States Meeting Transcript - 17th July 2013

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT WEDNESDAY, 17th JULY 2013

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption................................................................4

1. Draft Social Housing (Transfer) (Jersey) Law 201- (P.63/2013) - resumption ..........4

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :....................................................................4

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:................................................5
2. Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier:......................................................6 Deputy K.L. Moore of St. Peter (Chairman, Health, Social Security and Housing Scrutiny Panel):...................................................................................8

2. Deputy A.K.F. Green:....................................................................9

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ...............................................................9
2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :....................................................................9
3. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement : ...............................................10
4. Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade:......................................................10
5. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................11
6. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:.....................................................11
7. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:.......................................................12
8. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................13
9. Deputy A.K.F. Green:..................................................................13 Mr. H. Sharp Q.C., H.M. Solicitor General:..................................................16

3. Deputy A.K.F. Green:..................................................................19

2. Historic buildings in Pitt Street and Dumaresq Street: request to Minister for Planning and Environment (P.60/2103) ................................................20

2.1 The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................22

1. Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin : ........................................................26
2. Connétable M.P.S. Le Troquer of St. Martin:...........................................27
3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................30
4. Deputy J.M. Le Bailly of St. Mary:.....................................................32
5. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen:..........................................................32
6. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter:...................................................33
7. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................33
8. The Connétable of St. John:............................................................35
9. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................36
10. Deputy J.P.G. Baker of St. Helier:...................................................37
11. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier : ....................................................38
12. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................38
13. The Connétable of St. Helier:........................................................39

3. Victoria and George V Cottage Homes (Repeal of General Principles) (P.44/2013)..41

1. Deputy A.K.F. Green (The Minister for Housing):......................................41

2. Victoria and George V Cottage Homes (Repeal of General Principles) (P.44/2013): Amendment (P.44/2013 Amd.)..........................................................43

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................43
2. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................45
3. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................46

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................47 APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS, COMMITTEES AND PANELS.........................47

4. Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee – appointment during this or next meeting ..................................................................................47

1. Connétable L Norman of St. Clement:..................................................47 The Bailiff :...................................................................................47
2. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................47 Deputy M. Tadier : ............................................................................48 The Bailiff :...................................................................................48

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................48 PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption..............................................................48

5. Victoria and George V Cottage Homes (Repeal of General Principles) (P.44/2013): Amendment (P.44/2013 Amd.) - resumption............................................48

5.1 The Bailiff :.............................................................................48

1. Deputy A.K.F. Green:..................................................................48
2. Connétable S.W. Rennard of St. Saviour : ..............................................51
3. The Connétable of St. Martin:........................................................52
4. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................53
5. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:............................................................53
6. Deputy J.A. Martin:..................................................................54
7. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :.................................................................55
8. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence :..........................................57
9. The Deputy of St. Ouen:..............................................................57
10. The Connétable of St. Peter:.......................................................57
11. Senator P.F. Routier:..............................................................58
12. Deputy G.P. Southern :.............................................................58

1. The Connétable of St. Martin:........................................................64
2. Deputy A.K.F. Green:.................................................................65

6. Draft Income Support (Amendment No. 9) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.66/2013)....68

6.1 Senator F. du H. Le Gresley (The Minister for Social Security): ....................68

1. The Connétable of St. Martin:........................................................68
2. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour:...................................................69
3. Senator S.C. Ferguson:................................................................69
4. Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier:.......................................................70
5. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:............................................................70
6. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:..........................................................70

7. Draft Dwelling-Houses (Rent Control) (Standard Tenancy Agreement) (Amendment) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.68/2013)...................................................72

1. Deputy A.K.F. Green (The Minister for Housing):..................................73

1. The Deputy of St. Ouen:..............................................................73
2. Deputy G.P. Southern : ................................................................73
3. Senator A. Breckon: ..................................................................74
4. Deputy J.H. Young:...................................................................74
5. Deputy A.K.F. Green:.................................................................74 The Deputy of St. Peter (Chairman, Health, Social Security and Housing Scrutiny Panel): .........................................................................................77

2. Deputy A.K.F. Green:.................................................................77

1. Deputy J.H. Young:...................................................................77
2. Deputy A.K.F. Green:.................................................................77

8. Draft Firearms (Amendment No. 3) (Jersey) Law 201- (P.69/2013) ...................79

1. Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs):.......................79

1. Deputy M.R. Higgins:.................................................................79
2. The Connétable of St. Martin:........................................................79
3. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:.............................................................80
4. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:...........................................................80 Deputy J.M. Maçon (Chairman, Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel):..........................81

2. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:...........................................................81

1. Deputy M.R. Higgins:.................................................................81
2. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:...........................................................81

9. Draft Security Interest (Jersey) Law 2012 (Appointed Day) Act 201- (P.97/2013)....82

9.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):...............82

10. Draft Trusts (Amendment No. 6) (Jersey) Law 201- (P.62/2013)......................83

10.1 Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................83 The Bailiff :...................................................................................83

11. Draft States of Jersey Police Force Law 2012 (Appointed Day) Act 201- (P.78/2013).84

11.1 Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs):.......................84

1. Deputy M.R. Higgins: ..............................................................85
2. Senator A. Breckon:................................................................86
3. The Connétable of St. John : .......................................................86
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: .........................................................86
5. Deputy J.A. Hilton:................................................................86
6. Senator I.J. Gorst :..................................................................87
7. Senator B.I. Le Marquand: ........................................................87

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................89

12. Deputy M. Tadier (Vice-Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):......89

12.1 Deputy J.H. Young:...................................................................89

13. Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee – appointment during this or next meeting ..................................................................................90

1. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................90
2. The Bailiff :.............................................................................90

13.2 Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................90

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................90

[9:30]

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

1. Draft Social Housing (Transfer) (Jersey) Law 201- (P.63/2013) - resumption The Bailiff :

So we return then to the Order Paper and we were debating the principles of Projet 63, Draft Social Housing (Transfer) (Jersey) Law, lodged by the Minister for Housing. Senator Ozouf .

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

If I may just return to some of the principles behind this proposition, there is a great deal of work to be done in relation to the detail of the next stages of the setting up of the housing company, and this should be regarded as a step, but not a final step, in that arrangement. What my understanding is of the proposition of the Minister for Housing before Members is that this sets up effectively the law which sets up the future arrangements, or facilitates the future arrangements of how the company is to be operated, and particularly how the transfer is be made. I cannot remember which Member raised the question of stamp duty. The Treasury is always in a difficult position in relation to stamp duty because we have the ability, as I understand it, to request the Judicial Greffe not to impose a stamp duty arrangement, but we rarely - if ever - do it. It puts both the Judicial Greffe and the Treasury in a difficult position and so it was decided to introduce a provision for the avoidance of any doubt - I think it was Deputy Young that raised the question - that on the transfer of the stock of the 4,200 units which are envisaged to be transferred, there would be no stamp duty payable. That seems to me entirely sensible, not to effectively incur a cost in terms of stamp duty. It would be effectively jam-jar accounting, so the law says, for the avoidance of any doubt, that no stamp duty is going to be paid on the transfer. The actual transfer of the properties will not be by a normal conveyance in the way that perhaps we understand it, because the actual transfer of properties will be by the Regulations that will come subsequently. Just as other companies that are set up and have been set up by the States, although this is somewhat different the Assembly has previously set up in the same way companies such as J.T. (Jersey Telecom), Jersey Post, S.o.J.D.C. (States of Jersey Development Company). This is a different form of the company; it is a company limited by guarantee and therefore has a guarantor member. The law sets out the similar arrangements that the Treasury will be responsible to be, from what I understand it, is the equivalent structure of a company limited by guarantee and the shareholding function. But again, all of the details of the appointment of the board and the memorandums and articles of association will be worked on and will come back to the Assembly for approval. So in essence, we are setting up an enabling law. We have to do this in order to get to the next stage. This is primary law, but the law gives a great deal of regulatory ability or regulation-making ability in order to firstly structure the company itself, a memorandum of articles of association; secondly, the actual transfer of the properties themselves. One Member - again, I cannot remember which Member - raised this: it was the onward sale requirements. I can imagine that of course there will be onward sale restrictions. The company will not be entitled to sell any of the social rented units, because it will be States controlled, and just in any other way, there will be a memorandum of understanding between the company and the States which will set out a no surprises' policy. There will need to be a business plan that will need to be approved and it will be inconceivable that the company would be selling property that it would have. But again, I can imagine that in Regulations and in the transfer of those properties, there would be a requirement not for any onward sale to any third party and that any disposal of property would in fact need to either be approved, either under Standing Order 168 or they would need to come back the States. I say those things because many Members, while approving and enthusiastically approving the setting up of a stand-alone entity

will, I am sure, have a recollection of some of the difficulties in Members' minds about when the Jersey Homes Trust or trust bodies were set up. Trust bodies are not owned by the States, they are a trust, and Members have been concerned, I think, in transferring stock to something that was not 100 per cent States owned. Indeed, in the overall housing transformation work that the Minister for Housing - and indeed, his predecessors - have ably worked on, the decision was made that the new housing company or the new housing organisation would not be a trust, it would be controlled and owned by the States. So we are not going to be in a position where we are going to have some additional hurdles to jump in order, for example, to direct this entity to use surplus property or surplus assets. Members will be aware that there is the Jersey Homes Trust, which has been enormously successful in many ways. At the same time, there has been a difficulty in directing the Jersey Homes Trust, for example, to use surplus cash requirements that it has been building up as a result of the low-interest environment. This is a much more tightly controlled entity, but I say again that the rules of this entity are going to be set out in Regulations. I am extremely happy with this proposal. The Minister for Housing is moving on his absolutely clear and tight timetable to deliver this new entity, to deliver the expression of the view of the States that we are going to move to this new housing body. It needs to have an underpinning law. There is a lot more detail to be worked on. That will be worked on by the Housing Department and it will be scrutinised by, no doubt, the associated Housing panel, but Treasury will also be involved, as always. There is now going to be a segregation of duties, a separation of duties between regulation, between oversight of housing policy and between the delivery. This is where my own department will be involved in the working out and making sure that the delivery unit has the appropriate governance, has the appropriate structure and the appropriate financial arrangements put in place. I am very happy to support the Minister for Housing's proposal.

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

It is appropriate that I follow the Minister for Treasury and Resources. I do struggle with these things. There has been a tendency in the Assembly of late for the Minister for Treasury and Resources to stand up and he is very reluctant to get involved in micromanagement issues. He has been pushed into justifying stamp increases in the Post Office - not yet the position of post boxes - but no doubt he will become an expert on that. The general view that the Minister for Treasury and Resources is putting across is that while he is the sole shareholder on some of these bodies and he may well be under 23 in this regard, he is very reluctant to exercise those powers and he feels, it seems, boxed-in by Members who wish him to micromanage. But what I am struggling with, there is micromanagement, which I think this Assembly tries far too much to undertake and it leads into all sorts of cul de sacs, and there is setting the general policy by this Assembly, which is then given to the housing body, for example, or to J.E.C. (Jersey Electricity Company) and putting in place mechanisms to ensure that that body is following the policies of this Assembly. There is no doubt that now a grey area has developed and I would like assurances. I think we thought in the rush of emotion, which was engendered by Deputy Green when he was promoting the main policy in a passionate and enthusiastic way, that maybe the retention of the Minister for Housing would provide us with this guarantee. What I would like him to make clear is who makes housing policy, what is the involvement of this Assembly, and will we lead to situations where we have an apparently reluctant Minister for Treasury and Resources saying: "I may be the sole shareholder, but I do not wish to interfere"?

[9:45]

That leads to all sorts of interesting possibilities, because no interference is often a policy and it leads to certain perverse consequences. So I would like some very concrete assurances from the Minister for Housing that we are not entering once more into one of these grey areas where the Minister for Treasury and Resources, by default, is ending up with an enormous amount of power and influence which he is apparently reluctant to exercise. Thank you.

The Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak on the principles? Very well, then I invite the Minister to reply.

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

I thank all Members that have spoken and particularly thank the Minister for Treasury and Resources for clarifying a few points. Perhaps starting with Deputy Hérissier first: who is going to set the policy? Clearly the policy eventually will be set by the board, but the board will be regulated by the regulator that we agreed in P.33 to appoint. So that is work to be done and that is detail. It is not intended that the Minister for Treasury and Resources or any other Minister will micromanage. The board will manage, working to the memorandums and articles of association and within the Regulations that have been set, so I hope that gives some assurance to the Deputy . There is work to be done yet, because all we are doing today is setting up the framework by which the company will be set up and then the Regulations have to come back. Specifically to pick up on Senator Ferguson's point that she asked me last night, when will they see the memorandum of association and the articles, and that should be in September and October of this year. So that is work in progress. Just picking up on some of the other points - in no order, they are in the order that I picked them up last night and this morning - there was some concern about the pension deficit and much concern seemed to be around this, and because that was covered in our full business case, if you remember that, it was a very comprehensive case, from memory, something like 130 pages and scrutinised by a number of financial experts, not just our own financial expert, who I might say is really regarded in the U.K. (United Kingdom) as one that is top of the tree, but also Scrutiny's financial expert, who I am sure is up there somewhere as well, approved it as well. So the risk in terms of the pension deficit has been recognised, has been allowed for and is fully covered in the business plan. The purchase of the pension debt, just to remind Members, in the business plan was £2.135 million. We have done our homework; that is what I am trying to say to Members. Dealing with I think it was Senator Breckon that raised it initially and then Deputy Martin raised it as well about balloting States tenants. Of course that was part of the 2002-2006 housing strategy plan, and it related to the transfer of properties with sitting tenants to new owners. There are 2 arguments here and I am prepared to be guided by the S.G. (Solicitor General). The first one is I am advised that that policy only applied within the life of that strategic plan, and the second one is that the tenants' ultimate landlord has not changed. The States is the owner of the company limited by guarantee. The Minister for Treasury and Resources mentioned the selling of some properties and we do intend to realign our stock and sell some properties as we build new, but they are always sold on the basis of the sitting tenant buys them under usually a deferred payment system or we sell them as vacant possession. The whole emphasis of the ballot system was when the tenants' landlord was going to change. I would argue - and I am sure others might want to check, but I am sure my facts are correct - I am advised that the owner of the company being the States, the

landlord has not changed.

Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier :

Perhaps I would like advice then off the S.G. because it was my amendment, it was in this House and I have just heard the Minister say it has run out of date. If I had of known that under all these other policies I could have added in an amendment .. because I think it is just a fail-safe for the sitting tenants and any onward sale to or transfer to a trust. It was quite accepted, so if it is not now a policy or it was not passed .. well, it was passed in this House and I am very surprised. I had started my speech last night and I only asked for the adjournment so the Minister for Housing could

check this with the S.G. I had not quite finished my speech, but I am quite happy, but I really would overnight have liked an absolute answer. To me, the answer that I am timed-out in 2005 because the policy ran out I do not think is good enough.

The Bailiff :

First, may I apologise, Deputy , if I did not let you resume your speech and I shall put that right by letting you continue it at a later stage, if necessary. But on the point you have just raised, the Greffier has very kindly looked up the propositions and I think has circulated you and the Minister with his view, which I entirely share, namely that what was approved was the Housing Committee's policy for 2002 to 2006 and your amendment amended that policy for that period. So for better or for worse, it has run out.

Deputy A.K.F. Green:

I am grateful for that, Sir, but I would also argue that the landlord, the States of Jersey, has not changed, because the States of Jersey own the company. But I am very grateful for your clarification. I think it was Deputy Reed had some comments. I am just trying to have a look at these now. Yes, he was worried, I think, if I remember rightly, about the risks to the company and I could distribute this to Members if they wish, but I might remind Members that on page 116 of the full business case - which we spent 2.5 days debating, by the way, about 6 weeks ago - we lay out all the risks and clearly allocate where the risks lie, we identify them all. Some of those risks sit with the States and continue to sit with the States, and some of those risks sit with the company and there are a few that are shared. But there is a very comprehensive business plan and I can assure the Deputy of St. Ouen that we have done our homework in regard to the risks and I am very comfortable that this company, limited by guarantee, will be able to not only operate effectively and efficiently, but will be able to deliver the homes that I am going to require them to deliver. That is what is at the bottom of all this, homes for our tenants, homes for tenants that are waiting on the waiting list at the moment. I can forward this on to Members if they want, page 116 of the risk allocation. I hope I have covered all the points that Members have asked, but I will sit down and see.

The Bailiff :

Very well. Sorry, Deputy .

Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier :

There was a question I posed about the return to Treasury of £1.5 billion over a 30-year period and the safety of the company in the light of that.

Deputy A.K.F. Green:

My apologies to Deputy Southern on that one. He is quite right, he did ask me that question, and of course that has not changed from the 2½ day debate that we had, a lot of that spent on this. The return of the contribution, whatever you want to call it, the payment to the Treasury has been capped and will now only go up by inflation, so we have reduced it. It is fully allowed for within the business plan, so nothing has changed from the P.33 business plan which Members spent 2½ days debating.

The Bailiff :

[Aside] So then we come to the vote. Are you asking for the appel? Yes, the appel is called for then in relation to the principles of Projet 63. I invite Members to return to their seats and the Greffier will open the voting.

The Bailiff :

Very well. Deputy of St. Peter , do you wish this matter to be referred to your Scrutiny Panel?

Deputy K.L. Moore of St. Peter (Chairman, Health, Social Security and Housing Scrutiny

Panel):

No, thank you, Sir. We have already provided comment.

The Bailiff :

Then how do you wish to proceed, Minister, in respect of the Articles?

2. Deputy A.K.F. Green:

I am in the hands of Members, really. We can do them en bloc or I can run through each one. It depends how long Members wish to be here, Sir.

The Bailiff :

What I suggest is that you propose them en bloc and take any questions.

Deputy A.K.F. Green:

Okay. In that case, I thank Members that have contributed so far and propose the Articles en bloc. The Bailiff :

Are the Articles seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on any of the individual Articles? Deputy Le Hérissier.

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

I would like to revert to 23 and I would like the Minister, in order that I can get more clarification, under 23 when it talks of the role of the Minister for Treasury and Resources, it says: "In exercising those powers, he or she shall act in the interest of the States." I wonder if the Minister could define how the Minister for Treasury and Resources will deduce what are the interests of the States in those circumstances?

2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

Perhaps I could assist, as I envisage that ultimately these things will be a matter for the Minister for Treasury and Resources to answer ultimately, although probably it will not be in force for the duration of this period of time. Deputy Le Hérissier I think is one of those regular questioners of the incorporated entities. He likes, on the one hand, to say that States Members in this Assembly should be very much involved with policy, but he is one of those Members who is very comfortable also in getting into the detail, and as usual, when you are sitting on the fence or you are either side of it, you cannot have your cake and eat it, I would say to Deputy Le Hérissier. But for the avoidance of doubt, there will be effectively a memorandum of understanding that will be set out. There will be arts., there will be the particulars of the entity that will be brought forward for the States and indeed, I would say and I would repeat the words of the Minister for Housing, this entity many of the questions that I am asked about J.T. and Jersey Post, and, as we explored on Monday afternoon with Senator Ferguson in relation to her questions about routers within J.T. and monopoly, those are issues for the regulator. Indeed, it is going to be for the regulator to set standards and policies and for the company to be held to account in order to deliver it. A board of directors of 51 this Assembly is not of the existing entities; a management and a membership of any of these companies this is not, and we must come to terms with the fact that we set policy, we agree policy. We then put people to run organisations and the job of the Treasury, and ultimately this Assembly to the Minister for Treasury and Resources, is to hold with various different levels, Minister and board, to account for implementing those policies. We must get away from a world in which we descend into the weeds. I think the Deputy understands very well what that tension is and we are going to depoliticise operational matters, but focus on the big things that we should, which is policy.

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

On a point of clarification, the Minister never said the circumstances in which he would intervene, which is what I was talking about.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

When policy is not being properly adhered to and when there is a governance issue within that entity, but the way that the Treasury does that is by agreeing a business plan, is by holding regular meetings with the entity to hold them to account for their business plan, and there is a catch-all, which is a no surprises' policy. I do not expect to be surprised by any action of any of the States- owned entities without them informing the Treasury. Indeed, we have a team within the Treasury, not a large team, but a team of 2 or 3 people, that looks after these issues and when there is a surprise - that means a decision that is not within policy, something dramatic that has happened, a big cost overrun, something like that - then our guidance is appropriately taken.

[10:00]

It might be that it would be helpful for us to have at one of the meetings that we do have with own entities - perhaps it would be helpful to come to terms with some of the decision-making that we have - for us to do a briefing to States Members on what the oversight arrangements are, the holding to account and indeed the memorandum of understanding. I can see some members of the P.A.C. (Public Accounts Committee) nodding. It might be helpful that we have one of those in the not too distant future.

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

Building on the same issues which Deputy Le Hérissier has raised, because I too have come across problems with dealing with these entities which we have put at arm's length, because they are problems which arise and, as he has correctly said, the Minister for Treasury and Resources does not feel as though he should be delving down into that level, so we find that we have nowhere to go. One of the things I recall recently was the suggestion that Jersey Telecom were going to stop accepting cheques. Now, I thought that was inconvenient to the public, but the Minister for Treasury and Resources said it was for the board and not for him. So basically, as Members of Assembly, I find that we are unable to take up issues on behalf of our constituents. I wonder if the Minister for Housing, when he sums up on these Articles, could clarify for me, if we take an example of a constituent that might contact me with a problem with a property, perhaps he cannot get the department to repair a window or he has got neighbours which are a nightmare and he wants to move, to whom would I go in future? Would it be to the board, to the Minister for Housing, or to the Minister for Treasury and Resources?

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

On the same theme as Deputy Le Hérissier, accepting that this is an enabling law, for an enabling law handing over powers of £0.5 billion of assets, I have to say I find it extraordinarily thin, particularly Article 2, which talks about the nature of the company. Now, what we seem to be in a position of is the Minister for Treasury and Resources has given us a whole host of assurances about the safeguards, but none of those are in the law. I do have a problem with that, that we are just asked to rubberstamp a law which is thin. I know it is going to be said it is in the Regulations, but it seems to be simple that if we are establishing a company where the assets will not be able to be transferred out of it, that those assets are inalienable, that to me should be in the law. Now, I am also puzzled about the role of the Minister for Treasury and Resources. Only a short while ago, when we approved the housing strategy, we retained the Minister for Housing and I would have liked to have thought there was some role for the Minister for Housing in this. I am really puzzled as to why we are concentrating the powers on the Minister for Treasury and Resources when we have said that we need a Minister to the housing. We have got an excellent Scrutiny report, but the experts appointed were housing experts, and I was very troubled when I read the appendix, because we only had this yesterday, and apologies that I have not had a chance to talk to the Scrutiny Panel about it, but the advisers did say: "Unfortunately our knowledge of Jersey law does not extend to whether this is an issue, but it may be worth the Scrutiny Panel whether considering charity should be considered." So here we have a draft law where our experts are not competent, and say so, in Jersey law. That really troubles me. So for me, I have really great difficulty in just carrying away, rubberstamp this. Ideally I would like to have seen those issues looked at further by the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel, but I fully understand the reasons, they are fully committed, and I would have hoped .. really, it is very disappointing we do not see the memorandum and articles of the company and all these questions being answered, so I am really troubled by Article 2 and I think I should probably regrettably have to record my dissent by voting against that Article, unless there is any way .. I just do not see these things .. the law as we have got is just far too thin and it is an enabling law, but I think the safeguards that should be built into the law are not the Regulations, because Regulations are easily changed. The degree of scrutiny on Regulations cannot be fully effective in the Assembly for all the reasons we know about law scrutiny. So I think the law is the proper place to put fundamental safeguards and I do not see them.

5. Senator A. Breckon:

I just want to join the party, as it were, on the concerns that have been expressed by other Members, following on from Deputy Young and Deputy Le Hérissier and Deputy Baudains, and the question I ask is who would answer questions on housing for this company in the house, because as Deputy Le Hérissier has touched on, if it is to do with the shareholder, then it the Minister for Treasury and Resources and what he says is: "This is micromanagement. It is not my problem. We have got a board and we have got a nominee." In Article 2 it talks about the nominee of the Minister for Treasury and Resources on the board. Is that person accountable to this House, to the Minister for Treasury and Resources or is it the Minister for Housing? That is why I think Members generally favoured retaining the Minister for Housing, so that he would be answerable to this House, not us to be told: "Well, it is none of your business." The reason I say that is housing is an emotive issue and it has been something that has applied the time and effort of Members over many years about all sorts of issues, from standard of properties to allocation, to all sorts of things. So as Deputy Baudains pointed out, if Members do need to raise issues on behalf of would-be tenants or existing tenants or people willing to buy, then Members of this House need to have some comfort that they can go somewhere where they will not be told: "Well, it is none of your business any more" because that does not satisfy the people who are perhaps in distress. Then we are failing them, because where do they go if they have been already to the organisation, the housing whatever it is, and not got an answer? Where is the system that deals with it at another level? Members, as they know, can ask questions in this House and then the question about the question is who do you address it to? Is it the Minister for Housing or is the Minister for Treasury and Resources who has the nominee on the board? For me this is not clear and it would really worry me, bearing in mind that it is an emotive issue, if you come to the Minister for Treasury and Resources and he says: "Well, it is not my business. We have a board there. You will have to go back to them" because that is not satisfactory if people are not adequately housed or waiting for housing for whatever reason and they go around this circle, then we are failing people for convenience and we need to move on, but it needs to be a better organisation. The idea of tasking these 3 as an organisation so that they would have opportunities and be able to do things without the shackles of the public sector system and finance, but having said that, there needs to be the checks and balances. I, like Deputy

Young, share the concern that if it is going to be through the Minister for Treasury and Resources and then we are told: "Well, we have a board here. It is none of your business. They are dealing with it" and if it is an individual it is not necessarily a policy thing, you just say: "Well, that is the answer we have given to these particular people." That, in this day and age, is not quite good enough. For that reason, I have some reservations in this, so my support is qualified.

6. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier :

I am hoping the Minister will help me with Article 8 of the Regulations. I have always had concerns about were the States to suddenly sort of privatise its companies and the effect on employees. Very often they are transferred on the same terms and conditions, but within a very short space of time, they are eroded, and in fact, very soon, within a matter of years, they have disappeared almost completely. In particular, I am interested in (d) and (e) and I am still puzzling over 8(e), where it says: "Any collective agreement made by or on behalf of the States with the represented body recognised by and on behalf of the States be an agreement that is expressed to have effect in respect of employment of persons by the company who are not immediately before the transfer date employees of the States." Can someone please explain that in English, and the rights of these people going forward and to make sure that their rights will not be eroded very, very quickly by the new board?

7. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

The role of an individual States Member is of course varied, but I would ask States Members rhetorically - and I expect I know what answer I would get - how much time they spend dealing with issues, which are not strictly related to parliamentary nitty-gritty, that is to say to do with

social security issues, to do with housing issues and to do with issues which elsewhere may be dealt with by the various ombudsmen which are available but do not exist in Jersey. Certainly I know that once this sitting is finished I will be trying to find some time to speak with the Minister for Housing, which he has already agreed, about 3 ongoing cases which I hope to be able to resolve to some satisfaction, mutual satisfaction, simply because I have got recourse to the Minister. I can talk to him and say: "We have got an issue here with this individual who has been on the waiting list for quite a while. She cannot afford the premises she is living in. She is put in a difficult situation with social, et cetera, and something needs to be done because she is in acute financial circumstances." A political judgment can be made as to where she lies on the scale of necessity and similarly with other cases that are ongoing. That is probably not going to be able to happen now any more than it can happen if there is an issue with the phones or a problem with somebody's electricity bill. It is just that is the way that it works. If someone's electricity bill is too expensive, that is tough luck. If somebody's housing is not being provided for them, that is tough luck. That is just the way the new company structure works and it is arm's length. It would be wrong for us to get involved politically so we have to be fully aware of the route that we have gone down on this. The other point relating to 2(4) is that, it may be the cynic in me, but this just smacks of more empire-building. Why is it that after yesterday we have not learnt of the dangers of centralising more and more power and having less and less control as an Assembly, less and less political accountability and recourse for our constituents who are going to be affected by these changes if we do not get it right. That is why I share the same concerns that have been raised by other individuals. It goes back to the whole point that it does not really matter how you deliver housing, whether you do it via a company, which is an arm's length company which is completely private, or a trust, or whether it is States-owned, it is: is the housing there in the first place? Do we have a desire to provide affordable housing? Do we wish to continue this crazy scenario of subsidising private landlords? What happens nowadays, when the lists are too long, people are given advice both from Social Security and from Housing, and I am sure they do not like giving this advice out: "Well, have you thought of renting in the private sector?" But the money given by Social Security, which is capped, whether it be for one, 2 or 3 bedrooms is not sufficient to pay those rents and they have got to find money elsewhere while the landlords, quite understandably, are rubbing their hands because they are thinking: "This is great, this gravy train. We do not have to worry about keeping our rents low because we know the State is always going to be the backstop for that." Are

those issues being addressed by this? They are not being addressed anywhere as far as I can see. We have no plan to address the fundamental issue of why we are giving taxpayers' money .. money, in fact, which people who themselves cannot afford housing, who are having to pay very

inflated rents, are having to pay for other people to be able to pay their landlords for inflated rents. The whole thing does not make sense and until we address those issues we really are fiddling. So certainly on those issues beware of what we are voting for and I would like to see some radical changes put forward to address the housing shortage and the very expensive rental houses that people are facing in the private and even now in the States sector.

8. Senator I.J. Gorst :

If I could just briefly. Deputy Tadier raises a number of very good points but not necessarily related to the Articles before us. As the Minister for Housing said yesterday, there is shortly to be a new draft Housing Plan, chapter on Housing, and that will enable the development of new houses and on some of those sites there will be new construction techniques and new models of ownership.

[10:15]

So hopefully when he sees that he will be satisfied. He says across the Assembly, an old man. I am not sure he is quite as old as I am yet and he is right to indicate that we have been waiting, that work has taken time but we hope to be in a position to put that out to consultation by the end of this week. A number of other Members have asked: "Well, where will the role of representation by Members be when it comes to specific operational issues that their constituents might raise?" They will be rightly, and should rightly, be raised with the new company. If they do not get satisfaction there, I have no reason to doubt that they will not get anything other than satisfaction; they would raise it at board level. If it is a policy issue with regard to housing policy then of course that will be raised with the new, I hesitate to use that word, but with the new Minister for Housing. I hope that the Minister for Housing, as is, will be the old Minister for Housing very shortly and during the summer recess he will reinvent himself as the new Minister for Housing sitting in my department heading up the Strategic Housing Unit. So if there are policy issues, which often do underlie specific operational issues, the operational issue has to be dealt with. That, rightly, will be dealt with by the new company. Policy issues will be taken forward and considered and implemented by the new Minister for Housing through the Strategic Housing Unit. That will be a great step forward because currently the Minister for Housing has a little bit of a conflict because this Assembly sees him as driving housing policy, but that strictly has not been his remit. He has been the provider of social housing so there has been this conflict. That conflict is being removed and Members will quite clearly be able to take policy issues to the new Minister for Housing and he will then be free from providing the housing but be able to develop policy appropriately. Of course the regulator, as well, will deal with Regulation. That will need to come to the Assembly and be approved in due course. That will then give this Assembly the ability to amend and change and influence that Regulation and how it is implemented as well, and of course the Minister for Treasury and Resources, as we seem to have fixated on a little bit this morning, will have the shareholder role, which is not uncommon for that department. They have a strength and ability to manage that and that is about ensuring there is sound governance, ensuring that the resources are spent appropriately and that there is the appropriate accountability in the running of that company. So when you take the different facets of what is being proposed you will see that it is a great improvement and it will give clarity on the very issues that many Members have concerns about this morning. Therefore, I

hope that Members will support these Articles. The Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak on the Articles? Very well, then I invite the Minister to reply.

9. Deputy A.K.F. Green:

I will pick them up not necessarily in the order they were spoken in but as they come to mind, so to speak. I think Members flatter me sometimes when they say that they can bring a problem to me and I solve it. The quickest way of solving a problem is to take it to the appropriate officer in the department to be honest because that is where I always refer it and that officer deals with it. So the quickest way to get any operational issues resolved is to take it to the appropriate officer, but of course there is always a time when you would want to go elsewhere because you did not get the satisfaction you want. That happens from time to time. I think the Members have forgotten our board of 6 is made up of 2 tenant representatives, which is going to - I think - help. My new role as the new Minister for Housing, which I am apparently going to change into during the recess, is really to carry out the role I think I always should have had and that is of housing policy. That will be also setting up the Strategic Housing Unit within the Chief Minister's Department and the Strategic Housing Unit will have much more of a role than we have ever seen in co-ordinating housing policy. One of the strange things I have found as Minister for Housing is that some policy sits within Health, some policy sits within Planning, some policy currently sits within Population and very little policy sits within Housing other than the social side of things. So the S.H.U. (Strategic Housing Unit) will be a great improvement and of course Members agreed to that as part of P.34. Picking up on other points so some people are concerned about this nominee on the board from the Minister for Treasury and Resources. It is that. It is a nominee that the Minister for Treasury and Resources nominates to ensure that he is absolutely happy with the governance of the organisation. Interestingly enough, with a different hat on, I was looking at governance of organisations last night. So it is appropriate that the Minister for Treasury and Resources ensures that the assets that the company is running is overlooked properly and has good governance but the Minister for Treasury and Resource's role is to nominate the one member of the board. Remember that I will be selecting the chairman and the other 3 members of the board and then there will be a selection process for the 2 States tenant representatives. Picking up on other things, I know Deputy Higgins is passionate about looking after staff and employees but he does not have the monopoly on that passion and that is why we have these very clear Articles in there including the one about the admitted status to the Pension Scheme. We have had excellent consultation. Without blowing our own trumpet the trade union representatives have said that the consultation with the staff and with them has been exemplary. I was pleased to hear that when they made that comment. I was absolutely adamant that staff do transfer with protection for their existing conditions of employment and had there been no agreement for them to remain in the Pension Scheme under the admitted body status we would not have even got as far as debating P.33, so the staff is being looked after. We have excellent dialogue directly with the staff and with their representatives and that is on record. Just trying to pick up on other things, Deputy Tadier and, I think, the Chief Minister covered it, the best thing we can do in terms of affordable housing; yes, we need to look at construction. It is slightly out of what we are doing today but we need to look at construction techniques and the draft new Housing chapter arrived in my email box yesterday or maybe early hours of this morning. So we are moving ahead on that and the Minister for Planning and Environment and myself and others will be working very hard to look at different methods of construction to make homes cheaper. The best thing we can do in terms of rental homes is to increase supply. Once we increase supply the price will have to go down apart from solving some

of our social problems as well, so work with myself and Minister for Planning and Environment. When that draft chapter comes back for debate, pass those sites. Let us get moving on building. Let us get our families housed and our construction industry working. It really is a double whammy. I think I have probably covered most of the points raised apart from, I think it was Deputy Young who was concerned .. I think, he may not have used these words, but in essence he was concerned about the quality of the legal advice saying that the Scrutiny Panel's legal advisers said that they did not know much about Jersey law. Well, the people that drafted this know a lot about Jersey law, they are our Law Officers. So I am very comfortable with the work that they

have done. This is setting just the bones of the structure of the organisation which will come back with proper regulation. That is what I promised to do in the P.33 debate, to take more time looking at the 2 types of regulations, the regulation that goes around the company and the regulation in terms of the standard of housing. So I am very comfortable with this. This sets a structure. We will follow that up with regulation, and I know there will be a full and thorough debate on that and that is only right. So I think I have covered all the points although I see Deputy Baudains' light on. I will sit down.

The Bailiff :

I think there are 3 lights on, I am afraid, Minister. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

Well, hopefully the Minister will stand up again in a moment. I did ask him if, well not if but when a States Member gets a call from a resident with housing problems in future will he go to the Minister for Treasury and Resources, Minister for Housing or the board? I take it from what the Minister just said that the States Member will now have to go to the board and presumably if he does not get satisfaction he will then have to tell the constituent: "I am sorry there is nothing more I can do."

Deputy A.K.F. Green:

If it is an operational matter then I would go first to the people running the organisation and then to the board. If it is a policy matter I would hold the Minister to account in the States.

Deputy J.H. Young:

Clarification, Sir, if I may request it? The Minister referred in his reply to the debate about the constitution of the board of 6 members, a chairman and 3 members and so on. Could the Minister direct us to the Article in the law that sets that out please?

Deputy A.K.F. Green:

That will follow in September but I have been open and transparent, that was fully explained in P.33, my full business plan. We had 2½ days of debate on it. It is in there. This will come back in detail in September.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I was pleased to hear what the Minister said about the good talks that he has been having with the employees' representatives. He also said that the Regulations were clear. Well, I am sorry, they are as clear as mud to me, certainly Article 8(e). I would like the Minister to explain, if he would, Articles 8(d) and (e) and if he cannot do it clearly if we can ask the Solicitor General to do it for us please.

The Bailiff :

I think you can ask Article 8(e), Deputy because you asked that previously. Article 8(d) would be a new matter which we cannot really allow you to do after the Minister has replied, so Article 8(e).

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Article 8(e) is the one that concerns me most. Article (d), I think, is straightforward. I think it is straightforward. Article 8(e) has me slightly puzzled.

The Bailiff :

Article 8(e) is the only one I think you can properly ask about because you asked about it earlier. Minister, are you happy to deal with it?

Deputy A.K.F. Green:

I would rather have the advice of the S.G. (Solicitor General) to be honest because I think that is where we will end up anyway.

The Bailiff :

Well, Solicitor General, can you deal with Article 8(e)? Mr. H. Sharp Q.C., H.M. Solicitor General:

Yes. I break Article 8(e) down as follows. The States may enter into a collective agreement; that agreement may apply to company employees. Even if the company employee, before the transfer date, was not a States employee the collective agreement still applies to that employee.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

That is fine. That is what I had hoped it would say. Thank you.

The Bailiff :

Very well. Then all Members in favour of adopting all the Articles, that is Articles 1 .. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

It is possible to take 2(3) separately?

The Bailiff :

Yes, of course. Any matter may be taken separately. So, first of all then we will vote on Article 1. Is the appel called for in relation to Article 1? Yes, the appel is called for in relation to Article 1. The Greffier will now open the voting in respect of Article 1.

The Bailiff :

Now there is a request to take Article 2 separately, is that right? Deputy J.H. Young:

Yes. The whole of Article 2.

The Bailiff :

Very well, then the matter now before the Assembly is Article 2 and the Greffier will open the voting.

[10:30] The Bailiff :

Is there any other Article which any Member wishes to take separately? No. In which case then we take Articles 3 to 12 inclusive and the Greffier will open the voting.