What lurks beneath the population control rock?

THE rock is back.

It was always a slightly bizarre choice to feature on the cover of documents concerning Guernsey's new population management regime - a small rock in the middle of L'Ancresse Bay reveals little about what is inside.

Although it gives the opportunity for a few quips on being stuck between a rock and a hard place, or being all at sea, it has little or nothing to do with the enormity of the issue being addressed.

Towards the end of the year, and on the eve of the general election, the States will be asked to make arguably its biggest decision of this term.

Just how do you shake up the controls on population in Guernsey to have enough tools in the box to control who lives here, for how long and for what reasons?

At the beginning of July the Policy Council's Population Policy Group released the public responses to its fledgling regime based around a system of employment and residence permits.

Just 350 people responded to what was seen by many as an overly complicated consultation document - that is about 0.56% of the population on an issue that will shape Guernsey in the future.

How much you can rely on the responses as being a barometer for public opinion is open to debate - it cannot be statistically reliable as other surveys have been because there is no sampling, no way of demonstrating it is a representative cross-section of society.

Which makes it difficult for policy makers to know how much to rely on the responses.

We are told it will shape the group's thinking that has already been mapped out, but we know change is coming. It has to because of human rights issues and we know that it is more than likely going to be broadly the system outlined originally because there has been no major outpouring of discontent, although as with all States policy making, that tends to come much later in the day when proposals become a reality.

What the consultation pinpoints is what the major debating points will be.

The right to return will be up there, as will the future of the open market and any restrictions on it and what type of jobs attract what length of permit.

Nothing in the responses seems to indicate the PPG will be scared away from a system whereby somebody who has been living in Guernsey for seven years will acquire the right to remain if they choose to, or that after 14 years they gain the automatic right to return if they then leave.

The loss of the automatic right to return after a certain period away from the island, especially for people born in Guernsey, was not a popular option among those responding.

It could leave policymakers with something of a headache, especially as the demographic time-bomb starts to tick loudly in the future.

Perhaps this is not one for where society is now but in decades to come, with an ageing population being supported by a dwindling younger working population, the issue of controlling people retiring back to the island after long periods of absence not contributing to the economy may become more politically acceptable - as will the fact you do not know how many may return at any one point.

The length of employment permits will be a strong debating point.

PPG has suggested a system based around seven-, four- and one-year permits for different areas of work and addressing specific skill shortages.

An indication that teachers and nurses would be in the four-year bracket raised the familiar spectre of lack of continuity as people look to move away after three years simply for job security - expect lobbying for these groups to qualify for seven-year permits and thereby eventually earning residential rights.

One-year licences will also be a focus of scrutiny.

These would be aimed at people moving to the island to work in hospitality or horticulture for short periods - someone could apply for a one-year permit only up to three times without leaving.

Those in horticulture have argued that the proposed system could have a serious impact on its viability in the future.

The work is seasonal - reliant on non-local labour for periods of up to nine months year in and out. But for the rest of the time, the worker is not needed.

And what of the open market, a sector that is so much more than perception suggests?

Some have called for statements that no change will be made - those have not been forthcoming.

There is a strong feeling that some sort of open market system should continue, with a small number of people expressing opposition to any change, but this is the most muddied section of the report.

The group's initial document asked plenty of questions, giving a steer that this area could not remain completely untouched, which have led to plenty more being asked back.

Maybe there could be further review here given the different States decisions taken in the past, but that might just create further uncertainty.

Around the table of the Population Policy Group the real work now begins because the political members of it have, at least those who have broken cover, not always so far seemed to be speaking as one.