Housing (General Provisions) (Amendment No.26) (Jersey) Regulations 200-

Information about the publication of Ministerial Decisions

A formal published “Ministerial Decision” is required as a record of the decision of a Minister (or an Assistant Minister where they have delegated authority) as they exercise their responsibilities and powers.

Ministers are elected by the States Assembly and have legal responsibilities and powers as “corporation sole” under the States of Jersey Law 2005 by virtue of their office and in their areas of responsibility, including entering into agreements, and under any legislation conferring on them powers.

An accurate record of “Ministerial Decisions” is vital to effective governance, including:

demonstrating that good governance, and clear lines of accountability and authority, are in place around decisions-making – including the reasons and basis on which a decision is made, and the action required to implement a decision
providing a record of decisions and actions that will be available for examination by States Members, and Panels and Committees of the States Assembly; the public, organisations, and the media; and as a historical record and point of reference for the conduct of public affairs

Ministers are individually accountable to the States Assembly, including for the actions of the departments and agencies which discharge their responsibilities.

The Freedom of Information Law (Jersey) Law 2011 is used as a guide when determining what information is be published. While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.

A decision made (30/03/2009) regarding: Amendment to Regulation 1(1)(f) reducing the residential qualifying period from 12 years to 11 years, and an amendment to Regulation 1(1)(k) enabling the best interests of the community to be taken into account when considering applications under this provision.

Decision Reference: MD-H-2009-0025
Decision Summary Title :	Housing (General Provisions)(Amendment No 26)(Jersey) Regulations 200-		Date of Decision Summary:	26th March 2009
Decision Summary Author:	Peter Connew-Policy Advisor, Population Office		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)	Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written		Person Giving Oral Report:
Written Report Title :	Housing (General Provisions)(Amendment No 26)(Jersey) Regulations 200-		Date of Written Report:	13th March 2009
Written Report Author:	Liz Walsh-Senior Assistant Law Draftsman (explanatory note and draft Regulation) Peter Connew-Policy Advisor, Population Office(department’s report)		Written Report : Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)	Public
Subject: Amendment to Regulation 1(1)(f) reducing the residential qualifying period from 12 years to 11 years, and an amendment to Regulation 1(1)(k) enabling the best interests of the community to be taken into account when considering applications under this provision.
Decision(s): The Minister decided that taking into account the latest data from the House Price Index and information from the effect on the housing market of previous similar reductions, he would wish to put to the States a proposal that the qualifying period be reduced from 12 years to 11 years. Following a review of Regulation 1(1)(k) the Minister noted that the requirements as currently set out identify social or economic grounds for consideration, but unlike the requirements of Regulation 1(1)(j) (essential employment) does not also specify that the Minister has to be satisfied that any consent granted has to be justified as being in the best interests of the community.
Reason(s) for Decision:. The Minister noted that P 25/2005 agreed to aim to have the qualifying period reduced to 10 years by 2010. He also noted that previous reductions in one years steps had been agreed and had little effect on the market, but since the last reduction in April 2007 house prices had risen and availability had become more difficult, making any further reduction difficult to justify. The recent difficulties in the housing market enabled a review of what effects would ensue if a further reduction were to be proposed at this time. The whole thrust of the Migration Policy espoused in P25/2005 related to fairness and equity within the housing and employment market, and in reviewing the current information available the Minister took the view that a further one year reduction could now be justified.. The Minister considers that when considering any application for a consent under Regulation 1(1)(k) he should be able to take into account the widest possible circumstances surrounding an applicants background and experience. This amendment brings this Regulation in line with the existing requirements of Regulation 1(1)(j) which relates to issues surrounding the Minister’s considerations in the granting essential employment status.
Resource Implications: None
Action required: The Assistant Greffier is requested to ensure that these amendments are lodged before the States by Tuesday 31st March for consideration 6 weeks later.
Signature: Senator Terry Le Main		Position: Housing Minister
Date Signed:		Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Housing (General Provisions) (Amendment No.26) (Jersey) Regulations 200-

MD-H-2009-0025 POPULATION OFFICE

Housing (General Provisions)(Amendment No 26) (Jersey) Regulations 200-

REPORT

1.Regulation 1(1)(f)

Brief History

Until 1980, “non native” residents were entitled by virtue of length of residence of 10 years to gain access to the controlled housing sector. In 1980 that right was removed as a means of curbing immigration and the consequent demand on the housing stock. In 1995 the inequality of permanent residents with no housing rights was recognised by the States, and a 20 year qualifying period was re-established, to be effective from 2000.

Soon after this 20 year period had become effective it was generally recognised as being too long, and the Housing Committee commenced, in 2001, a series of proposals to gradually reduce the period to 15 years which was achieved by 2003.

As part of the Migration Policy, P25/2005, the States agreed that as a matter of policy the period should be further reduced as soon as practical to 10 years. By early 2007 this period had been reduced in yearly tranches to 12 years.

Current situation

In view of the time that has elapsed since the last qualifying reduction, the Housing Minister has taken the view that it was now appropriate for consideration to be given to reducing this period further.

The table below outlines the effects on the housing market of previous reductions. It is accepted that these figures relate to more “normal” market conditions than those that currently prevail, but certain assumptions can be made from them.

Year	Non Jersey Born Numbers Qualified	Numbers who Qualified "early" due to 1 year reduction	Number Transacted (Purchased or Leased)	Number Purchased (Freehold and Share Transfer)	Number Leased with Housing Trust	Number Accepted into States Rental
2006	474	284	278	98	26	29
2007	790	375	389	125	21	26
2008	572	-	171	50	2	17
Total	1,836	659	838	273	49	72

Following previous reductions to the qualifying period in both 2006 and 2007, it is estimated that only 3% of all purchase consents that were subsequently issued were to persons who had taken advantage of the one year earlier qualification.

In the current economic climate the effect of any reduction is slightly less certain than has been experienced following previous reductions. The official Bank Rate has fallen to an unprecedented low level, mortgage rates have fallen to as low as 3% for some borrowers and are harder to obtain, and the latest House Price Index reflects a slight downturn on turnover and prices. It is therefore more difficult to provide finite evidence of what effect a change now would have on the market, but this situation is unlikely to become any clearer in the foreseeable future.

As an indicator of current market trends the following is a comparison of numbers of applications processed by the Population Office-

Purchase Share Transfer Lease

1st January 2008-24th March 2008 386 106 509

1st January 2009-24th March 2009 264 58 527

Advice from the Economic Advisor has been that house prices are primarily a function of general economic / financial conditions, and that changes in new qualifiers arising from incremental changes in the qualification period have little, if no, impact on prices. This is particularly true in the present economic climate, where it is reasonable to conclude that the already limited propensity to purchase of new qualifiers will be lower than it has been in the past, given that prices have risen substantially over the last 2 years, i.e. affordability has declined, and mortgage finance is substantially more limited than in the recent past.

Discussion

As stated above the last reduction to 12 years was approved in April 2007 nearly two years ago therefore a review now is timely. The Minister has in effect three options-

a) do nothing and maintain the 12 year qualifying period,

b) reduce the period by one year to 11 years or,

c) reduce the period to 10 years

The Minister has decided to seek States approval for a reduction now to 11 years.

Although taking into account the slight uncertainty of the effect on the housing market in these changing times the Minister is swayed by the fact that this decision continues achieving equity and fairness as espoused in P25/2005, a strong theme that is being currently progressed in the development of the Migration Policy.

The relative certainty that prevailed when proposing previous reductions on any effect to the market that such a decision would have is now not so clear, but taking into account the Economic Advisor’s view and anecdotal evidence from housing practitioners the effect is expected to be minimal.

The Minister accepted that the ‘do nothing’ option is the less risky one, but that does nothing to further the aims of the Migration Policy of equity and fairness which is reflected in all other aspects of the proposed new laws which will be presented to the Sates during 2009. It is very unlikely that delaying a decision, for example to the end of 2009, will enable any further evidence being available which would provide greater certainty as to the impact this decision would have.

The effect of this one year reduction if approved will be carefully monitored and will inform the timescale for the final step to achieve the stated aim agreed with the approval of P25/2005 of a 10 qualifying period. It is hoped that this would be able to be achieved during 2010 as originally planned, and would coincide with the implementation of other aspects of the Migration laws.

It must be remembered that the effects of the additional qualifiers only relate to a one year addition-all these applicants would qualify anyway in one year’s time under the current 12 year rule.

2. Regulation 1(1)(k)

The wording of the current Regulation requires that applicants need to satisfy the Minister that consent can be granted on social or economic grounds. As a matter of practise when considering applications, in addition to pure financial matters, more extensive aspects of an applicant’s background and past activities is sought and assessed. The purpose of such enquiries relate to any potential impact that the taking up of residence on the Island might have by a new resident.

The purpose of this current amendment is in effect a tidying up exercise by making it clear that both economic and social grounds are considered, and bringing this Regulation in line with the identical requirements set out in Regulation 1(1)(j) (essential employment) by including in addition to the economic or social criteria, that an applicant needs to satisfy the Minister that any consent granted can be justified as being in the best interests of the community.

This more inclusive wording ensures that the Minister can take into account the widest possible aspects of an applicant’s background and circumstances, and any impact, either positive or negative, that might result from that applicant taking up residence in the Island under this Regulation.

Financial/manpower implications

There are no financial or manpower implications for the Sates arising from these Draft Regulations.