REPORT
This amendment may appear to some as mere
sophistry; it is not. It represents a fundamental change in the emphasis of the
current “go for growth” policy being operated by the Economic Development
Minister. The success criterion as it was formulated suggested that growth
rates below 2% would constitute failure, whereas such a rate of growth would be
both controlled and sustainable if it kept migration policies intact. To claim
that 7% growth in the overall economy on the back of 12% growth in the finance
sector, as was achieved in 2006, was either controlled or sustainable is simply
not credible. But having achieved such phenomenal growth, to carry on at
similar rates obviously threatens the realisation of migration targets. A more
moderate rate might be advised.
The only migration policy in place is the
limit job growth to 1% (around 500 annually) to be shared by locally qualified
(>5 years residence) and immigrant labour. In the Annual Performance Review
2007 (R.60/2008) these are presented as “on track” under objective 1.4 (see
Appendix).
The graphs in the Appendix are taken from the Statistics Department publication Jersey Labour Market December 2007 which give the following figures for job growth 2003 to 2007 –
|
year |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
2005 |
2006 |
2007 |
|
|
total |
50,270 |
49,620 |
49,640 |
50,280 |
51,580 |
53,040 |
|
|
Annual change |
|
-650 |
+20 |
+640 |
+1300 |
+1460 |
Total 2770 |
Alongside the graphs is the claim that the target for job growth is being met – “over the five years to 2007 employment growth averaged 0.7% per year”. This statement is simply not true: the total growth over this period is 5.44%, giving an average growth rate of 1.1% per annum. The target has already been exceeded.
One can also see very clearly what will happen if job growth continues into 2008. Let us assume that the credit crunch has some impact on economic growth and hence job growth – assume job growth of only 500. Analysis of the 5-year period to 2008 would show average job growth reaching 1.6% p.a., clearly breaking the states policy.
The trend in terms of migration is further revealed in the rubric that accompanies the graph in 1.4b – “two-thirds of job growth has been from locally qualified people”. But that means one third have been non-locally qualified. In the employment market overall only 17% are currently non-locals. So that means that the proportion of non-locals in the latest figures has increased. This is not sustainable growth. It is not controlled growth. The criterion for success here must be made genuinely sustainable by moderating growth targets.
There are no direct manpower or resource demands from this amendment.
APPENDIX
Error! Bookmark not defined.
Error! Bookmark not defined.
