Questions were raised over who is entitled to see the States’ legal advice as deputies passed a law updating how properties can be added to the Open Market housing register.
29 deputies voted for the law change this week, confirming the introduction of stricter criteria and a large hike in fees for listing a home on the Open Market. Just four opposed the move.
Much of the debate centered on whether plans to return outstanding applications were unlawful with Deputy Steve Williams, President of Housing who brought the reforms to the States, acknowledging there had been “some confusion over what has happened and when”.
He rejected claims that the legislation was unlawful, saying the scrutiny of local law officers and legal advisers in the Ministry of Justice was enough to ensure it met the European Convention on Human Rights.
The main bone of contention was raised by Deputy Rob Curgenven who claimed that the States could be retrospectively removing the rights of outstanding applicants, some 24 people, by not considering their applications.
The States stopped considering applications in 2023 while it drew up a new policy to inscribe houses on the Open Market register, and added disclaimers to forms putting applicants on notice that it would not determine any until an updated law was in force.
“Some would have decided to wait until the new policy was agreed,” Deputy Williams said, noting that the new system would give everyone an “equal chance to apply” under the fresh eligibility criteria which will see all outstanding applications returned along with any fees paid.
This was backed up by HM Procureur – the States’ Attorney General – who assured deputies that the law is human rights complaint and followed “the proper scrutiny process”.
“Where the government has expressed an intention, debated a policy and passed legislation and government is content that the legislation is proportionate, achieves a proper aim, that is perfectly proper. That is what governments are entitled to do,” she said.
Other deputies also raised concerns with the changes, but accepted they were lawful.
Deputy John Gollop noted the decision to stop considering applications “put a limbo on a statutory process for 18 months” and suggested “if a process is there it should be honoured”.
Deputy Haley Camp argued the changes were unreasonable and said it raised “more questions than answers”.
She also reminded deputies that there is “no obligation” to accept legal advice without scrutiny.
Meanwhile, Deputy Lindsay de Sausmarez, who was central to drawing up the Open Market reforms while President of Environment & Infrastructure, defended the principle of legal privilege and said confidentiality could be compromised if advice is shared widely.
Deputy Willaims said the new Open Market laws would support the supply of local market properties which would go some way to alleviate the housing crisis and provide “stability” for the Open Market.
“We have a way to stimulate private sector housing development at no cost to the tax payer,” he said.
Listing on the Open Market would be permitted in some exceptional cases such as historic or derelict buildings which Deputy Williams said would benefit from investment following the increase in value to a property an inscription can bring.
The Assembly rejected an amendment from Deputies Andy Sloan and Camp that was intended to make downsizing within the Open Market easier for residents.
But it was widely criticised, with the Housing Committee saying improvements could be made within the existing legislation.
A big issue was that the amendment could’ve allowed for people to switch their inscription to another property without owning it.
This led to concerns over what would happen if the property sale fell through and the residency rights of people if they lost their Open Market status.
Only eight deputies voted in favour of the amendment, with 23 opposing it.