Population report says little about growth consequences

BY ELIMINATING target growth and migration numbers from the upcoming population policy debate, ministers have certainly taken the sting out of much of the public debate.

It may mean they can neatly and quietly tick off another item on the to do list before the curtain is drawn on this term, but what they will be leaving their successor if the proposals are passed next week is something of a colander policy – the holes are there for all to see, as is the deception.

Guernsey's population policy will be limited, in essence, to having the right amount of people to keep the island ticking along – trouble is, no one really defines what ticking along is or what type of island those in power want us to be.

No doubt those who have designed it will argue it needs to be read alongside the economic, social and environmental objectives to understand exactly what it all means.

Therein lies one of the flaws – an abstract policy will mean different things to different people. Certainly the business community in welcoming the policy have read it as loosening the reins on bringing in skilled workers, for instance, and a growing population.

The policy itself tries to create the impression of control by referring to the population being kept at the 'lowest possible level' to achieve the States' economic, social and environmental objectives.

This column and others have already spoken about the complete absence of any focus within the policy on the emigration of the young workers the island is so reliant on.

Having been rising, the working age population has fallen every year since the middle of 2011 – so from a peak of 42,528 it now stands at 40,627.

This contrasts with those aged above 65, where growth has been consistent – another 1,000 people in the same time period.

So while some of that is explained away by an ageing demographic, a considerable proportion of it cannot be.

The last time the States debated population levels in any serious way was back in early 2007 when the Policy Council proposed its strategic population and migration policy.

That policy report was chock-full of population projections, dependency ratios and the like.

It was a much more transparent affair than this latest incarnation – at least it did not rely on the reader having to use a ruler to extrapolate population numbers from the scenarios listed.

Back in 2007 the favoured approach was to target net migration of 200 – this would have seen the population rise to just over 64,000 over 30 years before falling back down to 60,000 over the following 30 years.

There is an implication from the 2015 report, and certainly in statements from those promoting it, that its focus on the composition of the population rather than the total numbers is something new – fresh thinking to revolutionise how we look at the issue.

A quick skim through the 2007 report, though, shows that there is nothing new in what is on the table.

Indeed, when it spoke of net migration not exceeding 200 per year on a five-year rolling average, it also stated this was to help the ratio of economically active to inactive people.

To show just how far thinking on population really has not changed, take a glance at the population policy that the 2007 report was written to replace.

Its first part stated: 'the growth in population should be limited to as low a level as possible consistent with achieving economic, social and environmental objectives'.

So really we wound the clock back and have come to the same conclusions as more than eight years ago, but just tidied up the wording.

Of course, in the end, thanks to an amendment by then Deputy Peter Roffey, the States backed a target of holding the population at its current level of around 60,000.

The latest report wants to revoke that because it says it is a limiter on economic growth.

Currently, the population stands at 62,477 – it peaked at 63,267 in the second quarter of 2012 and has fallen back since then, apart from the last two quarters.

Whatever the rights or wrongs of having a target, since it has been in place it is difficult to see what the government has been doing to meet its objective.

It shows just how aspirational population targets are – or how easy they are to ignore.

You have to read between the lines of the latest population policy to understand what it might mean.

It tells us that net migration (numbers coming in minus numbers going out) of 100 people a year, which is what has happened since 2009, would still lead to a 'significant' reduction in the working age population of 2% over 10 years and 5% over 20. It then shows how the reduction in the workforce could impact GDP.

Even a net migration of 300 people a year would not hit the States' target of economic growth being 2% a year.

According to the graphic in the report – once you use your ruler to work it out – net migration of between 200 and 300 people a year could see the population grow to above 75,000 by 2075.

So it is a policy based on population growth, but while it talks about why financially that is needed it makes little noise about the social and environmental consequences of that.

This is where the last population policy was undone as deputies reflected popular public anxiety about the consequences of population growth.

The Policy Council seems to want to avoid those arguments this time by wiping out talk of targets.

It is not that simple – the numbers are always firmly there in the background.

By its own admission, net migration of 300 a year would see it fail to hit the States' current economic growth targets, so is the implication under the new policy that migration levels would have to be even higher than that?

And if it is, should ministers not be more open with the public that this is the case?