Immigration and population

RECENT news that our population went up by more than 1,300 souls in the three years to the start of 2021 made me refocus on the challenges surrounding the number of people we’d like to see living in Guernsey.

I say ‘like to’ because I don’t think the States has, or ever has had, that much control over the island’s population.

No system of housing or population control has ever been that effective in stopping numbers growing when the underlying demands were present to drive population increases. Equally in the modern world, where labour shortages are starting to become the norm in the west, even a complete open door policy might not attract the people our economy requires.

I say that, but a global open door, with a willingness to see migration from those few areas where the population is still growing and youthful, might help. That’s one reason why I was personally happy for Guernsey to consider taking a limited number of asylum seekers but all seems to have gone quiet on that front.

Frankly, it is hard to debate these things calmly and logically because there are few more divisive issues in local politics than immigration and population. People tend to have trenchant views on both matters and all too often conflate the two. In reality, of course, while they are certainly linked, they are also very separate issues.

To worry about immigration, per se, smacks of xenophobia. Such attitudes are rather sad in the 21st century. Fresh faces and fresh blood should be warmly welcomed as being crucial to both our community and our economy. Not to mention our gene pool. We need the skills that incomers bring and should also welcome the cultural diversity they provide.

Concerns over Guernsey’s total population are another matter. We do have only 24.5 square miles of land and it is already quite highly developed, with congested roads, dwindling green spaces and pressures on its infrastructure.

So it is quite legitimate to worry about the effects on our environment and our quality of life of ever-burgeoning numbers. Indeed it was good to see Guernsey’s sixth-formers putting some of our business leaders straight on this matter recently. I only hope they were listening.

No one could accuse our younger generation of lacking idealism or a dislike of cultural diversity. Indeed they tend to be streets ahead of the rest of the community in these respects. But still they argued against our economy relying on ever-increasing numbers of residents. They pointed out the disastrous side-effects of such a lazy economic strategy and urged our captains of industry to make the best use of the human resources which already exist in Guernsey.

I am with them completely.

Let’s take a step back and look at the statistics. I’ve already given the headline figure for population growth but there are lots of other things going on below that single statistic.

Guernsey’s fertility rate has fallen to just 1.5. Well below replacement. To some that is a matter for concern. To me it is very good news indeed for at least a couple of reasons.

Firstly, there are already far too many people on our planet and while the rate of growth is thankfully slowing the UN still forecasts that it will peak at circa 10 billion. Bad news for the global environment, biodiversity, climate change and the whole biosphere. So the more territories whose fertility rates fall below replacement the better on a macroscale.

Secondly, Guernsey’s low fertility rate gives it a unique opportunity. It means we can, in theory, target significant inward migration of people with exactly the skills our island needs, without growing the total number of people living on our little rock. That is an opportunity we should grab with both hands.

Once again the official statistics shows how that situation could play out if we use it correctly. The latest bulletin reveals that a net migration level of 200-300 per annum would be enough to maintain our current workforce. Something which, for the record, I don’t think we can afford not to do.

Would such a level of net migration lead to rampant population growth? Not at all. There would be a very minor bulge as past demographic peaks pass through the system or, to put it more bluntly, until my lot have been and gone. But long term it wouldn’t produce any population growth at all. Indeed, in the medium term, to avoid a dwindling population we will need to increase our net migration to well over 300.

I have no problem with that, even though I probably won’t be around to see it. Indeed, I think the real challenge then will be convincing the people we need to actually locate to Guernsey in a world where the demographics have permanently changed. That problem alone should be enough to force an economic refocus on the optimum use of human resources.

I know the easiest approach to economic growth is to rely on ever-increasing numbers but if that is neither acceptable, nor remotely achievable, in the long run then what are the alternatives?

Certainly, as the sixth-formers pointed out, encouraging full utilisation of our current population’s skills, whatever their age, health or disability may be. Better and more affordable childcare. A relentless focus on productivity. Mechanisation and the use of robotics and AI. (Am I the only one to still think ‘artificial insemination’ when I hear than term?)

One final thought. I’ve said that the statistics show that net migration of 200-300 will be enough to maintain our workforce but is that really enough? We are going to need more health workers and more care workers for sure. Nor can we afford to neglect our prime revenue earners’ needs. So if there are not going to be enough workers to go around then what should give?

For example, if unavoidable labour shortages meant there were only 80% of the restaurants or cafes or hairdressers or whatever which we enjoy in our service economy today, that would obviously be very sad but would it be fatal?

I’ll leave that question hanging.