I made this speech in the States on an amendment I seconded to provide more support for seasonal workers.
There’s been a lot of noise around the introduction of this law reaching a crescendo in the last few weeks. All of a sudden people have come out of the woodwork saying it will be an absolute disaster and the end of life as we know it. Calls have been made to delay it as a result. However, I do not want to see the Law delayed as in many ways it will be an improvement on what we have now and I will speak about that in main debate.
I do not have sympathy for some who have been arguing for delay and who have been taking advantage of the system for many years.
However, the one area where there have been concerns, voiced consistently to me I have to say, is around the treatment of seasonal workers. Whilst not the headline issue at the time, back when the policy letter was first put to the States I was contacted about this by various business people for whom the proposals would have created problems. This led me to place an amendment to enable the seasonal element to continue. Before that, it would not have been possible to have anyone work 9 months on 3 months off. All well and good, but it didn’t deal with those who have come to Guernsey for many years and in some cases this is 15 even 20 years. The current law means that these people will effectively no longer be able to return to Guernsey on the same basis in the future. There’s been a lot of talk about discrimination the last couple of days, but this is about fairness.
It is not fair that people who have working 9 months on and 3 months off for many years are no longer able to do so. Hence the amendment being placed today.
I thank Deputy Yerby for taking this on after I expressed my concerns to her. I have to say, when we first discussed this we thought it would be a simple amendment but, as with much that is to do with this area, it was more complicated than we had first thought and it has been a collaborative effort getting this resolved with the Committee for Home Affairs, officer responsible for the Population Management Law, HM Procureur and Controller.
Now, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. And here we have an amendment almost identical to that being out forward by Deputy Yerby and myself. I really welcome it as it has really added to the debate.
The 60 months was an attempt to bring some consistency with the rights of those impacted elsewhere in the law and nothing more really. Deputy Dorey talks about transition being on a case by case basis, but we are saying that for those who have been here for many years, should not have to go through the process of applying for a Discretionary Permit. We think that is wrong. I am tempted by Deputy Ferbrache’s amendment, as Deputy Lowe said, that’s where Deputy Yerby and I started and we were persuaded by the arguments made by, in particular the officer responsible for actually running the new regime.
Really, all this boils down to is, unless you are Deputy Dorey, whether people are bothered by the inconsistency or not. Does it really matter? I am not sure it does. What I am sure of is that the law as it stands is unfair and can’t go unamended and happy if people vote for one or other of these 2 amendments.