By John Henwood
Twelve years ago, the States appointed an Electoral Commission under the chairmanship of Sir Philip Bailhache. It was mandated to report on the number and class of States Members, their term of office and on electoral constituencies. In 2012, it came up with its recommendations, which were to be put to a referendum. We were given three options which mixed and matched the commission’s conclusions. Jonathan Renouf was a member of the commission and had the courage and conviction to disagree with his five colleagues and to speak out on what he saw as a misguided conclusion. Ultimately, the referendum chose one of the options, but the States declined to implement it. In my view they were right to do so, but that’s all water under the bridge. Later, when Dr Renouf was a candidate for Deputy, I would have voted for him, had he stood in my constituency.
From that time to this I have regarded Deputy Jonathan Renouf as a thoroughly decent individual and one of solid convictions and strong principles. That does not mean I always agree with him, nor that he is always right. His desire to protect trees is shared by many, but his original proposal for achieving the objective was seriously misguided, its provisions excessive. We had a friendly exchange at the time when I offered the view that his plan, even though not promulgated, had already invoked the law of unintended consequences.
He has been busier than some of his ministerial colleagues, developing policies that he honestly believes will benefit the Island. At present he is working toward proposals to introduce a licensing requirement for all rental properties. He has described his plan as light touch and, at first sight, its provisions, due to be debated by the States this week, do not seem unreasonable. Landlords will be required to seek a licence for all rental accommodation at a cost of £30 per year. Simple enough, but the proposition (P40/2023 if you are sufficiently motivated to read it) gives wide powers to the minister regarding licence applications. This looks too open-ended and the States should be allowed to consider the proposition after the publication of the precise form of the licence application. While one might have confidence in Deputy Renouf to use his powers judiciously, the flexibility in the law may be interpreted differently by his successors. Also, while the report accompanying the proposition has a lengthy assessment of its effects on children’s rights, it has no economic impact assessment and that is an important omission.
However, that is not the only concern. This is a good example of our government’s apparent inability to operate in a joined-up way. There is a residential tenancy law already on the statute book which, some say, is fit for purpose if only it was administered and enforced properly. Be that as it may, a public consultation on possible reform to the law has recently closed and we can expect the Housing Minister to bring proposals for change in the near future. It’s also likely that landlords will be required to apply for energy performance certificates. So, more red tape is on the way. Surely it is not unreasonable to expect the government to coordinate efforts affecting the same issue? Sadly, the silos in which departments do their own thing are still intact and we will continue to have piecemeal regulation until they are broken down.
It would be a victory for common sense if the States told Deputies Renouf and David Warr, the Housing Minister, to get together and bring a single set of proposals to the Assembly in due course. Failure to do so is likely once again to invoke the law of unintended consequences, the biggest and most worrying of which is a significant reduction in rental property stock which in turn will lead to further rent inflation.
By all means, let us deal with the bad landlords, it’s important to do so, but not at the expense of causing the good to get out of the rental business. By the way, before there are mutterings of ‘vested interest’, I have no income from rental property.
The Chief Minister is titular head of the States Employment Board, but board meetings are invariably chaired by her Assistant Chief Minister, Constable Andy Jehan. One is entitled to assume members of the SEB are up to speed on all significant matters on the employment of public servants, so it is surprising that Constable Jehan was not aware of so-called retention payments to some employees. This is apparently because they fall outside normal pay scales. If the SEB does not know how much we are paying those we employ who does?
We would not know about this were it not for a freedom of information question, part of the answer to which was that payments occur ‘where market pressures would otherwise prevent the government from being able to recruit or retain staff in sufficient numbers at the salary for jobs of that grade’. In other words, it is a back-door way of paying staff more than the agreed rate for the job. It is not just the government that has a recruitment and retention issue, it’s a major factor in the private sector, but the difference here is that the government uses our money to solve the problem.
It seems the arrangement is widespread with staff in at least five departments getting a financial top-up of up to around five thousand pounds a month. Government does not know how much the average monthly or annual payments amount to. This is all very worrying. Any payment made to staff without the authority of the employer, the SEB, is open to abuse, so we should be told why the SEB did not know about it.
The claim that this government is open and accountable looks increasingly like a bad joke.
