STATES OF JERSEY

OFFICIAL REPORT

WEDNESDAY, 6th JULY 2011

PUBLIC BUSINESS - Resumption

Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville:

Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:

Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement:

Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:

Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:

Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary:

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

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

The Connétable of St. Mary:

Deputy M. Tadier:

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

The Deputy of Grouville:

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

1. Draft Control of Housing and Work (Jersey) Law 201- (P.37/2011): amendment (P.37/2011 Amd.) – amendment (P.37/2011 Amd.Amd.) - resumption

1.1 Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen:

1.1.1 Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

1.1.2 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

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

1.1.4 Connétable G.F. Butcher of St. John:

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

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

1.1.7 Senator A. Breckon:

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

1.1.9 The Connétable of St. John:

1.1.10 The Deputy of St. Mary:

1.1.11 Senator P.F. Routier:

1.1.12 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

2. Draft Control of Housing and Work (Jersey) Law 201- (P.37/2011): amendment (P.37/2011 Amd.) - resumption

2.1 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

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

2.1.2 The Deputy of St. John:

2.1.3 Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

2.1.4 Deputy A.E. Jeune:

2.1.5 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

2.1.6 Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement:

2.1.7 Deputy D.J. De Sousa of St. Helier:

2.1.8 Deputy T.A. Vallois:

2.1.9 Deputy S. Power:

3. Draft Control of Housing and Work (Jersey) Law 201- (P.37/2011)

3.1 Senator P.F. Routier (Assistant Minister for Economic Development - rapporteur):

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

3.1.2 Deputy G.P. Southern:

3.1.3 Senator A. Breckon:

3.1.4 Deputy A.E. Jeune:

3.1.5 Deputy M. Tadier:

3.1.6 Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville:

3.1.7 Deputy M. Tadier:

3.1.8 Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen:

3.1.9 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

3.1.10 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

3.1.11 Deputy D.J. De Sousa of St. Helier:

3.1.12 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

3.1.13 Senator J.L. Perchard:

3.1.14 Senator P.F. Routier:

3.2 Senator P.F. Routier (Assistant Minister for Economic Development - rapporteur):

3.2.1 Deputy S. Power:

3.2.2 Senator P.F. Routier:

3.2.3 Mr. H. Sharp, H.M. Solicitor General:

3.2.4 Deputy S. Power:

3.2.5 The Solicitor General:

3.2.6 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

3.2.7 The Solicitor General:

3.2.8 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

3.2.9 The Solicitor General:

3.2.10 Senator P.F. Routier:

3.2.11 Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

3.2.12 Deputy S. Power:

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT

3.2.13 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

3.2.14 Senator P.F. Routier:

3.3 Senator P.F. Routier (Assistant Minister for Economic Development - rapporteur):

3.4 Senator P.F. Routier (Assistant Minister for Economic Development - rapporteur):

3.4.1 Deputy T.A. Vallois:

3.4.2 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

3.4.3 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

3.4.4 Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

3.4.5 The Deputy of St. John:

3.4.6 Senator P.F. Routier:

3.4.7 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

3.4.8 Senator P.F. Routier:

3.4.9 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

3.4.10 Senator P.F. Routier:

3.4.11 The Deputy of St. John:

3.4.12 Senator P.F. Routier:

3.4.13 The Deputy of St. John:

3.4.14 Senator P.F. Routier:

3.4.15 Deputy M. Tadier:

3.4.16 The Solicitor General:

3.4.17 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

3.4.18 The Solicitor General:

3.4.19 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

3.4.20 The Solicitor General:

3.4.21 The Deputy of St. John:

3.4.22 The Solicitor General:

3.4.23 The Connétable of St. Mary:

3.4.24 The Solicitor General:

3.5 Senator P.F. Routier (Assistant Minister for Economic Development - rapporteur):

3.5.1 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

3.5.2 Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

3.5.3 Senator P.F. Routier:

3.6 Senator P.F. Routier (Assistant Minister for Economic Development - rapporteur):

3.6.1 Senator T.J. Le Main:

3.6.2 Deputy M. Tadier:

3.6.3 Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

3.6.4 Senator P.F. Routier:

3.7 Senator P.F. Routier (Assistant Minister for Economic Development - rapporteur):

3.8 Senator P.F. Routier (Assistant Minister for Economic Development - rapporteur):

3.8.1 Deputy A. E. Jeune:

3.8.2 Senator P.F. Routier:

3.9 Senator P.F. Routier (Assistant Minister for Economic Development - rapporteur):

3.9.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

3.9.2 Deputy T.A. Vallois:

3.9.3 Deputy D.J. De Sousa:

3.9.4 Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

3.9.5 The Deputy of St. Mary:

3.9.6 Senator P.F. Routier:

3.10 Senator P.F. Routier (Assistant Minister for Economic Development - rapporteur):

3.10.1 Deputy A.E. Jeune:

3.10.2 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

3.10.3 Deputy S. Power:

3.10.4 Senator P.F. Routier:

3.10.5 The Solicitor General:

3.11 Senator P.F. Routier (Assistant Minister for Economic Development - rapporteur):

3.11.1 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

3.11.2 The Deputy of Grouville:

3.11.3 Deputy D.J. De Sousa:

3.11.4 Deputy T. M. Pitman:

3.11.5 Senator T.J. Le Main:

3.11.6 The Deputy of St. Mary:

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

3.11.8 Senator P.F. Routier:

4. Draft Register of Names and Addresses (Jersey) Law 201- (P.38/2011)

4.1.1 Senator P.F. Routier (Assistant Minister for Economic Development - rapporteur):

4.1.2 Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

4.1.3 Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity:

4.1.4 The Deputy of St. John:

4.1.5 The Deputy of St. Mary:

4.1.6 Deputy A.K.F. Green:

4.1.7 Deputy T.A. Vallois:

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

4.1.9 Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:

4.1.10 Deputy M. Tadier:

4.1.11 Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

4.1.12 Senator P.F. Routier:

5. Draft Register of Names and Addresses (Jersey) Law 201- (P.38/2011): amendment (P.38/2011 Amd.) – comments (P.38/2011 Amd.Com.)

6. Draft Register of Names and Addresses (Jersey) Law 201- as amended (P.38/2011)

6.1.1 Senator P.F. Routier (Assistant Minister for Economic Development - rapporteur):

6.1.2 Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

6.1.3 Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

6.1.4 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

6.1.5 The Solicitor General:

6.1.6 Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

6.1.7 Senator P.F. Routier:

6.2 Senator P.F. Routier (Assistant Minister for Economic Development - rapporteur):

6.2.1 The Deputy of St. Mary:

6.2.2 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

6.2.3 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

6.2.4 Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

6.2.5 Senator P.F. Routier:

6.3 Senator P.F. Routier (Assistant Minister for Economic Development - rapporteur):

6.3.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

7. Composition of the States: further debates before the outcome of the Electoral Commission (P.78/2011)

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

7.1.2 The Deputy of Grouville:

7.1.3 Deputy D.J. De Sousa:

7.1.4 Deputy A.E. Jeune:

7.1.5 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

7.1.6 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

7.1.7 Deputy K.C. Lewis:

7.1.8 Senator J.L. Perchard:

7.1.9 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

ADJOURNMENT

[9:32]

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

PUBLIC BUSINESS - Resumption

Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville:

Might I ask the Assembly if they would consider bringing my proposition up in the Order Paper?  Before people frown and discard the request, I have had it brought to my attention that the Privy Council will be meeting on 13th July, that is next week, and I do not want them ... I think it would be a very bad state of affairs for Jersey to put them into a position to decide for this Assembly one way or another whether they grant Royal Assent or not because it is on the Order Paper.  So I think that we ought to debate this and have it decided one way or another.  I would like to test the mood of the Assembly to see if it is.

The Bailiff:

What are you proposing?

The Deputy of Grouville:

I am proposing that we take it after the Names and Addresses, P.38.

Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:

We had this vote last session and I totally object.  This would completely ruin my own proposition, so I do think that is really unfair.  I lodged it many weeks before and this is the type of navel-gazing that the people want us to get away from.

The Bailiff:

Is the proposition seconded?  [Seconded]

Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement:

Perhaps I could go so far as to say I suspect there are many Members who would support Deputy Pitman’s proposition after this session is over.  The decision that the Deputy of Grouville is asking us to make must be made as soon as possible so that it can be then certain, once and for all, and then we can support Deputy Pitman and say that is it put to bed, until the Electoral Commission has made its finding.

Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:

I must say I object to this.  This House has made a decision on 3 occasions on this matter and we keep on being jockeyed, trying to bring it again forward.  The Privy Council, they should be considering what was put to them by this House.  We should not change the order just to suit the Deputy.

Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:

It seems to me if the Privy Council are meeting on the 13th then they would want to know what the latest thoughts are of the States Assembly on this issue.  Also I would encourage Members who perhaps do not agree with the Deputy of Grouville’s stance to make their own representations directly to the Privy Council, as a very small minority of Islanders have been doing, so that the Island’s view will not be misrepresented.

Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary:

I do not know if I am able to amend the Deputy of Grouville’s proposition.  Certainly what she says, we do need to make a decision, we need to make it soon, but if the only objections are the fact that it would jump ahead of Deputy Pitman’s proposition, which we already know is advisory and does not bind, why not move Deputy Pitman’s up and then the Deputy of Grouville’s immediately after?

The Bailiff:

At the moment we have a proposition from the Deputy that hers should go first followed by Deputy Pitman.

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Just a comment to Members; the Jersey Harbours and Airport Shadow Board: terms of reference have been moved on several occasions.  [Laughter]  It was due to be heard next.  All I would say is I am very happy for it to drop down to accommodate the Deputy.  It is not a problem from my point of view.  I am sure Members would be accommodating of it moving yet again just by a space or 2.

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

Just a comment, we always seem to get into this pickle from time to time.  I would support, ahead of P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee), in that if this matter is to be urgent then they should be both brought up and debated in the order they were lodged.  That would seem to be procedurally the right way.  The alternative would surely be for the people who have got amendments before them to withdraw them or postpone them, and that would also solve the problem

The Bailiff:

Very well, the matter before the Assembly is the proposition of the Deputy of Grouville that P.99 be moved up the list by about 3, so that it will be heard after P.38 and before P.47.  Those in favour will vote pour, those against will vote contre.  Is the appel called for?  The Greffier will open the voting for the appel. 

The Connétable of St. Mary:

May I make another proposition, maybe move Deputy Pitman’s up the Order Paper too, above the Deputy of Grouville, Sir, simply to maintain the order?  Simply out of procedural practice this vote was had at the last Assembly and the Assembly voted not to jump one over the other.

The Bailiff:

The States have just voted to put P.99 immediately after P.38, I do not think we can now vote for another one up there.

Deputy M. Tadier:

I do not think that was the understanding of Members though.  It may be Members’ fault but it seemed ... I think most Members, from what I can gather, would like to debate Deputy Pitman’s first and then the Deputy of Grouville.

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

Can I move a proposition that P.78 be taken before P.38?

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

We cannot have ex-States Members running the ...

The Bailiff:

It is a matter for Members.  Is somebody proposing now that Deputy Pitman’s be taken after the Register of Names Bill but before the Deputy of Grouville’s?  Deputy Le Hérissier, what exactly was your proposition?  When do you want Deputy Pitman’s proposition to be held?

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

My overall aim is that because of the logic involved that Deputy Pitman’s precedes the Deputy of Grouville’s.

The Bailiff:

Are you happy to do it after P.38, which is the Register of Names and Addresses?

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Yes, Sir, I am, if that is procedurally possible.

The Bailiff:

It is a matter entirely for Members, so that proposition is put.

Senator J.L. Perchard:

Sorry, to interrupt, could I ask for a ruling from the Chair, would Deputy Pitman’s proposition fall away if the Deputy of Grouville’s proposition were debated and be successful?

[9:45]

The Bailiff:

Not at all, no.  What the Chair said previously was first of all clearly Deputy Pitman’s would not fall away if the Deputy of Grouville’s is heard first and passed.  Similarly, if it is in reverse, the passing of Deputy Pitman’s does not prevent the Deputy of Grouville’s being debated.  It is a matter then for Members.

The Deputy of Grouville:

Could I just make an observation on what you have just said.  The reason why I asked for mine, I have had nothing to do with the Privy Council and I want to make that perfectly clear.  I have used our system to have something debated that I feel quite strongly about, and I have not asked for Standing Orders to be lifted, to have it voted sooner.  I have gone through our procedures here.  All I am asking today is so that we do not put ourselves in an embarrassing position ... we are a deliberating Chamber, this is what we do here.  We have debated G.S.T. (Goods and Services Tax) exemptions, other things, several times.  I do not see what the difference is.  But today I am asking if my proposition could be taken because we will put Privy Council in a difficult position, and they may have to make a decision for us, and that to my mind is not right.  It is not right.  It does not make any difference to Deputy Pitman’s proposition, whether it is taken before or after.  Indeed I am very minded to vote for his proposition, so that makes no difference, but mine it does with Privy Council, and that is all I am asking.

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

Can I just throw some balance on this?  The Privy Council were approached by some members of the public.  We are not putting Privy Council in an embarrassing situation.  The States of Jersey has deliberated.  The States of Jersey has progressed and asked in advance the Privy Council to approve the law.  If we continue to abide by our previous decision and the Privy Council overrules us because it believes, in its infinite wisdom, the petition before them is of greater significance than this Assembly’s decisions then there needs to be a decision about how we pass laws because we certainly should not be held to a position where unelected people in a foreign jurisdiction can hold such sway over a directly-elected Assembly.  To put people in an embarrassing situation, whether I support either of these positions, I think we need to be quite clear.  We were advised quite strongly by the former Bailiff that we should not put matters before the Privy Council because it is not in our best interests for the United Kingdom Government to be deciding what Jersey should be doing.  [Approbation]

The Bailiff:

Can I, from the Chair … I think it is proper for the Chair to make a comment here because I regard it as one of my duties to uphold this Assembly’s position.  It seems to me that the best thing for this Assembly is, one way or another, to reach a decision on the proposition of the Deputy of Grouville.  If it is passed then the position is clear, it will be withdrawn.  If, on the other hand, the States reaffirm their previous decision that will send an extraordinarily powerful message and I would be surprised if the Privy Council would go against the stated wishes of our democratic Assembly and if they were to it would certainly cause a tremendous constitutional ripple.  If I may, from the Chair, it seems to me that for this Assembly as a whole best interests are served in making a decision and telling the Privy Council what that decision is in the expectation the Privy Council should go along with the wishes of this democratically-elected Assembly.  [Approbation]

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

After my proposition; it has been lodged 3 weeks before, Sir, otherwise it makes a mockery of Standing Orders.  This is going to happen all the time, and I do think I have the right to speak.

The Bailiff:

Sorry, I could not hear what you said with the ...

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I said this makes a mockery of Standing Orders.  What is 2 hours, perhaps, going to make a difference.  This is jockeying.  The proposer has been in touch with the person in the Privy Council, she was on the phone the very day that it was lodged.

The Bailiff:

Can we just be clear then?  At the moment the position is that the Deputy of Grouville is to be heard after P.38 but now Deputy Le Hérissier has proposed that Deputy Pitman’s should be heard after P.38 and before the Deputy of Grouville.  [Seconded]  Does any Member wish to speak very briefly on that?  It is a matter for Members.

Deputy M. Tadier:

I do have a question but it is a matter of more general nature, which I would like to ask after the vote.

The Bailiff:

Is the appel called for then?  The appel is called for as to whether to take Deputy Pitman’s before the Deputy of Grouville’s.  If you want to you vote pour, if you do not you vote contre, and the Greffier will open the voting.  If all Members have had an opportunity of voting, the Greffier will close the voting. 

The Bailiff:

That is the decision of the Assembly, so now we will return to ... sorry, Deputy Tadier, did you say you wanted to raise something?

Deputy M. Tadier:

It would be interesting if that is the actual vote after the 3 days of debate or however long it takes to re-debate the Senator’s.  My question is, it seems to me that if any member of the public or more than one member of the public who disagree with any decision the States have made are able to go to the Privy Council simply because they disagree with it, and then if we have to re-debate that same proposition because we do not want to put the Privy Council in an invidious position then what is to stop any member of the public doing that on anything that they do not agree with?  Could that happen on any other issue, because it seems to set a dangerous precedent?

The Bailiff:

The fact that there has been a petition has nothing to do with re-debating it; that is a matter for a Member.  There has long been a right for people to petition against Royal sanction.  It is always considered by the Privy Council.  I am not sure that it has ever been successful because, of course, it is the democratic will, which the Privy Council should respect.  But nevertheless there is an individual right of petition and that does exist at present.

Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade:

Is there not a conflict that the person petitioning the Privy Council is also going to be a candidate for Senator?

The Bailiff:

We are not going to get into it.  It is not for me to comment upon the [Laughter] actions of somebody who is not even a Member.

Deputy S. Power:

Sorry, it was a rhetorical question.

The Bailiff:

Rhetorical questions do not necessarily need to be raised as we try to press on.  Senator Le Gresley, do you have some particular point you wanted to raise?

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

I just wanted to speak on the ...

The Bailiff:

You wanted to speak in the ...

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

Yes, Sir.  [Laughter]

1. Draft Control of Housing and Work (Jersey) Law 201- (P.37/2011): amendment (P.37/2011 Amd.) – amendment (P.37/2011 Amd.Amd.) - resumption

The Bailiff:

Very well, so we now return to the debate upon the amendment lodged by the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel.  I had in fact seen the Deputy of St. Ouen next, and then Senator Le Gresley.

1.1 Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen:

The question that has been raised by this amendment and indeed in other ones is in fact who should be responsible for the law, and I would like to make a number of observations.  In the comments presented by the Chief Minister on page 2, we are told that in 2005 this Assembly overwhelmingly approved a proposition directing that the Chief Minister should be responsible.  We were also told what the reasons were, and the reasons were that decisions should not be directed by any single need alone, whether the economy, housing or any other matter, rather the balanced needs of the Island as a whole should prevail.  The report then goes on to suggest that it is best done by the Chief Minister as elected by the Assembly on the basis that he or she will have to follow the States immigration and population targets as set by the Strategic Plan, indeed it is one of the functions of the Assembly to hold the Chief Minister to account.  I would like to draw Members’ attention to the States of Jersey Law and the functions of the Chief Minister, and indeed the Council of Ministers in providing the sufficient checks and balances that we as an Assembly seek to achieve.  Indeed, the function of the Chief Minister includes co-ordinating through the Council of Ministers, the discharge of the common functions described in paragraph 2, which are the functions of the Council of Ministers, and furthermore conducting external relations in accordance with the common policy agreed by the Council of Ministers.  So that is the point: that the common strategic policy is indeed the Council of Ministers common strategic policy, which is adopted by this Assembly, although it is absolutely right that the Chief Minister, as one of the Members of the Council of Ministers, takes responsibility for it.  So the functions of the Council of Ministers, and it is good that we remind ourselves of what those are, it is to co-ordinate the policies and administration which they are individually responsible for as Ministers, discussing and agreeing policy which affects 2 or more of them.  That is the point, that this migration policy does include a number of different elements.  It does include housing matters.  It does include economic matters.  It does include matters that will affect social security.  I believe that the relevant checks and balances are already in place, ascribed in the States of Jersey Law that holds not only the Chief Minister to account, but equally the Council of Ministers to account as they oversee and monitor and progress policy that has been agreed by this Assembly.  The question is, why should the Chief Minister, in this particular case, be directly responsible for this law when … and following 2005, we have demonstrated and implemented the new ministerial form of government, where we have set up a number of different groups to oversee a number of policies that interact with different departments.  One is the Children’s Policy Group where we have 3 Ministers that are held responsible to the Council of Ministers for overseeing all matters to do with children and young people that goes way beyond just Education matters, Social Services matters and others.  Indeed, that particular group is already speaking and including the Minister for Social Security and the Minister for Housing in their deliberations as they pursue and promote the policies that will be and have been agreed by this Assembly.  Also, we have an income support scheme that certainly is not just the responsibility of one department, and impacts on others.  Yes, we have a Minister that is directly responsible for it because he is indeed the main individual that is responsible for implementing and overseeing that particular policy.  I also question whether it should be the Minister for Social Security or, indeed, the Minister for Housing.  I think that that is ultimately a decision which rests with this Assembly, but I firmly believe, for one, that we do have sufficient checks and balances in place that does not mean that the Chief Minister has to take responsibility for everything or any particular policy that it will impact on other ... and will include necessarily other departments.  Furthermore, I am equally uncomfortable with the fact that the law suggests that an Assistant Minister will chair a particular advisory group.  It is right that responsibility needs to be taken for the advisory group, but let us remind ourselves that Assistant Ministers do not have any powers.  It is the Minister and Ministers that are ultimately responsible and will be held to account, and it is fine and okay that a particular Minister will choose to delegate responsibilities but ultimately he is the individual responsible, so why complicate matters further?  I think that it is unnecessary, now that the policy and the laws are in place that the Chief Minister takes and retains direct responsibility for this law, and I would ask the States Members to consider the comments I have made as they determine the outcome of this particular debate.

[10:00]

1.1.1 Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

I must admit when I was listening to the last speaker I thought he was going to say he was in favour of the Chief Minister, but at the end I realised he was not going to say that.  Last night we heard from 3 job applicants.  We heard from the Minister for Social Security, the Minister for Housing and also the Chief Minister, who all want to have responsibility for the Control of Housing and Work (Jersey) Law; most unusual situation, I would have thought, where 3 people are bidding for the same role.  In my opinion, the best applicant for the job was the Minister for Social Security.  His speech was the most convincing.  It just happens that when I received the amendment of Deputy Power I wrote alongside it: “Minister for Social Security would be better.”  So obviously I was hoping that the Minister for Social Security would convince me all the more that that is the right way to go.  The reason I say that, is that we have to remember the history of how the Minister for Social Security is responsible really for employment on this Island and we go back to, as far as I can recall, when the Industrial Relations Committee of the day was responsible for employment matters, and when that committee disappeared it became the Employment and Social Security Committee, and from that committee developed, under ministerial government, the Social Security Department under the current Minister.  That department and that Minister has responsibility for the employment law, for the employment services and his departments.  He also works obviously in conjunction with Education and Economic Development Department, so I think personally that he has very much hands-on involvement in employment in Jersey.  What is particularly important, I believe, is that the speech of the Minister for Housing seemed to emphasise that there was a big role here for his department; but if we agree this new law the role of Housing will diminish significantly because everybody will be given a card when they arrive and they will just be dealing with landlords or with property agents or estate agents.  The Housing Department will not get involved, as I see it, other than perhaps for the exceptional cases, the 1(1)(k)s and the hardship cases.  So I really do not see that although this is called Housing and Work (Jersey) Law it really should be flipped over and it should be Work and Housing (Jersey) Law because work is the main reason that we need this law to replace the 3 pieces of legislation that will be repealed.  So basically I am convinced by the speech from the Minister for Social Security and I would also endorse what Deputy De Sousa said yesterday: whenever you put something like this into place you should always think of the end-user rather than what we think is best.  I believe that newcomers to the Island would go to the Social Security Department, quite logically, to collect their registration card; to deal with any matters about social security.  The department will have control of all these matters and it seems perfectly logical for that Minister to have supervision of this law.  The final point I would like to make is surely the role of the Chief Minister is to delegate wherever possible.  As the Deputy of St. Ouen has just said, this is exactly what we want him to do; now that we have this law ready to go and when it comes into force surely a new Chief Minister would want to delegate this to one of his Ministers.  After all, he delegates the control of the finances of the Island to the Minister for Treasury and Resources, which are equally as important, in my opinion, as dealing with immigration.  Thank you.

1.1.2 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

Just briefly, again I am happy to follow the previous speaker in terms of 3 job applicants, I thought that was a great analogy.  But it occurred to me that I wanted to address a couple of comments that were made yesterday because I was trying to square them into the debate.  I know one comment was made that it implied that we were desperately trying to change things; but all this debate is about is the law says Minister X is going to be responsible and what the amendments are is that Ministers Y and Z should be responsible.  There is no actual change in the law; it is purely the person who is going to be doing it.  So I could not see why this was not a matter for the Assembly to be debating and it seemed to be implied that it was not quite the case.  Deputy Power argued in his comments, and I agree with his aspect which was about the parishes and the constables in relation to the income support and the in depth knowledge they had, the difficulty I had is I could not make that leap for Housing and Migration.  So I agree with him entirely on the views of the in-depth knowledge of the constables and income support, or welfare in those days; but I could not quite make that leap to Housing having the necessarily in-depth knowledge of migration that Social Security, for example, would not achieve as well or would not have because of their very detailed records that they have.  Indeed, Deputy Green, if I understood it correctly, on the one hand said this was not the time to be changing Ministers and then, having said that, it should not be sitting in the Chief Ministers Department; so there was kind of an incongruity between the 2 statements.  What did focus my mind (and again one has to be very careful that this is not about personalities, this is something for the longer term) was the comments from the Chief Minister; and all they say is that: “In future the Social Security Department will be registering new arrivals, issuing registration cards and deregistering leavers on behalf of the Population Office.  There will also continue to be high levels of co-ordination to ensure ...” and it goes on about locally qualified people and unemployed people and things like work and training.  It does put a “however” in there, it says: “Not all responsibilities will overlap.”  But it seems to me that of a sort of 3 paragraph comment at least half of one paragraph is devoted to Social Security which then seems to me to sort of again, depending which way you want to look, enforce the argument for putting it into the Social Security Department.  So just where I am on this, I will support shifting it to Social Security, I think that seems to be a logical conclusion.  I would have to say if that amendment does not work then I will go for the status quo and leave it where is, or propose it to be in the Chief Minister, because it seems odd that if Housing are going to be restructuring we should not be putting it into a department that is trying to restructure and potentially reduce its size.  But my major preference would be for it to go to Social Security and on that basis I will support this amendment and will go from there.

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

As has been said by previous speakers, Social Security has been working in an advisory capacity with the Migration Advisory Group.  I must say I believe we have worked very well together and I would expect that wherever the responsibility for the population office is that collaborative work would continue.  However, like my Minister, Deputy Gorst, following attendance at the Scrutiny Panel recently I gave what I realised was a second serious thought as to where this responsibility is best placed; and recall that when I first read this report I believed Social Security was the right place.  But one additional thought in respect of the Scrutiny Panel’s report is they made reference to having a photograph on the card; and given that so many of the cards we have today hold a photograph - just think of your driving licence, for example - I seriously think that would be worth considering and going back to the point I will be voting for this to go with Social Security.

1.1.4 Connétable G.F. Butcher of St. John:

I intend to give my support to this law wherever it ends up, if it stays with the Chief Minister.  I am not doing that on the basis that I think this law is the best thing since sliced bread because I certainly think that it can be improved and tightened up on.  So since becoming Assistant Minister for Housing I have been sitting on the Migratory Advisory Panel and have been amazed at how many J-cat applications have come forward from States departments fully expecting a rubber stamp.  Certainly that has not been happening, it has been mentioned in the Scrutiny report under Deputy Green; and it was exactly the same under Deputy Power, a lot of these things were sent back for further investigation.  So the whole system there is tightening up.  The Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel seem to have made their decision to amend Deputy Power’s amendment largely on the basis of the Housing Department’s transformation programme coming through; and I think there is a feeling that there will not be a need for a Minister for Housing.  I do not believe for one moment that this Assembly, or indeed the public, will tolerate not having a Minister for Housing in this Assembly.  It has been mentioned on a number of occasions that the Chief Minister should have an overarching responsibility for the law.  In my view it is more that he wants an overarching control, that it is required by the Chief Minister’s Department; after all, the Chief Minister’s Department has the responsibility for all staffing in the public sector, many of which are Js.  Therefore, the Chief Minister may be conflicted in this.  I have got great concerns over where the responsibility will sit for this law; should it be Chief Minister, Minister for Housing or Minister for Social Security?  I am 100 per cent convinced that it should remain with Housing and working closely with the Social Security Department, as we do now.  I would urge Members to reject this amendment and support Deputy Power’s amendment.

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

Well, have we not got ourselves in a bit of a pickle with this?  I have a bit of an issue with putting it to the Minister for Social Security; I have an issue with putting it to the Minister for Housing, but then I have an issue with putting it with the Chief Minister.  I think that is purely not because of personalities, if we just take the whole personality issue out of this and look at the roles.  The problem that we have is the set up we have of the States, is the way the ministerial Government is going at the moment and the fact that the Chief Minister does not have any power of his Ministers.  It has come from that point of view where there is an issue.  I have a problem with it sitting with Social Security because although it would be nice to have the Employment Law fully enforced through that it is biased because it does not take into accounting all the licensing laws and the economic development.  I could not support Housing because Housing would be fully endorsed et cetera; but we are taking away 3 separate laws and putting it all into one and we are requiring a coordination of Ministers to work together.  In order to do that … and I think people will find in the actual law itself, Article 48, there is a requirement by law to have a Housing and Work Advisory Group.  So legally the Ministers are to work together and there is an opportunity for the Chief Minister (if it is the Chief Minister, or Minister for Housing or Minister for Social Security, whoever it may be) to appoint other Members of the States on to that group.  It is a legal requirement.  Not like the Migration Advisory Group at the moment which is just a group that is set up to bring this law together.  I think things do need to be tightened in the Chief Minister’s Department to ensure that this law is complied with fully.  I do not particularly agree with an Assistant Minister taking responsibility for this legislation; especially the current Assistant Minister who is proposing this because he is an Assistant Minister for Economic Development, which shows some form of bias.  If we are looking at the Chief Minister’s Department as a way of co-ordinating all areas it should be somebody that is not in another department and it should be purely from the Chief Minister’s Department to ensure that the Chief Minister carries out this Assembly’s strategic policy of meeting the heads of households and the population policy that we all agree.  So in that case at the moment I am more towards the Chief Minister’s Department on the basis that things are tightened up.

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

Just briefly; the clue clearly to this is in the title “Control of housing and work”, quite simply, the 2 key elements as far as the economy is concerned and feed very much into the success of the economy in the Island. 

[10:15]

Obviously what we are debating here is who we should give the key to the henhouse to, in many respects.  Listening yesterday to Deputy Power’s comments I think he very much favoured the fox having the key to the henhouse; I am not sure that is entirely the correct way.  Indeed I would say that Deputy Gorst made a very powerful and passionate speech yesterday about why Social Security should perhaps have the key.  But I thought it was interesting in his speech that he emphasised in particular the importance of jobs and the importance of young people getting into work and of course he is absolutely right.  Members, I am sure, would fully support as I do everything that Deputy Gorst said, but in the same way it emphasised to me exactly the reason why a future Minister for Social Security should not have the key because indeed it is putting that responsibility into one focused area.  A very important responsibility it may well be, but there is too much responsibility on one particular Minister as far as decision-making is concerned.  Now, Members might be surprised that there was not a third amendment brought, one from the Minister for Economic Development who would suggest that indeed he should be the one holding the keys to the henhouse.  I trust that Members will appreciate that I chose not to bring such an amendment forward, or indeed to encourage anybody else to do so on my behalf.  Of course, it was a realistic consideration in many respects; what it would have guaranteed is that the foot would have been very much on the accelerator of economic growth should indeed all the controls have been with my department.  But at what price?  I think, to be fair, Members in the past have debated these issues and have realised that to put such controls in a focused way in one department is not right for the Island; it does indeed have unintended consequences that are not acceptable on the wider sphere.  So I do not think that Housing or Social Security ... what I believe is that neither should be supported, that both these amendments should be rejected, however important they are, and they will feed into what we have been discussing.  But, nevertheless, we are looking for a long-term and balanced solution and we should not forget that there has been extensive consultation on this matter.  A great deal of consideration has been given to it and indeed this Assembly has voted on the matter in the past; back in 2005 overwhelming supporting the principle that the Chief Minister’s Department should have overriding responsibility.  The vote at that stage was something like 32 to 8.  Members opined on the matter and to give the balance and to ensure that there was third party impartiality, it is right in my view that the Chief Minister’s Department should be the place where this resides and hence the reason that the proposition is put in the way that it is.  There are good examples; I think M.A.G. (Migratory Advisory Panel) has worked quite well.  I think there is room improvement, one or 2 Members have picked up on this; Deputy Vallois made some valid points a moment ago, Deputy Power yesterday raised some concerns he had had in the past with M.A.G.  I accept that M.A.G. has room for improvement but, nevertheless, it is not bust in any shape or form; there are ways in which it can be a reformed and improved to deliver what I believe the Assembly requires it to do.  There are of course other areas that we can draw on departments working effectively and in a coherent manner together; the skills executive I believe is one, although I would equally say there, there is room for improvement; in fact we are discussing at the moment how the skills executive can move on to another level.  But the departments, in principle, do work well together but there is always room to make the processes even more effective.  This really is what the key is; my believe is the Chief Minister’s Department is the right place but I think we need to get the processes correctly refined to make sure that it works in the future under this new law, which I have no doubt that Members are going to support overwhelming.  It is a step in the right direction; we do not need to get into the detail at this particular stage.  So I would urge Members to reject this amendment and the Housing amendment; revert back to the main proposition.  All the consultation has been undertaken, it is the right independent third party of the Chief Minister’s Department that should have oversight and I hope Members will support that position.

Deputy A.E. Jeune:

May I just ask a point of clarity from the last speaker because it did concern me?  Would the Minister not accept that it is the responsibility of all Members, not just a Minister for Social Security being biased, when it comes to ensuring that we have our resident population employed? 

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I think that is more of a question and I do not think I used the word “biased” either.

1.1.7 Senator A. Breckon:

I will not to stray into the amendment or to the proposition, but it is not that easy.

The Bailiff:

I think, Senator, clearly the way this debate is going, because the Assembly is faced with 3 alternatives and certainly the main debate, it seems to me, is taking place now and any subsequent debates should be free(?).

Senator A. Breckon:

We have an unusual situation; that is, that we have 3 candidates for a job and the usual format that we have is 2 of them would be locked away while the other one is speaking and questioned but we do not have that.  Then we are going to have some second past-the-post voting system where we vote for one thing and another, but what we vote for might not be for what we want in the first instance and then we do it in the second.  Now, what I would like to do is relate something that happened: the first Chief Minister said that with Scrutiny panels, although it was not his direct responsibility (and this instance I have in mind Health, Housing and Social Security) he would attend upon them in a public hearing and answer questions as best he could about really the joined-up government.  The present Chief Minister went somewhat in the same way; his first response is: “I do not know what I am doing here because this stuff has nothing to do with me, really, I have got people who do this thing and it is not me.”  So we said: “Well maybe we should look at employment, unemployment, youth training, elderly care, health care, which Ministers are working together.”  He said: “Well really that is their responsibility.”  So I am not sure where this lies there and the concern that some people have had for a number of years is about the “go for growth” and who then, as the Minister for Economic Development just mentioned as: “Put your foot on the accelerator.”  The question then is: where are the checks and the balances between doing that and being fair to the existing population?  The other thing that a number of Members have mentioned is the Minister for Housing will not be there for ever more but somebody has to be responsible for law and regulation; we are still going to have things that people need to comply with and somebody is still going to need to be accountable - maybe at arm’s length - for the properties we own, States rental properties.  That is probably something we need to do, we need to build that in so that somebody is accountable for that.  So there will be still responsibilities for that.  The other thing that the Constable of St. John has just mentioned about his experience and that of Deputy Power quite recently was the pressure that is put on to the Minister for Housing.  The message I was getting there was that they were able, to some extent, to step back from that and look at the housing aspect and soak up some of that pressure and make informed decisions; even perhaps to States departments who were saying: “We must have, we must have, we must have.”  So the question is: who is best placed to do that, whether it is Housing, whether it is Social Security or whether it is the Chief Minister.  But then under this law, something that the Chief Minister might have the powers to do, but there again where is the crossover with the other responsibilities of Social Security and Housing.  I hope I am not confusing Members but I think there is some confusion there about where this will sit.  The other thing that Members have mentioned is the Population Office and where that sits under this system, and it needs to have a degree of independence but also a degree of transparency so that people who do have something to go before them are confident that what happens is based on evidence and fact and the outcome and not because somebody knows somebody.  Now, that is always difficult when that happens but then people have their stories about that.  So the whole thing needs balance.  I am not convinced it lies with the Chief Minister’s Department, or the Chief Minister at all; so it is with one of the other and at the moment I am swaying with the Minister for Housing unless somebody can convince me otherwise.  I think Social Security have got enough on their plate although, as somebody mentioned, at the moment it is a good point of contact because if somebody comes to the Island, if they are seeking work or they need the documentation that enables them to do that then that is where they are; they are in La Motte Street.  They would not necessarily do that with Housing and we must be careful that if we are going to put this system in place we do not leave too many gaps where if we want to have this system then people comply with it and it happens.  But Social Security, I think, would be effective but I think Housing for me is the better backstop, as it were, to do this.  So for that reason I will be voting against the amendment to the amendment for the amendment.

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

I have been listening to this debate and what appears to me is that each of the 3 options, if you like, are kind of almost sectional.  If it goes to the Minister for Housing then the assumption is that somehow that person, with or without advisers, will prioritise the question of where to live and have we got enough stock and so on and so on and so on.  If it lives with E.D. (Economic Development) which in fact at the moment there is a very strong influence from Economic Development, then the emphasis is on jobs and growth and so on.  It seems to me that if we are talking about letting people into the Island or controlling the in and out, the flow of people in and out, what we are really talking about is the community, the whole community; who are the people who are going to make up our community and what are the implications of thinking like that?  When you think of the word community which is bandied around so often: “We have got a wonderful community and the parish is a community and we all live in a community and there are different communities within a community.”  It is quite a complicated scenario anyway thinking about all the different memberships we have of different groups within society.  But on the big scale we have the ageing population which is a huge issue of how we deal with that; how we value old people properly, how we give them a good life and particularly end of life and so on.  There are all kinds of issues around that, not only cost but if we are thinking in terms of cost then you have got social care, you have got the role of the third sector, you have got how does the community care for the members of the community who need support?  Then, of course, at the other end you have got young people and many times it has been said that really young people lack a champion in this House.  The Minister for Education, fine, he looks after very much education and then the youth service sort of tacked on to that.  But the holistic, the overall promoting youth and E.Y.C.P. (Early Years and Childcare Partnership) have started doing that, the partnership of early years; but to take youth from zero to establishing households ...

1.1.9 The Connétable of St. John:

I wonder if the Deputy would give way just for a moment, sorry to take you off your throw but you just stated ...

The Bailiff:

Through the Chair please, Connétable.

The Connétable of St. John:

Sorry, Sir.  The Deputy just stated that if it sits with E.D.; that is not one of the options, it is Chief Minister, Housing or Social Security.

1.1.10 The Deputy of St. Mary:

I am aware of that; what I said was that the present situation is that E.D. has quite a say because its Regulation of Undertakings and the focus is quite a lot on jobs and one of the criteria is even economic growth and so on.  So I think E.D. has at present a large role and I am questioning whether the emphasis should be in this whole matter sectional; whether the emphasis should be a Housing emphasis or an economic growth emphasis and so on.  I am suggesting that what this is really about is the make up of our community and if you think about it that is what it is about.  It is about which people are going to live here and in fact which people are not; so this is a powerful set of laws and we do have to keep in mind what this is really about and it is about our community.  These other things, sometimes we are led to believe that somehow life is about jobs; it is the other way around.  A job is something that you do which enables you to live a more fulfilled life or a better life and if we saw it like that then clearly one would have different views on different kinds of jobs.  But I am just pointing out that it is about living and life and the quality of life and these other things like jobs and a home and so on, they are very important elements but they are part of a wider package.  What I am coming to is that I have long thought (and it just came to me downstairs, this really connects to this debate) that what this House lacks is a ministry for community.  We have section things: we deal with the housing, we deal with the jobs, we deal with this, we deal with that; but we do not have this feel that there is anyone here representing how are we going to make this work and how can we promote the third sector?

[10:30]

Because that is one of the ways out of our budgetary difficulties, to promote voluntary action or paid action that is outside the States.  So we have to grasp that and we have got no way of ensuring that happens in our present set up.  I know it is another ministry and I know there are problems with that but I still just want to put that in front of Members as a future possibility because it is underrepresented; we do not look at all at what it is really all about.  So I would suggest that ultimately that would be the home for this kind of legislation.  As it is, we do not have a Minister for Community or a ministry for living through the generations or whatever you would want to call it; so then the question for me is what is the nearest option?  Is it Social Security, is it Housing or is it the Chief Minister?  I do have to say that I come down in favour of Social Security because they deal with people through the stages of their lives, they deal with income support, they deal with housing needs, they deal with ageing populations through the elderly care situation and so on; and they are busy grappling with all those issues all the time.  So they are the nearest thing we have got to a government department that looks at the whole picture.  I know it is almost money-based, what do you need in terms of the amount of money to live on, but they do take into account how many children have you got, what about elderly dependants, and so on and so on.  So I think they have a closer connection to the idea of community than any of our other ministries.  So that is the way I think I am going to vote, unless I hear anything to the contrary, but I hope I have helped Members to put a few ideas out there that possibly we should have a wider view at some point in the near future and put our community values in the hands of a ministry so that we could really build our community which is going to be so important in the near and medium term.

1.1.11 Senator P.F. Routier:

This debate has swung 3 ways so it has been obviously a difficult decision for people to settle on what is the best option to go for.  We have heard from the previous Minister for Housing and the current Minister for Housing that it is very clear that to them it is important that we are protecting housing for our local community and that, of course, is right.  They have to do that, that is their focus.  But I know we are not debating housing at the moment, we are debating whether it should be going to Social Security or not and I listened very carefully to my good friend, the Minister for Social Security, and there were 2 telling things that he said.  He opened up by explaining his visit to the Scrutiny Panel Hearing and he gave the impression, I think, that it was a very relaxed and jovial occasion [Laughter] [Aside] and it sounded as if the comment that he made, the responsibility for this possibly going to his department, as just a throw-away comment.  It had not really had a lot of thought [Aside] [Members: Oh!] and it was just something that had … that is the way that it came over in the way that … it was an off-the-cuff remark and it was just unguarded: “Oh, I could do that.”  That is the way it certainly came over.  I think, secondly but importantly, it was the point that Deputy Tadier picked up on yesterday and that was that the Minister has made some very, very strong comments in his speech regarding a desire to look after the interests of young, unemployed people.  That came out very strongly from his speech and, of course, he has to do that.  That is his job, he must do that but this law is wider than that.  It is a lot wider than what the Housing Department needs to do, what the Social Security Department needs to do.  It is wider than that.  People might not like it but it does include the economy as well.  It includes the need to look at licences for business and to decide whether it is right for the economy or not.  So it is not focused in those 2 narrow areas of Social Security and Housing.  Deputy Rondel, and I am sorry he is not here because I was going to apologise to him because yesterday he gave a very passionate speech and he said some things which were a little bit off-beam unfortunately, I am glad the Deputy has come back.  I just want to pick up on one point he made.  He implied that we need to stop people arriving here and turning up at Social Security and getting income support.  We should be giving them a brush to sweep the streets, that we should be going back to that sort of route.  But I think the Deputy has missed the point that income support is not available to anybody unless they have been here 5 years but that is not what was said yesterday.  But I have to say the Deputy of St. John gave a very passionate speech about ensuring young people were able to find jobs and find housing and I can assure the Deputy that this new law will do that.  With the basis of having a lot of the decision making done by the Housing and Work Advisory Group, there will be that cross overview of how that can happen in an appropriate way.  It was the Chief Minister yesterday who made the point, which probably I had not given a lot of focus to, it was about accountability.  Is the Minister for Social Security going to be able to be accountable to Members for perhaps housing matters?  Are we going to haul him over the coals for saying: “There is not sufficient housing for our Island community”?  Are we going to be able to do that?  I am not sure that we would be able to do that.  Are Members going to be able to question the Minister for Housing about Social Security matters?  That is going to be difficult to do.  It is only really the line of accountability for this piece of legislation has got to be through the Strategic Plan.  The Strategic Plan is we set out the population goals for targets which have to be decided by this Assembly and the Chief Minister has the responsibility for that and it is the Chief Minister who is the one we can haul over the coals if that is not followed well.  Deputy Power spoke about the existing close working relationship with the Migration Advisory Group.  It does work well and Deputy Vallois highlighted that as well.  What is being proposed in this legislation is the formalisation of that.  We are going to have a Housing and Work Advisory Group which will include the other Ministers and it can be widened to include even other Members of this House if that is what is wanted.  That is what the legislation will provide for.  So we will have the ability to have the safeguards that all those things that we are really interested in about work and housing matters can be fed into that decision making process when an application is being made.  So following from what the Deputy of St. Mary said about our community, those community-type decisions because of the structure of the Housing and Work Advisory Group, I believe that those considerations can be taken hold of.  The Minister for Social Security spoke about his rottweiler and then I will now talk about the value of Deputy Jeune’s being in the Advisory Group.  She fights her corner for the unemployed, she really does.  She does a marvellous job and she is to be commended for that.  Tenaciously she advises us on the availability of skills for the unemployed and we do make decisions that are based on the information she provides to us.  She does call us to account for that and I think it is really very, very good and that can still happen in this new structure.  The proposed structure in the law places this with the Assistant Chief Minister.  There was a comment that Deputy Vallois said or perhaps it has not been right, well, I currently have 2 positions, Assistant Chief Minister and Assistant Minister for Economic Development.  I believe that, I think I hope the other members of the Migration Advisory Group will verify this, but I certainly have my hat firmly on in the Chief Minister’s neutral position when I am in that Migration Advisory Group and that is too, I have to say, there have been occasions when perhaps the Minister for Economic Development might not have been too happy with some of the decisions we have made because we have been tighter on it because of the concerns of what the Assistant Minister for Social Security has enforced.  So I believe that we will have the safeguards with the structure we are putting in place and I believe that it is right that we should have the decision-making with the Chief Minister’s Department and I ask Members to reject this amendment and the one that follows.

The Bailiff:

Does any other Member wish to speak?  Very well, I call upon the Chairman of the Scrutiny Panel to reply.

1.1.12 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

I thank everybody who spoke.  I am not going to go through all of the replies.  I think basically Members have queried that this is an afterthought.  No, the Panel discussed the fact and it was apparent from the legislation that the role of Housing will be much diminished by this law.  The change in categorisation of houses means that Housing also will not have the sort of environmental supplementary evidence which they have had over the years.  If you have got to categorise all new houses as “(a) to (h) … (j)”, 1(1)(k), it is a whole different ballgame.  There are comments about the Chief Minister and his position in this whole set-up.  The Chief Minister, to coin a phrase, is primus inter pares; he is there to co-ordinate the Council of Ministers and ultimately responsible for the policy as expressed in the Strategic Plan.  Now, this is a detailed law with a lot of emphasis on information gathering requirements and should the Chief Minister be getting into the detail when he should be looking at the policy?  I do have a problem that too many Ministers are micro-managing their department rather than dealing with the policy aspects and this, I think, would be exacerbating the situation for the Chief Minister.  Other jurisdictions do run this particular aspect of migration in the way we suggest and my favourite competitor, Singapore, certainly does.  In fact, looking at their website, they also make a levy on foreign workers for skills development, for developing skills for locals.  These are things that the Migration Advisory Group sadly did not look at when it was looking at these things, a question of lateral thinking but, anyway, that is all part of the work for the future.  I thank everybody who has spoken and I ask for the appel.

The Bailiff:

The appel is called for, then, in relation to the amendment by the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel to the amendment of Deputy Power.  I invite Members to return to their seats and the Greffier will open the voting.

2. Draft Control of Housing and Work (Jersey) Law 201- (P.37/2011): amendment (P.37/2011 Amd.) - resumption

The Bailiff:

Very well.  Then we return to the debate upon the amendment of Deputy Power.  As I said earlier, it seems to me that during the last debate, Members quite rightly compared all 3 and therefore I would invite them not to repeat anything on this one.  That debate has been had and really the choice is now between the Minister for Housing and the Chief Minister.

[10:45]

2.1 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Default position A is the only option for me, I am afraid.  I was hoping it was going to be the Minister for Social Security and I really would like to congratulate him for his speech yesterday.  I thought it was terrific and also it was great to see the Assistant Minister supporting him.  I would like to thank the Chairman of Corporate Scrutiny for allowing me to take what was my work permit proposition and work with her and her colleagues on the Scrutiny Panel.  I did think it was the right decision.  We have lost that now.  I would like to thank them for allowing me to be part of that team, it was very interesting.  However, I am very concerned that what we are going to see now, if we are not careful, is this fall into the lap of the Chief Minister.  It was interesting I was looking in the shed the other day and a little voice in my head said: “Look in this box” and among one of the boxes I have got full of papers, I came across a newspaper from 19th January 2001, the Jersey Evening Post, and it celebrated the life of my late cousin, Gerard Le Claire who died while on the United Nations Mission and I was caught by the front page which said: “Population debate is delayed again” and that was 19th January 2001.  Now, at this stage, I had already practically given up the ghost so I do not know where I am now.  It is interesting … go back to my shed, they are saying [Laughter] it is not my shed, it is just the one I rent.  [Aside]  Maybe Senator Perchard will lend me one of his sheds and I can go and live there.  What it did say though at the end of that … I have sent a copy round to a couple of Members just to … the last sentence in the Article: “It is not good enough.  It is quite clear what we expect and what they were charged to do.”  These are the words of the Deputy of St. John, Deputy Phil Rondel at the time: “It is quite clear what they were charged to do: go away and bring back a report and proposition for a Population and Immigration Policy for the Island.”  What we have got is a Housing and Work Law and, in my view, that does not tick the box all the way although I am supporting it obviously and I think what we are now in danger of seeing is a reversion to where we were in 2001, which is basically the Policy and Resource person of the day, Senator Pierre Horsfall, saying: “All of these alarmists saying the population is out of control.  It is 87,000 and all signs look like it is falling” (Members can see the article) “and all these alarmists saying it is going to go over 100,000.”  Well, it is quite clearly going to go over 100,000 and as long as we leave it in the domain of those whose responsibility it is to grow the economy, then that is inevitable.  You cannot blame the Chief Minister and you cannot blame the Minister for Economic Development and you cannot blame the Minister for Treasury and Resources because if they were not doing that, if they were not trying to grow our economy, we would sack them.  So they are only doing what they know and what we know they need to do but what we need to do is to decouple from their work, make it a little bit harder for them, we need to decouple the availability of just opening the doors and letting all in and letting rip.  We need to be careful about who we are letting in and these arguments that the Chief Minister has responsibility for the Strategic Plan that he made yesterday, I have heard some very good speeches from the Chief Minister and I have heard some very strong arguments but I am afraid to say, without being disrespectful, that was the weakest argument I have ever heard from him.  There are a number of policies in the Strategic Plan and they are segregated out among the different ministries and the Chief Minister’s role at the moment is not all encompassing, it is a co-ordination role.  It is the Minister’s responsibilities.  This is our last chance to do something about getting this in the right direction.  Now, we did not get it around the track, as I said yesterday.  The wheels have come off already.  It is not going to be in the hands of those that are going to inform people.  We have already got duplication which means more civil servants instantly, more taxes because civil servants generally do not generate income.  They manage taxes.  They do not create wealth.  That is not the job of the civil service.  The job of the civil service is to try to manage the resources of the Island and attribute the taxes that they raise but they are not wealth generators.  We have now created a system whereby it will not be the Minister for Social Security who had, for all the other previous arguments, the information, the ability, the understanding and the resources to equip those that first arrive.  Now we have got another group, it may be the Minister for Housing, it may be the Chief Minister, who are going to say: “We are the king makers and you have to be nice to us.”  I would say the people that have a far better understanding of the position in Jersey in terms of resources and overbearing of resources in the vast majority of people’s minds is in relation to Housing.  On the third page of the newspaper that I looked at, funnily enough, it was the day that they did the double spread on: “No, no, no, Minister Portelet.”  I looked back at this newspaper of my cousin when it said: “Population debate is delayed again” on 19th January and the only letter that day, the only letter in that newspaper was from a woman with a picture of Portelet and she was talking about agreeing with the newspaper’s comments that the Island had gone bananas on greed, greed, greed, greed, and she spoke about the cost of housing.  She said: “You would have to be blind not to notice that almost every day there is a letter of complaint in the J.E.P. (Jersey Evening Post) about the problems many people have with the price of Jersey houses giving the impression that the Island has fallen into the hands of sharks ready to exploit the Island at any cost.”  It goes on, it is quite a good letter, but it sets out a great general expression of concern about the way the Island was heading in 2001.  Now in 2001 when that lady wrote about the population issues and Senator Horsfall was telling us there was no need to panic because the population was all under control, we had at that time an estimate given to us.  It was being worked up by Senator Horsfall and the Policy and Resources Committee, which was the predecessor of the Council of Ministers and the Policy and Resources President, Pierre Horsfall, former Senator, I think O.B.E. (Order of the British Empire) he was the predecessor of the Chief Minister.  That was his office.  It says here: “The Senator repeated comments made on Tuesday that initial findings from the David Coottie Survey on the housing in the Island showed that the population was nearer 87,000.”  That was his estimate and if we go to the statistics in the book which I drew upon yesterday for that period, we see in 2001 that the population was indeed 87,186 and statistically the Head of Statistics, a doctor there whose name I will not mention, says that these figures are accurate to plus or minus 100.  So the survey that was done on housing in the Island at the time by an independent group was pretty much on the money.  We have not got this year’s figures although we are going to get them but we do know by 2009 that number had increased to 92,500; so from 87,186 to 92,500 in less than 10 years.  I would submit to Members as long as we keep putting all of the controls in the hands of these politicians who lead our Island, who are keen to keep business up and running and we want them to, as long as we keep doing that, as long as we give them the freedom to achieve their targets and their targets are basically “sky is the limit”, as long as we give them that opportunity, we are going to continually fail the vast majority of people in this Island who want to see population addressed.  They want population addressed primarily because of the cost of housing, the unaffordability of housing and the conditions of housing and the lives that people have to live here to pay rents to never afford housing.  We can all share in the lovely green open space (we have made a lot more of it recently) when the weather is fine and we can all share in the lovely wonderful services, et cetera, but what we cannot all share in is a quality of life that is enjoyed by the very wealthy and wealthy and the gap is growing.  If we do not support now as a default position Deputy Power’s amendment to place this control in Housing, then in 10 years’ time, maybe I or some other politician will be standing here picking up the Hansard and they will be talking about the numbers then and the numbers in 10 years’ time.  My belief is, by the end of the year, I confirmed with the Head of Statistics yesterday, the headline numbers will be out and if we have not cracked 100,000, we are certainly getting close to it and that is because we have a policy of: “Go get the money, go get the money, go bring the money in, go bring it in any way you can, in any way you can, go get the money” and we need to because we have changed our tax position.  If Members believe in population issues and if Members want to do something about the 48 per cent of people that do not have housing in Jersey and if they want an equal and fair society, this is a policy about making life fair in Jersey.  I went home last night and I thought as soon as everything is equal the better it all will be because our qualifications are not worth the paper they are written on and they are not even written on paper.  This makes it the case that they will be written but they are worthless because what is happening at the moment is we have divided society at the lower echelons.  “You have ‘quallies’, I have ‘quallies’.  I do not like you, you do not like me, you have got an advantage over me, I do not like this Island, it is not treating me fairly.”  That is all going to go but what will not change is the advantages of the wealthy and at the moment, if we leave this with the Chief Minister, they are not going to go out and bring in musicians, they are not going to go out and bring in painters, they are not going to go out and bring in plumbers, carpenters, et cetera, they are going to go out and bring in wealthy people and wealth generators and big companies and those as a consequence will bring in all of those other trades.  If you bring in a painter, he does not have 47 people that work for him.  If you bring in a millionaire, he does.  This is our last chance to do something about population and housing.  If you give it to the Chief Minister, kiss it goodbye.

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

That was very succinct: “If you give it to the Chief Minister, kiss it goodbye.”  Let us focus on what we are doing here.  The essential question is we are down to a 2-horse race.  Who best to put this particular law into operation?  In particular, I refer Members to page 10 of the document, the purpose clause.  The purpose clause is very clear: “The purpose clause recognises the need to control the overall population of Jersey.”  That is what we are talking about and the law itself says: “Whereas it is recognised that in the furtherance of these aims, which is to preserve and maximise the benefits of its resources, including housing, provision is needed for controlling the overall population density of Jersey.”  Clear as a bell.  We are talking about controlling the population.  It does not say that in the law but that is what it is about.  There are 2 things to look at.  Who has got a vested interest in ensuring that that population is controlled and what is the track record of the Chief Minister so far?

[11:00]

The target has been 200 heads of households.  We overshot it by a mile, consistently year on year.  We were told that is because we were in boom years so that is all right we had to do that to maintain the economy.  We are now in recession years, we are now out and waiting for recovery and yet, what do we see?  The target is now 150 heads of household.  What did we hit?  We overshot it by a mile, by a country mile, 325 heads of household.  That is the track record of giving the control to the Chief Minister.  The evidence says it fails.  So who has a vested interest?  Who has an automatically built-in negative feedback mechanism?  Who takes the buck if whatever the target is, let us call it 150, is overshot?  The Minister for Housing immediately has a problem.  He has got to provide that housing, one way or another, for those 150 heads of household and more while taking into consideration the currently 250 excess of births over deaths which is already built into the system which needs housing sooner or later.  He has got a problem.  If he lets the target go and overshoot, the Minister for Housing has a problem and he can come to the Council of Ministers and say: “I have a problem” and he has.  The Chief Minister can say: “We want to grow the economy, that is my priority, let us grow the economy and you have a problem, Minister for Housing, because you have got to house the number of people that we let into this Island.”  He does not have a direct problem, the Minister for Housing has.  He delegates the problem while dictating the policy whereas the Minister for Housing, give it to the Minister for Housing, it is automatic.  If he sees that 150 being exceeded, he has got a problem, he has to do something about it or go to the Council of Ministers and say: “I have got a problem.”  That is the reality.  Who is most likely to sit there and say: “We have got a problem, I am going to do something about it otherwise my problem gets worse”?  The Minister for Housing.  Give it to the Minister for Housing and we build in the check and balance automatically into the system.  It is more likely to work with the Minister for Housing than it is with any other, including the Chief Minister, who has got an abysmal track record of controlling population.

2.1.2 The Deputy of St. John:

I have to take issue with Deputy Le Claire and his shed.  Millionaires come from all walks of life.  They are entrepreneurs and they all come and they all contribute and they may be a farmer who has worked very hard all his life and done well but they may be the ilk of Richard Branson and the like.  You may be somebody who has run a series of garages of which we have got a number over here.  It may be somebody who has run a brewery; they are not all from the finance industry, they are ordinary people who have done well.  They may even be a plumber and there are plumbers who make money.  [Approbation]  So I have to take issue when the Deputy is speaking about other people.  These people in the main have started with absolutely nothing and wish to come to Jersey and contribute (whether it is through their wealth or whether it is through other means) and they do it generally very quietly.  I know I am going off the point slightly but I had to say that because I think we are getting too often in the last few weeks in this House debates where Members are hitting out at people who are doing good in this Island and willing to put their money into this Island and make things happen when we are, at the moment, with our back to the wall and it is good to see people who are willing to support Jersey.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

I was not inferring that I did not think that rich people from any walk of life should not be allowed into Jersey.  What I was saying is that the amount of people being allowed into Jersey, if it is not controlled, will have a negative impact upon those already here from all walks of life, rich or poor.

2.1.3 Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I have to take issue with the comments of Deputy Southern.  I had hoped I might not have had to speak again in this debate but he makes comments which are so far wide of the mark that they do need to be refuted.  He says that the Chief Minister has set targets and overshot those targets by a mile.  The targets were set by this House in the Strategic Plan and for the 2006-2011 Strategic Plan.  That target was that the working population growth should not exceed 1 per cent per annum over the period 2006 to 2011.  We are not yet at the end of 2011 but the figure for the 4 years to 2010 is 1.06 per cent.  Those are not my figures, those are the figures of the Deputy of St. Mary discussed with the Statistics Department and I have no reason to doubt them.  So if we have overshot the 1 per cent and it is 1.06 per cent, I do not regard that as overshooting by a mile or a country mile.  It must be one of these new metric miles.  He asks who takes the criticism if the target is overshot; as far as I am concerned, the Chief Minister does and I am quite prepared to stand here and justify if a mistake has been made if we have overshot but I believe that we are in fact adhering to the States’ policies and I repeat, it is the States’ policies.  Deputy Le Claire in his speech suggested that the target of the Chief Minister’s Department was: “The sky is the limit.”  I have to correct him.  The target of the Chief Minister is to ensure that the Strategic Plan is delivered and the Strategic Plan seeks a balance between the needs for economic growth, for housing the population and providing all the other services which the Island requires.  It is in providing that balance that I am confident and convinced that this law has to stay under the aegis of the Chief Minister.  Could I just remind Members who sometimes like to think that things never change that this is going to be a new law?  It is going to replace the existing Housing Law.  Categories (a) to (j) will go.  We will have new forms of housing status.  The whole operation will change and we will not have housing controls as we know them today.  We have to abide by a new law and it will not be for a Chief Minister or a Minister for Housing or any other Minister to make his own decisions.  He or she will have to make those decisions in accordance with the terms of the law and if they fail to adhere to the law, the remedies are there.  I think it is up to Members to remember that we are moving into a new era where, in fact, the main responsibility of the Minister for Housing as it is now will be to provide housing for those in need who cannot otherwise be accommodated.  That is his job.  It is our job as a whole, all 53 of us, to ensure that there is sufficient accommodation and enough of a balanced population to house everyone on the Island.  So I do believe that there is a danger that the Chief Minister is being looked at by some people simply as a whipping boy.  The duty of a Chief Minister, any Chief Minister not just myself, is to ensure that the law is adhered to and that the States Strategic Policies are adhered to and that will be done within this law as it currently stands and I urge Members to reject the amendment.

The Deputy of St. Mary:

May I ask a point of clarification?  The Chief Minister said that in accordance with my figures from the Statistics Unit, the population has increased 1.06 per cent annually since in the period of the last Strategic Plan.  Could he confirm to the House whether there was not a very dramatic drop at the time of the biggest global recession since the Great Depression of 1929?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I believe what I said was quite correct, that the working population growth should not exceed 1 per cent per annum and that will be affected by upswings and downswings in the economy and we have had a significant downswing in the economy in recent times as indeed there were in 1929.  It may be in his view fortuitous that we have managed to achieve those targets.  Nonetheless, the target has been so far adhered to.

2.1.4 Deputy A.E. Jeune:

We all seem to be standing up and saying we are going to take issue and I must take issue with a comment from Deputy Le Claire.  I am very supportive and have absolute confidence in my Minister, the Minister for Social Security.

2.1.5 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

May I apologise, Sir, to the Deputy of St. Brelade?  I did make a faux pas and I would like to apologise.

Deputy A.E. Jeune:

I smiled at it, Sir, I did not mind because the Minister and I have very healthy debate and can agree to disagree and I believe in terms of policy within the Minister’s remit, we have only really failed to stand together once and that was in respect of the Health Department wanting to put their sticky fingers into the Health Insurance Fund.  [Laughter] [Approbation]  Oh, I do take offence at that.  I have got very clean ones.  I have full confidence in the current Minister for Housing and in the short time he has been there, from what I have observed, he fulfils his role in an extremely professional manner.  [Approbation]  Housing rights, employment, unemployment and population, like most people in the Island, really does concern me and I believe this law will make a big move towards sorting some of these matters.  So while I could agree with the responsibility being at Social Security, I will now fall to the default position of leaving it under the Chief Minister’s remit.

2.1.6 Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement:

I think it is rather sweet that so many Members seem to think that we can do something significant about controlling population levels because the truth is, in reality, we cannot and no other nation in the world has ever been able to do it because population levels are the function of 2 things and 2 things only: one is demographics, that is the result of births over deaths and people living longer or shorter, depending on their health conditions.  So I am absolutely amazed that no one has proposed that the Minister for Health and Social Services should not be in charge of population.  [Laughter]  The other thing which has an impact on population levels is economic activity because people are in Jersey, people stay in Jersey if there is work, if they are able to do something productive and earn a living to maintain their families.  If they cannot do that, if we do not allow economic activity or some recession like we have just been through which stops economic activity, which we have got very little control over although we have done very well during it, then people will leave the Island to search for work to maintain and look after their families.  That surely is a statement of the obvious which no one seems to have grasped.  This new law does give us tools to enable us to control at a reasonable level but to think at the end of the day we can control demographics and we can control world economic activity, is naïve in the extreme.  What we are really talking about in this amendment is who does this work?  The functions of the Chief Minister include the discharge of the common functions of the Council of Ministers and I think it is hard not to conclude that population is not a common function and, indeed, that the Migration Advisory Group is not a good instrument for assisting with that co-ordination.

[11:15]

Under Standing Orders, the Chief Minister is responsible for answering questions on matters that are the responsibility of the Council of Ministers, for example, the Strategic Plan under which this comes.  If population is a matter of strategic importance and from the debate this morning, I do not think anybody would deny that it is not a matter of strategic importance, which cuts across not just Social Security and Housing but all ministries, population impacts on Home Affairs, it impacts on the Treasury, it impacts on Education, it impacts on everybody.  So it is a co-ordinating role so there can be no doubt, it is absolutely clear, that this law lies properly with the Chief Minister to co-ordinate.

2.1.7 Deputy D.J. De Sousa of St. Helier:

I have an issue but I think it comes right back I am afraid to ministerial government and we really do need the Electoral Commission and a review of government.  I will stand by what I said though and the fact that I have changed my mind about Housing having responsibility for this due to the restructuring process that they will go through.  Therefore, I too, like Deputy Jeune, will have to go into the default position and go with the status quo and agree that this needs to be left with the Chief Minister’s Department.  So I will therefore be voting against the Housing Amendment.

2.1.8 Deputy T.A. Vallois:

I will not repeat anything I have already said because I think I made it quite clear where my views are.  Article 42 provides that statistical information is to be provided in assisting in the development and evaluation of public policy and informing the public about social and economic matters.  I think the reason why we are, as they say, where we are today is because the Chief Minister quite unfortunately showed yesterday when I asked him a question in Questions Without Notice about the Social Policy Framework, it was quite blatantly dismissed and unfortunately the position that he is placed in now is one of a certain amount of mistrust because nobody sees the Social Policy coming out of the Chief Minister’s Department.  There has been a lot of emphasis on economic growth and there is a feeling that the Social Policy just does not exist.  I know that there is one but I think there needs to be placed much more emphasis, especially in 12 months’ time if this law is approved and comes into force, the Social Policy is out there for the people to see forthright and ensured that every single Minister has had their say within that Social Policy and it comes from the workings of the Strategic Plan and then there may be a little bit more confidence in the way that this law will be enforced going forward.

The Bailiff:

Does any other Member wish to speak on the amendment?  Very well, I call upon Deputy Power to reply.

2.1.9 Deputy S. Power:

I will be as brief as possible.  I am not going to go back over the amendment to the amendment and I am not going to quote what people said.  I want to just kind of wrap this up as quickly as I can.  One of the things I would like to refer to is what the Constable of St. Clement just said, that the track record of any Western nation and its ability to deal with inward migration is very limited.  I agree with that.  The issues we have in Jersey are not dissimilar to what is happening in the U.K. (United Kingdom), Ireland, France, Germany or anywhere else but what I do think is happening on this Island is that the repeated responsibility for migration and population within Policy and Resources and then the Chief Minister’s Department has suffered as a result of a diffuse approach to this and I think that is the price the Island is paying.  I want, just for 2 or 3 brief minutes, to go back to 1995.  In 1995, the Policy and Resources Committee then commissioned a working party chaired by Mark Boleat to look at the issues of migration.  They decided then in the report that was published in 1996 that there was general agreement that all other things being equal, it would be better if the population was lower than was the case in 1996.  But it went on to say that things were not equal and the policy objective had to be balanced together against other things.  They made 2 recommendations: that policy objective had to maintain the population in Jersey at 84,000 as of 1995 and that housing regulations should continue to be used to discourage immigration by people attracted by the lifestyle in Jersey but who have nothing to contribute economically to the Island or who have less ties or have no ties to Jersey.  That was 1995-1996.  There was another report produced in 2002 by the Policy and Resources Committee and it noted that the States had decided in 1995 that there should be a resident population of no more than 85,000.  They then decided that it was the limited ability to control the population.  The Committee had commissioned an economics consultancy, Oxera, to examine the economics of the population issue from first principles.  The report came to no firm conclusions but the analysis represented a significant leap forward from previous work so there is a lot of information.  Then in 2009, the Council of Ministers published another report.  Again they used Oxera and they said that unless there was net inward migration, the population of the Island would drop to 72,000 by 2065 and the Council of Ministers 2009 set out its long-term policy, maintain the level of the working age population in the Island, ensure the population does not exceed not 84,000 but 100,000, ensure the population levels do not increase continuously in the long term, protect the countryside and green fields (we have just done that) and in the short term, Deputy Le Claire will be listening to this, allow maximum inward migration at a rolling 5-year rate of no more than 150 heads of household a year.  It then says targets set out the Council are achieved.  It was estimated the population would rise to 97,000 by 2035 and then decline to 95,000 in 2065 and it says finally the targets will not be easy to meet.  That was a part of the history of where we are.  My argument is this.  Senator Maclean referred to the fox having the key to the henhouse.  I would say that if migration and migration control stays with the Chief Minister’s Department, it will be the magpie that will peck away at all of the priorities that the Chief Minister’s Department will have and I would say that if we lose the Housing Department to an Assistant Minister in the Chief Minister’s Department, matters will only get worse.  There is absolute confusion out there in the eyes of the public as to who controls migration on this Island.  Even States Members have difficulty deciding what does the Minister for Housing do, what does the Minister for Housing regulate and what does the Population Office do?  There is no clear image of who is responsible for what on this Island.  Senator Breckon said that Housing Law and Regulation has to be maintained.  Absolutely, and I fear for Housing Law and Housing Regulation being lost in the Chief Minister’s Department.  I said yesterday and at the fear of repeating myself today I would say I worry about the whole function of Housing being subsumed into a large department that is the Chief Minister’s Department.  I ask Members to consider this question.  What is Jersey’s scare resource?  Is it gold?  Is it gas?  Is it oil?  It is the provision of adequate housing; that is our scarce resource.  The 2006 Strategic Plan says we will adequately house the population.  Well, we do not do that and as Senator Breckon said and Deputy Green, the Minister for Housing knows, Senator Le Main knows, anyone who visits the lodging house sector on this Island will know that we do not adequately house the population and I fear that if this gets lost in the Chief Minister’s Department, matters will only get worse.  So the proposition before you is to reject my amendment.  The proposition before you under the new P.37 Control of Work and Housing is for this to be parked in the Chief Minister’s Department.  This is the Chief Minister that recently visited China to garner economic investment into the Island and I say to Members if you have a Chief Minister’s Department which legitimately and rightly garners and supports factors that are economic drivers to the Island, is it correct and proper that control of migration and population be in the same department that is part of the economic driver to the Island and I say, no, it cannot be.  I have said that the Chief Minister’s Department has control at the moment, Policy and Resources had control, and in my 2-minute review of where we are since 1995, it has not worked.  I do accept what the Constable of St. Clement has said but I do think also that we have lost control of net inward migration into the Island.  I made the argument yesterday that there are tradesmen and subcontractors and people coming into this Island for days and weeks at a time that make no contribution to the Island and then disappear again.  The Deputy of St. Mary made a very good comment a few minutes ago.  He said that the Island needs a Communities Minister.  I would link that to what I said yesterday in merging Housing and Population that that is a start in having a Communities Minister, a ministry that has responsibility for social development on the Island and I went so far as to say yesterday that if this House at some time in the future were to consider merging Planning, Housing and Population, you are getting towards a Department of Social Development or Communities.  I think I accept that.  I could speak for the next 10 minutes but I do not think it is appropriate.  Members have already made their minds up.  I ask Members to support my amendment and I call for the appel.

The Bailiff:

The appel is called for then in relation to the amendment lodged by Deputy Power.  I invite Members to return to their seats and the Greffier will open the voting.

3. Draft Control of Housing and Work (Jersey) Law 201- (P.37/2011)

The Bailiff:

Very well.  Then we revert to the proposition of Article 1.  Does any Member wish to speak on Article 1?  All those in favour of adopting Article 1, kindly show?  Those against?  Article 1 is adopted.  Now, Senator Routier, would you wish to propose all the Articles in Part 2 then?

3.1 Senator P.F. Routier (Assistant Minister for Economic Development - rapporteur):

Yes, I do propose Articles 2 to 6.  Part 2 deals with the issue of a residential and employment status and how it will be established.  It sets out 4 categories of residential and employment status which is entitled, licensed, entitled to work, and registered.  The States by Regulation can specify the conditions applicable to each category of residential and employment status.  Paragraphs 3 to 5 require the Minister to issue guidance as to the effect of any temporary absence from Jersey on a person’s residential and employment status.  This is an improvement on the current system because at the moment no official guidance on this is issued at all.  Paragraphs 6 to 8, the Minister may in writing at any time require a person to provide information for the purpose of determining or verifying that person’s status.  Paragraph 9 clarifies that any reference throughout the law to the status of entitled to work, licensed or registered is taken to be the status as defined in accordance with the Regulations.  Article 3 is about how to apply for a registration card.  Article 4 is regarding the registration card itself.  The Article deals with the details to be found on the registration card.  It requires the Minister to issue an individual with a registration card once he has made a decision as to his or her residential and employment status in accordance with Article 3.

[11:30]

Article 4 paragraph 3, the registration card may also include other information on the card that the Minister considers necessary.  Paragraphs 5 to 6, the States may also specify by regulation other information to be included on the card concerning the cardholder.  This could at a later date be decided to have a photograph if that is what the States decided but that can be done by regulation at a later stage.  Article 5, this Article sets out the provisions relating to the expiry of a registration card.  Article 6 creates various offences in relation to a registration card.  These include selling, defacing, destroying or forging a registration card or making a false statement.  I propose Part 2, Articles 2 to 6.

The Bailiff:

Are Articles 2 to 6 seconded?  [Seconded]  Does any Member wish to speak on any of the Articles 2 to 6?

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

I would like to speak to Article 4 and I am surprised at how easily the principles of this new law were adopted yesterday because there was no mention made, as far as I can recall, to use a favourite phrase of Deputy Le Hérissier, of “the elephant in the room.”  When I refer to Article 4 and the registration card, that is, I believe, the elephant in the room.  I intend to be brief because I know that opinions on the registration card have been aired but I do think it is important to raise them during the debate itself.  As we know, many people have said that the proposed registration card will be (or in fact could become) nothing other than an identity card and I am sure the Assistant Minister has been expecting someone to raise this today, and I raised it because people have spoken to me about it, particularly (and I am sure I am not the only Member) the more elderly residents of this Island.  We know that many Islanders can remember The Occupation when they were compelled to carry an identity card but, before I move to that, what I would just like to touch on is the …

The Bailiff:

I think the Greffier has just noted a fine of Deputy Trevor Pitman.

The Connétable of St. Lawrence:

Yes.  I think possibly, Sir, it is a Member of the public phoning to support me.  [Laughter]  So just to come back to the U.K. they planned, as we know, an ID card scheme which was part of the proposed national identity register proposed by the previous Labour Government but extremely unpopular with the public.  Many argued that it was associated with bureaucratic interference and regulation and subsequently, as we know, the new U.K. Coalition Government elected in 2010 announced that they would scrap the proposals as part of their measures to reverse what they saw as a substantial erosion of civil liberties under the previous Labour Government and to roll back state intrusion, and I see the Minister for Treasury and Resources nodding his head because what I am saying is correct, this did happen.  The Coalition Government achieved this scrapping of the proposal when the repeal of the Identity Cards Act became effective in January of this year.  So much for the U.K., and I come back now to speak about Jersey and to refer again to those Islanders who may be of a certain age (and I class my mother among them) and those parishioners, I would say, who have spoken to me of their concern at what could become a form of identity card if we agree to this proposed registration card.  What worries some of them (and it worries me as well) is that, as the Assistant Minister has just said, there is provision under this Article by regulation for the adding to this registration card of a photograph of the bearer.  So not only will we be required to have a registration card to show our status under this new law but there is the possibility that in the future by regulation we would also be required to add a photograph to that card.  Now, the Council of Ministers have denied continually that this registration card is intended to be any form of identity card and will not become so.  I said I would not speak for too long but what I do want to say is that the proposed national identity register in the U.K. was to include a number or quite a few items of information on individuals but chiefly their name, their address and their National Insurance number.  I believe it is incumbent upon the Assistant Minister today to explain to us in this Chamber and to the listening public how an essential government database (containing the names, addresses and Social Security number of all Islanders, which will be linked to a registration card which could in the future bear a photograph of the holder) will not be used as an identity card and, more importantly, I think what he must do is explain the difference between a registration card and an identity card, and I very much look forward to hearing his explanation and the way I vote on this will depend entirely upon his response. 

3.1.2 Deputy G.P. Southern:

There are a number of questions and a number of warnings, I think.  Having looked at the issues surrounding the … I nearly called it an “identity card”, the registration card, the first warning is: “Beware of mission creep”, we have talked already about any other information on the card that may be included there including at some stage the possibility of a photograph.  What we have got here is the bare minimum of a registration card, it has barely advanced from the social security card; I do not know about the security on that but, nonetheless, it is a little more than that, but that is all it is.  We have got the bare minimum registration card here, we must beware of mission creep, that it becomes used for something else, particularly used as an identity card because that takes it into a whole different field of meaning.  While this law may be appropriate for something as minimal as this registration card, it is certainly inappropriate for something that has wider range.  In particular, we must be very careful that it becomes the access to services.  If, at any stage, somebody thinks it is a good idea that we very simply see who can have treatment at the hospital quite easily by the showing of their registration card, then again, that is taking a quantum leap in terms of the need for safeguards around this particular registration card.  So that would be one, it certainly should not be used as an identity card, and we want assurances from the Minister that any extension of the use of this registration card will be brought to this House and thoroughly explored before it happens.  Secondly, I am looking at the 4 bullet points, the 4 types of card that we are talking about here and we have got: “A Jersey-born entitled person will have a permanent registration card which they must present when accessing work and housing” and a category: “A newly-entitled non-Jersey-born person will have a 5-year valid card as they cannot lose their status within 5 years” and I wonder what is happening there.  “Entitled” to me sounds like pretty permanent: “I am entitled, therefore I expect that I will have a permanent registration card.”  Where is this temporary entitlement that becomes involved?  Because that is an additional category, I think, to what we have now.  Then we have got: “A licensed employee will have a card with no expiry date because their card will always need to be verified when purchasing or leasing property or starting new work, as they may have lost their employment.”  So we are talking about a licensed person now; this is the replacement for the old J-cat.  Look at the terms, this is “permanent” not temporary.  J-cats, where you were brought in and employed for 3 or 5 years to train up people, thing of the past, now dead and buried, these are permanent.  It says here, I can see the Minister … would you like me to sit down?  The Assistant Minister is shaking his head but it says here: “A licensed employee will have a card with no expiry date because their card will always need to be verified when purchasing or leasing property or starting new work, as they may have lost their employment.”  So this is a new type of J-cat who comes to the Island, gets one job, gets a licence, it is permanent, then changes job, stays with it.  Stays with the company?  Oh, of course, we have given the companies the right to say who gets licences; so more of the government’s job.  Okay.  So that is the explanation of that and I am sure we will get that.  “As a registered person with no preferential housing or work rights their cards also will be permanent.”  But an explanation of the temporary nature of entitled people would be gratefully received.  Now, one of the key issues to the registration card and the system we are about to adopt is how do we get from the registration card to the list, the list of names and addresses, how do you do that?  Is it proposed that people will not need a card until they either change job or change housing?  In which case, let us be very clear, we will not have a comprehensive names and address list for years because some people will have no interaction like that and not need a card.  So it will not be overnight, some time down the road we may have a list of people that we think is here but we will not know immediately.  So how do people get on to it and how accurate will it be at any stage, because the corollary to who gets on to it and at what stage and when will it become a definitive list so we know who is here, we know what they are doing and we know, above all, how many of them there are, is some way down the line.  So the basic function of how many people are here will not necessarily be known through this system.  The other issue is when do people get taken off the list?  Because in terms of data protection the accuracy of the list is fundamental, especially if we see in the future that it becomes the key to accessing services; absolutely vital, if it is, that it is accurate.  The question is how do people get taken off the list at the very end?  If they do not interact with particular services, how do we know they are here or if they are not here?  Do people have to sign off as they leave the Island, say: “Bye bye”, how will we ensure that happens?  I do not think we are doing that so how will the Minister ensure that this list, such as it is with its limited function, is fundamentally accurate?  I think the answer is: “With difficulty.”

[11:45]

3.1.3 Senator A. Breckon:

Just a couple of points.  In Article 2 it makes reference under 3 about guidance being published, and that looks to be a bit specific.  I will just ask the Assistant Minister as rapporteur, and whoever else is involved with this, to make sure that wider guidance is given to the general public about the implications of what has been proposed here otherwise I think there is a possible recipe for disaster here, they will be missing representation, especially elderly people.  They will be telling you: “You have to do this, that and the other, you need this, that and the other” and some way or other the information needs to go to the public in simple terms exactly what this about and what needs to be complied with.  It does also mention there: “Guidance to be published” and I know the word “published” is a debate it itself, but then it needs to be in such a way that people have access to it, it is not just good enough to say: “Well, we have done it so therefore people have got it” they need to have and be informed of it in some way or other.  So I just ask the rapporteur to note that because I think the whole concept of this needs some quality information attached to it when it gets into the public domain so that people are not misled, misinformed, or worried about it, because that is not the idea of it, the idea is that we are putting in place a framework that works for the people and we must some way or other get that information out, so I would ask the rapporteur to note that. 

3.1.4 Deputy A.E. Jeune:

A number of the questions that I had, in fact, have been raised by Deputy Southern.  But in respect of what the Connétable of St. Lawrence was saying, these cards do not have to be unpopular.  Where do we stand in civil liberties with our driving licence, our photographs are on that and, to be fair, how many of us use that licence when we are travelling through the airport or ports?  You do not need to carry your passport if you are only going to England, you can use your driving licence and it can be so effective.  But it was in the 1980s that I was doing work on smart cards so these cards should not be seen negatively, it should be seen as a start of the way going forward.  You can have all your medical information on it going forward.  How many times do we hear about people (and I know it is slightly off the subject) leaving hospital, going home and then the district nurse calling in but not knowing what is going on?  If we had good individual cards … and I still feel they need a photograph on them, but they do not need to be unpopular, I think it is a good thing going forward and this is only the start. 

3.1.5 Deputy M. Tadier:

I will just talk firstly about ID cards, as it has come up.  It seems to me that the issue about ID cards in general is not specifically about the card itself, it is about any associated police or state powers surrounding the issuing of that card.  So, for example, let us have a reality check first of all, we are not talking about ID cards now but I think it is right that it has been raised because this is a possibility in the future.  I am not one who fears identity cards per se, but the point is there is a difference between having an identity card which is for pragmatic reasons which is for the benefit of those who hold it as well as for practical reasons for those who seek valid information, but it seems that it would be completely different if then, on top of that, we gave the police or the state automatic powers to demand an ID card just for identity purposes without the relevant safeguards being put in place.  But I think that is an argument for another day and I think that we have sufficient intelligence and sensitivity within the Assembly or in any future Assembly, hopefully, to be aware of those issues.  With regard to photographic identification being on the card itself, I do not think we necessarily need to be hung up on that.  It is probably more important, I think, that you can have a photograph electronically, as we know those of us who are Active card-holders, but the example extends to other uses.  If you have an Active card and you swipe it, there is no information at all on the card, apart from perhaps a signature on the back, but at the sports centre they will bring up your identification and they have a photograph of yourself so they can see it is you.  So I think the whole area of worrying that somebody else is going to take your card and then that is going to be passed around to somebody who wants to come in and do a bit of work in Jersey and then leave, is a red herring because there should be sufficient safeguards within the system whenever that card is used to identify who the person is without necessarily needing the photograph itself to appear on the card, which can be faked, incidentally; I know that in Central Bank Op I recall that there was a street peddler who provided very convincing student ID cards which could then be used back in the U.K. (for those who were unscrupulous enough to do so) to gain discounts and entry to student residences, shame on those who took advantage of that.  I think we also have to be mindful of other uses for the cards, and I think the law has been drafted in such a way that it can be done, but why just have one card to do with housing or to do with work when we should be looking at the same card which would give you an automatic right to be able to vote for those who have been here for 2 years so that, as soon as your information is on the system, it should be sent to parish halls, it should be sent to the Central Judicial Greffe so that that information automatically puts people on the voting register.  It could also be used as a library card, it could also be combined as an Active card and, if possible if it is not too complicated, why not have that as a driving licence as well?  That may be one step too far but I think, if we are going to go down this road, we have to be making life as easy as possible for residents. 

3.1.6 Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville:

Sir, could I ask the Deputy to give way, please?  He did query, and Deputy Jeune also queried the use of the driving licences.  I can assure you when we brought in these driving licences, I was leading the panel that designed them and brought them in and the whole reason for having these driving licences with a photographic identity on was because the European Union insisted on it, in other words, you would not have been able to use any licences within the E.U. that did not conform with this standard, and that is the standard that we have at the moment.  Part of the reasoning on that is that it could not be used for any other purpose as well, so I do not think that is a hope. 

3.1.7 Deputy M. Tadier:

That is why I qualified that statement by saying that perhaps the driving licence was one step too far, there is already a significant amount of information contained on that licence and I am grateful that the Constable of Grouville interjected there rather than having to wait till his speech just to make that one point.  I think those are just the points to be made, I do not think we need to be paranoid about this turning into an ID card and we do not need to be paranoid about ID cards in general, it is to do with the management of information and I would hope that the relevant safeguards are in place.  But the one point I would emphasise, if we can make this card as flexible and as useful as possible, if we are going to impose something on a population (which is an inconvenience, let us be honest about it) we should also make sure that it has as many advantages for the user, wherever they come from. 

3.1.8 Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen:

While I quite understand the concerns of my fellow Connétable from St. Lawrence, I think that we are leading into a society where some form of identification is going to be necessary.  I have recently had 2 elderly people in the Parish of St. Ouen who have voluntarily given up their driving licences because they felt incapable of continuing to drive, but then have gone to their bank and had no means of identifying themselves because the driving licence was all they had; they do not hold a passport, they see no reason to hold a passport, they are not going to use it.  At the end of the day, the passport is quite an expensive way of identifying themselves.  So I agree with Deputy Tadier, we must not get hung up on the registration card and what it might or might not do in the future, we need to accept what it is trying to achieve now but I think that some time in the future it may well be that something like what Deputy Tadier is mentioning might well have to be looked at. 

3.1.9 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

I think the Constable of St. Ouen has really hit the nail on the head, that this debate about whether or not this should be an ID card or whether or not there should be a photograph on the registration card is really a matter for another day.  There will be a debate in due course if ever that surfaces.  Obviously, this legislation has taken some skill to put together so I commend the people at the Law Officers’ Department for their work, if they have been working (I am sure they have) in getting this together.  It is not an easy thing to get your head around and I only wanted to speak because Deputy Southern raised an issue that I thought was of some import for the application of how registration cards could be used in relation to J-cats from a health perspective.  A couple of days ago I was at the hospital and I noticed on the wall that people would be required to pay for their medical treatments if they were not from within a country that had a reciprocal health agreement with Jersey or unless they had lived in the Island for 12 months or alternatively were a J-category employee who automatically, because of that J-category, were entitled to have free medical treatment from day 1.  I do not think there is anybody for the Assistant Minister for Health … they are not here, so I will just have to hope that the Minister for Health is listening in the ante-Chamber, that because they have got the system in place at the moment where they are saying: “If you have got a J-category, that is fine, you can have your free medical” I just think that we need to be cautious of making sure (and I am sure Senator Routier will take this to the Minister for Health) that their practices from an internal perspective have to bear in mind the legitimate uses of this card in terms of registration.  All of the other arguments that we have been having, and I hope we get off them, about whether or not we need an ID card, what an ID card does and a photograph et cetera, that is a debate for another day. 

3.1.10 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I want to just say that I have considerable sympathy with the remarks of the Connétable of St. Lawrence and it is something that I have struggled with from the start of this whole debate in terms of what was originally called “managing migration.”  There was an interesting column in the newspaper yesterday, one thing that is guaranteed to catalyse remarks from Members in this Assembly over the years that I have been here is immigration, and Members rise to their feet and they demand control of immigration.  On the other side, the Constable is absolutely right that we also need to be guardians of civil liberties.  If I may say to Deputy Tadier, this is not an Active card, this is a compulsory database of all Islanders and that, in the wrong hands and not properly controlled, not properly safeguarded, not properly secured, is powerful information which other governments in other places would handle in other ways.  On balance, I support this, we have had some very good discussions at the Council of Ministers on precisely this issue on identity cards, on balance it is the right decision, I think, to move towards this database.  I am sure the Assistant Minister will sum up very eloquently but I just rise to support the ongoing requirement of guardians of civil liberties, guardians of those people who do not believe that there should be an intrusive state, that the state needs to know and must know everything about one.  On the other side, we need appropriately to understand population flows and to make properly-judged decisions.  But she is absolutely right, there is a long way to go before this legislation comes before us in an Appointed Day Act and people like the Constable, who are clearly guardians of civil liberties, need to be part of the implementation phase and the public information phase, not to worry people about big-brother state in terms of getting a database that could be misused.  [Approbation]

[12:00]

3.1.11 Deputy D.J. De Sousa of St. Helier:

I will be brief because a lot of the points I wanted to make have been made.  Just to clarify for Deputy Southern when he was querying about what is now the J-cats, the entitled and the permanency, those will be held with the employers and they will permanently have those to give out to the person that has the position so when the person moves on to another job that will stay with the employer not the person, okay.  I wonder if, in the summing up, the Assistant Minister could clarify exactly how the compilation of the register will be made because as we know people living here, unless they move job or house, they will not necessarily register, so if he can clarify on how those people that do not move and do not change job will register.  That, basically, is it; if he can just clarify that part. 

3.1.12 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Just a couple of points.  I have got no problem generally with registration cards, what I would seek reassurance over is how that information is handled because I remember sitting and listening to debates a couple of years before I got in where it was being put forward by a previous P.P.C. that people who are members of political parties should have to have their details registered and known, and that is an absolute outrage, it might be okay in Zimbabwe, but where would that go?  What I would just seek from the Assistant Minister is that all such registration cards will have the bare essential information on it, it will be tightly-controlled so as not to be exploited in the wrong hands, but what really jumps out at me more even than that is that we can do this and yet we cannot even have a central electoral register which could be tied in and make it very easy for people to be registered and to stay registered and we would save ourselves a lot of money, a lot of time and a lot of problems because it would be so simple, it would be in place.  If we can do this (and I know it is not down to this particular Assistant Minister) but surely again we come back to what the Deputy of St. John was on about the other day and a silo mentality; these things should be done together, tied up, because we could save ourselves a fortune and we could make life better for our people, so that is all I really want to say. 

3.1.13 Senator J.L. Perchard:

Just briefly.  I am just inspired to speak after the Minister for Treasury and Deputy Trevor Pitman.  I saw no problem with the introduction of a registration card and will be supporting it, but the Minister for Treasury said something: “We must be very careful to protect civil liberties” and he is absolutely right and we must be very careful if we produce a database that could be misused.  The previous speaker said: “Information that could be exploited in the wrong hands.”  Obviously, I am terribly innocent, I would like the Assistant Minister to explain if he had considered or the group had considered how this information could be exploited in the wrong hands and could be misused and have I missed something?

The Deputy of St. John:

I hope I am not ahead of things.  Are we including part 4, Sir, in this part of the debate? 

The Bailiff:

No.  Only part 3.

The Deputy of St. John:

Okay.  Thank you, Sir, I will wait. 

The Bailiff:

Part 2, I do beg your pardon.  Does any other Member wish to speak?  Very well, I call upon Senator Routier to reply. 

3.1.14 Senator P.F. Routier:

I anticipated that this would be a hot issue to discuss because during all the consultations that we had with the public and a lot of the organisations, that was one of the issues which was raised and I think even the media at the outset started talking about this being an identity card and I understand that certainly all the consultation groups that I went to I believe I was able to satisfy them that this was not an identity card and hopefully I can do the same today.  This is nowhere near an identity card, all it has is some basic information on it and it is, as has been described, just a step on from the current Social Security card, that is all it is.  It just has additional information on and it has the name, the social security number, the residential and employment status, the date of issue of the card and either of the following: the expiry date or whether the residential and employment status is recorded on the card as well.  The issue with regard to worried elderly people, anybody who is not moving home, moving their accommodation, or is not changing job, do not have to have a card, they do not need a card, it is not necessary for the purposes of this law.  That is all we are proposing today, for the purposes of this law, they do not need a card.  I might cover off various people who have spoken in the way I am going to answer this because there was a question about how the register is going to be collated for all those people who do not have a card.  Later on we will be discussing Article 10 which enables existing departments who have names and addresses of individuals … and that is all we are talking about is to be able to share that data across departments so there will just be a clear sharing of that very basic data information, that is all.  So if anybody is transacting with the Health Department or Social Security Department and does not have card, they will be automatically entered into the register.  So it might not be 100 per cent that we will have everybody on the register, but the vast majority of people will be on the register.  I think what we need to be aware of is that what this is about is for us to have information for us to be able to provide services for people and if we do not know about them, we are obviously not providing any services for them so it becomes less of an issue about whether we know that individual if there was the odd one out there that we do not know about.  But certainly, for the purposes of what this law is about as to providing services for people and to make sure we have the information for them, that is the process that will be gone through.  No elderly person need be worried about this card, it is something which is very straightforward, very innocuous and it is just only if they were to move or change jobs, they would need to have a card.  Sorry, my paper has stuck together … Deputy Southern was concerned about mission creep, but he was the one who made the point about this just being a slightly advanced Social Security card.  The way this legislation is brought forward, for the purposes of this legislation, we only need that basic information and if, for instance, the Health Department wanted to do a screening programme for cancer, what they would have to do is they would have to come this House to ask permission of this House if they were able to use that information for that purpose because it is not within the ability of this legislation to do anything other than to do what is proposed: to control working and housing.  But if any department wanted to do anything more than that, they would have to come to this House to get a democratic decision of this House.  So mission creep is not possible unless we make a democratic decision to do that, and that is not what is intended today.  Deputy Southern was speaking about the 4 types of cards and I think he got a little bit mixed up on the way he understood that, and was identified by Deputy De Sousa.  Each of the cards does give a clear indication to an employer or a landlord what the qualification of that person is, so they will know if they are entitled to employ them, if they have been here long enough, are they a qualified person.  There will be those people who will have written on their card that it has to be verified, so particularly those who have a licensed position, they will need to get in touch with the department to clarify exactly what the position is because if their licence was only given for a particular position in a particular business and if they were to leave that business, they would lose their licence.  So that is the way that will work.  Deputy Southern also asked about when people are going to be taken off the lists.  That will be difficult, we have not got barriers at the airport so that people have got to hand their cards back and say: “We have left the Island” but what we will have is we will know when they are not using services.  For instance, if they have been working somewhere, from the manpower returns we will know that they are not there, if they are not paying Social Security, we will know they are not there, if they have not gone to the doctor … probably that is less of a one.  But if they have had no interaction with any States department, there will be a sweeping process through the system to take people away out of the register.  I do make the point that the Scrutiny Panel have looked at it and given it quite some thought and they have said to us that they are satisfied that it is a sustainable system.  Deputy Tadier made the point about the cards and lots of future uses of it, and some of them he described perhaps are a step too far, and we are not even going there today, all we are doing is being very focused on what we need to achieve for controlling the access to work and housing.  Deputy Le Claire obviously spoke about access to health things, well, that is not within this but it could be looked at at a later stage.  Senator Ozouf, importantly, talked civil liberties and we have to take care, and that is how we have approached this right from day 1, we have not gone down the route of wanting a photograph on the card, although there has been a lot of discussion about it, but we have brought forward a system which does not have a photograph on the card because we do not believe that we want to go down that route for our purposes, we do not need that.  Senator Breckon wanted me to assure him that we were going to widely publicise how people can get guidance and obviously, if the legislation is approved today, there is a 12-month lead-up programme to when the system will come into place and we will have a roll out to ensure that people are aware of how the system will work.  Deputy Pitman was asking about the controls over the information.  Certainly, the States have experience of looking after information and I cannot recall that we have ever had a breach of information that has been held within the States departments, certainly at Social Security in my time there I never had a situation where somebody has brought to my attention that their data has been accessed at all, so I think we have a very good record of ensuring that information is kept securely so I do not believe that should be a concern, but we have to keep that high in our minds to make sure that is not possible.  Senator Perchard was concerned about how we could ensure this data is protected.  Later on in the legislation, we have putting in place the provision for the data protection registrar to give an annual report to the States about how the information is handled.  So if any member of the public or anybody has a concern about any data protection, any of the information being used inappropriately, the Data Protection Officer will be the person who will take an overview of that and make some sort of judgment and have to report to the States on an annual basis.  So I think I have covered everybody’s points, I hope I have reassured people that we are not going down the road of a full-blown identity card and the card is appropriate for what we wanted to do and I maintain the Article, Sir. 

[12:15]

Deputy A.E. Jeune

Sir, may I ask for a point of clarity from the Assistant Minister?  I have got really anxious in listening to the answers to some of the questions that have been raised this morning.  I do believe this is the right way forward, but I want to be reassured that, because there is a year before this will come into being, will the Assistant Minister look at the anomalies that were raised, which I do not believe he has answered in terms of how do you know if somebody is still in the Island, because the rationale to that did not answer it.  Would he please reassure me that all the tweaks and things will be done in the year?

Senator P.F. Routier:

Yes.  The Computer Services Department, if that is what they are called these days, I am not sure, certainly are working on bringing forward the I.T. (Information Technology) system to ensure that the information sharing between the departments is top notch that we can achieve that, and I have every confidence that they will be able to achieve that.  The only tweak that we will never be able to stop is if somebody is in the Island who has never had any services, never done anything at all that we have had any notice of and they come and go, we will never know about that, but the vast majority of the Island we will know about.  But, certainly, the work will be going on during the year to ensure that we have that. 

The Bailiff:

Very well, then the matter before the Assembly is Articles 2 to 6, all those in favour …

Female Speaker:

Sir, can we have the appel for Article 4, please?

The Bailiff:

Yes.  The appel is called for then in relation Article 4.  In relation to Articles 2 and 3, all those in favour of adopting those 2 Articles kindly show?  Those against?  They are adopted.  Then the appel has been called for in relation to Article 4.  I invite Members to return to their seats and the Greffier will open the voting. 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Sir, before we move on, could I just apologise for my phone going off.  What makes it even worse it is a lawyer who phoned me, so I am particularly angry, and I am going to ask him for the money.  [Laughter]

The Bailiff:

Well, no doubt, you will be remitting the usual sum to the Greffier, Deputy. 

Deputy M. Tadier:

Sir, can I suggest that Deputy Pitman sends the invoice to his lawyer and perhaps adds a bit on top? [Laughter]

The Bailiff:

Very well.  Then Articles 5 and 6, all those in favour of adopting those 2 Articles, kindly show?  Those against?  They are adopted.  Then there is an amendment to Article 7, so that must be taken separately, so I invite you, Senator Routier, to propose Article 7.

3.2 Senator P.F. Routier (Assistant Minister for Economic Development - rapporteur):

This Article sets out the requirements placed on newcomers with regards to obtaining a registration card.  Article 7, as I say, talks about the requirements for the card.  Paragraphs 1 to 6 together mean that any person who arrives in Jersey after the age of 16, who starts a period of ordinary residence of 3 months or more in Jersey must apply for a registration card in the 3-month period immediately after Article 7 comes into force.  The requirements under this Article do not apply if the person has an appropriate valid registration card within that period for the purpose of starting a new job.  As already approved in Article 3, there are 3 triggers for needing a registration card, one being for residence, another for starting work, so for anybody who comes into the Island from day 1, if they could get a job that first day, they will get a card, and the same as if anybody takes accommodation at any time within that 3 months, they will need a card as well, so they will be registered.  So that clears that.  There is no desire to spend, obviously, administrative resources individually registering people who come to the Island for a short period of time, for example a holiday.  The period of 3 months has been chosen as a cut-off point as being one that will exempt the vast majority of tourists and those coming to stay with friends or relatives and also those who come to the Island perhaps intending to stay but, within a short period, decide to go.  Paragraph 6 makes it clear that the temporary absences away from the Island during the first 3-month period will be disregarded when calculating the 3-month period.  That is if a newcomer comes to the Island, goes home for a few days, that is disregarded.  Paragraph 8, the failure to apply for a card as required by this Article is an offence punishable with a maximum fine at the level of a standard scale of £2,000.  Sir, I propose Article 7.

The Bailiff:

Is Article 7 seconded?  [Seconded]  All right.  Then there is an amendment to Article 7 lodged by Deputy Power and I will ask the Greffier to read that amendment.

The Greffier of the States:

Part 2, page 65, Article 7 (a) in paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 for the words: “3 months” in each place where those words appears substitute the words: “7 days” (b) in paragraph 6, for the words: “3 months” substitute the words: “7 days.”

3.2.1 Deputy S. Power:

Yes.  I lodged this amendment because of my over 2 years’ experience at the Housing Department and sitting on the Migration Advisory Group.  I have to make a confession here, I share a common interest with the Rector of St. Brelade, I am the owner of a white van, but it is used for leisure purposes [Laughter] so it is not used for commercial purposes … I am in trouble already.  I will have to speak to my rector.  I am going to get back to the amendment, please, one of the issues I have is the fundamental lack of control on what I call the revolving-door policy that exists in the grey sector of the economy, some people will call it the black sector of the economy, where people come and go and they work in the Island for 7, 10 or 20 days then they disappear, they go back to the U.K. they go back to Northern Ireland, they go to Ireland, they go to wherever and then they come back again, and that is a continuous thing.  I remember when I was on Scrutiny between 2005 and 2008, I will not say where, but there was a shop-fitting contract going on in the middle of St. Helier and I took an interest in that shop-fitting contract because all the vans parked outside the shop were from the Czech Republic.  I got talking to some of the guys that were on that team and they were saying that they were in Jersey for approximately 9 weeks, they would spend 10 days on and 10 days off and then a new crew would come in and carry out the work.  In that period, I found out afterwards, that 2 of them had been through the court process and also been through accident and emergency but that none of them had ever registered for employment in Jersey, for residency in Jersey or for residency under a contractor or a subcontractor under Regulation Undertakings.  Members may feel that this is a small issue but I feel it is a bigger issue and I think one of the things I learnt from visiting in the Isle of Man was they have a very robust policy on arrival in the Isle of Man, you must register almost immediately, and they feel in the Isle of Man that their problem is particularly true in the construction industry and in the hospitality industry.  I mentioned this yesterday in one of my speeches.  So my amendment is largely based on this minority of people (and I will say it is a minority) who do use Jersey for pecuniary gain, they come and go and they use our services and they have no intention of ever settling here but they do not pay any tax and they do not pay any social security and, in the end, it is the taxpayer in Jersey who picks up the tab for what they do or what they do not do.  I use the phrase in my amendment: “White-van man” and these are people who turn up at the port at Jersey for days, weeks or months at a time to carry out work on the Island and they take away work from local contractors and local subcontractors.  These migratory workers sometimes stay, sometimes go and, as I have said, they end up in A. and E. (accident and emergency) or in the court system and I call this a migratory revolving door of unregistered labour entering the Jersey labour market, the construction industry and the hospitality industry and I feel that 90 days is far too lax.  I heard Senator Routier say that we now do not propose to register people who come here for a holiday; I have never heard of anyone coming for a holiday for 90 days, I think 90 days is far too long.  I also heard Senator Routier say that from day 1 they must register for employment; it is not day 1, it is day 91 so, Sir, I make the amendment, it should be 7 days.

The Bailiff:

Is the amendment seconded?  [Seconded] 

3.2.2 Senator P.F. Routier:

Firstly, I should say how much I valued Deputy Power’s contribution when he was Minister for Housing on the Migration Advisory Group and I appreciate what he has said about the existing failing of the Regulation Undertakings, I think we do recognise that the existing Regulation Undertakings Law does have those issues that he has highlighted.  He is right to say in his report during last year the Population Office went to the harbour with the Customs and Immigration Department, Social Security at the harbour and they had no power to stop and detain the contractors; that is the current legislation.  Well, I am pleased to say that under this new legislation there will be the power to take that instant action by serving a cessation notice on people who do not have the licence to come in and do that work, that is available within this legislation.  Because the existing system is that a case has to be put together and submitted to the Law Officers for prosecution and that all takes time and the white-van man will have come and gone and we will have not been able to stop that activity, but under this new system we will be able to handle that a lot better.  If Members were to just take a look at Article 37, you will see the strength of the cessation notice, it is very strong so we can deal with that.  So white-van man arriving under this new legislation, he will either have had to have permission to do business or he will be served a cessation notice.  However, I think that perhaps the Deputy has aimed this amendment at the wrong Article (or any Article, really) because amending Article 7 only affects those who have not already registered.  Anyone arriving in the Island and starting work I still maintain that from day 1 needs to register; if they are going to be employed, they need to register and if they are carrying out any work, they need to register and have that permission from day 1, that is what the system is and so we will know about them.  Anybody obtaining their own property at any time will have to register and we will know about them.  This amendment only affects people who are described as: “Ordinarily resident” for more than (which is what the Deputy is asking) 7 days, which is less than the 3 months that we are talking about.  It will be aimed at any of them who do not work or obtain their own housing.  I do not believe that we really want to place so much effort in registering those types of people, people who are not working, are not in housing and just who happen to be here for a period up to 7 days. 

[12:30]

The registration does not stop … if somebody comes along and even if we were to register them, it does not stop them accessing A. and E. or our parks, our gardens, our roads or our courts but it does cause more work dealing with the inquiries and registering people, so I am not sure if we really want to spend such money registering that type of person.  I think what it really does, it would create some uncertainty because, in the minds of anybody who comes to the Island, for example, an elderly relative may come to stay with a family for a period of time, it could be more than 7 days, it could be anything up to 2 or 3 months, do we want to register an elderly person coming to stay with their family?  That is what this is proposing.  Do we want to catch students who perhaps are over the age of 16 who are studying for A. (Advanced) levels in the U.K. and come back to visit their family for summer holidays?  I think the question mark is that it is not clear enough what is “ordinarily resident”, that is the issue.  So I think that it does create perhaps some legal issues which I might like to ask the Solicitor General to perhaps make some indication of how he would see that situation, perhaps … would he be prepared to?

The Bailiff:

I do not think that is legal question you have proposed, really, Senator Routier, is it?

Senator P.F. Routier:

Yes, what is “ordinarily resident”, Sir, for the purposes of …

The Bailiff:

You are referring to “ordinarily resident”, right. 

3.2.3 Mr. H. Sharp, H.M. Solicitor General:

“Ordinarily resident” is a term that is used in a lot of different laws and one must construe it against the background and the purpose of the law that we are considering and, with that in mind, it seems to me that “ordinarily resident” in this context means it connotes some sort of residence in a place with a degree of a continuity, save for perhaps incidental or temporary absence.  One would look at the way in which a person’s life is usually ordered and what is the regular order of that person’s life, adopted voluntarily, for settled purposes; that is, where as a matter of commonsense is the person ordinarily resident, giving those words their ordinary meaning. 

Deputy S. Power:

Sir, might I be allowed to ask the Solicitor …?

The Bailiff:

Yes, you can. 

3.2.4 Deputy S. Power:

This question is directed at the Solicitor General: the phrase “ordinarily resident”, does that mean that somebody who has been, has established a pattern over a period of time of say 3 or 4 weeks at a time in a hotel or in a guest house or in a B. and B. (bed and breakfast) and repeats that pattern over a period of time, would the Solicitor General say that would be ordinarily resident, if it extended over many repetitive patterns or established an identifiable pattern?

3.2.5 The Solicitor General:

Unfortunately, it may or may not.  It depends on all the facts of a person’s life.  I am remembering, there is a case were a particular person’s residence was in Scotland, I think, but he spent a lot of his time travelling and staying in hotels but he was deemed ordinarily resident in Scotland, albeit he spent most of the year somewhere else.  It depends on the whole facts of somebody’s life and how they usually order their affairs. 

3.2.6 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Sir, may I ask a question of the Solicitor General, please?  In the instance that is quoted, would a university student who obviously is ordinarily resident with his parents in Jersey then be caught by this requirement to register within 7 days when he comes home for the long vac?

3.2.7 The Solicitor General:

The person in Jersey who grows up in Jersey and goes off to university, in my view, remains ordinarily resident in Jersey even if they may be spending particular periods of time at a university.  That would only change in my view if perhaps they got a job at the end of their education in, say, London, moved to London and bought a flat.  But it seems to me the mere fact that they spend a part of their time in an educational institutional in England does not change their ordinary residence. 

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Sir, may I ask …?

The Bailiff:

I am sorry, I think the question was whether as a result, when they come back for the long vacation, they have to get one of these cards.

The Solicitor General:

No, because I think they have already been ordinarily resident for the 3 months before the law came into force so they do not need to get one when they come back.

3.2.8 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

May I ask for clarification because we have got an amendment that is being debated at the moment with the intention of the proposer of the amendment to introduce a reduction in days from 3 months to 7 as a requirement to register (and Senator Routier is in mid-speech so I do ask him to excuse me while I get clarification for my own understanding) and it is saying that we have got a cessation order that will allow us to negate that concern.  But I am just wondering, under Article 24, I would like to ask the Solicitor General … there is a requirement for anybody starting work in Jersey to have a registration card and a person who is going to work under Article 24(1) or (2) or appoint another person to work must have a registration card.  So it would seem to me if the Deputy to my left, Deputy Power, is trying to negate white-van man coming in and working, really, I would like to understand, there must be a mechanism for stopping that from occurring and that would rely upon, I would imagine, Article 24, that you are required to have a registration card.  Also (and this is the tricky bit) what aspect of this law requires for that individual or that company to prove or to supply that registration card to the person for whom they are carrying out the work?  In which case, it does seem to me that the cessation order, or the application within 30 days in respect of white-van man, is tortuous to understand, really. 

3.2.9 The Solicitor General:

Yes.  If I may respectfully say, I do not believe that Article 7 is geared towards dealing with people who are working in the Island and I respectfully agree that Article 24 is the more appropriate mechanism because it requires you from day 1, if you want to work in the Island, that (a) you must have a registration card and (b) if you want to employ someone, you should see their registration card and see it is a criminal offence if you do not do the first 2 things.  So, really, Article 24 is geared towards making sure that someone who comes to the Island has the relevant qualifications and has the proper registration card.  The additional weapon, of course, is Article 37, which is the cessation notice, and it is a combination of both Article 24 and Article 37 that are geared towards the “man in the white van” scenario, not Article 7.  If I may say as an aside, I can see great difficulties in suggesting that somebody is ordinarily resident if you are going to reduce the number of days down to just 7; that, in my view, would be very difficult to prove or establish.  The beauty of Article 24 and of 37 is it removes all questions about whether or not someone is resident, it is purely whether they are entitled to work or not. 

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

I thank the Solicitor General.

3.2.10 Senator P.F. Routier:

I think that has helped certainly me, and I hope Members, to recognise that establishing whether somebody is ordinarily resident for such a short period is extremely difficult.  Not only would that be extremely difficult, it will create an inordinate amount of work for the department and, for what benefit, I am not sure.  I would hope, on reflection, perhaps the Deputy might consider withdrawing this amendment [Approbation] because I cannot see it does what he is hoping it to achieve but there is the safeguard of the other matters within this law which will help to resolve the matter of white-van man. 

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Sir, my points have now been addressed by the Solicitor General.  Thank you.

3.2.11 Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

My points have almost been addressed by the Solicitor General.  I was going to rise to try and explain the nature of the test in relation to “ordinary residence” which, as the Solicitor General has said, is quite complicated, it varies in different areas and in addition to the taxation area (where that is the normal test for residence for taxation purposes) it also has effect in relation to when people need to change their licenses, if they have got a foreign licence to change it for a Jersey licence, and also, peculiarly, in relation to the area of security for costs, which used to be one of my specialisations.  This is quite a high test and I too would check Deputy Power to withdraw his amendment on this because it simply does not work.  It is quite impossible to prove that somebody who has been here for only 7 days is ordinarily resident, unless they are coming for a settled contract of some sort of employment for a number of years.  So, as I say, ordinary residence is a high test.  I understand what the Deputy is trying to achieve; in any eventuality, if it was not referring to ordinary residence, I regret that I think a 7-day period is much too short to be a workable period. 

3.2.12 Deputy S. Power:

With the leave of the Assembly, Sir, I will withdraw but I would like to make one comment, if that is permitted.  Sir, do I need to …?

The Bailiff:

I should make a quick comment and then ask leave to withdraw it. 

Deputy S. Power:

Okay.  In the evolution of the Draft Control of Housing and Work which was then the Migration Policy, I had reservations about the enforcement procedure and the cessation procedure and if Members read Article 37 on page 90, it is very woolly, very diffuse and, in my view, there are no teeth in it, and that is why I wanted to reduce the number of days from 90 to 37.  I am not going to go into detail now, I tried to make it far tougher, but on the Migration Advisory Group discussions on migration, it was not accepted.  So, Sir, with the leave of the Assembly and based on the explanation of the Solicitor General and Senator Le Marquand, I will withdraw the amendment. 

The Bailiff:

Very well, does the Assembly agree that the Deputy may withdraw his amendment?  Those in favour?  The against?

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED

The Bailiff:

Well, wait a moment, let us just announce the decision.  The amendment is withdrawn.  Now, very well, the adjournment is proposed so then the Assembly will adjourn and reconvene at 2.15 p.m.

[14:15]

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Very well.  Well, with the amendment having been withdrawn just before the adjournment, debate resumes on Article 7 as proposed by the Assistant Minister.  Does any other Member wish to speak on Article 7?  Deputy Le Claire?

3.2.13 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

As has been said by the Assistant Minister, Senator Routier, that this relates to newcomers and there will be a body of work to do in the year before this comes into play.  I wonder if any thought could be given, if it has not already, to making videos available, maybe produced by the States media group … I cannot remember the name of them now … Communications Unit, so that there would be infomercials available for people to watch; everybody remembers a certain amount of what they read, a certain amount more about what they see and hear and a certain amount more about what they experience.  But if it were possible, I think in order to help those people coming to Jersey or who wish to come to Jersey, to understand our systems (they have been complicated in the past) I do not think it is beyond the realm of technology now for us to make a short series of infomercials that could be made available on the websites, in particular for these reasons: businesses and business people who are in business, the issues they need to be cognisant of about registering, et cetera, landlords, how they have to manage and notify and how they notify, and people who wish to employ and, most importantly, the average user who will come to Jersey who may benefit from that kind of a service.  I think it is something that could be done, I do not think it would be too onerous, I do not believe it would be too expensive and I think that would be a very positive way of getting this quite complex information out in a meaningful and understandable format.  There was something else, but I will leave it for now. 

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Does anyone wish to speak on Article 7?  I call on the Assistant Minister to reply.

3.2.14 Senator P.F. Routier:

I think the Deputy raises an important issue about the communications, I will certainly pass on that suggestion to the Communications Unit who will be developing a communications plan for the coming year.  I maintain the Article, Sir.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

All those in favour of adopting Article 7, kindly show?  Those against?  The Article is adopted.  Do you propose Article 8, Assistant Minister?

3.3 Senator P.F. Routier (Assistant Minister for Economic Development - rapporteur):

Article 8 is the registration requirements for children not born in Jersey, I think it is fairly self-explanatory and I propose the Article, Sir. 

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Is the Article seconded?  [Seconded]  Does any other Member wish to speak on Article 8?  All those in favour of adopting Article 8, kindly show?  Those against?  Article 8 is adopted.  Do you wish to propose part 4, Assistant Minister, Articles 9 and 10?

3.4 Senator P.F. Routier (Assistant Minister for Economic Development - rapporteur):

Yes, Sir, if I may.  Certainly, Articles 9 and 10, yes.  This is about the information to a Minister, the purpose of this part is to ensure that accurate and updated information is recorded with regards to individuals who move to Jersey or who have a change to their address.  Paragraph 9 makes a requirement to give information to the Minister upon the change of address, paragraph 1 requires any person moving to an address in Jersey, whether or not from another address within Jersey, who is or expects to be ordinarily resident at least at the address for 3 months, to notify the Minister.  Paragraph 2 requires the person to also notify the Minister of the name and date of birth of any other individual who moved to that address with that person.  Paragraph 3, a similar obligation also applies to a person who is in control of a unit as a dwelling accommodation.  Paragraph 4 describes who is a person in control of a unit.  Paragraph 11, in order to save unnecessary inconvenience, the Minister is able to bring an order to exempt individuals from making notifications under Article 9 if the information has already been provided under another enactment.  This obviously supports the streamlining of the change of address procedures and will reduce some bureaucracy.  Article 10 is the power to obtain information from other departments.  Article 10 allows the Minister to obtain information from any department or administration but only relates to name, date of birth and current address; that is for purposes of facilitating compliance with the law.  I propose Articles 9 and 10, Sir.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Are these Articles seconded?  [Seconded]  Does anyone wish to speak on Articles 9 or 10?  Deputy Vallois?

3.4.1 Deputy T.A. Vallois:

Yes.  I was just wondering if the Assistant Minister could advise how Article 9 will be enforced from the Chief Minister’s Department?

3.4.2 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

The rapporteur has indicated that there is a need to, in some instances, try to curtail bureaucracy in respect to this section.  I did not manage to ask this during Scrutiny, or at least I have not got this bit clear in my head, the notification to the Minister of the vacation and change of occupation of accommodation could be occurring 2 or 3 times a week in some instances, but it could be occurring quite regularly and over a very large proportion of, certainly, the rented sector.  I am just wondering how it is envisaged by the Minister that this is going to be notified, will it be as he had indicated earlier, there was going to be an investment in I.T.?  Is it going to be something that somebody can do online like a manpower return survey, or is it something that is going to be a little bit more arduous in relation to the occupancy and the vacancy of a unit?

3.4.3 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

It has been partly covered, but there are enormous obligations laid upon the Minister.  We read continually in the paper about people, for example, failing to notify D.V.S. (Driver and Vehicle Standards) of changes of address.  There is an enormous faith being placed in people just coming forward to the Minister or his officers or her officers, and we have also seen, of course (and we know anecdotally) of all the issues with the census and people evading it because of what they fear is government oversight of their activities.  Could the Minister say how, without being overbearing, he expects this to be enforced, as Deputy Vallois said?

3.4.4 Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

Yes.  Very much along the same track.  I am aware that the proprietors of registered lodging houses are very concerned with this part of the new law given the high turnover of occupants of lodging houses and concerned about the fines that could be imposed.  Also, in respect of Article 10, the obtaining of information from any department, Deputy Le Hérissier has just mentioned the D.V.S. Department, what would happen in a situation where the D.V.S. information was contrary to that on the register, would D.V.S. be informed, which would then trigger fines for failure to notify a change of address?

3.4.5 The Deputy of St. John:

Similar to others, I have concerns on page 8 under part 4(9)(11): “Individuals who reside at an address for 3 months or more would be required to inform the Minister of that address and those in control of the property, e.g. the owner, the managing agent, will be jointly responsible.”  For instance, in my case, I have a number of properties which are let on lease or on annual rental, I rely on the housing qualifications that the owner of that property would have but, the way that is written, it looks to me that I could be liable for somebody who has gone to stay with a next of kin or somebody takes in a partner, that is, instead of getting married as we know they live together nowadays, and I would be responsible for making sure that this return is made, although the property is let on a monthly or annual tenancy.  I have got a little concern on this, and I sincerely hope the Assistant Minister can put my mind on that because otherwise we could be criminalising an awful lot of property owners unbeknowingly. 

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Does any other Member wish to speak on Articles 9 or 10?  Very well, I call on the Assistant Minister to reply. 

3.4.6 Senator P.F. Routier:

I was asked how the Chief Minister was going to be able to enforce that provision.  With the amount of information which is going to be shared across the various departments, what will happen is there will be some exception reports coming out of a particular department and when that is identified, that there is something that is different from one department or the other, that is when it will be able to be enforced and we are sure that we have the right information.  I hope that helps the Deputy because that is how it will be, there will be the exception reports which will achieve the compliance.  Deputy Le Claire was asking about the reduction in bureaucracy.  There is going to be a number of areas where there is going to be a reduction in bureaucracy because for someone currently to move into a new property, to buy a new house or whatever, they have to get a permit from the Housing Department.  In the future, all they will need to do is to show their card to their lawyer, or whatever, and that will be sufficient.  Obviously it has to be verified as well, the card, but once they show that, that is going to reduce a tremendous amount of bureaucracy for landlords, owners, people moving into … yes, and costs for the department, certainly.

3.4.7 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Could I ask the Minister to give way for a second?  I appreciated that, I did understand that during the Scrutiny, but the part I am a bit unclear about is how is it intended the landlord of a tenant occupying or vacating notifies, in what manner will they notify the Minister?

3.4.8 Senator P.F. Routier:

There is a duty for them to inform the department that they are moving by attending at the department. 

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

The Deputy asked if, for example, there was an Internet option, I think that was …

Senator P.F. Routier:

That may well be an option that will come at some stage, but that is being developed, certainly. 

3.4.9 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Could I just … maybe to help, what I was trying to suggest in relation to the reduction of bureaucracy is that if everybody had to come down to the Population Office to tell the Assistant Minister that somebody had moved in or moved out, then they would need a very large lobby with a large number of chairs for people waiting.  What I was suggesting was that perhaps, like the manpower return service that can be done online, it might be an idea to consider in the year coming up in order to reduce bureaucracy that no actual physical activity is taken other than notification by mail in person, but predominantly online. 

3.4.10 Senator P.F. Routier:

The notification can be made any time up to 3 months, there is a good amount of time for them to make that known to the department.  There are various ways that can happen because it is not only accommodation, it is also to do with their work as well.  If, for instance, they change their job, that will help to indentify ... all it is is identifying a person, it is not necessarily all the time where they are working and where they are living in a particular place, all we are really interested in is an individual as opposed to the … I do not know if I have explained that particularly well, but I hope that clarifies it. 

[14:30]

Deputy Le Hérissier was speaking about the compliance as well.  It is bringing together all these systems, all this information from across the departments because that is what is going to create the compliance.  When, for instance, the existing Social Security Department have to filter through all their people who leave the Island, on a regular basis they will filter out those people who have left the Island, and they are taken out of the system, and that will happen on a regular basis but with all the information which is collated from the other departments.  Deputy Le Gresley raised the issue of lodging houses.  There is an order making provision which will allow for large lodging houses for tourism accommodation and for other large organisations like that such that they do not have to respond to the changes every time there is a change, what they will be doing perhaps is a quarterly response to the department to say that those people have changed during that quarter, they do not have to continually be in touch with everybody coming and going, and that has been a negotiation we have had with the tourism sector who have raised that issue with us about the hospitality industry.  Senator Le Gresley also mentioned about the information, perhaps if D.V.S. was to find out from another department that there has been a change of address.  The information data sharing, D.V.S. will have access to the names and address register and it will be for them to decide how they go about prosecuting, if they feel that is the way they want to go but, certainly, all the departments will have access to the names and address register.  The Deputy of St. John raised an issue particularly about individual … well, he said he had a number of properties and to monitor those.  It is a duty of the landlord, it is shared responsibility, it is the tenant and the owner of the property that need to make a response if somebody has moved. 

3.4.11 The Deputy of St. John:

Could we have the definition, please, given to us from the Solicitor General, because I have got some real concerns with this one because, if that is the case, you are going to be criminalising a lot of people, so I would like the Solicitor General’s views, please.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

What is the precise question, Deputy?

The Deputy of St. John:

The question is on page 8: “Individuals who reside at an address for 3 months or more will be required to inform the Minister of that address and those in control of the property, e.g. an owner, a managing agent, will be jointly responsible.”  So that concerns me because once an owner of a property has leased a place or let it to a person and they fill the necessary housing forms in, the people he has in his house should not be the responsibility of the owner of the property, but it should be the responsibility of the tenant who he wishes to have staying with him.  The owner should not really be getting involved in who is staying at a house for any length of time because the person might decide to bring in and cohabitate with another person.  That is of concern, and I would like the Solicitor General’s comments on it, please. 

The Solicitor General:

I am sorry, I am still not quite sure what the question is.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

I am sorry, when you say page, I am lost, Deputy …

The Deputy of St. John:

Look on page 8, Sir, at the very top, part 4, Articles 9 to 11.  The first paragraph, Sir, on the bullet points.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

This is across the report rather than the legislation itself.  Yes.

The Deputy of St. John:

Yes, I know, but it has come out in the report and that is what I have based my question on because I have got real concerns that we could be criminalising the landlord of a property, unbeknown to himself.  We have a number of landlords with multiple properties and I am sure they do not want to be poking their nose into their tenants’ way of life. 

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

I think the question, if I have understood it then, Deputy and solicitor General, is in Article 9.3(a) the reference to: “A person who has control of a unit of dwelling accommodation” and who that person would be, I think. 

The Solicitor General:

That will include an owner or a landlord. 

The Deputy of St. John:

In fact, Sir, we would criminalising that person. 

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Can I point the Solicitor General to Article 9.4, he might wish to look at Article 9.4 which seems to have a wider definition than an owner and the landlord. 

The Solicitor General:

That is why I said it includes landlord and owner but that is not an exhaustive definition.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Very well, the Assistant Minister?

3.4.12 Senator P.F. Routier:

This is a situation where many people have obligations to make returns on various things, we hear that the D.V.S. (Driver and Vehicle Standards) is your responsibility, when you change your address, it is your obligation to make that known.  It is nothing particularly new as an onerous obligation on people to notify that there has been a change of address.

3.4.13 The Deputy of St. John:

I can understand where the Minister is coming from in relation to the person concerned but it is how would I or anybody here who is a landlord, know who is living in that property at any one time?  Other than as long as the rent is paid and the place is well run and we have no complaints we leave our tenants to get on with their lives, we do not go and ask them after 3 months: “Who else is in the property?”

3.4.14 Senator P.F. Routier:

I can only repeat that it is the person who is leaving that property; it is their responsibility to notify.  I have just had a note to say that, for Deputy Le Claire’s benefit, it will be possible to do this online in as well in the future, that has been confirmed, but certainly without that legislation there is a responsibility for people to let the departments know.

Senator T.J. Le Main:

Could I just seek clarification?

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

No.  Well you did not speak in the ... the Assistant Minister has summed up and other Members cannot at this stage ...

Senator T.J. Le Main:

Surely we can ask for a point of clarification?

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Well, only clarification of something that you think the Minister has not addressed in his summing up, but you did not speak.

Senator T.J. Le Main:

That should not make … [Laughter]

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

That is the rule that is traditionally followed.

Senator T.J. Le Main:

Well, I might as well go home then.  [Laughter]

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Deputy Le Hérissier, you did ask a query but is your query ...?

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

I wonder if I could ask the Assistant Minister to clarify when he said: “It would be managed by management by exception” what did he mean, and can he envisage any situations where people would turn up with another person’s card?

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

I think that is a new point, Deputy, it is not ...

Deputy A.E. Jeune:

Excuse me, Sir, I do not believe that the question of the Deputy of St. John has been clarified.  The Deputy, as I understood it, was asking for clarification on in the event that a landlord gives a lease to somebody ...

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

I think the question is clear, let us ask the Assistant Minister if he can clarify further the point that Deputy of St. John …

Deputy A.E. Juene:

Yes, because if somebody moves in afterwards …

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

He could also clarify the first part of Deputy Le Hérissier’s question.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

It is not question time but we will try and help Members by getting some answers.

Senator P.F. Routier:

The question about who is responsible for a landlord, whether he is responsible if a tenant leaves and does not tell him.  Firstly you have got the one step, you have got the tenant who needs to inform the department whether it be by a form or online or whatever, that it is their responsibility so if they fail to do that they are at fault and are subject to a fine.  The owner is in the same position and that is what is being proposed and that is I believe a fair thing.  If the property is empty for that period of time that is something the owner should be aware of.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

I think the question, if I can assist, Assistant Minister, is more so if somebody else, for example a partner, were to move in with a tenant and come and go, who is then responsible?  Is it that tenant or is it the landlord?

Senator P.F. Routier:

Subject to the Solicitor General putting me right I believe it is both, that there is the obligation on both.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Can we have the answer to the first part of Deputy Le Hérissier’s question?

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Which was?

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Management by exception, could the Minister explain how it works?

Senator P.F. Routier:

Every department will have information given to them about a name and address, and if that person does not have any activity within that particular department it will be recognised that that person may no longer be in existence.  That is what we are interested in, whether that person does exist.  So, what would happen is that they would check with the other departments to see if that is the fact, if there is any information available about that person so that by exception we will be able to have a better compliance with this system.

Male Speaker:

I will ask for the appel on this please, Sir.

Deputy I.J. Gorst:

Sorry, I know I have not spoken but it is a matter of what the Assistant Minister has just said.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Well this is the problem, Deputy.  It is not traditionally allowed for Members that jump up and subsequently ...

3.4.15 Deputy M. Tadier:

This is a question for the Solicitor General because I think it is an outstanding point of clarification although I did not raise it.  I think that what Members want to seek clarification on, is if a landlord does not know that somebody is residing in the property, for example it is a one bedroom property; they stipulated you can only have one person in there.  A second person then moves in, will the landlord then be prosecuted for information that he does not possess?  Or could he be literally liable?

3.4.16 The Solicitor General:

He could be investigated.  Whether or not he would in fact be prosecuted, one would have to consider on a case-by-case basis but if he or she genuinely had no idea then it would be very surprising if there were in fact a prosecution, and I am sure common sense would apply.  May I also add while I am on my feet, it is only relevant to people who are ordinarily resident in that property for 3 months or more.  So, it is not for the landlord to monitor night and day to see if someone is staying there for a week or 10 days.  It is 3 months or more, and it might be thought that a landlord maintaining a property properly would visit the property at least 4 times a year.

3.4.17 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Could the Solicitor General please confirm that it is not a strict liability offence then for the landlord not to notify?

3.4.18 The Solicitor General:

I do not see how it could be a strict liability offence.  I do not see how it could be an offence to not report something that you do not know about.  The obligation is on him to report what he knows I agree with that but if it turns out that he does not know something then it is very difficult to see how he would be prosecuted.

3.4.19 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

Can I do a follow up on that?  The query then arises that, is there not an assumption that the landlord or whoever must be taking steps to make sure he does know?

3.4.20 The Solicitor General:

Yes, as I have said but is not the whole point of this, the mischief that has been directed here as to insofar as this does occur is to stop landlords either not worrying or indeed turning a blind eye to who may or may not be residing in their premises?  The whole point of this if it is adopted, is to ensure that they take a more responsible attitude and ensure that there is nobody in their flat or house that should not be there.

3.4.21 The Deputy of St. John:

May I ask a question of the Solicitor General?  Given the comments made by the Solicitor General, is he implying that the majority of landlords are not responsible by not speaking or going into each of the premises they own 4 times a year, quarterly, if they only do it 3 times a year or twice a year?  Then they are having to question the tenant as to who the people are living in that house other than him and his immediate family, if they have got a mother-in-law who has just moved, in for instance, and has been there for 4 months instead of 3.  Is that basically what he is telling us, Sir?

3.4.22 The Solicitor General:

No, I am not implying anything.  All I am saying is that the law, if Members choose to pass it, is plainly putting an onus on a landlord to know who is and who is not residing in that premises but the key as I have said is that we are only concerned here with people who are ordinarily resident.  That is to say, coming back to what we were talking about before lunch, someone who has a settled residence in the Island for 3 or more months.  So the landlord is not required to worry about visitors and people staying for very short periods of time.

[14:45]

Male Speaker:

May we have the appel on this one please, Sir?

The Bailiff:

Senator Routier, had you finished replying?

Senator P.F. Routier:

One final point, I should just say that this is nothing that is particularly new because the existing housing controls have exactly the same provisions.  They do, the existing housing controls have the same provisions but this is something, which has been consulted upon for months and months and months and for it to be suddenly being worried about now seems to be rather strange but I maintain the Articles, Sir.

The Bailiff:

This is Articles 9 and 10, is it?  Yes, very well.

3.4.23 The Connétable of St. Mary:

I am a little confused.  May I just ask one quick question of the Solicitor General because 9(4), does that not say that the person who has control over the unit has control over the unit if that person is responsible for allowing the other person to use it as an ordinary residence?  So if a tenant lets someone else live there then it is the tenant’s responsibility surely?

3.4.24 The Solicitor General:

That might be right on a factual basis but yes I agree it may be that a sub-tenancy may be the responsibility of the tenant but equally one can see argument it is also the landlord’s responsibility.

The Bailiff:

Very well, so the matter before the Assembly on which the appel has been called for is the proposition to adopt Articles 9 and 10.  I invite Members to return to their seats and the Greffier will open the voting.

The Bailiff:

Very well, we now come to part 5.  Deputy Power, although you had an amendment to it, it was consequential so it has fallen away so there are no amendments to part 5 so do you wish to propose all the Articles in part 5, Senator?

3.5 Senator P.F. Routier (Assistant Minister for Economic Development - rapporteur):

I can certainly, Sir.  Part 5, these Articles describe how in future there will be just 2 housing categories, that is qualified and registered, and the process by which property will be categorised.  During the most recent consultation concerns were raised as to the future status of conditions and concessions currently applicable to property under the Housing Law and regulations.  Considerable thought has been given to this issue to ensure that property owners are not disadvantaged by the introduction of this law.  This Article is drafted to ensure that the status quo will remain with regards such conditions and concessions when the new law comes into force.  Insofar as any units not already controlled by the Housing Law will remain unqualified and become classified as registered.  All the various categories of controlled housing will fall into one single qualified category.  Article 14, this Article deals with tourism and nursing home premises and lodging houses, and all will be subject to registration provisions under the legislation dealing specifically with those premises.  Article 15, this Article effectively carries forward the Minister for Housing’s powers under the Housing Law, to categorise property.  Article 16, this is a new provision whereby a public register of property will be established.  It requires the Minister to keep a public register showing the housing category of each unit of dwelling accommodation whether there are any conditions or concessions to which the categorisation is subject.  This register will be established using the Jersey Land and Property Index managed by the Planning and Environment Department.  The availability of the public register, which records all units of residential accommodation, will be of benefit to those who are involved in property transactions.  The register will be available online.  Article 17, carries us forward current policies as to how people can occupy different categories of property, that is entitled and licensed people will be able to live in any property whether it is qualified or registered, while registered people can obviously only live in registered property.  I think that is all of part 5, Sir.