A ROW erupted over key-worker policies on the eve of debate on the issue. Housing minister Dave Jones was dismayed that the Scrutiny Committee made its views on the consultation document known so late and so publicly.

The committee sent out damming criticism of the Green Paper to all States members the day before it was discussed in the House – and Deputy Jones responded in kind.

The States yesterday accepted the report.

‘Let me begin by saying that I am disappointed that you have not chosen to seek the answers to your concerns until the eve of the debate and that you have made your support for the Green Paper contingent on our response,’ said Deputy Jones in the letter.

‘Quite simply, this is unreasonable given the ample opportunity that there has been for dialogue and discussion at both political and staff level over the past three months.’

In the debate, Scrutiny members stressed that they could work only with the resources that they had.

It was not an attempt to derail the paper.

‘I am also disappointed that you have felt it necessary to make your concerns known so widely and publicly when the whole essence of the Green Paper was for us to receive views from all parties, assimilate them, carry out further research and then come forward with proposals,’ said Deputy Jones.

‘By making your comments public and at such a late stage, I feel that you have sought to discredit two years of important work on a very important subject undertaken by a large group of interested parties. I must also express my disappointment that your open letter offers no positive alternatives, but simply seeks to critique what had been researched so diligently so far.’

Scrutiny was not the only source of concerns about the Green Paper, with other States members joining in.

Deputy Jones said Scrutiny’s excuses for its late submission rang ‘somewhat hollow’ given that it had been in possession of copies of the report for three months.

He described the pressure the committee was placing on States members to reject the Green Paper as ‘quite bizarre’.

‘Knowing how keen your committee is on effective public consultation, we find your criticism of our approach somewhat bemusing,’ said Deputy Jones.

He addressed various points raised by the committee:

* The lack of evidence – ‘We find this criticism odd given the plethora of evidence in the report from the Key Worker Housing Group. While we acknowledge that this evidence is far from perfect, it represents the best that is available.’ Inviting comment on the Green Paper would ensure all the other information came forward, he said.

* The Policy Council should lead – ‘The same staff will need to sit around the table to research matters and the same departments will need to be involved in drawing up the final proposals.’

* On having dedicated accommodation provided by a housing association – ‘You can be assured that the details of the costs of leasing, transferring or selling property to a housing association will be subject to rigorous financial appraisal before any firm proposals are put forward.’

* Excluding the private sector from the key worker definition – ‘The States has very little influence on private sector remuneration. Other States strategies are aimed exclusively at meeting the needs of those on relatively low incomes.

‘Also, we had to start somewhere and if the numbers recognised as key worker are too great, the initiatives will be too large and unmanageable.’

* On excluding local residents – ‘The Green Paper recognises that the iniquity in not providing equality of access to housing schemes for residentially-qualified key workers is not acceptable. At this moment in time, however, we are not aware of how many residentially-qualified key workers would wish to access subsidised rental accommodation or an equity loans scheme.’