision and private social provision, as it were, by the trusts, I am not certain that that is appropriate. I personally think that perhaps we should have one larger pool. Outside of that we then need some type of provision. We have seen the Homebuyers Scheme in operation. We need some sort of provision to encourage those out of social housing to be able to buy their own accommodation and of course we will always have the private purchase market as well. But we really do need to do some, I think, fundamental rethinking about what it is that we wish to provide, what is appropriate provision, who it is provided by, but I must of course be very careful because this is very firmly in the remit of the Minister for Housing, albeit that it does touch very closely with the benefit provision that we provide at Social Security. Why do I raise the housing list issue? Well I raise it because I believe that this is the change that has caused the Deputy to bring forward this particular proposition at this particular time, so there can be no doubt that the Deputy 's analysis or belief that the increased housing waiting list is due to the recession. I think we can be certain about that. Members of the community are finding it

difficult; they are having to stretch every pound that they have. However, I am not sure that then the next jump which is made is that the people on the waiting list are there because they were previously home owners and have had to sell their house, and if only we had been able to provide a mortgage payment for them they would not have been in that case. I am afraid that the evidence does not bear that to be the case. I have, as I hope Members would expect, consulted with the Housing Department, consulted with Citizens Advice Bureau, consulted with mortgage providers and the mortgage providing bodies in Jersey, to see whether we have been encountering repossessions and this has been or is an issue in the Island. I have got to say that that consultation has shown that there have not been any increased repossessions throughout 2009. If we look at the court records we will see that to be the case. Housing do not have evidence that people are applying for tenancies because of repossessions; it is because they are in straitened times in the private rental market and therefore are wanting to access the social rented market, which comes back to my comments right at the start as I was opening my speech. Nor have we seen any increased evidence or increased demands for discretionary payments to help with mortgages under the income support system. As the proposer acknowledged, there is already a discretionary element in income support that can, in exceptional circumstances, provide for such payments. Therefore, I have to ask whether this is the answer to the question which really is being asked, and I am not certain that it is and I am far from certain that there is sufficient evidence, as we stand here today, to say that we need to solve this problem in the way that is being presented to us. Contrary to how it might seem to some members of our community, I believe that all Ministers and all departments are loathe to bring forward any legislation which might be unnecessary or not needed at that particular time and that is appropriate. I am finding it difficult to see that this change is necessary

at this particular time. I mention the discretionary powers that the Minister has under income support because they are quite clear and they are used when a general request for help falls completely outside of income support legislation. As Members will know I answered a question recently to say that over the life of income support 3 such payments have been made, where those requests have fallen completely outside of income support legislation. The reason I am majoring on this is because that is not what the Deputy is asking for. He is asking for it to be included within the legislation and, to my mind, if something is included in the regulations there are strict guidelines about when a person is entitled and when they are not. In those circumstances there appears to me to be little need to then come to the Minister for his discretionary powers because the States has made a decision about when or when not cases should be met.

[09:45]

Therefore I struggle in those cases to accept that I should invoke the discretionary powers because the States has made a decision about when and when it should not be payable. Therefore I come back to another concern that I have that perhaps by doing what the Deputy wishes he is worsening the current situation rather than improving it, as I think he intends to, because he will be putting down clear guidelines in the regulation or he will be asking me to do that and, therefore, meaning that it is most unlikely, at that point, that I use the discretionary powers which are broader because the regulation will quite clearly say in this instance "Yes", in this instance "No", because you either meet the criteria or you do not. I am also concerned that if we bear in mind that currently in Jersey we have a very low level of repossessions; I think in 2009 we had one. We do have a couple in 2010 but they are registered in company names and not individuals, those mortgages are company mortgages, and therefore would not be met by this criteria anyway. I do have a concern that despite the high housing costs, but perhaps I would say as someone with an experience in branch banking, that because of high housing costs banks are extremely loathe to get into a position of repossession. I know that there is a popular misconception that banks generally might repossess on a whim. I have got to say that most banks take the opposite view because, as I am sure you are only too well aware, the amount of money that a bank loses by repossessing a property is far greater than they recover in capital value. Now of course when housing is worth more, as we know it is in Jersey, there is potentially more for the bank to lose and therefore they are less likely to repossess and that,

I believe, is one of the reasons why we see lower levels of repossession in our community. The other thing of course is that banks do already have procedures in place. If an individual has not taken out the mortgage protection payment, and here I would add to what Senator Le Gresley said, historically of course all mortgages had to or individuals were, shall we say, encouraged in the nicest possible way, or perhaps not, to take out mortgage protection payments. Of course we now know in our more enlightened times that individuals should be encouraged to make up their own mind and not be forced to have one particular course of action because these policies can be quite expensive and out of the general monthly payments. Having said that, even if an individual does not have that protection, and it is appropriate protection to take out, banks do want their clients to come to them and speak to them in the first instance at the first point that they feel that they might be encountering difficulties with paying their mortgages because there are options available. Individuals can have mortgage holidays, dependent on the provider; it might be 6 months, it might be a year. They can move to interest only payments for a number of years. There are options available for those very reasons that I mentioned, that on the whole providers do not wish to repossess because of the costs involved and the time involved. They would much rather that those individuals were able to deal with their mortgage and their property in a more ordered and orthodox manner. I would not want to send a signal to the lending community in Jersey that the line of first resort is going to be the income support system. [Approbation] Banks do not need to follow appropriate procedures and negotiations with their clients because the States will pick up the cost; I do not believe that that is a position that we would want to encourage. The Deputy , in his report, talked about people not knowing what is available via income support and I, in the past, have held my hand up where I felt that we have not communicated in the way that we perhaps should have done. However, in this instance, I am afraid that he is a little bit wide of the mark. While I am always prepared to hold my hand up when I have got it wrong, when we have got it right then I am prepared to stand up and say so. It is quite clear, I have in front of me the income support booklet which is given out to individuals that visit the department and quite clearly there: "How are other costs met under discretionary payments?" it says: "A payment could be made .. he satisfies income support residency conditions, mortgage interest can be paid temporarily following an unexpected significant and sudden drop in income." It is quite clear that an individual could come and ask the Minister to use his discretionary powers under the existing law. Of course I go back to the point that I made that should we change it to the special payments, they are different to the discretionary payments that the Minister makes, then I believe it would make it more difficult for the Minister to invoke those discretionary powers. Of course the proposer is shaking his head and he will tell us why he disagrees with that in due course. In this instance I believe that that information is already available in our printed documentation and having said that there is always room for improvements in communication. I, being an accountant, am only too aware of that, that perhaps P.R. (public relations) and communication is not my individual forte and can always be improved. In summing up, I recognise that this is a difficult area. I would not wish to do anything which might have unintended consequences along the lines that I have outlined. Of course Members might see things differently and feel that it should be included in the special payment regulations and come out of the discretionary powers that the Minister currently has. But what I can say it is appropriate that changes like this are made by this Assembly and not the individual Minister working in their department. In that respect the Deputy is right to bring it to this Assembly because it is a decision which should be made by this Assembly. I will not be supporting it for the reasons that I have outlined but of course, as ever, it is up to each Member to make up their mind about whether they

wish to or not. Thank you.

Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier :

Sir, can I seek clarification of the Minister? I read through the legislation last night and this morning and I cannot see the sections that he is referring to that makes it so restrictive on special payments, will he please tell us which Articles and so on, please?

Deputy I.J. Gorst :

The Deputy will forgive me if I do not actually have the legislation sitting in front of me but it is quite clear from the proposer's proposition that he wishes me, and this is where I think the confusion was, to increase the list of expenses payable under special payment, regulation 3(1). That regulation obviously is part of the .. one can only avail oneself of a potential benefit under that regulation if one meets the criteria under the income support legislation generally.

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

Sir, I wonder if Deputy Higgins would mind if I was to direct a question to the Attorney General, asking whether he supports the legal interpretation, as made by the Minister for Social Security?

The Bailiff :

I think that might be helpful. The position, as I understand it, is that the proposition itself is clear. It wants to insert in the regulations reference to mortgage payments but what the Minister seems to be saying is that whatever payments may be made under those regulations may only be made to the people covered by those regulations which he says, in his comments, are people on income support or with 10 per cent more than income support. But I think that is the question for the Attorney, as to whether that is what he said is correct.

Mr. T.J. Le Cocq Q.C., H.M. Attorney General:

Yes, Sir. The position is covered by the Income Support (Special Payments) (Jersey) Regulations 2007 and part 1 deals with special payments and sets out the categories of people for whom special payments can be made. At the risk of simply reading out the statute, it does have certain criteria: "A special payment may be made to defray the expenses described in Regulation 3 in the circumstances where the claimant is an adult whose household is in receipt of income support and meets the conditions set out in certain parts of the law and meets the conditions of other parts of the law" and there is a reference to a particular calculation. There is a qualifying set of criteria. I am not sure it would be helpful for the States if I were to set it out in a great deal of detail but there are definitely limiting qualifying criteria for the ability to receive a special payment under the part of the statute that is proposed to be amended.

Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier :

Sir, if I may, may I ask the Attorney General to examine part 3 special payments of the Income Support (Jersey) Law 2007, section 8 where it does state: ".. may, by regulations, make special payments of such amounts and in such circumstances as the regulations may specify, whether or not the person is part of an eligible household." That qualification is not in the law and it may make a special payment whether or not a person qualifies under the financial regulations.

The Bailiff :

Do you wish to look at that, Mr. Attorney? The Attorney General:

I wonder if I could glance at that for a few minutes before coming back. Perhaps the Deputy could direct me to the precise statutory provision? I have the statue here ..

The Bailiff :

Very well, the Attorney will come back when he has had a look at it. Very well, does any other Member wish to speak? Deputy Higgins.

1.1.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Obviously I am most interested to hear what the Attorney General says because my own reading yesterday gave me the impression that this would be quite in order, but obviously the Attorney General is far better qualified than I am to make that judgment. What I shall say is that I intend to support the proposition unless the advice is such that it would rule out the people I am trying to

assist. I also believe there were a lot of red herrings talked about yesterday and in fact also today by the Minister. Senator Le Gresley talked about personal protection insurance and there was all types of personal protection insurance including redundancy protection, mortgage protection and so on. Unfortunately many of these policies have been missold and many of them are not worth the paper they are written on. There is a lot of controversy in the U.K. (United Kingdom). There are a lot of claims being made for compensation and unfortunately with many of these policies, as the Minister mentioned this morning, they were almost a condition. When you took out the mortgage with the bank they insisted you took it out and you pay an awful lot for it. With redundancy protection many people have been missold it. Medical protection insurance, again misselling. I was caught by that; under medical insurance you think you are fully covered until you have got a problem and then you suddenly find there is wiggle room and they get out of them. A lot of people have bought these things thinking that when times are bad they are going to be covered and unfortunately they are not. Do not place any credence on the fact that these policies exist. Secondly, my interpretation of what Deputy Southern is trying to do is simply add another category to the list that is in Regulation 3(1). Basically Regulation 3(1) just lists the sort of things that the department can provide some assistance for, for example, the cost of buying furniture or household equipment; deposits to secure a dwelling; removal expenses; expenses to help people take up remunerative work; the cost of medical services or items. All he is suggesting we do is add another category into Regulation 3(1). Now, the Minister has said about discretion. He has discretion, because that was the other red herring that came out yesterday saying that all these people, they are going to go straight to Social Security to get the assistance that they want. Under Regulation 5 it says: "However, no expenses are payable under this regulation unless the claimant has no other reasonable means of meeting the cost." Therefore, if he has a valid insurance that does pay out he will get it paid out. If he has got some other assistance the bank are helping him, he will not be going to Social Security. We are talking about the last line before the person loses their property and that is legitimate. I think that if we are a caring society and we want to help people then we would make provisions for this. The Minister has also discretions. It says: "The Minister may make special payments of such amount as the Minister considers appropriate." It does not mean to

say they get a free ride, they get everything paid for them. [10:00]

I think, as I say, a lot of red herring. Now the Minister also said, for example, that there have not been that many repossessions. I am pleased to hear that but it does not mean to say that tomorrow there may not be more. This particular recession that we have working with the Islanders, according to the figures that I can see them, I was trying to elicit responses from the Chief Minister and the Minister for Economic Development in written questions yesterday, no one really knows the state of the economy. There is no one saying that we are out of recession and the truth of the matter is, even when you do come out of recession, people could still lose their properties. It does not mean to say, because the economy is starting to grow again, that all sectors are growing and that everybody is going to come out on the sunny side, out of the trough we are in. The other thing too you have got to bear in mind is that the recession that we are facing at the moment is a worldwide recession and Jersey depends upon the rest of the world to make its living. The banking and financial services we offer are not to the local population, although that is part of it. It is primarily for people in other parts of the world. Where traditionally have been our main markets? The U.K.; well, we know what state they are in. Europe; look at the state they are in. The United States. Yes, now, the Ministers make great play of they are now setting up offices in India and China and so on, but it is going to take time to get that business from there. I would also say, by the way, that not all that business is the business that we want. I have been hearing that a lot of the inquiries that are being made of Jersey as a response to Jersey Finance's efforts in that part of the world are being rejected because some of the people who want to come here are some of the crooks that we do not want here. There is good business, yes, but you have got to sort out the wheat from the chaff. So what I am trying to say is the recession I believe is going to go on for some time and

the depressed nature of our economy will go on for some time. If you look at the figures the Minister gave me yesterday, they are saying it is 1 per cent growth in 2011, 2 per cent growth in 2012-2013. That is not very high traditionally. In fact, it is probably below the trend level for the Jersey economy, forgetting the blips and 7 and 8 per cent growth that we were getting. So what we are going to be doing is we are going to be operating below the level that the economy could operate at and it is going to take many years before we get to the level the economy was at before we went into the recession. If you do not believe me, look at their answers. It is hidden in the text. Now, saying that, what is to say that we are not going to face another crisis? How many of you have been following what is going on in Ireland at the moment and in the euro zone? Ireland is in dire straits and it could bring down part of the rest of Europe. You have the President of the European Union saying we are in survival mode. This is a real crisis. It looks like Ireland is going to have to be bailed out to 100 billion. Now, what effect is that going to have on us? It could have an indirect effect. According to the media reports I have been reading, Barclays, Royal Bank of Scotland, Lloyds are all in hock to Irish banks and those banks, there is the contagion effect and, as I say, this is why everybody is really worried about the current situation. So I am not trying to be a doom-monger. I am just trying to say things are uncertain out there. Problems could come and they could affect the Island. More people could lose their jobs and if they lose their homes as well, how quickly will it take for the Jersey housing market to tumble? We talk about things, we have not been affected. We have house prices that are higher in London yet we have got the classics of a housing boom and bust scenario, very, very high prices. If people start losing their jobs, we have already got a flat housing market, and if we start selling those houses, we could get a plunge in the housing market which would be disastrous, not only for the economy but more importantly for the people concerned. So what I would say to you is all we are asking for is a safety net for people as a last resort and I would strongly urge Members to support it.

The Bailiff :

Mr. Attorney, are you in a position to respond yet? The Attorney General:

I hope I am, Sir, yes. The section to which the Deputy has referred me, namely section 8 of the primary legislation, deals with a number of circumstances where it is appropriate to make special payments. The first of those is those circumstances covered by regulations and it does indeed provide that the regulations might specify that those payments can be made to people who are not members of an eligible household. However, the regulations that are being sought to be amended, the regulations in question, set out the circumstances in which those payments can be made and those payments can be made within the circumstances that I have just read out which seems to me to be limited to people who are within an appropriate qualifying household. Regulation 2 of the 2007 Special Payments Regulations sets out the circumstances in which a special payment to defray the expenses set out in Regulation 3 can be made and that qualifies the categories of people for whom one can look to under Regulation 3 to make those payments. If one then reverts back to the principal legislation, subparagraph 2 of Article 8 provides the more general ability for the Minister to make a discretionary payment in exceptional circumstances, and that is a general discretion not governed by the terms of any particular regulations and that too means that the payment can be made whether or not that person is a part of an eligible household. I hope that that sufficiently clarifies the position.

The Bailiff :

So as I understand it, Mr. Attorney, just to be clear, the proposition would simply amend the regulations or would only cover the households covered by them.

The Attorney General:

Yes, Sir, by the regulations which are limited by reference to paragraph 2 of the regulations.

The Bailiff :

But the Minister has an overriding discretion under the law The Attorney General:

Under the one.

The Bailiff :

That he says he has been exercising.

The Attorney General:

Indeed.

The Bailiff :

I understand.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

If I may, while the Attorney General is on his feet, ask him whether part (b) of the proposition covers the ability to amend this regulation so that it covers mortgagees who are obviously outside the normal remit of poor families.

The Bailiff :

Deputy , if I may, that is not a matter for the Attorney because that is just interpreting this proposition. I have to say that what you request in (b) is the standard wording to give effect to (a) of your proposition and (a), we have discovered with the help of the Attorney General, is limited to people with the relevant income level support. So the answer is no, I do not think (b) is wide enough to request the Minister to make a general alteration. It is only to make an alteration to give effect to (a). He may choose to do so voluntarily but now that we have the interpretation of the regulations, your proposition is, I think, quite clear. It is limited to those on income support or 10 per cent more.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

Sir, you appear to be informing me that despite my best efforts, my attempts to draw up something comprehensive to deal with this particular circumstance where obviously a mortgagee is unlikely to be qualifying for income support, what you are saying is that the way it is structured at the moment will not work.

The Bailiff :

I am afraid not, no. Deputy G.P. Southern : In that case

The Bailiff :

Now that we are clear from the Attorney what the regulations say, it is quite clear that (a) asks that you increase the type of payment that can be made under the regulations to include a mortgage payment but it still has to be made to people who qualify under the regulations. (b) simply asks the Minister to amend the regulations to achieve that. So by your proposition, you will not catch those who are earning more than the amount covered by the regulations.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

Thank you, Sir. My interpretation of the 2 parts of the law and the regulations were that the law would override that. However, I think that means then it would be foolish of me to pursue this particular proposition in the light of the facts that you said it does not do what I think it says on the can, and therefore with the Assembly's permission, I will withdraw this and bring it back in the right format to do what I want it to do.

The Bailiff :

Which you certainly clearly can do. [Approbation] Deputy G.P. Southern :

Thank you, Sir.

Deputy I.J. Gorst :

While of course I am not going to not accede to the Deputy 's request, I have got to say it is a little bit frustrating, not on any personal part because that is politics, but certainly on the part of my department. We have had 3 major propositions which we have had to prepare for, research for, provide comments for. Officers got somewhat beaten up yesterday for what was described as a "cannot do" attitude. It is a little bit difficult for me. I am trying to achieve a body of work and proposers are moving propositions and then withdrawing them after we have done all the work where simply a discussion with officers could have ascertained what I just said in my speech. [Approbation]

The Bailiff :

Well, Deputy you seek leave to withdraw? Deputy G.P. Southern :

I do with my apologies to the House obviously and with the caveat that I will bring this back. I think it is an important issue and this Minister apparently is trying to ignore it. The fact is that people do turn up on the desk and they are told by officers: "No, there is no help available" because it is not publicly known, and I wish this issue to be dealt with so I will be returning with a proposition.

Senator T.J. Le Main:

Can we have a vote on that because I think it should go to the vote quite honestly. I oppose that. The Bailiff :

Well, just to be clear, Senator. What is being asked at the moment is to leave to withdraw. Of course, Members may vote against it but then this debate will continue and even if it is defeated, there is nothing to prevent the Deputy bringing a different proposition again later so it is not entirely clear to me that very much could be achieved, but that is a matter for Members. So, is anyone asking for the appel then in relation to leave to withdraw? The appel is asked for then in relation to the application for the leave to withdraw.

2. Rezoned Sites: assessment of housing needs (P.152/2010) The Bailiff :

Very well. We come next to Projet 152, Rezoned Sites: assessment of housing needs lodged by the Deputy of St. John and I will ask the Greffier to read the proposition.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion (a) to refer to their Act dated 16th July 2008 in which they approved the rezoning of approximately 58.5 vergées of land for the provision of lifelong dwellings for people over-55 and first-time buyers; and (b) to request the Minister for Planning and Environment to defer the granting of any planning permission in respect of any of the rezoned  sites  where  permission  has  not  already  been  granted  until  such  time  as  a  detailed assessment of the current demand for lifelong homes for people over-55 has been prepared by the Ministers for Planning and Environment and Housing and presented to the States.

Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence :

May I just note, I do not think it is a direct interest in any shape or form; it is certainly not pecuniary; but the Housing Trust of which I am a member is in the process of negotiating on one of the sites that already has planning permission. But I will be staying; it is not a pecuniary interest; I think I should just note it.

The Bailiff :

Very well, thank you. The Deputy of St. John .

1. Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John :

In bringing this to the House, I do so to be content in my mind that things said in another place were not correct. I need to know, as do the people of Jersey, that the Act of 16th July 2008 to rezone 58.5 vergées of land was justified. The people of Jersey have concerns that little work was done by Housing and Planning in confirming that the needs were there. I recall the Minister for Housing attending a Parish meeting in St. John and telling people in 2006/2007 that he had figures suggesting that St. John needed more homes for the over-55s. In fact, he was suggesting to the Assembly that, in fact, we rezone 2 areas of land. But the residents did not agree and said no, they would only permit one field to be rezoned. That said, I had concerns as he gave residents large numbers of need for the Island yet at the time, no co-ordinated approach had been used, as I would have liked to have seen figures. Given his department had numbers and each Parish had numbers of people who needed accommodation, I have to ask did we have a total of 12 Parishes, a Housing Association, plus the Housing Department do double counting? I am told we have a full list in St. John now in 2010. Did we have a full list in 2007? No, we did not.

[10:15]

I do not think that anything wrong was done other than errors were made by the Housing Committee and the Planning Committee of the day by not asking the Connétable s in each Parish to submit their list to the centre so you could take out the names where double counting had occurred. I need to know if 58 vergées were required or was it only 25 or 30 vergées that were required. This is where I have real concerns, if we have gone forward and rezoned 50-odd vergées when only 25 or 30 may have been the correct number. Given that a person may have lived throughout his life in a number of Parishes, that person would have been entitled to have his name on any number of housing lists. He may have been born in St. John, lived there until the age of 8 or 10. The family would have moved to St. Brelade possibly for 4 or 5, maybe 10 years, moved on at the age of 20, 25 when they got married. Lived in St. Helier for another 10 years and then moved on later on in life to other Parishes. So therefore that person would be entitled to have his name on a number of housing lists within all those Parishes. This is of real concern. Another area is first-time buyer homes. If you have got a list in each Parish with first-time buyer list, some Parishes hold them and then destroy them after a few years for reasons because they have caught up. Then they wait a while before setting up another housing list for first-time buyers. So the parents who have lived in these other Parishes could possibly also be putting down their children's name at an early age, and we know that happens because I have seen it happen where parents put down, shall we say, Billy and Joe at the age of 12 and 14 but they may not be ready for a house for 10

Senator T.J. Le Main:

You cannot put a child's name down at those ages. The Deputy of St. John :

Excuse me, I am not taking interruptions, Sir. I am not going to give way to the Senator. He can talk later.

Senator, you can only interrupt the speaker if he gives way. Then you can make your speech later. Senator T.J Le Main:

He is misleading the House.

The Deputy of St. John :

I am not misleading the House. I have seen names put down of young people by the parents and quite rightly so. We see it going on in education. We see it in other areas and people do this type of thing. Sir, through the Chair, could you ask the Senator to either keep quiet or retire from the Chamber, if he does not want to listen? [Laughter]

Senator T.J. Le Main:

It is possible I will retire if I continue to hear all the misleading statements made by the Deputy . The Deputy of St. John :

I am not giving way. I ask through the Chair, if there is one more interjection from the Senator that he be removed from the Chamber. [Laughter] Thank you.

The Bailiff :

It will be for the Chair to decide that but the position is you have not given way, Deputy , so carry on.

The Deputy of St. John :

Thank you, Sir. They keep on throwing my train of thought. I can recall not so many years ago being on a panel that was responsible with the Housing Department for issuing first-time buyer homes to people on 2 lists. There was a list from the Housing Department and a list from the Parish, my own Parish. I was one of the members sitting with another from within Housing and we found that a number of people had their name on both lists. So there had been double counting so I know it goes on, and I am sure the former Minister for Housing will try and counter this. But these things do happen. It is nature. I know full well that if any of my grandchildren were living in multiple Parishes, I would ask them to make sure they put their name down so they do have a chance to have a first-time buyer home in whatever Parishes they had lived. Given that we have the 12 Parishes who only now over the last few months are pulling together their 12 lists at the request, I believe, of the former Minister for Housing - this has only been happening over the last few months - it proves to me that those lists had not been pulled together on an earlier occasion. Therefore, once again, it proves that did we need 58 vergées rezoned or did we need 35 or 25 or whatever the real figure may have been. I need to see from the Minister for Housing the facts and figures or this House needs to see that those facts and figures were produced to the Planning Department of the day. I do not know if the Minister for Planning and Environment is going to speak on this but it is his choice. I know there are a lot of slings and arrows going to come from across the Chamber from one or 2 of the Connétable s. They have already told me but I will take it, being a politician, from whence it comes and I respect them all for what they will have to say. But that said, what I am asking here is that we make sure that what was passed in this Chamber were the correct numbers. I am not pointing a finger at anybody. All I am saying is; was the need there in 2008? It may be there now but I look around this Island and I see a lot of empty first-time buyer homes or properties for sale and the like. The first-time buyer homes in St. Peter's Valley, I have to ask, it is 3 years now some of those have been on the market and are they all sold? I have to challenge that they may not all be sold yet. I do not recall any survey having been done. Members in this Chamber might tell me I was wrong, I was out of the House at the time, but was a survey carried out for the need? I do not believe it was. I have not come across any documentation to say that the need was there. There may have been a survey but can it be produced, please? I know that

it may seem wrong but I am aware that the Connétable of Trinity will be bringing an amendment to my proposition before long and he has asked whether I will accept it. I will hear what he has got to say in his speech before accepting his amendment because it would be nice to hear him on his feet, and he may have a very good reason for wanting his to go through. Given that his own Parish is in a slightly different position to these, this is not being done by developers, it will be a Parish scheme, it is possible that I may, when the time comes, accept the amendment. Obviously it will be up to the Chamber but, just to make things easier, I think we need to hear what the Connétable has to say within that. But I do have real concerns. I am not going to spend a lot of time on my feet. It is a matter of did we rezone the correct amount of land in 2008 and could the Minister for Housing please produce - he is not present, his Assistant Minister is in the Chamber - please produce the facts and figures that there was no double or triple or quadruple counting taking place because I do not believe those figures are available. I make the proposition.

The Bailiff :

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded]

2. Rezoned Sites: assessment of housing needs (P.152/2010) - amendment (P.152/2010 Amd.)

The Bailiff :

Very well; then, as the Deputy has said, there is an amendment lodged by the Connétable of Trinity and I will ask the Greffier therefore to read that amendment.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Page 2 paragraph (b). After the words "already been granted" insert the words "with the exception of Field 578 Trinity for which permission to develop is about to be requested for first-time buyers as the second stage of a 45 per cent/55 per cent development package of lifelong dwellings for people over 55 and first-time buyer housing."

1. Connétable J.L.S. Gallichan of Trinity :

Hopefully the Deputy of John will see sense and accept this, but really the main concern in the Deputy 's proposition was he added "first-time buyers" and if you look through his report, there is nothing really concerned about first-time buyers. It is more the over-55 development and I think it is well-known now that Trinity had a 45-55 split and we have developed our retirement homes already. They are now occupied, the 14 homes that were built. So there is a demand in Trinity for first-time buyers' homes. We have been slightly remiss. I think the Deputy should take into account also that the first-time buyers, the banking and the deposits required by first-time buyers are quite onerous and the Parish at the time felt that we would just get on first with the retirement homes and then proceed with the first-time buyers. We have in excess of 60 on that list. We have now written to all of those and they are coming back and it is looking hopeful. Field 578, we were very fortunate the Parish was gifted this field and that was the reason why we went through and harped for it to be rezoned. I think the future of rezoning with the Connétable s' blessing should be that the land should be in the Parish's name before rezoning takes place. This makes life a lot easier for the development to go forward with the Parish being involved in a greater way on the new development. However, we have now instructed our architect to go forward with the design. The response from the 60 people that I have written to is looking promising. I know this is a large field of 9 vergées in Trinity and hopefully this will be a phased development. The Deputy will also notice that the Parish has not asked for any other land to be rezoned in the new Island Plan. We are quite content to have this field. We are very fortunate. We are in a position to build lifelong homes for first-time buyers. These will be lifelong homes. They will be superior properties and we are hopefully the way things are changing as well, the Parish has to also finance these homes. It is not quite as simple as many years ago when you got a loan from the States and they helped the Parish to do these developments. We are in the process of working with the banks, such as we did with

the over-55 homes, and we look forward to progressing. The problem with this proposition, if it was accepted, it instructs the Minister for Planning and Environment to defer granting planning permission and it is for this reason I brought this amendment, as basically we are now going ahead with the architect. There is quite a large amount of planning fees to pay out of Parish funds should everything go according to plan and I would ask the Deputy if he could just accept this amendment. It is quite simple. It is just to leave Field 578 as part of our 45-55 development we have already commenced. I propose the amendment.

The Bailiff :

Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded]

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

Yes, it is really more of a question to the Constable because I was slightly confused. He said he had 60 people on the list. The actual amendment says: "45-55 development package for lifelong dwellings for people over 55 and first-time buyer housing" but in his speech, the Constable said these are superior lifelong homes for first-time buyers, assuming that they will have to live in there all their life or possibly could because they are superior. My question is which is correct, the amendment or the speech? Secondly, if they are so superior first-time buyer homes, and I know what a lifelong home would be, extra doorways, wheelchair access and everything, what sort of price are we talking for a first-time buyer home in Trinity ? Am I confused or is the Constable confused? Again, the 60 people, as that comes back to the Deputy of St. John, who are they? Are they on the list in St. Clement? Are they on the housing list as well? We do not know because the criteria were never sorted and I think, before we went to rezoning, the Deputy of Grouville brought a proposition to this House. I think it was supported and then completely ignored to get criteria before we went to rezoning. So that is the question I do have for the Constable. Either one of us is confused but I would love to see the 60 superior first-time buyer lifelong homes at a reasonable like £300,000 price. You probably could only afford them if you lived in Trinity .

3. Senator F.E. Cohen:

I would urge the Deputy of St. John to accept this amendment and I would urge Members who have not seen the new housing that has been completed by the Parish of Trinity to go up and see it.

[10:30]

I went to see it and it is absolutely fabulous. I would be delighted to live there and I think our credit should go to the Parish, to the Connétable and, specifically, to the Deputy of Trinity who developed the rules that are now known as the Pryke Rules prescribing the size, scale and design of appropriate over-55 housing. This is a departure from the housing that has just been completed. I have full confidence in the Constable of Trinity and in his municipality that there is undoubted demand for these houses, and I think they should be allowed to just get on with it.

4. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier :

I do not want to reopen the debate that led to these fields being rezoned for housing, but I do want to register my profound objection to removing this from the Deputy of St. John 's argument. This is the best reason for supporting the Deputy of St. John's argument, that we are prepared to build on beautiful fields in Trinity when there are other places that housing could be built just because the Constable and the municipality approve it, just because some parishioner has given the field for being built on. Members may have forgotten that this was one of the debates which drove a coach and horses through the last Island Plan and, of course, we are busy preparing the next one and perhaps in due course, we will drive a coach and horses through that. I find it one of the most depressing debates I took part in, along with the incinerator ones, and I will not be supporting this amendment and I would urge that Members who remember that debate to stand by their guns.

5. Deputy A.E. Jeune of St. Brelade :

I wonder if the proposer of the amendment could just clarify for me. When he says the over-55s, is this only over-55s who are first-time buyers and, secondly, the resale of an over-55 property, would that have to retain an over-55 occupant?

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

I do not often disagree with the Constable of St. Helier but I am afraid I am going to have to disagree with him on this occasion. I do not know how many first-time buyer homes we are building in St. Helier but I do not believe it is a great deal, none at all. I am afraid to say the Assembly really needs to get its head around a more cohesive idea as to what our future needs to be. We need to collectively work on a list that prioritises need and is not designated by where one is born. I do take issue with the idea that people who have been born in a Parish should have the privilege of having the opportunities that are made available in that Parish when those of us that are born in St. Helier do not have the same opportunities. Conversely, while pointing that out, I would like to say a couple of things about the actual scheme at Trinity . I did go with the Planning Applications Panel, at the invitation of the Constable of Trinity , and we walked around the development. It was not in the middle of the countryside surrounded by all of the wonders that one would expect. It was in a small corner off a well built-up section of Trinity . The development is excellent and the project has been managed extremely well by the Parish and it should be commended and they should be congratulated, as the Minister for Planning and Environment says. I did not know, so I apologise to the Deputy of Trinity , that she had had such a big role to play, and while I would not want to detract from that, I am a little bit surprised to hear that there are now Pryke Rules setting out what the minimum size will be, while I am still waiting to hear back from the Minister as to what the minimum size will be for rooms and developments in the new Town Plan. If there is an established new set of rules that have been drawn up by the Deputy of Trinity , perhaps he can circulate those so we can compare them with other jurisdictions. I am sorry to say to people in this Assembly, and to those that are listening at home, Jersey's character is and has been changing for a long time because of the drive and the need that we have set upon it as a small geographical location by the veracity of the industry that we have chosen to supply us with most of our needs. The finance industry will be making significant changes to the heartland of St. Helier.

It has already done so, and I am sorry to say the propositions that come before this Assembly trying to negate housing in the countryside will not get any support from me any longer. They did in the past but I am sorry to say the immigration policy, if there is one, the migration mechanisms that are in place, mean that there are more and more and more and more people coming to Jersey and we are expanding that on an annual basis. They cannot all live in town. They should not all live in town and I am sorry. Unless the people of Jersey elect in politicians that have a different political objective, then they are endorsing the need to build in the countryside. We need to manage that build very carefully in harmony with the environment, but to just put a blanket moratorium "no build in the countryside" is just unrealistic and it is not sensible. So sensible development, as this has been in Trinity , will get my support and I am sorry, there will be no moratorium on building in the countryside. While I strive to protect the environment as much as I can, I do not want it all crammed into St. Helier because it is already becoming very unbearable, there is no air quality provision, there is no town park that has been delivered that was promised in the year 2000. We are in 2010. Life in town can be very challenging for people and the pressures of building, and there has been no addressing of the urgent needs for transport strategy, as I said, the air quality strategy, the quality of life issues. All of those things have not been met. So propositions like this from the Deputy of St. John I am afraid are just not going to get my support, and I completely agree with the Minister for Planning and the Environment. I request he withdraws or accepts this proposal.

Senator F.E. Cohen:

A point of information. I am sorry the Deputy has not received the figures he requested. The figures have been prepared. They took a great deal of effort. They are in draft form and they will be circulated today.

Deputy J.A. Martin:

Can I have a point of clarification for Deputy Le Claire? In his speech, he said he was shown round the lovely field in Trinity by the Constable of Trinity . Now was the Constable of Trinity acting as the Constable of Trinity or the Chair of the Planning and Applications Panel? I am slightly confused here.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

It is difficult to say because we took a break from the Planning and Applications Panel that time [Laughter] and the Constable of Trinity did don a different hat. It was a work hat, a white work hat as we were all required to do, and then started to show us around the project. But he was not, at that time, engaged in the Planning Applications Panel consideration. He was just merely showing us the site to show us what was happening and we took the opportunity to look at it and we thought - I am sure most Members will support me - it was an absolute wonderful development. It was not in the middle of a field. It was not in the middle of the heartland. I also congratulate and thank the Minister for the Planning and Environment Department for promising to share those figures.

7. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Like a lot of Members, I am torn. I think, along with the Constable of St. Helier, it is totally illogical to accept the Constable of Trinity 's amendment, albeit for what we all know to be a very interesting and well managed project because unless we can prove that the original policy is a robust policy and that this falls within the robustness, so to speak, of that policy, then I just think it is odd. If we approve the Deputy of St. John's proposition, why do all those Parishes who are going to be stymied not come forward and ask for exemptions which obviously will make the whole thing utterly ridiculous. So it all boils down to the facts, and I will look forward to hearing from Senator Le Main and the Deputy of Grouville who took obviously very different sides. How robust was the original policy? The other thing that is worth bearing in mind is a lot of controversy, for good reasons and emotional reasons, centred on the fields in the countryside but the bulk of the development, of course, the massive bulk, was going to come from what I suppose you could loosely call the semi-urban area of St. Saviour. That is where the real development was and, hopefully in terms of the overall development, is coming even though much of the controversy centred on fields in the countryside. But I want to hear about the robustness of the overall policy before I make up my mind on the amendment. I think it is wrong for the Minister for Planning and Environment - and he did this very cleverly when I moved my proposition in terms of his planning powers - it is wrong to say this is a well-designed thing therefore we should approve it. Similarly, when I moved my proposition on the planning powers, the proposition was not about is the Minister for Planning and Environment a jolly good chap or is he not, but of course that is what we ended up discussing. It was about the "the powers" and today it is about the robustness of the policy, not about is the Trinity project a jolly good project.

8. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :

I do not want to rehearse the rezoning debate that we had back in 2008. This development in Trinity went through full consultation. It was part of the group that did come to rezoning and, if I remember rightly, there were only 2 or 3 comments made by the public during the whole consultation period, which included public meetings as well as meeting various interest groups and focus groups, et cetera. One comment was made about keeping the trees in that field, and the other comment was the noise pollution from the bells of the church. This is a Parish development. It is run by the Parish by a committee that had been elected by the parishioners at a proper constituted Parish Assembly. The application for rezoning was for 45-55 split of lifelong homes over-55s and the lifelong homes, as has been mentioned here, is up and people are in it. They are all owned by the Parish. Deputy Jeune was concerned about that but the 14 that are already up are still owned by the Parish and will continue at this present moment in time, unless the Parish suddenly thinks otherwise, will continue to be owned by the Parish as do the other 10 lifelong homes. The other part to get our 45 split was the first-time buyers and, as the Constable has said, we were very fortunate in Trinity to have this field given specifically for the first-home buyers and it is well placed. It is opposite the lifelong homes. It is in very much part of the community by the shop, by the pub, by the church, by the cemetery and very importantly, not very far from the youth centre and from the Parish school. We are a small Parish school and it is important that the first-time buyers we encourage families into the Parish who will have children which will go to Trinity school but also that they are part of the life of the community. The first part of the development has been done, as I have said, and the plans are well underway for the first of the first-home buyers which will be run by the Parish. It is very much for people with strong Trinity connections and we felt that was important. So I urge Members please to support the Constable of Trinity with this amendment. This is a very exciting project, and I comment on the Minister for Planning and Environment, lifelong homes are so vital. As I said in the rezoning, having, as Deputy Fox, in my former life been a community nurse, been a community hospice nurse, the importance of looking after people in their own homes is vital, but those homes need to be fit for people to stay in their own homes. As we go further ahead into our ageing population, the emphasis is on community support, and that community support includes being able to stay in your own home. This has been one step ahead of the game and making sure that the homes that we build for lifelong homes enable that because it is very simple to be done at this stage rather than later on when you need to take out a bath or whatever for people to remain in their own homes. So, in fact, we are really looking ahead and making sure that people can stay in their own homes and I urge Members to support the Constable of Trinity .

9. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

First of all, just to refer to the intervention by Deputy Martin, as far as I understand it, the Planning Applications Panel are scrupulous in the way that they conduct their affairs.

[10:45]

I am advised that the Constable and indeed any other member of the Planning Panel who were in conflict - I think the Connétable of St. Mary is on the panel - stands aside from the panel and never takes part in an application, and I think that point needs to be made. I am seeing nods and I understand that that is the case so to cast probably unintentionally an aspersion on the Constable of Trinity I think would be wrong. I too have visited the Trinity site and complimentary things have been said about it. They are, in my view, apart from being well designed and all of the other architectural things and location, they are an example of the Parish system at its best. The Parish system providing homes. They funded it. The Parish Assembly has been involved. The Parish Procureurs and other people have been involved, the Connétable took me around with one of his senior officials. I think that this is a fantastic example of what the Parishes should be doing [Approbation] and I do not think that we should only be seeing this done in Trinity but we should be seeing that, and that was the aspiration of this original proposal, that we would be seeing the equivalent in St. Saviour, in St. Mary and some other Parishes. This amendment is right but I have got a problem with it. It does not go far enough. It should be taking out all of the Parish sites. I say that for 2 reasons: first of all because I think they are needed and, secondly, I think that accepting - and I am slightly worried about this - this amendment gives credibility to the whole proposition. The fact is that this land has been rezoned. We have been in this Assembly many times and in my former former life I was Planning and Environment President and I had to defend, quite legitimate, as I look across the Assembly to see the Deputy of St. Peter and other representatives who made some very strong attempts to influence the then committee in relation to its planning decisions. I am afraid that all the information that I have is that this Assembly cannot influence the Planning Panel, and the Minister for Planning and Environment in the same, and the Deputy of St. Peter is nodding. We sparred over some of those developments at the time. I do not think we can go here. I do not think that we can rezone land with information, making a democratic decision in this Assembly and then ask the Minister for Planning and Environment to set aside that because we ..

The Bailiff :

Senator Ozouf , you are straying on to the main proposition. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

So back to the amendment, I am slightly worried that this amendment, while it is right, probably, I cannot vote in favour - I may vote in favour of this amendment but the amended proposition, it is slightly better but it cannot be approved.

10. Senator T.J. Le Main:

I will deal with the proposer later [Laughter] and try to contain myself to this amendment. I am going to 100 per cent support this amendment. I think that the Connétable of Trinity and all the Connétable s have been magnanimous in their support of their parishioners and the needs of their parishioners in trying to realise people's ambitions either to own a home or to be able to live in their community as part of the community to assist the community in reasonable, affordable accommodation. I commend, as I did on P.75 when it was debated, that there is a real need that was identified by the Connétable s from their Parishes. I also have visited with the Minister for Planning and Environment and the Connétable the development at Trinity . I have to say that when one speaks to the occupiers, the people that are now living in these sheltered accommodations, and where you see they were living before, it is a joy to behold, I can assure you. Many of these people in the twilight of their lives in the last few years are now suffering from cold and medical and physical problems. To see the joy on their faces when they invite you into their homes if such developments as have been done by Trinity , St. Martin, and I look at other Parishes as well that, particularly St. Ouen and St. John, it is a real credit to the people of Jersey and I commend it. I have to take issue with Connétable Crowcroft who in all the years that he has been the Connétable , has never once attempted or otherwise to get involved with first-time buyers on a parochial basis or residential retirement homes. Residential yes, residential homes, but lot of people do not want residential homes. They want to be able to live and have their families in their own home, and I am saddened by the Connétable of St. Helier's opposition to this as I feel that he has not led by example as a Connétable and has quite honestly in this area I am talking about, the provision of homes for retired people. The other issue that I have to say in support of this amendment is that if you speak to most of the Connétable s now since P.75 was debated, the issues are that the waiting lists for all categories, mostly in the particular Parishes that have got these developments proposed or started, their waiting lists for all categories have gone up dramatically and, in fact, one Connétable sent me a note to say that it had far more names now for all categories, another Connétable assuring me that their waiting list now for sheltered accommodation has gone up by 100 per cent. As I say, I will deal with the main proposer later on. At the moment, I urge the Members to support this amendment. I will agree totally with what Deputy Le Claire has been saying, that if we do not, as Members of this Assembly who are elected to look after the people of our society, that we have a huge cross-section of people waiting, considerable waiting lists still now produced to me by the Housing Department in the last few days for people who need homes, rental homes. They need first-time buyer homes and need Homebuy, and the waiting lists are increasing by the months. When you consider that home ownership in Jersey is a very low 50 per cent compared to other countries like Guernsey, the U.K. where it is over 70 per cent, we need to make sure that we give an opportunity for young people, particularly young people with very strong family connections like in Trinity , that at least they can aspire to having a home to raise their families and to continue the wonderful tradition of honorary service that all the Connétable s and their parishioners provide through the honour system. I am going to support this 100 per cent as I am - no doubt, you will know, as I say, I will deal with the main proposer of the proposition later