I made the following speech in the States supporting the birthright aspects in the Population Management Law.
I have to say I have felt very uncomfortable about some of the comments made so far in this debate. Saying that people should hold their heads in shame is really unnecessary and quite frankly adds nothing especially as both sides of the debate are saying it.
Speaking as a blow-in, I have to say I have never had any issue over the need for my children to reside here for several years before they became ‘local’ in inverted commas. I’ve always thought it odd that those with the strongest family lineage did not have such an automatic right, although not particularly vexed by it.
I do find it interesting that Deputy Roffey says that this aspect of the law is discriminatory. Deputy Ferbrache has just spoken at length about it. We understand that it is human rights compliant, whether definitively or not, and I would challenge Deputy Ferbrache to say whether anything is definitive but a matter of opinion, But really the whole Law can be described as discriminatory if you think about it. You can stay after 8 years but not 5, you have different rights if you live in local market rather than open market, you have special rights if you have been in the armed forces. And before anyone says that is a reason not to bring it in, the same can be said for the current system, albeit in different ways, such as who can live where based on TRP.
This amendment does not set out a so-called equitable alternative. One that would treat all children the same which the proposer and seconder want. Of course that means automatic birthright for all or the same qualifying period. The former is fine if you don’t care about population management. And, as the person who is proposing the amendment is the same person who introduced a population cap it’s no surprise Deputy Roffey isn’t proposing that. The only realistic alternative is clearly that those who have birthright under the new law would, like now have to live here for a specific period of time before becoming local themselves, basically what was proposed in the original policy letter. That could be 5 years, 8 or more. But, I think so what? I am not bothered by the fact there are going to be people with an automatic birthright. Deputy Ferbrache has demonstrated unwittingly, how few people are likely to covered by this aspect of it anyway.
I am happy with what we have ended up with. It came out of considerable debate which drowned out all the other concerns at the time and which, possibly as a consequence, are now rising to the surface. Deputy Fallaize spoke at length about why he finds this aspect of the law unacceptable, that’s fine, but we have already dealt with it through the previous amendment. We do not need this one and I see no reason to support it.