Immigration plan is short-sighted

For these States members, enticing high net worth individuals and hi-tech businesses to relocate to Guernsey appears to be an attractive solution for improving the island's balance sheet. Yet, such a policy is short-sighted and overlooks the many disadvantages resulting from an increase in the island population, such as: worsening traffic congestion, parking and air pollution; overcrowding and gridlock; strain on infrastructure and services; increase in housing density and house prices; reduction in green areas and wildlife habitat; increase in ageing population, and the corollary pressure on, and cost of, long-term care – unless of course these high net worth individuals and entrepreneurs are in the 20 to 30 age group and can make a lifetime contribution to the funding of our social services.

The net result, to Guernsey, of such immigration policy will be a lower quality of life and a less attractive tourist destination.

Treasury & Resources and the Policy Council spend a lot of time devising means of increasing the tax revenue to cover the expenses, much to the discontent of the island population. But there is another way, better, more logical and with guaranteed results, which has not yet been properly investigated. When our family budget is under strain, we first look at the areas where savings can be made, as these can be implemented a lot faster than finding new sources of income. The same approach needs to be adopted by the States when considering the island budget: first and foremost, bring the expenses under control.

Our island community of 62,000 people, of which 31,000 are active, is not very different from other communities of a similar size, whether 'island' or 'mainland' communities. Proof is that States members often compare the cost of our various services with that of other communities, worldwide, and there is not much variation in percentage terms, relative to GDP – except for the cost of our health service and the cost of our island government, which are enormous and far exceed those of comparable communities. Obviously, some huge savings can be made by reducing the cost of those services to a level found in other similar communities. Yet this government, like previous governments to be fair, is still unwilling to grasp this nettle. Why?

Lowering costs will naturally require a reduction in some services, but other communities manage with reduced services, so we should be able to manage, too. It may even be possible to share some services (and costs) with Jersey, an advantage which some other distant island communities may not have. The recent public demonstration 'Enough is Enough' is the green light for our States members to put in as much effort in reducing the sizes and costs of those two elephants (health service and government), as they are applying to the current Review of Personal Tax, Pensions and Benefits. Now that GST is out of the way, there must be more time available to work on reducing the cost of running the island – and, if necessary, to visit other similarly sized communities to see how they manage.

The priority, now, must be given to reviewing, downsizing, and reducing the costs of the health service and of the government. This will result in a far healthier budget, without waiting 10 years, and will limit the need for new forms of taxation. Many members have noted the difficult economic period we are living through, with no real improvement in sight. There is no better time to prune, control and cap the island's expenses, even at the cost of reduced services, and we must prepare ourselves for that. The island's population knows that the best years are behind us, and that we have to cut our cloth...

Encouraging immigration before reviewing and reducing our expenses is putting the cart before the horse. Although tax income would increase through immigration, so would the costs of infrastructure and services. These additional costs could only be avoided if the number of new immigrants (high net worth young individuals) was equal to the number of people leaving the island (preferably those on low income, no longer able to afford the high private market rents consuming up to 50% or more of their income – and still waiting for assistance..). Who knows? Is this the unspoken wish of some people? Seriously though, more immigration is not necessary, as the manpower newly released through the downsizing of the health service and of the government will be available for retraining and for taking up work in the private sector, the only source of wealth creation.?

PHIL DUPRE,

Address withheld.