Consultation needed on population law changes

I was disappointed to learn that the Committee for Economic Development will shortly seek to amend the recently introduced population management laws. I say disappointed because, in my view, this is just about the worst way in which any legislation should be amended. Any changes should be the responsibility of the mandated committee, in this case Home Affairs.

The report’s sponsoring committee (ED) appears to have engaged in no real consultation and seems to have carried out little investigation as to the fundamental causes of a perceived problem. Worse, no attempt appears to have been made at a cost/benefit analysis of the long-term consequences of the proposed changes. From what has been said on the matter so far, this proposal would seem to be coming from a group of politicians with very little understanding of the underlying issues involved.

What is being proposed by ED is not a process of licensing the import of seasonal labour but looks little different from an ‘open door’ policy which risks seeing the influx of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of long-term residents who will effectively be given residential status from the outset.

Given that the new population laws grant ‘established’ residency rights to licence holders after eight years, one is left to ponder the likely consequences of unknown numbers of dependants of future licence holders arriving on our shores. Has anyone factored in the increased costs to our education system and long-term care costs in the not-too-distant future to cater for the needs of all these new arrivals? If so, what is it? This proposal has all the hallmarks of making policy on the hoof.

Home has now suggested amendments of its own but again one has to ask what real consultation has taken place, what if any cost benefit analysis of the changes they intend to make has been carried out and what was the result.

Surely, if any significant changes are to be made to the law then the law in its entirety should be reviewed. That way, anyone with concerns can have these considered as part of that review and we avoid a situation where one seemingly minor change causes unforeseen problems somewhere else in the system.

Perhaps what needs to be addressed are the real causes of the shortage of skilled labour available to work in the island’s economy. In my view far too many undertakings, both public and private, seek to compensate for lack of any real succession planning with the ‘quick fix’ of a licence to import skills or experience currently lacking in that organisation. Many commercial organisations see no need to pay for costly staff training or career development, preferring instead to simply seek to import the necessary staff as and when needed.

This situation is being made worse by the barely-concealed belief among many senior managers, especially from non-local companies, that if you want to appoint a new senior staff member you will not find a suitable candidate among the local workforce.

While there is no argument that the island needs to attract some seasonal labour, in my view the States need to impress on employers that the housing and employment licence route was not a ‘get out of jail free’ card but a strictly limited ‘period of grace’ (say five years) in which to, wherever possible, train or progress existing staff to the level required.

This island infrastructure simply cannot cope with a cavalier attitude to the provision of licences to import unlimited numbers of low-wage (low-tax) employees, especially to work in a section of the economy which itself pays minimal corporate tax.

The practice of importing qualified staff frequently ends many promising careers. Islanders have frequently found their route of progression in their chosen profession ended by a ‘glass ceiling’ through which it has become impossible to pass. Many employees complain that the first casualty in any cost-cutting measures in their organisation was almost always the training budget.

I suggest the States turns its mind to the recurring situation where local students want to return to the island on the completion of their studies. The profligate handing out of licences to all and sundry shuts the door on many potential returning islanders.

Also counting against the local applicant for any post is that employers (often government departments) will go to extraordinary lengths to secure the services of a chosen imported worker, often paying their removal and relocation costs, their rent or mortgage, their retraining cost and even subsidising their stay among us. It should be noted that none of these benefits are presently available to local staff.

I have long argued that the best long-term solution to many of the island’s skills and employment difficulties is by way of developing and extending the training available to the local workforce, thereby reducing the pressure of importing labour to fill this shortfall. While of course there will always be a need to import short-term labour in specific circumstances, we should be aiming to ensure the numbers are kept to a minimum – not, as some would have, permits and licences handed out on demand. If we go down that path then local employees will shortly be reduced to a low-skill, low-wage workforce.

It is to be hoped that if the licensing element of the Population Management Law is to be reviewed then Home will seek a more general review of the law be undertaken. That would enable a period of public consultation to allow more than just those representing only part of the business community to have a say.

If the law is indeed to be reviewed, a good beginning would be for the States to consider redressing the imbalance that now exists under the new law between the relative rights of islanders and licence holders, who under the present population management legislation enjoy far more favourable treatment than local residents, both in terms of access to housing and employment.

One might also have hoped that Economic Development, if it really wants to improve the situation for those engaged in the hospitality sector, would have been concentrating on their efforts aimed at reducing the cripplingly high cost and improving the reliability of travel to and from the island for both tourists and local residents, rather than seeking to usurp another committee’s mandated responsibilities.

GRAHAM GUILLE