|
| | |
Group: Administrators
Last Login: 15 September 2008
Posts: 81, Visits: 309 |
| Been much discussion about Housing Licences and businesses requirements for thes along with Chambers' support. So we need Housing Licences - fine. Would 'work permits' not be better? HLs appear dangerous or for employer and government. Government loses most of its appeals, we employ people and they leave in a couple of years and go elsewhere under their generic housing licence. Any views? Do we just want people here and don't care about the controls? Lots of anecdotal evidence to support the intro of work permits over HLs
Regards Administration Teamwww.guernseychamber.com |
| |
| | |
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 05 August 2008
Posts: 33, Visits: 39 |
| | I like work permits because it commits the staff member to the company. Housing licences appear, in the main, an invitation to walk in off the back of the employer and move around an awful lot. But that assessment probabbly applies to the SMEs rather than the bigger organisations. |
| |
| | |
Group: Administrators
Last Login: 24 September 2008
Posts: 127, Visits: 118 |
| | If you take my industry where a number of establishments have open market staff accomodation, the a work permit would work:- Issue a work permit to a person based on the fact that they would be working at a certain establishment with accomodation included. If they left then they have no work permit and therefore no home so they leave. No need to offer a housing licence so they would not be able to live in a local market property which would keep them free for locals. You could issue on a 2 year rolling basis for example. |
| |
| | |
Group: Administrators
Last Login: 03 September 2008
Posts: 19, Visits: 131 |
| Can anyone explain how the following example works please:
Employee A comes to work in Guernsey on a 5 yr licence with Firm X. After a couple of years Employee A decides to move to Firm Y for the remainder of the licence, and I assume takes the licence as Firm Y did not have one beforehand. Meanwhile, Firm X searches for a replacement outside the island and brings in a new recruit Employee B under a new 5 yr licence. So now there seems to be 2 licences where there used to be just one. Firm Y has in effect gained a licence, but Firm X has managed to replace theirs.
Where do the licences come from? Is there a pile of unused licences which can be resurrected when a new one is applied for? Is there a quota for, say, law firms, restaurants and other specific industries?
Garrick Jones
E. A. Carey (Europe) Ltd
www.eacarey.co.uk |
| |
| | |
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 11 January 2008
Posts: 17, Visits: 31 |
| Garrick
Our Housing Licences are dependent on employment by us as a bus driver and state so on the Right to Work document. A new application has to be made to Housing if a driver is looking to move to another employer.
If we are looking to bring a driver over for three years, the paperwork is updated annually (i.e. the licence issued is for 12 months only ... but another two further licences would be issued). This system allows Housing to have tight control on who is where.
We have found Housing Control very approachable in answering queries on specific issues - so you could give them a call.
Or bring it up at the Housing Control Seminar on 7 November 2007 at the Duke of Richmond !
Hannah |
| |
| | |
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 28 April 2008
Posts: 3, Visits: 9 |
| I hope this helps
Employee A is effectively the holder of a licence granted to Firm X because the Housing Department has accepted that the job which A does at X is essential. The licence cannot be taken to Firm Y. If Y wishes to employ A it needs to make its own case that the job he would do for it would also be essential. That will be for the Department also to decide.
Firm X would need to convince the Housing Department that it still needs to bring in someone from outside because it was unable to recruit a local person.
Therefore, there will only be two licence holders if both firms have managed to convince this Department that each has a job which is essential to the community and there is no one suitable to undertake the job without a licence.
There is not a pool of licences waiting to be taken up. The Department does not use quotas either per industry or per employer. Each application is considered on its individual merits in light of the information provided.
Dave Jones
|
| |
| | |
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 28 April 2008
Posts: 3, Visits: 9 |
| Neil & Chris
The following lays out the pro's and cons of a work permit system I hope it helps clarify the issues raised frequently by those who are interested.
This report considers whether the introduction of Work Permits would replace the housing licence system set up under the Housing Control Law, and whether it would make the Housing Control Law redundant.
For this to be a complete and authoritative answer, it would be necessary to know what form Work Permits would take and what they would be intended to achieve. Ideally previous policy letters and debates on this matter since the mid 1980’s would also have been researched and referred to, bearing in mind in particular that the policy letter of the Population and Migration Committee / Advisory and Finance Committee had suggested that Work Permits would be in addition to the Housing Control Law, rather than a replacement for it.
However, in the absence of detailed information, certain assumptions have been made.
It appears that the possible introduction of Work Permits has one principal aim, which is to have a reliable means of dealing with persons who already have criminal records and also non-locals who are convicted of crimes while in Guernsey.
(Currently the Housing Control Law allows the Authority to take account of criminal convictions when considering applications for employment related licences only).
There have also been suggestions that Work Permits might be a stronger method of population control, but it is unclear how Work Permits could be more effective than Housing Licences. It is assumed that Work Permit legislation would apply to a wider range of people than currently need housing licences but it is unclear which categories of people would be controlled by Work Permits who are not currently controlled by the Housing Control Law.
The following assumptions have been made:
1.Work Permits will be required by persons who do not hold residential qualifications, before they can take up employment in the Island.
2.Persons currently resident in the Island and lawfully entitled to work would be exempt – i.e. work permit legislation would not be retrospective.
3.Persons coming to the Island who do not intend to work would not require a Work Permit. (This could include non-working open market residents and spouses / partners of lawful residents);
4.A Work Permit could be refused if the person had a serious criminal record;
5.A Work Permit could be revoked if the person had a conviction recorded after the issue of the permit;
6.The Work Permit would specify the post of employment and the employer for whom the person was authorised to work;
7.A new Work permit would be required for any change of employment;
8.Persons who would not require housing licences could be required to hold a Work Permit. For example, open market residents; spouses and children of lawful residents; occupants of Part B premises working in hotels.
9.One to one licence holders could require work permits.
10.Persons currently holding employment related licences would require a Work Permit;
11.Compassionate licence holders could require Work Permits.
12.Qualified Residents would not be required to hold a Work Permit.
Note – the above are purely assumptions of what might be required and are not firm proposals or recommendations.
It is unlikely that all of the above could come to fruition. For example it would be very difficult to introduce legislation which provided that a person whose connections with the Island were strong enough to justify a housing licence on compassionate grounds could be refused the right to work. However, if it was not a requirement that Work Permits be held by additional categories of persons, it is difficult to see what is achieved by introducing them, as they could then achieve nothing more than housing licences already do.
It may be that a Work Permit is simply a device to enable the checking of more criminal records.
In that situation the Work Permit has a status similar to a Police Clearance Certificate.
Based on the above assumptions would the Work Permit obviate the need for a housing licence?
The simple answer must be “No”.
Even before possible additional categories who might need Work Permits are taken into account, when short term licence applications are included, the number of employment-related licence applications approaches 3,000 per annum.
If a work permit completely replaces the housing licence then 3,000 persons per annum would have freedom in the housing market to occupy any dwelling they choose, even though under the housing licence system 90% of them would be restricted to lodging accommodation.
The potential pressure on the housing market could be huge
If more control over the occupation of local market housing was to be retained, the only alternative would be for the Work Permit also to specify where the holder can live and in what circumstances – but such a document would then be the same as a housing licence, and would have to be issued under legislation akin to the Housing Control Law.
This is not the case because without some form of control similar to the current Housing Control Law anyone who qualified for a work permit would have free access to the whole housing market and anyone who did not need to work could occupy any dwelling in the Island, whereas at present such a person would be restricted to the Open Market.
The introduction of Work Permits would actually be another level of bureaucracy, although if the issuing authority were to take on the task of deciding essentiality as well as looking at convictions, then the Authority’s task would be reduced to ascertaining the properties that the holders of Work Permits could occupy.
It seems unlikely that the introduction of work permits would achieve any more in terms of the control of the growth in population than can be achieved through the Housing Control Law.
If the current Law and the Authority’s policies are not effective, there are changes that could be made.
Again, the following are not recommendations but are examples of where the Law or policies could be changed, if it was felt necessary to apply controls more stringently.
·The exemptions for Part B properties could be amended so that staff occupying would need licences – thus the short term limitations could be applied;
·The exemptions for States owned property could be removed;
·The Authority could limit all licences to no more than five years, regardless of the consequences for employers, services and the economy.
However, it is probably fair to say that it would be unlikely that the issue of Work Permits would have been raised if the Authority were not recommending the removal of the criminal convictions provisions from the Law.
Although there was a concern earlier this year about people working here without Right to Work documents, it is difficult to see how Work Permits would solve that problem when those individuals allegedly did not register with GSSA or Income Tax either.
A relatively simple alternative to Work Permits (which has been looked at previously but which was not pursued) is to modify the Right to Work Law.
If criminal convictions are the real concern, then the Law could be modified so that some documents would only become valid Right to Work documents if they were endorsed by, say, the Chief Officer of Police, indicating that the holder did not have a criminal record which was sufficiently serious to justify withholding the Right to Work.
Ideally it would be the subject of new legislation, which showed that its aim was to assist with the preservation of Law and Order. Such decisions would be appealable and answerable by Home Affairs Committee so that the Housing Authority was no longer required to justify the decision on housing grounds.
However, it is debatable whether this would be significantly more effective than the present provisions and could lead to further confusion.
However, not all documents could be the subject of such endorsements.
Status Declarations – Ii is difficult to see how the States could justify a Law which prevented a person who is a qualified resident from having the right to work.
There are several types of declaration of lawful residence. Some could be made restricted others could not.
1.Occupants of Part A –It would only prevent them from working, and could not require them to leave their home;
2.Occupants of Part B – Owners (same as Part A);
3.Occupants of Part B – Managers and Family –Refusal of Right to Work would deny them the right to occupy;
4.Occupants of Part B – Staff – Same as Managers.
5.Owner of Part D - Would only deny the right to work not the right to occupy.
6.Spouse /Family Member of Qualified Resident – It is difficult to see how such a person could be denied the right to work and under the Human Right for respect for family life there is no way that they can be denied the right to occupy.
7.Spouse / Family Member of Licence holder –Such a person could be denied the right to work but again under human rights could not be denied the right to occupy.
8.Occupier of States Owned dwelling – Can be denied the right to work and as in most cases the occupation of a States owned dwelling is as a result of States employment the rejection would probably deny the right to occupy. [Note – non-local persons in States houses will most likely be covered by number 6 above or 1:1 licence provisions - see later).
1.Employment- related licences (essential and short-term) – there seems little point in having a system of endorsements on employment related licences but there would need to be an amendment to the Law if an application was to be rejected on the decision of the Police.
2.Compassionate (other) housing licences – if a person has been granted a licence on compassionate grounds it is difficult to see what is achieved by denying them the right to work. The rejection could not force them to leave their home and the denial of the right to work is likely to simply cause them to rely on the States for financial support.
3.One to one licence holders – although in theory it might be possible to deny such a person the right to work, under human rights (right for respect for private and family life) they cannot be denied the right to occupy as a companion. Little is achieved by refusal and again the end result could be that a family has to be supported by the States.
Most of the comments in the preceding paragraphs could be applied equally to a scheme for the endorsement of Right to Work documents or for a separate Work Permit scheme.
Neither would achieve very much more than the retention of the current criminal convictions provisions except that they would be likely to place the provisions in a Law which had the legitimate aim of assisting the preservation of Law and Order.
However, the scope for extending these provisions beyond the range of persons covered by the current provisions is very limited whichever route is chosen. As can be seen from the above, denial of the right to work would not guarantee departure from the Island, except for those whose right to occupy accommodation was subject to employment. If the objective is to remove criminals from the Island it will not achieve this objective in respect of persons who have rights of residence not linked to employment.
A separate Work Permit Law could potentially create further scope for confusion. It could only work if (like the Right to Work Law) everyone had to hold a document. Otherwise an employer would not know who had to hold a work permit and who did not. If the Law created an additional document, that would be one more document to confuse employers and if the idea of endorsements was introduced, there is likely to be confusion among employers as to which unendorsed documents are valid.
Additional controls would only be justified if the denial of a right to work could guarantee that the person would leave the Island. It would be ludicrous to deny a person, who can lawfully reside in the Island, the right to work. It would not be in the interests of the economy. There is a clause in the Policy and Resource Planning Report which states that no resident should be restricted from maximising their contribution through employment. At times when unemployment is low, if some lawful residents were excluded from employment, a new person would have to be brought to the Island to fill the vacancy, which is not in line with the population objective.
In terms of population growth there is nothing that can be done by Work Permits which cannot be done through the Housing Control Law.
In terms of criminal convictions, the Authority has already accepted that the current provisions are disproportionate to the main aims of the Housing Control Law.
The Authority has also accepted that it is not the competent body to make such decisions.
However, the rejection or revocation of a housing licence seems to be a more effective tool than a work permit, provided that it is well understood that we cannot interfere with human rights.
If the provisions are to be retained and / or extended they should be backed up by specific legislation vesting the power of decision in a suitable body, such as the Police / Home Affairs Committee which should be answerable to any appeal made against that decisions. The case for that legislation needs to be properly made on the grounds of assisting in the preservation of Law and Order so that it is clear that it is not made on housing or population grounds.
The simplest way would be for new legislation vesting powers in the Home Affairs Committee, which modified the Housing Control law and required that the Authority would not grant certain categories of licence where the police denied the application on grounds of criminal convictions. The relevant categories of licence applications specifying named individuals would then be considered first by the Police and if there are criminal conviction grounds why the application should be rejected, it should not be considered at all by the Authority but should be rejected on the authority of the Police.
Only if the application passes Police scrutiny should it go on to be considered by the Authority. That way an appeal against rejection on conviction grounds should be to the Police and not the Housing Authority.
Similar provisions could be made for the Police to have the power to revoke a licence in the case of a new conviction.
Housing Control
May 2005
|
| |
| | |
Group: Administrators
Last Login: 24 September 2008
Posts: 127, Visits: 118 |
| | Thanks Dave, Now I am confused !! but housing law was never my strong point !!! I suppose I was looking for a simple solution to a business like me who has open market accommodation which is for sole use of my staff. I dont want 5 year licences that allow my workers to occupy a local market house with their family but a licence that allows them to work for me in my accommodation therefor no job, no house, please leave. An upside of this would be less chance of another employer pinching staff, as they would have to go through the proceedure again, no impact on local market accommodation occupancy and the number of employees would remain static as it would be controlled by the number of rooms I would have available for staff. You could even licence an open market staff block similar to hotels, ie suitable for x number of staff and complient with the usual regs of fire, etc. Oh well, back to the drawing board |
| |
| | | |
|