Horace Camp: Who is Guernsey for?

For decades, Guernsey has faced a fundamental housing dilemma – how to balance the needs of its long-standing local population with the demands of a growing workforce. The solution once lay in the careful division of our housing market into two sectors – the local market, which was ring-fenced to ensure affordability for local people, and the open market, which allowed for wealthy incomers to invest in high-value property, thereby contributing significantly to the island’s tax base. This system worked well for years, but successive policy changes have eroded the local market, allowing key workers with employer-backed licences to enter, pushing up demand and severing the link between local wages and housing prices.

As a result, many local individuals, whose families have deep roots in the island, now find themselves unable to afford homes. Some are being forced to leave altogether, taking with them the very identity and cultural continuity that defines our island. This is not an anti-immigration stance – Guernsey has always welcomed those who contribute to our economy – but it is an argument for fairness, sustainability, and long-term thinking.

When I say local, I mean those who were either born here or brought up here and went through our school system – people who know no other homeland. This is the definition that matters because these are the people who are fully integrated into the island’s culture and way of life. Key workers who move here for work are not local, but their children, if raised and educated here, will be. And this is where the long-term problem lies – these children of key workers will face the same housing pressures as those with deep roots, yet the current system does nothing to address this inevitable reality.

The answer to our housing crisis lies in creating a third housing market specifically for key workers – a term our government already recognises, but has failed to accommodate properly. The majority of key workers are employed by the States and operate on short-term contracts, five to eight years in most cases. Rather than forcing them into the local market and artificially inflating demand, the government should take direct responsibility for housing them. By developing and managing a key worker housing market, the States could remove key worker demand from the local market, helping to bring house prices back in line with local wages. This would ensure affordability for essential workers without pushing up rents and home prices for local families. It would also allow the States to build and control housing stock tailored to the needs of key workers, preventing the knock-on effects of subsidies distorting the broader rental market. Most importantly, it would provide security for both workers and local residents, ensuring that those on temporary contracts have suitable, affordable housing without displacing locals.

At present, the government’s approach has only made things worse. By subsidising key worker rent to the tune of £1,000 per month, the States has inadvertently inflated rental prices across the island. This has left local workers – some of whom are working side by side with key workers but receive no such subsidy – unable to compete in the rental market. This is not only unjust but unsustainable. If we continue on this trajectory, we risk creating a situation where local people, as I define them – those with generational roots in the island or those born and raised here – become a minority, unable to afford to live in their own homeland. If the government truly values the continuity of our community, it must act decisively.

Introducing a third market would almost certainly cause a decline in local market house prices. Some homeowners will understandably baulk at this, seeing it as a loss of equity. But we must ask ourselves: are we willing to prioritise short-term property values over the long-term sustainability of our island’s people? If we allow the market to continue unchecked, we will reach a tipping point where young local people simply cannot afford to stay – and once they leave, they will not return. There are ways to mitigate this. A gradual implementation of the third market would avoid sudden property devaluation. Tax adjustments for those affected by falling property values could help ease the financial burden. Incentives for home improvements could maintain property value. And first-time local buyers could be prioritised to ensure that falling prices benefit locals rather than outside investors.

We must also recognise that the housing crisis is not just about bricks and mortar. It is about identity, community, and the future of Guernsey as we know it. For too long, we have allowed economic pressures to dictate the shape of our island without considering the long-term consequences. We have failed to ask the fundamental question: who is Guernsey for? If the answer is that it is for those who have built their lives here, for those whose families have lived here for generations, or for those born and raised here with no other homeland, then we need policies that reflect that reality. The housing market cannot be an unregulated free-for-all where the highest bidder wins and the locals are priced out. It must be structured in a way that preserves what makes Guernsey unique.

I have no doubt that there will be opposition to this idea. Property developers who have benefited from the current system will cry foul. Landlords who have enjoyed sky-high rental yields will resist any change that threatens their profits. Even some homeowners, worried about the value of their properties, will push back against a plan that might affect their financial standing. But at some point, we need to decide what kind of island we want to be. Do we want to be a place where people with deep roots or long-standing ties can continue to live and thrive? Or do we want to be an island where wealth and influence dictate who gets to stay and who is forced to leave?

The reality is that if we do nothing, the outcome is clear. Guernsey will become a place where only the wealthy can afford to live, where local families are pushed out, and where our unique identity is slowly eroded. We will lose the very thing that makes this island special. That is not a future I am willing to accept. It is time to nail my colours to the mast. A third housing market for key workers is not just a policy proposal – it is a necessity. It is the only way to ensure that Guernsey remains a place where its people, its true people, can continue to call home. It is time for the government to step up, to recognise the problem for what it is, and to take the bold action that is needed. Anything less is a betrayal of the very people this island is meant to serve.