Population law is fundamentally flawed

As some readers may recall, I served in the States Assembly from 2003-2012 and was for the last four of those years closely involved in the employment and housing licensing process. Readers may also recall I voiced serious reservations regarding some of the new law’s provisions even before it came into force. I regret to say that many of my concerns appear to have been borne out by events, the new laws reportedly having resulted in adverse effects on locals looking for affordable housing and those seeking employment.

One of my main issues was the removal of the TRP cap. This mechanism once protected more modestly priced accommodation, both in the private rental sector and those homes available for sale. The cap reserved these properties in what was termed the ‘local market’ and largely restricted those coming to the island under licence or from the ‘open market’ sector seeking access to homes in the lower price bracket.

Although the new law effectively swept away this protection, government reports confusingly still continue to use the term ‘local market’. I would ask ‘what local market?’ The reality is the removal of the TRP cap has resulted in a situation whereby a more accurate description might be that we now have an ‘open market’ and an ‘anybody’s market’.

The situation was best summed up by our late Housing minister, Dave Jones, who offered this assessment following the States vote to adopt the new population regime. Dave said this:

‘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.’

Evidence for what has happened since the new law came into force was published in the Guernsey Press, which featured a report concerning recent housing trends (‘Big rise in rental housing demand’, 7 March).

The report was very upbeat about the state of the rental sector in general, local property agents reporting they were extremely busy and taking on staff to cope with the increase in business.

While all this sounds fine at first sight, closer examination of the article reveals, for me, a more worrying issue. A local estate agency spokesman said much of the upturn in local rental activity was down to the recently introduced new population laws, which was seeing people moving out of the ‘open market’ rental properties into the ‘local market’.

If this is what is happening, while the overall population might be broadly static, it follows that the task of local home seekers is getting comparatively more competitive and difficult.

The report went on to warn that if this trend continued it will not only drive down open market values but will, conversely, start to drive local market prices up.

This, if true, is doubly worrying as it follows that not only have the new population controls had an adverse effect on local families seeking affordable housing, it has also had the additional effect of damaging the open market.

Several States members clearly had reservations as to what was likely to happen under the new law as Deputy Matt Fallaize successfully placed an amendment seeking to review the effect of the removal of the TRP cap after a period with a view to reinstating it, if that became necessary to protect the local housing stock. I also recall he (and I think former Deputy Francis Quin) placed another amendment (2013) which required the States to track changes in occupancy across all sectors to ensure this TRP review was possible.

Given that the law will need to be reviewed at some point, I would respectfully offer the following suggestions in the hope some of its more damaging effects might be reduced. These proposals are broadly in line with a list of recommendations I made in 2013 during the consultation phase of the law.

I am pleased to say that two important recommendations from this list were adopted when the law was finalised, one regarding the question of birthright for locally born children of families with historical links to the island and the other was with regard to the qualifying residency terms for local children.

I would urge the States to embrace the remaining recommendations, a full list of which is outlined later in this letter.

As will be seen, they concern what changes to the law I consider necessary to ensure the long-term sustainability of the island in terms of environmental, social and economic considerations while at the same time protecting the interests of islanders.

1. I felt in 2013 that any new population law should contain a formal written Bill of Rights to cover all established residents of Guernsey. If anything the need for a formal bill is more important now than ever for the reasons explained in the next paragraph.

With the decision by the British public to leave the EU, the UK government will need to make a considerable number of legislative changes. One change reported to be being considered is the introduction of a British Bill of Rights. This will be as a replacement to the protections offered under the ECHR, which Britain is reportedly seeking to repeal. All of which seems to me to be a portent of a period of extreme uncertainty.

Given that we in these islands have no say in who might take power in Britain, I question the wisdom of leaving our civil rights in the hands of UK politicians. I would also argue there is a need for a Guernsey Bill of Rights for all qualified residents, if only to provide protection from damaging actions by our own government, to say nothing of the actions of those outside our borders who may seek to do us harm.

By way of example, in 2013 I, along with many others, argued that all children born to established residents be granted residential status from birth (a birthright). This amendment was accepted and incorporated in the new population law. While a majority of the States at that time accepted the concept of ‘birthright’, I am now aware there are those in the present Assembly who would seek to remove this entitlement. I would strongly urge that this right remain in place.

Similarly, I pressed for the removal of the requirement for local children to live continuously in Guernsey for 14 years before achieving residential status and this recommendation too was adopted in the final law. However, without a Bill of Rights the States could simply vote to do away with these rights. These rights are far too important to be left in the hands of ‘here today, gone tomorrow’ politicians.

2. I further urge States members to consider reinstating the TRP cap until such time as the island is fully able to offer access to affordable housing to all qualified residents. I would remind readers that the removal of the TRP protection from the ‘local’ market leaves local home buyers competing with licence holders for the island’s scarce supply of affordable housing, the latter in many cases receiving rent and mortgage support and a relocation package as part of their employment.

If accurately reported in the local media, this situation has now been made even worse by the large-scale movement of former residents of the open market into previously reserved housing. Some form of protected status is in my view urgently needed to give local families any chance of finding an affordable home.

I further think the practice of the States offering rent, mortgage support and relocation payments to immigrants moving to Guernsey should be suspended. This practice offers newly arrived immigrants a subsidy not available to local residents who in many cases are competing for the same jobs and same housing.

Alternatively, that a similar subsidy or support is paid to all successful applicants for government posts.

One has to ask: where else in the world would you have the government actively discriminating against its own people?

3. I think the right to buy homes on the local market by those living in the island on short-term licences or permits should be rescinded. This practice was the root cause of the majority of appeals under the previous residency laws and I have every reason to believe this will continue to be the case under the new regime.

4. I think the issuing of Residency and Employment licences in future should be targeted at those organisations willing to enter into a formal undertaking to train local staff to fill subsequent vacancies as they occur. Under the new law there is no incentive for local employers to go to the trouble and expense of training their local workforce when fully trained and experienced staff, ready to start tomorrow, can be obtained via a licence. The States need to remind employers that, wherever possible, the employment licence is not an open-ended permit to avoid up-skilling their own workforce, just a short period of grace in which to do so.

Without the need for some form of effective succession planning, employers can now use the licensing system to avoid waiting for a local employee to up-skill. Without some form of government intervention the present arrangements will in my view inevitably lead, over a relatively short time, to the island becoming populated by a low skill, low wage workforce. I would ask if this really is what the States want and if so, how this can possibly be in Guernsey’s long-term interest?

5. I would like to see a central register of islanders presently living in the UK and elsewhere who wish to return to the island maintained to ensure those with suitable qualifications are made aware of any relevant vacancies which might arise. Many former residents who would otherwise return to the island only learn of local employment opportunities long after a post has been filled by a non-local worker.

The island spends millions each year supporting our brightest and best students undertaking tertiary education while at the same time actively discouraging graduates from returning by ‘giving away’ potential employment opportunities via the licensing system.

6. I think the practice of allowing extended family members to accompany those moving to the island under permit should be put on hold while a full evaluation into the financial implications of such immigration is carried out. I am concerned for the additional costs of long-term care which will result from increased numbers of elderly coming to Guernsey. One of the declared aims of the new population management regime is to address the costs of caring for the ever-larger numbers of elderly residents needing to be supported by the working population.

Allowing unknown numbers of new residents moving to the island as dependants of licence holders effectively to retire is only making the above situation worse, not better. At a meeting in June 2015 with the Population Group I was astonished to hear the Population Working Group admit that no cost/benefit analysis had even been attempted on any of the proposed provisions for the new management regime.

I fully accept there will always be a need to welcome to the island transient labour and those with specialist knowledge and skills, but there are ways the government can limit the need for issuing ever-more Housing licences and employment permits.

I suggest we could begin by maximising the talents of the people already here. There are many very good employers in Guernsey who treat their staff well and have proper training and succession planning in place. There are however far too many others who see a housing and employment licence as a cheap way of obtaining trained and experienced staff while at the same time avoiding paying the cost of up-skilling their own workforce.

Indeed, many good employers complain bitterly when their expensively-trained workers are promptly ‘poached’ by other less-responsible organisations as soon as they are qualified. When I was in the Assembly, some of the worst offenders seemed to be government departments, many of which appeared to have scant concept of staff succession planning, relying heavily on licences, extensions of licences and renewals to obtain and keep trained staff.

I am in no doubt the present population management laws are fundamentally flawed and in need of major revision. In the interim, I believe the changes I have outlined above would, if implemented, perhaps reduce some if its worst effects.

GRAHAM GUILLE

Former deputy Housing minister.