Housing’s ‘abject failure’
Monday 6th July 2009, 2:30PM BST.
A SINGLE teacher from Northern Ireland has won the right to stay in Guernsey after working here for less than eight years.
And the Housing Department has been severely criticised by the Royal Court for an apparent ‘abject failure’ by the political members in dealing with the matter.
Jane Kinley, who previously had spent no more than three or four years in any one place, came to the island in 2001 to teach humanities at Vauvert.
She was granted several extensions to her licence, and in June 2008 asked to extend it for compassionate reasons, but that was rejected.
She was given no proper reason for that, even though it meant she would be forced to leave the island.
Advocate Peter Ferbrache (pictured) said she had laid roots in Guernsey. ‘All her recent connections are with the island of Guernsey,’ he said. ‘She has involved herself in many activities. She has also spent more of her teaching career in Guernsey than elsewhere. Her friends, social life and roots are in Guernsey.’
The rejection broke her human right to respect for her family and private life. ‘A person has a right to develop themselves in the fullest sense of that term,’ he said.
The department, which was represented by Crown Advocate Rupert Sewards, said that the most recent appeal did not include references from her employer.
‘She knew about the housing regime,’ he said. ‘She knew the limits of time. Her home was bought when she had three years left. The decision-making process requires balance.’
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Interesting case.
Too little detail is reported to provide a basis for informed comment.
Facetiously one might deduce, for example, that a footloose itinerant who had spent no more than a year in any one place would, after having spent a couple of years in Guernsey, have established the right to live here for the rest of their life.
Report abuse
Whilst I do symptathise with non locals, I do feel that our island needs housing restrictions in place. Maybe teachers & doctors should get a little more help as we do need these people here but I worry that this lady winning her appeal means that we’ll have many non locals trying to do the same
Report abuse
Slight abuse of the law I feel to twist it to suit someone’s case.
Roots… generally means family, real ties, not just asomeone who has flitted but stayed here so far the longest.
I do hope that they are actually a good teacher.
Report abuse
We need to now recognise that after several cases like this that 7 years is the cut off point. Manage to stay here in what ever capacity including Open market, and that is you classed as a local free to live and work wherever you like on the island.
Report abuse
Paul – that is not an accurate statement. There have been many cases where the housing laws have been upheld when people stayed here for long periods without acquiring qualified resident status – including by the European Court of Human Rights which recognises the island’s right to protect the housing market.
But what Housing are obliged to do is to give everyone a fair assessment and to be prepared to make exceptions where circumstances justify it. As David Cranch said, there are too few facts in this report to know what the particular circumstances are in this case.
Report abuse
great news, congratulations to jane and her legal team, its about time a precedence was set for hard working people putting so much into the island and educating our children , only to be told they must leave. After all `us guerns` are not treated too bad when we want to move to Britain or Ireland.
Report abuse
I know one lady in Guernsey who has been here 23 years. Her Guernsey partner has an en famile license for her and they have two children together. She has worked for most of the time in nursery care. However not one day of her time in Guernsey is counted towards becoming considered as locally qualified. If her partner was to die she would have a legal battle on her hands to be able to stay on an island that her children are legal citizens of. I thought she was joking but it does appear to be the case.
Report abuse
Its very simple – grant 5-year licences to teachers, nurses and other vital members of the medical profession, with an opportunity for that to be automatically converted to a 15-year licence if the Education or Health Service wants them to stay, that decision being made at the end of their first 4 years. We get to keep the best ones who will make a real long-term contribution to Guernsey, without being stuck with poorer quality ones which do not wish to keep.
Report abuse
TL
I think you will find that the cases to which you refer are from a time gone by. All cases of 7 years or more that have been placed, with legal representation, have without exception been allowed to stay. Furthermore with each new case precedents are set which makes it now impossible to refuse unless there are mitigating circumstances.
Report abuse
Congratulations to Jane, I think its time that Guernsey recognises the fact that teaching is more than just a profession and a run of the mill job. Teachers don’t just teach, they run a huge number of extra curricular activities and more often than not participate in other youth groups. I believe that continuity is a major part of education and plays a huge role in students progress through their education. Not only that but the huge cost in continuously bringing in new teachers must be huge! In this day and age I can’t help feeling that the license system is a little out dated and needs to be adapted to meet a method that will work for all parties involved. If Guernsey could continuously provide local people to fulfill these roles as doctors, teachers etc then I could understand this system but the truth is that it can’t and therefore relies on these people to provide these services, it is surely time to give them something back!
Report abuse
Anyone who has read the Human Rights Law could easily have foreseen this outcome as being a fair and inevitable result. Like it or not, the Housing Department should not have responsibility for managing the island population levels under a very outdated Housing Law.
Personally, I am glad that the Housing Department shortcomings have been rumbled, and so we might now see some constructive changes in how the island population issue is managed. Hopefully the dark days of arbitrary housing licence decisions are quickly coming to a close….
Quite simply, the Housing Department (including the Housing Minister) have continually refused to properly engage and understand the primacy of the Human Rights principles – and that is inspite of the States own formal guidance on Human Rights, which was issued some years ago. Heads have been stuck in the sand for the last 10 years or so, content to mainly rely on stonewall tactics to wear down licence applicants through the spectre of spiralling legal costs. An abuse of the law, some might say.
Moreover, the Housing Department have also ignored a series of serious criticisms made by the Royal Court in housing licence appeal cases, where it has been quite rightly highlighted that it is unacceptable to decline an application without a good reason. Presumably the Housing Department have been making arbitrary decisions for quite some time, because they have never given good reasons when declining an application.
In truth, there has been no evidence of a real housing shortage in Guernsey since the war, and the arguments about keeping local market housing for locals is just a red-herring – look at the number of estate agents that do a thriving business – there are always plenty of houses available for anyone who wants to buy or rent in the local market. Of course, the level of affordabiity is a different matter, but that is not the concern of the Housing Law or the Housing Department.
Personally, I would like to know how much the legal bills are for defending the Housing Department have been in these cases in recent years – I suspect the cost to the Guernsey taxpayer of the Law Officers time and resources is scandalous, but once again, no-one is accountable except the tax payers who have to foot the bill.
The Housing Law has not been fit for purpose for many years and Guernsey has ignored the need a properly constructed work permit system.
Of course, the States have been told this time and time again, so surely it must be time to wake up and sort out yet another costly mess created by our well-intentioned, but far too parochial and narrow-minded politicians and their civil servants?
Report abuse
As a guern… I find it hard to believe that given our desire and right to live and work else where on the planet, (certainly the UK) we feel the constant need to forcably remove people who have “run out of time”… how can we expect anyone to fully contribute to our island, and make a real effort to abosrb themselve in our culture if we continue to treat eveyone but ourselves as second class subjects who have to have a continual eye on the clock, who when they run out of time through out dated laws be treated in such a dreadful way by our state. The states could control imigration by allowing people to emigrate to guernsey via a points system much like Aus and NZ, based on our need to essential imigration, such nightmare stories of people living en famile for years, or people being forcabe removed after 5 – 10 years is horrifying…. as for the issue of “not enough space – or housing” or being over run by the English..pah… state propoganda for the small minded. Time for the states to draft a respectable immigration policy in line with our needs for the 21st Century, to stop such out rageous court cases starting in the first place.
Report abuse
In response to Guern Abroad, the current situation does not lend itself to your view either.
‘Roots… generally means family, real ties..’
What about people in Guernsey who weren’t born here yet consider themselves to be part Guern. Grandchildren of those that stayed during the occupation and helped rebuild after. Sons and daughters of those who left to find jobs in the UK so as not to put a strain on Guernsey resources. Guernsey ancestors. Current family connections. Essential workers… yet unable to stay. Even though, perhaps, they are more local than most ‘locally qualified.’ The system, quite clearly, doesn’t work. One rule for one, another for someone else.
Good on Jane Kinley, hopefully Housing will finally review the outdated system as a matter of priority.
Report abuse
I have seen many good friends and work colleagues come and go over the years when their housing licences have expired and it is always a sad event. Nevertheless I have always felt that it is right and proper because, like it or not, we live on a 25 square mile rock and there simply isn’t enough room for everybody who would like to live here.
I am sure Jane Kinley is an excellent teacher and her skills and involvement in the community would be missed, but her position is no different to the many licence holders wishing to extend their stay and, if possible, to settle permanently in Guernsey.
I am seriously worried that an exception has been made on the grounds that an individual’s human rights were being abused had she been forced to comply with the terms of her housing licence. She knew terms of that licence when she applied for it (and of the subsequent extensions) so this was a straightforward contract between her and the States of Guernsey. I fail to see how human rights legislation is relevant in such a case.
Surely we have now set a precedent – every single licence holder will now be able to argue that it is within their human rights to stay permanently in Guernsey.
Please do not think I am taking a narrow minded anti-immigration stance here. This not about “them taking our jobs and stealing our women” – it is about protecting our tiny little island from becoming even more over-developed than it already is.
We either restrict immigration and stick to the rules, or we allow Guernsey to move ever closer to becoming a mini Hong Kong. Personally I want to protect our island and that means taking tough decisions on immigration.
Report abuse
Not Dave Jones
Would you be so kind as to provide the reasonisng to support your claim that: “Quite simply, the Housing Department (including the Housing Minister) have continually refused to properly engage and understand the primacy of the Human Rights principles – and that is in spite of the States own formal guidance on Human Rights, which was issued some years ago”
Surely those who prepared the law on human rights in Guernsey would have allowed for the housing laws that protect the island from overpopulation?
Report abuse
CD
Your comments overlook one vital point. If a teacher has to leave after 7 years then they get replaced by another one. Result – the same number of people living here in the same number of properties, with no increase in population. Where’s the harm in that ? All the current system does is to enforce expensive turnover of personnel, for nobody’s benefit whatsoever.
I believe that 15-year licences should be the norm for teachers and nurses, but structured as a 10-year extension to a 5-year licence. Call it a “probationary period”, but it enables us to get rid of any poorer quality imported staff who are not worthy of a 15-year licence, while the 10-yesr extension can be strictly subject to them continuing as a teacher/nurse etc until their 15 years are up.
Report abuse
CD
Whilst it is true that there is a contract between the teacher and States, it is a feature of human rights law that contracts are automatically looked at from a human right perspective. A sort of bolt on provision.
David
I fear that what is effectively a five year probation period, would incur the wrath of human rights and employment lawyers.
Report abuse
CD – agree entirely
David – yes, it is one in, one out, but there is a long term difference. If you allow everyone to stay, eventually they stop working and retire. Their families also stay. By letting people stay forever you get continuity of service from employees but you get a steadily rising population.
Also, while certain employees are invaluable (even “essential” to use the housing terminology), in many professions it is beneficial to have a regular churn of employees so that fresher, keener employees replace those that are settling into a comfort zone and looking forward to retirement. If you go for 1x15years rather than 3x5years, for many roles the employer will probably be worse off and the openings for new employees will not present themselves. Those are the harsh realities of business.
On the human personal level, it is sad to see people fall in love with this place and have to leave, but no-one comes here expecting to be able to stay. The rules are well publicised.
As for the Human Rights Law, yes this has a primacy is the sense that it affects all areas of public law, but the application of its principles is subject to exceptions, limitations and a “margin of appreciation”. The European Court of Human Rights has recognised the legitimacy of the island’s wish to protect its way of life. Provided that people are treated fairly in the way in which the rules are applied then the rules can be applied and are compatible with the Human Rights Law.
And to those who say that the floodgates should be opened and that the fear of a flood of English (and others) is misguided, I dispute that entirely. The pressure on house prices is evidence of the demand for housing even with these restrictions. If we operated an open points system, house prices would be driven ever higher by the demand from people with sufficient points, while those who whose families have not lived anywhere else for generations but who do not work in financial services will not be able to afford to stay. Some would say that this is already happening, but removing the Housing Law would make it immeasurably worse.
Report abuse
I notice in the article that Crown Advocate Rupert Sewards, said :
“‘She knew about the housing regime,’ he said. ‘She knew the limits of time. Her home was bought when she had three years left. The decision-making process requires balance.’”
Seems Mr Seawards failed to sell the proportionality and balance to the Royal Court.
Report abuse
David – without wishing to enter further into this debate, your comment also overlooks one vital point. What happens when said teacher retires, or decides on a change of career, or has children and stops working? They are still locally resident yet another licence holder has to be sought to fill the position, causing a population increase.
The idea of having short term licences is to ensure that what you suggested actually happens: namely the population remains constant while essential job roles are filled and people only live here as long as they fulfil that specific role.
It may not be the nicest solution however (as has already been stated here) people were aware of that when they applied.
Report abuse
Without wishing to sound rude, there are also those of us who come to work within your system, do a good job and have no issue leaving when our time is up.
Not ALL of us are going to stay until we expire.
Report abuse
The increased population argument always seems to assume that eveyone who qualifies to come here never leaves. In reality some do, by their own choice before their licence expires, it is even the case that some local people leave the island and never return…. it is also the case the Guernsey has an ageing population and over the next 10 – 20 years quite a few of us won’t be here any more. (even with the potential inflow of the open market retirement market, which in itself is fixed) The question here is about does our government have the moral authority to treat members of our population perminant or not the way they do, merley because that have arbitarily run out of time. To remove one person, destroy their life, and relationships and replace them with another is not right, it doesn’t reduce or control the population, it is only there to ensure that no one remains longer than 15 years and automaticaly qualifies as local. In a sense its saying, you will never ever be one of us, you will never ever have any rights here… but while your here please be awfuly nice, as we can boot you off anytime we like. In the 21st century is this right?? The constant removal and turn over of staff on licence is expensive counter to economic development, and doesn’t put us in a good light. We are not the only location on the planet… there are plenty of other places that will welcome talent to them and we must compete with them. A new system should be divised that allows us to be seen as a welcome location,based on merit, not an elitist over protective people.
Report abuse
Thank you, Paul Le P, for putting it so well.
Returning to my theme of the reporting of the case in the Press, we do not know if whoever was presiding in the Royal Court thought there were exceptional circumstances leading to the apparently perverse judgement.
I am all in favour of perverse decisions when the law is an ass.
However, I think it must be done openly, with due explanation, so that it can be seen that the law is not being flouted without due cause.
It is not in the interest of the rule of law for either judges or the press to spread confusion and the impression that court judgements are a lottery.
Report abuse
Would you be so kind as to provide the reasonisng to support your claim that: “Quite simply, the Housing Department (including the Housing Minister) have continually refused to properly engage and understand the primacy of the Human Rights principles – and that is in spite of the States own formal guidance on Human Rights, which was issued some years ago”
To answer your question, the evidence of the Housing Department failing to engage the Human Rights principles is self evident from the numerous Housing Licence Appeals where it has lost the case (or eventually relented in the late stages or Court processedings).
The Human Rights Law says 2 key things thatgive it primacy over the Housing Control Law and therefore directs Housing Licence decisions:
a) So far as it is possible to do so, existing laws must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights.
b) It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.
Check out the EU cases of Wiggins vs the UK (Guernsey Housing Authority)(1978), Gillow vs the UK (Guernsey Housing Authority)(1986), and the local cases of X vs the Housing Authority (1999), Foley vs Housing Authority (2004). In Foley (2004), the Bailiff actually said:
“I have referred back to my judgment in ‘X’ v. the States Housing Authority and the issues that I raised towards the end of that judgment concerning the amplification of reasons for rejection and the lack of any clear statement as to why the current housing situation still requires a strict housing control regime. The Authority has not addressed any of these issues since my decision in ‘X’ or indeed since the decision of the Court of Appeal in Ward, which I was essentially echoing in the latter part of my judgment in ‘X’.”
In this most recent case, some 10 years after the ‘X’ case, the Housing Department have still not learned to give substantive reasons for rejecting licence applications.
More to the point, the States issued Core Guidance for Public Authorities in 2001, which addressed the incoming Human Rights law, and I quote:
“42. Respect for Convention rights must be a central factor in everything you and your organisation do as a public authority. If your organisation’s existing procedures are not compatible, it will need to implement new policies and procedures that are consistent with the Convention rights. You should consider how the relevant parts of the Law apply to all aspects of your work, and be able to show that you have done so. You should be able to justify your decisions in the context of the Convention rights, and show that you have considered the Convention rights and dealt with any issues arising out of such a consideration.”
I think the problems in the Housing Department are actually pretty clear…..
On your second point, the Human Rights Law in Guernsey was prepared in isolation from the Housing Control Law, and it was properly recognised in 2000 that a number of Guernsey laws would need to be update to become compliant with the Human Rights principles – Guernsey actually took from January 2001 (when the law was registered) until September 2006 (when the law finally came into force) to do this, and even then, the Housing Control Law was not adequately brought into line.
Report abuse
It is great that this lady is able to stay here. I hope that in future others will be able to uphold their human rights and stay on the island to which they have contributed so much. Without the non-locals Guernsey would not be such a great place to live.
Report abuse
TL and Paul Le P
Look around you. How many teachers who taught un our schools as licence holders 30 years ago have devoted a lifetime to teaching our children ? They are hardly a burden on society ! So what if they settle here. So what if their children become “local”? Its a tiny price to pay to ensure that we get the best quality career teachers for our children.
Educating our children is one of the most important tasks of the island of Guernsey. We have an island which many teachers would give their right arm to be able to settle in. We can attract the very best ones if we grant long term licences to them. Specialist non-economic professions such as teaching and medical professions should be treated completely differently from commercial professions. The former is a “need” while the latter is a “want”. We have to recognise the difference.
And we mustn’t lose sight of the bigger picture. We need to import more people of working age to address the ageing population issue in the coming years. Starting now with teachers and nurses would be the best possible start to that process.
Report abuse
Not Dave Jones
Thank you foor taking the time to set out the very helpful references.
The extracts provided from Foley 2004 and the reference to X 1999 make the recent case a good deal clearer.
As you say the facts suggest that Housing has failed to learn the lesson and provide a rationale for rejection. There seems to be no excuse for such apparent lazy administration.
I was aware of the delay in introducing human rights law to Guernsey. My understanding of that was that it was delayed for all legislation to be reviewed to ensure it was human right compliant.
Many of us were expressing during the post 2001 review and in letters to the Press circa 2001 – 2005 that it was not the human rights law that was important, but how it was carried out in practice.
Sad to see that departments and civil servants are showing such a misunderstanding of this basic legal fact.
Mind you knowing some of the people who were on the working parties in various departments, it is not surprising that the lessons have not been learnt.
Still Not Dave Jones tnaks again for doing the job of the Guernsey Press journalists.
It would have been a great help towards understanding if they had provided the legal background.
Report abuse
I am very pleased for Miss Kinley, it is a good thing that she is allowed to stay and hopefully the workings of the Housing department, which have always been a mystery to me, will become a bit more transparent as a result. I am on an essential licence here and know only too well the problems that my family and I could face if we were forced to move on, with my kids happy at school and having made good friends here. I really hope that this decision will give those people who really want to stay on this beautiful Island the chance to do so.
Report abuse
Yes, David, I agree entirely.
Report abuse
For those who are interested the full judgment on the GLR website:
http://www.guernseylegalresources.gg/ccm/legal-resources/judgments/2009-judgments/guernsey-judgment-24-2009—kinley-v-dept-of-housing.en
Report abuse
To rethinkhousing. In the way that you word that then yes that occupation example does illustrate roots. I was trying to make it short and simple when defining roots, but as you point out there are many conditions where it could be seen that there are roots beyond the first line family definition.
However in this case I do not feel with the little information given this person has roots yet.
The key point to me is, only extend licenses where the work given is valued. We have to trust that this person does actually provide quality teaching and gets involved in other activities thereby supporting their case on being rooted in Guernsey.
Report abuse
Not Dave Jones has set out clearly the real issue here. The abject failure of the political members of Housing to take action on serious criticisms made by the Royal Court.
The Minister and the Press can make as many references to the number of applications that go on to appeal as they like, the simple fact is that natural justice (and the individuals rights) require that they give detailed reasons.
Perhaps the Minister should have explained how his Department has they failed to do this, rather than clutching his shield (the Housing Needs survey). If I were the Royal Court I’d be getting quite sick of this disgusting contempt.
Report abuse
David – no disputing that some teachers are valuable and should be given long term licences, resulting in the right to stay. Such roles are essential for all of us and their value is worth the fact that they and their families may add to the population. However, just because someone has the title of teacher does not make them essential. I am sure that some teaching posts can be happily filled on a rotational basis (from the island’s perspective rather than that of the individual teachers). It needs an objective assessment of the circumstances and the current system allows for that. Whether it happens correctly in practice is another matter.
Report abuse
When i was in the 4th Year secondary at Grammar School my RS teacher had to leave because the States would not re-new his licence and in all honesty this was very unsettling in the middle of GCSE’s!!!
My friend also moved over here when she was 7 years old, lived here till she completed her A-levels and then went to uni. Her parents subsequently left the island due to personal reasons. As she did not come back in the holidays whilst at uni she has now been told that she needs to do another 8 years to qualify for a local licence and I believe 6 of those years she would have to live En-Famile as living open market doesn’t count towards a local licence. She’s qualified in Marketing with 6 years experience behind her now so it’s not like she’s coming here to sponge off the States, sometimes they make it difficult for people who would benefit the island and let others stay who clearly have an adverse effect!!!
Report abuse
No one is saying teachers aren’t important, of course they are. The point is that they, and other essential workers, come to work in Guernsey for a limited period under the terms of a written agreement. They know they are here for a limited when they come here.
The terms of the licence can be extended in certain cases where the worker is ‘essential’ which is fine. However, the fact that that person may have fallen in love with the Island or may have struck up strong friendships here does not mean we should tear up their licence.
The fundamental underlying issue is one of population control. If we decide it is OK for temporary workers to settle here permanently there will, I beleive, be a net growth in population. This is despite David’s point about the need to replace workers who leave with new ones (TL explains this very well above).
I too have been sad to see good friends and work collegues go, but it saddens me more to see Guernsey being swallowed up by concrete and tarmac.
Report abuse
TL
You are quite correct in your view. We must also protect the right for local teachers to come back here and work after they qualify. That’s a tough balancing act as Dave Jones has previously pointed out on other threads, but it cannot be an impossible nut to crack in order to achieve that balance, provided that the housing policy is flexible. However, civil servants like certainty, not flexibility, so that rather goes against the grain.
Guernseygal
There will be hundreds if not thousands of similar examples out there. Children of licence holders are a particularly grey area as they had no say about coming here as children, yet end up with no rights. I’m quite sure that some would succeed if they brought a Human Rights case against the States.
Finally I would like to pick up on Deputy Jones’ official comment in the Press today that only 6 appeals had been heard in the local court. Rest assured that this is not because there were only 6 aggrieved persons. Its because there is no legal aid system in Guernsey and because our local legal system is woefully deficient in getting cases to court quickly. Persons wanting to take the case all the way, including to the European Court of Human Rights, will invariably be told that it will take 5 years or more and could cost (my guess) at least £200,000 to go all the way. No wonder most parties don’t have the stomach or the resources for such a lengthy battle and so they cave in and get on with their lives elsewhere, ever resentful towards the Guernsey housing system.
We have to have some restrictions to prevent this island overheating, but I’m afraid that the current system just doesn’t isn’t fair or equitable in how it is applied. My hunch is that Housing would lose maybe 8 out of 10 cases if legal aid was available locally and if every aggrieved person was prepared to see their case go all the way through to appeal and even to Strasbourg. But I’m equally sure that Housing already know that, and prefer to rely on the vast majority giving up the fight.
Report abuse
The law is an ass !
Everyone knows this. It was created a long time ago for a different purpose not to control immigration per se but who could live in which type of property.
It needs revising. However licences and immigration is such a hot potato that our politicians will not address this question.
Yes Guernsey needs some form of immigration control but the present system is so grossly unfair. Spend 7/8 years living somewhere, contributing to society, doing a worthwhile job, paying your taxes and then be told get out we no longer want you.
Imagine the outcry if the UK turned round and said to all local Guerns not born in the UK that they would have to leave after a few years
Guernsey needs teachers, doctors, nurses, bankers (yes bankers !) and all other people with skills and qualifications that are hard to come by in the indigenous population. Without them the island would not have the quality of life that it does at the moment.
And yes believe it or not Guernsey is not the only attractive place in the world to live and if this island does not make non locally born people welcome those with the skills the island needs will go elsewhere.
To any myopic locals out there I say open your eyes, look at the value immigrants bring to this island and thrive on the diversity.
To non locally born people on a licence who contribute to society and wish to stay I say, work at it and don’t give up – it can happen as Ms Kinley proves
To Guernsey politicians, I say get rid of this outdated unfair law and bring in something which reflects the needs of the island in the 21st century
Report abuse
Holly
Without the locals, Guernsey would not be such a great place to live! What a racist remark!
Report abuse
Perhaps the law could be updated to the effect that simply requiring someone to leave because “their time is up” is recognised as legitimate reason for rejecting a housing license. No need for Housing to adopt some contorted logic in coming up with proxy justifications for why that person should not be allowed to stay, just tell them straight it’s time to move on. In many ways it would actually be better all round if virtually no extensions were given, at least this way licence holders would know well in advance that they need to be looking for new opportunities, instead of pinning their hopes on an extension then having no backup plan if it’s rejected.
People need to realise that it’s not the end of the world if they have to leave Guernsey (or any other territory that they are not a citizen of, for that matter). If license holders consider it such a wrench to tear themselves away then more fool them for forgetting they were going to have to leave one day.
Report abuse
I was born in Guernsey and both my parents were Guernsey but my application for a licence has been turned down twice. My newphew who has lived on the island all his working life and has paid his tax’s to the Guerney treasury has only been given a part licence dispite his mother being Guernsey, but this person get’s one on the human rights ticket. How fair is that.
Report abuse
JD
If you read Holly’s comment properly it says without the NON-locals.
I had to move to Guernsey with my parents when i was 15 and have been schooled and worked here for 6 years now i am at an age, like most 21 year olds, where i should be moving out. Whilst i would like to continue working for the States i am not considered local for another 14 years!! i have to leave because i am not allowed to rent local and certainley cannot afford open market prices at my age. Guernsey seems to banish anyone no matter the circumstances or if they need you or not. If your not Guernsey blood – Your out! I appreciate there is not enough room for everyone but surely there is another solution!
Report abuse
Cobo Guernsey congratulations on your excellent common sense. If only the rest of the islanders were like you……
The UK is also an overcrowded island. So presumably Guerns, [who are NOT part of the UK anyway], won’t mind being unceremoniously thrown out of the UK after their time is up. Strange thing is Guerns seem to think the UK owes them. Why?
Report abuse
Sue McGrath and Non Guern
Contact Peter Ferbrache
You might well get good news following this Royal court precedent and others such as Foley 2004.
Report abuse
non-guern
YE,I did read the post from Holly correctly, I changed it on purpose! It does not read so good when it’s changed does it. My point is that that was a very racist comment. The solution perhaps in your mind is to build onto Guernsey!! Unless the population is controlled that may have to be the only solution.Yes quite ridiculous!
unwelcome
I trust you do not study geography!
The UK overcrowded, yes maybe in cities, but at least they have room down the road, unlike St Sampsons or the Vale!
Report abuse
Mark – you make some good points. Although I raised concerns about the precedent set by this ruling I am certainly not against immigration, in fact I have written before on this site strongly supporting the need for immigration and the many benefits a diverse community brings to the island.
Reading through this thread what is clear is that there are solid points on both sides of this debate. I’m sure there are bigots (myopic locals) out there but I don’t read that in many of the posts here.
Essential workers from outside the island should be encouraged to come to the island and contribute to island life. However at the same time there must be some degree of protection that prevents an overcrowded population.
It would be great if somehow a balanced solution could be found that achieves both these aims. To achieve this will require a strong yet balanced debate however I fear therein lies the problem. I wonder whether our politicians (or population for that matter) have the spine for a reasoned debate without it descending into a slanging match with accusations of racism thrown about.
Report abuse
JD
It is precisely because I do study geography that I made my comments. After Hong Kong the UK has one of the highest ratios of people per square mile anywhere in the world. St Sampsons and Vale are far more rural than many places in the UK. Most houses there even have gardens!
The thing is that the UK is just naturally far more welcoming than Guernsey but the UK too needs to curb immigration across the board irrespective of race, creed, colour, nationality and etc. Australia and New Zealand have immigration policies which do not upset or offend in the way that Guernsey does. Basically Housing and David Jones need to get over themselves and treat cases on individual merits rather than adopting the lofty dehumanising manner that they do.
Report abuse
Well done Miss Kinley, what a fantastic teacher you are. Hopefully you will be able to return to your previous full time postion & continue your good work educating our children. You are one in a million & I am proud that you have taught my children.
Report abuse
Please read this with an open mind
Guernsey has a class society.
UPPER CLASS
Upper is made up of Wealthy retired, Wealthy tax minimiser, Wealthy locals. The States politicians like these people to bolster the economy and not rely on social security.
MIDDLE GUERNSEY CLASS
Guernsey locals who have long roots in the island and no longer have children here.
These people own their own home, do not use social security, have private health insurance. The States like these people also.
LOWER MIDDLE CLASS
All public service licence holders. They cant afford a house and will bé here short term. They bolster the States coffers and pension funds. The States tollerates these people but doesn´t want them to stay becuase ultimately they will rely on Social Security and the pension funds.
LOWER GUERNSEY CLASS
Non professional Guernsey locals. This group will be unlikely to send there children to university and therefore be employable as the manual workforce for the remaining classes. The States does not like these people as they rely on Social Security and Pensions their entire life. They are tolerated because they are needed.
Everyone needs be honest about immigration. Only those who can afford a property and afford the expenses of living on Guernsey will stay long term regardless of how much they love this island. When they can no longer afford to live here they will have to leave. Except unfortuneately for the Lower Guernsey Class – they have no where else to go.
Report abuse
We simply cannot have open borders on this island and some form of population control is required.
Housing appears to have lost numerous cases of late, but to be fair we don’t know how many never got as far as court. What’s clear is the Housing Control Law seems wobbly and we need a better system.
Having worked in various countries we knew exactly how long we had as guest workers and that was it. Why Work Permits have not been introduced is a mystery – they seem to work everywhere else.
Report abuse
Unwelcome
Strange thing is Guerns seem to think the UK owes them. Why?
The only thing strange is that silly comment you make. I`ve never in my life heard a guern suggest that. So there is no answer to your question.
Report abuse
bcb
If the Guerns didn’t think the UK owed them they wouldn’t go over in their droves for education; work; housing; healthcare; etc; none of which they are denied. It is freely available to them. And can you imagine the howls of protest if the UK were to behave like your own Housing Department? Fortunately for you they won’t; the UK Government is more civilised, caring and compassionate than your own Government.
Report abuse
Unwelcome, I too have never heard a local Guernsey person say a comment like that. The UK government isn’t more caring or compassionate, they just wanted more workers to do the “dirty” work, which has hit them back now. I think the local English people, who have been there for many years and disagree with the mass immigration would support the move to a licensing scheme.
Report abuse
unwelcome
If you are going to debate your argument needs to be formed from facts.
Guernsey people pay for their UK education, as far as I’m aware there is nothing in the Magna Carta that said Guernsey people get free Housing and the Healthcare is also paid for; be that direct or by previous reciprocal agreement.
Thankfully your attitude to our island and its people is a minority view. The right thinking majority of incomers (call them what you will) fit in, contribute and get on with, what I believe, is a reasonably open minded welcoming community.
Exceptions to any of the above do not disprove the rule.
Report abuse
Bickering from disgruntled Guerns and disatisfied licence holders detracts from the argument.
We are all lucky enought of live in a very beautiful part of the world which, while it has its faults, offers a benign tax regime and a high standard of living (relative to many other places in the world).
A lot of people would like to live here permanently but we don’t have room for them all so we have to restrict numbers some how. Our current licence system does actually do that job effectively.
No matter what system we introduce some people are not going to be able to stay. I agree this seems harsh when they may have worked here for years and put down roots and made friends but – if we want to preserve our environment and our quality of life – there simply is no choice.
Sorry licence holders – you know the score when you come to work here.
Report abuse
The problem is the law is so complicated that anyone who can afford to take on Housing will probably win the chance to stay. It is a lottery which those who can afford to pay for lawyers will probably win with the human rights laws.
We are not radically changing the size of the workforce all we are doing is recycling it every 5 years – at enormous cost. There is an argument that those who are good at their job and wish to stay could be considered for a 15 year licence which enables them to stay long term if they have proved that they are providing a good service and working well i.e. not off sick on a regular basis, working well etc. On the other hand – would these people be willing to pay back all the extra’s they have had to enable their move here to be subsidised: housing subsidies, moving costs etc etc. I know of people who were given rent allowance for a few years, moving costs paid for, who have a house in the UK for which they are receiving rent and this has enabled them to buy over here too! They are so lucky to be able to do this while locals who are either already here or who want to come back to the island cannot claim this.
If they really want to live here they should be willing to come here and work for the same pay and conditions of a local person. There is inequality at the moment – in the public sector at least! It seems to me that the higher earners and senior managers are the ones getting the long licences and that then stops any chance of promotion for local people – and they seem to want to change the way the island works to become a mini bureaucratic UK. This island appears to be about to be taken over by non-locals. Although it does sound like sour grapes it really isn’t – i just get frustrated that more junior staff (who can give the island a longer work period and provide stability in schools, health, police, public sector, banking etc) are not given the opportunity to stay.
The States needs a completely rethink the licences issue – and as others have said on here there are many anomolies with people whose parents and wider family who were born here cannot come back!
Report abuse
CD
I didnt know the score when i got brought here by my parents 6 years ago, i didnt choose i didnt know anything of this ridiculous system.
I simply assumed that being schooled, completing A Levels and then working for the States Government i would be aloud to move out away from my parents to carry on my life as i am now 21 but i cannot until i have been here another 15 years.
i dont have a choice like the rest of the kids. The law does not take into account other situations like children and spouses and family, simply the licence holder, the one who they want. Forget about allowing the rest of the family to live here even though there was room when you needed us funnily.
Report abuse
CD – Please do explain to me how i knew the score .. Guernsey parents, born in guernsey, moved with parents off island when 2 years old until 15 years old. Parents and I returned when 15, been here now for 9 years, not allowed to live here unless under parents roof. Should i have known the score CD?
Report abuse
Merlin
You talk a great deal of common sense like Cobo Guernsey. Many ‘junior’ workers do not want to stay because of the States inhuman policy of issuing licences which excludes any family members. At least non guern got to stay with his/her parents but he/she is right in that the States only want or care about the license holder.
One assumes, from the general hostility to immigrant workers, and the States insistence that many of them cannot have have their wives/husbands/children with them, that Guernsey would probably prefer to be completely self sufficient and not have incomers. So be self sufficient and find what you need among your own and what you can’t find, improvise.
Why doesn’t Guernsey look at other islands [Shetlands; Orkneys; Isle of Man; Isle of Wight; Isles of Scilly] who may not want immigrant workers, but admit that they need them, and who do not treat them with the harsh uncaring attitudes that Housing and its like display.
Housing Dept, tell me, did you get your criteria for treating immigrant workers from the way the Romans treated their galley slaves, or were they too liberal for you?
Report abuse
The fact is, we need decent teachers. Guernsey cannot provide a sufficient number of teachers out of its local population – therefore it has to import teachers.
When teachers are excellent and inspired and devoted to their career, as I know Miss Kinley is because she has taught both of my children, the States of Guernsey should be pulling out all the stops to retain them.
What is the point in hounding excellent professionals off the island, only to then have to go to all the expense and upheaval of replacing them with yet more imported staff and going through the whole sorry cycle again and again, at tax payers’ expense?
We have already lost countless wonderful teachers (and nurses) because of the petty Housing policy, whereas licences are handed out to finance industry workers like sweets. I say ‘bl**dy well done’ to Miss Kinley and Peter Ferbrache for overturning the latest gross miscarriage of justice by the Housing Dept. Let’s hope this precedent opens the flood-gates for all decent and much-needed teachers (and nurses) to be allowed to stay and honour the island with the benefit of their skill and ability.
Report abuse
unwelcome
Fortunately for you they won’t; the UK Government is more civilised, caring and compassionate than your own Government.
If stealing tax payers money, and sending the country to war without good reason is what you call caring and compassionate then i`m confused.
Your so funny :)
Report abuse
Here’s an interesting scenario. My wife and I lived in ONE bungalow in Guernsey with 3 children and my Father-in-law. We migrated to Australia in 1970.Father-in-law has died but we still have 3 children 6 grandchildren and 2 great grandchildren
who collectively occupy 6 homes. Within 10 years 4 more homes will be required. We have produced so far, one nurse, one hospital theatre sister, one teacher, two engineers, one sales manager, one chef, one computer designer, one beautician.
If we had all stayed in Guernsey and adopted our chosen careers would Guernsey be better or worse off. It doesn’t fix your housing dilema but is food for thought.
Report abuse
I think Guernsey would have been better off as we would not have to have imported people to do these jobs and paid them a handsome golden handshake to stay for between 2-5 years before throwing them out of the island and doing it all over again!
That is where the money is wasted – recruitment fees and retention fees. The private sector may be able to afford it but the public sector certainly cannot…… now there are rumours of redundancies on the cards and outsourcing lots of jobs. In my view this never saves money in the long term although the creative accountants we have will make it sound good.
Take the costs of recruitment and retention and housing allowance etc out of the budget and a few million pounds a year would be saved! We can and should be ‘growing our own’ more: unfortunately a large number of senior managers are now non-local 15 year licence holders and they seem to bring over their friends and colleagues and ignore locals who apply for the jobs. Can i prove this – no i cannot, but i have heard enough stories to make me suspicious.
The other mad thing about our housing laws are that anyone can buy a property or properties but cannot live in them without a licence. Therefore they are rented out at inflated rents to people who cannot afford to buy.
Report abuse
Merlin says:
” unfortunately a large number of senior managers are now non-local 15 year licence holders and they seem to bring over their friends and colleagues and ignore locals who apply for the jobs. Can i prove this – no i cannot”
Exactly. You can’t prove it because it doesn’t happen. Human Resources departments within the States have a duty to ensure that recruitment and selection goes according to procedure and the law. The idea that some manager could bring in his mate through the back door without HR noticing or acting is laughable and scurrilous.
How about actually having some real evidence before slinging the mud around?
Every single non-local jobholder is there because no one local with the qualifications necessary applied for the job.
So if our schools are full of non-local teachers, that’s our fault for not training enough of our own teachers. And if the hospital is full of non-local doctors, nurses, and managers, exactly the same goes.
Report abuse
Expat in Australia – very interesting hypothesis and one which sums up the Island’s current dilemma nicely.
My thoughts as follows:
Sadly, not everyone turns out such talented and productive offspring, but nevertheless, had you remained resident in Guernsey your family would undoubtedly have been significant contributors to the community.
The dilemma we face is to try to balance the need for a growing and sustainable society against the very limited land resources available to us.
In your case you originally occupied one bungalow. Had you and your family remained resident on the Island – as you so succinctly put it – within two generations 10 more homes would be needed.
Say there were 500 new immigrants (for want of a better word) per year in that same position, that is five thousand homes required year on year. Add to that the fact that for each subsequent generation the rise in numbers would be exponential. Within a few generations the pressure to build on what limited space we have left in this Island would be overwhelming.
OK – I appreciate that I am generalising and that population dynamics are far more complex than this but the underlying principal is the same.
Our housing licence system is sometimes harsh and could doubtless be improved but the key issue here is not about how and where we get our teachers from, it is about protecting Guernsey from over development and overpopulation.
I return to my initial agrument – we live on a 25 square mile rock. Out roads are already overcrowded and our basic infrastructure is struggling to cope with the current population. None of us wants to see the Island disapper under concrete (more than it has already) – which it surely will do if we do not take difficult and sometimes unpopular decisions to limit numbers.
Report abuse
CD
I appreciate that Guernsey has limited space. Not so limited a space though as the Isles of Scilly. Scilly has five inhabited islands [St Marys is the largest at 3 miles by 1 mile]. The islands in total have an indigenous population of just 2000.
The Islands have not disappeared under concrete – very far from it. Much less so than Guernsey. They have no immigration policy. They do not force families to split up. They do not imprison people if they stay 91 days instead of 90 days.
Ask St Marys how they manage?
For the record St Marys also has a neat little sewage plant so no smell (anyone smell Vale and Rocquaine in May?] or health hazard; and they also have a rubbish incinerator. Before you ask, no, the Duchy of Cornwall did NOT pay for these; the islanders did.
Ask St Marys how they manage?
I feel Guernsey might learn much from Scilly.
Report abuse
Cobo Guernsey and Merlin
Whoever you are, you guys talk so much sense and if you were in charge of the Housing Department, instead of David Jones, Guernsey would have a jobs/housing/immigration policy of which it could be proud instead of the present inhuman feudal mess.
Report abuse
Unwelcome, 65,000 is quite a bit different to 2000 people.
If there were no rules on this island, then it would be flooded, as we have a good tax rate and a high quality amenities.
Report abuse
Unwelcome
First of all it would not matter who was in charge of Housing as it is the board as a whole who make the decisions on housing licences, the Minister only has one vote just like every one else. Secondly immigration into Guernsey is not housings job, our job is to enforce the Housing Control Law, we are only responsible for preserving as many local market homes for local families and those who are essential to the community. Lastly the Population working group is currently putting proposals together to present to the States a new law
And it will be the first time ever that the States has had a proper policy on population, that is of course if the States pass any new law. Guernsey is currently the most densely populated area in Western Europe and as more and more people are permitted to stay for what ever reason, that situation is only going to get significantly worse.
Report abuse
Dave Jones said:
“Guernsey is currently the most densely populated area in Western Europe and as more and more people are permitted to stay for what ever reason, that situation is only going to get significantly worse. ”
Surely as an ardent and unapologetic supporter of zero ten, population increase should be seen as a necessary positive step to ensure that economic growth targets are met and the burden of taxation on the public is kept to a minimum?
Economic growth predicates large scale house building, not something that can be achieved if sticking to ‘Guernsey aesthetics’.
Can you answer me how preserving Guernsey ‘uniqueness’ and trying to achieve 6% growth are mutually compatible?
Report abuse
Arnald
They have been shown to be compatible.
We have achieved a much higher economic growth rate than that over the last 30 years without a corresponding rise in population. In 1976 Guernsey’s population was 53,637. The islands income at that time was 12 million. Last year it was close to 320 million. By 2001 this figure had risen to 59,807 – i.e. population growth of only 6,170 over a 25-year period. During the same period, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita grew from £10,036 to £23,655. The overall trend throughout the 1970s, 80s and 90s was for continued growth in real terms, although this has not continued in recent years because of a number of factors affecting world markets, including the events of 9/11 and the more recent economic meltdown. It is however evident that for a sustained period spanning 3 decades much economic growth was achieved without a correspondingly large increase in the resident population.
It is impossible to consider the prospect of growth in the economy without looking closely at the finance sector, which is the biggest driver of economic growth.
During the period 1994-2003 the number of employees in the finance sector grew by 43%, peaking at 7,413, which represents 22% of the employed workforce. Those employees generate an estimated 36% of Guernsey’s GDP; contribute 34% of total personal tax paid; and have a per capita productivity of £66,000, which is higher than any other employment sector.
Report abuse
Dave Jones
As someone who purports to be on the locals’ side, how do you justify the economic fact that poor people will have to be replaced by rich people in order for your fantasy to work?
When all locals are necessarily employed in finance will we have to rely on imported, unregulated labour to keep the essentials ticking over like they do in the US?
Zero ten was built on growth, unless you see a major financial instrument on the horizon that will corner the market and rapidly absorb global new business, the only other way to ensure that growth is by expanding current business. More Admiral Parks, more roads, more houses, more UK shops, more outside interference and so less freedom to enjoy all those things you love about this place.
And where are all these new rich folk going to shop? After jewellery and pasties, the High Street will bore them, yet you are against a new Bridge development because of its “identikit” nature?
It’s just not joined up.
Meanwhile it is the poor that will be paying for this until a miracle happens.
Report abuse
Sorry Arnold I am not sure what fantasy you are on about, I have shown with my last post that Zero 10 was based on growth but that was to sustain the level growth we have had for the last 20 odd years, also there 8,000 people who work in the finance and related sectors 7,500 of them are local people or locally qualified residents, the point I was trying to make is that economic growth does not automatically mean a corresponding growth in population. As for expanding businesses there are many of the finance houses who do significantly more business with less staff than they once had, mainly due to computer software and other efficiencies. So business growth does not always mean more staff or bigger buildings
Report abuse
Arnald
No – its not replacing the poor with the rich. Its giving average islanders a much higher average income than those with comparable educational qualifications would get elsewhere. I find it rather hard to question why anyone would criticise that outcome.
Interesting that you state that the US is dependent on immigrant labour to keep the essentials ticking over. I suggest that you look a bit closer to home. The UK infrastructure could not cope without the huge levels of immigration of the past 3 decades. Have you been to Paris or Brussels or Amsterdam or Frankfurt recently ? The same there.
Any successful economy is going to have to import labour from elsewhere to keep the essential services ticking over. Why do you think immigrants are attracted here ? Because they can earn good money in good conditions (admittedly not always in good conditions), relative to where they come from. Yes, it means that house prices are high (demand to live on a small island far exceeds to supply of land, and average earnings are high enough to support those prices).
The only thing missing is more governmwent support for those genuine low-earners who are getting left behind. But doesn’t that problem exist everywhere ? And are they not much better off than their counterparts elsewhere ? Its a fact that we don’t do enough for the poor, but I don’t notice too many homeless on the streets and I don’t see any genuine poverty of the type that I see in many other places.
Report abuse
David
What is your definition of a successful economy? More people wanting social housing? Pensioners worrying about their future? Sewage on the beaches?
Report abuse
Arnald
Our economy and resulting standard of living can certainly be described as more successful than unsuccessful. No – its not perfect, no society ever will be because there will always be “have-nots” relative to the “haves”, but in relative terms Guernsey’s economy is very successful.
How many homeless do we have sleeping on the streets ? How many people who need social housing are truly living on the breadline or is it that they simply haven’t got the equity required for a mortgage ? Are they unrealistically expecting to buy rather than rent property (in mainland Europe a far greater proportion of people rent rather than buy but we seem to think that everyone should always be able to buy – why is that ?). Are you trying to tell me that pensioners the world over aren’t worried about their futures ? Are our pensioners worse off or better off than elsewhere ? And did I not read in the national press at the weekend all about sewage on the UK’s beaches ? Hardly a problem unique to Guernsey although personally I think we should be treating as a greater priority than seems to be the case.
So which country/jurisdictions do you think we should try to emulate as a “successful economy” ? Which ones are better than ours ? I’m intrigued because I’m really struggling to think of any.
Report abuse
David
People who need social housing cannot afford to rent privately. Is this an indication of your divorce from reality?
Report abuse
Arnald
There is a big difference between social (States) housing and social community schemes designed to assist people to own their house.
I know many people who don’t have £50,000 of equity available to enable them to buy a £300,000 house with a £250,000 mortgage (based on 80% mortgages now on offer, rather than the 95% mortgages of recent years), but who can find £1,500-plus a month in rent. Indeed, they could afford to service a mortgage of £250,000 if only they could find the £50,000 equity required. The problem is that they can’t save and pay rent, and if they do save for a couple of years then house prices will have risen faster than their savings, so they can never get there without shared-equity type deals, or without help from their parents.
Just because somebody can’t afford to buy a house does not mean that they are living in poverty if they can still afford to pay £1,500 per month in rent and have discretionary spending money available to go out at weekends, go on holiday etc., which certainly seems to be the case more often than not for the majority. We have taken it for granted as the norm that everyone will own their own house in Guernsey but our owner-occupier statistics are extremely high compared with the rest of Europe.
Yes – there are very low earners who cannot afford to rent privately and who need subsidised income-related States housing. There are also some living in States housing who choose to carry on doing so and living their current lifestyles rather than paying more rent in the private sector and having to make other sacrifices. We all know of examples of States House tenants who seem to live a pretty good life while others have mortgaged themselves up to the eyeballs to buy their own place and haven’t been able to afford a holiday for many years. For some its a choice they have made, and I accept that for others they have no choice at all and more should be done for them, but how many are truly living on the breadline and would they be any better off anywhere else except in a welfare state ?
Report abuse
Many people would consider taking home £1500 monthly as a good wage. You’ve proved my argument.
This is where Housing has failed the most. The ideology behind housing bubbles is defunct and predatory. Your posts are offensive to those that earn an average wage, honest people that want to get on, but are screwed by the distortions in the market place.
The rest you consign to the bin because ‘other countries are worse’. Your lip service to ‘more should be done’ is hollow, as if anything was done you’d be calling the state socialist and leaving, just as you have threatened before.
Wealth does not bring loyalty. What Guernsey needs is loyalty.
Sorry David, I thought you were more intelligent than that.
Report abuse
Arnald
I suggest you re-read my second and fourth paragraphs again. if you ask nicely I will try to use shorter words of less syllables as you don’t seem capable of reading what I’ve stated.
Many individuals may well deem £1,500 a month take-home pay (before rent or mortgage) to be way above average. But couples ? I think not. Are you seriously suggesting that every single person should be able to afford to buy their own house without a partner ? Since when has that been the norm ? I’m in my 40s and believe me it was very rare when I was in my early 20s for any single person to have bought their own house and serviced a mortgage on their own. And that’s before Guernsey house prices soared !
It seems that the glare from your apparently superior intelligence is blinding you to the facts of what surrounds you.
Report abuse
“How many homeless do we have sleeping on the streets ?” – You’re right, we don’t have that many sleeping on the streets however ask the Action for Children charity about the number of young people “sofa-surfing” and you’ll realise that homelessness (especially among the young) is a real issue on Guernsey and a bigger one than most people think – it’s just more hidden than in UK towns and cities. The very fact that we need a charity like Action for Children over here shows there is an issue.
Report abuse
I am pleased to see Dave Jones enter the debate here. I miss his entertaining and blustering posts on the now-defunct “Why Guernsey?” website.
Well Dave, you have said here: “Immigration into Guernsey is not housings job, our job is to enforce the Housing Control Law, we are only responsible for preserving as many local market homes for local families and those who are essential to the community.”
Quite right too – please keep out of the immigration issue. But it must also be obvious that it is not the job of the Housing Department to control the population levels in Guernsey either – note “Housing Control Law” NOT “Population Control Law”.
It is only some very twisted States policy thinking that suggested that the population can controlled by housing licences – it is simply a barmy proposition, because as we know most licences just rotate – kick one out, another one comes in. No net change in the population there at all – and I know that you know very well that the States statistics in recent years prove that the population level actually fluctuates far more through factors other than can be controlled by housing licences, where the number are almost immaterial to the overall population level.
For example, Sustainable Guernsey 2007 says that there were only 1,341 essential employment licences active in 2006, against a total population of circa 66,000, but apparently as many as 6,902 people immigrated into Guernsey in 2001, and 6,255 left the island.
More to the point, how can the Housing Department actually ‘preserve local homes’ for local people? As far as I am aware, the Housing Dept can deny a housing licence, but cannot compulsory purchase the property to make it available to local families. So the Housing Dept cannot say it controls the housing stock – and if it did, why are there are still so many derelict and empty houses around the island, adn so many for sale in all the estate agents, if we are to believe there really is a housing shortage?
No – the issue is not a shortage in the stock of houses, or the migrant population level in itself (the States census tell us that net migration has been only 13 in 1991-2001), but the high house prices that make them unaffordable for many, and that is created, in part, by the false market in houses created by the housing licence system.
My point is that you really should stop blindly defending the very obsolete Housing Control Law, and join us in the 21st century where we believe that a bit of intelligent but joined up thinking could find us a real lasting solution to the population issue, without having to rely on bullying people out of their homes and off the island, to simply find that they are immediately replaced by another licence holder (which is frequently at the Guernsey taxpayers expense for nurses and teachers etc).
Report abuse
This is turning into the Arnald & David show
Why don’t you two agree to meet over a cup of coffee one Sunday morning and have your heated debate offline
Report abuse
Not Dave Jones
I don’t think you are totally correct. The high house prices are not caused by the housing licence system. Without housing licence controls in place it would be a free-for-all and house prices would rise even more due to increased demand from non-residents to live here.
Several factors influence house prices. The main one is supply and demand. We live on a 21 square mile island which isn’t getting any bigger. Demand exceeds supply, and so prices are high and remain high. The second factor is affordablity. Average earnings and the availability of mortgage finance means that for the past 20 years too much money has been chasing too few properties. This drives prices up and keeps them high. The third factor is location. Property prices are high in the UK when the property is in close proximity to a bouyant job market. Guernsey employment opportunities have been very strong for the past couple of decades, indeed excessively strong in relative terms (full employment). Few people are leaving Guernsey through lack of job opportunities, unlike some very pleasant rural areas of the UK which are idyllic but where no work is available.
High house prices are a direct result of a successful micro-economy. Its one of the few negative consequences of being successful, although of course less of a negative for those who are on the housing ladder.
Ultimately one of the most relevant factors to consider is the affordability ratio of average house prices to average earnings. When those figures were last made available I recall that the ratio had not changed too much in the past 10 to 15 years from somewhere around the 10-12 times range. I would suggest that if average house prices were soaring relative to average earnings then the problem would be a far greater one than it appears to be today. It would seem that the substantial number of new flats built in the past 5 or 6 years has largely addressed what was a serious housing stock shortfall for first time buyers 10 years ago.
Report abuse
One of the problems with the property speculation boom encouraged by these zealots of imposing markets on everyday needs is that houses must be sold at vast profit otherwise initial investments are not worth the risk. This invariably includes wanton upgrading. First time buyer flats and houses are gobbled up and improved so that are only attractive to a certain type of buyer, ie one with rich parents.
With an absence of inheritance tax, property ownership will concentrate ever further, disabling any upward mobility for the younger generations. those in social housing now will have NO CHANCE of ever competing on a level playing field, they will have nothing to bequeath their offspring and so cycles of unattainable aspiration, with the subsequent resentments and disenfranchisement, are inevitable.
The view that unsustainable house prices should be accepted as a by-product of success is ludicrous. Basic human rights should never be so stressfully attained in a rich jurisdiction. It is an abject failing of the States of Guernsey to let this continue.
Land and Inheritance taxes should be keenly looked at.
Report abuse
Why is home ownership considered a Basic Human right? Surely having a roof over your head, rented, borrowed or subsidised is a basic human right but ownership is a modern concept that isn’t shared across huge swathes of the USA and Europe. Affordability isn’t a unique problem for Guernsey and the expectation for every spotty kid to leave school and buy their first home on a ludicrous mortgage, is hopefully a thing of the past. Look around at the so called “home owners”…most won’t even “own” a 10th of their home and will probably be paying interest and mortgage payments up to retirement. The fact is that home ownership was never a reality for those on low income, it was just high debt, disguised as a good idea.
Report abuse
Carts
You are absolutely spot-on. There are many islanders who can afford to pay significant rental levels on nice houses but who don’t have enough equity to buy. How much of a problem is that in reality ?
Maybe we need even more rental properties over here. We’ve seen a lot more flats built in recent years to address the shortage of supply but maybe we need even more going forward.
Report abuse
Yes, I didn’t mean to make it sound like house ownership was a right. The point I wanted to make was that the gap between nothing and private rent is too large for social housing to fill. The result is the slightly bizarre situation David has described where there is slightly incongruous evidence of material wealth where maybe you would expect none (although a couple of decades of cheap, irresponsible credit is more likely the main reason).
I also agree that the false dream peddling of aspirational home ownership is unrealistic. Unfortunately, Guernsey prides itself on ownership and considers it a ‘made-it’ must. This is the stress I was talking about, the nagging coercion of the ‘ladder’.
I agree with David that more only-for-rental properties should be built, but I believe they should be state owned, or more realistically, not-for-profit HA owned, so income can be directly reinvested into maintenance, and there should be enough to force the private rental market down and ultimately relieve the pressure on first time buyers, stretching the ‘rungs’ to more appropriate levels.
It also removes ruthless profiteering.
People need security in order to realise maximum potential in their productive lives. By interfering in the housing market by creating a cheaper supply for letting, a significant burden can be removed and the extra effort can be used to spend and save in the local economy. Ownership can then be something that can be more easily planned for, ensuring that more prudent decisions to enter into debt are made.
The private sector cannot fulfill this role, the market will always favour those with the greatest means and so eventually discriminate against those who cannot, reinforcing the perceptions of ‘the poor’ and perpetuating deep rooted resentment all round.
The subsidised Social Housing should really be a safety net rather than a significant section. To return it to that original intention will require some bold policies, not a laissez faire attitude for protecting the private landlord.
Isn’t that what Housing ought to be doing? Rather than worrying about the “who”, shouldn’t it be more “how”?
Report abuse
Excellently put Carts…
David – I wrote a few weeks back sharing a similar concern that too many properties were being developed into high-cost rental apartments / flats causing a shortfall in the low income rental market.
The urgent need is to provide suitable rental accomodation for low-income tenants, in particular (but not exclusively) those in the 18-30 age bracket.
Report abuse