Deputy's population letter is 'misleading'

Deputy Luxon begins his letter with the claim that the public are irked by their elected representatives continually re debating issues that had already been decided. We are of the view Islanders are even more irked by the States members making bad decisions and then refusing to rectify the situation.

While we fully accept his right to disagree with us, we would point out that the views expressed in his letter now seem at variance not only with those expressed by some of his fellow members on the Policy Council Population Steering Group but also some of his previous statements on this issue.

From his comments he would appear to wish that the public believe some of the concerns we have raised are little more than scaremongering. In response, we offer the comments posted by our Housing minister, Dave Jones, on the Press forum immediately following the States debate on 28 June, 2013 on the population issue. (Note Deputy Jones was at the time also a member of the Policy Council Population Steering Group).

He posted his thoughts in these stark terms.

'Yesterday we scrapped all restrictions for those on permits as to where they can live, allowing a free-for-all in the housing market despite the fact that many of those coming here on a permit will receive employment packages which will include generous mortgage or rental allowances not available to local people.

It was the day we abandoned our local people and their right to access to affordable local homes. We decided that the needs and rights of others who will come to this island are more important than our local families and those who were born here.'

Responding to Deputy Luxon's main points in the order of his letter, we offer the following comments.

One of the changes agreed in the 2013 population debate that we think will have the most damaging effects on young home-seekers' chances of getting onto the housing ladder was the removal of the restriction on who may occupy properties in the 'local' market. Deputy Luxon assures readers that if this caused a problem, the States has the powers to reimpose this safeguard. Given that it is nearly impossible for many young island families to find affordable housing already, we ask: What is the States thinking of in removing this safeguard in the first place?

He goes on to reassure readers that there is no change in the category and numbers of relations that may accompany permit holders to move to Guernsey under the new system. We find this a wholly misleading statement. Deputy Luxon and other members of the steering group have freely admitted to us they have no knowledge whatsoever of numbers here now under the present scheme, so how on earth can they now say there will be no change?

Deputy Luxon next takes issue with our claim that the new population regime will result in an inevitable rise in population on the island. We would refer to the events of 14 February 2014. On that night we attended a public meeting at Les Cotils, kindly arranged by St Peter Port douzaine to discuss the population proposals.

In our presentations we said the Policy Council's proposals would result in an inevitable rise in the population. In his response to our speeches, Steering Committee member Deputy Peter Harwood admitted not only that this would happen but it was the intention that it should do so, for economic reasons. When challenged by a member of the audience where all the additional incomers were going to live, his response was: 'That is a housing problem, that is not a population problem.' It would appear that Deputy Luxon (who was also present on that occasion) has forgotten this admission.

Given that we reminded Deputy Luxon of this very quote at our joint meeting on 19 June, it seems strange that he can now claim the new population regime is not about increasing the population.

His letter closes with a statement referring to the public feedback the steering group has received and introduction of 'birthright'. As most of the feedback came as a result of the series of meetings we organised and the birthright issue came about as a direct consequence of our instigation, we think he may have got his facts and his timescale of events a little confused.

If we were to offer our thoughts on a way of halting the flow of islanders reported to be leaving Guernsey, it would be in these terms.

The States needs to take measures to reduce the high cost of living, address the chronic lack of affordable housing and take steps to diversify the economy. These are the reasons more and more islanders cite for seeking a future away from these shores for themselves and their families.

We would close by stating that we stand by everything we have said so far in this debate and will continue to seek to ensure islanders are not unduly disadvantaged as a result of the changes now under way.

GRAHAM GUILLE and GLORIA DUDLEY OWEN.