The politician behind the States Assembly’s controversial move to postpone a vote on the core of sweeping reforms to the island’s rental tenancy legislation has argued that referring the matter to scrutiny is “not kicking it down the road” and will allow Members to consider “the whole package”.
Deputy Inna Gardiner, who is President of the Scrutiny Liaison Committee, also contended that Housing Minister Sam Mézec’s proposed changes to the island’s legal framework for residential tenancies would have been subject to further scrutiny and debate even if the principles of the reforms had been approved last week.
She made the comments after her successful proposition to refer the matter back to Scrutiny for review – until the next States sitting in September – was branded “a deliberate act of sabotage” by Deputy Mézec .
Speaking to Express, Deputy Gardiner pointed out that the Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel – which had been reviewing the proposed changes – had already announced its intention to call in the proposed legislation.
This was made clear during the debate by the Panel’s chair, Deputy Hilary Jeune, who said it needed “to be able to refine our amendments [and] to bring our report and our adviser’s report to the Assembly”.
“Not kicking it down the road”
Deputy Gardiner noted that, even if Members had agreed on the principles of the reforms, further debate and approval of the details would still have been required later this year before any new legislation could be implemented.
She explained that if the vote had gone ahead, and the principles rejected, then the opportunity for complete consideration of feedback from islanders and organisations through Scrutiny’s currently unfinished work could have been “missed”.
Deputy Gardiner added that, while she was in favour of updating the law, there needed to be “a full debate”.
“It’s not delayed,” she continued. “Scrutiny made it completely clear that it would be called in.
“I believe that Members need to make an evidence-based decision and Scrutiny are there to present the evidence based on public engagement.”
“Let’s consider the whole package,” she added, arguing that last week’s decision was “not kicking it down the road”.