The same parents, same circumstances – but one child denied birthright

'It is acknowledged that applying this principle could create certain anomalies, such as younger siblings qualifying before older ones, but this would be an issue only if a family decided to relocate off-island at a time when an older child had yet to gain residential qualifications (i.e. before the older child had completed eight years' residence).'

I and my family could, in theory, be affected by such an anomaly. I am a fully qualified resident, born in Guernsey and with direct Guernsey ancestry. My wife and I returned to live in Guernsey after a period of eight years living in the UK. The reason for this was to raise a family.

My daughter was born in August 2014 and under the new proposals, she would not automatically gain her Guernsey birthright when the new policy comes into effect. If we have another child, it is highly likely that he or she will be born after 1 January 2017 and will therefore be given automatic Guernsey birthright. I will now paint a hypothetical scenario in which the proposed application of the policy (i.e. not retrospectively) could adversely affect us as a family:

Scenario: Our second child is born on 2 January 2017. After five years in Guernsey, it is necessary for us to move back to the UK – a purely parental decision and one in which neither child can be expected to have a say.

After a period of 20 years, we the parents return to Guernsey. Five years later, the children, now grown up, are thinking of starting families of their own and return to Guernsey to do so, exactly as my wife and I have just done. It does not seem unreasonable to think that the allure of Guernsey as the perfect place to raise a family will diminish any time soon.

The situation faced by us as a family would be thus:

• Parents are welcomed back with fully qualified residential status and may reside on the local market.

• Sibling A (youngest), born in 2017 is welcomed back with fully qualified residential status and may reside on the local market.

• Sibling B (eldest), born in 2014, in the same hospital as her younger sibling, into the same family with the same lineage, must live on the open market and is regarded as ‘non-local’.

As you can see, sibling B would be discriminated against and at a clear disadvantage, for the simple reason that she was born three years earlier than her sibling – a strange paradox considering she would have resided in Guernsey for a longer period of time than her younger sibling.

While the scenario above is hypothetical, it is far from being beyond the realms of possibility, which is why I am concerned and feel that further consideration must be given to this matter. Both children should be afforded exactly the same birthright. It would be unfair and discriminatory to do otherwise.

I understand the concerns of affording Guernsey birthright retrospectively to everyone, as we have no knowledge of the size that the pool of potential returnees may be. I'd like to suggest that the proposal be amended so that either those children living in Guernsey when the new policy comes into force are afforded the same rights as any siblings who may be born after that date (the parents having demonstrated their desire to return to and contribute to the island), or at the very least a provision put in place to correct 'anomalies' such as this.

This seems to me to be a sensible compromise, notwithstanding the fact that we as an island are already concerned with an ageing population and a potential shortage of working age residents (i.e. taxpayers).

MR. D. HAGGARTY,

6, Park Street,

St Peter Port,

GY1 1EE.

Editor's footnote: Deputy Paul Luxon, chairman of the Population Steering Group, responds: 'Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Mr Haggarty's letter (a copy of which was also sent to the Policy Council) regarding the Policy Council's proposals in respect of 'birthright' at the point of transition from the current Housing Control system to the new population management regime.

Your correspondent has correctly summarised those proposals and the hypothetical scenario outlined in his letter could indeed come to pass in terms of the younger sibling being qualified before the elder. As highlighted by Mr Haggarty, the Policy Council has acknowledged this in its report to the States that will be debated at the end of the month.

However, the situation is not quite as black and white as has been suggested. While it is true that, in the circumstances described, the elder sibling would have no automatic right to occupy local market property in the future, she will have potential options in respect of her return to Guernsey.

For example, she would be able to come back to the island and live with her parents or grandparents, or she could make application for a permit based on employment or other factors, which would be assessed against the policies of the day and determined accordingly. Part of that assessment would include the fact that she has Guernsey ancestry and already has the potential, because she was born in Guernsey, to become a permanent resident after living in Guernsey for eight years.

Alternatively, she may decide to live in a property inscribed in Part D of the Housing Register, or as a lodger in a Part A open market property as occupation of such dwellings and in such circumstances is not dependent on employment or connections with Guernsey. However, there would be an important difference between Mr Haggarty's daughter and the majority of people who take up the accommodation options outlined and that is that, unlike theirs, her residence would be 'qualifying residence' under the relevant law. In other words, time spent living in any property in Guernsey, regardless of her circumstances or the status of the property, would bring her closer to becoming a permanent resident. In this way, her birth in Guernsey and ancestral connections will always be recognised in the future, regardless of the amount of time spent outside Guernsey.

Notwithstanding this, it is, however, acknowledged that any siblings born in Guernsey after the commencement of the new law would become permanent residents at birth. Such apparent anomalies are not uncommon when laws and rules are changed – for example, one's date of birth can render one a 'winner' or a 'loser' when pension rules are changed – and, although mindful of this, the Policy Council considers that, on balance, it is logical not to apply any retrospective residence qualifications, rather than to apply them selectively.

As your correspondent may be aware, deputies Al Brouard and Mary Lowe have submitted an amendment to the Policy Council's proposals that would, if agreed, mean that children under eight on commencement of the law who satisfy the ancestral connections and have lived in Guernsey continuously since their birth on the island become permanent residents upon the commencement of the new regime.

It seems that this amendment, if successful, would address Mr Haggarty's concerns, and I trust that he will be pleased to hear of its existence, although of course it is not yet known whether the States will vote in favour of it.'