Sir Robert Marett, KCMG OBE; who died in 1981, was a Deputy for St Brelade for nine years, and shortly before his death, this letter from him was published in the Jersey Evening Post.
It is a fascinating insight into what was seen then from probably
one of the most brilliant Deputies that Jersey has had. I remember Terry Hampton, when Vicar of St Aubin on the Hill, telling me of talks
he had with Sir Robert, and how he was a States member who brought both
commonsense and wisdom to the proceedings.
Many of the topics in this letter are perennial,
problems the Island still faces to this day – population, environment, and
education, and it is worth noting his comments and advice, which I think still has something to say to us today.
A Letter from Sir Robert Marett
Shortly before he died, Sir Robert Marett wrote this letter
for the Jersey Society in London, though it was first published in the Evening
Post on 28 October, by whose kind permission it is reproduced here. Sir Robert
describes his work during nine years in the States, and looks to the future.
I entered the States as a Deputy for St. Brelade in 1972
after winning one of the two seats in a four-cornered contest. I had recently
come back to the Island after my retirement as British Ambassador in Peru.
Apart from helping my constituents, my main interest was with the problem of
population control and the preservation of the environment.
As a new boy I entered a hard school by joining the IDC
under a very determined and dedicated president, former Deputy Philip de
Veulle. This is an experience which ideally every States Member should have
had. It brings home to one the tremendous difficulties of controlling the use
of land, against the opposition of all sorts of personal and vested interests.
I also joined in the last stages of Philip de Veulle's
Immigration Committee, which reported in 1973. It produced the famous formula
(often misquoted) that "the annual rate of immigration should be such that
by 1995 the population would not exceed 80,000".
The argument was that "when the population approaches 80,000
a big leap in the creation of community facilities of all kinds becomes
imperative and high capital expenditure would be needed".
The report went on to underline the dangers to the environment
- new houses, widened roads, etc. - that would be involved.
Under the laissez-faire policies of the late Senator Cyril
Le Marquand there had been a tremendous expansion of business in the Island -
creating great prosperity for most of its inhabitants, but the effect on the
growth of the population was disastrous. In 1961 it stood at 63,550; by 1973 it
had grown to approximately 74,000.
The Immigration Committee's report, which was approved by
the States, was passed to a newly-created committee, the Policy Advisory
Committee.
It was not, however, a very effective body, since it had
been laid down that the president of the Finance and Economics Committee should
automatically be the president of the PAC, thus giving too much weight to the
economic side of the equation.
The new committee did, however, produce a report on
immigration, recognizing the problem to the extent of cutting down the rate of
immigration to a net figure of 500, and setting up machinery, through the
"Control of Undertakings", to approve the establishment of new
business. Before that time the only immigration controls had been exercised by
the Housing Committee. This was a step in the right direction, but in the view
of many islanders did not go far enough.
So I decided as a back-bencher to try to change the
constitution of the PAC - for a private member to challenge the
"establishment", especially when led by such a tough character as the
late Cyril Le Marquand for whom I always had the greatest respect, is no easy
task. However, by some miracle, I won the day. On my proposition the States
agreed that in future the president of the PAC should be an independent member
elected by the States in the usual manner. At the same time the constitution of
the PAC was changed and the composition of the committee enlarged so as to give
more weight to the environmental interests.
At the end of 1978, I was elected as president of the new
PAC, with a very competent team to help me. We immediately embarked on a new
study of the immigration problem. We worked hard, had talks with almost every business
organization, the trade unions and environmental bodies such as "Concern".
We gave serious consideration to the possibility of adopting a policy of no net
immigration at all, so that people coming into the Island would have to be
balanced by those going out. But having weighed up all the factors we decided
that this was impractical since it would do too much harm to business, upon
which most islanders depend for a living. So we opted for a policy for the next
three years of reducing the current rate of immigration by half, that is to say
to a net figure of 250.
Even this reduction caused a howl of rage from some
important business groups, but was no doubt a disappointment to
"Concern". Our report was accepted by the States on October 16, 1979.
No sooner had this been decided than the world was hit by a
severe depression, of which there had been no hint when we were drafting our
report.
Unemployment began to develop in Jersey. We did not waste
any time. After discussion with the Finance and Economics Committee, the guide-lines
we had established for the application of the "Control of
Undertakings" were relaxed, but without departing one iota from the
declared policy of keeping immigration down to a figure of 250 net. It seemed a
fair assumption that, with growing unemployment in the Island there would be
less pressure from immigrant workers wanting to come in.
So where do we go from here? I hope that one of the first
steps of the new PAC will be to take a new look at immigration policy to see
whether, under the completely new economic conditions of today, some further
tightening of the screw might be possible. The following are some of my own
ideas about the future:
1. We badly need a voluntary agreement with all employing
bodies to give first preference to applicants for jobs who are Jerseymen, or at
least already have housing qualifications. Even if the qualifications of the
immigrant might be slightly higher, we would hope that preference would be
given to the local man.
2. If this campaign for voluntary control fails then we
might have to fall back upon "work permits". In 1973, under my
chairmanship, a working party of the PAC looked very thoroughly into the
question of work permits, and came to the conclusion that to administer them
would require too many extra civil servants and place an intolerable burden on
industry. We did recommend, however, and the States agreed, that we should have
the necessary enabling legislation up our sleeves in case the States should ever
decide that this method of control was needed. I have been disgusted by the
long delay (owing to the need for consultation with the Home Office) in getting
this legislation before the House.
3. We should pay more regard to industrial training. In 1980
I chaired a working party, established by the PAC, whose recommendations have
resulted in the Education Department becoming more aware of the problem, together
with the setting up of an Advisory Industrial Training Council, chaired by a
business man, Mr. Gordon Reed, and consisting of business men and members of
the Education Committee. I have great hopes that we are now going to make a lot
of progress in this important field.
4. One of the problems is that at least 30 per cent of our
school leavers have sub-standard educational standards and therefore need
special training. At the moment too many of these people are registered as
unemployed. In the old days the more adventurous Jerseymen would have taken
ship to Australia or Canada. I myself went to Brazil! That is why the
population was stable until the 1950s and 1960s. There is nowhere to go to now.
5. On the other hand there are all too few Jersey school
leavers with the educational standards required for the professions or higher technical
jobs. Some of these gifted young men, who may have been trained partly at the
expense of the States, take jobs in the United Kingdom and never come back to
the Island. That is why it is absolutely inescapable that we should import a
certain number of "essential employees" with their families in order
to keep the wheels of our increasingly technical society turning round.
6. The micro-chip and computer revolution can only increase
the problem, with fewer jobs for the less qualified employee and a greater
demand for technical expertise.
7. In the public sector the same considerations apply. Apart
from this, it is essential to cut down the size of the Civil Service and those
in public employment. As a member of the Establishment Committee, I greatly
admire the vigour with which Senator John Averty is tackling the problem.
8. Finally, we should never forget the
"multiplier" effect which goes with population growth. As a member of
the Housing Committee, under the dynamic leadership of Senator John Le
Marquand, I am aware that a large part of the demand for new houses arises not
only because of population growth, but because people are demanding better
standards. The same thing applies to modern hotels which need a bathroom in
every room, adding to the pressure on water. Many working men's houses run
three cars. Hence the traffic problem.
In short, the immigration problem, and all the other
problems which go with it, is a tough nut to crack. Electioneering platitudes
will not help. One of the problems is that preserving the environment causes
few problems for the more affluent members of our society. But if we tighten
the screws on the economy too much it will be the small business man and the
humble employee who will suffer most.
As Colin Powell has said so often - and I could not have had
a more helpful collaborator - in the end it all comes down to a question of
balance.
Old men fade away and younger men take their place, and that
is how it should be. I have thoroughly enjoyed my time in the States. On
leaving I only make one plea - I hope the new PAC will not lose its momentum. I
attach great importance to the need for better co-ordination between committees.
I believe our efforts to get committees to present to the States fundamental
assessments of their policies from time to time is a move in the right direction
and should be continued.
As for immigration, I have complete faith that the Island
will continue to prosper and, if the will exists, it can do so without spoiling
the environment too much.
No comments:
Post a Comment