States Meeting Transcript - 16th May 2013

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT THURSDAY, 16th MAY 2013

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption ...............................................................3

1. The Reform of Social Housing (P.33/2013): fifth amendment (P.33/2013 Amd.(5)) - resumption................................................................................3

1.1. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade : .........................................................3

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :....................................................................4
2. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement : ................................................6
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:................................................6
4. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................7
5. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:........................................................7
6. Deputy E.J. Noel ofSt.Lawrence:.......................................................8
7. Senator A. Breckon: .....................................................................9
8. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:......................................................10
9. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter:...................................................10
10. Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade : ..................................................11
11. Senator P.M. Bailhache :.............................................................12
12. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary:................................................12
13. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ...........................................................13

2. The Reform of Social Housing (P.33/2013): third amendment (P.33/2013 Amd.(3)) ..16

1. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................16
2. Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier:.....................................................18
3. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................20
4. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................20
5. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour:.....................................................21
6. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................21
7. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................23
8. The Connétable of St. Peter:............................................................24
9. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................25
10. Deputy S. Power:....................................................................26
11. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour:..................................................27
12. The Connétable of St. John : .........................................................27
13. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................29
14. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:....................................................29
15. Deputy P.J.D. Ryan of St. John : .....................................................31
16. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ...........................................................31

3. The Reform of Social Housing (P.33/2013) - as amended..............................34

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................34

2. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................39

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

3. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................40
4. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................41
5. Deputy K.L. Moore of St. Peter:........................................................42
6. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................44

7. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................46
8. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen:..........................................................48
9. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................50
10. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ...........................................................51
11. Deputy J.H. Young: .................................................................52
12. The Connétable of St. Mary : ........................................................54
13. Deputy S. Pinel of St. Clement:......................................................55
14. Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin:.....................................................55
15. Senator A. Breckon:.................................................................55
16. Senator I.J. Gorst : ...................................................................59
17. Deputy T.A. Vallois:................................................................60
18. Deputy A.K.F. Green:...............................................................62

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................67

2. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee): ............................................................................67

1. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................67
2. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................67

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................67

[9:30]

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

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption

1. The Reform of Social Housing (P.33/2013): fifth amendment (P.33/2013 Amd.(5)) - resumption

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Debate resumes on the amendments to the Reform of social housing, P.33/2013. We were debating part 2 of the fifth amendment in the name of Deputy Le Fondré and Deputy Power was next on the Bailiff 's list if he is ready to speak.

1.1. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade :

I did not realise I was first out of the blocks this morning but I shall summon my brain and kick it into gear. I am not going to support this amendment and I would like to tell Members why. I agree and accept in principle that we do need to have a uniform gateway, a uniform set rent approach for all the social housing providers across the Island. I would also say that not only will it apply to the States stock of housing but to the providers, to the trusts and to the private rental sector, as and where this will apply. I think it is important that we remember that. For any trust to want to opt out of this, or for any other mechanism to be introduced to allow anyone to opt out of this, in my view, is not appropriate. I would like to read. I think it is really relevant to remind Members of the comments by the Council of Ministers to the second part of the fifth amendment. It is at the bottom of page 2 and if Members will bear with me while I read this because I think it sums it up absolutely relevantly. It says: "The amendment suggests that because the financial models of the different social housing providers will vary, there is no need for the introduction of a requirement to charge a fair rent level [this is the uniform approach] and refers to the Income Support findings and recommendations within the Health, Social Security and Housing Sub-Panel's report. However [and I think these next 2 paragraphs are very important] it is important to remember that the housing trusts as a whole have yet to commission independent professional condition surveys of their properties to see whether their housing stock complies with the Decent Homes Standard in the same way that the Housing Department have done." Indeed, as the Minister for Housing will agree with me, this was started in 2009 and 2010 and involved a huge amount of work because Members will realise that the estate comprises the 4,600-odd houses, flats and bedsits that are owned by the public. I think that this next paragraph is also so important to remind Members and I will read it: "Three trusts have co-operated with the Minister for Housing in developing longer term business models to address this. However, one housing trust which accepts that it has a significant proportion of its stock currently not meeting the standard, has declined to provide a business case or other financial model. This is needed to demonstrate how, with the very low level of maintenance being spent on the properties concerned, that that housing trust will ensure that the stock will be refurbished to that Standard. As a result, the Minister for Housing and the Council of Ministers cannot be confident at present that this housing trust has made adequate provision for the future to

maintain homes to this standard, which must be of serious concern to the States and the trust's tenants." I think that it is important to remind Members that while people and the public and, indeed, States Members continue to take pot-shots at the Housing Department and the fact that the Minister for Housing has been open and honest about saying that 25 per cent of the stock does not meet the Decent Homes Standard, there is a plan. There is a condition survey that says that they will be brought up to speed and brought up to a Decent Homes Standard within the timeframe that is specified in P.33/2013. I wanted to say that because it is important to remind Members that it is not just the Housing Department that has this issue and I think it is important that Members realise that the gateway and the uniformity and the uniform approach on the 90 market rents is so

important to provide a uniform standard right across all social housing providers. Even though he is not in the Chamber, I do want to take issue with what the Constable of St. Clement said yesterday. He said, or words to this effect, that in his opinion, there are examples of why the housing trusts are, in some ways, more efficient than the Housing Department. I would counter that view, that attitude and that opinion by saying, and I will repeat some of the things I said yesterday, that the Housing Department has to house people that the Trusts will never take. I mentioned yesterday people who come out of prison, people with bad credit, people with no credit, people with complex psychiatric or psychological issues, people with dysfunctional behaviour and I would say that the Housing Department takes these people and as a result, has to have a compliance team, has to have an assisted living team, has to have an enforcement team. Recent examples of some tenants I know because I am on the committee of the J.S.P.C.A. (Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) are breeding animals, dogs particularly, which are inappropriate in a social housing environment and that has caused problems for other neighbours. So there are many, many issues where you cannot compare the scope and level of activity and the tenant profile of the Housing Department compared to the other trusts. I will finish up on this because it is relevant. It was recently brought to my attention that there is a housing trust that shall remain nameless that has ground floor flats with disability access designed for people with disabilities and they are occupied by able-bodied persons. I think that is a situation that needs to be rectified and it will be rectified by how we progress this work that the Minister for Housing is carrying on. So I am a great defender of the Housing Department and the people in the Housing Department and, for that reason, given my comments on the 90 per cent, and what Deputy Le Fondré is trying to do in this amendment, I cannot see that it can be supported so I will be opposing this amendment.

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

Is it appropriate to make a point of clarification on 2 of the comments that Deputy Power has referred to?

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair): Is it a correction or a clarification?

Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

It is meant to be a correction, Sir. One point on the basis that I am making an assumption that a trust that is referred to there is one that I am familiar with. The point is it says in the comments, which Deputy Power has directly referred to, that: "They declined to provide a business case or other financial model." We have not fully completed the business case but other financial details were provided. The second point on the Decent Homes Standard is that I think the reference was made in Scrutiny, that the trust has accepted that it does not, I think the expression was "tick all the boxes" of the Decent Homes Standard. That is different to not meeting it and that is in the correspondence that was sent to Members a while ago.

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I am not going to speak for very long [Approbation] but I want to give an analogy - I am going to make a fundamental point and try and explain it. A number of years ago, we reorganised effectively the telecommunications industry. We had a board - an old J.T. (Jersey Telecom) Committee - that used to provide telecom services that regulated themselves, that regulated competition, and also set overall telecommunication policy for Jersey.

[9:45]

That was all wrong because those 4 different roles needed to be performed with a constructive tension by different people. At the heart of this debate is separating out properly the conflict of interests that the Minister for Housing has as being the de facto Managing Director of a large pool of supply of accommodation, sorting out the regulation and putting in the proper regulation and putting in place the right policy. We had a number of excellent contributions yesterday and I would refer, particularly in terms of this amendment, to what 2 Members had to say. One of those speeches was from Senator Le Gresley on income support and the other one was the impressive and heartfelt and passionate, and in many ways absolutely correct, Deputy Vallois who really wanted the outcome of this whole debate to give people better standards, to give people better rental accommodation, and to get into the option of home ownership. Why is this relevant? The fact is that there are going to some social housing providers - not all, but some are going to be regulated. Now, they must be regulated consistently and fairly because of the income bit that Deputy Vallois and many of us are concerned about and, in fact, her speech was almost rightly questioning some of the income support arrangements as well as being concerned with some of the supply issues. Deputy Le Fondré I think is the Secretary of one of the Trusts and what he is trying to do is he is trying to get effectively put one Trust potentially on a different basis to another, and he is shaking his head, but that is exactly what he is trying to do in getting the ability for a regulated Trust to give [Aside] I am not sure that I can speak very much when somebody is trying to interrupt me behind but I will be quicker. The fact is that the amendment before us is giving a discretion of a regulated housing trust effectively to charge something different from definitely a 90 per cent and that is unfortunately going to mean a lack of consistency on regulation of housing providers in the same way that Cable and Wireless or Babtel, or whatever the company is called, would be given a different regulatory effectively of licence from J.T. We would all say that was completely unfair and so there are 2 issues with this regulation. First of all, it needs to be consistent. The Constable of St. Clement spoke yesterday and I agreed with a lot of what he said. If there is a benevolent individual that wants to set up a housing company, if it was the Constable of St. Clement's Homes Limited and he wanted to put 50 homes in place, and he wanted to charge 50 per cent of the market rental, that would be absolutely fine provided that he had not asked the public to support that initiative whereas Deputy Le Fondré with the responsibilities that he has for this other trust, that trust and all of the regulated trusts, are going to be trusts that have got support from public funds, past or present or future. That is why there has to be consistency. Les Vaux Trust, the Jersey Homes Trust and the Christians Together Trust have all received public money, something which I know a number of Deputies have been concerned about in terms of the Jersey Homes Trust. I want and of course I am a huge fan, I think we have delivered an awful lot of good in relation to these alternatives. Les Vaux has saved a massive problem for the States in terms of having taken over Troy Court and Perquage Court,  et cetera, and we were reminded yesterday just of the problem. Their trustees give good work free of charge and all the rest of it - and all the trustees of some of these other organisations - but they got public money. They got cheap loans from the States and that is why we have a stake in it. That is why all the trusts are regulated because they have had public money, because there are social landlord provisions, they have to have the same rule otherwise it is unfair. As a matter of principle, I would also argue that if we have a large housing trust with hundreds of units of accommodation like the Jersey Homes Trust or Les Vaux, it

is going to disrupt the arrangements that are in place that we have for income support. For better or for worse, we have put the income assessments that people need to help to live to pay their rents in income support and we cannot have a situation where one trust has hundreds of units of accommodation and they choose themselves to charge different rents. Where is the income support arrangement consistency of application going to leave social security? We cannot have that. So I am afraid if a trust wants to have public money and wants to have support and wants to be supported, like all of those trusts that I have mentioned, and we gladly support and we gladly want them to do more and we want the Jersey Homes Trust to get on and deploy that equity that they have because as a result of those falling interest rates, which is the reason why they have been well run, they have not had the interest rate exposure for a long period of time, they have got more cash,

they have got net equity. The Minister has been very clear: we want to see Jersey Homes Trust get that equity into the market, get delivering more units of accommodation. There has to be consistency. If they get public money, they should be regulated on a consistent basis and let us take ourselves out of the weeds of the detail, that is the issue why there needs to be consistency of a 90 per cent. Now I know some Members are concerned about the 90 per cent. This is not an amendment to have, with respect, another go at the 90 per cent issue. I understand a lot of the concerns. Deputy Maçon spoke yesterday about 90 per cent of the wrong market. Well, if the market is going to fall, the 90 per cent is going to be okay because it is 90 per cent of the market, it is not a fixed amount. There have been a number of well-intentioned but, I am afraid, erroneous comments made. If it is going to be 90 per cent, it has got to be consistent, otherwise that is not fair for matters of public financial investment because obviously they are owed a significant amount of money effectively to the public purse to the public in terms of the assistance they have been given. It must be consistent and it is just simply not right. I ask Members to keep that simple issue in mind. Let us not get into the weeds. It is a simple issue. These trusts have had public money. It has got to be consistently applied. Deputy Le Fondré's amendment should be rejected on that basis, if I may say.

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

While I agree with much of what the previous speaker has said, I would just like, before I get on to what I was going to say, to touch upon some of his opening comments where he said that separating out the different functions of the department was necessary. I would just suggest that, as a previous Member of both the Jersey Telecom and the Housing Committees, I thought we operated quite well and it seems to me that it is only under Ministerial government that these issues are arising. In the private sector, it is quite normal for all these functions to be carried out in-house. But getting back to what I wanted to say, I am concerned about the lack of flexibility that would arise without adopting this amendment. I have been concerned in the past that pushing up public sector rents can encourage private landlords to raise theirs to maintain the differential and it becomes a vicious circle. It has happened in the past where it has been known for private landlords to set their rents high in the full knowledge that the tenants cannot afford that rent but, hey, it does not matter because income support will top-up the difference. It used to be called rent rebate but now obviously is a component of income support. I am therefore concerned that it is quite likely that what we are suggesting will push up the cost of income support which just perpetuates the merry- go-round of money, which I thought this proposition was seeking to avoid. In my view, this amendment provides flexibility which sadly is missing from many laws that we adopt in this Assembly. What worries me, especially from the comments that the Minister for Housing has been making over the last day or so, is that we are being essentially being asked to sort out housing problems but only by pushing the problem elsewhere, mainly on to Social Security. I support the Deputy of St. Lawrence 's amendment provided he keeps his summing-up brief.

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

I find myself in the position of Senator Ozouf . I remember several years ago there was a continuing stream of questions on housing trusts. There was also a continuing stream of questions on the fact that the Parishes should define more clearly their gateway. That was another issue. It was all, as I saw it, to deal with the fact that we had been very unclear when we set up the housing trusts. Some of them had amassed large cash mountains and, as Deputy Power intimated, they had more choice in a sense in choosing tenants and so forth. There were lots of issues that I thought were valid that Members were bringing up and it strikes me as very ironical that now the Minister for Housing has brought up a plan with, I hope, a light touch, which will try and deal with those issues and deal with the incredible fragmentation which was causing Members so many concerns just a few years ago and I find it, for that reason, very difficult to accept that we should allow all these different tendencies to go off in different directions when several Members identified a few years ago that there was a major issue with the way housing trusts that does not deny the fact of the specific of the particular which Deputy Le Fondré of St. Lawrence is arguing, namely that he is associated, as he is, with an excellent trust which has a very proud history and very proud origins and so forth, but that is not the issue that Les Vaux deserves to be independent. That is not the issue we are discussing. The issue is that we need a better-supervised market. We need to ensure that people have proper opportunities on an equal basis and that will mean the Parish gateways have to be looked at and I want a clear explanation from the Minister on that issue. There is some excellent work going on in the Parishes. There are estates being built and so forth but again, people are worried. They are worried about access and they thought that these reforms were intended to deal with that, to deal with cash piles, to deal with allegations that there had been incestuous relations in some of the trusts in terms of how maintenance work was allocated and so forth. I thought these were all valid issues and we are in danger because some people feel that the Minister for Housing has proposed a quango under the aegis of the establishment that everything he is proposing is wrong. I think he has gone away on this issue and he has come up with a very good solution. Yes, much of the judgment will be in the telling, in other words, how this is implemented, but we cannot have it both ways. We cannot have total fragmentation in the housing market and then complain when people do not get proper access, when people create cash piles, et cetera.

4. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

It was quite interesting yesterday evening. I downloaded the Decent Homes Standard Guide. It seems to me that the Assembly have overlooked the fact that the Decent Homes Standard gives the impression that aged facilities do not comply with the standard. Now, my kitchen is 30 years old and this does not comply with standard so I think we have got to be a little careful when we apply these things. My understanding is that Les Vaux facilities are aged rather than decrepit. Now, I may be aged [Laughter] but I defy anybody to say that I am totally decrepit and, sadly, the Decent Homes Standard does not make that distinction. Moving on, each of our housing trusts is individual and I would suggest that to force all of the trusts into the position of charging the highest rent possible is really quite crass. You do not supervise markets by pushing-up prices. That is quite ridiculous. I urge Members to support this amendment which allows flexibility or, dare I say it, even competition. It seems to me that perhaps the Minister for Treasury and Resources has misunderstood the thrust of this amendment and perhaps Deputy Le Fondré can explain it clearly to him in his summing-up.

[10:00]

5. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

I think it is necessary to correct what I see as some incorrect statements from the Minister for Treasury and Resources. He talks about first of all that we have a stake in all of the trusts, whatever they are, because at some point in the past, we may have given them a loan or we may do so in the future. I would say if those trusts have paid off their loans and that debt has been repaid, we no longer have a stake in them. Of course we want to know what they are doing and we need to have good relationships with them to make sure that they are carrying out the functions that we require them to but we do not have a stake in those. They are doing their jobs and that is fine. He asked a comment, where does it leave income support if some of the trusts are not charging 90 per cent rent, they are charging, say, 80 per cent rent because they feel they do not need to charge the full 90 per cent ceiling? Well, where that leaves income support is that they will pay less money out in income support so it is not going to be rocket science. It will be exactly the same as what happens currently in the private sector. If somebody in the private sector does not want to charge an expensive rent because they are quite happy with this flat that they have owned for the last 40

years in the centre of town which is well maintained, they may be charging a 60 per cent market rate. When they go down to Income Support, you do not see the agent at the desk thrashing around with angst saying: "Oh no, no, what do I do here, what do I do, because this is the amount of money I am supposed to give you." They simply say: "Well, that is your rent so that is the amount of money I am going to give you to cover your rent." Everybody is happy, including the taxpayer, because the amount that is going out is less than the ceiling. So that is just one of the positive things. If we allow these trusts to say they can make do on 75 per cent when the Housing Department have tied themselves to 90 per cent, then that is a win/win for everybody involved. They will still be regulated so they will still need to meet basic standards. Are we saying essentially because we are overcharging our tenants for their rents, then the trusts, which may, in some circumstances, be able to work more efficiently or work equally efficiently but because they have not been tied into this 90 per cent they must be forced to do it? That seems a very perverse thing to do. It is almost saying like 2 wrongs make a right. Surely this is about the return to Treasury and if they can return what they will be required to to the Treasury without needing to charge 90 per cent rents, why should they be forced to do so? It does not seem to make sense. It seems that we will be tying the hands of the Trusts. It also seems to me that there is a question mark over the relationship that will be set up with the Parish homes. I am not really sure how that is going to work at the moment. Will the Parishes be forced to also pay 90 per cent rents? Presumably they will be because we have talked about this consistency so we have to be careful today about setting a precedent. There is no way we can say trusts have to adopt a 90 per cent rent ceiling without it being optional and then go around to the Parish schemes and say to the Constables that even if they think they can run these schemes in a different way, they will not be allowed to do that so we have to be mindful of those logical consequences. I think that Deputy Le Fondré's amendment, for all of these reasons that I have outlined as well as other ones that I have

heard today, are reasons for supporting it.

6. Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence :

I would like the rapporteur to explain to me why he appears to be so against transparency and a level playing field? I say "transparency" because 90 per cent of the market rents those who need income support will receive it. Those who do not need income support will not get a hidden subsidy. I say "level playing field" because all of those housing trusts, if they share the same gateway, they should also share the same charging policy, thus avoiding placements to those who are eligible for the gateway to be entered into what would become a rental lottery depending on which housing trust they ended up with. I agree that some trusts will be more efficient than others, given their respective portfolios, mainly due to their different structures and obligations and their honorary service but that does not mean that they should not charge under the same rent policy. All it will mean is that those who operate on less funds will have more money to invest in additional units. Surely that is beneficial for all concerned. So I make a humble request to the rapporteur to explain his rationale for his amendment because if our aim is to provide more affordable homes for Islanders across all types of tenure, then that is exactly what the Minister for Housing is currently proposing. I would also like the rapporteur to explain to me what he means by "on the one hand meeting minimal standards but on the other not ticking all the boxes" as his point of correction in Deputy Power's speech. Surely you have to comply with the minimum standards or you do not.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

I was not sure, Deputy , at the start of your speech, you referred to the issue of transparency. I did not quite understand. I just wanted to ensure it was not imputing something incorrectly to the rapporteur. I did not hear in your speech why you used the word "transparency".

Deputy E.J. Noel:

Because to have transparency in the social rental market, you do not want to have a hidden subsidy by not charging the correct amount of rent.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Thank you for that. The way you said it, it implied it could have been the Deputy personally but thank you for that.

Deputy E.J. Noel: Not at all, Sir.

7. Senator A. Breckon:

I would ask Members to consider this, in that there are some very real differences between the standard and the quality in the property that the trusts serve and that is for a reason. Some of the trusts have had land at subsidies of various sorts - capital write-offs, interest subsidies, help with development - and in the case of one trust, they bailed the States out of a very embarrassing position. I know some of these flats because they are in my old district in St. Saviour so I know them very well. Work has been done on some of these older ones but the fact is the only real answer is to rebuild them. Now, that is not possible at the moment when debt is hanging over them but it is the long-term plan and I am talking the 35-year term plan where you do that. In one particular complex of flats, there are 96 flats and when the States were bailed-out, they were sold a couple of times and they finished up belonging to a company in the British Virgin Islands. Eviction processes were in place and people were appearing before the Petty Debts Court and at the time they were given by the then Magistrate 7 years' stay of eviction and that was an embarrassment to the speculator because it scuppered their plans and that is when the States got involved through a trust which did this. Now, to say you move to a certain level of the market is not appropriate because the trust - and any Member can go and have a look - will appreciate that they are not worth that amount of money. The States themselves were in exactly the same position with Pomme d'Or Farm, with Clarence Court, with flats at Les Quennevais because no money had been spent, the rents never went up and it was a bit of an embarrassment. Some of them were a single block. They were damp, they had crittall windows, they had no heating systems and that is the reason why some discretion is required by the landlord. I have had cases, as I say, in the private sector that are appearing before a Rent Control Tribunal where it has been exactly the same situation and the Tribunal found that the rent was this level because of the state of the property and I think that is where Deputy Le Fondré is coming from because if you ratchet it up, then you are charging people a rent that is not appropriate. It is just not appropriate. Now, if you move down the line and there

are 6 blocks of 16 flats in this particular place that I am talking about, if you move down the line, in 35 years' time, there is other land around and as a long-term policy, then those flats will be at 90 per cent or more of whatever the market is at that time but that is the long-term policy that is

required. That, I think, is where Deputy Le Fondré is asking for the discretion so that the trustees who we are saying are getting on with the job and doing the thing can have that discretion to do that and that is really where it is, because I think it is wrong to say that everything is 90 per cent because it is not and there are some people who have lived there a long time and they love it as it is. They are quite content to live there. They get on with their lives. They are law-abiding. They pay their rent on time and that is really where they are and some of them, regardless of income support and their circumstances, will not be claiming income support because they are just not going to go there. Some people may be using a part of their savings or their other income to do that but that is where they are and they are proud to do that for exactly that reason. I know even with the States old rebate system, there were people who would not claim who should have done, and I have had cases where somebody went years and then struggled and Housing put that right. So that is really what it is about. It is about that flexibility and that allows the trustees to take a loan because, do not

forget, many of the trustees are volunteers. So you are talking about regulation and we do not want heavy-handed stuff. We are talking about people who give their time and effort and provide a community service in many cases, so that is really I think where Deputy Le Fondré is coming from and that is where I will support that because it gives them or any other trust the flexibility if they are given an older set of properties and it happened just around the corner from here. Bas du Mont in Pier Road was sold or given to the Christians Together Housing Trust for £10 and they made the development happen and there are other cases the same. Now, you cannot say you can have that for £10 and then say you have to put the rents to that level because it just cannot happen, it should not happen, it is not fair to the tenants and I think that is where Deputy Le Fondré is coming from and I think it is a reasonable request and I would ask Members to consider it in that vein.

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

Only a few points and I did not speak yesterday because I did not feel very well but what it did give me a real opportunity to do was listen to the debate and there were some good speeches, I have to say. I think Deputy Vallois spoke the best she has ever spoken in this Assembly and what I would say is welcome to the club of winning the argument and losing the vote but I think she was quite right in what she said yesterday. It was the end of social housing really and I think this is just another attempt to put the final nail in. I have been a big critic of housing trusts, not that they do not do good things because they do but when you see the appalling lack of social people skills that many of the people controlling some of them have and the bullying and the way they treat people, just as cash cows to be quite honest, they do need regulation. Of course, that is not this Assembly's fault. It should have been done years ago. That is why we are here now. But I think just as Deputy Vallois spoke very well yesterday, we should thank Deputy Tadier and indeed Senator Breckon because they have just made 2 very good although fairly brief speeches. All this red herring about income support and we have to have the 90 per cent. Well, things are not going to change from what they are now. Why should people be forced? You do not control the market by forcing-up prices. That is an absolute nonsense. There are far more important things that the Minister for Housing needs to have support in in ensuring that these housing trusts run properly. Nobody wants to see £100 million cash piles. It is ludicrous. No one wants to see, of course, people forced to live in shoddy accommodation but I do not think that is what Deputy Le Fondré is trying to ensure continues. He is asking for some flexibility. He is asking for the opportunity for the people who control those trusts to not overcharge tenants who might be living in places that whether they are aged or decrepit or whatever as Senator Ferguson points out, they are not worth that 90 per cent. So I often say this, but my voting record shows I vote for everyone on the balance of what I think the argument is. Let us not vote against Deputy Le Fondré just because it is seen to be against the Minister for Housing. I support the Minister for Housing generally. I think he has done a good job and he works hard. I just happen to think he was wrong with what transpired yesterday and I think Deputy Le Fondré is offering us a small opportunity to alleviate some of the potential damage so

that is why I will be supporting him. [10:15]

9. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter :

I would really just like to follow on from the last 2 speakers on specifically the topic of flexibility and I was energised by Senator Breckon's comment about the single block construction of flats. A single block construction of flats would attract a very low rent. All we are proposing is that we would only charge them 90 per cent of that very low rent which it would attract because of the condition of the property. If you look across the housing stock that we currently have, and let us just take that one-bedroom flat as an example, there is a whole raft of different rents appropriate to the flat depending on the condition, location, and the standard of those flats. That flexibility is already there and I am sure the housing trusts have similar arrangements, whether it be one, 2 or 3- bedroom properties but, depending on the property and the condition and the services that it has, it may attract a higher or lower rent. What we are proposing is that under the new arrangements, we will only charge 90 per cent of the open market rent, which that property would have attracted anyway. I just wanted to make that clarification.

Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier :

A point of clarification for the last speaker. Is the Assistant Minister saying that a single block flat will be left in situ and not refurbished and improved over the next 10 years? I thought the plan was to spend on refurbishing or knocking them down, removing those sorts of properties?

The Connétable of St. Peter :

I entirely agree with the last speaker. Yes, we should not allow people to continue to live in substandard homes and I totally concur with his points and the housing trusts and the Housing Department must work towards making them all decent and the only way we can do that is by having the 90 per cent rental market place across the board.

10. Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade :

I can remember when the trusts were first set up and I very much align myself with the contribution of the Constable of St. Clement. The reasons for supporting trusts and helping them are as valid today as they were then and I think we should remind ourselves. I have been very disappointed and rather upset with some of what I think is the tone of the debate which seems to be very pointedly about Deputy Le Fondré and his role and as a trustee and remarks such as "pernicious" and so on. What we need is surely a diversity of social housing providers. We read in the Scrutiny Report that the Parishes clearly are a social housing provider. They provide for certain groups, clearly reading the comments in there that the Parishes, in the way they operate those homes, were making the very case for flexibility. I think following that principle, there is no doubt that some of the trusts have gone for particular types of property. Some have been very keen to do large new developments, modern buildings. That was their vision of the groups that they were trying to provide for, perhaps an alternative tenant group. Others were prepared to take on much more difficult premises, small premises, isolated, old, outworn premises, and what those trusts have been able to do and I think why we need to encourage in the future is that they will have and I think this ties-in strongly with the work that we need to do on regulation, we need to look to ensure there is flexibility in the gateway arrangements as such so that the very types of special needs that people have for housing can be accommodated within the diversity of trust providers. So, for example, we have had planning policies to try and help us do this. Whether they have been successful or not is another matter. With this policy of when we zone land putting a requirement for 55 per cent first-time buyers and 45 per cent social housing provision and, of course, who has taken those up? Well, we have got Parishes and others but I think we need a diversity there. Of course, we still do not have a replacement for the planning policy to achieve affordable homes to replace H3 and, of course, we know - I think I picked up somewhere in the papers - that a 90 per cent rent level is getting at the point where we are starting to have housing in the intermediate category of affordability which will help us move people up the housing scale if you like, but we also have those who will not be able to do that. I think this says to me that there is a need for flexibility and diversity. Now, what was coming across to me in the speeches against Deputy Le Fondré's amendment is that his amendment is being portrayed as an attempt to destroy and undermine the integrity of this proposal. I am really having a struggle with that because I thought yesterday we adopted the recommendation or the amendment - with the support of the Council of Ministers - of the Scrutiny Panel to remove the detail about regulation and to allow us to have a further debate about the scope and the details and the working of that regulation so that seems to fit very well. I think we are almost getting hung-up on this. For Members to say: "Well, Deputy Le Fondré's amendment is seeking to destroy this and we must have firm, hard-hand regulation on this and everything that is cut and dried. If we do not we are in trouble", surely I think that is an issue for us to look at under the terms of the amendment which has already been adopted. We have always needed regulation of those social housing providers and clearly some of the problems that I am hearing from Members arise from the fact that we have not had that and we need it but I still think that this is a case for diversity and flexibility. The amendment is a good one to help encourage these groups with their community spirit and giving up their time and efforts and expertise for nothing and I think I am really worried about sending very negative messages to the trusts so I am very inclined to support Deputy Le Fondré's amendment.

11. Senator P.M. Bailhache :

I was, I must confess, very nearly persuaded by the Constable of St. Clement and Senator Ferguson who talked about competition as a concept which had not really figured in this debate and, I must confess, that I do not really see any reason in principle why there should not be competition between housing trusts and the public sector to the extent that it is going to be brought in line with the trusts, provided that the necessary standards can be met. Why should a trust be compelled to charge a rent that is higher than is necessary in order to meet the necessary obligations of maintenance and repair and restoration and providing for financial liabilities which may lie in the future just as any responsible landlord would do? So I was, I must confess at one stage, attracted to the notion that the 90 per cent should be a ceiling rather than something that is mandated. I still hover slightly in the balance but my concern about the amendment really relates to standards. Standards seem to me to be of fundamental importance. I do not want to see a situation where a provider of social housing can do so by providing housing of a lower standard in return for a lower rent. That seems to me to be laying-up problems for the future which we do not want to have. All residents of the Island are entitled, in my view, to a proper standard of housing and we should set in place a structure which enables that to happen without any shadow of a doubt. Now, I am not clear at the moment and perhaps the proposer of the amendment can address this very briefly in his reply, as to the way in which the regulation is going to work. If I have understood it correctly, it is something that will be examined by the Scrutiny Panel in due course and I think that my current position is that that is the best way for it to be taken forward. There is an advantage in uniformity but there is an advantage in making it absolutely certain that the minimum standards of housing are met for all people who occupy social housing in this Island and, at the moment, it seems to me that that is not the case. Some providers of housing fall below, perhaps well below, that standard and considerable investment is needed. So I am inclined to think that for the present the 90 per cent

rule is the correct one but that the Scrutiny Panel, when it examines the question of regulation, should consider very carefully whether and to what extent some flexibility can be built into the system in due course.

12. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary :

I will be very brief. Like the previous speaker, I have been influenced both ways by this debate. It is a very tricky question. I have got the feeling that the fair aspect is that everybody who accesses property through the gateway should access it at the same rental for each category of property and it can only achieve that if it is the same level of rental. On the other side, I have had through my professional dealings a great deal respect for the author of a letter we all received that explains why flexibility is an issue, so I am really fluctuating but the thing that I would like to say I know this is not a debate about housing trusts, good or bad, whatever, but we have had, as one of the other speakers has said, a lot of comments made. I was in a position relatively recently of trying to provide some over-55s housing in the Parish of St. Mary and with obviously the small rate base and budget that we have it is very difficult to finance that ourselves and I had talks and calls and

negotiations with a couple of housing trusts and, indeed, with the Housing Department themselves as to how this could be provided.  I would just like to say that from the dealings that I had with those various entities, I was absolutely convinced that each and every one of them wanted to provide good housing for potential tenants at the best rate possible and wanted to see people well- housed and there was no difference between the Housing Department and the trusts that I dealt with in that. In the end, we went with a housing trust. I keep very close contact with my parishioners and I talk to them regularly about how they are finding living in those properties and how they are finding relationships and I am getting good reports and I think we need to bear in mind that we are not talking about ogres of landlords here. We are talking about people and entities that have a desire to see the best for the tenants and because I understand both sides of this equation, I am finding it very difficult but I think it needs to be said and reiterated that we are not demonising the Housing Department or the housing trusts here. We are trying to find the best way to continue on their aims.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

If no other Member wishes to speak, I call on Deputy Le Fondré to reply.

13. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

It has been a quite useful debate. I think I need to make a few comments just to address some of the remarks that have been made today. Firstly, it is not about allowing anybody to opt-out. It is not about the 90 per cent rent level and it is not about surpluses. This is about flexibility, it is about discretion. In other words, it goes back to the point of allowing the trustees within the parameters that the States set to exercise their discretion and I again reiterate that is the standard for England. It is the regulatory framework for social housing in England from April 2012 by the Homes and Communities Agency.

[10:30]

They regulate housing associations from size 10 to above 50,000. [Aside]  But the point about that is that the Homes and Communities Agency is the regulator and they specifically state, and I quote: "The guideline limit is a ceiling not a target. It is open to providers to increase rents by a lower figure where circumstances justify doing so." That is a basic thing. Surely if it is good enough for England for 5 million residents, for 2½ million houses, why is it not good enough for here? They must have all ranges and types of accommodation. It is not about not meeting Decent Homes Standard. As we said in answer to Deputy Noel, I am surprised he does not appreciate this. But some things, and in particular the Decent Homes Standard, for example to pass one criteria, let us stick to the principle, I cannot remember the exact details, you have to pass 5 of 7 say, therefore you will not meet 2 on that condition necessarily. You could meet all 7. You could meet 6. You could meet 5. If you meet 5 you pass that condition. You can still therefore not tick all the boxes too but still pass the standard and I am surprised it had that kind of argument put through because that is how it works. I was surprised to hear from Treasury, particularly using the phone industry as an example because I always thought the way the phone industry worked is you regulate the prices and they have competition below and some of them charge lower prices than others. I am not going into competition about a landlord industry right over here, what I am trying to say is if it is possible, as the English regulations state, for an entity to operate its course or whatever, or perhaps it is where it is in the lending cycle, so it might have more free cash or, for example, as is the case, there are estates that do not have any interest subsidy or any capital subsidy because the trusts in the instance I am thinking of have gone and done it themselves. What do you do then because there is not any public money involved? They have done a service. In fact they have gone to the Housing Department and said: "We have done this but we will house more of your people." That is the ethos we are in. That argument about this subject is not consistent all the way through but it is

about flexibility. If there is an issue about subsidies going forward in the future at the right time in the cycle and things like that, I do not see any problem why the trust should not be required to pay them back at some point. Why not? If they are sitting on large chunks and piles and there is not development happening and they are able to repay them or stagger them over a few years, great. The point is it is about allowing the discretion of people to operate, and bearing in mind that we have talked about trusts because it is a convenient thing, my actual amendment talks about social housing providers. You look at the last paragraph in here, it says: "Social housing providers will be free to use their professional experience." It does not just say "trust", it is anybody who gets caught up and defined as a social housing provider and that could be the Parishes because we have been told it is not at this stage the regulation. So why do you not want flexibility? As I said, to be fair, there is not a uniform approach within the trusts. I think it is because they are at different stages in their lending cycles but I do know, we have also had one letter recently - this is the submission that went to either I think Scrutiny or to Housing or wherever last year from a different trust - and they say: "It should set a maximum fair rent for social landlords not to exceed, and not impose a policy that forces landlords to increase their rents." That is about a ceiling, not a target. I think that is the point. A further bit of the standards: "It is therefore a regulatory requirement for private registered providers to keep their annual rent increases to no more than the limit specified." To turn round and say: "Well, that is entirely appropriate for an Island to the north [and I do not mean Guernsey] but it is not appropriate for us", I find amazing. I actually agree entirely with Senator Bailhache because absolutely we want to get the accommodation up to proper standards. There is a difference between, as we have said, meeting the Decent Homes Standard which is this panacea, which we are saying is a minimum standard, that is the problem. It is the elderly versus the decrepit argument almost, and all right-minded landlords, social landlords, with a social conscience will want to do it, but to do it without putting the rents up to the limit, why not allow them to do that? It is giving them that discretion, that flexibility to do it and surely it is better and is that what Jersey is about? It is also the point; I do try and look at a lot of this stuff in the longer term. As I said, I know 2 of the entities that I am familiar with in terms of trusts, only through familiarity in looking on their websites and general knowledge, they are at a much earlier stage of their funding so they are having to pay lots of capital and lots of interest at the same time, as it were. But as they get further down as they get much closer to clearing-off the States what will their view be, because will the pressure still be there in terms of the funding requirements and therefore maybe they can turn around and say: "Well, we do not need to put up the rents in the future to this level to meet our financial obligations." It is about the actual market going ahead. It is allowing that discretion. Yes, this is the point. People have made very welcome comments about what did happen in 1989, the headlines and stuff like that, and as we have said as well, even now the feelings of some of the individuals in there who went through that particular process, it has left a scar and it has left a scar towards the States. If you like, my contract with those people was to ensure their homes were protected and they could continue to live in them. It is not about benefits. My social conscience cannot rationalise putting rents up to people who cannot afford rents to go up but who are working hard to support themselves when our financial planning and forecasting does not require it. What sort of message does that send out? Is that part of the responsible approach that we are meant to be applying to social housing? Again it is about professional judgment. I am going to go back a generation. The headlines that I distributed the other day, they had some pretty respected politicians in there, Senator Dick Shenton, Senator Reg Jeune , former Senator Ralph Vibert , who

all supported the creation of the trusts and the ethos at that point and it was about housing people. It was giving them protection in their homes, not just those on benefits, and that, as I said, was at Christmastime. There is a pretty stunning editorial in there and it is about ensuring the right mix of tenants as well in the States. Can you really see them saying: "No, we are going to go down this rigid approach. You will do this." I have 2 young children and yet I trust them when we go out and we will set parameters. We say: "You are going outside [wherever, a restaurant or something, and it is a safe area] you can go between there and there but not over there." It is not: "Sit on that rock and stay there once we are eating." Is not what this is doing if we do not put this through treating the trustees like small children? It is saying: "Sit on the rock. Do what you are told." Do not allow flexibility. It does not allow them to make a difference, to use their professional skills to make a contribution in their voluntary role that they follow. I am interested to see, for example, how some of the Scrutiny members vote on this because somewhere in their report, key finding: "If the housing trusts are to be relied on to deliver a sizeable portion of new social and affordable housing  developments,  growing  the  sector  should  be  the  overall  goal  rather  than  compelling providers to achieve uniform standards." That is a key finding. Are they going to be all voting against or voting for this proposition? I shall be very interested to see because that is a pretty fundamental thing in their report. As I said, this is an English standard and yet the Council of Ministers calls this amendment pernicious, wicked. It is about removing the compulsion. It is about keeping the flexibility. It does not matter if other bodies want to go or need to go to the 90 per cent. They still can under this amendment. It is about whether we need, as the States, and want to compel voluntary bodies that we want to work with in the future to deliver part of this plan. Again I reiterate the point about the Parishes, they are not at this stage to be regulated. That probably means that at some point in the future they may well be, and like the Constables or perhaps the Sheltered Housing Committee on which they operate, want the ability to flex their rents according  to  their  skills  or  according  to  their  costs  or  according  to  their  future  repayment requirements. To quote again from the English regulation: "This figure is a ceiling, not a target. It is open to providers to increase rents by a lower figure where circumstances justify doing so." Why should we not want to follow that very sound guidance when we are embarking on this very significant step? It is reasonable, it is prudent and I think it is an important change. I really do ask Members to please support this amendment. Thank you.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair): Is there an appel?

Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: Yes, Sir.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

The appel is called for on the amendment of Deputy Le Fondré, part 2. Members are in their seats so I will ask the Greffier to open the voting.

Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

Thank you, Sir, and thank you to the Assembly. That is really appreciated.

2. The Reform of Social Housing (P.33/2013): third amendment (P.33/2013 Amd.(3))

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Very well. We come finally on the amendments to the third amendment also in the name of Deputy Le Fondré. It is a lengthy amendment. Perhaps I will just ask the Greffier to read the introductory words to the amendment.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Page 2, paragraph (a)(iv), after the words "sections 3.38 to 3.47 of the attached report" insert the words "Except that before section 3.46, there shall be inserted the following new sections 3.46 to 3.53 as listed and renumber accordingly."

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair): Deputy , have you caught your breath?

Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: Can I have 30 seconds please?

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Is that the length of your speech?  [Laughter]

1. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

Can I just thank Members for supporting that last amendment? I think it really does make a difference to everybody going forward. This is the last amendment everybody will be delighted to know. It is again about setting a principle and it is trying to set as flexible a principle as I can make out. I would like to talk Members through it, obviously. The key bit - please do look at the amendment itself - is the bold section what I am proposing to add in as a new 3.48 paragraph in the report. What it says is: "The administration and such management costs of the company shall not exceed the average admin costs or management cost of existing social housing providers compared on a like-with-like basis", and that last point is absolutely critical. The next paragraph is also very clear. It leaves all the details in the hands of the regulator or whatever takes its place and sets some guidelines. The guidelines are what they say. They are guidelines. They allow for the regulator to define the costs in question. They allow the regulator to make adjustment for additional costs incurred by the company with such issues as have been identified in the Council of Ministers' comments, and they allow the regulator to adjust for distorting changes in income. I am trying to leave and not get dragged-down to the weeds, as the Senator likes to call it: keep a principle and leave the details to someone else to effectively work out. The final guideline recommends 2 benchmarks of performance but then allows the regulator a further one, whichever they want to think about. The rest of the wording is mainly about reporting, about allowing the Comptroller and Comptroller and Auditor General to be involved but it also empowers the regulator, whoever it is, to require the relevant costs to be reduced if they are significantly out of kilter on a like-with-like basis.

[10.45]

It does not say the regulator must; it does not give a timescale - it gives the regulator the ability. Bear in mind, as with much of this whole proposition, this is inserting a principle into a report which has a whole set of principles incorporated into it. Why, in my view, this is important is because the Minister for Housing has made a really great play of the huge changes this programme is going to initiate, but when we are setting up a new structure surely we want it to be efficient or at least that it becomes efficient and we are setting parameters for that. On a like-for-like basis, the new organisation in my view should be at least as efficient as the providers already out there. Do not forget, on a like-for-like basis because otherwise why are you setting them up. It is like-for- like. I keep emphasising that. That is what the proposition says. If not, you are potentially setting up a monopoly almost which can then set, for example, its own remuneration. My amendment tries to take care of that as a principle. Do not forget that both in the U.K. (United Kingdom) and here there are examples where organisations have been separated-off from the public sector and seen remuneration costs, for example, significantly increase. I will give one example and obviously I will say that, as an example, trustees at the moment do not get paid for doing their services as trustees. That is the idea of the honorary system. Let us use obviously one that is publicly available. You can track it down. It is the Jersey Development Company where the directors received £383,000 in 2011. I am not comparing like-with-like because obviously there are different responsibilities there but more importantly Members might be interested if you go to the accounts there that the previous director for them, W.E.B. (Waterfront Enterprise Board), started at around £131,000. His last full year was £266,000. There are other examples of this type of behaviour in other entities which have left the control of the States, and to be absolutely fair to Senator Ozouf , in the past it has been identified to him in Treasury and he has blocked it. He can only do that at a certain level as a shareholder/director. He cannot necessarily get further down into the organisation; as I say, necessarily. Therefore in my view we need to be very careful not to repeat, if you like, the sins of the past when we are setting up a new organisation. This is a principle. Before I criticise and sound too right wing or whatever - or too hardnosed about it, maybe that is the right expression - I do recognise there are differences between the proposed new company and the trusts. I use the word "trust" but it will apply across the board. It is social housing providers. The point is I have allowed the regulator to take account of that difference and I am trying to suggest in here, I have not specified how and obviously it depends what the regulator turns out to look like, but the regulator should be empowered to oversee this effectively. I agree there is a difference between the Housing Department and the existing trusts, no doubt about it, but I do have to say there are times that I sometimes think in nature, not in quantity, the difference is sometimes exaggerated because all landlords and definitely all trusts in terms of the nature of the tenants you are dealing with, will be dealing with needy tenants, tenants with specific interests, tenants with arrears and things like that. They do have to work with them and they should be working with them but I fully accept absolutely, let us be very clear, the Housing Department itself will probably have a far greater proportion of that. That is why you have to consider it on a like-for-like basis and make sure you are comparing apples and apples, not apples and pears. The idea here is setting principles and guidelines and not a straitjacket. One of the key aims of the Strategic Plan was about government reform, about how we deliver services and in what form. When Corporate Services did its review into the C.S.R. (Comprehensive Spending Review) on the delivery, we looked at the decision tree, it was actually shown to the Council of Ministers back in, I think, 2009 and one of the things about it was whether one needed to continue with a service, how should we do it differently and can it be done more efficiently? We are at a point where times are hard and we want to make sure that we are operating appropriately. To an extent I think: why is the Council of Ministers resisting this? This is a principle. It has been there for a month. If there is anything specifically wrong with it we could have brought a minor wording change to amend it. Does the Council of Ministers not buy into reform? We are at the point - there is £500 million worth of assets, there is £40 million worth of revenue - where you would want to set some parameters here. Despite the comments, and it depends on how you interpret them as to accuracy but there are no real details on performance measures surrounding cost control. There are comments about performance measures but they are sort of generic. This amendment is trying to introduce some clarity. I am seeking to establish a principle which can be established in one sentence which is pretty rare, come on, let us face it, and the principle is to go into a report which in itself is basically setting a whole raft of principles. Again admin management costs to the company, the bit in bold, should not exceed the average admin management costs of the existing social housing providers compared on a like-for- like basis. Why would one not want to support this because surely it is a combination of the taxpayer and the tenant? It is about if one can operate more efficiently then you do not need to put the rents up quite so much. It is about providing the accommodation in an efficient way from the administration point of view. Why is it important for the tenant? There is only mainly one source of income for the trusts, and the new company as well, and that is rent. That is mainly what maintains the estates. The more money spent on administration, the less available either for repairing and maintaining the estate, for delivering that basic service to our tenants, a home that meets the Decent Homes Standard or for repaying to the taxpayer. That to me is why this is so important. It is difficult. It may feel harsh but it is at the point of creation. We are not bringing it in halfway through and I am not being prescriptive. We are facing some really challenging times on the planet in financial terms and to me we need to make sure we are being robust with our money. We need to deliver the service but cap the bureaucracy. On that basis, I make the

amendment. Thank you.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded] Deputy Green.

2. Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier :

I find it quite ironic that the Deputy argues for flexibility for the housing trusts and appropriate and proportionate regulation to come back to the House and then attempts to try and tie the hands of the Housing Department or the new housing provider. I regret this debate to some extent because it has turned into - and I align myself with the comments of the Constable of St. Mary - regretfully, a trust versus department debate and that is not where we should be. This is about providing new homes and decent homes for families. We should not allow ourselves to be drawn into that. This amendment is crazy. I cannot think of a more polite way that I am allowed to describe it in this House. This amendment is not right but it does give me the opportunity to talk about the differences in scale. The differences in scale are of the current Housing Department and the housing trusts. Collectively the housing trusts take account of about 20 per cent of the Island's social housing. The Housing Department or new company 75 per cent and the Parishes around 6 per cent, and the trusts do a crucial job and I do have good working relationships with them. I appreciate the work they do and I hope this Assembly does as well. I think it does. The roles of the trusts are radically different, exactly the case that the Deputy made in the previous amendment. The roles of the trusts are radically different from a wider social role played by the current Housing Department and the new proposed company. This was identified by the chairman of Jersey's leading housing trust in his 2011 annual report when he referred to benchmarking - and I am up for benchmarking and performance review but I will come back to that in a minute - that the benchmarking review should not be utilised to compare the performance of the trusts with a U.K. local authority or States Housing Department results. He says, as they, the organisations he is talking about, are not like-for-like. How right he is. How right he is that various providers are not like-for-like but they provide very different services and this fact may have escaped Deputy Le Fondré. It was recognised by Professor Whitehead in her social housing review when she referred to the Housing Department as: "Jersey's housing landlord of last resort", which provides accommodation to those who cannot be accommodated by other social housing providers. The proportion of residents with disabilities and other needs which require specialist support is significantly higher in the Housing Department. Members may not be aware but it is a notable success of the intense social work that the Housing Department does with the majority of tenants with special needs that they live very full, successful and independent lives contributing positively to our society. This is in no small measure a credit to the relatively small group of dedicated social housing professionals at the department, professionals who have the experience to provide the co- ordinated and necessary support. I would like to remind the Assembly of some of those examples, the Independent Living Service which supports people to live independently in their own homes; the Medical Adaption Service which funds improvements to homes to allow people with medical conditions to remain living independently as long as possible; J.M.A.P.P.A. (Jersey Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements) which is tasked with the management of registered sex offenders, violent and other types of offenders who may pose a serious risk of harm to the public. This is our community. We have to house them. Somebody has to do that work and do it appropriately. The community liaison team who work to support residents, groups and the tenants' forum to ensure that our tenants have a say in how services are provided and that issues such as antisocial behaviour are addressed to promote harmonious communities. These are not services provided by the trusts or their appointed estate agents. That is not a criticism. I do not want to be having this debate. This is not a criticism. It would not be effective or efficient for all of us to be doing the same things and it does clearly require a certain critical mass to provide such specialist and valuable services. But there are also other factors such as the difference in stock with some notable exceptions, and we described them today. Properties managed by the trusts generally are newer than those managed by the Housing Department and in many cases these trust properties have been developed anyway by the Housing Department for the trusts or are former States rental properties which trusts have taken on to redevelop or refurbish, Bas du Mont, Le Coie, La Bénéfice, David Moon House. As I say we often do a lot of the support work for the trusts and then pass it on. We have to pick-up that cost of course. Older homes inevitably require higher degrees of cyclical maintenance and responsive repairs to ensure that they remain safe and decent homes. These costs will be higher in the States sector because of the age of many of the properties and the long-term underinvestment in maintenance but we have a plan. P.33 is the plan to provide decent homes and increase the homes for our community. No one can argue that monitoring performance of all social housing providers to ensure they are meeting the tenants is a good thing, is an essential thing, is a right thing. No one can argue with that. It is a vital part of my reform proposals and of the regulations that we will be bringing back to be proposed under P.33. These performance measures are set out in paragraphs 4.10 to 4.13 on page 49 of the report, any proper benchmarking exercise carefully implemented by the proposed regulator which focuses on the difference in administrative and management costs between the Housing Department and the trusts. They will quickly identify that in all areas of provision the Housing Department will have additional costs because by its very nature of its tenancy base and the properties, as I have said, that it manages. I can only see that changing of one or more of the housing trusts were to be taking on a wider social role, in other words one or more of the trusts become akin to the Housing Department then, yes, you are comparing like-with-like and you would do that.