This content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost, therefore it should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments. Please see the PDF for the official version of the document.
STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT
WEDNESDAY, 10th SEPTEMBER 2025
PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption .................................................................. 4
1. Draft Residential Tenancy (Jersey) Amendment Law 202- (P.24/2025) - resumption . 4
1.2.1 Deputy P.M. Bailhache of St. Clement : .................................................... 5
- Deputy M.R. Scott of St. Brelade : ......................................................... 7
- Deputy I. Gardiner : ....................................................................... 11
- Deputy S.Y. Mézec : ...................................................................... 12
- Deputy P.M. Bailhache : .................................................................. 15
- Deputy H.L. Jeune : ....................................................................... 15
- Deputy M.R. Scott : ....................................................................... 16 Mr. M.H. Temple K.C., H.M. Attorney General: .............................................. 18
- Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity (Chair, Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel): ....................................................... 22
- Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier South : .................................................. 23
- Deputy M.R. Scott : ....................................................................... 24
- Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier South : .................................................. 28
- Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier Central : .................................................. 33
- Deputy K.M. Wilson of St. Clement : .................................................... 35
- Deputy D.J. Warr of St. Helier South : .................................................... 36
- Deputy L.J. Farnham of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter : ............................... 38
LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED ................................................... 39 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT .................................................................. 39
- Deputy M.R. Scott : ....................................................................... 39
- Connétable A.N. Jehan of St. John : ...................................................... 40
- Deputy A.F. Curtis of St. Clement :....................................................... 40
- Connétable R.D. Johnson of St. Mary : ................................................... 41
- Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : ............................ 41
- Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter :................................ 42
- Deputy L.V. Feltham of St. Helier Central : ........................................... 43
- Deputy J. Renouf of St. Brelade :...................................................... 43
- Deputy C.D. Curtis of St. Helier Central : ............................................. 45 Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade : ............................................................... 45 Mr. M.H. Temple K.C., H.M. The Attorney General: .......................................... 46 Deputy M.R. Scott : .............................................................................. 46 Deputy H.L. Jeune : .............................................................................. 47
- Deputy R.S. Kovacs of St. Saviour: ................................................... 48 The Attorney General: .......................................................................... 48
- Deputy M. Tadier : ..................................................................... 49
- Deputy P.M. Bailhache : ............................................................... 50
- Deputy S.Y. Mézec : ...................................................................... 57
- Deputy H.L. Jeune : ....................................................................... 59 Deputy A. Howell : .............................................................................. 62 Mr. M.H. Temple K.C., H.M. Attorney General: .............................................. 63
- Deputy L.K.F. Stephenson of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter : ......................... 64
- Deputy S.Y. Mézec : ...................................................................... 64
- Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity (Chair, Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel): ....................................................... 71
- Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier South : .................................................. 71
- Deputy H.L. Jeune : ....................................................................... 72
- Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity (Chair, Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel): ....................................................... 74
- Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier South : .................................................. 74
- Deputy H.L. Jeune : ....................................................................... 74
- Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier South (The Minister for Housing):................. 76
- Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : ............................ 77
- Deputy S.Y. Mézec : ................................................................... 78
- Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity (Chair, Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel):.............................................. 80
- Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier South : .............................................. 81
- Deputy S.G. Luce of Grouville and St. Martin : ....................................... 81
- Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat of St. Helier North : ......................................... 81
- Deputy H.L. Jeune :.................................................................... 81
- Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity (Chair, Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel):.............................................. 83 Deputy S.Y. Mézec : ............................................................................ 84 Mr. M.H. Temple K.C. , H.M. Attorney General: .............................................. 84 Deputy S.Y. Mézec : ............................................................................ 85 Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade : ............................................................... 85 Deputy M.R. Scott of St. Brelade :.............................................................. 86 Deputy L.J. Farnham of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter : ..................................... 86
- The Connétable of St. Mary : .......................................................... 86
- Deputy S.Y. Mézec : ................................................................... 87
ADJOURNMENT .................................................................................. 89
[9:30]
The Roll was called and the Deputy Greffier of the States led the Assembly in Prayer. Deputy S.G. Luce of Grouville and St. Martin :
I have a funeral to attend at lunchtime. I may be absent from the Assembly a short period of time either side of the lunch break.
The Deputy Bailiff :
Thank you very much.
1. Draft Residential Tenancy (Jersey) Amendment Law 202- (P.24/2025) - resumption The Deputy Bailiff :
We have dealt with the principles and I am obliged to ask you, this time under Standing Order 72, Deputy Jeune , if your panel wishes to scrutinise this matter?
Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John, St. Lawrence and Trinity (Chair, Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel):
No, Sir, we have scrutinised enough, thank you.
The Deputy Bailiff :
We now move to Second Reading. Minister, do you wish to take the Articles en bloc? Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier South:
Yes, I think it would be very unwise not to do so.
The Deputy Bailiff :
It would indeed, thank you. Do you wish now to propose the matter in Second Reading?
Yes, thank you and can I thank Members for their support for the principles of this law yesterday. In proposing the Articles en bloc, I wanted to offer Members an explanation as to why this is the best course of action. The Articles of the law are all intertwined and not many parts of them can stand alone and still maintain the coherence of the overall law if a piecemeal approach is taken. If one slip is made, even accidentally, we could inadvertently end up with Articles that do not align with one another and cannot work because some will make references to things that are now missed out from other Articles that have either been changed or missed. So we could not have a functioning law if we accidentally end up in that position. On top of that, if I proposed them in separate parts it would also make it impossible to deal with the multiple amendments that there are, which themselves cover lots of Articles, not necessarily in sequential order either. Proposing the Articles as amended by the amendments that I am supportive of would then have made it impossible for the Assembly to debate the amendments that I am not supporting. In the interest of fairness, every one of them has to be debated and voted on, including the ones that hopefully will carry consensus. I should state now that depending on how the next few hours go there is a very real chance that we end up with Articles that are stitched together from scraps lurching without purpose, and I would call that a Frankenstein law, if we got there. I apologise to Members in advance if they get weary of me repeating that metaphor throughout the debate but I do think it is apt, and I will try to be specific about when we get there what the chances are there. But I am pretty sure I probably speak for all Members when I express my deep gratefulness to the Greffe team for their work in putting together a running order on this. [Approbation] Following that carefully will give us the best chance of making it through this thing in one piece and proceeding in an orderly way and avoiding any potential opportunity to create that
Frankenstein law. Can I also thank my team who have done incredible work in the last few weeks making sure that we get comments on responses out to all of this, to hopefully inform Members as best as possible as to what the practical effects of each amendment are and what they would lead to? I propose the Articles.
The Deputy Bailiff :
Are the Articles seconded? [Seconded] Deputy C.D. Curtis of St. Helier Central: May I raise the défaut on Deputy Southern ? The Deputy Bailiff :
Are Members content to raise the défaut on Deputy Southern ? The défaut is raised.
We now move on to the first amendment lodged by Deputy Bailhache . If Members are content, I will not invite the Greffier to read the amendments, as they are 3 pages in length, so I invite Deputy Bailhache to propose the first amendment.
1.2.1 Deputy P.M. Bailhache of St. Clement :
The Minister has criticised these amendments as wrecking amendments, and I would probably plead guilty to that charge. I think that the Minister's amendments are so deeply flawed that they need a wrecking ball. They are based upon the misapprehension that something is badly wrong with the existing law. There is not. The Minister's amendments are not based upon data, of which there is virtually none, but upon misconceptions that there are revenge evictions and numerous instances of extortionate behaviour by landlord. But the existing law can take care of such behaviour to the extent that it exists. I was talking off-camera to a journalist a few days ago who told me that her rent had been increased 4 times in a year. I expressed astonishment and asked her what her tenancy agreement said about rent increases. "I had no agreement", she said. "That is a legal requirement", I replied. "I did not know that" was the answer. Something has gone badly wrong with our systems if an intelligent journalist can be so ignorant of fundamental legal requirements. If an intelligent journalist can be ignorant, how much more so can many tenants? As the Landlords Association has consistently told the Minister, we need some simple written guidance telling tenants what their legal rights are. The Minister has consulted but he has not heard. His proposals are a frontal attack upon the private rental sector, when the sector most in need of attention is that where immigrant families and migrant labour live under licence. The Minister's amendments leave that untouched. My experience of representing constituents before the Employment and Discrimination Tribunal suggests that it is that sector which needs attention. Individuals whose conditions of occupancy are intrusive and demeaning, and whose rents for a single room are far too high, but who cannot complain because they are tied to bad employers or in the bind of immigration controls. Those people are unaffected by these proposals. They are in the too-difficult box. The Minister says that we face a housing crisis, and to an extent I agree with him. Price s of houses and rents are still too high, but these proposals do nothing to address those problems. If anything, they will make them worse. Any economist will tell you that the cause of high rents is an imbalance between supply and demand. When demand exceeds supply, prices go up. It is not rocket science. The Minister scoffs at the suggestion that landlords will leave the market if they feel under threat, but I can only say that numerous landlords have told me that they are considering or will consider selling up if we continue in the direction that the Minister is travelling. It may be huff and puff, but I can only say what I have been told. The Minister claims that these proposals are very different from the law in Scotland under the Cost of Living (Tenant Protection) (Scotland) Act 2022, but it is only a question of degree. The Scott ish experience is not encouraging for us. My amendments seek to remove the capping of rent increases
and the establishment of the Rent Tribunal. The Minister is going to accept the amendment of the Deputy Renouf , which removes the 5 per cent cap on rent increases so that it remains as R.P.I. (retail price index). That clearly moderates the proposal, but once the principle of capping rents has been accepted, there is not much trust out there that 5 per cent will not come back, or even 4 per cent or 3 per cent, depending on who is in office.
[9:45]
In Scotland, the cap was placed for a while at 0 per cent. Confidence among landlords is at a low ebb. In Scotland, it is reported that the legislation has stalled investment in rental properties and discouraged new property development for rental purposes. Confidence is a delicate flower. It can wither with dramatic economic effects. I know that some Members are not particularly concerned about increasing our bureaucracy, and sometimes, indeed, it is necessary to do so. But this Rent Tribunal, which will increase the bureaucracy, is not empowered to do the right things. Most disputes between landlord and tenant can, in my view, be resolved by discussion, or indeed by mediation. In a mediation quite often no one wins. There is compromise. Is that not a better way of helping people in commercial agreements to live with each other? But this Rent Tribunal has no power to order mediation. My amendments also seek to remove the introduction of compulsory periodic tenancies. I am not against periodic tenancies. My tenants have them. But I am against compulsion. If parties want to have a fixed-term lease, why should they not? At an uncertain stage of my life, I sold my house and took on a lease for 3 years, but it might have been 4 or 5 years. The important thing for me was certainty. I wanted the property for that period of time, without any interruption. I would not have agreed to any break clause. But a 4-year lease is not possible under these proposals. Nanny knows best. Three years is enough of a probation period, we are told. Some people do not want a probation period, they want certainty. But the real problem with the periodic tenancy proposal is the change in the nature of the relationship between landlord and tenant. By giving the tenant an absolute right to remain in the property, other than in certain defined circumstances, the nature of the relationship is changed. That is what the Minister wants. He wants to give the tenant security. But that security comes at the price of changing the nature of property. Who is really the owner in law .. I am sorry. Who is really the owner if the owner in law cannot obtain possession of his property unless he can articulate a valid reason for doing so? The Scrutiny Panel amendment is certainly to be welcomed, but 12 months is a long time for elderly landlords to have to put up with a rude or aggressive tenant who has just managed to keep on the right side of the Minister's exceptions. I do not think this is fair to property owners. I think that the existing security given to tenants through the ability of the court to grant delays in giving possession is the right balance between the rights of landlord and tenant. The magistrate is obliged to take account of all relevant factors, including the behaviour of the parties. She can order a long delay. Landlords know that, and it is a deterrent. A tenancy is, or ought to be, a consensual agreement. If either party no longer wants it to continue, it seems to me that the law should offer reasonable protection to both parties but should ultimately not get in the way. The Minister accuses me, at page 16 of his recent report, of causing unintended consequences. It is true that if parts of my amendment are accepted but not others, there will be a need to consider where we are before the Third Reading. But the Minister himself has created a hugely complicated morass of rules and regulations, which will be difficult to explain in a simple way. He says that I have removed the right of the court to terminate an agreement if the premises become uninhabitable. It is true that the statutory provision goes with the removal of part 3, but an agreement which is frustrated by a fundamental change of circumstance comes to an end anyway, and the court has power at customary law to confirm that. There is no gap. I come to civil penalties. In my report I criticised the Minister for not explaining why he wanted to introduce this possibility. He has now given the explanation that minor offences can be dealt with more quickly in this way by prosecution. Prosecution offers judicial safeguards which civil penalties do not. This seems to me to be all part of the new regime which treats landlords as potential criminals. I do not generally approve of civil penalties regimes which give civil servants the power to impose fines in
circumstances where either a prosecution should ensue, or a simple warning would be appropriate. Worse, it can be used as a money-raising opportunity. Landlords will be told: "You can pay a fine of £10,000 for this, or I will take you to court." The landlord will probably pay up. This is not the way that relations between landlords and officials should be handled. If a civil penalty regime is to be introduced, it needs to be justified and explained in detail. It should not be tucked into the back pocket, to use one of Deputy Renouf 's phrases, as something to be slipped in in due course. I hope that Members will accept all my amendments. The important part of the Minister's draft which is left is the ability to obtain rent information. This is something which should sensibly be done before any change to the law is drawn up. The Minister's proposals launch fundamental changes to the law in a fog of ignorance. They subtly change the nature of ownership in our Island. They interfere with landlord-tenant relations in fundamental ways without any basis of evidence. I move the amendments.
The Deputy Bailiff :
Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded]
- Draft Residential Tenancy (Jersey) Amendment Law 202- (P.24/2025): amendment (P.24/2025 Amd.) - second amendment (P.24/2025 Amd.Amd.(2))
The Deputy Bailiff :
Now we now move on to Deputy Scott 's amendment to the first amendment. Again, I do not invite the Greffier to read the amendment, which is four and a half pages in length. But I invite Deputy Scott to make her amendment.
I thank Deputy Bailhache for doing so much of the heavy lifting for me in advance of this speech. He describes why so much of the current content of the draft law threatens tenants as a class, even as it purports to seek to protect certain individuals from certain types of eviction proceedings, for whom there is a form of protection available in the courts already. Members have been provided with an economic impact assessment. I may be confused because a separate one was circulated by the Minister earlier this morning, which was the one that he provided to Scrutiny. I will point out that one gives very narrow advice in relation to the best way of doing rent stabilisation measures, generally, and the other looks specifically at this jurisdiction, at this housing market, looks at what is going on and provides and invites States Members to look at the unforeseen consequences that can arise from this. It provides the options. Of course the Economics Unit does not want to be political but what they are actually doing is saying this is what we see in terms of how this law can be argued to support tenants, and this is what it is going to basically be doing for landlords. That includes disincentivising them from continuing to hold property and also disencouraging other people to invest in buy-to-lets that will affect the rental market because basically if you are going to reinvest in property you can get more money elsewhere at the moment and it is a lot less hassle. That is how it is. Let us look at some facts. I am going to look at some statistics that have been published quite recently. A downwards trend may already have started in response to this draft law. Statistics show a net reduction of 13 rental properties this year as a result of .. well, I am afraid the Minister may be shaking his head, but I can refer him to the actual .. in fact, I will circulate it to Members. I will actually circulate the reference to the actual statistics that the Economics Unit referred me to when I asked the question. So a net reduction of 13 rental properties this year, is this a start of a trend? Well who is to say? I mean the Minister certainly seem to think he has got his crystal ball. It reminds me of a time when I was looking at tree protection provisions and suggesting how this might be improved. I remember a policy officer saying to me: "You have got to be careful here because I know you do not want them to chop down trees but you start kind of working on this sort of stuff and, guess what, they will chop them down before the law gets on the books." That is a risk. The other thing pointed out by the economic impact assessment, which Members can look at. I know that
the Minister did not provide a copy to you directly and that the Chief Minister did, but basically if you look at it, it talks about these other options. What might happen to properties if people basically decide not to let them out and it talks about other options, letting them as Airbnb, which might sound great for the economic development area but that is not really the Minister's area, and I do not remember seeing the Minister for Sustainable Economic Development getting totally enthused about this when voting on the principles keeping properties vacant. Anyway, my amendments to Deputy Bailhache 's amendments are quite simple and they are just thinking, okay, if, as the Deputy says, this is the best way forward, is there any way of making it better? Can I actually think of that? How can I nevertheless better improve things for tenants? I think there are certain clues in terms of his speech. But to describe the nature of my amendments, number one: "Provide for a limited situation in which a fixed-term lease will become periodic. To give further scope for the Minister's existing powers in this area." I actually think we really need to look at those existing powers because they have not actually been exercised, not in the case of periodic leases. I really think that that in itself merits a discussion. We have got a Minister for Housing who has not actually used the power to increase the notice to be given in respect of periodic leases. There is that power there and I think that basically if you have got a situation where people are almost like avoiding that, if they are almost like recharacterising what essentially are periodic leases by saying: "Oh look, that is just a fixed term and I am renewing it again and again", then that needs to be changed.
[10:00]
There is a very limited circumstance in which that can happen. "Ensure tenants are aware of courts powers and their rights in these areas." Well I had not expected that to be controversial. Rather than support the reinstatement of the Dwelling Houses Law with its version of a rent tribunal, my amendment inserts provisions enabling a rent tribunal to be established by regulations. Deputy Bailhache has explained some of the problems with how the Rent Tribunal in this draft law has been constituted. In fact, the one under the Dwelling Houses Law actually envisages that you have to go to it before you have any rent increase improved, and I do not think that is ideal either. What I have done is propose that provisions are put in that enable a rent tribunal to be introduced by reference to a threshold that does have benefits, and this allows further work to be done on creating a technical resource that can assist tenants, landlords and the Petty Debt Court. Finally, my amendment provides for rent information provision to be brought by regulations approved by the States Assembly rather than by Ministerial Order because I am aware of some discussion about, do we not already have that mechanism? Should we not be amending the Control of Borrowing Order, because that does have provisions saying that information can be given. Even if that is not good enough, maybe we should get rid of that; just tidy things up a bit. Essentially, my amendment is not, I believe, doing anything controversial. So why is it being treated as such? Now, the amendments that I have proposed have to be accepted en bloc or rejected en bloc. I drafted them in a relatively short time, during a period of uncertainty. I did not want to overly complicate this debate when the detail of this law is already leading Members down rabbit holes. Talking about rabbit holes, I want to thank a commentator on Twitter for their feedback on my speeches. "You go on so much and ramble off down loads of intellectual rabbit holes that you might know what you are on about, but no one else has a clue." I accepted the feedback and said that in my defence the devil is in the detail. Indeed, in an earlier speech, the Minister has asked for detail. He also gleefully referred to the traps he said he had set for Members. Where do the traps for Members end? Deputy Bailhache 's amendment is a brave amendment. I call the amendment brave for a reason highlighted by Deputy Ahier . Rejection of the Minister's proposition could fuel a Reform Party election campaign based on a narrative that this States Assembly is full of greedy landlords who only vote in their self-interest in breach of the Code of Conduct. It could. I am not saying the Minister would promote that but that is what Reform members might do. Or support the Minister's proposals and you fuel a Reform Party election campaign. The Minister has done so much for tenants without mentioning the potential damage wreaked on them as a class. You may even be characterised as a covert member of the Reform Party.
You may be under pressure to use your vote in one way or the other to serve party political purposes. Oh, the traps. I personally do not like tactics that seek to label people in black and white terms, but who is interested in detail? I just find it highly ironic that Deputy Bailhache is thinking about tenants as a class, while the Minister is relentlessly pursuing a course of changing fundamental property rights on an unproven argument that this will protect an unspecified but small number of individuals. Somebody in the Reform Party headquarters might have used that line from "The Italian Job". "You only needed to blow the doors off." But then again, for some reason, the economic impact assessment was not sought from the Government's Economics Unit by the Minister at the time he formulated the proposals. So how was he to know the risks of playing with political dynamite? The truth is somebody got there first when it came to protecting the protection of .. considering the protection of individual tenants and the need to protect tenants as a class. We do not know who to thank for that and to what extent a government economist thought through the details. But the current law could fuel a different narrative. The current law, something along the lines of the Monty Python sketch: "What did the Romans do for us?" Oh, its simplicity maximised rental property supply and protected longstanding property rights while providing protections for tenants in difficult circumstances. Oh, really? How does it do that then? But does that suit the Minister's narrative? If Deputy Bailhache 's amendment essentially restores the status quo, the question to be asked is: what is wrong with the status quo? That is the basis from where my amendment starts. As I said, you can call it zero budgeting in legislative terms. The extent to which the Minister gave serious thoughts to options in his decision-making is evidenced by his own narrative, and what he has said or not said or not disclosed. For example, there has been very little discussion about the Minister's current powers to extend the notice period required to be given on periodic tenancies. It is already in there in Article 6 of the existing law. Sorry, that is a detail. Currently, the statutory period of notice is 3 months, but this can be changed by the Minister issuing orders prescribing a different notice period provided it is not less than one month. The Minister was aware of this at the time I met with him to discuss my amendment and why I felt the need to bring it. So he could have protected periodic tenancies that week within a week of assuming office. He does not need that amendment of Scrutiny creating a period of notice of one year for periodic tenancies. He could have done that by Ministerial Order already. It seems to the panel, in bringing that amendment to create a period of notice of one year for all periodic tendencies, was on the basis of one-size-fits-all. Well, actually it does not. But there is another magical detail regarding the power the Minister has never used. The periods he prescribes can be different for different classes of cases. I can see the chair of Scrutiny looking at Article 6, if you look at the very last subsection. The periods he describes can be different for different classes of cases. In other words, he can prescribe different periods of notice according to the length of occupation by a tenant of a rented premises. So that table with all those different notice periods could have been produced a lot earlier. I did question the Minister, asking him why had he not already exercised these powers? What was the reason for the delay if he wanted to protect periodic tenants as quickly as possible? At that point it was clear we disagreed on the interpretation of the provision. I questioned the Minister and asked if he had sought legal advice. Hold on, a Minister has powers at his disposal and has not sought legal advice regarding their use? How long would it take to ask for legal advice rather than draft a law in the absence of seeking it? Any Member can ask for that legal advice now; I know the answer. By the way, I have sought legal advice twice on this point now and it still confirms my interpretation. Let us have a closer look at the Minister's narrative when it comes to these amendments. Rent control: I am sorry there was something in the comments about this. I am not taking away a rent tribunal. I am allowing for one to be introduced in a more sensible form, dare I say, that the States Assembly, or let us just say one that accommodates tenants as a class better, in a form that the States Assembly can approve separately. Do some work, these regulations can be presented at the same time as the draft law, the Appointed Day Act. So where is the harm in that? In fact, I think there is something in this rent tribunal. I know Deputy Bailhache might not agree with me insofar as that could have value as a resource to assist the Petty Debt Courts and tenants in determining whether a rent is extortionate or not. I do think tenants should be protected. As I said,
you cannot stop the general increase of rent prices because of factors outside our control but, yes, extortionate rents, it could help. There are some comments on the definition of R.P.I. in my regulation. Again, it seems to ignore the fact that this is one example of a threshold that can be used and that can be changed by regulations as a result of my amendment. Coming on to the fixed\-term leases. I know that Deputy Bailhache has gone through why they provide greater security of tenure for tenants and he has also gone through how the courts can intervene where there are problems of that. Scrutiny's report said: "There is insufficient evidence to show that making periodic tenancies the norm will provide tenants with greater security of tenure compared to the current system. Nonetheless it is reasonable to assume that the move to periodic tenancies might provide greater security of tenure for some tenants." Who? Which fixed-term contracts provide less security than periodic tenancies? I had to do a guess at this and I thought, well, I guess it must be the fixed-term leases granted for a period that is less than the notice that can be given for periodic tenancies under Article 6 of the current law. That currently is only 3 months by the way, but it can be changed by Ministerial Order under the law as it stands, but it has not been. If anyone cares to read the objections in the Minister's comments on retaining the amendments to Article 9. Yes, okay that is not tidy. Deputy Bailhache has explained that this is not a really fundamental issue. But I still remain thinking about that poor child who has gone from place to place. That poor child whose parents did not know their rights. That poor child whose parents could have had a longer notice period under the periodic tenancy. The narrative about my part of the amendment that seeks to educate tenants on the current protections available to them by requiring leases to contain information in a form provided by the Minister. What is offensive about that? The comments he published 2 days ago on that beggars belief. I am going to quote these. "An unintended consequence of notifying tenants of their rights in this way may be to encourage them to breach their contracts, e.g. not give vacant possession, withhold rent payments, et cetera. This could end up backfiring on tenants themselves and cause an influx of cases to the Petty Debts Court." This is a provision that actually suggests that leases incorporate information provided by the Minister himself. I guess he just does not have confidence in himself, and I am really sorry about that. This is the Minister for Housing arguing against tenants being informed of their rights in language provided by him. I do not want to carry on dealing with these kind of specious things and the detail or what the Minister might describe as traps. I promise you at least I am not setting any traps here because I did not bring this amendment to grandstand or create false narratives. I brought it to protect my constituents from false traps and misinformation and lack of information and lack of action on Article 6. If anyone wishes to suggest otherwise, I am going to rebut that suggestion because this Assembly should feel a place of safe and respectful debate. I will be happy to answer any questions on content and to rebut any further misinformation in my closing speech, and I look forward to responding to Members' contributions.
[10:15]
The Deputy Bailiff :
Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded] Deputy I. Gardiner of St. Helier North :
I would like to ask first a point of clarification, and after the speech, if possible. First of all, I would like to ask Deputy Scott to clarify one more time the economic impact report that we received this morning in our inbox was written by economic advisers for the Government, worked for the Government; if the Deputy can clarify it now before I will speak. It is for clarification of the Deputy 's speech, if possible.
The Deputy Bailiff :
Yes, all right. Can you clarify that? Do you want to clarify that? Deputy M.R. Scott :
Yes, of course, Sir. The economic impact assessment was prepared by the Economics Unit after I basically canvassed for that following the debate of the principles that Deputy Gardiner .. in which Deputy Gardiner 's proposition was accepted to defer it because she felt that further information was needed for Members. So with the aim to get that information so that we could all be better informed, the Chief Minister asked the Minister for Housing's policy offers to seek that economic impact assessment, and that is what Members were provided with this morning.
Thank you, it is helpful and actually I will adjust my speech because I pressed to print my speech more or less at the same time that we received this economic advice. I did not speak yesterday and I am not planning to speak during the debate, to be able to listen. This is why it was important for me to stand up and to do a very short speech explaining my rationale for today. I have said before, and I will say it again, and this is my belief from my courses in Commonwealth Parliamentary Associations, that any legislation requires post-legislative scrutiny. No law is perfect in the first time. Laws are evolved with time and they are not carved in stone. When it comes to the housing we need something that works better for everyone. So post-legislative scrutiny and review also recognise the rental sector no longer operating at the margins, and now a core part of our housing system affects thousands of Islanders, both tenants and landlords. This is why I have supported yesterday this amendment to existing laws in principles. After 11 years it is completely right to revisit and modernise the legislation. Now my decisions today on the amendments will be guided by one test. What is the impact on the stability of Jersey economy as a whole going forward? Today we face amendments and amendments on amendments, and this is why clarity is extremely important. If I vote on one amendment another amendment falls away, and this is what I would like to know, and I am looking around the Chamber. First, what is the difference between the amendment in front of us, currently the amendment from Deputy Scott , the original proposition from the Minister and the alternative amendment - I am looking at Deputy Bailhache - that would fall away. For example, in this case I would ask Deputy Bailhache if in specific, as the Minister said, because details are important and details are extremely important this time. Why Deputy Bailhache did not accept Deputy Scott 's amendments, what are the specific difference so we can make an informed decision. Basically what do we gain, what do we lose by supporting one over another. But let us not forget housing are not just numbers, a home where family raise children, where people feel safe, where older Islanders live with dignity. For me, when housing is unstable everything else in life becomes unstable: education, health, well-being and community life. I cannot see that we can separate fixing the housing market without having a knock-on effect on the wider economy. In general terms, if you depress one part of the economy it will depress other parts of the economy, and it is basic things. To use a single metric like rent levels, it is a barometer for healthy society, it is flawed because there are lots of other barometers for me. It is in my views, in my ideology, because we do have some clashes of ideology here. Housing problems are universal. Think about the situation today, and it was interesting. I very quickly scrolled through the economic impact, and the word that was used there is that our economy is kind of sluggish. This is the word that was used. I was surprised to use this word, but it was there. In the situation today, and this is what I am looking at, unless you inherit the house, you live in the house that you inherited or you purchased house a long time ago, or you know that you are going to inherit the flat or house that you are currently living because it is part of the family, all other people would face all higher mortgages or higher rents. Before we support policy design and the Minister for Housing's words to lower the price of homes, I would like to hear from the Minister - I know that he will speak because this is really specific things that I would like to understand Minister's views - what advice and support he is giving to Islanders who are caught in the trap of rising mortgages and falling housing value? There are young families also through our £10 million support that purchase houses for the last year and some young families or .. not just young families, Islanders purchases houses over the last 3 years paying high mortgages and now watching their homes lose value. What does the Minister say to people at risk of negative equity,
with mortgages they cannot longer afford? That is a real concern for the family, it is real, and it cannot be separated from the wider economy. We also should remember that some Islanders hold rental property as part of their pension provision. Last night, after listening to several speeches, I just did a simple calculation; you do not need to be economist. Currently if you rent out a house that approximately cost on the market £650,000 and if you sell this house and it is low, the income put on very conservative .. the bank interest rates is the lowest one you can have is 3.4 per cent. Actually you are getting slightly more income without being called a greedy landlord, without having expenses coming out, without .. it is actually a really poor investment and it is a consideration. Do I need a headache? Basically, do landlords really need a headache or just easy to sell? You are right, it is absolutely right. Somebody will purchase, as Deputy Tadier said. The house will go to the market but how it will affect the market as well. Without capital appreciation, rental property becomes an unattractive and unsustainable investment. If we create a framework that pushes landlord out of the market we will not solve the housing problem, it will simply create new risks across the economy. When the housing sector falls the whole economy falls. It will be no doubt affect health, education and social services. I am not sure if we will have enough money to pay to the rent support that we are paying currently. This is why I weigh each amendment not just on intent but on practical effect, economic impact, and clarity that I would ask, really, from the proposers of the amendments, make informed choices to be very specific about the effect and actual impact. It is interesting that the Minister said he will not apologise calling it a Frankenstein law, if I pronounce it correct, which I assume he will, and the others will. But at the end of the day, this Assembly will make decisions when looking into the wider economic and well-being of all Islanders. If we are not agreeing 100 per cent with the Minister, it does not mean that the Assembly is doing something wrong and need to be called names in the media. I believe that we will have .. I hope we will have informed detailed orientated respectful debate. Now I am going forward to listening to the people.
I will just start by asking Members, having listened to the opening contribution from the proposer on this, for Members to search inside themselves as to whether they believe they are clear as to what the amendment actually does in its detail. There was not a whole lot of talk about the amendment in the opening speech, and we have to remember that this is not technically a debate on the principles now, it is a debate on specific Articles and specific proposed changes to those Articles. That is important because we are debating words that will constitute the law of Jersey that will be interpreted and enforced by legal institutions, that will inform what goes into contracts, and have all sorts of effects on those who take part in all of that. It really is a debate or should be a debate on detail, and I would ask Members, when deciding how to vote on this, to think and search inside their hearts as to whether they are clear, having heard the case that was made for this amendment, as to what it actually does and would they, if challenged to do so, be able to explain that. It is important for us to be able to do that because we are legislators. I am sorry to say that I think what is before us is incoherent and it is based on a flawed understanding of how the current law works and the limitations of the jurisdiction of the Petty Debts Court. In the dialogue that I had with Deputy Scott in the run-up to her producing this amendment I did my best to try to explain that to her and it was to no avail. I said that this was technically a debate on the Articles but in reality it is a redebate on the principles of the law because if this amendment is accepted nothing will change. The status quo is pretty much perfectly preserved. None of the loopholes in the current law that we are seeking to address will be closed and nothing changes in the framework to counter injustice. What we would end up with ultimately will be the exact same framework as the 2011 Residential Tenancy Law. I would say to Members, if it is your intention to maintain the same framework as the 2011 Residential Tenancy Law, then we should maintain the 2011 Residential Tenancy Law. Seeking to convert new words that deliver change into new words that deliver no change is no substitute for just sticking to the old words that we already have because at least the 2011 law is tried and tested. An amended Residential Tenancy Law that seeks to achieve nothing new that the 2011 law already does but in new language that has not been
tried and tested, not been subject to a Scrutiny review, I would contend is an irresponsible thing for us to do as legislators. I think if adopted it would put us in a seriously awkward position when it comes to the final debate on the Articles of this law. If Members are in favour of maintaining the status quo, then the solution is to vote for the status quo by voting against this law entirely, not by adopting amendments that leave us with that Frankenstein law. Just in case anyone thought I was sitting too close to the fence on this one, just let me elaborate as to how and why the proposer's contentions on what the law delivers, or her amendment to the law delivers, are not accurate. The proposer claims that she is offering a new framework for how fixed-term leases might convert to periodic tenancies over time, doing this after 3 years of the use of fixed terms, no matter how many fixed terms we use during those 3 years, which is different to my proposal to convert fixed-term tenancies into periodic after one defined term.
[10:30]
But in reality what she is proposing frequently happens already. Landlords and tenants use fixed- term tenancies for a few years and then after a while they just end up not bothering going through the process of renewal over and over again. It already often happens and it is already the journey through which many tenants end up on periodic tenancies anyway because they are in their home for a while and after a while both sides just cannot really be bothered to go through the process of renewal and so it converts to periodic. She claims that she is reinstating Ministerial powers to prescribe required notice periods for different classes of periodic leases. Again, this is not new, this is something that is already in the 2011 law but it only covers length of lease, not reasons for notice being issued. That is why I have not used the powers under the current Residential Tenancy Law to change notice periods for periodic tenancies because 3-months' notice of a revenge eviction versus 4 months' notice or 5 months' notice is no protection and does not close that loophole. The only way to close it is to do so based on the grounds for issuing notice, and I do not have that power under the current law. Her amendment maintains those powers exactly as they are and does not put the Minister in a decent position to be able to provide extra protection. If I tried to do so, I would be doing it at the expense of good landlords because I would have to apply that same notice period to those instances and I do not want to do that because that is disproportionate and unfair on those good landlords. She claims that she reinstates the jurisdiction of the Petty Debts Court in matters of rent control and eviction. Well, nothing in the Draft Amendment Law was taking away their powers on eviction, so that part of the claim does not really make sense and, this is the key one, the Petty Debts Court do not want the powers on rent control. In practice, they would not have those powers anyway because no tenant in their right mind would appeal to the Petty Debts Court for a ruling on rents because they know they will just be served notice.
The Deputy Bailiff :
Deputy Scott , your light is on, do you want to ask the Minister to give way or Deputy S.Y. Mézec :
I would prefer if she waited until the end of my remarks, if that is okay. In reality, nothing changes. The law that is proposed takes proportionate action that closes loopholes, provides extra protection for tenants when they may be at risk of being subjected to unfair - the Deputy has thrown me off, as you can tell - provides proportionate action to provide protection for decent tenants when they have done nothing wrong, without doing that at the expense of decent landlords who are not trying to do anything wrong. Going back to the contentions that I think the Deputy was making in her amendment, she took a real exception to me opposing her amendments where she seeks to make it better known for tenants what rights they have under the current law. Also, as I said yesterday, it is already the case that the Minister for Housing maintains a record and advice on what rights tenants already have under the current law on the Government website. That is something that was not the case a few years ago but was done at my initiative. It does not then help us overcome the issue. I
think I will have more to say on this when we get back to Deputy Bailhache 's amendment on this, which is that you can give tenants as much information and education as you like as to how the current law works, but if you are doing so honestly you will have to tell those tenants and educate them as to what the loopholes are or what the gaps are in that. Telling a tenant: you are entitled to go to the Environmental Health Department to complain about your property not being maintained to minimum standards. You are entitled to go to Regulation to complain about the fact you think your deposit has not been protected. You are entitled to challenge a landlord who is trying to impose a rent increase on you that is either not lawful or not in accordance with the contract that you have signed. You are obviously entitled to do all of those things and you are entitled in some of those instances to have that argued out at the Petty Debts Court. But it will always remain the case under the current law and under the amendments Deputy Scott and Deputy Bailhache are proposing, that if you attempt to do any of those things, the landlord has a complete right to either refuse you a renewal of your tenancy when it comes up or, if you are on a periodic tenancy, to issue you an Article 6 notice there and then. There is no legal right to have that notice overturned because of the reason that it was issued. That means those rights to minimum health and safety standards, to a deposit being protected, to attempt to negotiate your position when it comes to rent increases, are essentially right in theory only because when it comes to it, a bad landlord has an ace up their sleeve that they can pull at any time and say to that tenant: "One way or another, you will be out of that home as a consequence of that and ultimately there is nothing you can do about it. You can attempt to fight it out in the Petty Debts Court but the best you will get is a little bit of time. You will not get it overturned, you will not get a ruling that says: No, we are overturning this notice' or: No, the landlord has to offer you a renewal' there is no ability to do that." No amount of education or information given to tenants on their rights in the Tenancy Law will change that. The only thing that will change that is to change Article 6 of the law to say: "When you are issuing notice, these are the grounds for which you will do it." They come with these notice periods. Some of those notice periods are the same as what we have already got; some of them are quicker when it is vital for the landlords' interests that they need to take action quicker, and some of them are longer when it is not vital and when it is just part of long-term planning but a decent thing to do for a tenant to be able to rearrange their life as they have to move their home. There is no implication for property rights on this. There is a Human Rights Law statement in the Draft Residential Tenancy Law that talks about this. Of course, we have the right to buy residential properties and let them out and do that within the laws of the Island and have contracts that will have various provisions in it. That can include provisions that the law is silent on. That is a right that everybody has and it is not just in renting out properties, it is in trading and all sorts of things. We have laws on the provision of sale of goods that implies terms into contracts about the standards of those goods, about the description of those goods, et cetera. Nobody says that that is an infringement on the rights of people selling goods because we have a law that implies terms into those contracts that they have to abide by and will get in trouble if they do not abide them. It is not an infringement on the property rights of people who own properties that let them out, that when it comes to moving their tenant on, there are a few very simple and proportionate things they have to comply with so that the rights to housing of that tenant are not completely disregarded and then put in a horrendous and unsustainable position. Moving on from the detail of what Deputy Scott 's amendment proposes, which was difficult to decipher in her opening speech on this, she does talk about her intentions for the law, one of which is to simplify it. I would be surprised if there were many Members in the Assembly feeling that they found that this whole thing was simple. Ultimately what it does is it maintains the status quo. It does so using new language that is untried and untested and not scrutinised in an attempt to not have on the table change. I maintain the position that if you are completely against change, that you are perfectly within your rights to hold that position, that is an acceptable democratic position, but the way to do that is by voting against the law as a whole. Voting to completely change the wording of the law to deliver what we already have now is not a responsible route for legislators to take because we end up with something that we have no idea is workable or not, that we have no idea what possible implications there might be with some language
being used that was not previously used, even though it seeks to do the same thing. There is often nuance in language used in legislation and none of that has been tested through this. What it does is it would ultimately allow some Members to say: "We have ticked the box for our Common Strategic Policy of introducing a new Residential Tenancy Law" which was something that the Assembly and Government committed to. In reality, that new law would do nothing, apart from potentially cause great confusion and uncertainty in how that is delivered. I would ask Members to oppose this amendment to the law because it will cause us great difficulties when we get to the Articles.
The Deputy Bailiff :
Deputy Scott , you have a point of clarification you wanted to raise? Deputy M.R. Scott :
It is simply at a certain point the Minister seemed to be speaking to the sixth amendment that I withdrew because it was suggesting things like I was restating Article 6 which Deputy Bailhache 's amendment would be doing, so it was just that. I just thought he was looking at the wrong amendment.
As I understand Deputy Scott 's amendment, she intends to lay the foundation for a rather different kind of rent tribunal with rather wider powers than currently proposed, and this tribunal would be established by regulations rather than by law. I have some sympathy for Deputy Scott 's proposal because there may be - may be, I emphasise - a case for such a tribunal which might be given power to refer landlord/tenant disputes to mediation. The reason for that is, in an earlier life, I encouraged the then magistrate to introduce a reference to mediation of all claims coming before the Petty Debts Court and it has been very successful. The last time I asked, 80 per cent to 90 per cent of small claims in the Petty Debts Court were resolved by mediation. I am not going to support the amendment for some of the reasons given by the Minister, but mainly because these issues have not been considered or agreed. There are too many unresolved questions. We need to start again without some of the preconceptions that the Minister has and to build up a case for changes to the law on the basis of data or facts and an understanding, importantly, of the economic consequences for the Island.
Many speakers have raised similar things that I want to say but obviously, as chair of the panel, we extensively reviewed the Amendment Law in detail, and our scrutiny has both been rigorous and evidence-led. As an outcome of my speech yesterday, the panel supported in principle the aims the Minister is trying to achieve with the Draft Amendment Law. Therefore, even after hearing Deputy Scott 's contribution, I am still at a loss as to how her amendments will improve the 2011 law that we currently have. Therefore, I have a few questions for Deputy Scott and, I want to be clear, I am asking these questions as chair of the Scrutiny Panel, who have spent many hours on this law, and not based on any political points scoring, which the Deputy seemed to state in her speech. Because this is a complicated piece of legislation, as I mentioned yesterday, it needs thoughtful consideration before we - I - feel comfortable to vote on. Why does the Deputy propose a rent tribunal if there will be no rent stabilisation measures? What would its powers be and what would it focus on? It is unclear on her intent. Deputy Bailhache raised that same point, I feel, by saying what he believes the Rent Tribunal should be but what does the Deputy feel that the Rent Tribunal should focus on? Could the Deputy explain her proposal on contracts? It is still unclear on several areas. The panel found that fixed-term rollovers is already happening in the current law, so what is the change she does propose here? Her point about the Minister being able to change notice periods.
[10:45]
I know the Minister has touched on this earlier but, from a Scrutiny perspective, for us we feel that we saw this as the change that the Minister could do under order as a one-size-fits-all. It could only
be a change to the amount and, therefore, that is just the argument the Deputy herself said against Scrutiny's own amendment of saying 12 months' no-reason notice. Of course, our amendment is part of a wider list that is under the new Article proposed by the Minister, Article 6F, and she herself said that she was not supporting that because of it being a one-size-fits-all. Of course, asking the Minister to use his Ministerial Orders to change the length of time for a notice period under periodic tenancy contracts within the current law is a one-size-fits-all, and that does not seem to fit in her argument. She also referred to Scrutiny's finding that, yes, we found little evidence to change the focus under the amendments that go from fixed term to periodic, but we did say after that - so the sentence was then missed out - was but with the balance with the introduction of giving reasons that are listed under Article 6F, that is the change, that is the difference that we need to be looking at. It is not about changing to periodic contracts as it is now in the law but it is about the change that does create further security for tenants. Something we found was that related to that list of reasons to give and that has different timings around giving notice, so from 7 days to 6 months. Of course, with Scrutiny's amendment it would also be with a year, that is the change. I just wanted to point that out, that it was only half given. I am a bit confused about where the economic impact assessment has come from; if the Deputy could elaborate a bit more. It was unclear in her description of that in answering Deputy Gardiner of who commissioned it. What were the terms of reference? Why did we only get it today? Why was it not sent to Scrutiny earlier so we were able to put that into our own findings and into own evidence gathering? Could the Deputy maybe explain a bit more with her proposal her discussions with the Petty Debts Court? We at Scrutiny reached out to the Petty Debts Court and, in fact, the ecosystem of the rental market, to ask them all about the amendments that the Minister has put forward, so we feel that we have covered all elements of the rental market system and all the organisations within it. It would be good to hear whether the Deputy has talked to the Petty Debts Court and what the outcome of their response was to that. Because, as Scrutiny, we used those inputs as part of our recommendations, as part of our amendments, and we feel that that basis shows there is strength in those, so I would like to hear if she also did that. Finally, why does the Deputy feel that providing information to tenants or more that she is proposing should be part of the law? What is missing in the current law compared to that and why should it be part of a primary law in regards to the information?
The Deputy Bailiff :
Thank you, Deputy . Does any other Member wish to speak on this amendment to the amendment? I call upon Deputy Scott to reply.
I am just writing down the note of the asked questions, so here we go. Thank you very much to Members for your contributions and responses to my amendment which I hope has just helped, to some extent, Members think a bit more about the issues. I did mean to go through these in order but I think that the Minister has suggested that Members might not be clear about the detail of my amendments. I have set them out in this report and I do believe at the beginning of my opening speech I explained their nature. I do believe that I can just provide a little bit more detail in terms of them. The actual way in which the amendment itself is structured is quite complex because of the way that the law is structured. I really did not want to - given that it is going to be proposed en bloc
- take the Members through the pain of saying: "This Article does this, this Article does that" and to give more a holistic view. I come back to basically what I say in my report about the idea of the proposals to enable a rent tribunal to be established by regulations. There is a bit more content where it comes to explaining because the Minister's proposals originally said that the Rent Tribunal he is proposing would have exclusive jurisdiction over the reasons in certain situations, or at least when it came to the reasons, that there was very limited leeway in terms of the court dispensing justice. It is like the parameters have been set out in this law, they are quite controlling, basically to say: "Right, the Rent Tribunal has got exclusive jurisdiction over these matters" rather than having a more
collaborative approach was something that concerned me. I am covering off one of the questions that was asked by the chair of the Scrutiny Panel about - and indeed taking in something of Deputy Bailhache 's comments - what might a different rent tribunal do? How might it support tenants? I do believe that is the general aim that we are all trying to do but we accept there are many ways to crack a nut. How could it further support tenants in terms of the gaps that might already exist in court machinery? I did discuss how mediation services work, as Deputy Bailhache has mentioned, and where they kick in. I indeed discussed with the draftsmen the possibility of having a rent tribunal act more as mediator. Basically, let us just say, it would have been a bit more complicated because it means a completely different framework. I think at the best there is this general aim to allow a bit more flexibility to give an idea of Members what might have been possible instead while highlighting some of the issues that have already been discussed. I will come back to some other details in a minute. Basically I think that this whole debate reminds me of a time when I was a child and bought a postcard of a French painting and it was of an apple. Underneath it said: "C'est n'est pas une pomme" and that was a bit confusing to me as a child because I said to my dad: "Well, how can this painting say it is not an apple when it is clearly of an apple?" He explained to me that: "Well, this was the whole basis of the Impressionist movement", that it was a representation of an apple. So much of this comes down to how we represent what we are doing, how we respond, and how it is represented generally. Indeed, taking up the metaphor of apples, what are we harvesting as a result when it comes to our own constituents? There was a narrative I heard on the radio today, the Minister was suggesting that the current law is the worst of both worlds. What you are hearing also is a different narrative where in fact these amendments are the worst of both worlds because they make things worse for tenants in a different way. They make things worse for landlords in another way. Is that in accordance with the Common Strategic Policy? There was this mention of the compromise that the Minister had come up with of removing the 5 per cent cap. Although, was it ever a compromise, because I believe the whole calculation of that was on the basis that the R.P.I. at the time, the economists were saying: "We do not expect that to exceed 5 per cent" so essentially we were talking about R.P.I. anyway, but of course with the problem that it could be inflationary. We talk about the periodic notice; we will come back to that. I will go through the tried-and-tested arguments that the amendment I brought has not been scrutinised. I think that there is a fair point there; in an ideal world it would be scrutinised. In an ideal world this law would have been constructed very differently, the problem statement would have been clear from the outset. There are many things and what we are going to end up with is one form of imperfection or another. A question really basically is, is it better to just say: "Well, let us just reject it now. We have had a look at these amendments, we still do not think they are good enough." In fact, they do raise these points and maybe it is reasonable to say to the Minister: "Can you go back to the drawing board, bring on these kind of comments and maybe, just maybe, you might take on some other points that Scrutiny raise" such as this issue of extortionate fees that can be sometimes charged within leases. Again, at one point, I thought: "Well, maybe a rent tribunal could cover that off. Why are we not dealing with that now, it has been raised." We are not going to have perfection but we have really got to think about what is going to be less harmful at this stage. Are we really prepared to take gambles with the lives of our constituents? The Minister, in describing my approach to periodic tenancies, he claimed I was claiming a new framework, that I was creating a new framework for periodic tenancies. As the chair of Scrutiny has suggested, there is no new framework because you have got an original law that is saying: "Well periodic tenancies look like this: if a fixed term finishes and continues, that nobody replaces it with another fixed term, it will become a periodic tenancy" or maybe it was for a certain period and it just will be renewed for that period, so that is the general idea about periodic tenancies. As I explained in my opening speech, I really was thinking: "But, okay, are there cases where something might not be a periodic tenancy?" and avoid these powers that the Minister currently has to increase the notice periods on different types of periodic tenancy. Now I was just trying to understand a bit more about the chair of the Scrutiny Panel's question of me in terms of where I was saying that this can apply to different classes of periodic leases and that can vary depending on the
amount of time somebody has been occupying a rented premises. I think that should be relevant basically in terms of the giving of notices. If somebody has only been in a property for 9 months - indeed it is relevant to things like the farmers, seasonal workers and that possibly - and they have only been in it for a short period, why would you not give them a shorter notice period than somebody who has been in a property for years? Basically the Minister has got that flexibility. In fact, at this point I will ask the Attorney General if he would mind confirming that for me. Because I think that is what the chair of the Scrutiny Panel was asking me to confirm in terms of this, that that is how the law works in terms of Article 6, that it would enable the Minister to prescribe different notice periods for periodic tenancies depending on the period of occupation by the tenant of that premises.
[11:00]
The Deputy Bailiff :
Attorney General?
Mr. M.H. Temple K.C., H.M. Attorney General:
Yes, Deputy Scott is referring to the current Article 6 of the Residential Tenancy Law which concerns periodic tenancies. The effect of the current Article 6(3)(e)
The Deputy Bailiff :
You say Article 6(3)(e), do you? The Attorney General:
Yes, Sir. Which provides that a notice period must be served at least 3 months, that is by the landlord, and then in brackets "or, where the Minister has by Order prescribed some other period, being a period of not less than one month", so it has got to be at least one month, "that other period instead before it is to take effect." Then another provision is relevant and that is 6(5): "For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that a period prescribed for the purposes of paragraph (3)(e)", and that is the one I have just referred to, "may be so prescribed generally or in relation to particular classes of cases (including differently in relation to different classes of cases)." My advice to the Assembly is that does allow the Minister to make different periods for notice in relation to different types of periodic tenancy depending on the time that has elapsed or the time that a tenant has been in occupation under a periodic tenancy. The qualifications of that is it has got to be a period of not less than one month, so that would not allow the 7-day periods that are in the new proposed 6F under the Minister's amendment, which includes situations where, for example, a tenant's employment is terminated, then it would not allow the 7-day periods. I think, as the Minister identified, and as Deputy Jeune also identified, it does not provide a vires for the requirement for a reason by the landlord which is in new Article 6F of the Minister's amendment. I hope that assists.
Deputy M.R. Scott :
I will resume my speech. I also accept that Article 6 does not enable the Minister to say: "Well, you can have this notice period if it is this reason, you can have this notice period for this reason." He basically wants to replace the landlords' reasons with his reasons. In doing so, to some extent, that overrides the discretion of the court to say: "Well, even though you technically should leave the property by X date, we are going to stay that eviction, you can stay for longer." Of course, maybe some people want to stay in a place for ever and the whole way in which leases work do not work that way. But, again, if they did work a different way you have to ask whether people do invest in properties. We talked a bit about in terms of the exercise of these rights and what happens, and again we come back down to the different types of support that we can give tenants in a way that takes all these factors into account and what would be the best way of doing that. I know that the Minister has an idea and a picture and a representation in his head of what that should look like, but of course we have been discussing the problems with that. Scrutiny: how do my amendments improve the
existing law as it stands, I think that is the general question. The existing law, as it stands, does not create a rent tribunal. The Minister's amendment has a version of a rent tribunal. I am basically saying: "Well, let us have some space so that we can come up with something different" that, in my view, and in light of the information that is now available to Members, could mean that the Minister comes up with something that might work better in light of the economic impact assessment. Also the timing, the timing at which he would bring that in could be quite relevant too because sometimes it is a good time to bring in certain rental measures; other times it is not. There is an argument that this is not the time. There was this, again, I hope I have addressed this point about fixed-term leases when they might not convert into periodic tenancies if somebody was so persistent in just regranting fixed-term tenancies. I just do not think they should be allowed to do that in a way that avoids potential regulation as a periodic tenancy. Basically, how does my amendment improve the law in terms of the notification of rights? It says that the lease itself must have this information in it because my concern is that just a page on the Minister's website may not be enough, or webpage or whatever it is going to be. Basically, if the tenants do not have the documentation in front of them, and the rights are somewhere else, that may not be enough. If you are going to be given an actual document that is setting out potentially unreasonable detail that the landlord is seeking to impose on you, and then he seeks to exercise it, well how useful if it is in the same document. You have got information saying: "By the way, he cannot evict you, it is only the court. Oh, and if he does try and evict you and the court agrees that it is not a good situation, well, you do not have to leave, the court can grant you a stay of eviction. Oh and, by the way, if he brings proceedings", sorry if I am being sexist by saying "he", "whereby he is saying that you owe him a certain amount of rent because that is what is in the contract, well, the court can look at that and just rights" because that currently is in the law. But that is the add-on, letting people know what is in the law. I am going to carry on maintaining my position that I would much prefer Deputy Bailhache has given an example where this might not work, of course. That is where you have got a landlord who is so in breach he is not providing tenants with a rental agreement. I have got to question whether if you have got things like that and a tenant is being a bully, what use is this bit of paper really going to do if it has got a load of reasons on the basis of which he can evict you and you do not know your rights anyway? I am afraid there is only so much that can be done to support the people who are being bullied and are not resilient or are not able or do not want to stand up for those rights. I hope that covers things. I believe I mentioned stuff why I had changed the actual requirement that rent information could be required by Ministerial Order to regulations. Funny enough, because I am picking up a point raised by Scrutiny itself, Scrutiny has suggested lots of amendments, amendments that are saying: "Well, no, this should not be done by Ministerial Order. We have been advised that that means they cannot be scrutinised adequately, so let us turn this into regulations." To a large extent, I have tried to - dare I say? - push things back in the direction of Scrutiny to enable more work on the law to be done. In doing so, again, as I pointed out, the minor things where there have been some loose ends I personally do not think are harmful. You can ask the Attorney General about that if you want to or you might be thinking: "Yes, well, whatever." The way in which this I am just trying to check, I have answered Deputy Gardiner . No, I agree, no law is perfect, nor are these amendments and, yes, collaboration is important. I think it would have made a lot of difference here. The way in which this law has been developed is overly-complicated and complex and means, whatever happens, some sort of baby is going to be thrown out with the bathwater. If we do not support my amendment, you will not get the stuff about informing tenants about their rights. Under the existing law, the Minister still can change the notice on periods of leases even now, so that element retains, but that probably was one of the major things that I can refer to. The Minister has referred to Frankenstein's monster. As I say, because you have got imperfections you end up with a monster whatever you do. If Members reject this amendment it may nevertheless in this debate - and I hope - if nothing else, it does give you a flavour of what might have been and how other options should have been explored, could have been explored, and what we might have had in front of us to debate, to different representation or different realities, something that worked better for everyone, whether for tenants as a class or as tenants
individually by supporting the court and supporting their own ability to know what their rights are and helping them through that process. Do not forget, we have got other support mechanisms, whether it is social housing, Andium, all those things that we provide within our community. All I can say to wrap up is, this is where I ended up thinking about my constituents, the whole lot of them. I can comfortably support it but if nobody does, I would certainly say, well, at least you can go to the people and say: "This was why I could not support the principles because whatever I ended up, I ended up with a monster." I call for the appel.
The Deputy Bailiff :
The appel has been called for. Members are invited to return to their seats. I ask the Greffier to open the voting. If all Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. I can announce that the amendment has been rejected:
POUR: 4 |
| CONTRE: 41 |
| ABSTAIN: 0 |
Connétable of St. Brelade |
| Connétable of St. Helier |
|
|
Deputy K.F. Morel |
| Connétable of St. Lawrence |
|
|
Deputy M.R. Scott |
| Connétable of Trinity |
|
|
Deputy B. Ward |
| Connétable of St. Peter |
|
|
|
| Connétable of St. Martin |
|
|
|
| Connétable of St. John |
|
|
|
| Connétable of St. Clement |
|
|
|
| Connétable of Grouville |
|
|
|
| Connétable of St. Ouen |
|
|
|
| Connétable of St. Mary |
|
|
|
| Connétable of St. Saviour |
|
|
|
| Deputy G.P. Southern |
|
|
|
| Deputy M. Tadier |
|
|
|
| Deputy S.G. Luce |
|
|
|
| Deputy L.M.C. Doublet |
|
|
|
| Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat |
|
|
|
| Deputy S.M. Ahier |
|
|
|
| Deputy R.J. Ward |
|
|
|
| Deputy C.S. Alves |
|
|
|
| Deputy I. Gardiner |
|
|
|
| Deputy I.J. Gorst |
|
|
|
| Deputy L.J. Farnham |
|
|
|
| Deputy S.Y. Mézec |
|
|
|
| Deputy Sir P.M. Bailhache |
|
|
|
| Deputy T.A. Coles |
|
|
|
| Deputy B.B. de S.V.M. Porée |
|
|
|
| Deputy D.J. Warr |
|
|
|
| Deputy H.M. Miles |
|
|
|
| Deputy J. Renouf |
|
|
|
| Deputy C.D. Curtis |
|
|
|
| Deputy L.V. Feltham |
|
|
|
| Deputy H.L. Jeune |
|
|
|
| Deputy M.E. Millar |
|
|
|
| Deputy A. Howell |
|
|
|
| Deputy T.J.A. Binet |
|
|
|
| Deputy M.R. Ferey |
|
|
|
| Deputy R.S. Kovacs |
|
|
|
| Deputy A.F. Curtis |
|
|
|
| Deputy K.M. Wilson |
|
|
|
| Deputy L.K.F. Stephenson |
|
|
|
| Deputy M.B. Andrews |
|
|
The Deputy Greffier of the States:
Those Members voting pour: the Connétable of St. Brelade and Deputies Morel , Scott and Barbara Ward .
1.4. Draft Residential Tenancy (Jersey) Amendment Law 202- (P.24/2025): amendment (P.24/2025 Amd.) - amendment (P.24/2025 Amd.Amd.)
The Deputy Bailiff :
We now move on to the other amendment to Deputy Bailhache 's first amendment lodged by the Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel. Again, I do not propose to invite the Greffier to read the amendment but I invite Deputy Jeune to
Deputy M.R. Scott of St. Brelade :
A point of order, please. My amendment has been rejected but we have not voted on Deputy Bailhache 's.
The Deputy Bailiff :
No, because this is the second amendment to his amendment lodged by the Scrutiny Panel. Deputy M.R. Scott :
Okay, thank you.
The Deputy Bailiff :
I invite Deputy Jeune to please make this amendment.
[11:15]
- Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity (Chair, Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel):
The panel's amendment to the first amendment seeks to adjust Deputy Bailhache 's proposed changes to the Draft Residential Tenancy Law 202-. To be clear, this is not an endorsement of Deputy Bailhache 's amendment. Our evidence shows that the 2011 law has real shortcomings and Deputy Bailhache 's amendment would reintroduce some of those weaknesses. That said, if his amendment is adopted, this panel's amendment would at least provide a bare minimum safeguard for tenants in addressing a key issue highlighted during our review. So what is the problem we are addressing? The current Residential Tenancy Law 2011 has a major gap: it does not set out clear notice periods for fixed-term tenancies. At the moment only periodic tenancies have notice rules: the landlords must give 3 months and tenants one month. Because of this gap we have found that there are 3 key problems: silent non-renewals by landlords; tenancies end without any notice in a fixed-term tenancy leaving tenants suddenly unsure of their housing situation; silent departures by tenants: landlords discover tenants have left without telling them; or last-minute eviction notices: landlords can ask tenants to leave at very short notice causing upheaval and stress. These practices create uncertainty for both sides. Tenants feel insecure about their homes and landlords are left with unexpected vacancies and relationships are strained. In short, the lack of clear rules erodes trust and leaves
everyone exposed to unnecessary risk. What the Amendment Law introduces from the Minister has introduced to seek to address this by introducing statutory notice periods for fixed-term tenancies into the 2011 law by putting in 3 months' notice for the landlord and one month notice from the tenant. These provisions apply both for the end of a fixed term and during the term where break clauses exist. The panel supports this approach and is clear, fair and supported by stakeholders across the sector. That is why we felt it necessary to have a counter-amendment to Deputy Bailhache 's because if Deputy Bailhache 's amendment is approved, it will revert to the current practices under the 2011 law which would revert us to the old statutory notice periods and reintroduce the uncertainty that the Amendment Law seeks to eliminate. This would, in our view, be a step backwards. Therefore, our counter-amendment offers a simple safeguard, it introduces statutory notice periods for all types of tenancies: 3 months for landlords, one month for tenants. This would apply equally, currently of course for both periodic tenancies, which is not our amendment but it will be already there, but our amendment focuses on fixed-term tenancies. This would then mean that there will be statutory notice periods for all types of tenancies if our amendment is accepted. By accepting this amendment, Members can ensure that even if Deputy Bailhache 's amendment passes, tenants and landlords will at least have clear statutory notice rules. It means there will be no more silent non- renewals, no more last-minute notice periods and a shared understanding of what happens when a tenancy ends. The panel's review gathered wide-ranging evidence from tenants, landlords, legal experts and housing professionals and the message was consistent: tenants want certainty and time to plan. Landlords want clarity and legal protection and both benefit from clear, fair rules that avoid disputes. Best practice on notice periods already exist in parts of the rental market but it is inconsistent and unenforceable. Stakeholders such as the Law Society of Jersey, Citizens Advice Jersey and the Jersey Landlords' Association have all voiced their support for statutory notice periods. This amendment would insert into the current 2011 law a clear requirement that fixed-term tenancies can only end by written notice, that notices must be at least 3 months for a landlord or one month for a tenant. This applies whether there is a break clause in the middle of a fixed term or at the natural end of a contract and that any break clause must be no more favourable to the landlord than the tenant. If either party does not provide written notice or notice within the time periods, the fixed-term contract would then automatically become a periodic contract at the end of the notice period with of course the current terms under the law being no-reason notice of 3 months and one month. I want to make that clear that if this does not happen, if a written notice is not provided or the period that we are suggesting, which is 3 months' notice or one-month notice under a fixed-term contract, it will mean that at the end of that contract it would automatically roll on over to a periodic contract, which would then give either side still 3 months' notice or one month's notice to be able to stop that contract. The Minister's comments on this amendment to Deputy Bailhache 's proposal describes it as a duplication of another panel amendment on the equality of break clauses. While equality of break clauses is a component for consistency, the Minister's description misinterprets the purpose of this amendment. Its intent is distinct: it introduces statutory notice periods for fixed-term tenancies to the 2011 law. This is a modest, targeted safeguard. It does not overhaul the tenancy system, it simply makes sure everyone knows where they stand. It protects tenants from being left vulnerable, it protects landlords from ambiguity and dispute, it replaces outdated practices with a fair statutory framework and it aligns with the policy intent of the Amendment Law and stakeholders' expectations.
The Deputy Bailiff :
Thank you, Deputy . Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded]
I am going to vote against this amendment but I should say that I am not going to put up too much of a fight about it. What the panel are trying to do in the majority of what they are proposing is obviously perfectly reasonable in inserting those notice periods into fixed-term tenancies as currently stands
would be helpful. Because there is not currently a provision that says when a fixed term is coming to its end that there is a requirement if the landlord is planning on not offering renewal, which is obviously completely their right, there is not a requirement for them to give a particular length of notice to the tenant that they are not going to be offering that to them. If they are hit with that at the last minute and they were under the impression that they were going to be offered a renewal, that can obviously cause them problems. I totally appreciate where the panel is coming from there and they have got that right. The 2 reasons that I would oppose this, one is that, even if it is accepted and then Deputy Bailhache 's amendment is accepted, we still have a law that has been vitiated by this process that I do not think we could reasonably go on to implement in the short term because of the complete lack of wider scrutiny of what will be that final product in the end. My team will not know, they will have to basically start afresh to work out what exactly this means. The change in language becomes complicated and unhelpful. I think it is the wrong time to be having that debate. That debate is better had with a subsequent amendment that the panel are making. I have got an amendment to the panel's amendment at that moment. That amendment centres on the final part of what the panel is proposing, which is about the equality of break clauses for landlords and tenants in fixed terms. Now when you say that, the equality of terms for break clauses for landlords and tenants, obviously that sounds like a good thing. But I take the position that we do need to have a distinction between equality and equity because there are circumstances where you would not want to have identical break clauses there because they would not necessarily serve both landlords and tenants to the same level of advantage. The terms might be the same or there might be a perceived equality in that, but in reality you are talking about 2 people who do have very different positions in that tenancy. One is a property owner who gets money for renting out the property and the other is somebody who has a roof above their head. The considerations that either of those would be making when trying to issue a break clause are not the same. They are coming from completely different angles on that, and so there may well be circumstances where it is entirely right that a tenant has more favourable terms for a break clause because it is their roof above their head at the end of the day; it is not just a contractual matter for them. I think the level of potential wrangling in the Petty Debts Court over what that means in practice would not necessarily be helpful. I again totally appreciate the angle where they are coming from, and most of what they are proposing I do not have any issue with at all, but I just wanted to offer Members that explanation as to why I would not vote for that now. Even if it is accepted, I think there is a degree to which it is academic because it would be accepted in the context of Deputy Bailhache 's amendment, which we simply will not be in a position to proceed with anyway. It is better to have this debate later on when Scrutiny are bringing up, where I think we will hopefully be in a better position to get something to move forward on. That is why but I still thank the Scrutiny Panel for their work and for highlighting it.
Just to reference back to what I was saying about the Minister's current powers under Article 6, so this amendment amends an amendment that reinstates an Article that gives the Ministers these powers to prescribe notice to an extent. I was a bit worried because it almost looked like the Scrutiny Panel and I have always understood Scrutiny Panels do not make policy, they question it. Because what it basically says is fixed-term tenancies - I understand, I am happy to be corrected - they can only be ended by written notice. Generally the whole purpose of fixed term is it almost is the notice: "Right, you can have this property and I am giving notice I want it back" in a year, in 6 months, whenever. But this seems to be saying: "Well, whatever, this is the notice that you must give." I just imagine a scenario that somebody gives a fixed-term notice, maybe that person is neurodiverse or something that makes them just forget under this kind of amendment to give a notice. Now the tenant knows that, yes, has already been advised that basically the landlord wants it back at a certain time. The tenant says: "Well, sorry, you did not give me the notice and basically I am sitting here" and then you cannot really terminate it after a year. I do not quite understand what this does and I can see this putting landlords off and, really, what is the value added in terms of what the Minister can do in terms
when you put the whole purpose of fixed-term leases in perspective? I agree with the Minister about break clauses; also interested to know what the Scrutiny Panel I know they asked me a question about the economic impact assessment. I have explained the circumstances in which it came about, I believe, so I will not bore Members with that. But, again, I know they did not have it to take it into account at the time they scrutinised it but whether they had an opportunity to reflect on it.
I will keep my comments brief to follow the chair of the panel. I will first respond, if that is okay, to Deputy Scott . This, the panel felt, was a policy direction the Minister was taking that on the evidence that was in front of us for something we were looking to ensure could be applied in what is, in essence, a fork in the road, a bifurcation here. Ensuring this is a progressive, evidence-based part of the policy is something to go for; that is Article 5A. I would also like to address the Minister's comments and keep mine equally brief on 5B, which is an area that came from our review, which is something the Minister himself had highlighted as part of his anecdote about challenges with tenancies, and one that would remain in the scenario in which fixed term tenancies would be permitted to be renewed or reissued year after year. The Minister highlighted a concern that equality is not necessarily the right thing to be looking for. I will briefly read the clause in the law about this, and it is termed more favourably to the landlord. A break clause condition or a requirement set out under the new paragraph 12 would be enabling the tenant to have more favourable conditions than the landlord, so they would have more permissive reasons to break if that was a mutual contractual agreement between the tenant and the landlord. But if the landlord chose to - to use the Minister's words - provide unilateral reasons to break or overly onerous conditions on the tenant, the court would be able to determine that was more favourable to the landlord and, as such, the landlord would not be allowed to break and the landlord would have to suffer the tenant's full remaining fixed term.
[11:30]
This recognised the Minister's concern that equality is not always necessarily the right thing, but what was important here was addressing the fact that .. and we have heard the balance of power in contracting in a tenancy often does fall slightly more with the landlord, who is typically the one bringing the tenancy agreement in front of the tenant with conditions drafted, and as such this was a backstop. I do note that the Minister was concerned about the ambiguity that the Petty Debts Court would have in determining this, that the new law, as with many of the existing provisions, will require court subjectivity in assessment. While this would be a new subjective assessment on favourability, it is not one I think would be beyond the reach of the court to determine, and I think its existence is proportionate to ensure landlords do not look to abuse a right to break that they would not afford to a tenant.
I do not know whether other Members had the same experience but it took me several readings of this amendment before I could understand it. I do think it is obscure. One starts with 5A(4) which is in effect the existing law of tacit reconduction or tacit renewal. But it is paragraphs (1) to (3) which are confusing, and I am not sure how many tenants will understand it without some significant assistance. What these paragraphs do is to require landlord and tenant to give notice as to whether either wishes the lease to terminate on the date on which the lease says it is going to terminate. But if the tenant intends to leave but forgets or fails to give notice at least one month before the end of the term, it will continue for another month. Or if he fails to give any notice at all and the landlord does nothing it will continue as a periodic tenancy indefinitely. A tenant, therefore, may find himself in a position where he thinks that the lease is coming to an end on the date in which it says it is going to come to an end, but he has an obligation to pay rent. This does not seem to me to be a very satisfactory situation. The panel say that it will bring clarity to the question of whether or not a fixed- term lease is to continue as a periodic tenancy; I think it brings confusion, not clarity. All that the
parties need to do to bring clarity to the situation - and, I must say, they usually do - is to talk to each other, is to say: "I wish this to continue" or: "I do not wish this to continue" and then they both know where they are. If they fail to talk to each other and rent is accepted then a periodic tenancy follows by operation of law by tacit reconduction. I am going to vote against this amendment.
The Deputy Bailiff :
Thank you, Deputy . Does any other Member wish to speak on this amendment? I call upon Deputy Jeune to reply.
I will be brief because I believe Deputy Curtis addressed some of the issues of the speakers before. I understand the reasons why the Minister is not supporting this but the panel wanted to bring this amendment to show that we had found evidence that the current 2011 law does need changing and Members have been asking already this morning, why are we changing this 2022 law. What are the reasons for that? Questioning whether the Minister has put forward enough evidence for that. Scrutiny wanted to show that from the evidence that we had found we found that - and speaking to Deputy Bailhache 's point - tenants and landlords do not necessarily speak to each other unfortunately. Yes, in an ideal world that would be absolutely what should happen and a landlord or a tenant should, a couple of months before the end of a fixed-term contract, say: "What is happening? Is it a rollover?" Because of course we have heard already that fixed-term contracts that are rolled over seems to the norm in Jersey. But we also found evidence from both tenants and landlords that that does not happen, that either one - the landlord or tenant - does come to the end of that fixed-term thinking that potentially it could roll over because maybe it has happened before, so they believe that is the continued relationship, they have already had it before, they feel on both sides that is what is going to happen. They get to that point at the end of the contract, and we have heard from landlords that suddenly the tenant is no longer occupying their accommodation, they have left without informing the landlord. Or the tenant has said that they then get given a last minute notice to say they have to leave at extremely short notice. It could be families; we heard yesterday about the impact on children of that. Unfortunately we have heard that landlords and tenants do not necessarily have that perfect relationship that you would feel that we would like to see, and this then has caused these issues to come about. This amendment that the panel is bringing - and Deputy Bailhache says that it is difficult in how it is written, I am not a lawyer, I am only instructed what policy intent we wanted .. the intent that we wanted from this, but where we feel what we needed was that before the end of a fixed-term contract that a landlord should give 3 months' notice ahead to say: "Yes, let us talk, are you going to be in this property or not? Do you want to stay or not?" Or: "We would like to give you notice." Without reason; I must point that out. Or a tenant before the one month end of the fixed-term contract will also say whether they want to leave. Hopefully that conversation has already been triggered by the fact the landlord would have already started that conversation. What we are saying is that at the end of that fixed term, if neither landlord or tenant has raised the issue, that instead of rolling on to a fixed term it falls into a periodic tenancy contract. All that is saying is that either tenant or landlord .. the tenant will have to give - if they do want to leave - a one-month notice, so, yes, if they want to leave they have to give one month's notice, but hopefully - as Deputy Bailhache has pointed out - this is all written in a contract so hopefully the contract will be very clear in saying that a landlord would like to have notice if a tenant does not want to stay in the fixed-term contract one month before the end. But if it does not happen, the tenant has to stay for one more month, giving that notice at that point of when the fixed-term contract has come to an end, they will then have to give their one- month notice. This gives landlords time to plan and landlords have asked us for this. We have been talking about weighting between landlords and tenants but this gives the ability for landlords to not suddenly be stuck with an empty property, but being able to have one month's notice from the tenant to be able to do the necessary arrangements. Then for the tenant, they will then get 3 months' notice, and this is set in Article 6 already in the current law. Deputy Scott had said that already the Minister
could change it because it already says this under Article 6, but Article 6 under the current law is only for periodic tenancies. There is not any information about fixed-term contracts, therefore, that is why we are bringing more details into understanding what a fixed-term contract is because at the moment Article 6 only focuses on periodic tenancies. So I would like to leave it there and call for the appel.
The Deputy Bailiff :
Thank you, Deputy . The appel has been called for. Members are invited to return to their seats. I ask the Greffier to open the voting. If all Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes I ask the Greffier to close the voting. I can announce that this amendment has been adopted:
POUR: 28 |
| CONTRE: 19 |
| ABSTAIN: 0 |
Connétable of St. Helier |
| Connétable of Trinity |
|
|
Connétable of St. Lawrence |
| Deputy G.P. Southern |
|
|
Connétable of St. Brelade |
| Deputy M. Tadier |
|
|
Connétable of St. Peter |
| Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat |
|
|
Connétable of St. Martin |
| Deputy S.M. Ahier |
|
|
Connétable of St. John |
| Deputy R.J. Ward |
|
|
Connétable of St. Clement |
| Deputy C.S. Alves |
|
|
Connétable of Grouville |
| Deputy L.J. Farnham |
|
|
Connétable of St. Ouen |
| Deputy S.Y. Mézec |
|
|
Connétable of St. Mary |
| Deputy Sir P.M. Bailhache |
|
|
Connétable of St. Saviour |
| Deputy B.B. de S.V.M. Porée |
|
|
Deputy C.F. Labey |
| Deputy M.R. Scott |
|
|
Deputy S.G. Luce |
| Deputy C.D. Curtis |
|
|
Deputy L.M.C. Doublet |
| Deputy L.V. Feltham |
|
|
Deputy K.F. Morel |
| Deputy A. Howell |
|
|
Deputy I. Gardiner |
| Deputy T.J.A. Binet |
|
|
Deputy I.J. Gorst |
| Deputy M.R. Ferey |
|
|
Deputy T.A. Coles |
| Deputy R.S. Kovacs |
|
|
Deputy D.J. Warr |
| Deputy B. Ward |
|
|
Deputy H.M. Miles |
|
|
|
|
Deputy J. Renouf |
|
|
|
|
Deputy R.E. Binet |
|
|
|
|
Deputy H.L. Jeune |
|
|
|
|
Deputy M.E. Millar |
|
|
|
|
Deputy A.F. Curtis |
|
|
|
|
Deputy K.M. Wilson |
|
|
|
|
Deputy L.K.F. Stephenson |
|
|
|
|
Deputy M.B. Andrews |
|
|
|
|
The Deputy Greffier of the States:
- Draft Residential Tenancy (Jersey) Amendment Law 202- (P.24/2025): amendment (P.24/2025 Amd.) - as amended
The Deputy Bailiff :
We now move back to the amendment lodged by Deputy Bailhache as amended and the Minister will speak.
Could I start by thanking Deputy Bailhache because in his opening speech for this amendment he did own up and explain what the purpose of the amendment was, which is to prevent the proposed Draft Residential Tenancy Amendment Law from going ahead and from being implemented. It is essentially a second bite at the cherry after the debate on the principles. So I thank him for his candour in revealing his intention there. He did leave some clues though, which is that in his report he did say that he was seeking to delete much of what is proposed by the Minister, to reinstate the existing law, and maintain the status quo. So it was clear all along what the intention of this amendment is. In fact, his amendment deletes the transitional provisions, which is an acknowledgement that there is nothing to transition to if the amendment is adopted. As I said in a previous debate on an amendment, the usual and fair process for those wishing to oppose the introduction of legislation is to argue and vote against it, hoping that your position is strong and credible enough to persuade a majority to join you. But instead we have an amendment that not only would not see any meaningful change possible but it does so in such a clumsy way that existing provisions in the 2011 law would be compromised, leaving us with a Draft Amendment Law that could not be adopted anyway. I will shortly explain why that is the case. The other thing I wanted to thank Deputy Bailhache for was his comments yesterday in which he described me as a conviction politician. I obviously take that as a compliment. But what I would want to say to Deputy Bailhache in describing any one of us as a conviction politician, it is important to accurately describe what those convictions are. I do have to take issue with what is in the report to the amendment, which misattributes a position to me that I have already made perfectly clear is not my position, and have done so on the floor of this Chamber. The Deputy claims that these proposals are borne out of an inherent view that the private rental sector is undesirable. That is not the case. It is not what I believe and it is not the motivation behind this law, and I do think the Deputy is unfair for doing so, especially when that has been cleared up so comprehensively in dialogue in this Chamber previously.
[11:45]
The motivation behind the law is exactly what is in the report to the law. It is because of an honest and sincere belief that the current law is not fit for purpose and does not provide for a framework for tenancies that serves everyone's interests, balancing rights and taking proportionate action to mitigate against potential harms. The law has been carefully considered based on intense deliberation on the workings of the law and potential alternatives, inspired by the countless testimonies that I have witnessed of those who have suffered as a result of the shortcomings of the current law, and it is borne out of a desire for a better Jersey where everyone can thrive. That is the motivation that underpins the Draft Amendment Law. But the Deputy does make claims in his report that I hope Members will not take too seriously. Taking the first of those that I noticed - and he did refer to this in his opening speech as well - he talks about how the Draft Amendment Law would fundamentally change the nature of the landlord/tenant relationship and that tenanted premises would no longer be the property of the owner. That is patently absurd. That would not legally be the case and it would not factually be the case on the ground in any event too, because that relationship does remain largely unchanged. There are just alterations to that framework that would require that when issuing notice to remove a tenant from their home, that the landlord is doing so for a legitimate reason, and depending on what that reason is will depend on how long the landlord has to give that tenant notice in order to move on and provide for another way for them to live in their homes. I keep reiterating
this point: the framework that I propose allows for landlords to begin the process of reclaiming their property in those situations where they are absolutely in the right and where it is necessary for them to reclaim that possession because the tenant is at fault or the tenant has done something wrong and they need to safeguard their asset, they will be able to do that sooner and quicker under the provisions that I am proposing. That is to advance the rights of landlords on their property to safeguard them and make sure that they can reclaim them when it is necessary to do so. We have the advice that is in the report to P.24 that clearly says that the right to private property is not engaged by these proposals, and that there is no possible challenge on any kind of human rights grounds or anything like that, that would stand the faintest chance of success. It is normal that rights are balanced against other rights. If I owned a plot of land in one of the country Parishes I would not just be able to go ahead and build a 30-storey building on it, even though it is my property and I should have the right to do what I want with it, I do not have the right to do that because we take into account the rights of everybody else with what we do with our properties. The greater good, going ahead and doing such a thing ,would be spoiling a part of our Island that nobody would ultimately benefit from apart from potentially one person - the landowner. There are all sorts of restrictions that we place on that. There are things that we do to impose terms into contracts in all sorts of other business arrangements too because we accept the principle of the greater good. It is right that we do so when it comes to the provision of rental housing because housing is not just an ordinary commodity; it is a human right in itself and a basic necessity. That is why a fair playing field is what is required here. But having said all of that, we are getting back to debating the principles of the law, which is what we debated yesterday, and this is a debate on the Articles because the words in those Articles matter. They will be the law of the Island of Jersey if they are adopted, and that will affect what decisions courts can make, what decisions people can make in the contracts that they have. So the specific words matter, and that is what this debate on this amendment is about. This amendment seeks to vitiate the proposed law by removing all of its substantive contents, specifically those that relate to tenancy-type reform, rent stabilisation and penalties. If all of those are removed we are not left with anything meaningful. To some Members maybe that is what they intend, and that is democratically legitimate, but because of the way the Articles are written, the situation is worse than that for 2 reasons. The first is that, as the Deputy has indicated, he will take votes on the different parts of his amendment. If any one part of them is accepted we are left with a framework that is completely inoperable. Tenancy-type reform can only work if it is alongside the rent stabilisation provisions because if there is no rent stabilisation a landlord can get around all of the new notice provisions by simply issuing a rent increase notice that they know the tenant cannot afford; a 1,000 per cent increase. That would basically be the equivalent of what you would get in employment as a constructive dismissal; that would essentially be a constructive eviction because there would be no way a tenant could tolerate that and they would just have to give up and go. But rent stabilisation cannot work if it is unaccompanied by tenancy reform, because if a landlord wanted to impose an inflationary rent increase they can either issue notice or threaten not to renew a tenancy to a tenant to persuade them to just take whatever increase they are offering. The tenant would not be able to do anything about it because if they say no or they say: "I object to this so I am going to go to the Rent Tribunal" they just have an Article 6 notice issued to them or a refusal of their renewal. But it is worse than that. It keeps getting worse, does it not? Because if the amendment is adopted, not only does it cancel out all of that planned progress, but because of the clumsy drafting it will worsen the situation because the amendment leaves some Articles in place while removing connected provisions in other Articles, which means some existing protections will disappear from that. We have the 2011 law which is as it is, it has its Articles and its provisions and it explains what all of those are. In drafting a Residential Tenancy Amendment Law we have jigged things around in those Articles, we have taken some provisions that were in Article X and we have put them in Article Y instead, just because the consolidated law will be cleaner and work better that way. But what Deputy Bailhache has done by just deleting those provisions is that he has deleted some provisions that were previously in other Articles but were due to be moved, and not replace them. So those will disappear from the 2011 law and that is serious. The clearest
example of this is Article 9 of the 2011 law which provides protections for tenants living in homes which become uninhabitable. Part (b) of that Article gives jurisdiction to the Petty Debts Court to vary or terminate an agreement when this situation arises. The draft amendment to the law in P.24 that I am proposing took that provision from Article 9 of the 2011 law and it moved it to the new Article 6 because that was the smarter place for it to be. It made that more coherent in the grand scheme of things. But by deleting Article 6 - which is what Deputy Bailhache 's amendment does - it does not reinstate that part (b) of Article 9. So under the version of the law that Deputy Bailhache would end up with, with his amendment, that provision is gone. Disappeared. That is a backwards step. It is worse than what we have currently got. There are also issues that arise from some of the things that Deputy Bailhache says he wants to keep, but he has only left some references to that in his amendment rather than the whole references to it that would have existed in an unamended Draft Amendment Law. For example, he wants to leave in the provision that makes it a requirement for landlords to insure their rental properties. I could make a point that maybe that is an infringement of property rights but I probably will not get that far with that. It is probably the case that most landlords already insure their property, they would obviously be foolish not to, but there is no requirement in the Residential Tenancy Law to do it. So putting it into the Residential Tenancy Law is just a bit of a clean-up thing there just in case there are a handful of people out there who had not done it. But there are references to the requirement for landlords to have insurance on their rental properties in Articles that will remain under Deputy Bailhache 's amendment, but also have elements of it deleted from Article 6 and schedule 1, paragraph 15, which means that that provision will not be enforceable because the enforcement sides of it were in the provisions that Deputy Bailhache is deleting. So we end up with a problem caused by a failure to comply with that requirement to have insurance, and all of the bits in the draft law that I proposed that would be what would be referred to in the court are now gone. So that leaves a vacuum there, which is unhelpful and possibly risks the entire operation of that law. So on that basis that we end up with the same situation that would have been the case if Deputy Scott 's amendment had been passed, that we go from new words to deliver change to new words to deliver not change, rather than just keep the words we have already got that we know what we are dealing with, that is a backwards step. It also does something politically that is quite difficult. If the Assembly wants to say to me at some point today: "Tough luck, we are throwing the whole lot out" believe it or not, that is more helpful to me for my next steps than it is to force on me a Frankenstein law that we do not know if it works, that we are going to have to spend a lot of time coming to terms with as to what it deals with, for then moving on to next steps. Myself and my team and our legal advisers are all really familiar with the 2011 law, so if the Assembly says to me: "Thanks but no thanks, we want you to focus on a different package of changes instead" sending me back to the slate I have been working from so far is helpful because it is a framework I am used to, I know how that law works, my team do as well, we can go back and look at subsequent changes using the same material that we have already got. If we end up with a Frankenstein law from Deputy Bailhache 's proposal we cannot do that. It is going to take us time to understand where we are, how those new Articles interact, what more we have got to do to bring changes that there might be consensus in this Assembly for. The point I am making to Members there, which is that if you are still in opposition to P.24 vote against the lot but do not give me a law that is inoperable, that is clumsily drafted, that risks taking us backwards in some Articles, because that then for the days ahead means I am in a position where I simply will not have the ability to move forward on the things that the Assembly might have consensus in. It is easier for me to do that with the same 2011 law that we have already got. In Deputy Bailhache 's opening speech he did make some points, which I think we kind of talked about yesterday, but since he made them again it is important to focus on those to explain where Deputy Bailhache has got some things wrong. It is very frustrating that we are still getting the example of Scotland brought up when it comes to rent stabilisation. Deputy Bailhache said: "No, no, it is only a question of degree." He is wrong; it is not a question of degree. The regime that they have in Scotland is nothing like what is in P.24. The Scott ish regime is that there is a 3 per cent cap on rents going up. If you want to go above that because you think you have got a reason -
you have invested in your property or what have you - you have to apply for permission to do so and even then the highest you can do is 6 per cent. In our system there is a nominal cap of R.P.I., there is no cap above that if there is a reason for going above that, and there is no requirement to ask for permission. You just go ahead, you propose it to your tenant, and 99 per cent of the time the tenant will look at it and go: "Fair enough." It is only if there is a real suspicion that it is not fair, that there is some funny business going on, that then an independent rent tribunal would be available to review it and judge if there is any funny business going on, or if it is legitimate.
[12:00]
Those regimes are nothing alike and it does not help this debate to muddy the waters by constantly making references to systems that are nothing like what is on the table here, so please do not do it. Talk about the system we have, and if you want to argue against it by all means, but do it on the basis of what we are actually talking about, not a comparison with something that looks absolutely nothing like what we have. Deputy Bailhache did use one phrase that I thought was quite amusing when he said it, and this was when he was talking about the rights of property owners in this, and how that would be infringed by - and he is talking about tenants here - "The absolute right to remain, except in defined circumstances." Well, if there are defined circumstances it is not an absolute right, is it? There is nothing absolute about that at all. It is a qualified right and it is qualified on the basis of whether the provisions in the R.T.L. (Residential Tenancy Law) apply, and those provisions - the grounds for notice being issued - cover pretty much everything. As a result of the Scrutiny Panel amendment there will be a backstop where no grounds are necessary, and that list was consulted on with landlords because I was determined to make sure we did not miss anything out on that. I did make changes to that regime as a result of the feedback that we got. So there is no absolute right of tenants to remain in a property and it is simply not right to say so. He said: "Who is really the owner if the owner cannot regain possession?" But they can regain possession and the law that is being proposed in many instances will make it easier for them to do so. He used an example about what he deemed to be ignorance of the current law. He spoke about an intelligent journalist whose rent went up 4 times in one year. It sounds very familiar. That, he said, was an example of something gone wrong with the system, that somebody had 4 rent increases imposed on them in a year. I know the case; this did happen, and this person also had said that they did not have a written agreement, which is of course a breach of the current law. Something has gone wrong with the system, he said. No, the problem is the system because that person, despite having put up with multiple short notice rent increases in a year, and not a proper rental contract in place, did not have the confidence to complain about it because they knew that if they did so they would lose the roof above their head. That would be the consequence. Even though they were in the right, even though elements of the rules would theoretically be on their side; because the result of it is that that landlord cannot be forced to continue housing somebody indefinitely that they do not want to, it is the consequence. You complain about that, there is an ace up the sleeve of the person who has done that to you who can get you out of that property, and the courts do not have the jurisdiction to overturn that. They do not have the jurisdiction to say to the landlord: "Tough luck, you have been unfair here, you carry on with a normal rental contract with that person." They cannot do that. The only thing they can do is: "Can you give this person a bit more time to get on their feet?" That is the only thing they can do. That is why people do not complain. That is why they do not, because they know that that is a prospect. The other thing that this law seeks to do that I have not touched on too much is the removal of the references in it to civil penalties, and he did dedicate some time in his opening remarks about why it is not right to just go ahead with that and why some more thought would need to be given to that if we were to go down that route. I wonder what impression Members may have been left with as to what is in the draft law because of what Deputy Bailhache said. Do Members realise that P.24, the Draft Residential Tenancy Amendment Law, does not contain a regime for civil penalties? If you went by Deputy Bailhache 's words you would think it does. It provides the vires to come along with it in the future ..
Deputy P.M. Bailhache of St. Clement :
Would the Deputy just mind repeating that; I did not hear. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :
P.24, the Draft Residential Tenancy Law, does not contain a full, coherent, implementable on day one regime for civil penalties. What it does is it provides the vires to come back at some point in the future with regulations for such a scheme. If you went by what Deputy Bailhache had said in his opening comments and the report, you would think that we are poised ready to implement such a scheme, which you can understand why somebody would have some reticence over for not having had time to think about that, and suddenly finding that is something that is imminent. But it is not. The draft law provides us with a platform to go ahead and come up with regulations for such a scheme if we deem it advisable and deem whatever framework the Minister might propose as proportionate, taking everything into account. We are not on the verge of proposing a civil penalties regime. If that part of the law is preserved through this process then any attempt to introduce such a regime will come back to the Assembly in the form of regulations. It will be amendable. Scrutiny, I have no doubt, will want to look at that and consider it very carefully. So nothing is coming in the short term on that; that is something that becomes a part 2 of this journey and the Assembly has absolute freedom to reject it at that point, or amend it, or do whatever it likes with it. But if you went from what Deputy Bailhache had said, Members could be forgiven for thinking that is a fundamental part of the law. It is not. His amendment is not stopping us from introducing a regime that is good and ready to go; he is stopping us from having the ability to even consider it and bring it back to the Assembly. That is clearly not proportionate and not reasonable. So in closing I would sum up the main points that I have made in response to this, which is from the Deputy 's own admission that the purpose of this amendment is to preserve the exact same framework of the status quo. So it is essentially a redebate on the principles that we had yesterday. That is the intention of it and he is open about that. That is what we end up with theoretically if that amendment is adopted. It is drafted in a clumsy way that will remove provisions from the existing law, that will either make things worse or leave us completely confused as to what happens, and that is a backwards step and an irresponsible thing to do. It leaves us with, on paper, a Draft Amendment Law that seeks to convert new words that deliver change into new words that deliver the status quo, rather than just relying on the old words that we know what they do, we know how to work with that. If the instruction from the Assembly for me today is: "Thanks but no thanks, have another think about this" I will not be in a position to be able do that in short order after this because I will have to do a massive exercise in coming to terms with a law that does not do anything. I am not used to that framework; I am used to the 2011 framework. So I ask Members, whatever side of the debate you are ultimately on, on this law as a whole - because there will still be opportunities later in this debate to throw the whole thing out if you do not like it - please vote to reject this amendment because it risks us being in a position where I do not think we would be able to go ahead with it and would end up having to pull it in some shape or form because we just do not know what that law would end up doing. Let us vote against it and get to the constructive amendments from Scrutiny and Deputy Renouf that will help improve the law. If we end up with a final package on that you can exercise your verdict on it at that point, but please do not vote for a Frankenstein law that really harms this journey.
The Deputy Bailiff :
Deputy Scott , a point of clarification, was it? Deputy M.R. Scott of St. Brelade :
Yes, please. The Minister said that the amendment removes provisions from the existing law and I just wondered if he could specify what they were and how that would be particularly harmful.
Deputy S.Y. Mézec :
The specific one I mentioned was part (b) of Article 9. In my proposed amendment that provision moves to another Article. Deputy Bailhache 's amendment deletes that Article but does not move it back, so we end up with a 2011 law that is now missing a line that was quite an important line.
Deputy M.R. Scott :
Could he please explain how it is important? Deputy S.Y. Mézec ;
It is regarding the court's ability to deal with cases where a home becomes uninhabitable and their ability to vary or terminate an agreement as a result of that. I think if you are renting somewhere and the place becomes uninhabitable it is pretty important that you have got someplace you can go to, to seek a resolution on that.
Deputy M.R. Scott :
Can I ask one more question about that? By removing that does it not reinstate the existing law and exiting provision with the amendment in it?
Deputy S.Y. Mézec :
Sir, I thought I had dealt with that. I have been very, very clear .. The Deputy Bailiff :
You have addressed that.
Deputy S.Y. Mézec :
.. that we move the Article to another Article but then Deputy Bailhache deletes it and does not replace it so, no, what the Deputy said happens would not happen as a result of that.
This is very long and hopefully it will speed up. I am having a flashback; it feels like Friday afternoon, difficult year 9, got to teach atomic theory, got an important test coming up, got to keep them on task, got to get on with it. But this is such an important thing that we are talking about at this point. There are amendments coming and some will be won, some have been accepted, and to be quite frank, if some of those amendments are won it is not going to make significant change. They might be good, and I am still a bit torn on one or 2 that have not been accepted, but that is good scrutiny and good work from this Assembly, so that is fine. But this is really important. I would like to start and do something which has not been done yet and I think we should do, which is compliment the Minister .. sorry, my laptop has just gone off and I need it because I have got notes on my screen, and I have got notes on my paper, and I have got notes everywhere else, but there we go. I would like to congratulate the Minister for bringing this. This is a really difficult and challenging piece of work. It is not something that can be left, as is suggested, and I will give some reasons why that is the case. I speak to oppose this amendment in the strongest possible terms. I did not vote for the previous amendment for one simple reason, and I am trying to find a polite way to put this - and you removed the word "polish" - the reason was that I think you cannot dress up failed foundations from anything that you build because the whole thing will fall down and you are building something on foundations that simply do not work. Cutting corners does not work, as I learnt when building at home: you measure twice, cut once, otherwise you make serious errors. Even 3 times, as the Constable of Grouville might point out to me. But this amendment is a wrecking amendment and I can say that and not be pulled up on it because the proposer of this amendment has said this is a wrecking amendment. That needs to be remembered. What worries me is that as a wrecking amendment, by accepting this and accepting the removal of just about everything that comes forward .. let us look back at where we have been in this Assembly. We voted for the C.S.P. (Common Strategic Plan) and the C.S.P. said introduce a new Residential Tenancy Law that will improve
tenancy arrangements for tenants and landlords. This amendment does none of that, so we are rolling back on the C.S.P. that we all - bar one - voted for. That is a contradiction in this Assembly that we need to think through really carefully, and that C.S.P. was voted for by this Assembly, which is the primary maker of laws on the Island; not just Government, not just Back-Benchers, not just Scrutiny: all of us together. There are some things I would like the proposer to acknowledge which are that when rent stabilisation in a law .. I would like the proposer to acknowledge that there are permissible exceptions to the rent increase cap. These exceptions that are in the new law are if you are improving the property for the tenant's benefit, and if the property's rent has fallen significantly below market value. There are protections in there in terms of the rent stabilisation. They exist and I think they have to be acknowledged so that we are talking accurately - key word - about what we are voting on here. Rent tribunals exist across our estate in other areas. Standing here I cannot think of a single example now but I know they exist. A rent tribunal has already been voted on in principle in the last Assembly and we are only now getting to the point where we are going to produce a rent tribunal.
[12:15]
I have to say this about the courts; if you are a high up lawyer, somebody with a lot of experience, perhaps with being a judge, then there is nothing fearful about approaching the court if you have a rent dispute. That is very different with somebody who is making ends meet month to month to pay the rent, maybe living on their own for the first time, maybe a family who is struggling, maybe a single parent family, to approach a court. They are not places that are accessible in the same way to everybody. An effective rent tribunal can solve that problem and bring a fairness. It brings a simplicity as well to outcomes, with clear laws which we are trying to vote on at the moment and we will come to, both for landlord and for tenant. That is so important. This amendment removes that, takes away that opportunity, and I do not think that is something that we want to do in this Assembly. The next point is about data. Deputy Bailhache - I do not know another word for "rehash" - I will say rehashes the argument over data on revenge evictions, but the number of revenge evictions are unknown by design. Currently landlords can end periodic tenancies with no reasons, or for whatever reason no matter trivial or revengeful, and it is not to say that they are happening routinely but laws must be able to mitigate bad behaviour, even if the behaviour is limited to a minority. The second thing I would like the proposer to bring to the Assembly is to say how many revenge evictions does he see as acceptable. If there is data to say there are 20 a year, 10 a year, is that acceptable? Is that okay? A certain number is fine? Because I think none are acceptable, and if there is a law in place
- which we can be supporting later on in a number of forms - then we have that opportunity to protect the people that we represent in this Assembly. I have had a number of people approach me. I have a brilliant approach to people when they come to me and ask me about their rental, about contracts and so on. I say: "That is fine, I will ask the Minister for Housing." I have passed on a number of cases to the Minister for Housing, and I thank him for dealing with them. I would not say to a constituent: "Go and understand the law first." I would talk them through it, I would help them through it, and it is not as simple as putting it on a contract. There needs to be protections built in and that is what that does. So I think the data argument we need to be very careful of. I am not even going to address this stuff around ideologically driven and this nonsense around mentioning Reform, although I thank Members when they mention Reform because it goes in Hansard and we become more popular. I would prefer it if people said Reform Jersey so there is a nice clear distinction between us; that would help us a lot because we do not want to be associated with certain parts of the other Reform because they are really not us. But I thank people for mentioning that so that we can go out there and talk about that. But this is not that. This is the work of a Minister with a Scrutiny Panel and officers and previous Assemblies, and this Assembly has talked about bringing forward a change in the C.S.P. to our Residential Tenancy Law. It would be lovely to take credit for it, lovely, but that is not going to happen because everybody is involved in this. This amendment will stop that happening. We have to stand by our principles here. Principles are really important. If you object to this and do not want to see this, vote against it by all means, but vote against it for the right reasons.
Do not bring something that simply cannot work as a wrecking amendment, because what will come back to you is: "Why did you vote for a wrecking amendment? Why not just vote against the whole thing?" That is not good practice in this Assembly and indeed it is used as an accusation very frequently. People would say: " Deputy Ward is just bringing a wrecking amendment" and everybody would say: "That is terrible, we cannot do that." But we are declaring it openly. Where on earth are we going with this? We have to move forward, so let us have some principles and some honesty about what we are doing here in this Assembly. The amendment dismisses civil penalties as novel and undesirable but without any enforcement the law is toothless. There is a set structure for those civil penalties. I did not get this, I made some notes but again I cannot read my own handwriting, the Deputy also said: "Most disputes in my view are solved by discussion" but the Deputy does not have to produce any data for that, he can just assume, whereas other times we need data. I get very confused as to where we are going with those arguments. When you combine those with the fact this is a wrecking amendment, when you combine with the fact that there is an awful lot of lobbying against any change, we get to a situation where we are not having the argument about the actual law itself and regulation. We can do if we dismiss this amendment and get on to the others, and then get on to the overall vote on the Articles if you think: "No, they do not work for me" or in Third Reading if that is brought to us. That is when you can do that. But this wrecking amendment will not allow us to do that, and I think we would be not serving our constituents and the people of this Island if we allow that to happen. I will finish because I know I should not go on for too long, but I am probably not going to speak on the others because I think they are simple amendments, and I will probably be accepting them and we will go where we are. This is stripping away protections before they even exist. This is stripping away at protections for both landlords and tenants, and I think those points have been made. I would urge Members .. the Minister has spoken a lot and he has to because so much work has gone into this, and I know that when someone speaks a lot you do stop listening at times. I obviously would not stop, I would hang on every word obviously, but it is really important that you listen to what is being said by the Minister and the explanations here, rather than hearsay or rumour or something that is just simply designed to wreck. This is too important for people renting in Jersey. People in lifestyle surveys, I will mention again, over half of renters have experienced a significant rent increase in the last 3 years, which is not sustainable. We are driving young Islanders away, not because of lack of ambition, because they cannot afford to live here. I have to say that the economic assessment report that was sent around, I am afraid I can see significant flaws in what was sent. There is a 28-page document that was also sent and I think we have to be very careful before we make those assumptions. This law will not have those consequences and it is adaptable if those changes are made. Other things are happening across the world in our society that is affecting the way in which homes are becoming available. I would say that where we are at the moment if we allow this wrecking amendment to pass, we send a message again that says housing insecurity will be tolerated, affordability is optional, and that the next generation is expendable to us in terms of our housing. With the significant but simple changes that we make that I believe are fair to everybody and can work with the amendments that are coming forward - the rent cap one being accepted, for example, from Deputy Renouf . A good discussion I heard between the Deputy and the Minister earlier; good work across the Assembly, that is what we are here for. We have not always seen eye- to-eye, myself and the Deputy , but I credit him for that, and the Minister as well. It was really good working together. We must build a housing system that invites young people to stay and does not drive them away, so I will vote against this amendment in full and I urge Members to listen to the facts of what is being said and to vote against it too. I would ask the proposer to answer those 2 points that I made in terms of the rent stabilisation and the number of revenge evictions that are acceptable to him. But I urge Members, please, vote against this amendment and let us move forward to a really intelligent debate afterwards.
I am pleased to follow Deputy Ward . It is right that we do look closely at the amendments; they are not small but they are significant technical changes and do take things out from the Minister's draft law. They are colleagues - and we have heard from Deputy Ward - who say that to support these amendments is to row back, is to avoid tackling the real pressures in the rental market, and to fail tenants who need greater security. I acknowledge that criticism but we are all responsible for addressing the problems facing tenants, which are real. The question before us is not whether problems exist in the rental market - they clearly do - the question is whether the Minister's chosen solutions are the right ones and whether Deputy Bailhache 's amendment, even with its limitations, puts us on a stronger footing. I just want to come to the point around rent control and tribunal and, yes, it is said that rent stabilisation provides a safety net but we must be honest, if there are any measures that risk discouraging landlords from remaining in the market and if supply shrinks as a result, rents will rise. The proposed rent tribunal risks becoming a costly bureaucracy without the evidence base to justify its creation. Deputy Bailhache 's amendment rightly removes these measures until we have proper data and a better understanding of the market. In terms of the periodic tenancies, yes, the Minister is motivated by a desire to give tenants security - it is an honourable intention - but the model he proposes is rigid and it is too blunt a tool. It overrides freedom of choice for both landlord and tenant, and there are risks to this which we are not fully informed out, particularly in cases where property is part of a family home, as Deputy Bailhache has alluded to. The amendment does restore the balance needed, while still allowing courts to step in where unfairness arises. Enforcement is important but the power to fine landlords up to £1,000 by administrative order is a dramatic shift in the way we apply justice here in Jersey. Serious breaches of care should be heard before the courts with proper safeguards. This amendment ensures that will remain the case. So, yes, there are some imperfections in the amendment; it may appear to some too defensive, it may appear to be an attempt to preserve the status quo rather than grasp the nettle of reform. But sometimes the greatest strength is caution. Sometimes the responsible choice is to hold the line against measures that are unproven, unfair, and ideologically driven. If I understand the amendment fully, Deputy Bailhache is not suggesting we abandon reform for ever. He is saying let us not adopt reforms that may damage supply, unsettle the balance of ownership and tenancy, or undermine the courts, let us instead keep what works, strip out what does not, and return with evidence-based measures in the future. That, in my judgment, is the stronger position. I do think we need to be careful that we do not destabilise the housing market by rejecting this amendment. Supply is a safeguard in itself. If we lose our supply chain, the logistics of providing for people become more chaotic and put Islanders' chances of a stable home even more in jeopardy. It follows that the safeguards proposed through the Minister's proposals become meaningless if the supply chain is not there in the first place. These are just my comments to the contribution of the debate, and I will leave it there.
I am glad to follow the previous speaker there. I want to put this legislation in the wider perspective of our economy. I make no apologies for quoting heavily from the economic analysis report that was circulated to Members this morning. It is the first time I have seen it, and I wonder why it was not provided to the Scrutiny Panel. Was the Minister for Housing aware of its existence? If so, why did he not share it with the Scrutiny Panel, knowing it to be material? Economic analysis. While the Residential Tenancy Law says that these amendments are needed to both update and improve the law, it does not provide any evidence on the problems or issues that the current law is causing, i.e. the problem that the amendments will address.
[12:30]
Nor does it provide any data on the number of tenancies landlords affected by one or more of the proposed changes. The private rental market is essential for Jersey's economy. The rate of homeownership is 54 per cent, compared to 66 per cent in England, meaning that almost half of
households live in rented accommodation. However, the lack of information on the scale and nature of the problem makes an economic impact assessment difficult. An investor facing the choice between investing in a buy-to-let property with a 90 per cent mortgage would currently be better off putting the money in a risk-free, easy-access savings account. The returns from investment in housing are lower than they were and are lower relative to other risk-free opportunities. This, coupled with the additional stamp duty payable on second and subsequent houses, has negatively affected the buy-to-let market in Jersey and reduced sentiment among investors. If landlords decide to remove properties from the rental market and either use them as holiday lets or leave them vacant, this would lead to a reduction in the supply of properties to rent, which in turn will lead to less choice for tenants and could lead to rents being increased by more than they otherwise would have. For example, rents not covered by the rent stabilisation measures. Some landlords may be deterred from investing in more or additional buy-to-let properties, and some potential landlords may be deterred from entering the buy-to-let market. This will reduce demand in the housing market, which in the short term could affect the viability of new developments and thus affect both the supply of rental properties and also the supply of homes for private purchase. Neither outcome is desirable. Fewer new developments or slower rate at which developments take place could affect the supply of new homes for Islanders, which in turn will have an effect on Jersey's economy. There are likely to be unintended consequences to Jersey's economy too because the Residential Tenancy Law does not evidence the problem or the scale of these problems it is correcting. It is not possible to assess whether on balance these amendments offer a net benefit to Jersey's economy. Although there has been an incredible amount of effort being put into drawing up this legislation, it is ultimately all about perception. How are these changes perceived? I understand a survey was carried out by the Jersey Landlords Association of their Members. I am advised that it came back saying that 70 per cent would consider selling. I can accept that this might be considered a knee-jerk reaction, however let us just dive into the numbers. If just 10 per cent of landlords sell up, that is around 1,550 lost to the rental market. A tightening of the supply of rental accommodation will inevitably lead to rent rises. Surely it is our job to protect Islanders to protect their homes. Why do we need to increase risk without evidence? What is happening in the rental market right now? Rents have fallen by 7.1 per cent since 2022. That is a real reduction of 19.1 per cent. A further survey of private sector landlords taken in July 2025, there have been zero rental increases above R.P.I., 52 per cent below and 31 per cent have seen no increase. Andium Homes in the meantime put up rents by 3.75 per cent in January of this year. I come back to my point, why in the current economic climate would you risk amending the law?
The Deputy Bailiff :
Is your speech about the first amendment, Deputy Warr , or about ..? Deputy D.J. Warr :
It is about the wider perspective of the impact of the ..
The Deputy Bailiff :
We are debating the first amendment of the law.
Deputy D.J. Warr :
Okay. You feel I am stretching too far away from this?
The Deputy Bailiff :
Well, when we know what the law looks like as amended, you would be able to make the speech you are making, but we are now focusing on the amendment made by Deputy Bailhache .
Deputy D.J. Warr :
I want to say if we do not support the amendment, there are economic consequences to that. Is that okay?
The Deputy Bailiff : Yes.
Deputy D.J. Warr :
Yesterday, Deputy Rob Ward referenced the J.O.L.S (Jersey Opinions and Lifestyle Survey) 2024 report and spoke about rental stress. The area in which rental stress is most experienced is in social housing, something highlighted by Deputy Kovacs ; 53 per cent of social housing tenants were living in rental stress. I would like to hear from the Minister as to how this amendment will help them. In summary, I do not object to the intent of the legislation, for me it is simply a timing issue. We know our economy is under pressure, why then, given all the feedback and lack of data, would you create uncertainty at this time?
The Deputy Bailiff :
Does any other Member wish to speak before we adjourn, or at all?
I think I wanted to join the Minister for Housing's recognition of Deputy Bailhache 's admission about this being a wrecking motion. That is of course a term of phrase that we use, but Members should be absolutely clear that if this amendment was to be accepted, I think it would pretty much stop the progress of this proposed law in its tracks, and I want to make a case for not doing that so we can continue through to the other amendments, which improve further what has been tabled and will bring us out in a much better place than we are now. Having said that, it is a substantial amendment with over 56 amendments and deletions that pretty much negates the original proposition. If I can talk briefly about the overall position of our housing market in relation to what the amendment does to the Residential Tenancy Amendment Law, which I maintain represents a measured and balanced and necessary step towards strengthening the legal framework for rented homes. If adopted by the Assembly, with some of the very good amendments that have been proposed, it will fulfil a clear commitment of the Common Strategic Policy, as approved by this Assembly, to improve arrangements for both tenants and landlords and to help address the wider pressures within our housing system. Too many Islanders are still struggling, particularly young people and families, to find homes that are both secure and affordable. I want to say again, at this late stage, very clearly, I acknowledge that the vast majority of landlords and tenants are good responsible people, but unfortunately some are not. Deputy Bailhache gave an example in his opening address about a tenant who had faced 4 rent increases in a year, and while one might say: "Well, people do need to know their rights", that is an example of clear exploitation. Unfortunately, there are some that do that, which is why we need to tighten up the regulations. But I believe we do it in a way that makes a vast improvement on the 2011 law. The private rental market plays a vital role in meeting the Island's housing needs. Around half of all households in Jersey live in rented accommodation and the market must operate fairly and transparently with clear responsibilities on both sides, with some enhanced protections for both tenants and landlords when things do go wrong. At present, the legal framework does not provide that assurance. The 2011 Residential Tenancy Law was a positive step at the time. It introduced key features, and it brought an improved structure to the rental sector. But more than a decade later, it no longer meets the needs of our modern society. Importantly, this proposed legislation lays the groundwork for a better understanding of our rental sector overall, and a number of Members have talked about data and the lack of data. There has been very little data available, and this law seeks to address that, and will provide data, and will collect reliable data on actual rents charged, not just advertised prices, which will help us in the future as these laws will have to evolve. As the Minister for Housing has said, this is a starting point, and he used an example of civil penalties. We will have to bring regulations, and this law gives us a good foundation to adapt and for it to evolve in the years ahead to meet the needs of a modern society. I do not think I need to remind Members that one of our biggest economic challenges is our working age population. You combine
that with a falling birth rate; you combine that with somewhere in excess of 200 young Islanders leaving the Island every year because they do not have confidence in the future of our housing market. Economic circumstances have been challenging and for some it has not been too positive because it has reduced the price of housing, but for many that is good news because it makes housing more affordable, it gives young people more confidence. While I know fully, as I have been the Minister for Economic Development for 8 years, how important the private rental sector is to our economy, and I understand that this law might cause some landlords to decide to sell, but I do not think that is necessarily a bad thing. Our percentage of people who own property is 54 per cent. In the U.K. (United Kingdom), and even in Guernsey, it is 60, or just over 60 per cent, and I would like to see that balance addressed a little bit here. I would like to see a really strong private rental market with good returns and with good value for the tenants, good returns for the landlords, a well-regulated, but not overly regulated, market, but I would also like to see more home ownership. This Assembly should be supporting more home ownership, especially for young people who want to stay in Jersey, who want to raise families. As the adage goes, if you do what you have always done, you get what you always got. That is why I cannot understand why some Assembly Members do not want to move this forward, because we should be encouraging more home ownership. We should be encouraging that alongside a strong rental market that benefits the economy. Good landlords have absolutely nothing to fear. On the contrary, the legislation proposed supports them to, through clearer rules, longer-term tenancies and a more predictable rental environment. I would urge Members not to support this amendment, because it would stop this process in its tracks. I know some Members might want to do that but, please, given all of the work that has gone into this, given the decision of the States Assembly to support the Common Strategic Policy, given the need to improve confidence in our housing market, let us give Members and officials and everybody who has worked on this the respect of letting us take this debate through to its proper conclusion. Let us consider all of the amendments that a lot of work has gone into, so we can make improvements to the legislation for the benefit of Islanders. May I propose the adjournment.
The Deputy Bailiff :
Deputy Scott , it is a point of clarification, was it, for the Chief Minister, or not? Deputy M.R. Scott :
No. I just wanted to speak on the amendment.
The Deputy Bailiff :
The Chief Minister has proposed, are Members content to adjourn now? The Assembly is adjourned until 2.15.
[12:44]
[14:16]
The Deputy Bailiff :
We resume the debate on the first amendment, as amended. The next speaker is Deputy Scott .
I just wanted to explain I will not be supporting Deputy Bailhache 's amendment, because I agree with the Minister, but the Minister has said rather than support something like this, he would rather we reject it so he could have a fresh start and take into account the information that has come out in this debate and so for that reason, I will not be supporting the amendment.
With respect, I am not sure how this amendment was accepted for debate. Described by the proposer as a wrecking amendment, that is what it is. As others have said, I pay tribute to the Scrutiny Panel who have worked extremely hard over the summer recess producing a very detailed report and have, in my view, been constructive with their amendments. Only yesterday we as an Assembly endorsed the principles of the law, and it might be worth recapping them. To enhance security of tenure for tenants principally through notice provisions and rent stabilisation measures. To encourage more settled longer-term tenancies for tenants, which also benefit landlords. To ensure landlords can continue to make a stable rental return and reclaim their properties when they need them. To establish explicit provisions that allow landlords to serve shorter notice to deal with unforeseen circumstances or bad tenants, and to ensure landlords and tenants have clearly set out responsibilities. These are sensible and balanced principles, which make for a sensible and balanced modernisation of our residential tenancy legislation. Like others, I have met with landlords throughout this consultation. The main concern shared with me was the 5 per cent cap and the ability to move tenants on. The Minister has said he accepts Deputy Renouf 's amendment, and also the amendment of no fault for no reason from the panel's 12-months' notice. That is why I am happy to support his proposals. I note this morning in Deputy Bailhache 's comments about the educated person who had multiple rent increases not having a lease. My interpretation, and I am sure that of others, of his comments was that he put the emphasis on the tenant needing to know their rights. With rights, come responsibilities, and the landlord had a responsibility to provide that tenant and other tenants with a lease. I was shocked a couple of months ago when I spoke to a landlord who told me they did not know if they had leases for their tenants. This was not someone who just inherited a house, it was not someone who had a couple of properties and become a landlord by default. No, this was someone who has been a landlord for probably 50 years on this Island. Someone who has a good number of properties around the Island, both residential and commercial. How many others are out there like that landlord? In addition to speaking to the landlord, I also often speak to tenants. Living in St. John , and I am sure other communities, people like to stay where they are comfortable and/or where their friends and family live, and they are extremely reluctant to make a formal complaint to a landlord, let alone get an external agency involved, because they fear they will not be able to stay in the area they want to live. I ask Members to reject this amendment and stick to the principles that we voted on yesterday.
I thought I would speak on this one, because it may surprise Members, as a member of the Scrutiny Panel, I am minded to support Deputy Bailhache on his amendment, but it is not necessarily for the reasons Deputy Bailhache himself has brought it. I would like to put my views on this on record, and at this point I would like to give my apologies to the Assembly and to my parishioners for I will have a non-attendant, I will be on défaut for the remainder of the sitting. I have a family arrangement in the southern hemisphere based on where our family live, and it will be the first time I have missed a sitting, so I apologise profusely for that. However, as we just heard from the Constable of St. John , one of the key aims of this legislation is to improve security of tenure for tenants, and while there are many areas that this law will do, I believe the amendment that would bring back fixed-term tenancies will support that aim. We have heard that the Minister has included a reason that landlords may give to end a periodic tenancy, and this is provided almost as a relief for those who are worried landlords cannot regain their property. I believe there are certain instances where a landlord should not be able to regain their property from their tenants. I believe if a landlord and a tenant agree to a period of certainty, a period of fixed occupation, that should be respected. This is important, especially when the landlord changes. A property may be owned by a person, and that person may die, and the property may be inherited. I do not believe it is right for a tenant who expected a longstanding stay in their property to find that notice cut short because a landlord changed and the property is now wished to be occupied. If they signed for 3 years, and I believe they might sign for 2, they should be
entitled to enjoy the premises for that amount of time. I think it is entirely wrong that landlords could unilaterally create advantageous systems for them, and that is why I was pleased the Scrutiny Panel amended Deputy Bailhache 's to remove an imbalance of power. But I do believe it is right and fair for a tenant and landlord to agree that they can have continued and fixed in certain enjoyment of a property, and I do not believe that, as long as we include safeguard, a landlord should be able to abuse that by shortly ending that while obviously leaving an obligation on a tenant, should they have wished to end it early. There are other areas we can continue to change, but I must also say at this point that I agree with Deputy Millar , and I think I made these points yesterday about the risk that an R.P.I. cap has. Many landlords do choose to increase their rent less than R.P.I., they believe a sitting comfortable tenant is more beneficial than following that, but I see a genuine risk that people will choose to follow the R.P.I. because no matter that this would be passive, would you really wish to risk having been called in and then justifying themselves when perhaps over the cumulative period of 3 or 5 years they are below R.P.I.? The Minister may suggest that is an unlikely case that the tribunal would then pursue, but we do not know. I believe that we must pursue those principles. I believe we are taking a step forward with a greater level of security for tenants if we adopt this amendment. It is not perfect. I am disappointed that the legislative challenges that the Minister has highlighted at the Article stage were not circulated to Members in advance to give them clear understanding as to the waters they were walking into. He has been aware of them for quite some time. I know it is entirely his choice, and I respect he can make that decision, but for that reason those are the positions I am taking.
I spoke yesterday as a member of the Scrutiny Panel and emphasised I thought the main purpose of that debate, as indeed it was, was to get past the first post by approving the principles. The reason for that was that, despite what many people say is lack of evidence as to the situation working generally, Scrutiny has gone out to the public and received literally hundreds of representations made mainly by tenants, by some landlords, as to their situation. While I fully agree with comments made by Deputy Bailhache and others that the present situation largely works, there is certainly a perception out there by a large section of the public that it is biased towards landlords, and that is something we need to address. Basically, the proposition made by Deputy Mézec , as amended by the Scrutiny Panel, if those amendments are carried, fulfils that purpose largely. As I say, I speak personally rather than a member of the panel. I have already declared that I am a landlord. I did not necessarily set out to be one, but converting 2 outbuildings to habitable accommodation provided the dual benefit of adding to the housing stock and giving me a pension. But, again, I am perhaps more concerned than most, given that one of those units is within 5 metres of my own back door, I am concerned, or would be concerned, as to the quality of the tenant and the likelihood of problems arising. When the proposition first came out, or its advanced notice, I did have concerns. But through the scrutiny process I have looked at each potential problem and now I am broadly satisfied, particularly with the amendments made by the panel, I as landlord need have no fears as to my security, and as to the possibility of getting rid of tenants should it be required. But I do repeat, my main point in addressing the Assembly now is that there is within the public domain a broad perception that tenants are badly treated. We do need to address that for the benefit of our society generally, and basically while Members have individual thoughts, and I do not question the validity of them as to certain provisions, they are free to vote against particular provisions as and when they come up. My plea is, therefore, let the proposition have its day in court, so to speak. We need to show the public we have looked at this, we have addressed it, we are giving full consideration to it, and if in the end result certain aspects are rejected then so be it but let us please proceed with the main proposition.
I am only going to speak to a few points because I think the Connétable of St. Mary summed up most of what I was wanting to say. But I would like to urge Members to reject this amendment. I say this
because the Assembly asked Scrutiny in July to work for them to look at the Minister's amendments and test it against a number of areas by examining the clarity of drafting policy objectives, legal and financial impacts, and how they compare to other jurisdictions. We have presented the Assembly with this report, within the annex also with the adviser's report. As it was pointed out yesterday, it is a long and detailed report showing that there is a complex to this law and to these amendments. But I believe that we should, and as the Connétable of St. Mary said, we owe it to the public to discuss in detail those different aspects that the Amendment Law is proposing. I would like to, on behalf of the panel, to be able to persuade Members, and to discuss with Members, and then our amendments from Scrutiny, to show that the work we have done, the work that you asked us to do, has been done thoroughly and that we have these amendments to amend the draft amended law, we think, to give a better balance between the tenant and landlord relationship. Finally, I would advise caution to supporting this amendment because, as we have heard, it does do some changes that have not been completely scrutinised. The 2011 law, as it stands, was scrutinised before, so when it came in it was scrutinised.
[14:30]
We know where it was at the time it was put there. The draft amendments that have been put towards us have also been scrutinised. This amendment that Deputy Bailhache is putting forward to us has not been scrutinised, and for me I would therefore just put some caution to that, and I would say that if you do not agree with the proposed Amendment Law changes, you do not agree with Scrutiny. There are moments then when we go through the different aspects that Members can still vote contre, and at the end, whenever we get to it, we will then vote on the entirety of the changes to the 2011 law. There is a moment then again to vote contre. I really would like to encourage Members to reject this amendment so that we can talk about the details of the Draft Amendment Law, the details that the Scrutiny has put forward, and then at the end of it to be able to vote on our own consciousness how we feel that this Amendment Law will be better for landlord-tenant relationships or not.
I am not really sure where to start. I made my points yesterday on the principles about why I fundamentally do not believe that rent control works, and it certainly does not work to the advantage of tenants in the way that some are describing it to do, and that is where I have a fundamental problem. I also suggested yesterday that the amendments were not necessarily as straightforward as some Members might have thought, so we are left in a difficult position. I am minded to support the amendments, despite what some have said about the difficulty that might create to the wording, because I fundamentally disagree with what is proposed in rent control. I remind Members why that is. It is because I believe that landlords will end up increasing rents every year by inflation. It would have been by potentially inflation or the 5 per cent, because how individuals act in practice can be very different from how they act in theory. I give as evidence to that the Employment Tribunal. Many employers across our community have difficulties with their employees, they take legal advice, and they make an ex-gratia payment to the employee to avoid going to the tribunal. Only those employers, generally who cannot afford that, end up before the tribunal. Landlords, in practice, will do what is necessary to avoid going to the tribunal. Some might say that is a good thing, but what is necessary will mean that they increase their rent every year by inflation to ensure they do not ever need to go to the tribunal if they have repairs to carry out and, as we know, the way that the repairs exemption is framed is around what is of benefit to the tenant, and I can understand why it is framed in that way. I fear that despite all of the lovely words about what will be achieved, the opposite will ultimately be achieved. That is why I continue to maintain my opposition to the principles and the relevant articles. As the chair of the Scrutiny Panel said, if Deputy Bailhache 's amendments are not approved, we will then go back and have the same arguments over the individual Articles. I am prepared for that. I, on balance, would prefer the acceptance of the amendments, but we will have
the same arguments again. We can have the arguments as many times as we like, but it is with a heavy heart that I have them because I just do not think it works.
I am pleased to stand up and say I obviously have more confidence in landlords than Deputy Gorst does, because I do not think that this change in legislation, as proposed by the Minister, would lead to the opposite effect at all. But what I really wanted to stand up and say today is what confidence and what respect I have got for our scrutiny process, and I know I have said this before in the Chamber, but this is one of the reasons why I think that this particular amendment is so damaging. It has not been presented in a constructive way and it has really been a missed opportunity to put forward other amendments that the Deputy may have wished to put forward that then could have been discussed within the overall framework so that more positive and proportionate changes could be made. But the Scrutiny Panel have done that. The Scrutiny Panel have scrutinised on the request of the Assembly. I say that again, we did not take a vote on the principles back in June because the Assembly requested a pause and to come back after Scrutiny had looked at it. Scrutiny have done a great deal of work looking at this proposed legislation, and they have made some very constructive amendments. I think that it is only just and right that those amendments that have been properly thought through and properly scrutinised get the opportunity to be debated today. The mover of this proposition, Deputy Bailhache , the leader of Advance Jersey, made no secret of the fact that this is a wrecking amendment. I share Constable Jeune 's thoughts. I am also bewildered as to why this amendment was allowed in the first place, because what it does do is stop that constructive dialogue, that constructive debate that then takes us to a point where we have got a piece of legislation that has been well scrutinised, that we have come to through the consensus building of this Chamber. I think those processes that we have within our rules and our structures that include the Scrutiny process are incredibly important, and I think accepting this amendment the way that it has been put, the way it has been put as a wrecking amendment - I will say that again because the proposer said it - I do not know what it says about the proposer's view of Scrutiny. I am quite lost for words there. So, I will repeat a point, and I am afraid to repeat a point that has already been made, but if you are against the Residential Tenancy Law as it stands, against amendments, you will get the opportunity, if this amendment does not go through, to vote against that later on as we discuss the other proposed amendments. But please do not waste all of that really good work that the Scrutiny Panel has done by accepting this amendment and curtailing the debate here. I believe that what the Minister has proposed is measured and proportionate. I believe in the Scrutiny process, and I believe that that process has led to some really constructive and well thought-through amendments. Unfortunately, I believe that Deputy Bailhache 's amendment is less well thought-through and would also leave us, and I do not think that we should forget this point, with a legislation that does not work operationally. Deputy Curtis has admitted it is not perfect. Deputy Gorst acknowledged that there were difficulties with it. They do not have confidence in it themselves, despite talking and saying that they are going to vote in favour. What does that say? Me, I have confidence in the Minister for Housing, and I also have confidence in the Scrutiny process and the Scrutiny Panel. So, I will leave it there, and I encourage people to reject this amendment.
The Deputy Bailiff :
In speeches today, more than one Member has queried how it was that this amendment came to be approved for lodging. I think I should reassure Members, or at least indicate, that this amendment was looked at independently, which mean on their own, by the Bailiff , Deputy Bailiff , Greffier and Deputy Greffier and then discussed at a meeting attended by the Deputy Bailiff , Greffier and Deputy Greffier, and we all independently and collectively concluded it did not contravene the strict word of Standing Order 20, because notwithstanding its substantial effect, it could only be disallowed if it wholly negated the proposition, and for that reason it was permitted.
My speech can be much shorter thanks to the recent contributions that have been made. I do want to start though with a comment I made back in July, which is that my starting point is that a dwelling is first and foremost a home. That is what I wrote in my manifesto. Housing is indeed a fundamental human right and that colours my sense of where the balance lies in some of the issues that we are debating here. But I am also keen to ensure that renting remains a viable economic activity, not least since I am a landlord myself, and that the private rental sector continues to thrive. So, I come at this from both of those perspectives, and from both of those perspectives I find I cannot support Deputy Bailhache 's amendment, or any part of it in fact. I do think there are a few key assumptions that need to be challenged in the discussion that sits around this amendment, and the first assumption is the existing situation is essentially fine. The problem has not been evidenced, therefore the need for changes to tenancy periods and to rent setting are not justified and should be removed from the Minister's proposition as per this amendment. As I said yesterday, the evidence that things are not fine is there if you are prepared to see it. Maybe we will just have to agree to differ on this. I do not think I can usefully add anything on this matter to the points I made, and others have made, in discussing the principles yesterday. A second assumption is that the existing legal framework allows all the things that the Minister is seeking to achieve, and, again, because that is a fundamental challenge to the principles of this, we have had that debate to a considerable extent, and the Minister has explained that there are not, and the examples that the proposer of this amendment suggested around, for example the ability for tenants to bring legal actions and so on, are undermined by the fact that without the Minister's proposals, the weakness of the tenant's position is such that they are unable to exercise rights which might exist in theory. The third assumption is that the clauses that Deputy Bailhache seeks to remove represent a dangerous threat to fundamental property rights, and this seems to rest on a slippery slope argument rather than the actual content of the Minister's proposals, which under any reading are very hard to argue, represent a fundamental threat to property rights. I think that we should remember that property rights are not absolute. The current set of rights we have are not written in stone. There were no property rights in the Garden of Eden. They are rights that have been created by us, they are amenable to amendment by us, and we can amend those rights to strike a slightly different balance if we wish. But I would say there is a fundamental philosophical issue at stake with this amendment, as proposed by the Deputy , which I think, if I understand it correctly, I would sum it up like this. Should we put in place legal safeguards for tenants, ones which I think are fairly minor ones, balanced by some additional legal safeguards for landlords, or should we continue to leave it up to the market to determine landlord-tenant contracts, as defined under the existing legislation. I think the problem is that in the latter situation we are essentially relying on noblesse oblige.
[14:45]
It is based on an assumption that landlords will do the right thing, that they will accept their responsibilities to be good landlords, that they will not abuse the power that comes with being able to end tenancies and so on. Ultimately, I do not think that is enough. So, there is a philosophical issue here about should we entrench more rights in law? I say yes. Not massively enhanced rights, not rights that go to the extent of what is being done in other jurisdictions, but I think, as the Chief Minister reminded us, we cannot rely on all landlords doing their duty. One other thing that is interesting is that there is a lot of anticipation here about how landlords are going to react faced with these proposals, and there is this idea that they will, for example in Deputy Gorst 's view, jack up rents every year in order to avoid going to a rent tribunal. I do not think that is the case for the reasons that I think people will quickly come to understand that there is no need for that, because we will know that you do not have to go to the Rent Tribunal to have an above-inflation increase. You simply have to explain to the tenant the reasons why you have done this, and only if the tenant finds those reasons to be inadequate will the Rent Tribunal be engaged. That is a fairly simple thing to understand. The circumstances in which rents can be raised are fairly well understood. We all understand if property improvements are done, and tenants are likely to understand that as soon as it
is explained to them, and landlords will know that is likely to be the case. I think this will be the final point I make, that these proposals are a full-frontal assault - I think that was the phrase used - on the private rental market. They really are not. I must admit to a slight feeling of déjà vu having brought in the licensing of private rented dwellings when similar arguments were advanced that this would be a fundamental undermining of confidence in the market and that we would see a decline in supply, rents would go up, there would be people exiting the market and so on. I noticed a tit-for-tat email exchange over the lunch break about what the actual situation is, but there is no reading of the statistics that anyone presented which show a significant reduction in rental properties as a result of what has happened so far, or indeed the supposed threat of what is coming. Indeed, if I read the Minister's reply correctly, something like 50 new licences a month are being applied for. There may be reasons you might want to qualify that, I do not know, but whatever it suggests, it does not suggest a wholesale flight from the market in the light of either changes already made or changes that are potentially coming. Remembering that the changes that are coming are much milder than the ones that were originally proposed, which is one of the reasons I feel confident in supporting them, having seen the work that Scrutiny has done, and having made my own small contribution with an amendment as well. I will close with one final thought, which is I have been amused by some of the commentary around this suggesting that the Minister has some devilish plans, that he has come up with some amazing scheme here whereby he cannot lose. I have seen this quoted in social media that he is cunning in devising a scheme where he cannot lose, because if he wins the vote, it is of great triumph, and if he loses then he can blame people and so on. It is worth reflecting on why that might be such a cunning ruse. I think it is slightly overstates the Minister's cunning and abilities here. It is just because they are popular. There is no great secret to it, is it? If he cannot lose it is because the proposals are essentially fairly popular. So, I think there is an alternative narrative you could put to this. You could say it is not great cunning on the part of the Minister to achieve a huge triumph for Reform, you could say this is a triumph for the Assembly in moderating the policies of a Minister who maybe did initially go a little bit too far. We have here a good example of democracy in action, and restraints and checks and balances working. That might be a slightly better analysis of what has happened here, and I think, therefore, rejecting this amendment, returning to debate those detailed and thorough and well thought-through proposals from Scrutiny, which people can reject or not, or reject the whole thing at Third Reading in whatever form it returns to Third Reading, feels to me to be a very sensible proposition.
I was extremely disappointed when Deputy Bailhache openly stated that he had brought a wrecking amendment. I do not believe that this is in the spirit of the Chamber. I have already made a speech on how important the proposition is to the whole Island. I have to say, I do not feel comfortable to be part of an Assembly that votes for a proposition one day, and then the next day votes for an amendment that effectively annuls the proposition. That does not seem honest to me. I do not think it puts States Members in a good light to vote for this amendment, so I hope we can vote against it and move on to debating the original proposition that we passed yesterday.
Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :
I have got a question for the Attorney General if that is okay. The Deputy Bailiff :
Yes, of course.
Deputy M. Tadier :
The question relates to Article 16 of the current Residential Tenancy Law. We have had a lot of discussion about the jurisdiction of the court and I wanted to ask whether 16(1), where it says that: "The court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over any matter relating to a residential tenancy or to a residential tenancy agreement" and it goes on in that vein, whether in reality that means that the court has, in his experience, or does exercise that power or whether there are limitations in reality as to what the court would seek to do or be indeed allowed to do under the current wording of that.
Mr. M.H. Temple K.C., H.M. The Attorney General:
The words used do confer a broad jurisdiction and an exclusive jurisdiction to the Petty Debts Court. Article 16(4) of the current law says that the normal limit of the jurisdiction of the court to deal with small claims does not apply to residential tenancies or tenancy agreements. So, it is a broad jurisdiction and when one reads it with Article 14 on a stay of eviction, it does also provide, in the context of eviction proceedings, a jurisdiction for the court to vary the rent payable. So, it is a broad jurisdiction as things stand. I have to confess that I have limited experience of the Petty Debts Court in eviction proceedings myself, and indeed members of my department have limited experience because, since Andium has taken over the vast majority of residential tenancies, I believe these sorts of things are dealt with by Andium's own lawyers rather than my department's lawyers. If the Deputy has further questions, I can do my best to answer them. But at the moment, on the current wording of the law, the Petty Debts Court does have a broad jurisdiction, including on an application for eviction and consideration of a stay of eviction, it does have the ability to, on the face of the law, to vary the rent payable under a tenancy.
Deputy M.R. Scott :
Could I ask a follow-up question please?
The Deputy Bailiff :
Any further questions for you first?
Deputy M.R. Scott :
To the Attorney General.
The Deputy Bailiff :
Deputy Scott , yes.
Deputy M. Tadier :
I am okay for now, thank you. Thank you to the Attorney General. Deputy M.R. Scott :
Just looking at the same provision, because if the Minister's amendment would insert a new (1)(a) into 16, which would say that the court has no jurisdiction over a matter for which the Rent Tribunal has jurisdiction under Article 13H(1). So, if you look at 16(2), it says that the court, in relation to residential tenancy or residential tenancy agreement could, if satisfied in all the circumstances be just to do so, make an order as to arrears of rent or repayment of any deposit and all these things. But, if you amend that and say the court has no jurisdiction over a matter which the Rent Tribunal has jurisdiction, to what extent does that restrict the court from exercising its powers under Article 16(2) please?
The Attorney General:
The Minister's amendment, the Deputy is quite correct, it does provide that the Petty Debts Court does not have jurisdiction over matters for which the Rent Tribunal will have jurisdiction under the Minister's proposed amendments. But, in terms of the Minister's amendment to provide the jurisdiction of the new Rent Tribunal, that is dealt with in new Article 13H. So, 13H provides that the Rent Tribunal, if established, will have exclusive original jurisdiction over matters that it may decide under Article 7E and 7D(4). So, those matters are to do with the amounts of rent payable and the tenant's ability to apply to the Rent Tribunal for a decision on a rent increase. In my view, there is a sufficient separation under the Minister's proposed amendments that the Rent Tribunal is to deal with matters specifically concerning rent increases, and it does preserve sufficiently the rest of the Petty Debts Court jurisdiction in relation to other matters and particularly concerning evictions and stays of evictions. So, both the Petty Debts Court and the Rent Tribunal will obviously have to be careful not to trespass on each other's respective jurisdictions, but in my view the Minister's proposed amendments sufficiently set out in sufficiently precise terms what those 2 respective jurisdictions are to be.
Deputy M.R. Scott :
So just to be clear then, where this court's jurisdiction, under this Article 16(2) it says it may make an order as to arrears of rent. If that rent has arisen as a result of a rent increase, does the tenant have to go to the Rent Tribunal in order to establish whether the increase is fair or not before the court can just make an adjustment?
The Attorney General:
The Deputy raises a good and valid question. I think that will have to be a matter that will be worked out in arrangements between the Petty Debts Court and the Rent Tribunal because I accept that that might well be a question that arises in practice. But I think it could quite easily be dealt with in perhaps some guidance or practice directions issued by the respective Petty Debts Court or the Rent Tribunal, so I do not see it as an overriding objection.
[15:00]
Just going back to Article 14, about the stay of eviction, which has not been touched by the Minister's amendments. I think I see that Deputy Bailhache is touching the amendments. I just wanted to see if I am reading that right the point 10, page 63, Article 14, delete Article 14(2) and delete Article 14(3), which is part of the stay of eviction, which is currently in the 2011 Law. I was just wondering what that would have as an effect on the court if that is deleted, which was not touched by the Minister's amendment, so this in a way is bringing a new aspect to changing the 2011 law. Is my reading correct on that? It is point 10 of the Deputy Bailhache amendment.
The Attorney General:
If I can have a moment. I read that as referring to the Minister's amendment, so I read that as a new Article 14(2) under the amendment. But if I could just have a moment to check that please.
Deputy M. Tadier :
Could I propose a 5-minute adjournment? It might be wise; we are coming to the end of the debate and we would like to hear if it is helpful.
The Deputy Bailiff :
Do you need 5 minutes? We could always come back to you.
The Attorney General:
I am happy to be come back.
Deputy M. Tadier :
I think the problem is there are only a few speakers left and it might be helpful to hear what the .. The Deputy Bailiff :
That may be optimistic; we do not know how many there are. Shall we find out? How many Members wish to speak still on this before we get to the response by the proposer? You want to speak, Deputy Tadier . Anyone else want to speak? Deputy Kovacs . Are you able to speak now while the Attorney does his work, Deputy Kovacs ? Are you prepared to make your speech now?
We are asked today to consider an amendment to the Tenancy Law that I have to repeat it myself as well that even Deputy Bailhache himself stated proudly that it is a wrecking amendment. He is right because it would wreck the progress we are trying to make for tenants, for families, for fairness in our housing system. This amendment does 3 main things: it removes rent control and the Rent Tribunal; it scraps mandatory periodic tenancies; it rejects civil penalties. The Deputy defends contractual freedom, warning that the changes would undermine Jersey's legal traditions on properties. So, is this more about not breaking tradition and fear of change, even if this might prove it is a balanced improvement? I want to go again very briefly over what these points mean in practice, as I see from the questions asked that there are still some unclarities. For tenants without rent control, landlords could raise rents as high as they wish whenever they wish. In a market already stretched to breaking point that would leave tenants vulnerable to sharp unaffordable rent hikes. Without periodic tenancies, landlords would be free to evict tenants without needing a clear reason. That means less stability, more fear, more families wondering if they still have a roof over their heads next month. Without civil penalties, tenants who face unfair treatment would be forced to go to court. We all know court action is expensive, intimidating, and simply out of reach for many. In reality, it would leave people with rights on paper but no power to enforce them. For landlords, this amendment gives them more power to set rents as they please, to end contracts as they please, and to avoid oversight. But let us be honest, that flexibility comes directly at the expense of tenant's security and fairness. For the housing market as a whole, removing safeguards will not solve our housing crisis. It will make it worse. Vulnerable tenants will be priced out, instability will grow, and inequality will deepen. Long-term renting will become even less viable. That is not sustainable. This is not about punishing landlords at all. As stated before, for the landlords doing the right things nothing changes. The claim of extra bureaucracy brought again by Deputy Bailhache has already been proved not true by the Minister. The new Tenancy Law proposed without this amendment is about balance. The Minister's proposals aim to give tenants a fair chance of stability, predictability and dignity, while still leaving landlords with the ability to earn a fair return. Deputy Bailhache frames this as a matter of ideology. I disagree. This is not about ideology. This is about families who cannot plan their future because they do not know if they will still be in their home in 6 months' time. It is about workers who cannot save for a deposit because their rent rises faster than their wages. It is about fairness, security and human dignity. I repeat that from what I said yesterday. Investing in property is a business decision. Like any business, it comes with risks as well as rewards. But when that business is about people's homes, where children grow up, where families find security, we as legislators have a duty to make sure basic protections are in place. Let us not weaken this legislation. Let us not strip away tenant protection. Let us not pretend this amendment is anything but a step backwards. I ask you to reject this wrecking amendment so we can move forward to the next amendments with options of a stronger protection, a fairer system, and the housing market that serves not just investors but the whole community.
The Deputy Bailiff :
Attorney, are you ready to respond to this question? The Attorney General:
Yes. I confirm my original answer to Deputy Jeune 's question. So, Deputy Bailhache 's amendment, at number 10 of his amendment, refers to the Minister's amendment on page 63 of the Minister's lodged amendment, which is number 14 of his amendment, but it relates to Article 15, not Article 14. So, it is not amending Article 14.
The Deputy Bailiff :
Deputy Tadier , do you wish to speak now? Deputy M. Tadier :
Unless Deputy Gorst wants to speak.
The Deputy Bailiff :
He has spoken already.
Good, I will definitely want to speak then. I will be brief because I think a lot has been said. Just to start off by saying, because we are still on Deputy Bailhache 's amended amendment now, and I think we have had a wide-ranging debate, but the first observation is that I did not have Deputy Bailhache down as a Miley Cyrus fan, so you learn something new every day. He did come in like a wrecking ball and he was quite happy to admit that. It has already been a wide-ranging debate. We have heard about not comparing imaginary or symbolic apples with symbolic pears from Deputy Scott . My recollection is that René Magritte, who did Ceci n'est pas une pomme, was part of the Surrealist movement, of course making a comment on symbolism. But I certainly was not familiar with that one, but it is part of a series Ceci n'est pas une pipe, where there is a picture of a smoking pipe saying: "This is not a pipe", as perhaps more appropriate for this amendment because there has been a lot of smoke and mirrors up until now used in this amendment, but also in the more general debate. I want to compliment not just the Scrutiny Panel, as I did yesterday, but the Minister for Housing, because I thought he gave a very good account in very clear language as to what this amendment does in reality and the spurious comparisons. We have not been comparing apples with pears. Some have been trying to compare this housing proposal from the Minister with haggis it would seem, because this has got nothing to do with the Scott ish rent legislation either, as the Minister quite clearly said. It is a completely different animal. In fact, he has taken into account all of the arguments that have been put forward I think by wider society, and also just to add that, from my experience of Jersey civil servants and the officers that work with Ministers, is that they are inherently cautious individuals. They would not be advising any Minister in such a way of anything that is unlikely to be well balanced and certainly not something that would not get through this Assembly. These are by no means radical proposals when taken in the wider consideration, and I think the Minister has been very clear about that. I think it comes back to that idea of the apple. There are many ways to cut an apple of course. Deputy Renouf said that there were no property rights in the Garden of Eden, but there were apples in the Garden of Eden of course, and we know that apples can certainly cause a lot of problems. What we are trying to get to here is a balance between the rights of tenants and the rights of landlords. It should not be beyond the wit of us to be able to do that, and certainly this amendment brings nothing to the table. We reiterate at the end of this debate, before Deputy Bailhache will have the chance to stand up, that he deliberately brought this as a wrecking ball amendment. I am going to have that song stuck in my head this evening, I am sure many of us will, but what we do not have to have is an unworkable law in front of us that puts the Minister and his officers in such a position that it would have been better that we just vote against this in the final reading. I do not think that is an inevitable conclusion. I think what we have in front of us without this amendment is something which will be entirely workable. It will be something that can be in some ways filled in with the consent of all of the community as we go along, and I ask and urge Members to reject this amendment and to let us get on with the main part of the debate to consider this and hopefully by the end of the day pass something meaningful for the first time. I know of course, looking over to my other colleague who has not got a mention yet in St. Brelade , Deputy Helen Miles is doing some very good work around Les Quennevais precinct to bring in some similar controls I think, which are much needed around the commercial sector. It would be completely illogical if we were to say that we want to protect commercial tenancies, which I think is absolutely the right thing to do, when we have got thousands living in precarious situations in our Island who
have been crying out for decades for better and more secure and clearer housing rights. Of course, nothing in the future will stop what Deputy Bailhache has mentioned, what Deputy Scott has mentioned quite rightly, that tenants do need to be informed of their rights. There is absolutely no reason that the Minister, that Citizens Advice and Government more widely, should not be informing tenants of their rights, but there needs to be something that is workable in place. The final thing I would say is that the reason I asked that question about the Residential Tenancy Law is I have accompanied somebody to the Petty Debts Court but for the housing side of it because they are the ones who deal with it. There is a stigma for both parties in going to court because court is associated with criminality, with an offence. When we talk about a tribunal, which has been set up specifically to deal with housing matters, there is not that stigma, it is seen as a civil solution, a civil resolution, one which may be a last solution before mediation might take place and it does not have that same stigma that a court might carry. Courts do not inherently like getting involved in contract law. These are decisions that are made between 2 consenting parties. It is not something that the Magistrate's Court, in my experience, likes to get involved with. When I asked them on behalf of somebody I was supporting, I could not obviously have rights of audience, but when she asked for them to take a wide view of Article 16, they simply did not want to get involved in setting precedents in housing cases which might of course have a domino effect later on. So, this is absolutely the jurisdiction for a Rent Tribunal and I hope we can all get behind what the Minister is trying to do with the wider picture.
The Deputy Bailiff :
I call upon Deputy Bailhache to reply to the debate.
I want to make just a few key points, some of which relates to the economic impact assessment from the Government's head of Economic Analysis. I think this is a really important document. The Chief Minister is to be congratulated on commissioning it. But it is disappointing that it was not made available to Members much earlier. It is undated so it is not clear when it came into existence, but it should at the least have been made available to Members for the debate on the principles because it was highly relevant. I hope that all Members have had the opportunity now to read it. These are substantial amendments. I should not have used the other word. Substantial amendments to the proposals, but they have to be. The rent control provisions, for that is what they are, the establishment of the Rent Tribunal, the incorporation of the periodic tenancy, together with the inability to bring it to an end other than in defined circumstances, are all fundamental changes to the law of landlord and tenant.
[15:15]
The first important point to make is one that has been made by me and several other Members during the course of the debate, and it is to be found at the first paragraph of the economic impact report. It states: "While the R.T.L. (Residential Tenancy Law) says that these amendments are needed to both update and improve the law, it does not provide any evidence on the problems or issues that the current law is causing, i.e. the problem that the amendments will address, nor does it provide any data on the number of tenancies and landlords affected by one or more of the proposed changes." Then it carries on: "The lack of information on the scale and nature of the problem make an economic impact assessment difficult." In other words, these substantial changes to the Residential Tenancy Law cannot be objectively assessed from an economic perspective because there is insufficient data to do so. The report does not say that it is impossible to obtain that data, it just says that it is not there. For an Assembly to plunge into the dark in this way is, in my view, irresponsible. We are making major changes, which may adversely affect the Island's economy, without having any idea of the likely consequences. The Minister criticised Deputy Gorst 's speech yesterday on the former rent tribunal scheme, as being irrelevant. But it was not. The account of people's manoeuvring to
avoid the adverse economic impact of price controls is exactly what happens in those circumstances. The market will protect itself. How exactly the market will protect itself against these intrusions into contractual relations is unknown, although the impact in Scotland and Ireland enables us to hazard the guess. I am sorry that the Minister does not like these references, but the fact of the matter is that the Scott ish approach to limiting the right to increase a rent is different indeed and more advantageous to tenants, but it is in principle exactly the same. We have been warned. The report states at paragraph 2: "The private rental market is essential for Jersey's economy." "Essential" is a strong word. We mess with the market when we do not know what we are doing at our peril. The report concludes with these words: "Because the Residential Tenancy Law does not evidence the problems or the scale of these problems it is correcting, it is not possible to assess whether on balance these amendments offer a net benefit to Jersey's economy." The Minister, in his speech, asserted that the amendments, my amendments, cause technical problems to the interpretation of the law. I reject that assertion. I have already explained in relation to the retention of Article 8 of the Amendment Law, which deletes Article 9 of the existing law, which gives the court a statutory power to terminate an agreement of premises if the premises are uninhabitable. All that is true. It does do that. But the customary law already gives the court a power to terminate or vary an agreement if a fundamental basis of the contract has gone, if the contract has been frustrated, if the premises are uninhabitable they obviously cannot be let as a residential accommodation. We do not need an additional statutory power, and indeed we did not have one before 2011. These changes do not compromise the integrity of the amendments that I have lodged. If they did, I am sure they would have been picked up by the Greffe or by the Legislative Drafting Office. Two material changes have been brought about by amendments from the Scrutiny Panel and Deputy Renouf , accepted by the Minister. The 5 per cent cap is going and there is going to be a 12-month notice period for landlords to recover their property. Do these change the picture so that Members can take the risks outlined by the Government's own economist? I do not think that they do. The impact assessment says that the amendments will generally be of benefit to tenants, although how many is uncertain. Some tenants will benefit from the move to periodic tenancies but not many because most of them enjoy it already. Some will benefit from rent control although the Scrutiny Report says that R.P.I. increases are already best practice and widely accepted. If tenants could be better informed as to their legal rights, it would be almost universal practice. These monumental changes, for that is what they are, will affect in practice very few tenants, but they will affect all landlords. Compliance, says the report, will cost landlords a whisker under £300,000. These amendments are not balanced, despite the protestations to the contrary. They are tilted against landlords because the Minister has an ideological fixation that the law is tilted against tenants. But the important problem with the Minister's proposals is different. The main worry is what they will do to the economy, as Deputy Barbara Ward pointed out yesterday, and who has been vindicated by the economic impact assessment. Paragraph 5 of the assessment states: "The amendments can be expected to elicit some unintended behavioural effects by landlords. Some landlords may feel that the pace of change effect of the amendments is to make letting unattractive. Some landlords may be deterred from investing and some potential landlords may be deterred from entering the buy-to-let market." The report states: "Neither outcome is desirable. Fewer new developments could affect the supply of new homes for Islanders, which in turn will have an effect upon the Island's economy." It is the perceived and indeed actual assault upon the interests of landlords which is the worry. Confidence, as the late Senator Cyril Le Marquand used to say, is the name of the game. There is no confidence that the 5 per cent cap will not be reinstated or indeed at a lower level. The 12 months provision for giving notice without a reason does not remove the central concern that a landlord's property is not any longer really his own. If the owner cannot regain possession of his own property by giving reasonable notice to his tenant, should he let it out? At some point in the future, 12 months could become 24 months, or indeed be removed entirely as the Minister wished. As the Minister rightly put it, the balance of power is shifting and that shift is what will affect the confidence of landlords about investing in rental property. In turn, it will affect the Island's economy by reducing the numbers of rental properties, which in turn will increase rents
because of the scarcity of supply. If Members do not accept my amendments, I submit that they are playing with fire.
The Deputy Bailiff :
Deputy Bailhache , in terms of Members voting on your amendments, you have grouped your amendments into 3 titles, as it were, capping of rent increases, establishment of rent tribunal, then periodic tenancies and then civil penalties. Do you wish Members to vote on those 3 categories?
Deputy P.M. Bailhache : Yes please.
The Deputy Bailiff :
The appel I believe has been called for. Members are invited to return to their seats. Members, we first will be voting on the amendments moved by Deputy Bailhache under the title "Capping of Rent Increases and Establishment of Rent Tribunal". I invite the Greffier to open the voting. If all Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. I can announce that has been rejected:
POUR: 21 |
| CONTRE: 24 |
| ABSTAIN: 0 |
Connétable of St. Brelade |
| Connétable of St. Helier |
|
|
Connétable of St. Clement |
| Connétable of St. Lawrence |
|
|
Connétable of Grouville |
| Connétable of St. Peter |
|
|
Connétable of St. Ouen |
| Connétable of St. Martin |
|
|
Connétable of St. Saviour |
| Connétable of St. John |
|
|
Deputy C.F. Labey |
| Connétable of St. Mary |
|
|
Deputy S.G. Luce |
| Deputy G.P. Southern |
|
|
Deputy K.F. Morel |
| Deputy M. Tadier |
|
|
Deputy S.M. Ahier |
| Deputy L.M.C. Doublet |
|
|
Deputy I. Gardiner |
| Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat |
|
|
Deputy I.J. Gorst |
| Deputy R.J. Ward |
|
|
Deputy Sir P.M. Bailhache |
| Deputy C.S. Alves |
|
|
Deputy D.J. Warr |
| Deputy L.J. Farnham |
|
|
Deputy M.R. Scott |
| Deputy S.Y. Mézec |
|
|
Deputy R.E. Binet |
| Deputy T.A. Coles |
|
|
Deputy M.E. Millar |
| Deputy B.B. de S.V.M. Porée |
|
|
Deputy A. Howell |
| Deputy H.M. Miles |
|
|
Deputy T.J.A. Binet |
| Deputy J. Renouf |
|
|
Deputy M.R. Ferey |
| Deputy C.D. Curtis |
|
|
Deputy B. Ward |
| Deputy L.V. Feltham |
|
|
Deputy K.M. Wilson |
| Deputy H.L. Jeune |
|
|
|
| Deputy R.S. Kovacs |
|
|
|
| Deputy L.K.F. Stephenson |
|
|
|
| Deputy M.B. Andrews |
|
|
The Deputy Bailiff :
I will move on to the second vote dealing with the amendments relating to periodic tenancies. I invite the Greffier to open the voting. If all Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. This amendment has been rejected by the same x:
POUR: 21 |
| CONTRE: 24 |
| ABSTAIN: 0 |
Connétable of St. Brelade |
| Connétable of St. Helier |
|
|
Connétable of St. Clement |
| Connétable of St. Lawrence |
|
|
Connétable of Grouville |
| Connétable of St. Peter |
|
|
Connétable of St. Ouen |
| Connétable of St. Martin |
|
|
Connétable of St. Saviour |
| Connétable of St. John |
|
|
Deputy C.F. Labey |
| Connétable of St. Mary |
|
|
Deputy S.G. Luce |
| Deputy G.P. Southern |
|
|
Deputy K.F. Morel |
| Deputy M. Tadier |
|
|
Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat |
| Deputy L.M.C. Doublet |
|
|
Deputy S.M. Ahier |
| Deputy R.J. Ward |
|
|
Deputy I. Gardiner |
| Deputy C.S. Alves |
|
|
Deputy I.J. Gorst |
| Deputy L.J. Farnham |
|
|
Deputy Sir P.M. Bailhache |
| Deputy S.Y. Mézec |
|
|
Deputy D.J. Warr |
| Deputy T.A. Coles |
|
|
Deputy M.R. Scott |
| Deputy B.B. de S.V.M. Porée |
|
|
Deputy R.E. Binet |
| Deputy H.M. Miles |
|
|
Deputy A. Howell |
| Deputy J. Renouf |
|
|
Deputy T.J.A. Binet |
| Deputy C.D. Curtis |
|
|
Deputy M.R. Ferey |
| Deputy L.V. Feltham |
|
|
Deputy B. Ward |
| Deputy H.L. Jeune |
|
|
Deputy K.M. Wilson |
| Deputy M.E. Millar |
|
|
|
| Deputy R.S. Kovacs |
|
|
|
| Deputy L.K.F. Stephenson |
|
|
|
| Deputy M.B. Andrews |
|
|
The third vote deals with civil penalties, the amendments in relation to civil penalties, and I invite the Greffier to open the voting. If all Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. Again, the amendment has been rejected:
POUR: 21 |
| CONTRE: 24 |
| ABSTAIN: 0 |
Connétable of St. Lawrence |
| Connétable of St. Helier |
|
|
Connétable of St. Brelade |
| Connétable of St. Peter |
|
|
Connétable of St. Clement |
| Connétable of St. Martin |
|
|
Connétable of Grouville |
| Connétable of St. John |
|
|
Connétable of St. Ouen |
| Connétable of St. Mary |
|
|
Connétable of St. Saviour |
| Deputy G.P. Southern |
|
|
Deputy C.F. Labey |
| Deputy M. Tadier |
|
|
Deputy S.G. Luce |
| Deputy L.M.C. Doublet |
|
|
Deputy K.F. Morel |
| Deputy R.J. Ward |
|
|
Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat |
| Deputy C.S. Alves |
|
|
Deputy S.M. Ahier |
| Deputy I. Gardiner |
|
|
Deputy I.J. Gorst |
| Deputy L.J. Farnham |
|
|
Deputy Sir P.M. Bailhache |
| Deputy S.Y. Mézec |
|
|
Deputy D.J. Warr |
| Deputy T.A. Coles |
|
|
Deputy M.R. Scott |
| Deputy B.B. de S.V.M. Porée |
|
|
Deputy R.E. Binet |
| Deputy H.M. Miles |
|
|
Deputy A. Howell |
| Deputy J. Renouf |
|
|
Deputy T.J.A. Binet |
| Deputy C.D. Curtis |
|
|
Deputy M.R. Ferey |
| Deputy L.V. Feltham |
|
|
Deputy B. Ward |
| Deputy H.L. Jeune |
|
|
Deputy K.M. Wilson |
| Deputy M.E. Millar |
|
|
|
| Deputy R.S. Kovacs |
|
|
|
| Deputy L.K.F. Stephenson |
|
|
|
| Deputy M.B. Andrews |
|
|
[15:30]
- Draft Residential Tenancy (Jersey) Amendment Law 202- (P.24/2025): second amendment (P.24/2025 Amd.(2))
The Deputy Bailiff :
We now move on to the second amendment proposed by the Minister for Housing. Again, these amendments are extensive and I propose to take them as read by the Greffier and invite the Minister to propose the second amendment.
Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier South:
We have a running order in front of us so it just might be helpful when we are getting to these amendments just to be reminded exactly which parts it is because, even though there are packages of amendments that are consolidated in a single amendment document, we are not necessarily dealing with all parts of that in each debate. So, my understanding now is that I am proposing part 1 of the second amendment, which affects Article 6. Can I just be sure that we are all under the same understanding on that, please?
The Deputy Bailiff :
Deputy Jeune , you have your light on.
Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity :
Yes, I was going to ask that same question because I was wanting to request that the Minister takes part 2, 3, 7 and 11, ending an initial term early separately if he was going to do it en bloc, but as the Minister I think is going to do it separately in what he has just proposed.
The Deputy Bailiff :
So, you are proposing to take which parts, Minister; simply the first few amendments? Deputy H.L. Jeune :
The parts 2, 3, 7 and 11 together, which deals with ending an initial term early, to take that separately if the Minister was going to take amendment 2 en bloc. But, because of what he just said, I am not sure.
The Deputy Bailiff :
Yes. Minister, we were proceeding on the footing, having regard to the running order, that the Assembly would debate and vote on the second amendment. But you are simply going to propose it and then have the amendment B2 considered by Scrutiny. The running order says the Assembly debates and votes on the second amendment, unless I am looking at the wrong page. No, I am looking at the wrong page, sorry. I am looking at the wrong page. Minister, the running order does say, which we have all seen, that the Assembly debates and votes on the second amendment as a whole. But if that is going to create problems for your Scrutiny, then we can certainly approach it differently.
Deputy S.Y. Mézec :
Just my reading of it is that I could propose the second amendment as it is, but if Scrutiny wanted to have a separate vote on that part then I could attempt to do that.
The Deputy Bailiff :
Yes. Our understanding was, Minister and Deputy Jeune , that we would debate and vote on the second amendment and the consequence would be, as you look at the notes in relation to what you described, Deputy Jeune , as amendment B2, the majority that would fall away if parts 2, 3, 7 and 11 of the second amendment were adopted. Only part 2(2) of that fourth amendment would then be debated.
Deputy H.L. Jeune :
Yes. From the reading of the running order, it was seen that amendment 2 would be voted en bloc. I wanted to propose that we then did not vote it en bloc, but to take out that particular point within amendment 2 so that we could debate it so that the Scrutiny could have a chance to talk to members about their amendment B2 within that process. Because, if Members support amendment 2, our amendment B2 falls away automatically and does not get voted on.
The Deputy Bailiff :
It does. That is the way that the running order has been set. Deputy H.L. Jeune :
Yes, but I was advised that we could break up amendment 2 and vote on it separately, so I was requesting, as a Member .. I believe we have done that before and I think under Population, I believe, it was.
The Deputy Bailiff :
Yes. This is quite a complicated set of amendments and, Minister, it is really up to you what you propose in terms of your second amendment. We were expecting you to propose it en bloc and it to be voted upon on that basis. If you want to take a different course, then we need to be clear as to what that is.
Deputy S.Y. Mézec :
Would it be better for me to propose the first part of this and debate that, which I promise Members is a really simple matter, and then do the parts that Scrutiny are asking for, propose those at that point. I think there are connected amendments later that mean we would not be wrecking the debate, whichever resolution we came to on that particular part, we would not be faced with a Frankenstein law either way on that.
The Deputy Bailiff :
So you would simply be debating the changes to Article 6 only? Deputy S.Y. Mézec :
Yes, Sir.
The Deputy Bailiff :
That is a very narrow matter we would be amending. That would be simply the first paragraph of your amendment, because of one of the amendments to Article 6; do you follow? Part 1 is simply, as we see from the running order, clarifying where further fixed terms are allowed in certain circumstances. It would be a very small debate.
Deputy S.Y. Mézec : I believe so, Sir. The Deputy Bailiff :
So then you move on to parts 2 to 11 onwards and give Scrutiny the opportunity to amend those; is that what you propose?
Deputy S.Y. Mézec :
Shall I just propose them en bloc and we can do different votes on that when it comes to it? The Deputy Bailiff :
You could propose them en bloc and then have different votes as we go along and give the opportunity for Scrutiny to move any amendments as they wish. That might be the best solution. All right, so you are going to propose the second amendment en bloc and then we will have separate votes on the various parts and give Scrutiny the opportunity to make its amendment B2. Is that what you propose to do, Minister?
Deputy S.Y. Mézec :
If that works.
The Deputy Bailiff :
Yes, well we will soon find out, will we not? [Laughter] Deputy S.Y. Mézec :
Indeed we will. At least it is all simple from this point onwards. The Deputy Bailiff :
Let us hope so, yes.
I do mean that. It will be difficult to follow some of this but in terms of the issues that are being addressed I do think it gets a little bit more simple from this point, so I do thank Members for their indulgence on this. Part 1 of the second amendment is something that I hope will be uncontroversial. This amendment was lodged following some feedback from the Jersey Farmers Union. This was a group that I was keen to engage with as we were putting the law together and explaining to them what that might specifically mean for those in that area who are often providing accommodation as well as employment. They indicated to us that they would appreciate greater clarity on the matter of fixed-term tenancies not being able to be followed by a subsequent fixed term. The intention of the draft law is to require fixed-term tenancies to convert into periodic tenancies at their end if both parties wish to continue, and it would not be possible to follow a fixed term with an immediate second fixed term. But then that raised the question of what counts as immediate, and that was raised in the context of seasonal workers who may live and work in Jersey for a period of time, leave for a bit, and then come back basically on the same arrangement as before, including potentially in the same accommodation. If there was a gap of only a few months would that be considered getting around that prohibition on immediate use of second fixed-term tenancy? My view is that in the drafting of the original law it would have been regarded as a brand new tenancy entirely and so there would not be a prohibition on employer landlords providing that for their seasonal workers. But following that feedback from the Jersey Farmers Union there was absolutely no harm at all whatsoever in extra clarifying that in the wording to give them peace of mind, and just let them know that they can be
sure that they were doing the right thing. So I was very happy to alter the wording slightly just to remove any space for doubt. So that is part 1; hopefully that is okay. The second part of this refers to parts 2, 3, 7 and 11. Again I was hoping that would be uncontroversial. This part of the amendment ensures that in circumstances where an initial fixed-term tenancy is to end early, that there must be requirements set out in the contract to be met so that the default is not just the minimum notice. Again, that is getting out break clauses, et cetera; that there would be clear terms in a contract for that rather than just presuming what would otherwise be the minimum. It also gives the court the ability to amend an agreement to put that in, if necessary, if that is not there. Let us hope I am moving on to the correct part of my notes next. Parts 4 and 5 in the second amendment, this amendment arises from a technicality discovered just after P.24 was lodged, where it might have been possible for a worker to be thrown out of their home at short notice because of an arrangement where they were directly employed by an agency, but not directly by the business that they were technically working at, but had accommodation provided for. There is a notice period for tenancy connected to employment ending, and that is a 7-day one, so that is obviously quick. The reason it can be quick is because you would also be factoring the notice for the employment ending into that. So you say they are not going to be employed and that notice is whatever it is, plus 7 days to lose the accommodation beyond that. But there was theoretically a loophole if the place you were working for was not directly who you were employed by because it was through an agency. So you could have had just a 7 day notice then, which there would be many instances for that and it would be unfair. The correction was provided there just to make sure that that was taken care of. Part 6 relates to a tenant's work permit expiring and it is just a technical amendment to revert to neutral language more accurately reflecting the practice of the employers being the applicants for the work permits. If I am going on to part 9 of the second amendment, this is again a minor amendment that loosens up some of the restrictions that I had originally proposed to be in place on the membership of the Rent Tribunal. There were particular people who would be barred from serving on the Rent Tribunal based on offices that they have previously had. On reflection, that was a bit too stingy and there were people who would have held those offices where, upon reflection, I thought there was not much grounds for giving them a lifetime bar from serving on the Rent Tribunal when in reality after a bit of time they would not be conflicted and that would be totally fine there.
[15:45]
The final part, part 10, corrects a referencing error for secondary legislation because it was identified that the purpose of Article 13H(5)(b) was to allow the Royal Court to make rules of court specifying that the Royal Court's procedures for appeals to it from the Rent Tribunal. The reference to "and an order made under Article 23(2)(l)(e) or (l)(f)" is not required because it is about the Rent Tribunal's procedure for decision making, which is separate to the procedure for appeals to the Royal Court. Therefore, amendments proposed to Article 13H9(5)(b) to reference only part 4(a), in case you are all following and that makes perfect sense. But that covers all of the bits in the second amendment, which I hope are recognised as being mostly editorial in nature and hopefully not too controversial.
The Deputy Bailiff :
Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded] As I understand it, Minister, are you now wishing to have a debate then a vote on the very first part, and then we have the amendment from the panel to parts 2, 3, 7 and 11? No? I thought that was the solution.
Deputy S.Y. Mézec :
I thought the panel's amendment was to another Article. That is right, yes.
The Deputy Bailiff :
The amendment is to parts 2, 3, 7 and 11 of this amendment, is it not, Deputy Jeune ? Deputy H.L. Jeune :
Yes. I am not proposing that we debate amendment B2, what I am asking is that we vote on separately parts 2, 3, 7 and 11 of the Minister's amendment ..
The Deputy Bailiff :
I see, that is all you are proposing.
Deputy H.L. Jeune :
.. because it is related to our amendment and our amendment covers that point plus extra ..
The Deputy Bailiff :
I see. That is fine.
Deputy H.L. Jeune :
.. so I was wanting for us to cover it at this point.
The Deputy Bailiff :
That is fine. Thank you very much. Does any Member wish to speak on this second amendment?
I apologise to Members if this comes as a surprise, but first of all to the Minister's second amendment, I mean many of it is absolutely administrative, as the Minister points out, and also a lot of it has come from the Scrutiny work and during the Scrutiny work, and the feedback that we got from different organisations and landlords. The Minister rightly read those and made the amendments accordingly as the process went on. However, I wanted to focus and just take a vote separately - so that is all I am asking to do - on the specific parts around 2, 3, 7 and 11 which all focuses on ending an initial fixed term early without reason. Why I am asking this is if we vote for the second amendment now, this particular bit, the Scrutiny's amendment B2 falls away and Scrutiny does not have a chance to present what our findings are within this particular area around ending an initial fixed term early without reason. So, therefore, I wanted a moment to be able to talk to you about that and for Members to then be able to vote on that particular point now rather than us not being able to have that discussion at this particular point. So the Minister's amendment adjusts the drafting of Articles 6B(2)(e) and 6D(b) so that tenancy agreements must always set out one or more requirements before either party can end a fixed term early. That is about break clauses within a fixed term. There now is the ability in a fixed term, a landlord or a tenant will be able to ask for that fixed term to be stopped, given a 3- month notice, or a one-month notice. What the Minister is asking with this amendment is to require one or more requirements that are written within a contract to be done before either party can end that fixed term early. The panel does support these intentions and we questioned at the beginning why the Minister in his initial amendments to the law did not provide this safeguard in his first proposal of the Draft Amendment Law, because at that time the original proposed law at the moment was then that a fixed term could be finished at any moment with 3 months or one-month notice. As Deputy Curtis - who unfortunately as he explained is no longer able to contribute due to other commitments - rightly said, the panel was worried that this specifically would mean that tenants especially, but also landlords .. fixed terms are not fixed terms anymore. There is not a fixed term if you, within a fixed term, can then stop it at any point without a reason for 3 months or one-month notice. Even if it is only one time, up to 3 years, only one initial contract, within that time, as the draft law originally was proposed, it meant that you could stop that fixed-term contract 3 months or one month, at any time without any given reason. I just wanted to put that there because it shows that in all the discussions that we have had already the Minister, in a sense, was being I think very supportive to landlords, especially to be able to show that there is a way to not be bound by a contract potentially that could be up to 3 years long. So it gave that flexibility that from a Scrutiny perspective we felt that was a concern for a tenant, but also for a landlord. So we were supportive of the Minister putting in these provisions that he has talked about in his second amendment about requiring one or
more elements within a break clause section of the contract, that either party has to fulfil before breaking that contract early. But we felt that it was not enough. We felt that on top of that we wanted to also feel that there could .. because we have talked about that landlord/tenant imbalance of power that we have seen and the evidence we have collected as Scrutiny, we felt that we would like to propose an additional amendment to that, and that we would then ask to .. our amendment addresses a real and recognised problem. There is persistence at the moment of one-sided break clauses that disproportionately favour landlords and undermines that security that the Draft Amendment Law seeks to provide. That is what I wanted to discuss with the Assembly now. Therefore, amendment B2 does the same thing as what the Minister is proposing, so it still keeps the amendment that the Minister is proposing under the second amendment, it does not get rid of that. It holds the space that is now what the Minister is proposing, but it adds an extra safeguard that we believe is missing in the Minister's text. During the panel's review, the Minister himself acknowledged that one-sided break clauses are an issue. The Law Society of Jersey went further, stating that mutuality in break clauses is both reasonable and necessary, so we were even encouraged to look into this aspect by the Law Society of Jersey. Yet under the Minister's amendment that he is proposing now in the second amendment, unilateral break clauses will still be permitted so long as a statutory minima are met which means, as drafted, the law would permit break clauses that favour one party over the other. As we have heard - and as I say, Deputy Curtis talked before he left the Chamber about that power imbalance that we are still seeing within the tenant/landlord discussions - especially when a contract is being discussed. So our amendment ensures that those break clauses must operate equally for both landlord and tenant, that principles of fairness is the heart of this approach and, as I said, because if Members approve the Minister's provisions in parts 2, 3, 7 and 11 .. and, as I said, Scrutiny does support that change, we do support that amendment, but we are trying to add an extra balance on top of that, and because our amendment would fall away if this amendment is agreed then I wanted us to vote on this particular aspect of amendment 2 now so that we could then also go on to the .. if that is rejected we can then talk about the Scrutiny Panel's B2, which talks about this inequality break clause, and then focuses in on being able to show that we need this proportionality and safeguard, that the panel feels that is needed in break clauses. I hope that makes sense to Members, I have tried to hopefully be as clear as I can.
Deputy M.R. Scott of St. Brelade :
I just wondered if I could ask the chair of the Scrutiny Panel a point of clarification please? The Deputy Bailiff :
Yes.
Deputy M.R. Scott :
Perhaps she might inform Members how that works in terms of when you talk about mutuality of break clauses and the opportunity to exercise them, and aligning that with the unequal kind of basis in which rights are given to terminate because reasons differ. How does that tie together in terms of whether one restricts the other?
The Deputy Bailiff :
Deputy Jeune , do you want to deal with that? Deputy H.L. Jeune :
I am not quite sure what Deputy Scott is referring to. What we have of course said is that at the end of the day .. and it speaks to the Minister's comments on our B2 is that we believe that if this contract does not show .. that if one of the parties or other parties believes that it is unfair and there is not his balance within the break clauses, the Petty Debts Court is the place to say that. As I say, the Minister has already alluded to the fact the Petty Debts Court is a place to go to, to add break clauses to.
Deputy J. Renouf of St. Brelade : Could I make a point of order? The Deputy Bailiff :
Yes.
Deputy J. Renouf :
I am very sorry to do this, given the complexity, but could I just clarify, if the part of the amendment that we are talking about here is rejected - as the Scrutiny Panel has asked - and then we reject when we come to discuss the amendment from Scrutiny, if that amendment is also rejected, where does that leave us? Does that leave us without either of the provisions?
The Deputy Bailiff :
Yes, it leaves you without those 2 sets of amendments. Deputy J. Renouf :
So in that sense the vote on whether or not to reject this part of the amendment is also a vote on the amendment?
The Deputy Bailiff :
Yes, it is.
Deputy A. Howell of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity :
I was just wondering if the chair of the Scrutiny Panel may be able to explain how these break clauses are going to work in with an actual contract that a landlord and a tenant both sign.
The Deputy Bailiff :
A point of clarification, are you accepting that, Deputy Jeune ? Deputy H.L. Jeune :
Yes, I think there are break clauses that happen now currently, so within fixed-term contracts there are already break clauses that are being put in if a landlord and a tenant agrees to that. What I believe the Minister with his second amendment is trying to put in, is that that becomes a de facto, that there needs to be break clauses so that if you want to stop your fixed-term contract, giving 3 months or one-month notice, that there has to be a break clause within that. But that is for the Minister to defend. The Scrutiny Panel would like to add an additional to that because we would support that, we think that is an important part of having a break clause, is that we need to have that equality within the break clauses because it could be one-sided. A landlord could demand a certain amount of break clauses for a certain amount of requirements that a tenant has to adhere to before they can break a fixed-term agreement, like finding a new tenant to take over the contract or other aspects, or pay their TV licence to the end of the year, et cetera. There are many aspects but it may not be balanced equally with what the landlord is required to do, so our request was to try to show that there is more equality in that break clause.
Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier Central :
I apologise for asking for a clarification but I do not understand why if it is an amendment that adds to something we cannot vote on this amendment as is and then come to that second amendment to see whether you want to add to it. I do not see why they are mutually exclusive. It is an amendment to certain parts. We could vote for those parts and then amend them later. I thought that is what we were doing.
The Deputy Bailiff :
These amendments need to be rejected for the Scrutiny's amendments to be debated. That is the point.
Deputy R.J. Ward :
Okay, sorry, I did not understand why it was but I will just take your word for it because I have no other way of doing this.
The Deputy Bailiff :
Deputy Scott , is it a point of clarification or do you want to speak? Deputy M.R. Scott :
It is a point of clarification because perhaps in order to .. sorry, I can see a conversation is going on and I was going to ask a question of the chair of the Scrutiny Panel to help me just understand.
[16:00]
She said that the Law Society supported the mutuality of break clauses. Was this in conjunction with supporting the reasoned grounds for termination, because I just have difficulty in terms of squaring up the mutuality and lack of mutuality?
Deputy H.L. Jeune :
This is related to fixed term and so in a fixed term you do not need to give a reason for giving notice, and so it is under Article 6D, I believe, of the amendments that the Minister has provided is that at any time a landlord or tenant within a fixed-term contract - or the proposed fixed-term contract - will be able to give notice, if they give 3 months or one month. I believe that the Minister has tried to add extra safeguards within that by adding that there has to be some kind of break clause added to the contract to be able to give notice, but without a reason. Where the Scrutiny Panel is adding an extra to that, another layer, is that those reasons in the contract, when they are negotiating the contract, that they tenant and landlord .. those break clauses are equal in the sense that there is not the power imbalance. Because we have found evidence that one-sided break clauses are an issue. The Minister has identified it, the Law Society identified it as well, and they believe that it is reasonable and necessary. So that is basically the thing, it is adding to what the Minister is proposing and it is not trying to take away. But because of - and I agree with Deputy Rob Ward - the way the order is set out, it meant that our amendment B2 which adds to the Minister's amendment, would fall away, and so we would not be able to discuss our addition to that, and I felt that was a missed opportunity and something that I felt was really needed because it is something that Scrutiny did find and we have evidence to prove it.
The Deputy Bailiff :
Deputy Howell , your light is still on.
Deputy A. Howell :
Yes, thank you, could I ask a clarification of the Attorney General please, Sir? The Deputy Bailiff :
What particular issue?
I was just wondering, it is the issue of the contract. Because we all understand at the moment that if you have a year contract it is a year contract. If you have a 3-year contract it is a 3-year contract. But if we have these break clauses they will not be one-year contracts or 3-year contracts. That is what is puzzling me and I wondered if the .. because of the break clauses, and I wonder if the Attorney General may be able to help.
Mr. M.H. Temple K.C., H.M. Attorney General:
As I understand it, we are in the territory of how a tenancy, which is an initial term tenancy, so it is for a fixed period as an initial term, how that is ended. The Minister's amendment originally in Article 6D(b) included some words in brackets "if any" about requirements to give notice. That was felt that, as I understand it from Scrutiny, that that opened up a possible loophole in that there may not be any requirements in the tenancy agreement about how notice is given. There are 2 possible solutions to that and Scrutiny has proposed that there should be mutuality of requirements in a tenancy agreement so that both landlord and tenant effectively have to have mutually fair provisions concerning giving notice. That is the first solution. Then the second solution is as proposed by the Minister, whereby he is deleting the words in brackets "if any" from his Article 6D and he is proposing an amendment to schedule 1 of the current law about what a tenancy agreement must specify, and he is proposing some additional language at paragraph 12 to schedule 1, and an additional example about how a tenancy agreement might cover giving notice. Although I have not been asked the question directly by Deputy Howell I will give my view anyway. I have to say that I think the Minister's solution is the preferable solution in that it provides for more certainty for both landlords and tenants because where there is a requirement to judge fairness, that is an area of subjectivity that may encourage people to end up in the Petty Debts Court because they cannot agree on what is fair. My view was that the Scrutiny Panel's amendment delivered less certainty in terms of protections to that of the Minister. My advice to the Assembly is that the Minister's solution - while I appreciate the scrutiny of the panel - delivers more certainty to landlords and tenants because it removes this requirement of mutual fairness which parties may have very different views about, and may only encourage people to end up in court where they did not need to be there in the first place.
Deputy A. Howell :
Can I just clarify then? If you have got a break clause of 3 months, effectively the lease is only 3 months?
The Attorney General:
No, the tenancy agreement could be for an initial term of 2 or 3 years but it may provide for a break clause at a certain point but it needs to set that out in the agreement. It needs to say when that break clause is exercisable and who it is to be exercised by. It is including requirements in the tenancy agreement about how notice is given and when it is to be given.
Deputy I. Gardiner of St. Helier North :
I would like to have order explanation because I hear what Deputy Rob Ward said. Can we change the order so we can vote on what the Minister is proposing? If somebody would like to change or amend according to the Scrutiny source, Scrutiny not deleting it, Scrutiny adding. I am just checking, and that when Deputy Rob Ward stood up I said, is it our decision how the order can go? Because if that sounds there is 2 other options and 2 options are not deleting each other.
The Deputy Bailiff :
We are now debating the second amendment and there will be separate votes on the relevant paragraphs of the second amendment. Yes. The position is if you look at the running order document that the majority of the Scrutiny amendments under what they call B2 will fall away if the Minister's second amendment is adopted in its entirety. But in fact, as you see from the text at the bottom of page 3, even if the amendments are adopted in their entirety, part 2(2) of the Scrutiny amendment will remain to be debated. That is a matter really for Deputy Jeune to explain to the Assembly. My reading of part 2(2) of the Scrutiny amendment is it does deal with this particular issue, 2(2) says that: "In Article 6, new part 3, after new Article 6D(b) insert as paragraph 2, however, if the requirements purportedly set out in the agreement under paragraph 12 of schedule 1 are more favourable to the landlord than the tenant, (a) the landlord cannot end the initial term early under this Article but (b) the tenant can end the initial term under this Article, as long as they satisfy those requirements that apply to the tenant." Even if the amendments are adopted in their entirety, that provision will remain to be debated under the Scrutiny amendment. Does any Member wish to speak on the Minister's second amendment?
It is a question to the Minister really rather than a speech. But given all that has just been discussed, in his summing up I would quite like, if possible, to hear some indication about why he does not support the Scrutiny amendment. Then I understand that he himself has an amendment to that amendment and I appreciate that we need to focus on the debate before us here today. But we have just heard quite considerable evidence that perhaps we need to just stray slightly today. I would appreciate a bit of clarity on that.
The Deputy Bailiff :
Does anyone else want to speak on the second amendment? I call upon the Minister to reply.
Not a word was said about all the other parts of the second amendment, so I am hoping that that is evidence that those are uncontroversial. I can dwell just on that second part. I am grateful for the intervention from the Attorney General. The chair of the Scrutiny Panel is absolutely right to highlight this issue. There is a gap in our current framework in the Residential Tenancy Law where it is possible for a fixed-term tenancy to be offered. That includes biased and one-sided break clauses that are totally swayed towards the landlord who is offering the tenancy above that of the tenant. I have seen these myself in the work I have been doing to prepare for this. I saw an example, just one that sticks out very clearly in my mind, of a tenant who was asked to sign a one-year fixed-term tenancy; it had its start and its end date, very clear. But there was a break clause in it that said that the landlord could at any time in that fixed term issue 3 months' notice for that tenant to go. There was no reciprocal clause for the tenant to be able to go. That was really bad security of tenure. They are purported to be a fixed-term tenancy but there was a completely one-sided and unfair break clause in that. The break clause did not specify any terms that would have to be met before that break clause could be used; it could just be used whenever, and that is obviously totally unfair and something to be resolved, which the Scrutiny Panel is right to look at that. In reflecting on what we had drafted and lodged in the aftermath of that, and we are still going over some of these issues, we came up with this second amendment that addresses quite a few issues in that, including this subject where it adds into it an element that says that for these break clauses there must be requirements set out in the contract to be met so that the default is not just we can issue a notice whenever in a fixed term. Because if you have signed up to a fixed term you are expecting a degree of certainty from that, but those kind of clauses totally undermine that and take that away. The Attorney General has suggested that the way of dealing with this is done more cleanly in the amendment that we are debating now, which is why it is my preference that the Assembly sticks with that wording. The Attorney General's intervention was helpful in that regard. I hope that is okay with Members. I hope this is getting at Deputy Stephenson 's question, is that if the Assembly declines to do that we will come back a little bit later for subsequent amendments because Scrutiny have an amendment with a package of amendments in that. One of those deals with this same subject as well. My view is that their wording was not as good as the wording we were looking at.
[16:15]
Though it is well-intentioned it sticks too much on the lines of equality, rather than equity and does not take into account where exactly equal terms of break clauses might not be appropriate in some circumstances, especially when there are the grounds that the landlord can use to end a tenancy early.
In the new Article 6 of the law they do not need to have in the contracts because they are already in the law and they can use them. Even if a break clause technically had equal terms, there would not be equality because the landlord has extra rights provided for in Article 6. My amendment to their amendment was to stick to this arrangement where the terms of those break clauses have to be set out in the contract and there has to be a point at which they can be initiated, rather than just initiated for no reason at any time at all. I had not been aware of this before the debate started but the chair indicated to me that if we got to that point she would accept my amendment to it. I am trying to be crystal clear now. My preference is we go ahead with the wording that I have got now. But if the Assembly disagrees with me on that we have the backstop then of debating the Scrutiny Panel's amendment, which they are indicating they will support my amendment to it. As a backstop that will do really well and that will be okay. But if we did end up in a situation of rejecting both, then there would be no progress at all on this subject. Plan A stick with this amendment. Plan B go to the one with the Scrutiny Panel and I having amended each other and I hope that makes sense. I would
Deputy I. Gardiner : Point of clarification. The Deputy Bailiff : Yes, Deputy Gardiner . Deputy I. Gardiner :
A point of clarification, if the Minister can indicate, plan A, does it mean that during the fixed term that the landlord needs to give 3 months' notice?
Deputy S.Y. Mézec :
Yes, but not for any reason at any time. They would have to say something like, if it is a 3-year fixed term: "This becomes available after the first year." They could not say: "It becomes available on day one." For example, there would have to be a condition that must be met before that could be used, rather than the current situation, which is you can have biased break clauses with no preconditions to be met; that is where the safeguard comes in there. I call for the appel. I am happy to vote on the first part and allow for the Assembly to
The Deputy Bailiff :
Yes, I think we will deal with the first part first and then parts 2, 3, 7 and 11 and then the balance of the parts. The appel has been called for. Members are invited to return to their seats. We are voting on the Minister's second amendment and first we are voting on the first part of that amendment, which deals with Article 6 of the law. I invite the Greffier to open the voting. If all Members have had the chance of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. I can announce that part 1 of the amendment has been adopted:
POUR: 36 |
| CONTRE: 5 |
| ABSTAIN: 0 |
Connétable of St. Lawrence |
| Connétable of St. Brelade |
|
|
Connétable of St. Peter |
| Connétable of Trinity |
|
|
Connétable of St. Martin |
| Deputy Sir P.M. Bailhache |
|
|
Connétable of St. John |
| Deputy M.R. Ferey |
|
|
Connétable of St. Clement |
| Deputy K.M. Wilson |
|
|
Connétable of St. Ouen |
|
|
|
|
Connétable of St. Mary |
|
|
|
|
Connétable of St. Saviour |
|
|
|
|
Deputy G.P. Southern |
|
|
|
|
Deputy C.F. Labey |
|
|
|
|
Deputy M. Tadier |
|
|
|
|
Deputy L.M.C. Doublet |
|
|
|
|
Deputy K.F. Morel |
|
|
|
|
Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat |
|
|
|
|
Deputy S.M. Ahier |
|
|
|
|
Deputy R.J. Ward |
|
|
|
|
Deputy C.S. Alves |
|
|
|
|
Deputy I. Gardiner |
|
|
|
|
Deputy I.J. Gorst |
|
|
|
|
Deputy L.J. Farnham |
|
|
|
|
Deputy S.Y. Mézec |
|
|
|
|
Deputy T.A. Coles |
|
|
|
|
Deputy B.B. de S.V.M. Porée |
|
|
|
|
Deputy D.J. Warr |
|
|
|
|
Deputy H.M. Miles |
|
|
|
|
Deputy M.R. Scott |
|
|
|
|
Deputy J. Renouf |
|
|
|
|
Deputy C.D. Curtis |
|
|
|
|
Deputy L.V. Feltham |
|
|
|
|
Deputy R.E. Binet |
|
|
|
|
Deputy H.L. Jeune |
|
|
|
|
Deputy M.E. Millar |
|
|
|
|
Deputy R.S. Kovacs |
|
|
|
|
Deputy B. Ward |
|
|
|
|
Deputy L.K.F. Stephenson |
|
|
|
|
Deputy M.B. Andrews |
|
|
|
|
The Deputy Bailiff :
I move to parts 2, 3, 7 and 11 of the amendment, which Scrutiny have asked the Minister to take separately. I ask the Greffier to open the voting.
Deputy H.L. Jeune :
Sorry, Sir, just to clarify because there are a number of rulings that you made just earlier on a number of areas. If this part, which we have called on to vote separately, if it is contre it will go to amendment B2 as a whole but if it is passed we will only go to one section of B2, I think to 2(2).
The Deputy Bailiff :
Yes, if parts 2, 3, 7, and 11, most of your amendment B2 will not be debated, only part 2(2). If it is rejected then the whole of your amendment to these parts will be debated. I invite the Greffier to close the voting.
The Greffier of the States:
All right, hang on. Shall I reset and we start again? We will start again. The Deputy Bailiff :
I think there has been a problem. We are going to run the votes on parts 2, 3, 7 and 11 of the second amendment again. I invite Members to return to their seats and I invite the Greffier, when appropriate, to open the voting. The voting is open. If all Members have had the chance of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. Those parts have been adopted:
POUR: 27 | CONTRE: 17 | ABSTAIN: 0 |
Connétable of St. Lawrence | Connétable of St. Brelade |
|
Connétable of St. Peter | Connétable of Trinity |
|
Connétable of St. Martin | Connétable of Grouville |
|
Connétable of St. John | Connétable of St. Ouen |
|
Connétable of St. Clement | Connétable of St. Mary |
|
Connétable of St. Saviour | Deputy C.F. Labey |
|
Deputy G.P. Southern | Deputy K.F. Morel |
|
Deputy M. Tadier | Deputy Sir P.M. Bailhache |
|
Deputy L.M.C. Doublet | Deputy H.M. Miles |
|
Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat | Deputy M.R. Scott |
|
Deputy S.M. Ahier | Deputy R.E. Binet |
|
Deputy R.J. Ward | Deputy H.L. Jeune |
|
Deputy C.S. Alves | Deputy A. Howell |
|
Deputy I. Gardiner | Deputy T.J.A. Binet |
|
Deputy I.J. Gorst | Deputy M.R. Ferey |
|
Deputy L.J. Farnham | Deputy B. Ward |
|
Deputy S.Y. Mézec | Deputy K.M. Wilson |
|
Deputy T.A. Coles |
|
|
Deputy B.B. de S.V.M. Porée |
|
|
Deputy D.J. Warr |
|
|
|
|
Deputy J. Renouf |
|
|
|
|
Deputy C.D. Curtis |
|
|
|
|
Deputy L.V. Feltham |
|
|
|
|
Deputy M.E. Millar |
|
|
|
|
Deputy R.S. Kovacs |
|
|
|
|
Deputy L.K.F. Stephenson |
|
|
|
|
Deputy M.B. Andrews |
|
|
|
|
Minister, do you wish to propose the balance of the parts en bloc, parts 4, 5, 8, 6, 9 and 10? Deputy S.Y. Mézec :
Sir, I had earlier spoken to those Articles, I apologise if that was the wrong time to do it, otherwise I was expecting to just call the appel. I call for the appel.
The Deputy Bailiff :
Forgive me, perhaps I said the wrong thing then. You are wanting the submission of votes on those ones together.
Deputy S.Y. Mézec :
All of them together, if Members are happy with that. The Deputy Bailiff :
Yes.
Deputy S.Y. Mézec :
Thank you, Sir.
The Deputy Bailiff :
Votes on 4, 5, 8, 6, 9 and 10, the balance of the second amendment lodged by the Minister. I invite Members to return to their seats and invite the Greffier to open the voting on the balance of the parts. If all Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. The balance of the parts have been adopted:
POUR: 36 |
| CONTRE: 8 |
| ABSTAIN: 0 |
Connétable of St. Lawrence |
| Connétable of Grouville |
|
|
Connétable of St. Brelade |
| Deputy Sir P.M. Bailhache |
|
|
Connétable of Trinity |
| Deputy R.E. Binet |
|
|
Connétable of St. Peter |
| Deputy A. Howell |
|
|
Connétable of St. Martin |
| Deputy T.J.A. Binet |
|
|
Connétable of St. John |
| Deputy M.R. Ferey |
|
|
Connétable of St. Clement |
| Deputy B. Ward |
|
|
Connétable of St. Ouen |
| Deputy K.M. Wilson |
|
|
Connétable of St. Mary |
|
|
|
|
Connétable of St. Saviour |
|
|
|
|
Deputy G.P. Southern |
|
|
|
|
Deputy C.F. Labey |
|
|
|
|
Deputy M. Tadier |
|
|
|
|
Deputy L.M.C. Doublet |
|
|
|
|
Deputy K.F. Morel |
|
|
|
|
Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat |
|
|
|
|
Deputy S.M. Ahier |
|
|
|
|
Deputy R.J. Ward |
|
|
|
|
Deputy C.S. Alves |
|
|
|
|
Deputy I. Gardiner |
|
|
|
|
Deputy I.J. Gorst |
|
|
|
|
Deputy L.J. Farnham |
|
|
|
|
Deputy S.Y. Mézec |
|
|
|
|
Deputy T.A. Coles |
|
|
|
|
Deputy B.B. de S.V.M. Porée |
|
|
|
|
Deputy D.J. Warr |
|
|
|
|
Deputy H.M. Miles |
|
|
|
|
Deputy M.R. Scott |
|
|
|
|
Deputy J. Renouf |
|
|
|
|
Deputy C.D. Curtis |
|
|
|
|
Deputy L.V. Feltham |
|
|
|
|
Deputy H.L. Jeune |
|
|
|
|
Deputy M.E. Millar |
|
|
|
|
Deputy R.S. Kovacs |
|
|
|
|
Deputy L.K.F. Stephenson |
|
|
|
|
Deputy M.B. Andrews |
|
|
|
|
The Greffier of the States:
Those voting contre: the Connétable of Grouville and Deputies Bailhache , Rose Binet , Howell , Tom Binet , Ferey , Barbara Ward and Wilson .
- Draft Residential Tenancy (Jersey) Amendment Law 202- (P.24/2025): fourth amendment (P.24/2025 Amd.(4)) paragraph 2(2)
The Deputy Bailiff :
I move on to the Scrutiny amendments, at least the first part of them, which will be taken in separate parts in accordance with the running order. They are being proposed by the chair of the Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel. I will be inviting the Greffier to read the relevant parts of the amendments. Greffier, this is the fourth amendment and the Assembly will be dealing with part 2(2) of the fourth amendment.
The Greffier of the States:
In Article 6, new part 3, after new Article 6D(b) insert as paragraph (2) - (2) However, if the requirements purportedly set out in the agreement under paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 are more favourable to the landlord than the tenant, (a) the landlord cannot end the initial term early under this Article, (b) the tenant can end the initial term early under this Article, as long as they satisfy those requirements that apply to the tenant.
1.7.1 Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity (Chair, Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel):
I thank the Assembly for going through that earlier. But I did want to highlight this issue about fixed- term agreements, both what is happening now, so it is very clear that there are the concerns, and potentially one-sided break clauses that have potentially happened already. But what we could potentially go for and the fact that we have found evidence that there needs to be this more fairness and balance. But because the Minister's second amendment has been accepted and, as I had said the panel supported that, we were just adding to it. This leaves only part 2(2) of amendment B2. We feel, as a panel, that on its own it is redundant because parts 1 and 2 of the panel's amendment was requiring tenancy agreements to set out the conditions for ending a tenancy early and these have already been taken up with the Minister. What was missing is the safeguard that those conditions cannot favour landlords over a tenant. But part (2) was written to enforce those safeguards but without having what we have put to parts 1 and 2 in our amendment, the wording of part 2(2) is not attached to anything. It is not attached even to what the Minister has amended now. I feel that this amendment, as it stands just purely on B2(2) of amendment B2 is, therefore, in a way redundant. I would ask the Assembly to reject it or we withdraw it. I am not sure of the correct way but we feel that as it stands now it does not sit correctly and if we withdraw it.
The Deputy Bailiff :
You want to withdraw the amendment.
Deputy H.L. Jeune :
Yes, Sir.
The Deputy Bailiff :
Thank you very much. In that case move on to the next amendment Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :
Do we need to vote on that or is it just
The Deputy Bailiff :
I think the debate has not begun on the amendment, so I think the Deputy is entitled to withdraw it. It was not seconded.
- Draft Residential Tenancy (Jersey) Amendment Law 202- (P.24/2025): fourth amendment (P.24/2025 Amd.(4)) - paragraph 3
The Deputy Bailiff :
The next matter is amendment B3, which is dealt with in your helpful report at page 8, Deputy Jeune . That is part 3 of your amendment and, again, I invite the Greffier to read the amendment. Yes.
The Greffier of the States:
In Article 6, new part 3, for new Article 6E substitute 6E, how a landlord or tenant ends tenancy by notice, without reason, during periodic tenancy. A periodic tenancy may be ended (without giving a reason) by (a) the landlord giving the tenant at least one year's written notice or (b) the tenant giving the landlord at least one month's written notice.
- Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity (Chair, Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel):
I hope that this can be brief because the Minister has accepted this amendment B3 and I hope that also shows that not only the Minister but Scrutiny also is proposing this, that this is the way forward. It is something that has already been referred to. It is the no-reason notice for landlords to have 12 months' no-reason notice. While the panel understands the intent by the Minister to remove the ability for landlords to end periodic tenancies without reason, we believe a complete removal is unnecessary and, potentially, counterproductive. As the proposed Amendment Law now provides a list of reasons that give 7 days to 6 months' notice for periodic contracts, the panel felt that as the policy intent was about tenant security and landlord transparency, to help landlords gain back their property, then we felt that a no-reason notice with a long lead-in time was a balanced addition to this list. This long lead-in time protects tenants, while giving landlords a fair and transparent path to regain possession in non-urgent scenarios.
[16:30]
It avoids the misuse of statutory grounds, which we have tested when we were doing our scrutiny and supports honest intentions. We believe it is a balanced solution that promotes trust and stability. Therefore, we welcome that the Minister has accepted our amendment and we hope that the Assembly will do that as well.
The Deputy Bailiff :
Thank you, Deputy . Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded] Does anyone wish to speak on the amendment?
It is again to thank the Scrutiny Panel for this amendment. When it was first put on the table I am sure they would have been amused to see my reaction, as I was initially very reticent when looking at it. But once I considered it properly and carefully I began to become of the view that there was real merit in this, and then had conversations with various States Members along the way and found that there was a desire from some Members to have this extra backstop put in the law that can, hopefully, be advantageous and cover off some instances where there would be confusion about the current regime that I am proposing for reasons for notice. Initially I was a bit wary of the suggestion of a no-reasons grounds because that is a big part of what I have been trying to overcome with this, where if a tenant is being asked to leave their home that there ought to be a reason for it. Those with illegitimate reasons, like revenge or retaliation for a tenant seeking to uphold their legal rights, should
not be on that. But what the Scrutiny Panel is proposing is, I think, very balanced and probably captures the best of both worlds there. Because it is a 12-month notice period, anyone who did want to use it to exact revenge against the tenant for not behaving themselves in their view would have to be pretty patient to wait 12 months for it. Let us face it, that is not going to happen, that is pretty unreasonable. But at the same time it provides a backstop for perhaps rare cases or circumstances that might arise where the reasons that are provided for in the proposed Article 6 of the law are not already accommodated. If you, as a landlord, decide that you want to sell your property, the Article 6 in the proposed Residential Tenancy Law Amendment perfectly covers you already. If you want to renovate it, if you want to move into it yourself, if you want a close family member to move into it, a carer to move into it, you are already perfectly accommodated for in the Draft Residential Tenancy Law Amendment. In those situations where there is a big problem, like the tenant seriously breaching their agreement or causing a persistent serious nuisance, et cetera, there are now quicker grounds provided for in that Article 6. The 12-month no-reason grounds is in addition to that, not replacing it. In a circumstance where a landlord felt that the grounds were catered for in the Draft Amendment Law, they could use those. But if they had perhaps a longer-term ambition or something they wanted to consider, they will still have this backstop available to them with a long lead-in time. The kind of circumstance I can think of where that might be helpful would be if you were somebody who owned a rental apartment that was so closely connected to your home you could describe it as being part of the same building or same facility, et cetera. You were getting to a point in your life where you simply did not want to be a landlord anymore, you might just not want the hassle anymore, you might be getting older. But because of the way that property is situated against your own property it is not completely independent. If you are planning for that you know in advance that is something you want to do, you can use this grounds to enable you to get control of that property back without having to sell it, which you might not want to do because you might not want strangers who you have no contractual relationship with in that property that is so closely connected to yours or to try to meet one of the grounds that is already in the law. This will not require any reason for that and can, hopefully, cater for those rather unique situations that might not have been catered for otherwise. I thank the panel for proposing that and thank the Members who spoke to me outside of this debate to indicate their support for it. Hopefully, it will command the Assembly's support as well.
The Deputy Bailiff :
Thank you, Minister. Does any other Member wish to speak on this amendment? I call upon Deputy Jeune to reply.
I will be very quick and just to reiterate that the Minister says this is in addition to the list. It is not a change to the list, this is in addition to the list of reasons. As was said, this stopgap adds it on because we heard, especially from landlords, that this was something that they felt was needed to be able to get them their properties back when there were situations where they could not on the list that was already proposed. That list is much shorter periods and notice periods and this one is a year and we felt that that was right in the circumstances. I will close there and call for the appel.
The Deputy Bailiff :
The appel has been called for. Members are invited to return to their seats. I invite the Greffier to open the voting. If all Members have had the chance to cast their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. I can announce the amendment has been adopted:
POUR: 35 |
| CONTRE: 6 |
| ABSTAIN: 0 |
Connétable of St. Lawrence |
| Connétable of St. Clement |
|
|
Connétable of St. Brelade |
| Deputy Sir P.M. Bailhache |
|
|
Connétable of Trinity |
| Deputy M.R. Ferey |
|
|
Connétable of St. Peter |
| Deputy B. Ward |
|
|
Connétable of St. Martin |
| Deputy K.M. Wilson |
|
|
Connétable of St. John |
| Deputy M.B. Andrews |
|
|
Connétable of Grouville |
|
|
|
|
Connétable of St. Ouen |
|
|
|
|
Connétable of St. Mary |
|
|
|
|
Connétable of St. Saviour |
|
|
|
|
Deputy G.P. Southern |
|
|
|
|
Deputy C.F. Labey |
|
|
|
|
Deputy M. Tadier |
|
|
|
|
Deputy L.M.C. Doublet |
|
|
|
|
Deputy S.M. Ahier |
|
|
|
|
Deputy R.J. Ward |
|
|
|
|
Deputy C.S. Alves |
|
|
|
|
Deputy I. Gardiner |
|
|
|
|
Deputy L.J. Farnham |
|
|
|
|
Deputy S.Y. Mézec |
|
|
|
|
Deputy T.A. Coles |
|
|
|
|
Deputy B.B. de S.V.M. Porée |
|
|
|
|
Deputy D.J. Warr |
|
|
|
|
Deputy H.M. Miles |
|
|
|
|
Deputy M.R. Scott |
|
|
|
|
Deputy J. Renouf |
|
|
|
|
Deputy C.D. Curtis |
|
|
|
|
Deputy L.V. Feltham |
|
|
|
|
Deputy R.E. Binet |
|
|
|
|
Deputy H.L. Jeune |
|
|
|
|
Deputy M.E. Millar |
|
|
|
|
Deputy A. Howell |
|
|
|
|
Deputy T.J.A. Binet |
|
|
|
|
Deputy R.S. Kovacs |
|
|
|
|
Deputy L.K.F. Stephenson |
|
|
|
|
The Greffier of the States:
Those voting contre: the Connétable of St. Clement and Deputies Bailhache , Ferey , Barbara Ward , Wilson and Andrews .
- Draft Residential Tenancy (Jersey) Amendment Law 202- (P.24/2025): fourth amendment (P.24/2025 Amd.(4)) - paragraph 4
The Deputy Bailiff :
The Chair of the Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel will now propose part 4 of the fourth amendment and I invite the Greffier to read the amendment.
The Greffier of the States:
In Article 6, new Part 3, new Article 6F(1), rows (a) to (d) of the table, for "Not allowed" substitute "Not applicable".
- Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity (Chair, Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel):
Again, the Minister has accepted this but we will still be discussing it now and just to inform the Assembly that this is a technical amendment but the Scrutiny Panel felt was an important one because the statutory table of grounds of notice that you see under 6F currently uses the term "not allowed" for certain grounds during the initial fixed term. This we felt implies prohibition when in fact these grounds are simply inapplicable. The Article 6D amendment states - and we have just talked about it in amendment 2 - that either party, landlord or tenant, can end an initial fixed-term tenancy without a stated reason provided the notice periods that are there, 3 months and one month, and the contractual requirements are met. So those are the break clauses that we have just been talking about. This is similar to what happens now with periodic tenancies under the current 2011 law. What the panel concluded was that the Minister's current proposal, if the landlord gave notice to a tenant during a fixed-term contract and inadvertently explained that they were doing so due to one of the reasons listed in Article 6F, such as because they would want to sell their property or they are doing a substantial renovation or a family member wanting to use it or a landlord's helper, then this could be interpreted under the proposed law as not allowed and it could cause concern. Yet the landlord followed Article 6D and gave no reason at all for that notice on the fixed-term contract then they would be following the law. So our amendment replaces "not allowed" with "not applicable" so that it improves legal clarity, avoids misinterpretation, and ensures that the legislation reflects its true intent. I hope that that made sense from a technical perspective.
The Deputy Bailiff :
Thank you, Deputy . Does any Member wish to speak on this amendment?
Just very briefly to say that I am more than happy to accept this amendment, and using the alternative words that the panel has provided helps provide greater clarity for what we are seeking to do, so I am grateful to them for bringing it forward.
The Deputy Bailiff :
Thank you, Minister. Does any other Member speak on this amendment? I call upon Deputy Jeune to reply.
It is quite simple and so therefore I call for the appel. The Deputy Bailiff :
The appel has been called for. Members are invited to return to their seats. I ask the Greffier to open the voting. If all Members have the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. I can announce that the amendment has been adopted:
POUR: 37 | CONTRE: 3 | ABSTAIN: 0 |
Connétable of St. Lawrence | Deputy Sir P.M. Bailhache |
|
Connétable of St. Brelade | Deputy M.R. Ferey |
|
Connétable of Trinity | Deputy B. Ward |
|
Connétable of St. Peter |
|
|
Connétable of St. Martin |
|
|
Connétable of St. John |
|
|
Connétable of St. Clement |
|
|
Connétable of Grouville |
|
|
Connétable of St. Ouen |
|
|
Connétable of St. Mary |
|
|
Connétable of St. Saviour |
|
|
Deputy C.F. Labey |
|
|
Deputy M. Tadier |
|
|
Deputy L.M.C. Doublet |
|
|
Deputy S.M. Ahier |
|
|
Deputy R.J. Ward |
|
|
Deputy C.S. Alves |
|
|
Deputy I. Gardiner |
|
|
Deputy L.J. Farnham |
|
|
Deputy S.Y. Mézec |
|
|
Deputy T.A. Coles |
|
|
|
|
Deputy B.B. de S.V.M. Porée |
|
|
|
|
Deputy D.J. Warr |
|
|
|
|
Deputy H.M. Miles |
|
|
|
|
Deputy M.R. Scott |
|
|
|
|
Deputy J. Renouf |
|
|
|
|
Deputy C.D. Curtis |
|
|
|
|
Deputy L.V. Feltham |
|
|
|
|
Deputy R.E. Binet |
|
|
|
|
Deputy H.L. Jeune |
|
|
|
|
Deputy M.E. Millar |
|
|
|
|
Deputy A. Howell |
|
|
|
|
Deputy T.J.A. Binet |
|
|
|
|
Deputy R.S. Kovacs |
|
|
|
|
Deputy K.M. Wilson |
|
|
|
|
Deputy L.K.F. Stephenson |
|
|
|
|
Deputy M.B. Andrews |
|
|
|
|
The Greffier of the States:
Those voting contre: Deputy Bailhache , Ferey and Barbara Ward .
- Draft Residential Tenancy (Jersey) Amendment Law 202- (P.24/2025): fifth amendment (P.24/2025 Amd.(5))
The Deputy Bailiff :
The fifth amendment is proposed by the Minister for Housing and I invite the Greffier to read the amendment.
The Greffier of the States:
Part 1, Article 6. (1) In Article 6, new Part 3, for new Article 6G(2)(n) substitute – (n) "tenant's illegality or nuisance", meaning that – (i) the tenant has used, or caused or permitted the use of, the residential unit for illegal purposes; or (ii) both – (a) the tenant has caused or permitted a repeated or serious nuisance in the residential unit or a repeated or serious interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of a neighbour of the residential unit; and (b) the landlord has given written notice under paragraph (3) but the tenant has not corrected the nuisance or interference as requested by the notice; and (2) In Article 6, new Part 3, for new Article 6G(3) substitute – (3) A landlord's written notice under this paragraph must do one or both of the following, and request the tenant to correct the breach, nuisance or interference in that way, but everything requested by the notice must be reasonable – (a) specify conduct that the tenant is to stop immediately; or (b) specify action that the tenant is to take within a specified period of at least 7 days after receiving notice. Article 14. In Article 14(4), for new Article 15(2)(g) substitute – (g) whether the tenant has caused or permitted a repeated or serious – (i) nuisance in the residential unit; or (ii) interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of a neighbour of the residential unit.
Again, hopefully this one will be okay. This amendment is around the notice provision for a repeated or serious nuisance. This takes into account the feedback since the publication of P.24 and the evidence that the Scrutiny Panel received during their review. It removes the proposed requirement for a police officer or States employee to attend a home to witness nuisance before a landlord could issue their tenant notice to leave on that ground. While that original provision was well-intentioned, some concern has been raised about potential overkill and capacity as well, so I think removing that requirement strikes a better balance and ultimately the Petty Debts Court can have the final say if this comes up. Members may note that this is very similar to an amendment from the Scrutiny Panel. We were both working on our amendments at the same time, but I am suggesting that my wording is the one we should opt for because it contains a distinction that there should still be some requirement from a landlord to write to a tenant instructing them to cease their nuisance and giving them a chance to correct their behaviour before jumping straight into issuing them notice. So I think that provides a better balance than what was originally proposed and was done so in response to the evidence that we observed Scrutiny receiving on this. So I propose that amendment.
The Deputy Bailiff :
Is amendment seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the fifth amendment?
The Scrutiny Panel is asking the Assembly to reject the Minister's fifth amendment. Like the Minister, we recognise that requiring police or States officer attendance before a landlord can act on serious or repeated nuisance is not workable. The police do not want this role, the Housing and Nuisance Team are already stretched and officer attendance does nothing in evidential terms. On that point there is agreement. Where we differ is what replaces it. The Minister has now proposed a written warning system. A landlord must give the tenant written notice, specifying the behaviour to stop or action to be taken and to allow for at least 7 days for compliance before serving notice, and this notice would then be for 7 days as explained in 6F. The problem is that this practice may create more problems than it seeks to solve.
[16:45]
Jersey already lacks a comprehensive statutory framework for nuisance. The only statute on the books is the Statutory Nuisance (Jersey) Law 1999, it is limited in scope and does not cover civil or private nuisances. In fact this week the Minister for the Environment talked about its restrictions on Monday discussing a specific situation under the Statutory Nuisance (Jersey) Law and the high bar that it sets. In that context, the panel found the wording "repeated or serious nuisance" would already allow landlords to act on single significant incidences. Therefore, that lowers the evidentiary burden that the Statutory Nuisance (Jersey) Law creates as there is no longer need to prove a sustained or repeated pattern of behaviour. The panel received the Minister's comments to the Scrutiny Report recently - I believe on Monday - and we understand that he rejects our finding on this. However, the panel wishes to explain the evidence behind finding 48, if Members have the panel's report at hand and well thumbed through. The panel believes that the Amendment Law lowers the threshold for intervention on nuisances. The 2011 law did not explicitly consider nuisances. This is a new addition. These were instead captured under a breach of contract under Article 12, currently in the 2011 law. Breaches of contract could, in theory, include a single serious incident. But the court also had discretion under Article 15 to consider whether breaches were continued or repeated, which acted as a safeguard. The Minister for Housing is saying that the Amendment Law does not lower the threshold because single incidences could already be pursued as a serious breach under the 2011 law. However, we heard from the Minister for the Environment and he confirmed that while this may have been possible technically currently in the 2011 law, in practice his officers did not enforce a single incident under the 2011 law. So though in practice it could potentially happen, there has never been an enforcement under the 2011 law. So by making serious nuisance an explicit statutory ground, the
Amendment Law removes the safeguard around repetition and creates an expectation that landlords and officers will act on a single incident going forward. Now the Minister proposes a system that requires a written notice asking the tenant to correct a nuisance. While this may seem like a good safeguard against premature rash notices being served, I believe that there are a number of serious risks that this procedural hoop creates. First, what happens if the nuisance was that single significant incident? How can a tenant correct behaviour that has already happened? The Minister provides no clear answer and that kind of uncertainty will only invite dispute. If the nuisance is repeated, the Minister's model risks creating a cycle. A tenant could comply for a short time, then start again. Each time the landlord would be forced to issue a new warning and then restart the process, leaving neighbours living with repeated disruption and landlords powerless to act. What counts as correcting a nuisance can also be highly subjective. A landlord may think the problem is ongoing; a tenant may say they have complied. That invites disputes over whether the written warning has been met, dragging matters out further. The Minister presents this as a high threshold but in reality it creates a procedural loop that does not resolve the underlying issue. It risks giving both landlords and tenants the impression of protection while in practice prolonging conflict and, ultimately, it will always fall to the court to decide whether the landlord's evidence is sufficient. We believe that is the proper safeguard here. Adding extra procedural hoops only creates delays and uncertainty without shifting the burden of proof. So I would like to be clear about what Members are being asked to endorse if they support the Minister's amendment. You would be replacing one unworkable safeguard, an officer attendance, which does not have to provide evidence, the only point is that the officer has to attend, with another a safeguard that risks indirect cycles of warnings and relapse, because now, instead, it will be a written warning for 7 days. After that, a 7-day notice could be given. Of course, this amendment came late for proper detailed scrutiny on this, but where we are concerned is that repeated loophole between the tenant and the landlord on complying to a nuisance. What is a nuisance? How is it amended? What happens with that single incident, significant incident? You would be placing landlords and tenants into a system of disputes over whether a warning has been complied to; this is almost inevitable. You would also be entrenching a process that prolongs nuisance for neighbours rather than solving it. This is why we are asking you to reject the Minister's fifth amendment and instead support the panel's amendment C1. This removes the unworkable requirement for officers' attendance, avoids these new procedural pitfalls and leaves the proper safeguard where it belongs with the court. To repeat for Members, we would request that you reject the Minister's fifth amendment and therefore we can discuss amendment C1, the panel's amendment, to be able to see that this is a workable for the future.
The Deputy Bailiff :
Does any other Member wish to speak on the fifth amendment? In that case I call upon the Minister to reply.
I thank the chair of the panel for outlining reasons for the panel taking the stance they do on this and if it is the case that the Assembly does not support this amendment then there is the backstop of the Scrutiny Panel's amendment. So, again, my preference is to stick with the wording that I am proposing but there is still an alternative on the table if that is not to be the case. Members do not need to worry about that too much. The reason that we were suggesting that there ought to be this requirement for notice to be given to get the tenant to correct their behaviour comes from the fact that the notice period for this particular ground is just 7 days. That is not a long time and so we felt adding that safeguard in would make this provision stronger and hopefully more justifiable on human rights grounds as well. Bearing in mind that there is also a notice in the Draft Amendment Law for ending a tenancy on the basis of serious breach of contract. That is for one month. It is a month- long notice period for that and there is already a requirement proposed in that that there should be an attempt from the landlord to write to the tenant to get them to correct their behaviour. To me, it just
does not feel right that you would have that for a month notice period but not a 7-day notice period. The panel and I are obviously free to disagree as to which is the more proportionate response there, but I would ask Members to stick with the wording that I am proposing and keep this as a requirement. I think this puts it on a stronger footing, particularly in human rights grounds, and support that amendment but bearing in mind, again, apologies for the phrase but we are not risking being faced with a zombie not zombie, a Frankenstein - mixing up my monsters there - law because of that other amendment which if it comes to it, my noted rejection of it on the order would be swapped at that point to be accepting of it. I ask Members to stick with my wording as plan A., and I call for the appel.
The Deputy Bailiff :
The appel has been called for. Members are invited to return to their seats, and I ask the Greffier to open the voting. If all Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting and announce that the fifth amendment has been rejected:
POUR: 14 |
| CONTRE: 28 |
| ABSTAIN: 0 |
Connétable of St. Peter |
| Connétable of St. Brelade |
|
|
Connétable of St. John |
| Connétable of St. Martin |
|
|
Deputy G.P. Southern |
| Connétable of St. Clement |
|
|
Deputy M. Tadier |
| Connétable of Grouville |
|
|
Deputy S.M. Ahier |
| Connétable of St. Ouen |
|
|
Deputy R.J. Ward |
| Connétable of St. Mary |
|
|
Deputy C.S. Alves |
| Connétable of St. Saviour |
|
|
Deputy L.J. Farnham |
| Deputy C.F. Labey |
|
|
Deputy S.Y. Mézec |
| Deputy S.G. Luce |
|
|
Deputy T.A. Coles |
| Deputy L.M.C. Doublet |
|
|
Deputy B.B. de S.V.M. Porée |
| Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat |
|
|
Deputy C.D. Curtis |
| Deputy I. Gardiner |
|
|
Deputy L.V. Feltham |
| Deputy I.J. Gorst |
|
|
Deputy R.S. Kovacs |
| Deputy Sir P.M. Bailhache |
|
|
|
| Deputy D.J. Warr |
|
|
|
| Deputy H.M. Miles |
|
|
|
| Deputy M.R. Scott |
|
|
|
| Deputy J. Renouf |
|
|
|
| Deputy R.E. Binet |
|
|
|
| Deputy H.L. Jeune |
|
|
|
| Deputy M.E. Millar |
|
|
|
| Deputy A. Howell |
|
|
|
| Deputy T.J.A. Binet |
|
|
|
| Deputy M.R. Ferey |
|
|
|
| Deputy B. Ward |
|
|
|
| Deputy K.M. Wilson |
|
|
|
| Deputy L.K.F. Stephenson |
|
|
|
| Deputy M.B. Andrews |
|
|
- Draft Residential Tenancy (Jersey) Amendment Law 202- (P.24/2025): fourth amendment (P.24/2025 Amd.(4)) - paragraph 5 and 9
The Deputy Bailiff :
We now move on to the amendment lodged by the chair of the Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel proposing parts 5 and 9 of the fourth amendment, which the Greffier will kindly read.
The Greffier of the States:
Part 5. In Article 6, new Part 3, new Article 6G(2)(n)(ii) delete "the following to which a police officer or a States employee with a relevant enforcement or regulatory function has attended." 9. Article 14. In Article 14(4), new Article 15(2)(g), delete "the following, to which a police officer or a States employee with a relevant enforcement or regulatory function has attended."
- Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity (Chair, Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel):
It would be maybe useful to hear from the Minister for the Environment under this particular point as well because, of course, nuisance is in his realm but, under the current drafting proposed by the Minister, landlords must wait for a police or States officer to attend a property before serving notice for serious or repeated nuisance, which is outlined in Article 6F(n), and this would be, as we have heard, 7 days. In other words, the validity of using nuisance as a ground for serving notice hinges only on the attendance of an authorised officer at the property. The officers would not be required to gather evidence upon attendance. Our report collected considerable evidence on this and the findings are clear, the presence of an officer does not in itself establish that a nuisance has occurred, nor does it shift the burden of proof away from the landlord. The burden of proof remains with the landlord, and the matter is ultimately determined by the courts. Moreover, the States of Jersey Police have raised concerns about operational burden and legal ambiguity, and we heard the concerns about operational and resource pressure for the Housing and Nuisance Team from the Minister for the Environment at the principles debate in July. Our amendment removes the requirement for police and a States employee to attend the property to ensure the law is enforceable, proportionate and mindful of public resources. Members who rejected the Minister's fifth amendment out of concern that safeguards are still needed, we still believe that the safeguard is already there, and it is the court
that weighs the evidence and determines whether possession is justified. We do not believe an officer attendance on its own strengthens that safeguard and we believe it only clutters it, therefore I urge Members to support amendment C1.
The Deputy Bailiff :
Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the amendment?
Just to highlight the point that I made in the previous debate that although I was down to be rejecting this amendment, because the previous one was rejected, I am now in favour of this one and thank the Assembly following the rejection of plan A, to support plan B instead. But thank the Scrutiny Panel for still having something on the table that represents progress so I am in favour of this despite saying previously that I was not in favour of it.
I will be very brief. First thing I would like to say to Members is the nuisance referenced in the Deputy 's speech is not the statutory nuisance which I had discussed at length yesterday. This is something completely different, but I just stand to support the Deputy and her amendment. I have discussed this change with staff, and we are considerably more comfortable than we were originally. As the Deputy said in her speech, the onus on the staff and the amount of work that might have been created has been negated here and I support the Deputy with her amendment.
Yes, and likewise, like the Minister for the Environment, I too am grateful for this amendment because resources are always tight, and I would not want to be in a position where this would fall on a regular basis to the police.
The Deputy Bailiff :
Thank you, Deputy . Does any other Member wish to speak on this amendment? Deputy Jeune .
I feel that most of the points have been made and so therefore I call for the appel, to try and be as swift as possible in this debate.
The Deputy Bailiff :
The appel has been called for. Members are invited to return to their seats. I invite the Greffier to open the voting. If all Members have had a chance of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting and I can announce that the amendment has been adopted unanimously:
POUR: 43 |
| CONTRE: 0 |
| ABSTAIN: 0 |
Connétable of St. Helier |
|
|
|
|
Connétable of St. Brelade |
|
|
|
|
Connétable of St. Peter |
|
|
|
|
Connétable of St. Martin |
|
|
|
|
Connétable of St. John |
|
|
|
|
Connétable of St. Clement |
|
|
|
|
Connétable of Grouville |
|
|
|
|
Connétable of St. Ouen |
|
|
|
|
Connétable of St. Mary |
|
|
|
|
Connétable of St. Saviour |
|
|
|
|
Deputy G.P. Southern |
|
|
|
|
Deputy C.F. Labey |
|
|
|
|
Deputy M. Tadier |
|
|
|
|
Deputy S.G. Luce |
|
|
|
|
Deputy L.M.C. Doublet |
|
|
|
|
Deputy K.F. Morel |
|
|
|
|
Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat |
|
|
|
|
Deputy S.M. Ahier |
|
|
|
|
Deputy R.J. Ward |
|
|
|
|
Deputy C.S. Alves |
|
|
|
|
Deputy I. Gardiner |
|
|
|
|
Deputy I.J. Gorst |
|
|
|
|
Deputy S.Y. Mézec |
|
|
|
|
Deputy Sir P.M. Bailhache |
|
|
|
|
Deputy T.A. Coles |
|
|
|
|
Deputy B.B. de S.V.M. Porée |
|
|
|
|
Deputy D.J. Warr |
|
|
|
|
Deputy H.M. Miles |
|
|
|
|
Deputy M.R. Scott |
|
|
|
|
Deputy J. Renouf |
|
|
|
|
Deputy C.D. Curtis |
|
|
|
|
Deputy L.V. Feltham |
|
|
|
|
Deputy R.E. Binet |
|
|
|
|
Deputy H.L. Jeune |
|
|
|
|
Deputy M.E. Millar |
|
|
|
|
Deputy A. Howell |
|
|
|
|
Deputy T.J.A. Binet |
|
|
|
|
Deputy M.R. Ferey |
|
|
|
|
Deputy R.S. Kovacs |
|
|
|
|
Deputy B. Ward |
|
|
|
|
Deputy K.M. Wilson |
|
|
|
|
Deputy L.K.F. Stephenson |
|
|
|
|
Deputy M.B. Andrews |
|
|
|
|
[17:00]
- Draft Residential Tenancy (Jersey) Amendment Law 202- (P.24/2025): fourth amendment (P.24/2025 Amd.(4)) - paragraph 6
The Deputy Bailiff :
We move to part 6 of the fourth amendment, lodged by the Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel. I invite the Greffier to read part 6.
The Greffier of the States:
Part 6. In Article 6, new Part 3, delete new Article 7.
- Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity (Chair, Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel):
The draft law proposes several penalty regimes in the secondary legislation and separately new criminal offences in the primary law. Article 7 creates an offence for landlords who knowingly or recklessly give a false or misleading ground for serving notice to end a tenancy. This penalty for the offence is up to a level 3 fine of £10,000. This is a serious sanction tied directly to the new statutory notice regime, which is complex and, as we have already maybe admitted within the Assembly, poorly understood for now. For example, the panel's report found significant uncertainty over how a serious breach of a tenancy agreement under Article 6F(g) could be interpreted in practice. This ground allows landlords to give just one month's notice to tenants regardless of how long the tenant has lived in the property, yet there is no clear objective test to what constitutes a serious breach, no statutory criteria and no published case law under the equivalent provision in the 2011 law. All stakeholders highlighted this lack of clarity. It is in this context where even fundamental grounds remain unclear that Article 7 would criminalise landlords for giving a reason later judged to be false or misleading. That is why the panel considers this offence premature. The evidence we gathered confirmed this concern. The Jersey Estate Agents Association warned that the proposed fine under Article 7 is very chunky and would create an adversarial environment exposing landlords to severe penalties for mistakes rather than intentional misconduct. They also highlighted that there is no equivalent criminal offence in the U.K., where disputes over possession grounds are resolved through the courts, not through criminal sanctions. The Jersey Landlord Association echoed this, questioning whether landlords should be criminalised at all for giving a false or misleading ground for possession when it is ultimately for the court to decide whether the ground is valid. The panel also believes that these new civil and criminal penalties should be developed together in a tiered framework with civil penalties for low-level breaches and criminal penalties reserved for truly malicious misconduct. The Viscount described the proposed civil penalties regime as unusual and highlighted a lack of clarity around enforcement, making it impossible to advise how it would work in practice without further development. Amendment D1 therefore ensures the time is taken to get this right. By moving Article 7 into a secondary legislation, it allows for proper consultation, for civil and criminal penalties to be designed holistically and for this Assembly to approve a penalty framework that is
proportionate, effectively targeted and well understood. The Minister has pointed to other offences, Articles 7G and 13Q, as though the panel should have removed them too. They were not the panel's concern. Article 7G requires the landlords to provide the Minister with rent information. Failure to do so or knowingly providing false information carries a level 2 fine of £1,000. This is a standard regulatory offence, clear in scope, low on penalty and designed to support data collection. The panel did not have a problem with this. Article 13Q makes it an offence to act in contempt of the Rent tribunal with penalties of up to 6 months imprisonment or a £10,000 fine. Again, this is a standard contempt provision consistent with how other Jersey tribunals operate. These offences are not new or contentious. They are consistent with existing practice elsewhere in law. Amendment D1 targets the new criminal offence in Article 7 only, to knowingly or recklessly give a false or misleading ground for notice. This is directly tied to the new statutory notice regime. That is where the panel's concern lies because these notices are new, complex and already poorly understood. Therefore, we urge Members to support the panel's amendment so civil and criminal penalties can be described holistically, that expanding the penalties regime can be done for a proper consultation and for this Assembly to approve a penalty framework that is proportionate, effective, fully targeted and well understood. I would just like to reiterate that the panel is not saying that we should not have civil or criminal penalties. What we are asking for is that they are moved into secondary legislation so that framework can be designed together as one and that that can then come back to the Assembly so that we can see that proportionality in conjunction with more guidance - that the Scrutiny Panel has asked for - under those different aspects of the statutory reasons for notice to understand a bit more: what does a serious breach of contract mean? What does nuisance or repeated nuisance mean? There are elements that potentially would need more information on that.
The Deputy Bailiff :
Thank you, Deputy . Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded] Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier South:
It is for some questions to the Attorney General, if that is okay? The Deputy Bailiff :
Yes.
I wondered if the Attorney General could assist the Assembly when it comes to the offence in the proposed Article 7 of the Draft Amendment Law. Could the Attorney General advise the Assembly as to whether this kind of offence is unusual in the context of Jersey law or whether this kind of offence is something that we see more often across the board?
Mr. M.H. Temple K.C. , H.M. Attorney General:
In terms of the type of offence, knowingly or recklessly giving false or misleading information is a fairly standard offence that appears, I would not say regularly, but it is not infrequently across various statutes. They are usually regulatory statutes. It is a fairly standard offence. It requires intention in the form of knowing intentional or reckless behaviour and if that intent is not there, then that is a defence to a prosecution. Having said that and having heard what the chair of the Scrutiny Panel has said, I would accept that although it is a not uncommon offence to see in other statutes, I would accept it has not been used before in relation to notices giving reasons to terminate residential tenancy agreements, so I would accept it is not being used in a similar situation because we are not in that similar situation. In terms of the Minister's general question: is this sort of offence used in other statutes? Yes, it is. It is used in regulatory statutes quite frequently and it requires intention. When any new criminal penalty is introduced in legislation, we go through a process by way of due diligence where we do a penalty review. We look at other statutes across jurisdictions to see if we can find similar sanctions and I can confirm that sort of penalty review took place in this case and so
the level 3 fine; that is not out of proportion to this sort of offence. That is a maximum fine, so it remains within the discretion of the court to tailor that fine to the appropriate circumstances of the case and introduce a lesser fine if that is appropriate.
Deputy S.Y. Mézec :
Can I follow with a supplementary?
The Deputy Bailiff :
Yes, you may. There are other Members who want to ask questions as well, I think. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :
I thank the Attorney General for that answer. There was mention of the intention of the person behind this. Could the Attorney General elaborate on how that intention would be assessed and at what point would they regard that as meeting the public interest to proceed with the prosecution for this kind of thing?
The Attorney General:
One would look at the notice if there was a complaint to the police. There would be a complaint from the tenant to the police and as part of that complaint the police would look at the reason that the landlord gave when terminating a residential tenancy and would seek to interview a landlord in those circumstances. If the landlord had a genuine and honest belief that the reason they gave at the time of giving notice to end a tenancy was their genuine and honest belief, provided it is not fictitious or mendacious, then it is likely the police would accept that reason and that an advice referral would not be submitted to my department. A prosecution would not be pursued in those circumstances because the relevant intention there under this proposed offence would not be present. Even if the evidence was there that the landlord had knowingly or recklessly given a notice that contained a false reason, then we would still go on to consider the public interest test in a prosecution. If a landlord was old or infirm or had some sort of mental incapacity, then we would consider the public interest in pursuing a prosecution in those circumstances and if there were appropriate mitigating circumstances, we might consider that a prosecution was not in the public interest.
Deputy M.E. Millar of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : Deputy Mézec has asked my question already.
The Deputy Bailiff :
Connétable of St. Mary , was there a question for the Attorney? Connétable R.D. Johnson of St. Mary :
Sorry?
The Deputy Bailiff :
Was it a question for the Attorney you had or not? Do you have a question for the Attorney or were you wishing to speak?
The Connétable of St. Mary :
No, not for the Attorney, just to speak, Sir. The Deputy Bailiff :
Deputy Tadier , question for the Attorney? Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :
I know that part of the concern here is that the law has not been tested. Obviously, this law is not in place yet but the Residencial Tenancy Law, could the Attorney General confirm that if a case does get to court that the court has always got a test of reasonableness, so whether the behaviour of the landlord was reasonable, and if the landlord could prove that they were behaving reasonably in all circumstances that that would be considered a reasonable defence, so to speak?
The Attorney General:
That is not written into the law, but we are talking about a criminal prosecution, so we are not talking about an action in the Petty Debts Court. If a prosecution is brought then it would be brought in the Magistrate's Court, and the magistrate would need to decide whether the offence was committed beyond reasonable doubt so she would need to be sure that the offence had been committed. If the landlord had in all the circumstances behaved in a reasonable way, it is probable that the high bar for a successful criminal prosecution, the standard of beyond reasonable doubt, would not be met.
The Deputy Bailiff :
Deputy Scott , was there a question for the attorney? Deputy M.R. Scott of St. Brelade :
Just when the Attorney General was talking about the balance of probabilities and the proof of recklessness or intention - I was just trying to get a bit more of a handle - what level of investigation would need to be done in order for the evidence to be accepted to prove that that intention was there, or recklessness?
The Attorney General:
To be clear, I was not referring to the balance of probabilities because that is the civil test, that is the civil standard for the burden of proof. The criminal standard is beyond reasonable doubt so the court must be sure that the offence has been committed, and the court looks at all the evidence that is available. If the landlord has given a reason that is wholly at odds with other evidence which related to the circumstances of the tenancy and the circumstances of the landlord at the time that the notice was given, for example, if the landlord has given a reason that they wish to sell the property but then do not sell the property and in fact re-let it the next day, that would seem to be a situation where a court could be sure that the reason given on the notice was a false one. The court has a wide discretion to look at all the available relevant evidence, but it has to be sure that the offence has been committed.
[17:15]
The Deputy Bailiff :
Question for the Attorney, or do you want to speak?
Deputy L.J. Farnham of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter :
Just a brief one, Sir. I am not sure how relevant it is but do criminal penalties usually sit in primary legislation? Is it a rarish occurrence for them to be placed in secondary legislation or is it not that relevant?
The Attorney General:
It is usual for criminal penalties to be in primary laws, or they can be in regulations, which are also voted on by this Assembly. Where they are not usually is in Ministerial Orders, which are not voted on by this Assembly. Provided that they are in laws or regulations, that is the appropriate place for them to be.
I simply wish to echo my chair's concerns as to the introduction of criminal sanctions in this arena. If there is one single reason why landlords might be dissuaded from letting property, I suggest that
this is it. To repeat the chair's point, we are not saying this should not be looked into. It is anticipated that there will be further research, discussion and consultation on the question of civil penalties to ensure that is the right time to consider whether criminal penalties are appropriate or not. I perhaps should have asked the question of the Attorney General in the sense that I know that under the present 2011 law in Article 16, Jurisdiction, the final paragraph reads: "Nothing in this Article shall be taken to confer jurisdiction in criminal matters on the Court." I assume that is there to assure landlords that criminal activities are not contemplated and I do not know why that is not being maintained. As I say, I do think this is a very dangerous provision to maintain at this juncture. I have sat here the last couple of days, voiced my approval for a public hearing of the main proposition coupled with the Scrutiny's recommendations, and we have arrived at the stage where we are indeed considering them. I fear that if this provision for criminal penalties were allowed to stand at this junction, I would probably be persuaded to vote against the proposition as a whole, which I think would be a great shame. I feel little merit in fighting the battle at this stage and I would urge whether the Minister might consider accepting the panel's recommendations so that can be discussed at a future date. I do maintain my basic concern on behalf of landlords that considering the possibility of penalties is a grave imposition. While I appreciate the answer is: "There would only be conviction in certain circumstance", it does give a tenant some sort of leverage to almost have a reverse of revenge evictions that contests the reason why he is doing it and that might persuade a landlord to settle on a certain basis simply not to get involved in criminal proceedings. If the purpose of this legislation is to encourage landlords to be maintaining of the market, I ask that this provision not be maintained.
The Deputy Bailiff :
The next speaker I have got is the Minister, unless you have got a question for the Attorney, Deputy Tadier ? So, the Minister next and then you.
Obviously, I am in the hands of the Assembly ultimately here and this is not a Frankenstein law territory. Again, if this were adopted, it would not be killing off the law. I do want to maintain my position on it though and explain why. The amendment from the panel proposes to remove certain criminal penalties from the primary legislation and place them into secondary legislation with the stated purpose of allowing more time for consultation and more careful decision-making on the penalty regime. Obviously at first glance, that sounds reasonable enough but when you look at the close detail of this amendment there are some inconsistencies and things that I regard as problematic with it. The first point is that the amendment does not remove all the criminal offences from the law. It only removes Article 7 while leaving other offences, such as those in 7G and 13Q, in place. It is not a broad principle about all offences in there; it is much more direct. We would end up with a law that has some offences in primary legislation while others are hived off into regulations, and that is an inconsistent approach. Having heard from the Constable of St. Mary just now, there has not really been provided a clear explanation as to what the tangible problem with the proposed offence in Article 7 is. The narrative around it is more about the nervousness of some stakeholders as a result of it but they have not seemed to have spoken of whether those misgivings are justified based on the substance. That is why I do not really want to give way on it because we do need to stand firm on misinformation. We need to be clear on what the law does and not make decisions on law based on some people's misreading of it, rather than what it is. Is the purpose of this to allay the nervousness of some stakeholders rather than there is an actual problem with what is proposed in Article 7? Because based on what the Attorney General has just said, it does not appear that there is an issue with what is in Article 7. What we are talking about in terms of this offence is not unusual or controversial. Article 7 creates an offence of knowingly or recklessly providing false or misleading information in relation to the Article 6 grounds for notice. That is pretty standard. It is designed to capture deliberate malicious misconduct, not honest mistakes or unforeseen changes in circumstance. The Attorney General has outlined why it is inconceivable really that a genuine, honest mistake
would end up being caught up in this and somebody would end up with a criminal record and a big fine as a result of it. The levels that you have to get to, not just in terms of there being clear, undisputable evidence that the conduct was malicious and the rest of that, but on top of that, the public interest test in it as well. The threshold is so high to be able to get that that it is just not going to capture somebody who was honest but perhaps misread something, made a mistake or had their circumstances changed. The Attorney General used this example - it is a good one - if you are somebody who issues notice to your tenant because you were planning to sell the property, you issue notice, the tenant leaves, you are marketing the property, it is on the market for a while, you realise that now is not a good time, you are not likely to make that sale and your circumstances have therefore changed and you re-let the property, you are not going to end up anywhere near a court as a result of that because that was clearly decent and honest and it was not seeking to subvert the law. However, if you were somebody who just decided you did not like the look of your tenant and wanted to get rid of them and said: "Oh, I will just tell them I am selling", and then you issue a notice, they go and then 5 minutes later you put the property up to be let by somebody else, you have clearly lied. There is a clear problem there and there will be evidence in that. That is the kind of circumstance that it is targeted at, and nobody yet has explained why that should not be the case. The Attorney General has reviewed the proposed offences and confirmed that they are proportionate, and I hope that that does provide Members with reassurances here. On the point about civil penalties, the substance of the amendment centres around criminal offences but the narrative does make reference to the separate regulation-making power for civil penalties. Just to be clear, and I did make this point in an earlier amendment, the Draft Amendment Law does not contain a civil penalty regime. It does not contain it. It contains regulation-making powers so that we might do that in the future, so it is not all of a sudden loads of stuff being thrown on to the table immediately, including that regime as well. It is just a very standard, clear offence of people who have been malicious in their misconduct and fundamentally dishonest, and that is obviously behaviour that nobody should be standing up for. The civil penalties regime is not literally what the amendment is about, even though it has been mentioned. I hope Members do not conflate the 2 because of where they are sitting differently in what is proposed. My preference is that this proposed offence, which is perfectly decent, perfectly standard and will set such thresholds that it is just not going to happen that anyone engaged in honest mistakes is ever going to get anywhere near it, that I would hope we could stick to that. It is not the end of the world if Members choose not to do that. It will not kill off the law but it is, I think, right on a point principle that if we are not going to be saying what is wrong with the proposed offence, because I do not think anyone can say what is wrong with it because it is right and it is probably where we get to in the end anyway, then we should not be afraid to make that point in the interest of good lawmaking at this point so I would urge Members to reject the amendment but I am, of course, ultimately in the hands on that.
The Deputy Bailiff :
I see the time. It is nearly 5.30 p.m.
Deputy S.G. Luce :
May I propose the adjournment, Sir?
The Deputy Bailiff :
Are Members content to adjourn now? Adjourned until tomorrow. Deputy M. Tadier :
Sir, can you take my name off the list for speaking in the morning, please? The Deputy Bailiff :
I shall do that.
Deputy M. Tadier :
Because I think the Minister has already spoken and I probably do not need to speak. The Deputy Bailiff :
Thank you, Deputy .
[17:26]