Protection still needed for local-market housing

We would like to share our thoughts of that meeting with fellow islanders.

After a brief explanation of the legislation, the Policy Council's legal advisor stated that they were confident that the new population management legislation was robust in terms of resistance to challenge and was human-rights compliant.

We expressed the view that this is vital. Based on our joint experience on the Housing board, we believe that challenges from people wishing to move into local market housing from other sectors could be strong and sustained.

We are not alone in this view. A number of local advocates, practising in this field, have contacted us and stated there is already pressure to challenge.

The claimed objective of this new policy is to manage our population and address the issues of an ageing resident population. The new law will replace our Housing control and employment laws, which currently protect the lower cost housing stock and employment opportunities for local residents. While we accept the challenges of an ageing population are real, we are concerned that the supposed 'cure' could be as damaging as the condition they are trying to ease.

Discussion of our concerns regarding the impact on the island's infrastructure from a growing population due to a relaxation of housing laws was not encouraged by the PSG. They were however unable to confirm just how many people in total would be eligible to move into the local-market sector, particularly under the 'extended family members' provisions of the new laws.

We are concerned that there has been little work to model the overall costs of these new arrangements. Any relaxation of the residency rules could also result in runaway population growth, as has already happened in Jersey where the population has just topped 100,000 for the first time.

A proper cost/benefit appraisal would show that simply increasing numbers of people living on this tiny island means more pressure on the environment, the island's infrastructure, health, education and other public services and ultimately more cost for providing for an increasingly ageing population.

We remain convinced that the underlying driver for the new population regime is to increase the population. There just seems to be a blind faith that somehow, more numbers means more economic activity and more prosperity.

However carefully this process is managed, there will inevitably be winners and losers. We are determined to try to ensure those losers are not the indigenous people of this community.

The Policy Council, in its transitional arrangements due to be debated in July, are heavily focused on resolving the issues surrounding the needs of those living on the island under one sort of licence or another. In our view, the Policy Council need to refocus their efforts, as the rights and needs of the indigenous population seem to come some way down their list of priorities.

It would be fair to say that there was not a meeting of minds at last month's meeting. The Policy Council's Steering Group took the view that the core policies had been approved by the Assembly and they wanted to move on.

We on the other hand want to see some form of protection for local-market housing retained. Local home seekers are at a significant disadvantage already when competing for scarce affordable housing against those under licence, who often receive help with rent and mortgage payments as part of their employment package.

We are also very concerned that the changes will allow increasing numbers of dependant relatives to move to the island to join licence or permit holders, adding further to the cost of caring for increasing numbers of the elderly.

Perhaps most important of all, we want to see islanders' rights set in statute, in some form of Bill of Rights. Something as fundamental as islanders' rights should be taken out of the reach of politicians for all time.

If any reader shares these concerns we recommend they contact their elected representative without delay. The States are due to make decisions on some of these issues at the end of this month and time is short.

GLORIA DUDLEY-OWEN AND GRAHAM GUILLE