“Complex” rental debate paused after Members demand sight of paperwork

A paperwork issue led to an interruption to a major States debate on changes to the island’s rent law this morning.

After votes on a series of amendments to Housing Minister Sam Mézec’s vision for the “biggest overhaul of residential tenancy legislation in more than a decade”, Members agreed to pause the debate so that copies of the Residential Tenancy Law as amended could be circulated.

This followed an assertion by Constable Deidre Mezbourian that it was very difficult to follow the detail of what was being debated, due to its scale, complexity and the volume of changes, and that she would be unable to vote without having a copy in front of her.

The Assembly moved on to other items while the paperwork matter was taken care of by staff from the States Greffe.

Deep divisions had been exposed during the opening stages of the residential tenancy debate, notably in relation to the “wrecking amendment” lodged by Deputy Philip Bailhache – who had previously slammed the rental reform plans as “ideologically driven” – but there was more of a consensus when the debate resumed this morning.

Rent levels capped to inflation

An amendment by Deputy Jonathan Renouf to remove a 5% cap for rent rises that formed part of the law changes put forward by the Housing Minister were supported unanimously by the 46 Members participating.

Deputy Renouf said that without the cap, rent rises would have to be limited to the rate of inflation, with tenants having the right that any proposed increase above inflation be referred to a rent tribunal.

The Assembly heard that there would be exemptions available to landlords who proposed an above-inflation increase after several years of rent being unchanged, as well as an ability to “re-set” rent levels at the start of a new tenancy.

Deputy Mézec, who accepted the amendment, said that the vast majority of landlord/tenant relationships would not be affected, with the rent tribunal in place to deal with a tiny minority of landlords who were “trying their luck or trying to squeeze [rental demands] until the pips squeak”.

Treasury Minister Elaine Millar expressed concern that having a limit of inflation in place would result in landlords opting to increase rent up to the limit when they might otherwise have left the figure unchanged.

At the start of today’s session, Members voted by 26-20 in favour of a proposal that the Assembly should extend its hours until 8pm on Thursday and Friday in order to complete the items of public business, including the Senators Law, on a busy order paper.

“Wrecking” plan admitted

This morning’s proceedings followed a significant series of votes yesterday afternoon related to the amendment by Deputy Bailhache.

Deputy Bailhache admitted during the early stages of the debate that “wrecking” was an appropriate label for his amendment, and said he had brought it because he felt the minister’s proposals were “so deeply flawed”, not based on data and “based on a misapprehension that something is badly wrong” with the current law.

After the principles of Deputy Mézec’s proposition to change the law were approved as the final act of Tuesday’s proceedings, several Members pointed out that Deputy Bailhache’s amendment would effectively torpedo the minister’s move.

“This would stop the original proposition in its tracks, we should carry on debating the details and would be in a much better place if we did that,” said Chief Minister Lyndon Farnham.

Deputy Catherine Curtis criticised Deputy Bailhache’s move, saying: “It’s not in the spirit of the Chamber to vote for a proposition one day and then the next day debate an amendments that would effectively annul it – it doesn’t seem honest to me and doesn’t put States Members in a good light.”

Deputy Bailiff Robert Macrae, presiding, spoke to address concerns expressed by several Members, including Deputy Curtis and Constable Andy Jehan, about whether Deputy Bailhache’s amendment should have been accepted.

Mr Macrae said that four senior officials had considered the matter independently and then ruled in a meeting that an amendment would only be disallowed if it “wholly negated” a proposition.

Deputy Mézec said that while he appreciated Deputy Bailhache’s candour in admitting that he was attempting to take “a second bite at the cherry”, the amendment would leave “nothing meaningful” of the original proposition.

“We would be left with a framework that was completely inoperable,” he said.

Summing up, Deputy Bailhache back-tracked on his earlier “wrecking” admission, saying his proposals were “substantial” and adding: “I should not have used the other word.”

The representative for St Clement said Members would be “playing with fire” if they did not accept his amendment.

Although the vote was taken in three parts, Deputy Bailhache was defeated by an identical margin of 24 votes to 21 on each heading.

The Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel also sought to remove the requirement for a police officer or States employee’s attendance for a landlord to serve notice for a “repeated or serious nuisance”. This followed concern about pressure on resources, included by the Chief of Police, and was backed unanimously by Members.

Catch up…