And Deputy Jess Perchard said that despite assurances from Chief Minister John Le Fondré in the States that deals like the one handing high-net-worth residency to States chief executive Charlie Parker will no longer be granted by ministers, the door to giving public-sector workers high net worth residency had not actually been closed but ‘left
ajar’.
Part of the Deputy’s proposition was, however, adopted, meaning that in future decisions to grant high value residency will be decided by a panel rather than by a single person as they are currently.
And the criteria for assessing such applications will be made clearer after Members approved another part of the proposal.
Deputy Perchard said: ‘I am delighted that part C was successful. It means that we will shortly have clearer criteria for high net worth applicants and be able to measure their potential contribution to society. I very much look forward to seeing these criteria when the Chief Minister brings them forward at the end of March.
‘I’m also thrilled that part D was also successful. I’m pleased the Assembly acknowledged the need for more robust and objective decision-making. Now that HAWAG [the Housing and Work Advisory Group] will be making the decisions on each high-net-worth applicant, we will ensure that the full impact on housing and community is considered before a decision is made.
‘I am, however, disappointed that part A was unsuccessful. I do think there was some confusion during the debate; high-net-worth status and entitled status are not the same thing. Entitled status is a housing qualification for people who have lived here for ten years that lets you buy, sell or lease any property. High-net-worth status is a category you are put into if you move to Jersey and are incredibly wealthy. High-net-worth residents are given entitled status because of their wealth and contribution.’
She added: ‘Part A of my proposition would have prevented us giving high-net-worth status to public-sector employees, but it wouldn’t stop us from giving entitled status to them, if that’s something we want to do. I think that if we do want to offer entitled status to public-sector employees, we should legislate for that specifically, rather than use a gap in the high net worth law to do so.
‘The tax law [which dictates that from 1 January all high-net-worth individuals are required by law to pay a minimum tax contribution of £145,000 a year] went a long way towards closing the gap that allowed us to give high-net-worth residency to someone below the earning threshold, but it’s a shame that we didn’t shut it down completely in the high-net-worth legislation. Because of this, the door has been left ajar. Thankfully, I do believe, from the comments made during the debate, that we won’t be stepping through it.’
