STATES OF JERSEY

OFFICIAL REPORT

TUESDAY, 20th JULY 2021

COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER

1.1 Welcome to Bishop Trevor Willmott

PUBLIC BUSINESS

2. Reduction of Lodging Period

2.1 Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade (The Minister for the Environment):

2.1.1 Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade:

2.1.2 Deputy J.H. Young:

2.2 Deputy D. Johnson of St. Mary (Chair, Economic and International Affairs Scrutiny Panel):

2.2.1 Deputy K.F. Morel of St. Lawrence:

2.2.2 The Deputy of St. Mary.

2.3 Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour (The Minister for Infrastructure):

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

2.5 Deputy I. Gardiner:

2.6 Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier (The Minister for Housing and Communities):

2.7 Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:

3. Draft Public Health and Safety (Rented Dwellings) (Licensing) (Jersey) Regulations 202- (P.33/2021)

3.1 Deputy J.H. Young (The Minister for the Environment):

3.1.1 The Connétable of St. Brelade:

3.1.2 Senator S.Y. Mézec:

3.1.3 Deputy K.F. Morel:

3.1.4 Deputy J.A. Martin:

3.1.5 The Connétable of St. Helier:

3.1.6 Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier:

3.1.7 Deputy G.P. Southern:

3.1.8 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

3.1.9 Deputy J.H. Young:

4. Allocation of the former States of Jersey Police Headquarters site to Rouge Bouillon School (P.43/2021)

4.1 Deputy I. Gardiner:

4.2 Allocation of the former States of Jersey Police Headquarters site to Rouge Bouillon School (P.43/2021) - Amendment (P.43/2021 Amd.)

4.2.1 Deputy S.M. Wickenden (The Minister for Children and Education):

4.3 Allocation of the former States of Jersey Police Headquarters site to Rouge Bouillon School (P.43/2021) - Amendment (P.43/2021 Amd.) - Amendment (P.43/2021 Amd.Amd.)

4.3.1 Deputy I. Gardiner:

4.3.2 Deputy S.M. Wickenden:

4.3.3 Deputy J.H. Young:

4.3.4 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

4.3.5 Connétable R.A. Buchanan of St. Ouen:

4.3.6 Deputy R.J. Ward:

4.3.7 Connétable S.A. Le Sueur-Rennard of St. Saviour:

4.3.8 Deputy R. Labey:

4.3.9 Deputy K.C. Lewis:

4.3.10 The Connétable of St. Helier:

4.3.11 Deputy H.C. Raymond of Trinity:

4.3.12 Deputy G.C. Guida of St. Lawrence:

4.3.13 Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour:

4.3.14 Connétable A. Jehan of St. John:

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT

4.3.15 Deputy I. Gardiner:

4.4 Allocation of the former States of Jersey Police Headquarters site to Rouge Bouillon School (P.43/2021) - Amendment (P.43/2021 Amd.) - resumption - as amended

4.4.1 Deputy I. Gardiner:

4.4.2 Deputy G.C. Guida:

4.4.3 Senator K.L. Moore:

4.4.4 The Connétable of St. Helier:

4.4.5 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

4.4.6 Deputy K.C. Lewis:

4.4.7 Deputy S.W. Wickenden:

4.5. Allocation of the former States of Jersey Police Headquarters site to Rouge Bouillon School (P.43/2021) - resumption - as amended

4.5.1 Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin:

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

4.5.3 Senator S.Y. Mézec:

4.5.4 Deputy G.C. Guida:

4.5.5 Deputy J.H. Young:

4.5.6 Deputy K.F. Morel:

4.5.7 Deputy M. Tadier:

4.5.8 Deputy S.W. Wickenden:

4.5.9 Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat of St. Helier:

4.5.10 Deputy R.J. Ward:

4.5.11 Deputy J.A. Martin:

4.5.12 Deputy I. Gardiner:

5. Draft Taxation (Income Tax, Goods and Services Tax and Revenue Administration) (Amendment) (Jersey) Law 202- (P.51/2021)

5.1 Deputy S.J. Pinel of St. Clement (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):

6. Channel Islands Lottery: Allocation of Proceeds from 2020 (P.53/2021)

6.1 Deputy K.F. Morel (Assistant Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture - rapporteur):

6.1.1 The Deputy of St. Mary:

6.1.2 Senator T.A. Vallois:

6.1.3 Deputy R.J. Ward:

6.1.4 Deputy K.F. Morel:

7. Draft Elections (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Jersey) Law 202- (P.56/2021)

7.1 Deputy C.S. Alves of St. Helier (Chair, Privileges and Procedures Committee):

7.2 Deputy C.S. Alves:

7.2.1 Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence:

7.2.2 Deputy C.S. Alves:

7.3 Deputy C.S. Alves:

7.4 Deputy C.S. Alves:

7.4.1 Deputy J.M. Maçon:

7.4.2 Deputy C.S. Alves:

7.5 Deputy C.S. Alves:

7.6 Deputy C.S. Alves:

7.6.1 Deputy J.A. Martin:

7.6.2 Deputy C.S. Alves:

7.7 Deputy C.S. Alves:

7.7.1 Deputy J.M. Maçon:

7.7.2 Deputy C.S. Alves:

7.8 Deputy C.S. Alves:

7.8.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:

7.8.2 Deputy J.M. Maçon:

7.8.3 Senator S.Y. Mézec:

7.8.4 The Connétable of St. Ouen:

7.8.5 Deputy M. Tadier:

7.8.6 Deputy C.S. Alves:

7.9 Deputy C.S. Alves:

7.9.1 Deputy L.B.E. Ash of St. Clement:

7.9.2 Senator S.W. Pallett:

7.9.3 Deputy J.A. Martin:

7.9.4 Deputy J.H. Young:

7.9.5 Deputy M. Tadier:

7.9.6 Deputy R. Labey:

7.9.7 Deputy C.S. Alves:

ADJOURNMENT

[9:30]

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

COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER

The Deputy Bailiff:

1.1 Welcome to Bishop Trevor Willmott

Before we resume Public Business I would like to welcome, albeit briefly, to the public gallery Bishop Willmott, recently retired Bishop of Dover, and his wife, Margaret, and Lady Dalton.  Bishop Trevor will be known to some of you, maybe many of you.  He served as Bishop of Basingstoke in the Diocese of Winchester from 2002 until 2009. and in 2010 moved to Canterbury to become Bishop of Dover.  It was during this time in 2013 that he was asked to take on the episcopal oversight of the Channel Islands owing to the breakdown in the relationship between the Islands and the Bishop of Winchester.  He not only facilitated the move to the Diocese of Canterbury, where for the next 7 years Jersey churches and their clergy received a warm welcome and a safe harbour. During this period he mediated on the Island’s behalf in a wider conversation with the Church of England about their future status, leading to the Archbishop’s commission in 2019.  This process ended with the recommendation that the Deanery of Jersey should become part of the Diocese of Salisbury.  Bishop Trevor retired as Bishop of Dover in 2019 but he remains Bishop of Jersey and Guernsey and the other Channel Islands, and accordingly for the first time in several centuries, possibly ever, we have a Bishop of the Islands looking after our interests until the legal transfer to Salisbury is complete.  This will be the last formal visit of Bishop Trevor and Margaret to Jersey and we are grateful for his care and wisdom during a difficult period for the Anglican Church in Jersey and we thank him for his oversight.  There will be a service at 6.00 p.m. this evening in the Town Church to mark his ministry, to which everyone is welcome.  There has been some approbation in the chat, which is a virtual form of foot-stamping.

PUBLIC BUSINESS

2. Reduction of Lodging Period

The Deputy Bailiff:

We return to Public Business.  The first item is to deal with the reduction of minimum lodging periods in respect of several matters listed on the Order Paper so that we know what we are and are not dealing with during the course of the remainder of this week.  The first item is the Draft Public Health and Safety (Rented Dwellings) Licensing (Jersey) Regulations amendment lodged by the Minister for the Environment.  Minister, do you wish to make the proposition under Standing Order 26(7) that the lodging period be reduced to allow this matter to be debated at this sitting?

2.1 Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade (The Minister for the Environment):

Yes, Sir, I do.  Would you like me to do that now?

The Deputy Bailiff:

Yes.

Deputy J.H. Young:

I do not have to dwell on this.  I think Members know the long history of this.  We have a lot of business to clear during the remainder of this parliamentary term, and particularly 60 amendments in the Island Plan, carbon neutral and a whole amount of work.  This particular matter has, I think, bogged us down rather.  The majority recently approved a proposition from Deputy Ward, which the States have approved, and the amendment that I lodged gave effect to that and therefore it is a matter, I take the view, that this has already been discussed by the States and we should clear it out.  Whichever way it goes, I am asking Members please to debate it, let us get this matter one way or the other, whichever way the vote goes, finalised.  To have it dragging around again until the autumn will cause a lot of unnecessary division.  The matter is straightforward.  It should be uncomplicated now.  I know there are Members that just do not like the idea at all and there are other Members who are in favour of it.  Of course I hope that the debate goes ahead and we get a very clear-cut debate without getting bogged down with a lot of complex technicalities, which frankly I do not think there is a need for.  I am not going to say any more.  We have got a lot of business.  I am going to try and expedite and ask the Members to support taking it during this sitting.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Is the proposition seconded?  [Seconded] 

2.1.1 Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade:

I would just like to respond to the Minister by saying that rushing business is not good practice.  There are several holes in the proposition, which I will be addressing later, but I think that given the history of this, as the Minister suggests, there is considerable application needed.  While I do not object to the inclusion of the amendment in this sitting, I would council care in rushing things through the States.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Does any Member wish to speak on the proposition?  I call upon the Minister to reply.

2.1.2 Deputy J.H. Young:

No, I do not think I do.  It is for the Members to decide, as I have said.  I would not intend to rush it and if there are concerns if we have the debate, which I hope we do, I will absolutely do my best, as I always do, to deal with them.  Rushing is not my scene but I think we need to deal with it today.

The Deputy Bailiff:

In a moment the Greffier will add a vote into the chat channel of the meeting.  The vote is now open and I ask Members to cast their votes. 

Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:

Could I have a clear instruction of what I am voting for or against?

The Deputy Bailiff:

Yes, of course.  The proposal is to reduce the lodging period in respect of the Minister’s amendment to the Draft Public Health and Safety (Rented Dwellings) Licensing (Jersey) Regulations, P.33.  If you agree with the proposition that the lodging period should be reduced you vote pour, and if you disagree then you vote contre.

Deputy G.P. Southern:

Thank you, Sir, that is perfectly clear.

The Deputy Bailiff:

If all Members have had the opportunity to cast their votes I ask the Greffier to close the voting. 

[9:45]

The proposition has been adopted.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Those voting contre: the Connétable of Grouville, Deputy Le Hegarat, Senator Farnham, Deputy Morel, the Connétable of St. Brelade in the link.

The Deputy Bailiff:

The next item has been lodged by the Economic and International Affairs Scrutiny Panel, and is the amendment to Channel Islands Lottery: allocation of proceeds from 2020, P.53.  Deputy of St. Mary, do you wish to make the proposition under Standing Order 26(7) that the lodging period be reduced to allow this matter to be debated at this sitting?

2.2 Deputy D. Johnson of St. Mary (Chair, Economic and International Affairs Scrutiny Panel):

Yes, please, I do.  I should perhaps mention that the amendment was in fact lodged with the Greffier in time and it appears it was some administrative delay between that office and the Bailiff’s office as to it being approved.  I also add that Deputy Morel, as Assistant Minister to the appropriate department, has kindly agreed to accept the amendment, if the Assembly so allows it to go through.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Is the proposition seconded?  [Seconded]  Does any Member wish to speak on the proposition?

2.2.1 Deputy K.F. Morel of St. Lawrence:

I would like to thank the Scrutiny Panel for lodging the amendment.  It was just to confirm, as the Deputy of St. Mary has said, that I will be happy for the proposition, when it comes to that time, to be read as amended, if the States are willing.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Does any other Member wish to speak on the proposition?  If not, I call upon the Deputy to reply.

2.2.2 The Deputy of St. Mary.

I maintain the proposition and I thank the Assistant Minister for his support in this.

The Deputy Bailiff:

In a moment the Greffier will add a vote into the chat channel of this meeting.  She has done so, the vote is now open and I ask Members to cast their votes.  If all Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes I ask the Greffier to close the voting.  The proposition to reduce the lodging period in relation to this matter has been adopted unanimously.

The next item that has been lodged is by the Minister for Infrastructure and is an amendment to the Draft Single-Use Plastics, etc (Restrictions) (Jersey) Law, P.61.  Minister, do you wish to make the proposition under Standing Order 26(7) that the lodging period be reduced to allow this matter to be debated at this sitting?

2.3 Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour (The Minister for Infrastructure):

Yes, please, I would be obliged.  It should be expiring on 21st July so I would be obliged if Members would agree to bring that forward.  It is all to do with the timings.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Is the proposition seconded?  [Seconded]  Does anyone wish to speak on the proposition?  Does any Member object to us proceeding in relation to this particular matter on a standing vote?

Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:

Yes, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff:

In a moment the Greffier will add a vote into the chat channel of this meeting.  The vote is now open and I ask Members to cast their votes.  If all Members have had an opportunity of voting then I ask the Greffier to close the voting.  The proposition has been adopted.

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

I am obliged to Members.

The Deputy Bailiff:

The next item has been lodged by the Connétable of St. Helier and is the second amendment to the Draft Single-Use Plastics, etc (Restrictions) (Jersey) Law, P.61.  Connétable, do you wish to make the proposition under Standing Order 26(7) that the lodging period be reduced to allow this matter to be debated at this sitting?

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

Yes, please, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Is the proposition seconded?  [Seconded]  Does any Member wish to speak on the proposition?  In a moment the Greffier will add a vote into the chat channel of this meeting.  The vote is now open and I ask Members to cast their votes.  If all Members have had an opportunity of voting I ask the Greffier to close the voting.  The proposition to reduce the lodging period has been adopted.

The next item lodged by the Minister for Housing and Communities ...

Deputy I. Gardiner of St. Helier:

Sir, it is Deputy Gardiner.  I have lodged an amendment to the Constable’s amendment yesterday and it has been added to this.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Yes, I am going to come to the 2 amendments which require not merely a reduction of the lodging period but also suspension of the Standing Orders under Standing Order 80 at the end of the list.

Deputy I. Gardiner:

I understand, I just think it was connected to the previous amendment, this is the reason.  Okay, I understand, thank you.

The Deputy Bailiff:

In the context, Deputy Gardiner, because that will leave 2 matters left which are connected, because they relate to the Les Quennevais Park Flats loan scheme, it might be appropriate to deal with your matter now.  This is one of the 2 matters not on the Order Paper, an amendment by Deputy Gardiner to the second amendment to P.61.  Deputy Gardiner, do you wish to make the proposition firstly that Standing Orders be suspended under Standing Order 80 to allow this matter to be listed and to suspend Standing Order 32 so the matter may be listed, and that under Standing Order 26(7) the lodging period be reduced so the matter can be taken at this meeting?  Is that your proposition?

2.5 Deputy I. Gardiner:

Yes, Sir, please.  It was an amendment to the Constable’s amendment and I need to move quickly to be able to debate it as a whole package.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Is the proposition seconded?  [Seconded]  Does any Member wish to speak on Deputy Gardiner’s proposal?  In a moment the Greffier will add a vote into the chat channel of this meeting.  He has done so, the vote is now open and I ask Members to cast their vote.  If all Members have had the opportunity of voting then I ask the Greffier to close the voting.  The proposition has been adopted.

The next matter has been lodged by the Minister for Housing and Communities, the Les Quennevais Park Flats Loan Scheme - revised terms, and the amendment to that proposition.  Minister, do you wish to make the proposition under Standing Order 26(7) that the lodging period be reduced to allow these matters to be debated at this sitting?

2.6 Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier (The Minister for Housing and Communities):

I do please, Sir.  The States have in fact voted to approve this proposition twice already effectively.  I have written to Members and spoken in the past about the time sensitivities here.  It is very definitely in the public interest with residents and owners of these properties that we help to get this matter sorted out as quickly as possible.  I hope Members will allow me to take this in this sitting.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Is the proposition seconded?  [Seconded]  Does any Member wish to speak on this proposition?  No Member wishes to speak then I invite the Greffier to put a vote into the chat channel of this meeting.  The vote is now open and I ask Members to cast their votes. 

[10:00]

If all Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes I ask the Greffier to close the voting.  The proposition to reduce the lodging period in relation to this matter has been adopted.

The Greffier of the States:

The vote contre was Deputy Le Hegarat.

The Deputy Bailiff:

The next item is a second amendment to P.71 lodged by Deputy Tadier.  This item was not listed for this meeting so, Deputy, do you wish to first make the proposition under Standing Order 80 to suspend Standing Order 32 so that the matter can be debated at this meeting, and secondly, under Standing Order 26(7) to reduce the minimum lodging period in order it can be taken at this meeting?

2.7 Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:

Yes, please, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Is the proposition seconded?  [Seconded]  Does any Member wish to speak on the proposition?

Deputy M. Tadier:

Should I have explained why I am asking for that or do you think it is self-evident?

The Deputy Bailiff:

You have made the proposition, I do not think you have a chance to reply unless someone makes a speech.

Deputy M. Tadier:

You did not invite me to speak, that is all.  That is okay.

The Deputy Bailiff:

In a moment, the Greffier will add a vote into the chat channel of the meeting.  The vote is now open and I ask Members to cast their votes.  If all Members have had an opportunity of casting their votes then I ask the Greffier to close the voting.  The proposition has been adopted.

3. Draft Public Health and Safety (Rented Dwellings) (Licensing) (Jersey) Regulations 202- (P.33/2021)

The Deputy Bailiff:

Turning to the Order Paper the first item is the Draft Public Health and Safety (Rented Dwellings) (Licensing) (Jersey) Regulations, P.33, lodged by the Minister for the Environment.  For the purpose of this debate the main respondent will be the chair of the Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel.  May I ask the Greffier to read the citation.

The Greffier of the States:

Draft Public Health and Safety (Rented Dwellings) (Licensing) (Jersey) Regulations 202-.  The States make these Regulations under Article 5 of the Public Health and Safety (Rented Dwellings) (Jersey) Law 2018.

3.1 Deputy J.H. Young (The Minister for the Environment):

Today I ask the Assembly to consider the Draft Public Health and Safety (Rented Dwellings) (Licensing) (Jersey) Regulations as amended.  Can I just clarify?  Was the proposition agreed as amended?  I could propose that.  Sorry, I missed that point.

The Deputy Bailiff:

No, it has not been agreed that you read the proposition as amended.  The amendment will come when we get to the Articles.

Deputy J.H. Young:

Thank you for clearing that up.  I apologise for that, it must be the temperature in this room.  These draft regulations are enabled under the Public Health and Safety (Rented Dwellings) (Jersey) Law, which was 2018, which was approved by the Assembly in a previous life, as it were, before the current Council of Ministers, and they of course are put into practice through the Minimum Standards and Prescribed Hazards Order, which was approved in 2018 - that was after the elections - which sets out all the detail required and standards required by a rented dwelling.  We have the law in place.  The law is there and the standards expected.  What these regulations - I think Members know them probably very well indeed - and if what we have on the table today is ... in effect, I have to say, in the amened form, they implement the decision taken on 8th June by the Assembly to adopt Deputy Ward’s proposition P.20.  In any event, it obviously sits with the original version.  What the regulations do is implement a scheme of regulation and licensing, which I think effectively deals with all of the objections and concerns that were raised previously in the earlier iterative version that was brought in and came forward before the Assembly in 2019, that just failed to secure a majority by quite a narrow vote I think.  But nonetheless there were issues in that that Members identified that they wanted to see corrected.  Those regulations on the table now deal with that.  So the regulations as lodged - this is P.33 - approve a scheme with nil charge.  Initially - I say “initially” - the regulations, this is what they would do, they implement the scheme with nil charge and they would provide for a grandfathering period for when after the law comes into effect, and the law will come into effect during next year.  Obviously the amendment would have the details slightly varying that but nonetheless the law would not come into place until 2022.  The amendment says March.  There will be a grandfather period in order to allow properties that are already being rented out to be able to comply with the new law and be licensed without any fees during that grandfathering period.  The regulations unamended propose a grandfathering period, which would last until the end of 2022, the amendment brings that forward slightly.  Of course, just to remind you, that amendment was done at the States behest, as it were.  But nonetheless the point of the principle is that the law is not introduced, does not have effect until 2022, so there is plenty of time for any preparation and adjustment that is necessary, and also there is a grandfather period.  Of course the proposal, again the unamended version, would provide for that licence to be for 3 years.  That means the people that are grandfathered, they would get licences and would not pay any fees for the first licensing period of 3 years.  Of course the amendment, which I hope to be able to go on and deal with, makes that 5 years.  So for 5 years, until 2027, those existing properties, landlords would not have to meet that cost.  They would come into line with the scheme and that I think was what, I believe, the States wanted to happen.  They did not want an overhead being imposed very early on.  Of course the issue, is that the regulations are silent on the question of fees because the law, that is the substantive law, gives that power to the Minister.  The amendment that was done gives effect to a way in which the States can influence that decision.  I think the issue - I would see it as being a lot of issues - is this necessary?  The advice I have had continually from the Environmental Health team is that there are still properties that are not meeting minimum standards.  The unequivocal advice I have had is that in order to be able to achieve a higher level of compliance a licensing scheme of this nature will enable a much more effective implementation and compliance arrangement.  I do not believe this is a big brother or in any way a threat to anybody because people have properties ... and maybe, Sir, I should have declared an interest as a landlord myself.  I apologise, I should have done that at the outset.  But I have a small property which I have let out, but I do not fear in any way that these regulations, nor do I believe anybody else, they have to listen to the professional standards.  They do get complaints.  What I have heard is that people that are experiencing problem properties are reluctant to come forward and make complaints about the problems they are having to deal with.  I think some of those are very serious.  For example, I have cited electrical installations, and in recent years, under new building regs, we have been able to have a better improvement in building bylaws and electrical standards are higher.  But of course when people rent properties they do not have the ability to be able to alter, they have to take what they are, what systems there are in properties.  There are a lot of very old properties with substandard systems and potentially dangerous.  Having a system whereby they are subject to an inspection of safety is an important thing, and of course we cleared that up.  Originally there was ambiguity about how often a certificate of electrical inspection would work for.  We have now got it for 5 years.  I do not think there is any worry about that.  Five years is a very good period to have buildings checked out.  Of course also the emissions from heating systems and the like where you have carbon monoxide possibilities.  These things do go wrong.  So annual checks on those things, which are part of a requirement.  I do not believe there is anything to fear.  So I have listened to that and I have accepted the advice that based on practice elsewhere, and it is not just in places in big cities in Britain that these schemes apply.  No.  They are in other places as well.  I know that this has been widely considered elsewhere.  The way I think this would go is that the period of grandfathering would enable us to know which properties we are dealing with, because at the moment it is a pot luck situation.  In the Island Plan work one has only been able to estimate the number of rental dwellings in the Island.  Yes, we discussed this before in the issue of registration.  I absolutely agree that there is a requirement for registration for lots of purposes way beyond the issue of minimum standard for residential dwellings.  Because we need to know who owns those properties.  What are they used for?  Where are they?  What is their ownership structure?  There are money-laundering issues as well.  There are the issues of we face choices about buy-to-lets and all those things.  We desperately need to know, I believe as a Government and in terms of our strategic planning, about our property estate in the Island and what it is used for and how we can get better use of it.

[10:15]

Obviously that is the story for another day.  We have already agreed that.  So I am not denigrating the issue of registration but that does not deal with the issue of compliance with minimum standards.  This is a very narrow and focused task.  People have spoken about bureaucracy.  We are talking about a small team.  There has been a lot of fuss about costs, which I am not going to dwell on.  That team, what has happened as a result of Government changes since Environmental Health came over, there have been adjustments.  People have left, people have been reassigned to different roles and they developed a specialism in the area of housing.  They have made very, very good work already,  I know the Scrutiny Panel will probably comment on this, built with the voluntary schemes that have gone on so far.  Rent Safe, which is well-understood, well-liked and does not cost any money and it has helped a lot of property agents and landlords to get that accreditation.  However, that does not do the whole job.  This is the ingredient that is necessary.  I have probably gone on a bit too long.  I had not intended to do that.  I apologise.  However, we need to clear this matter up now and leave this Assembly in the position where we have implemented a law, we have done our best to do it effectively, and we have allowed a sensible arrangement for transition.  If there are adjustments necessary in 2022 after the next elections in the way the scheme works and so on that can all be done and taken at time.  This time, however, it will be based on the knowledge that we know what properties there are, where they are, what they are being for, the size of them, the number of persons they are being used for occupation of, and so on.  This is about the properties.  It is not about landlords.  There is no registration of landlords going on here.  It is the registration of properties.  Landlord registration is what happens in the U.K. (United Kingdom).  This is not what is proposed.  It is about property.  We are going to have to have, obviously, the debate now on the principle and I hope we do get a chance to talk about the amendment if Members back the principle of this regulation.  Thank you, I will do my best to answer questions.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Are the principles seconded?  [Seconded]  There are a number of declarations of interests in the chat, which I will now formally read into the record.  I will assume that they are declarations of interest as a landlord, unless otherwise stated.  Senator Le Fondré makes a declaration presumably as a landlord.  Senator Gorst makes a declaration as a landlord.  Senator Moore makes a declaration as a landlord.  The Deputy of St. Martin makes a declaration as a landlord, as does the Deputy of St. Peter.  Deputy Gardiner makes a declaration that her husband is a landlord.  Deputy Truscott makes a declaration as a landlord.  Senator Mézec declares that he is a tenant.  Deputy of Trinity makes a declaration that he is a landlord.  Deputy of Grouville declares that she is a landlord.  The Connétable of Grouville makes a declaration as a landlord.  Deputy Tadier makes a declaration that his fiancée is a landlord.  Deputy Morel declares that he is a landlord.  Deputy Guida declares that he is a landlord.  Deputy Pinel declares that she is a landlord.  The Connétable of St. Ouen declares that he is a landlord.  The Connétable of St. Helier declares that his partner is a landlord.  Deputy of St. Mary declares he is a landlord.  Deputy Young has recently declared that he is a landlord.  The Connétable of St. Mary declares he is a landlord.  Deputy Martin declares she is a tenant.  The Connétable of St. Peter declares that his daughter lives in a house owned by him.  The next Member to speak is the Connétable of St. Brelade.

3.1.1 The Connétable of St. Brelade:

I propose to incorporate the amendment in my speech rather than speak twice.  The detail of the amendment is not great in terms of date changes and such like, so it does not make a fundamental difference.  None of us consider the motivation behind the proposed regulations which would implement a scheme with nil charge requiring landlords to register or licence their properties for the purposes of renting and which will maintain a quality standard is anything but perfectly credible.  To use a well-coined phrase, the devil is in the detail.  The closeness of previous votes demonstrates the discomfort which many Members have with the proposal.  The Minister makes much in his proposition about the difference between registration and licensing.  Members need to understand that the proposed licensing scheme would prevent any property of any description being used as a rented dwelling unless licensed by his department.  The department is responsible for enforcement, but we are regularly told by the Minister that under the present Government structure that he has insufficient staff.  We are told that officers from the department will be carrying out proactive inspections over an extended period on various details of properties as part of the licence application.  I would suggest that it is those properties, which are already let, the tenants will soon become tired of these intrusions.  If they are not let it will simply create a delay in getting a potential rentable property on to the market.  The Minister draws our attention to continued non-compliance with minimum standards in rented dwellings.  This needs further analysis, in that it is very easy to conflate the effects of poor tenant behaviour such as failing to ventilate a property with mildew on walls, which is often attributed to the landlord.  The requisite electrical tests, to which the Minister alluded earlier, are successful.  Any reasonable landlord is certainly compliant on that level and would wish to be so.  Much is made of the fear of eviction by those who may make complaints.  There is no evidence of this occurring, maybe because there must be a degree of shared responsibility in any tenant-landlord relationship.  It may be more about that relationship than the actual condition of the property.  The Minister has offered what I would term sweeteners in the guise of long lead-in times not coming into force until 3rd June 2022, grandfather rights to encourage everyone to apply and 3-year licences.  My panel has engaged with landlords who have been proactive in trying to come up with an equitable solution to ensure that rogue landlords are controlled to ensure minimum standards prevail in rented property.  Subsequent to previous debates we have been proactive in trying to achieve a balanced solution.  We request views and comments from both Jersey Landlords Association and the Jersey Tenants Forum to inform our comments.  We received submissions from landlords on 21st May.  We sent a follow-up email to the tenants’ representative reiterating the importance of receiving their view to inform our comments and extended the time until 24th May.  No comments were received until after the deadline.  The Jersey Tenants Forum submitted comments on the panel’s comments, but no evidence.  Subsequent to P.20 being passed by the Assembly, the panel invited once again both the Jersey Landlords Association and the Jersey Tenants Forum to separately discuss their views.  The panel met several members of the Jersey Landlords Association and the one member of the Jersey Tenants Forum, which it appears is just a Facebook page operated by one individual.  It came to light that the Jersey Tenants Forum representative was content that he had consulted the Minister regarding the proposed licensing scheme.  However, it was the view of the Jersey Landlords Association representatives that the Minister had been reluctant to meet.  They conveyed that they welcomed the opportunity to enter into consultative processes with the Minister to come to a solution that may be acceptable to all stakeholders prior to the debate today.  This has not happened.  We wrote on 15th July requesting the Minister to delay the debate to allow further consultation with the Landlords Association, given that there were areas of P.20 which could be amended to find a middle ground and be acceptable to all parties.  This was not agreed.  The principle concern of the Jersey Landlords Association was that there was a lack of transparency over the form that the inspection regime would take, proposed licensing conditions were poorly sought out and that the cost benefit analysis had not been fully considered.  Will licensing be the most effective ways of accomplishing the aims?  If so, where will the cost of the scheme fall, on landlords and consequently tenants or indeed on the taxpayer?  There is evidence to suggest that a number of landlords are selling their rental properties to private families and leaving the rental market, thus resulting in a loss of rented dwellings, to the detriment of those people renting and unable to buy property.  We understand this is a direct result of a threat of legislation such as a licensing scheme, which will ultimately make housing affordability issues worse not better.  Now we come to the fees.  I quote from page 3 of the proposition that: “These regulations, if approved, would implement a suitable licensing scheme with nil charge.”  The Minister is a nice chap, if I may say so, but it has been, I might suggest, cute and suggestive on page 4 of the proposition that no fees will be applied on his watch.  All will change, however, on 31st of December 2025 and I quote “unless the Minister decides to introduce a fee.”  The suggestion that a fee be determined which is proportionate to the cost of licensing and equitable in regulating the activity is a form of words that concern me greatly.  I am not a betting man, but there is a certainty that fees will be imposed.  Those charges will be passed on by landlords to the ultimate detriment of the tenant.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is being horribly naive.  Article 3(5) confirms that.  Yes, the Minister’s amendment obliges him to give the States 6 weeks’ notice, but the reality is it will be terribly easy for this to be slipped through in the mass of other business of the States.  The quantum of those charges is not clear.  The proposition inferred that there would be financial implications.  The amendment goes further and is more transparent in that it suggests that the historic deficit of £1 million will need to be addressed.  The future Minister will be able to consult on whether or not to charge it.  I can confidently pick which way that will go.  In summary, I would contend that Members would be very short-sighted in adopting this proposition as tabled today without being aware of the cost implication. 

3.1.2 Senator S.Y. Mézec:

I am very disappointed to have to follow the previous speaker, who has made quite a few points which are simply illegitimate and do not really match up with the facts situation we find ourselves in and continues to perpetuate the division that there is on this subject by claiming that it is down to not working together properly, not consulting properly, et cetera.  When the reality is that there are people who just do not agree.  That is it.  It is not that the Minister has done a bad job.  It is not that the Minister has not attempted to speak to the right people.  It is not that what he has come up with is inequitable.  It is just there are some people who perhaps perfectly legitimately do not agree.  That is it and that is fine.  That is democracy.  However, we have had this debate in this Assembly.  We debated the previous proposition from Deputy Ward and it was accepted.  I hope that this Assembly will simply ratify that decision by implementing the regulations which this Assembly asked the Minister to go ahead and lodge, which is what he has done in lodging this with the amendment.  I keep going back to the name of these regulations, which is that little bit in brackets which says “health and safety”.  That is fundamentally what all this is about.  It is about making sure that those who are in private rental and social rental tenancies are living in homes which are healthy and safe for them and that there is an effective regime underpinning it, which is not overbearing, which is not authoritarian, which is light touch and proportionate, just to make sure that those minimum standards which already exist in law are appropriately implemented in reality.  So that we can have confidence that everybody who is living in a rental home is able to live their life happily with the security of knowing that their home is safe for them.

[10:30]

That as an aim is absolutely right.  We really do risk going around in circles.  This is the culmination of 3 years’ work.  I am sorry to say to the previous speaker that this really has been done to death now.  Different iterations have come up.  There are some people who simply will never be pleased.  The previous speaker said that there has not really been consultation with the Jersey Landlords Association.  I am sorry, but I reject that.  There, of course, has been extensive consultation with the Jersey Landlords Association in all sorts of different formats.  I personally met with the head of J.L.A. (Jersey Landlords Association) when I was Minister for Housing.  There have been multiple Scrutiny reports into this.  I personally attended 2 meetings.  I know for a fact that more were held.  I only attended the ones I was available for.  I attended a big public meeting at the Town Hall, which was organised by the Jersey Landlords Association.  We had the Minister and Environmental Health officers up on the platform with them, invited there to present to the members who were there present.  I also attended workshops that were headed by the then head of Environmental Health, with any landlord who was invited to come along.  That was an open event which they took feedback from and were able to answer questions.  Can we not have this argument about there being no consultation on this, because it is just not reality?  There certainly was consultation.  I witnessed it.  People were invited.  People attended.  There are simply a number of people who are aggrieved that at the end of that consultation the conclusion has been that points they were making have not been accepted.  It is fair to be aggrieved, but it is not fair to say that there was no consultation.  The point has to be made that the numbers of people who are opposed to this scheme are a very small minority.  In fact, they are a minority within a minority.  The number of landlords, as far as I can work out from available statistics in what the Jersey Landlords Association have said their membership numbers are, versus the number of landlords which have been revealed through a freedom of information request through declared rent income for tax, is that the J.L.A. represent about 3 per cent of landlords on the Island.  Not only do not all of the J.L.A. member oppose these regulations, there are J.L.A. members who support this and say that this supports good landlords, that it will not affect those who are doing the right thing already in any shape or form at all, apart from having to fill out a form every 5 years and maybe make themselves available for 20 minutes while an inspector comes and checks the flat.  Whereas for the other 4 years, 364 days of the year, it will not impact on them at all and they will not be paying a fee.  Most of them are all right.  Virtually all of the landlords I speak to, who are not members of the J.L.A., are wholeheartedly in support of this as well.  The feedback that was presented to us by the previous speaker about a worry about landlords selling up their properties because they are annoyed about extra bureaucracy that is being applied to them once every 5 years simply does not match the reality.  It is not the case that we are seeing a dearth of private rental accommodation accessible in the market because of this.  The freedom of information request has shown that year on year for the past 5 years a number of people declaring as landlords has gone up, every single year.  Can we please not accept this line coming from the J.L.A. that the number of landlords is going down?  It is not.  It may well be the case that their membership is going down, because on this instance they are not being reflective of the desire, certainly that I can witness, of most landlords out there.  It is not the case that this is causing a mass exodus out of the market which is harming tenants.  It is not the case.  Of course, when you speak to tenants they are all wholeheartedly supportive of this scheme, because they know that it will have a positive impact on their lives, that it will make the rights that they currently have in theory rights that will be applicable in practice, and that they will be able to have the security of knowing those rights can be applied without any comeuppance back against them.  The previous speaker spoke about trying to come up with some equitable solution.  I think “equitable” was the word he used, or “a middle ground” was the other words he used.  There is an equitable solution.  There is a middle ground.  It is this proposition.  The alternatives simply do not do what our intention is to achieve with these with these regulations.  I have read the document that has gone round from the J.L.A. proposing alternatives, where they say that tenants need to have a complaints mechanism where they cannot face revenge evictions afterwards.  That is a nice idea, but how do you implement a system where you complain without facing a revenge eviction.  There are only 2 ways really we can do that.  One is to adopt open-ended tenancies.  The States has already rejected that.  Or it is to have a licensing scheme, where the inspections are proactive rather than reactive.  Those are the only 2 ways to do it.  It is no good to say let us strengthen tenants’ rights, if you do not have a concrete proposal to achieve that.  Without that what we end up doing is continuing to go around in circles year after year after year on this subject.  The fact of the matter is that what the Minister for the Environment is proposing, after having been adopted by the States Assembly at a previous sitting, is that this proposal will make sure that those minimum standards are applicable in practice, can be enforced, where bad landlords can be prevented from renting properties out which are unsafe for tenants to live in, and can be required to make the adjustments that they should already be making under the law but are getting away with it because we do not have the infrastructure to implement those rights.  This gets done.  The bureaucracy that comes with it is absolutely minimal.  It is basically a form every 5 years and perhaps make yourself available for a little bit of time.  When you are in business, which is what being a landlord is, when you are making money out of this - being a landlord is not a charity - it is a business where you make money out of it, I do not think that is a lot to ask for, especially when you compare it with what virtually every other business enterprise will have to do, where they will have to file accounts annually with the J.F.S.C. (Jersey Financial Services Commission), have their trading name registered and pay for that, go on the data protection register and pay for that, depending on what industry it is there may be industry fees they have to pay.  If it is a restaurant or that sort of enterprise there are health and safety inspections which are compulsory and you have to pay the licensing fee and the inspections come much more frequently than what is proposed here.  This is about light touch as it can possibly get.  Those who are in business as landlords have a really good deal here, where if you are a decent landlord, doing the right thing, meeting all of those minimum standards, you are not even going to notice this regime exists.  The ones who will notice it will be either the bad landlords, who will get in trouble as a result of this, and I say good riddance to them.  Nobody should be standing up for those people.  Or there will be some perfectly well-intentioned landlords who for honest and sincere reasons may be inadvertently falling short of what the minimum standards are right now and with an inspection will get free advice, somebody turning up and saying: “Oh by the way, you might not have noticed but there is a problem with X, Y and Z, you will just want to get that sorted.”  And the landlord will be able to resolve that, do not have to pay for the privilege of getting that advice in the first place and then will avoid any potential legal difficulties in future if there was a complaint or if something did go wrong and all the insurance problems that there would potentially be as well if they were in breach of the law and somebody got hurt.  There are only positive effects of this for everyone except for the bad landlords, and those are not people we should be standing up for.  I really hope that the Assembly will disregard the comments of the previous speaker, many of which can be demonstrated to not be accurate, and to ratify the decision that we made at a previous States sitting to implement these regulations, get this over the line, get it over and done with.  If we do not this is just going to come back and back again, because the alternatives that are being proposed simply do not do what they need to do.  We are at a point where it is just disagreement now.  At some point the majority has to win.  I hope the majority is in favour of these, because those who are arguing against it, I am afraid, do not have a decent alternative proposed and we are going to keep going around in circles and people suffer in the meantime.  I urge Members to support regulations.

3.1.3 Deputy K.F. Morel:

There is a well-known phrase, and please excuse the one word of poor language, and that phrase is: “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”  It strikes me that, certainly after listening to Senator Mézec, there is no question that his intentions are good, where he leads us overall, not just in regard to this, may not be such a comfortable place for the Island.  There is an issue in terms of the regulation; the constant wave after wave of regulation that this Island is bringing upon itself, that we are drowning in, is the constant increase in the size of Government that in order to enforce regulations in various areas, not just this one, has to obviously employ more and more people.  As a result we have seen the constant increase in the size of the Government, in terms of its number of employees, which for 10 years was 13 per cent of the workforce, but that workforce was constantly growing and Government was growing too.  Now it has gone beyond that and 14 per cent of the Island’s workforce now works for the Government of Jersey.  There is no question in my mind that this is yet again another wave of regulation that will break on our Island shores and will increase costs, not just for landlords, not just for tenants, it is increasing costs for our Government.  How much are those costs?  It is very simple, the costs of this scheme come to £1 million a year.  That is how much the Government will be paying to satisfy the needs of these regulations.  That is £1 million that is not being spent elsewhere.  As well as that £1 million, the Government have employed 6 people.  There was a certain, if I may say, arrogance in the belief, and I saw this when I was on the Environment Scrutiny Panel, that these regulations would go through, therefore the department employed them in advance of the regulations going through.  That is at the time when the very same department cannot employ enough planning enforcement inspectors.  As a result, we know, and every single States Member knows, that planning breaches are taking place on a daily basis and are unable to be witnessed by officials and unable to be rectified by officials, because there are no officials or very few - there are 1½ currently - and we have seen nearly 300 outstanding cases and over 500 outstanding planning applications.  This is a department which cannot afford to be diverting its attention from the obligations that it already has, but it will be.  As a result, 6 people are going to be used in this licensing scheme, 6 people to police these new regulations, and they will spend £1 million doing so.  There is no question in my mind, of course, the department will try and get out of that £1 million as quickly as possible and will pass on the costs to landlords and then on to tenants very quickly.  I want to also address a few matters that were raised in a previous speech.  It is interesting, I have no doubt that Senator Mézec is right that some members of the J.L.A., which I have no affiliation with, are indeed in favour of the licensing.  I believe one of those people is a very, very close relative of Senator Mézec himself, which is probably why he knows that at least one member of the J.L.A. is in favour of licensing.  Yes, relying on a close relative to make that call is an interesting place to be.  With regard to consultation, we saw this when I was on the Environment Scrutiny Panel, we saw that the Minister was not consulting properly. 

[10:45]

Indeed, I believe that after Deputy Ward’s proposition, P.20, was debated the J.L.A. chair wrote to the Minister asking to meet him, to speak with him, to find a way forward to help design these regulations.  That was denied by the Minister; a refusal to meet with them.  I do not know why, but it is not something which could be called consultation.  Senator Mézec also referred to a Town Hall meeting, one that indeed did take place in February 2020 and one that was called by the J.L.A. itself.  It was not called by the department.  The Minister was there.  He spoke briefly.  Then his officers spoke about licensing.  I believe Senator Mézec was there, but did not stay for the questions.  Following that, there was refusal consistently on the Minister’s part to meet with the J.L.A.  Again, the J.L.A. wanted to get to the bottom of this issue and find a mutually happy way forward.  There is no question that consultation on this has not been done appropriately by the Minister.  There has been a strange reticence by the Minister to get involved with stakeholders.  In my view, speaking with stakeholders is the basis of being a Minister.  That is the very thing that every Minister has to do.  You have to hear the fors.  You have to hear the againsts.  You have to try and find that middle way forward.  However, that has not been happening in this case.  I do not understand why.  I just do not.  This is empire building, I can promise you that; 6 inspectors will become 7, 8, 9, 10.  There is no question.  This is more regulation.  There were other ways.  We still do not understand why the Rent Safe scheme was not used as the basis of this scheme.  So now we have a Rent Safe scheme and a licensing scheme.  I still do not understand why a register was not more carefully thought of by the Minister.  He just disregarded that out of hand.  I believe that must be officers’ advice; the very officers who are employing the 6 people to inspect this.  Yes, there has not been proper consultation.  This will cost the States £1 million a year at a time when we know that money is going to be extremely tight going forward.  It just adds more layers of regulation.  There is no question that people want safe housing for all Islanders.  That is absolutely correct.  We have the minimum standards legislation; that is in place.  We can have some sort of inspection regime; there is no question.  We can have a registration scheme; there is no question.  Licensing, however, takes it to a new level of intrusion.  Just one little thing I wanted to say, Senator Mézec referred to the J.L.A. as being 3 per cent of landlords.  Getting involved in such conversations is ridiculous, because how many tenants out of the many thousands and thousands of tenants are represented by the Jersey Tenants Forum?  You cannot start making arguments in that way.  Always these forums have a small proportion of the actual full amount of people involved.  In the same way that political parties represent a very tiny proportion of the members of each political party.  They number in their hundreds, yet there are 100,000 Islanders.  It is very difficult for political parties, if they were to look purely at the numbers of their members to say that they represent everybody.  There are a lot of strange arguments being put forward.  I ask Members to think about the cost, the £1 million, think about the employment, the 6 people that will almost undoubtedly grow, the lack of consultation, the lack of engagement by the Minister in taking this forward, and the constant wave upon wave of regulation that has been breaking on the shores of this Island.  They are good intentions, but Jersey cannot keep being pounded.  One of the reasons for becoming such an expensive place to live is because we keep wrapping ourselves in knots or regulation. 

3.1.4 Deputy J.A. Martin:

I speak as somebody who supported this absolutely 100 per cent when it first came to the Assembly.  I have heard 3 speeches - Deputy Morel has covered a couple of points I wanted to - who I would say have represented the proposition as how they think it is and is actually not.  That was from the Minister and Senator Mézec.  The truth is somewhere in between.  I was very concerned Senator Mézec talked about revenge evictions as if this was some sort of law.  I know myself and Senator Vallois made this point in the very first passing of this law, there is nothing that protects tenants if a landlord thinks ... unless something has changed, and I want the Minister to clarify this absolutely.  I want protection for tenants.  I want them to live in decent accommodation.  Then out of the woodwork, as Deputy Morel has just said, a minimum of £1 million to do this, then you can claw back with fees.  We are somewhere in between.  As I say, I have supported this before.  I am now in the territory of where I am really not sure.  Am I helping tenants?  Am I really, really helping tenants on this Island?  I have to be 100 per cent sure I do not make their case worse.  I do not want to bring in a law where the landlord just presumes that they said: “Oh, I think I am living in substandard” and can evict them, et cetera.  I will leave it there.  The Minister needs to clear up some points about the money and the revenge evictions when he sums up on the principles. 

3.1.5 The Connétable of St. Helier:

I find myself in a similar position to the Minister who has just spoken.  Like all States Members I have been lobbied a great deal by landlords.  I do have concerns on a number of areas which have perhaps not been covered by previous speakers.  I remember many years ago hearing the Minister of Economic Development, as he was at the time, former Senator Maclean, standing up in the Assembly and saying that his mission as Minister would be to reduce red tape.  I am sure he would probably be the first to say now if he was asked that that was a mission that he did not succeed in.  Perhaps it was a mission impossible.  We really are, as Deputy Morel has said, drowning in red tape and there is no sign of that getting any better today.  I only have anecdotal evidence, but I do know some landlords who have several properties who are really quite despairing of the additional red tape that we are asking them to take on board.  Some of them are considering leaving their properties empty, simply because the hassle and the headache of complying with each new wave of requirements is putting them off doing this business.  That is not something we want to do at all.  I noted in Senator Mézec’s speech he used a slightly emotive example of unsafe electrical installations.  The implication was that these might not be detected unless these regulations today go through.  I am assuming that that is not the case, because we do have a Health and Safety Law.  As a previous speaker said, we have regulations as far as rental properties are concerned, which do mean that these outrageous and frankly dangerous practises, rare as they are, will not be able to happen.  They will be picked up under other provisions.  A further point I wanted to make was that one of the most frequent calls I make upon this department, as Connétable and before that as Deputy, is from residents whose lives are being made absolutely miserable by the noise of their neighbours.  It is surely something that we have complaints about every day, whether it is the neighbours leaving the dog barking or someone operating a semi-industrial business in their backyard which keeps the people awake.  I have on most occasions been disappointed by the response of the officers, in terms of enforcement, in terms of reducing those noise nuisances.  People have to jump through enormous hoops to do anything about the antisocial noise of their neighbours.  I am wondering why we are asking this same team to take on yet more work, when as far as I can see they are struggling to do the work that we have tasked them to do in terms of making, particularly urban areas, congested areas, high-density areas, places where people really want to live.  I do have these queries and I look forward to hearing the Minister answering them when he sums up. 

3.1.6 Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier:

I apologise for any background noise.  I have my window wide open and obviously that is a cue for everybody in the area to either build something or make their dog bark.  So I do apologise in advance.  I want to remind Members why we are here in this debate today.  This Assembly voted in favour of bringing these amended regulations back to the Assembly, giving approval to the reworking and moving the situation forward when we voted on P.20 on 8th June.  Again, we face an onslaught from the same voices who now will not accept the will of the Assembly and move forward.  This Assembly has a terrible tendency of failing to make and act upon decisions.  It has a vested interest around landlords, as shown by the declarations.  They have been overcome once and we have moved forward.  Members, however, will continue to intellectualise voting against this previously accepted proposition for, what I see, is a myriad of very confused reasons.  I have made a note on some of them.  Let us go through those.  There was this ventilation argument.  Absolute nonsense, it is one of the red herrings when it comes to housing.  It is because we are unregulated that tenants have to put up with this.  Then we get to the over-regulation argument, again a red herring.  What increases the costs is an unregulated market that fails to protect tenants but consumes huge amounts of public money via subsidies through income support, either for the entire amount of rent or because people working full-time cannot afford the rents in these unsubsidised and unregulated homes.  What is the outcome of this?  Are we going to say we do not really need all these regulations, so let us forget the regulations around restaurants and cafés and bars and their health standards, because it is quite expensive to do something about those?  We have to keep inspecting them and they have to keep going through a load of red tape.  “In the end, they will probably be okay.  They are self-regulating.  It is fine.”  We know that is not the case.  What about our public buildings?  Are we just going to leave them and say: “Oh, it does not matter if they are safe or not.  It is okay.  If you come in and if you trip over a step or if there is no disability access, that is absolutely fine.  It is fine, because we want to stop the red tape.”  This is an intellectualising of a mistake.  I really want people to look at what they are saying here.  It is very interesting the clamour to limit any regulation is when it comes to landlords.  The new posts in the target operating model around this area were created in the target operating model to maintain the housing standards for the regulations that were already voted for, the laws of the Rental Dwellings Act.  Shall we just drop those regulations and say it really does not matter about what standards you rent your accommodation in.  In fact, we should have a more Edwardian approach and say: “You should be pleased that you have somewhere to go and keep your head dry.”  Is that what we are saying in this Assembly?  We need to think very carefully about the genuine implications of what we are saying here.  This notion of the refusal to meet the J.L.A., they have direct influence in Government through their political representative, who is an Assistant Chief Minister and indeed a member of the current new party of Government.  There is lobbying that goes on continuously in the Council of Ministers, continuously in Government on behalf of landlords.  The Landlords Association represents 3 per cent of a group.  These arguments to say that people are not being represented, you are absolutely right, that is not representative.  The relationship between the tenant and the landlord is not one of equality.  The power is with the landlord who owns the place that that person lives and can at any time give 3 months’ notice to move out.  It is very difficult for tenants to organise and get themselves into a group, given that many of them are working full-time, all the hours under the sun, to give 30, 40, 50, 60 per cent of their wage to a landlord.  These are not arguments that stand up to any real scrutiny as to their validity.  They are smokescreens for one simple thing, which is that some people simply do not want to regulate housing, because it will mean that people have to declare what they are renting out.  We spend millions of pounds on comms, but we are now saying £1 million, which is the deficit for that department to do what it needs to do, including public health standards. 

[11:00]

We desperately need to maintain public health standards, as we have seen through the pandemic, people living in tiny inappropriate homes.  However, we are learning nothing from it.  Every time we talk about building back debt, or whatever phrase will be used, as soon as we come to this move forward in the licensing of landlords, so that we can know that we are maintaining standards, we step away from it again and we come up with these old redundant arguments that are simply not relevant to what we are doing.  The Constable of St. Helier talking about people leaving their properties empty, another strawman argument.  Why on earth would somebody who has somewhere leave it empty for the sake of a form that needs to be filled in if they are reaching a standard and then throw £1,000, £1,500, £2,000, £2,500, £3,000 a month?  That is the reality of the income from those properties, those homes, that will be somebody’s home, and that they will pay through the nose for.  I simply do not believe there is any evidence for that at all.  If fact, when Senator Mézec made the point about the F.O.I. (Freedom of Information) that says there are more landlords every year.  Are we going to ignore real data from a freedom of information request and go with anecdotal data when it suits us?  That is what we seem to be doing, again, in this argument, simply putting a barrier in front of something we have already voted for and give people the opportunity to go away and say: “Well, I know why I voted against it this time, because there were reasons given to me.”  Look at those reasons.  This is the worst part of this Assembly and it keeps happening.  This notion of noisy neighbours, we have rules around noisy neighbours; implement them.  If the Constable is saying: “Oh, just get on with that and do not regulate everything”, what is he saying to his parishioners, the concentrated number of parishioners in St. Helier?  I hope that the Constable of St. Helier is not saying this to his parishioners: “Look, just deal with the housing that you have.  Do not expect it to be regulated.  Let us just hope for the best.  If you are in poor quality housing, make a complaint.  If you are worried about being moved out, well that is your own fault, you are on your own.”  That is not what I would want for somebody who represents me in this Assembly.  I was wondering whether to just repeat the speech on 8th June, but I may have to talk about that should we get to the amendment.  I remind Members of the following, since taking over the inspection of lodging houses, for example, places that we do know about, just a couple of years ago, Environmental Health served 179 notices for failure to meet minimum standards, despite being hampered by COVID-19 restrictions.  They have unearthed many examples of landlords ripping off their tenants by overcharging for electricity and water.  That is a very important point, when they are given the power to do it, they drive an improvement in standards.  This licence is for 5 years.  This is a long-term process of improving standards.  However, unless we start, it will not happen.  We need to make a start.  The notion from the Constable of St. Brelade that this is too quick; we have spent years discussing this.  I do not know what iteration of this regulation we are talking about now.  It is certainly not quick.  For those people living in poor-standard accommodation it is certainly not quick enough.  I make a couple of other points.  Any Minister can impose fees at any time.  This proposition means that they have to come to the Assembly to do so.  The 6-week part of the amendment, I will just talk to that briefly, is to make sure that there is a lodging period for those changes that have to come to the Assembly.  Please read it carefully and look at the implications of that.  A Minister can change anything they want at any time, but they have to come to the Assembly.  They could make G.S.T. (goods and services tax) 50 per cent.  They could make tax 0 per cent for everybody and just write off public services and have that nature in tooth and claw.  I hope I have not just stolen one of the Alliance Party’s policies.  They could do that at any time.  That is the way this Assembly works.  There is nothing new here.  If we oppose those charges in the Assembly with a majority, you will have the opportunity to oppose them.  I remind Members that as they come for re-election, none of us can be sure that we will be, so you may not be here to have any influence in the future anyway.  I really do not think that that, again, is an argument that stands up to scrutiny.  Much of the documentation required and requested by the tenants when they take out a tenancy is encapsulated in a 2018 minimum standards law.  In fact, the Jersey Tenants Forum, for the information that the Jersey Tenants Forum did give, which is a remarkable amount of information, recommend tenants to ask agents and landlords for the documents pertaining to boiler inspections, et cetera, to change the contract if it does not meet the 2018 legislation.  You are asking individuals to do this and take this into their own hands.  They should not have to be in that position.  The Government of Jersey website already contains the information, as does the Citizens Advice website.  Good landlords already meet these standards.  There is no extra red tape for those who already meet legal required standards.  The potential costs to the Government are not from this licensing scheme.  It is about the knock-on effect and the implications of poor quality housing for vulnerable children and for vulnerable elderly and all sections of our community that have to be then dealt with and picked up by the Government.  That is where the real costs come from.  We have to start down the path of regulating and standardising the quality of accommodation that is so eye-wateringly expensive in Jersey.  We cannot just leave this to this supposed, hope for the best approach and listen to these arguments, which are simply, again, putting a smokescreen in front of what we need to do.  This Assembly is about making decisions.  The reality is this: we have an unregulated housing sector.  There are rules, but they are not enforced.  To leave it to tenants is a mythology.  They will not be able to take on their landlords in that way.  Voting against this today means that you continue the acceptance of substandard housing, because that is just the way it is and you should not expect the Government to do anything about it.  I do not believe that.  I believe the Government has a role, a duty, a moral duty, to set standards of housing for its population and then enforce that with regulations.  This is not an onerous expense.  It is something that will improve housing standards over a long time, improve the lives of people over a long time, and improve the safety and the standard of living of members of our society over a long time.  To me, it is a no-brainer, you vote for this because that is what we were elected to do, to put people on this Island first.  All sections of our communities should be protected in the homes that they live in.  That is not happening at the moment.  I urge Members not to renege on a previous decision and not to step backwards again, but to make a step forward and show the people of Jersey that we have their interests at heart in this Assembly, not our self-interests at heart. 

3.1.7 Deputy G.P. Southern:

I will be brief, because I have heard some spectacularly ridiculous arguments.  We have had the anti-red tape brigade and the drowning in regulation brigade out in force.  Nothing about Jersey could be further from the truth.  We have minimal standards across, certainly, the accommodation sector and we have had that for a long time.  What I want to do is speak to those who were attracted by the red tape bandwagon and feel they could get on that and, at the same time, justify their position.  I do not believe that is possible.  I believe taking the ultimate step and saying: “I am going to vote against this proposition, despite the fact it has been twice through the Assembly and accepted twice.”  A vote against that would be a vote for unsafe accommodation.  It would be a vote for unhealthy accommodation.  Think about it.  Do you wish to be seen to vote against this proposition and therefore allowing unhealthy and unsafe accommodation?  If you are prepared to do that then by all means vote against this, but be prepared to justify it in a very short time.  That is the decision you are making today.  Please vote for this proposition and vote against unhealthy, unsafe accommodation. 

3.1.8 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

In response to this cry that we do not know what is being rented out, we have Parish rates and every single property in the Parish is registered and if it is let out then is an occupiers and fonciers rate.  Yes, it can on occasion make sense to leave property empty, where the increase in the capital value is higher than the total rental.  Including the utility costs, what about the cost of servicing equipment, et cetera, decorating, gardening, et cetera, surely the landlord is entitled to claim that expense.  When I was living in New York, we had flats where the rent was controlled and not allowed to be increased.  The problem was that when the control was released rents of the controlled flats skyrocketed; an interesting economic phenomenon.  We need a rental tribunal, certainly, where tenants concerned about rental levels, health concerns and mould, et cetera, can appeal.  However, it should be open to both tenants and landlords, so that on the one hands of the tenants, we can prevent Rachman-type operations and the landlords can cope with unruly tenants.  We have to remember that the States are the market-leader landlord.  We told Andrew Green this years back.  Unfortunately, the tenants will also feel their rent will be reduced.  Environmental Health and Safety, regrettably, do sometimes overestimate the work that is required and which, as Deputy Morel said, the cost of which will eventually fall on the tenant.  One must also remember the comment made in the 1900s, 120 years ago, it is a further infringement of human rights: “When a new source of taxation is found, it never means in practice that the old source is abandoned.  It merely means that the politicians have 2 ways of milking the taxpayer where they only had one before.”  I am sorry, I really cannot go along with this amendment, so I shall be voting against all of it.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Thank you, Senator.  Does any other Member wish to speak on the principles?  I call upon the Minister to reply.

3.1.9 Deputy J.H. Young:

I apologise.  I have a fan on.  If it making too much noise, I will turn it off.  First of all, I thank the Members who have spoken.  The key points have come out in the debate.  My starting point is to say throughout my working life I have been used to many, many years having to deal with difficult problems where there are strongly opposing and differing views.  Sometimes, in fact, thankfully, one is able to find compromises and pragmatic solutions.  Over my working life, in my various roles, I have been able to do that where it is possible.  I equally learned to recognise that on some occasions that is not so, that there will be situations that have sharply differences of opinion with what is irreconcilability, which is the case here.

[11:15]

There are valid views on both sides, equally having pluses and minuses and it ...

The Deputy Bailiff:

You have frozen, Minister.  We have lost your picture.

Deputy J.H. Young:

It seems to be my system.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Right.

Deputy J.H. Young:

You would like me to turn my camera off?

The Deputy Bailiff:

Possibly, there might be a few things, yes.

Deputy J.H. Young:

Okay, I will do that, Sir.  Yes, so throughout my working life I have covered the fact that there are situations that arise which are irreconcilable and, unfortunately, this is one.  Certainly throughout the 3 years that I have been working on this I have certainly made attempts to find a situation where it is possible within the law that has been created, the law is quite clear.  The law the States approved gives an empowerment of a licensing system.  Those that argue against that are, effectively, arguing against an existing law, a primary law, and that is something which I think is where the element of irreconcilability comes.  Of course I had better declare I am not in any political party in Jersey.  I have obviously got my political views but in Jersey I have not aligned myself within a group, I try and find ways of working in our old-fashioned system.  Obviously now we are fast-changing that; I can already hear from the few speeches that we have had, very good speeches but, nonetheless, give perhaps a shade of things to come about small governments, regulation is bad, criticism of the public sector, workers who try and do their best to achieve things within the very, very limited resources they have got.  Those are things which I personally try and not to get on board with.  Obviously just picking at the detail now, the Constable of St. Brelade, again, thanks to the Connétable for his kind comments about me, and I would also agree the same with him.  He is a nice chap and he and I work well together.  But I really find that he is using the situation that he knows full well, as Deputy Morel did, about the problems that I have got on planning enforcement resources.  We have a situation, which I think is partly COVID, very substantially due to the target operating model reorganisation, where we have a major disruption, losing key staff and we have got to deal with that.  Of course, we have had to make priority decisions to do that but to use that as a reason why we should not have these regulations seems to be, frankly, a distortion.  The team that Environmental Health have built up, they have been built up not by extra staff because they have lost staff.  I.H.E. has lost staff, so, Deputy Morel, it is not true of that team; it has lost staff.  What they have done is they have reallocated people around.  But Environmental Health people are environmental-health qualified, they are trained, experienced.  They are not planning enforcers.  The idea that you can have some kind of generic red tape enforcer that can move from one area to another is illusory.  That team needed to be built up because of the States commitment to environmental health, and I have seen the importance of the Environmental Health team over my time, and particularly during COVID where they have had enormous problems to deal with, and I will come to those when I get to the Constable of St. Helier’s comments.  There are real issues to do with nuisances and so on.  I think it is wrong, making the leap, conflating the issue: “Well we cannot have regulations because we have got problems in other areas and, therefore, Environmental Health people, which are housing experts, can suddenly go and do other things.”  I think that is not a fair statement.  I do agree with one thing, I think that there is a need to have further analysis of the problem properties.  This is where, I believe, that if the regulations are approved we will get a lot of extra information.  We will find out a lot more about our housing stock, about the condition of it, where it is and its uses, as I have said and that will help those kind of analyses in.  Sweeteners, yes, I confess.  I did meet the Jersey landlords, I sat on the platform at the meeting in the Town Hall when officers in Environmental Health gave a presentation.  Incidentally, I am sure people may not have forgotten that the officer who was leading that presentation has been the stalwart of the COVID track and trace system and throughout.  We owe that officer a great debt of gratitude.  Any suggestion that somehow or other we did not respond, we were invited to go there and of course we had the presentation from the Assistant Chief Minister, who was leading the charge against regulation.  Of course it became quite clear at that meeting that there were starkly disagreed views.  I took away commitments from that meeting, commitments that I said I accepted that the scheme that was originally presented in 2019 was too complicated and needed to be stripped out, simplified.  The conditions need to be drastically revised; they were.  I uncomplicated that system.  I gave a commitment that on my watch there would be no charges.  What is the solution to get the costs they were complaining about?  Cut it out, no fees.  I am quite clear that I met the commitment and the undertakings I made to that meeting on that day way back before we had COVID; it seems like an age away now.  Of course, yes, it is true, I have not been able to have physical meetings in the normal course of events; I would have done but here am I, 75 next month, double-vaccinated.  Are we going to all meet in large gatherings?  No, we are not, we cannot even meet as a group of States Members.  I have been reticent about those physical meetings.  I have always offered virtual meetings but consultation is not negotiation.  The approach made to me by the Jersey landlord is that here is an alternative scheme, an alternative plan.  In other words, we want to talk with you about you doing an alternative.  I did not think that was within the mandate of the law because I have explained the law says “licensing”, nor is it within the mandate of the States decisions that have been made.  I have had to do what my duty is, is to bring this to the point where the highest authority in our Island community, the States Assembly, to make that decision and I am grateful for the opportunity today to be able to clear that up.  I have dealt with the issue of reluctance to meet.  Delay the debate; yes, I had that request.  Could I just ask Members to reflect, to delay the debate?  What for?  I have had the Scrutiny report; I have done the reply.  There is nothing in, in my opinion, the new Scrutiny comments that I have not addressed in my reply.  I am reluctant to waste Members’ time by going through them but they have all been answered.  The only point about a delay being requested is to have a round with unilateral discussions with the Jersey Landlords Association, people I respect, I absolutely respect their views.  But they conflict with States decisions and they conflict with the law as passed.  What I suggested is, is that we can adapt, we will learn from the implementation of these arrangements if the States approve them, and they can be refined and revised in the light of that knowledge, as the future years by a future Minister, which will not be me.  A couple of things also mentioned: this notion - and I think it is scaremongering - landlords selling properties because of the licensing scheme.  There may be some people that have their anxieties of poorer-conditioned properties, yes; but, equally, I think the trend is very much the other way.  We are getting a constant growth of buy-to-lets, new properties coming on, and I think it is better.  If that means there is a change in the nature of the market that is better, and I do not think there is any evidence.  One of the quotes, when I have asked about this, I was told: “So many lodging houses were sold.”  I am saying: “What is happening to those lodging houses?”  They are going into proper flats, meeting proper standards.  I say: why is that not good?  Why is that not a good thing?  If we have lodging houses in properties which are not meeting the - and that is with older properties generally, more difficult to adapt - why is it not good that they go into flats?  More space, more amenities and better standards; what is wrong with that?  Then the answer I got back from the Assistant Chief Minister: “Where are people with unregistered accommodation going to go if they cannot go in these substandard lodging houses?”  Sorry, no, that says that we have to sort that part of the system out.  Start with having, as I think speakers have said, step on the road towards those better standards.  It is not going to come overnight; 5 years was a good change.  The Scrutiny Panel always wanted 5 years; I have accepted that.  The Scrutiny Panel always wanted low costs, they have got no costs.  The Scrutiny Panel wanted simplification; they got that and the States have approved it, of course.  Then of course what we have got, this situation: “Well we do not trust future Ministers because they may bring in fees.”  I need to clear up so many distortions here.  I inherited the situation where there was no financial budget for the salaries of Environmental Health whatsoever in the I.H.E. budget; that team have been a financial deficit from day one.  Because assumptions were made by the previous Council of Ministers that fees of £1 million would be generated.  That was their assumption; it was a corporate assumption imposed.  Not all of that £1 million was made up of housing regulation costs.  The figures I have given in the report - I just cannot find it at the moment - it is around about £625,000, I think is the actual housing inspection costs; that is the current costs that are occurring on that work and that will not increase.  There will be no more new resources in that, as I have said all along.  That was an assumption and, listen to this, restauranteurs and runners of pubs, we were going to then charge the rest, £300,000, to the restaurants.  I say, when this was discussed across the Minister around the corporate star chamber in the meetings: “Are we really going to have fees imposed on restaurants, after everything they have gone through these last 2 or 3 years, for an inspection?”  Perhaps we should say: “No, we do not have to have a health inspection at the restaurants anymore, it is not important; let food poisoning run.”  Absolutely not.  We have got a good system of regulation there for food standards.  We need to do more as a result of the Brexit rules that we have now signed up to; things to do with food safety and allergies and things like that, which the work team are working on.  But imposing fees, no.  Those that say this £1 million liability, that cut should never have been made in the budget.  There is a bid to put that back, which is in the Government Plan, and that would allow a new Minister to be absolutely uncluttered with any past baggage on this question of costs and make a judgment as to say what is equitable.  We have had lots more information about that.  What is number one important here is the issue of standards and achieving those standards and progressive achieving them.  I am probably going on for too long.  I think thanks to Senator Mézec for all his comments.  He reminded us very strongly about health and safety, and of course he is right.  I believe this is a light touch and I know the team are saying ... do you know what, when I learned that the Environmental Health Department had been moved to the Environment Ministry I was so pleased.

[11:30]

This took place in the Deputy of St. Martin’s reign, as it were, and I was very pleased that he took that on.  When I took it on I was so proud because I thought that Environmental Health would be safer, and more likely to get priority for resources within the environmental sector than it was when in Health.  I am not denigrating Health but if you are faced with a choice between keeping people alive and your health treatments and all the expectations and dealing with the environmental issues about the way they live, I am afraid the record is the priority will always go to clinical work of keeping people alive.  Whereas I thought with Environment then there would be a more enlightened attitude recognising that in a small Island with a very packed, dense population, we all live on top of each other, and the environmental health issues are critical to our well-being of our community and this is part of it.  I am really hopeful that Members will see that and, on that question, will try and get that budget restored.  So that should take out this issue of this distortion cost.  Any suggestion, sorry, Deputy Morel, £1 million this cost the scheme; no, it is not.  Of course, when I look at Deputy Morel and I am delighted to have him as an Assistant Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture and I look at their budget, eye-watering sums, eye-watering.  I think to myself: where are the priorities?  No, this is an area for the cuts.  The notion that he said about arrogance of translating a States decision to have a law into practice was really not right.  Planning breaches, things are serious, yes, and I am desperate to get that staff on the planning side.  But diverting people away from Environmental Health, those 6 people when they are looking after environmental health for their community, is that the right thing?  No, absolutely not.  I have dealt with the issue, I think, of consultation, how I have tried to respond to people.  Empire building; really?  Rent Safe, look, that has been a success, it is carrying on but we simplified it.  It used to be all very complicated before, that is simple now.  It is a voluntary scheme and it is a promotion thing, a bit like food safe and things like that, based around those ideas, they work.  The notion that this is an intrusion into life really I think is too much.  Deputy Martin specifically; I thank Deputy Martin, I always value so much.  I value all Members but Deputy Martin particularly because she so ably focuses on key points, clarity.  Clarification of the £1 million.  The position, as I believe it, is that there is a bid in the Government Plan to correct it, it was a mistake.  The assumptions made by previous Governments were false.  What I have here with the proposal is that there will be an implementation with no fees at day one and the no fees will mean that people who register under the grandfathering will not pay fees for 5 years.  But of course it is open to a new Minister to introduce charges for new properties that come on because there will be a temporary gap.  We do not know what that percentage is and my guess it might be around 10 per cent a year.  But the new Minister then, in the light of the knowledge about the workload, the number of properties, they can then consider that matter.  In the amendment I brought, bring that forward to the States before any decision to adjust those fees can be introduced.  There is a safeguard there.  Deputy Martin is worried, and if I thought that bringing this regulation would damage the opportunity for renting of homes in this Island I would not be supporting it, if I thought that.  I am criticised because I rely on our civil servants but these are people who have spent their life in this area.  Of course they know the experiences, they know the community, they are constantly in touch with people dealing with complaints all the time on a daily basis, so I have to run them and I think we do need to do that.  Eviction; can you evict?  I cannot believe that if problems are to arrive on a property over a licence, the team have assured me that there will be no heavy-handed here.  Putting a property into a situation that it is not possible to be occupied by a tenant anymore is a very, very last and extremist resort.  In my view, almost certainly hardly ever happened.  The procedures are there in the law to serve notices of things that need to be right and make corrections in time to get things done because it is difficult to get building work; we know that.  I cannot see if we did have a situation with a heavy hand, this is a light touch.  I am not an expert on this.  I think what Deputy Martin is speaking about is this situation, which I have to accept at face value, that if people complain, some people at the moment can end up either having their leases not being extended or ended.  I think the likelihood of that happening is reduced now under this arrangement.  The Constable of St. Helier spoke about the big problems about in urban areas to do with noise nuisance.  Yes, absolutely, Connétable, I get lots of complaints and the problem is the Environmental Health team do not have the law in place.  They do not have the law to deal with ... the nuisances law, I have been advised, is not fit for purpose.  It needs rewriting, needs a review desperately so.  I have not got the resources.  I have got bids in for the Government Plan for resources to do that development work in the future and I hope we do not end up in the same place - or at least the future Minister does not - that we get a new law in and then when we try to put it into place, then people then get cold feet, I suppose, is the honest truth of it.  Deputy Ward, thank you for your support.  I am probably running ... and Senator Ferguson.  Senator Ferguson, please, this has nothing to do with rent tribunals.  We are not regulating rent levels.  We are having a system of licensing to check that properties are the minimum standards and that is all; it does not go beyond that, Senator.  I think I have probably gone on too long and I put it to the Assembly and whatever the vote is, obviously all of us respect that and work within where we end up.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Thank you, Minister.  In a moment the Greffier will add a vote into the chat channel of the meeting.  He has done so.  The vote is now open and I ask Members to cast their votes on the principles.  If all Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, then I ask the Greffier to close the voting.  In the link there are 20 votes pour and 21 votes contre.  In the chat there was one vote pour, making a total of 22 votes pour and there were 2 votes contre in the chat, making a total of 23 votes contre in the chat and, accordingly, the principles have been rejected.

Deputy J.H. Young:

Sir, could I just have the score again, please, I did not quite catch that because I lost my screen?

The Deputy Bailiff:

Yes, a total of 22 votes pour, 21 in the link and one in the chat and a total of 23 votes contre, 21 on the link and 2 in the Chat.  Was there a call for the …

Deputy R.J. Ward:

Yes, Sir.  Can we have all of the contre and all of the pour, please? 

The Greffier of the States:

Those Members who voted pour: Deputy Labey, Deputy Young, Senator Vallois, Deputy Tadier, Deputy Wickenden, Deputy Higgins, Deputy Ward, the Constable of St. Helier, Senator Mézec, the Constable of St. John, Senator Pallett, Deputy Martin, Deputy Alves, the Constable of St. Lawrence, Deputy Pamplin, Deputy Gardiner, Deputy Southern, the Deputy of St. Ouen, the Constable of St. Martin, Deputy Lewis, the Deputy of St. John and in the chat the Constable of St. Mary.  Those who voted contre were: the Constable of Grouville, Deputy Le Hegarat, Deputy Guida, the Constable of St. Ouen, Senator Farnham, the Constable of St. Brelade, Deputy Ahier, Deputy Pinel, Senator Le Fondré, Deputy Truscott, the Deputy of St. Peter, Senator Ferguson, Senator Gorst, the Deputy of St. Mary, the Deputy of St. Martin, the Connétable of Trinity, the Deputy of Trinity, Deputy Morel, Deputy Ash, the Deputy of Grouville, Deputy Maçon, as well as the Constable of St. Saviour and Senator Moore.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Accordingly, the proposition is taken to have been withdrawn under the relevant Standing Order.

4. Allocation of the former States of Jersey Police Headquarters site to Rouge Bouillon School (P.43/2021)

The Deputy Bailiff:

The next item is Allocation of the former States of Jersey Police Headquarters site to Rouge Bouillon School, lodged by Deputy Gardiner.  For the purposes of this debate, the main responder is the Minister for Children and Education.  I ask the Greffier to read the citation.

The Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion to agree that the former States of Jersey Police Headquarters site should be allocated for the expansion of Rouge Bouillon Primary School and for the provision of community spaces and to request the Council of Ministers to take the necessary steps, including the incorporation of this project within the Government Plan 2022-2025.

The Deputy Bailiff:

There is an amendment by the Minister for Children and Education and there is an amendment to that amendment from Deputy Gardiner.  Minister for Children and Education, are you minded to accept the amendment to your amendment?

Deputy S.M. Wickenden of St. Helier:

Because of the late lodging period I have not had a chance to speak to the Council of Ministers to get an overall view.  I believe the amendment to the amendment in that fact should not be accepted by me and we should have the debate to allow the proper democratic process to follow for the Council of Ministers and the rest of the Assembly.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Thank you.  Yes, Deputy Gardiner.

Deputy I. Gardiner:

I understand that the Council of Ministers would not like to accept my amendment and, yes, we will start a conversation now and that democratic process to proceed.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Yes.

[11:45]

4.1 Deputy I. Gardiner:

In any negotiations there comes a time when you have to draw a line, when you have to make it clear how important something is to you.  When the other side in the negotiation does not appreciate how important this particular issue is for you, you have to make it clear and this is where I am finding myself.  When enough time has passed, enough promises have been made and broken, assurance has been false and no evidence of the other side taking the education infrastructural needs of the children of St. Helier seriously.  Rouge Bouillon School has been in need of renovation and improvement for 30-odd years.  In these 30 years past the Island politicians have repeatedly postponed making any solid commitments.  The head teacher of Rouge Bouillon wrote to the Public Accounts Committee in 2020: “We have a fantastic staff and wonderful children and we do the very best we can with the circumstances we have.  But surely it is not right that the children most in need of space to run about and play sport go to school with no playing field or green space.  We have a specialist unit for children with autism and communication difficulties but not a single space for a parent to park in order to bring these highly needy children into school and enabling parents to meet staff.  We are a school that burned down about 30 years ago.”  There are people who are now grandparents who, while dropping off their grandchildren at Rouge Bouillon, could recognise the same lack of facilities, in fact they were not there.  They would probably recognise the same promises and assurance of a better future for the state of the primary schools in St. Helier.  For years St. Helier Deputies, and even the Constable, have come to the Assembly to ask for a better deal for St. Helier primary schools and have been assured, they had promised better schools sometime in the future.  I call it this is the future we were talking about years ago.  I found questions and responses dated to 2015 requesting to allocate the former police site to the school or to the fire station, recognising the need, promising a solution, recommending a cost of study and since then nothing.  The outdoor space, lack of playing field and green areas limit the opportunities for the pupils to learn outdoors, to exercise, to be socialised and to play.  The current state of the building in no way shows pupils they are valued.  Already back in the 1980s research found the mainly correlation evidence to a relationship between a quality of school environment and student outcomes where those in poorer environments tend to have poorer attitudes and behaviours, as well as low attendance.  It is clear that good school buildings were crucial and outside facilities are crucial for children’s learning and behaviour.  There is an opportunity to improve the whole learning experience by the school by providing new updated facilities to assist in pupil development and attainment.  There is, equally, an opportunity for the school to become a community hub, allowing additional extracurricular activities for pupils and family and the community at large.  The school that will share resources with the community would benefit in this area of St. Helier, as there are currently limited options for pupils, staff, parents and family to congregate in a community serving way.  Since lodging my proposition I have had meetings with several stakeholders, and this was the reason that we have now 2 amendments in front of us today.  My communication with the current Minister for Children and Education started almost months ago when I suggested to look strategically.  The main debate will be between these 2 amendments and if the States is ready to make strategic decisions.  I am moving this proposition and I will expand when I open a speech to my amendment.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Hello, we have lost you, Deputy Gardiner; that completes your speech.  Is the proposition seconded?  [Seconded]

4.2 Allocation of the former States of Jersey Police Headquarters site to Rouge Bouillon School (P.43/2021) - Amendment (P.43/2021 Amd.)

The Deputy Bailiff:

We now come to the amendment of the Minister and I ask the Greffier to read the amendment.

The Greffier of the States:

1 Page 2, paragraph (a) – After the word “spaces” insert the words “, unless an alternative site can be identified and allocated for the provision of a modern standard primary school in St. Helier” and, after the word “incorporation” substitute the word “the” with the word “this” and, after the word “project”, insert the word “funding”; 2 Page 2, paragraph (b) – Designate the existing paragraph as paragraph (a) and, after this paragraph, insert the following new paragraph – “(b) that no site in government ownership that is suitable for a modern standard primary school in St. Helier should be allocated for another purpose until the action envisaged in part (a) to identify a site and include project funding in the Government Plan 2022-25 has been completed.”

4.2.1 Deputy S.M. Wickenden (The Minister for Children and Education):

I would like to, first, thank Deputy Gardiner for bringing this proposition, this positive discussion.  Unfortunately I was unable to support the original proposition, as it was an instruction.  I had some very, very constructive conversations with Deputy Gardiner about this proposition, which I do support.  I do think that we do need new schools within St. Helier and St. Saviour; let us talk about the town bowl.  This proposition, as amended, working with Deputy Gardiner, whose idea it was to amend, will give surety that this site will be used for the school if we cannot find a better solution for the town centre.  The only reason I have not taken the amendment to the amendment as amended is because I have not had a chance to speak to any other Ministers around it and I thought that would be unfair, but I do support it.  I do believe that we need to make sure that we have got 2 new fit-for-purpose, modern, 2-form entry schools or maybe a 3-form entry but we need to do that work; that work is ongoing.  I will be supporting the amendment to the amendment but I cannot force that decision on Council of Ministers’ Members.  I think what I will say is this amendment will just give surety that this site will not be used for anything else while we continue doing work on what is required and where the need is for new schools in St. Helier.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Is the amendment seconded?  [Seconded]

4.3 Allocation of the former States of Jersey Police Headquarters site to Rouge Bouillon School (P.43/2021) - Amendment (P.43/2021 Amd.) - Amendment (P.43/2021 Amd.Amd.)

The Deputy Bailiff:

Thank you.  There is an amendment to the amendment lodged by Deputy Gardiner and I ask the Greffier to read that amendment.

The Greffier of the States:

1 Page 2, part 1 – After the word “alternative site” for the words “can be” substitute the word “is”. 2 Page 2, part 2 – (a) Replace the word ‘government’ with the word ‘States’; (b) After the words “St. Helier” insert the words “and St. Saviour”; and (c) For all the words after the word “until”, substitute the words “the strategic review of the education estate of St. Helier and St. Saviour is completed, and sites are allocated and approved for modern standard primary schools according to the educational needs of these Parishes”.

4.3.1 Deputy I. Gardiner:

I am pleased to follow the Minister and I am pleased to hear that he will be supporting this amendment.  Because this amendment to the amendment brings the vital element of strategic infrastructure thinking for the future.  We have published an estate management strategy, which was never debated in the States Assembly.  It does not give an overall clarity on how we will manage our strategic priorities.  This is an opportunity for States Members to clarify the element of the strategic plan and show Members’ views and their own priorities for education or other infrastructure needs.  Each Member has an opportunity to reveal if they buy into the putting children first government slogan or they are just hiding behind these words while having a completely different agenda.  Part (a), it is a really minor amendment.  I can see why we need the flexibility and we had a good discussion with the Minister.  I have met ambulance and fire station and I am not completely convinced this is the only space where it can build.  At the same time, I do recognise the need of the new fire and ambulance station.  I have several question marks about the scope of the feasibility study but I will put it aside.  It can be a flexibility, as long as this site, the Rouge Bouillon site is protected and if we will not find other suitable sites for primary schools in St. Helier, this site will not go.  My amendment, it is unless is identified, so it is more the change of wording to be more certainty.  The difference for use it comes to the part (b) only from the small Island.  I cannot see that there will be any new discoveries in relation to any new sites for development as a result of the ongoing review of the education or any other estate.  This is what we have, nothing new will come.  We know that there are always competing priorities.  A number of serious contenders on alternative sites of the primary schools in St. Helier and St. Saviour does really not pay.  The criteria for such a site must include sufficient outdoor space and space for sport facilities, in addition to fit-for-purpose school buildings.  A quick look at Google Maps and anyone can identify all the land that we have available.  We have already a situation when in 2015 Deputy Doublet raised the question: would the former police site be allocated to a fire and ambulance station and is going into housing?  We do need housing but the size of the site, if we would decide that time that we need a fire and ambulance station that could go on that site and we could have a new school at the current site and probably Janvrin and the Springfield School sites will be available for building.  It will be a much better place but it was 6 years ago and nothing happened since that.  We would have houses but we will not have a school where these children can go.  Education sites that lack outdoor space, lack of sport facilities and have outdated buildings, schools such as Rouge Bouillon, Springfield and St. Luke’s, looking at the school estate in St. Helier highlighted also those schools that are on the boundaries of the Parishes, schools that we call an urban bowl in urban areas and used by St. Helier and St. Saviour and all of them need really a proper outdoor space and better facilities.  This was the reason that I have included St. Saviour in the consideration for the strategic review, as it is between 2 of these Parishes in these areas.  I do feel that it is really important to expand strategic provision for the education estate for St. Helier and St. Helier joined-up approach because we probably need 2 3-form entry north and south or 3-form entry schools or any other configuration.  I will leave this configuration to the Government.  Here in the States we are about to make a strategic decision and which direction we would like to go.  The repurposing of the site of the former States of Jersey Police Headquarters at Rouge Bouillon has been the subject of the question, we have talked about it and we really need to move forward.  We do not need to close streets or traffic to let St. Luke’s children play; they need to have a proper playground.  As the Minister indicated in his report, the review of town primary schools estate is nearing completion.  The importance of the outcome of this review cannot be understated and that this will inform decision which needs to be made in respect of the ability of school extensions, new schools … sorry?

The Deputy Bailiff:

Forgive me, no, please carry on, I am just talking to the Greffier.

Deputy I. Gardiner:

Yes, it is about the amendment.  Basically what I am saying, the review is on the way.  We have been told that the review will be ready in 4 to 6 weeks back in May.  I calculate that we should see the review results in mid-June, now we are mid-July but I assume the review is coming out.  The moment that we have this review we can make a strategic decision.  Basically what this amendment does is draw a line.  I say no location of any States-owned site in St. Helier or St. Saviour do anything else until we have sorted our primary schools estate. 

[12:00]

If we do not have a site we have to decide what site can be purchased.  I hope this will focus the Government on the task.  To compound the problem of St. Helier is getting new family homes, hundreds of new family homes.  We can expect hundreds of couples to start families in these new homes.  The education infrastructure of St. Helier and St. Saviour is stuck in the past and completely unprepared for the next 10 years or so.  St. Helier has a primary school educational underclass, geographical location has become an accurate predictor of the school facilities, child-reading abilities in school grades.  We have an educational crisis in St. Helier and it is not a secret.  Everything that I have stated is in the public domain.  Everyone knows St. Helier is having an educational crisis to start in primary school and we need to do something now.  Ensure the location of the site, secure the space that is necessary to deliver adequate facilities and bringing across concrete plans together for a modern educational estate for St. Helier and St. Saviour.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Thank you, Deputy.  Is the amendment to the amendment seconded?  [Seconded] 

4.3.2 Deputy S.M. Wickenden:

I kind of wish that Deputy Gardiner’s speech was not so disparaging about the good work that has been going on in education.  We started the school site review many months ago and the Deputy is correct, we were hoping to get it out sooner but we want to make sure we do a thorough piece of work.  This is not just about what sites could site a school, it is about where the need is.  It is about where are the children living in the bowl of town.  Is it up closer to Havre des Pas?  Is it around near Rouge Bouillon?  Where is the need required and what does that need look like and how many different form entries, or one or 2, or what would that look like and what does the future look like?  We need to make sure we are doing that piece of work.  The Deputy’s speech made it sound like we have just been sat on our hands and nothing could be further from the truth.  The Education Department and C.Y.P.E.S. (Children, Young People, Education and Skills) have been working tirelessly to try and improve educational outcomes and educational funding.  They all started with the great work that Senator Vallois did when she started as Minister for Education with the Education Reform Programme, which is putting extra money into schools to try and stop the deficit that we are seeing in education for special education needs, for English as an additional language.  The Minister for Infrastructure, Deputy Lewis, made a promise that nothing would happen on the Rouge Bouillon site until all of the reviews, whether it be for school or housing or fire and ambulance station had been completed and that the Assembly could make that decision.  There are lots of ways.  As much as I appreciate this proposition being put forward, and I will be supporting it, it was not as necessary as the Deputy makes out to be but it is good.  I am glad we have this proposition because it gives us a level of surety that nothing will happen on this site because the Assembly is now, hopefully, going to ratify it.  I will be supporting the fact that there needs to be 2 in this.  It will be up to each Member to decide whether they want to shore up one site for schools or 2 sites for schools.  I certainly think that we need 2, and that is the long-term vision, but how long it will be where we will hold a site before we can get the funding in the Government Plan for 2 schools is probably a long way.  In any instance, as Minister for Children and Education, I will not vote against something that is better for the children and educational outcomes for this Island.  I will support it.

4.3.3 Deputy J.H. Young:

I think this is well-intentioned but I am anxious about the second part of this later amendment because it sets a very high bar, if you like, on when any site in government ownership can be allocated for any use.  Of course, while in an ideal world that is very desirable because education there is no question, all the things that are being said and the intention of the proposition and the Minister’s position is absolutely totally not just valid but vital.  But it says, effectively, that any other government sites that should not be allocated for any other purpose, not only about the strategic review, and I have got confidence that strategic review will be completed, but then it says: “Sites are allocated and approved”, not just for a school but according to modern standard educational needs and who knows what that is?  There is a lot of work to do there.  My worry is, if that was interpreted in a way onerously, it could be a bar to making our decisions on housing sites in towns because we have desperately got to produce a good supply of affordable homes from our States-owned sites, as part of our strategy, in the draft Island Plan.  I think this amendment to the amendment could be an unintentional bar to us doing that.  But, equally, I absolutely agree that I think we have to find a new site for, I think, Rouge Bouillon School.  I do not favour the development of Rouge Bouillon on the current site because of the environmental damage to air pollutions and to children, and I think that will be allocated to the fire service, it should be there, and we need to find a new site.  I have got my own preference for that site but I will need to wait for the strategic review of the sites.  Because I have got confidence in the Ministers, the Minister for Infrastructure and the Minister for Children and Education, to do that because I have made the point that it needs to be done because these questions are going to arise anyway in the public inquiry for the Island Plan, and so that is the timescale that I am looking for.  But as far as translating that into more detail of allocating sites and approved, that is, I think, further on and, as the Minister told us, it depends on the Government Plan, monies and all the rest of it.  I would like the proposer to assure me on that or what is the intention of the words in this amendment, what the proposer considers the effect would be and reassure me on that?  I look forward to hearing from the proposer.

4.3.4 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

We promised the sea cadets that we would find them a permanent home; at the moment they are living on the first floor in the police station.  At the same time I agree with Deputy Young because of the fumes of the roundabout and the pollution from Rouge Bouillon, where do the sea cadets, for instance, come in the great and glorious plan for the education review?  Have either of the Deputies, who are coming up with these plans, thought about this?  The sea cadets are waiting, as they have been for 27 years, to get their permanent home.  Where do they come into it?  They are really genuinely doing something good for the children of the Island.

4.3.5 Connétable R.A. Buchanan of St. Ouen:

My question is simple and I have studied both propositions fairly carefully.  I have got 2 questions really, which I am hoping somebody is going to be able to answer.  Firstly, while on the face of it the Rouge Bouillon site seems large, it would be helpful if somebody could clarify whether it is going to be enough space for Rouge Bouillon School and the size and area of the site is big enough to accommodate playing fields and all the other things they want to do.  I assume the answer is yes but I think it would be helpful to have that clarified before we vote on this.  Secondly, my concern is about the fire service, this proposition, and we all seem to be talking about the fact that we have found an alternative suitable site for the fire service, and that is where my concern lies; that the fire service is located where it is for a very good reason.  It has excellent access to all routes out of the Island.  It is very central, you can get to the east, you can get to the west and you can get north from where they are with a considerable amount of speed and ease, assuming that traffic moves out of the way when the blue lights and sirens go on.  My own assertion is that finding an alternative site that is as good as this is going to be tricky.  I have been wracking my brains thinking where we could put the fire service.  I am not entirely sure but I think that might be the solution.  I would hope that somebody, before we vote on this, is able to give me an assurance that until such time as we have found a suitable site for the fire service, which meets their needs and protects the safety of all Islanders, let us not forget that the fire service is a vital blue-light service that we all rely on when there is an emergency.  We need to make sure that whatever site is allocated to them is as efficient as the current site.  I would look for somebody to provide some assurance to Members that this will not happen, as worthy as it is, before we have relocated the fire service in a site that is entirely suitable for their needs.

4.3.6 Deputy R.J. Ward:

I would support this but there is an issue that I need to raise.  In a public hearing with the Minister for Home Affairs last week we raised the question of Rouge Bouillon and it was said … and forgive me if I have not got the words precisely because I cannot find my Hansard.  It was either said that the sites of Rouge Bouillon for police and ambulance positioning was sacred or sacrosanct, one of those, something like that.  Therefore, it is absolutely defined already that that would be used in that way.  I think the problem is this, we have one Minister in Government saying it will absolutely be used for fire and ambulance, another Minister saying he had accepted an amendment, which means it will not be used for that for even long term, it will just be a token gesture towards saying that this will be accepted but we know in the long term it will not be accepted for that.  We need to know where we are with clarity from the Government, particularly as the 2 Members are founding members of the Government party.  We need to have some consistency of what is happening.  If we are doing it genuinely and put our children first we need to allocate sites like this for a school.  We need to allocate other sites in the town for a school.  I mention the waterfront development again, where there will be up to 600 children living there and no school plan B.  What I would suggest that the Minister for the Environment changes the regulations for all of these planning estates and development to say there must be account of where these children will go to school because at the moment that is not being considered in the rush for cash, in the rush for a quick profit that is lost completely.  Yet again we then are left with a well-meaning and well-balanced intention about bringing this proposition that tries to allocate the site, goes through numerous amendments of amendments of amendment of amendments of amendments, where what is happening is the decision has already been made.  We want this transparency.  Perhaps someone from Government can come and decide and let the Assembly know right now whether they have decided that this would already go to the police and fire and ambulance and, if so, why are we debating this?  I am quite happy to answer please for clarification.