A Guest post today. Mike Dun attends Scrutiny hearings on a regular basis and gives a precis of them on the Politics Jersey site. They are a useful snapshot of the detail which is, as he says, available as a transcript later. He's given me permission to post his report up on my blog, so here it is!
Migration Policy from the IOD viewpoint
A Report by Mike Dun
The Jersey IOD represented by John Shenton and Becky Mills (Mill?) appeared before the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel on 19 March 2018.
The initial responses of the IOD to the proposed Jersey Migration Policy were being sought.
The response – largely delivered by John Shenton - was refreshingly challenging.
That overused word “robust” was wholly appropriate.
The IOD does not think much of the proposed policy at all.
Too generalist, lacking in detail or researched data. It was not addressing the crux of the “migration” problem at all - either from a business/employer or Jersey resident viewpoint. It was full of large holes and will almost certainly be kicked into the long grass by the new States Assembly.
In passing they compared it with the Guernsey policy. That Island they predict is headed for bankruptcy with its diminishing but aging population although they have managed to produce a comprehensive list of 20 pages of job categories which was lacking in Jersey’s vague system of categorization and the issuing of “licences.”
The Jersey Education system was singled out for special blame. Even the standards of Vic and Girls College were deemed inadequate and there is an immense “skills gap” which the education system is failing to address. Hence there is an endless need to bring in skills from outside and those local youngsters who go away for Uni or training are unlikely to return due to the cost of living and especially because of housing difficulties.
Yet at the same time, there were many skilled people in the Island restricted under the 5 years rule from being absorbed into businesses to do more productive work and there was a whole range of different rules about qualifying for health care, social security, housing and such like.
Anyway why should employers even try to train up locals when 20% leave school with no skills whereas it was easier to bring in somebody from outside….
How was value to the economy to be assessed – how can bureaucrats determine what employees a business needs etc or what value they bring to the business or the community? And where was the informed appeal process for those licences denied?
Now there are 2 workers for each pensioner but with an aging population and a policy of 1,000 “immigrants” each year where is it all leading? Where is the economic analysis especially since many of the increase number will be people of “low skills” and more demanding of financial support in retirement…wealthier retired persons can better provide for themselves and leave the Island if they choose.
They had a critical view of “Green Zone” land protection too. There was an inevitable demand for building land for housing and other social needs. But where was the plan based upon facts?
Taxation too was also a mess. 20% levels could not be sustained but why should the burden fall so heavily upon the local businesses or working residents who did not send their money out of Jersey as so many “large” entities did.
John Shenton explained that his business could manage added impositions and employment protection (50 employees in Jersey and other 50 in Guernsey) but there were so many very small businesses in Jersey that could not.
Businesses must make a profit he said – if not they failed.
Of course this was the IOD speaking and this is a “capitalist” economy which sets “profit” as the ultimate goal with social benefits being a by-product.
My own view is that “society benefits” based upon such as equality and fairness are the ultimate goals and that the “pursuit of profit” should be a much lower aspiration. But I was not giving evidence….
However, the speakers did agree that housing controls should be retained to control the population (although they did not explain quite how this could be achieved or what the economic result of such a policy might be). They observed that education was free for all on arrival - but not health care or other social benefits.
They touched upon AI and the robot age that is approaching and how it is necessary to have a skilled person to fix the plumbing but so many other jobs will disappear whether “skilled” or otherwise.
Even Finance they said will price itself out of the international market in the quest for the most highly skilled employees. But already Jersey schools were unable to recruit teachers with the ability to teach such as IT and they suggested that further initiatives were needed – e.g. cheap housing – to attract key workers.
The IOD they explained has produced a Report on the proposed Migration policies and this was a summary. Perhaps somebody could publish the complete document….
My account is a summary of their summary and a Podcast and Transcript will appear in due course on the Scrutiny Web Site.
Three members of the public attended and no declared candidates for the May elections.
The hearing lasted about 45 minutes.
A Report by Mike Dun
The Jersey IOD represented by John Shenton and Becky Mills (Mill?) appeared before the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel on 19 March 2018.
The initial responses of the IOD to the proposed Jersey Migration Policy were being sought.
The response – largely delivered by John Shenton - was refreshingly challenging.
That overused word “robust” was wholly appropriate.
The IOD does not think much of the proposed policy at all.
Too generalist, lacking in detail or researched data. It was not addressing the crux of the “migration” problem at all - either from a business/employer or Jersey resident viewpoint. It was full of large holes and will almost certainly be kicked into the long grass by the new States Assembly.
In passing they compared it with the Guernsey policy. That Island they predict is headed for bankruptcy with its diminishing but aging population although they have managed to produce a comprehensive list of 20 pages of job categories which was lacking in Jersey’s vague system of categorization and the issuing of “licences.”
The Jersey Education system was singled out for special blame. Even the standards of Vic and Girls College were deemed inadequate and there is an immense “skills gap” which the education system is failing to address. Hence there is an endless need to bring in skills from outside and those local youngsters who go away for Uni or training are unlikely to return due to the cost of living and especially because of housing difficulties.
Yet at the same time, there were many skilled people in the Island restricted under the 5 years rule from being absorbed into businesses to do more productive work and there was a whole range of different rules about qualifying for health care, social security, housing and such like.
Anyway why should employers even try to train up locals when 20% leave school with no skills whereas it was easier to bring in somebody from outside….
How was value to the economy to be assessed – how can bureaucrats determine what employees a business needs etc or what value they bring to the business or the community? And where was the informed appeal process for those licences denied?
Now there are 2 workers for each pensioner but with an aging population and a policy of 1,000 “immigrants” each year where is it all leading? Where is the economic analysis especially since many of the increase number will be people of “low skills” and more demanding of financial support in retirement…wealthier retired persons can better provide for themselves and leave the Island if they choose.
They had a critical view of “Green Zone” land protection too. There was an inevitable demand for building land for housing and other social needs. But where was the plan based upon facts?
Taxation too was also a mess. 20% levels could not be sustained but why should the burden fall so heavily upon the local businesses or working residents who did not send their money out of Jersey as so many “large” entities did.
John Shenton explained that his business could manage added impositions and employment protection (50 employees in Jersey and other 50 in Guernsey) but there were so many very small businesses in Jersey that could not.
Businesses must make a profit he said – if not they failed.
Of course this was the IOD speaking and this is a “capitalist” economy which sets “profit” as the ultimate goal with social benefits being a by-product.
My own view is that “society benefits” based upon such as equality and fairness are the ultimate goals and that the “pursuit of profit” should be a much lower aspiration. But I was not giving evidence….
However, the speakers did agree that housing controls should be retained to control the population (although they did not explain quite how this could be achieved or what the economic result of such a policy might be). They observed that education was free for all on arrival - but not health care or other social benefits.
They touched upon AI and the robot age that is approaching and how it is necessary to have a skilled person to fix the plumbing but so many other jobs will disappear whether “skilled” or otherwise.
Even Finance they said will price itself out of the international market in the quest for the most highly skilled employees. But already Jersey schools were unable to recruit teachers with the ability to teach such as IT and they suggested that further initiatives were needed – e.g. cheap housing – to attract key workers.
The IOD they explained has produced a Report on the proposed Migration policies and this was a summary. Perhaps somebody could publish the complete document….
My account is a summary of their summary and a Podcast and Transcript will appear in due course on the Scrutiny Web Site.
Three members of the public attended and no declared candidates for the May elections.
The hearing lasted about 45 minutes.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment