accesses since 12th September 1999
Published 13th September 1999 by Robert Weston (Tel [0]1534 766366)
Island of Jersey – Population and Immigration Control
"Capping the Growth in Population"
A DISCUSSION PAPER
Internet: www.jersey.co.uk/politics/population1
Index
1 Introduction
2 The major point of contention
3 Some historical background
4 Summary of the solution proposed
5 How to achieve the solution
6 Some of the counter-arguments
7 An outline Immigration Permit scheme
1 Introduction
1.1 For three decades or more, Jersey
has been seeking a politically acceptable way of "capping"
the growth in an ageing and naturally increasing population, whilst
simultaneously maintaining (or indeed expanding) the buoyant economy
to which Islanders have, for some two generations now, become
accustomed. Despite Government’s imposition of various
restraining controls since the end of the Second World War, the price
of prosperity has been a continual increase in our population. This
increase has been 50% since 1961 (ie about 800 per year on average),
which clearly shows that, although the various controls have worked
to a moderate degree, the dual objective, of capping population
growth whilst maintaining a buoyant economy, has not proved at all
easy to achieve.
1.2 Excessive growth in the Island’s
population (or indeed any further growth at all, as far as some
people are concerned) is generally perceived to be undesirable. It is
seen as enormously inflationary as regards property values and thus
responsible for Jersey families being split up when children leave
the Island to find a home elsewhere. The utilisation of more and more
land is also seen to be detrimental to our environment and our future
quality of life.
1.3 Jersey has so many political lobbying
groups, it is almost impossible to count them. Whilst a serious
number of these are concerned to see population growth controlled,
there appears to be an over-riding desire, for the most part, to
achieve this without harming the long-term buoyancy and diversity of
our economy. Each group has its own views on the subject and,
consequently, its own agenda to follow. Regrettably, these views and
agendas are frequently out of alignment, though they do mostly appear
to agree on at least two points; firstly that the Island cannot be
expected to support a growing population indefinitely and, secondly,
that the actual problem lies in finding a practical and workable
solution, with which a majority of Islanders can feel
comfortable.
1.4 Perhaps the real question for
consideration is not "whether to set a population cap"; for
it does appear that quite a large majority of Islanders, politically
speaking, are in favour of having one. The real questions then are:
WHEN would it be practical to set any cap?
This Paper seeks to answer the last of these four questions as the first three become academic if the last one cannot be resolved satisfactorily.
1.5 Although presented today as a personal paper, a preliminary draft of this Discussion Paper was circulated in May this year to a wide spectrum of interested parties, in order to gather views. This included labour groupings, rights and housing groupings and business groupings. It received a good measure of support IN PRINCIPLE from the majority of those to whom it was circulated. Due to time constraints, it may not be convenient to discuss the Paper in depth, at the meeting convened by Policy and Resources Committee for the afternoon of 13th September 1999. However, some representatives of the aforesaid groupings, who attend, may wish to express a view on the document in principle or propose amendments and, hopefully, the several recently-appointed officers of the P & R Committee will be permitted to take the Paper away for critical appraisal and subsequent report-back.
2 The major point of
contention
2.1 In July this
year, the P & R Department published an
"Issues" Document on Population and Immigration. It was a
useful exercise as it highlights where a major point of contention
will lie between that Document and this Discussion Paper.
On page 11, at paragraph 18A, bullet-point 7 of that Document, it
says (paraphrased): There is no support, from the members of
important States Committees, for the proposition that population
growth would become acceptable merely because that growth were made
up of several thousand persons on short-term permits".
By way of explanation, the Issues Document offers simply (and only)
the indisputable fact that it is the total number of people, in the
Island at any one time, that gives rise to the multitude of pressures
on our society. Regrettably, it goes on to imply that those who would
lend support to any such proposition would be rather naively ignoring
this indisputable fact.
Nowhere, though, does it say that the possibility of adopting such a
proposition has ever been seriously explored. Nor does it attempt to
explain why such a proposition could not actually provide the
long-term solution that the Island requires and has now been seeking
for some thirty years or more.
2.2 The failure, to explore fully every possible solution, would be ignoring:
3 Some historical background
3.1 In 1979, our politicians decided
that growth in the Island’s population would be best controlled
by an amendment to the Housing Regulations. The States agreed that,
from 1st January 1980, no
"ORDINARY" new immigrant would ever be
permitted to acquire permanent residential status
(ie "housing quallies"). Whilst the underlying
philosophy appeared, in theory, to be likely to have the desired
long-term effect, in practice it has failed to achieve that
objective. We must ask ourselves why.
This philosophy, in 1979, recognised that the population would
continue to grow for several years after 1st January
1980. But it also assumed that, eventually, the total number of
immigrants, in the Island at any one time, would reach a plateau and
tail off as newcomers accepted that they would never be able to put
down roots or set up a permanent home in Jersey. It was felt that
they would, in due course, resign themselves to returning whence they
came.
The policy worked as intended, to some degree, and most who came here
did eventually leave again. But the policy has failed in the longer
term because it generated feelings of frustration in ordinary,
hard-working, well-meaning people who felt that their service had
been exploited and that their rights had been abused. Contrary to
expectations, a great many decided to take up the political cudgels
and battle for the right to stay. Many of those who came here to work
felt strongly (and indeed justifiably) that they had made a major
contribution to the success of our economy. They had paid their taxes
and made meaningful contributions to the Island’s social life
generally and even to the honorary system.
Those who arrived in Jersey after 1st January 1980
claimed that they did NOT know the rules when they came
despite much political insistence that they did. After ten or fifteen
years, they understandably began to feel that Jersey was their home
and they had a right to stay.
3.2 In October 1995, the States acknowledged
the alleged unfairness and those who have had the determination to
stick to their guns for 20 years will, from
1st January 2000, be granted full housing
qualifications. It is anticipated that this will permit about 100
families (about 250 people) per year to enter the local housing
market.
3.3 Furthermore, Jersey has now agreed to
enshrine the European Convention on Human Rights into local law. The
legislation has already been drafted and is presently going through
its consultation stage. The terms of that legislation are clear. The
possibility of the Island ever again being able to deny a person, who
has lived here for twenty years or more, the right to call Jersey his
home, is simply out of the question.
4 Summary of
the solution proposed in this Paper
4.1 So, there is just one solution left
to us, which is:
The "magic"
maximum period is probably between five and eight years, depending on
the immigrant’s age and circumstances. If, for example, you
arrive in Jersey aged 16, then by the time you are 32, you have lived
here half your life (ie as long as, or perhaps longer than, you have
lived anywhere else). You would be entitled to think of the Island as
your home. Whilst many are older than 16 on arrival in Jersey, many
others are younger.
4.2 Fundamentally, Jersey’s door is
presently open to 300 million Europeans, all of whom are
entirely free to arrive in the Island tomorrow, find a job and a
place to live and, after 20 years (possibly less), they will become
entitled to full residential status. So our first important task is:
to shut this open door
5 How to achieve these things
5.1 Firstly, we must adopt a similar
philosophy, regarding timescale, as did our politicians back in 1979.
In other words, we must recognise that the proposals in this Paper
are not an instant panacea for producing an immediate reduction in
the population level. This is a fifteen to twenty-five year project,
during which population will inevitably rise before it begins to
fall. On this occasion, however, hopefully having learned some
lessons, we shall have incorporated the all-important add-on of truly
ensuring that people DO know the rules on or before
arrival in the Island and therefore cannot subsequently take
exception to them. If only our predecessors had done this twenty or
more years ago!
5.2 Secondly, we must follow Guernsey’s
initiative on immigration control, though we shall need to put our
own "spin" on it by quickly developing and evolving the
principles. Guernsey’s philosophy, since 1990, has essentially
been that newcomers generally should NOT be allowed to set down
roots. Although an element of flexibility is built into their
system, they are quite tough about following this principle. For
example, a private householder in Guernsey can only take a live-in
lover if that lover has a licence to reside in Guernsey. Whilst few
people, at present, are denied a residential licence, mostly the
licences granted are limited in their period of validity to between
nine months and seven years. Guernsey has also accepted that the
overall timescale for achieving the major objective of a stable
population is fifteen to twenty-five years (a full generation in
fact).Although Guernsey’s Housing Laws and their Right-to-Work
legislation are separate laws, passed many years apart, they are
inextricably intertwined as though they were a single immigration
law. The holder of a housing licence is automatically granted a R-T-W
permit, as are all members of his/her household. Similarly, any
person granted a R-T-W permit is also granted the right to live in
the Island for the period of the R-T-W permit.
5.3 Accordingly, we must prepare and pass
comprehensive legislation that enables us to require any
NEW immigrant of ANY nationality to apply
for and obtain an Immigration Permit before being allowed to work or
reside in the Island. The Permit will recite the terms and conditions
of immigration and thus ensure that every immigrant not only knows
the rules but can be obliged, in law, to comply with them. Whilst
immigrants, who are already resident in the Island but have not yet
earned their housing qualifications, will require a Permit, the terms
and conditions relating to that Permit will be no different from the
terms that already apply to that person. After twenty years’
residence, they will acquire full status.
6 Dealing with some
counter-arguments (not
exhaustively)
6.1 P & R’s summary
rejection of this Paper’s underlying proposition, on the grounds
of "total numbers, present in the Island at any one time, are
what matters", ignores the tourism industry related events of
the last decade. Since 1989, the number of registered tourism beds
has fallen from 25,500 to around 17,500 and is still falling. This
means that, on any one night in peak season, there are now at least
8,000 fewer visitors in the Island than there used to be. There are
also some 1,200 fewer tourism industry workers.
6.2 The additional administrative resources
required to apply full housing controls to the occupancy of
ALL lodging accommodation in the Island (as per para
18, bullet 5 of the P & R Issues Document) hardly bears
thinking about. There are over 5,000 registered lodging house beds
plus an estimated 7,000 or more lodging beds in private houses and
flats plus at least 2,000 employees accommodated in staff quarters on
farms and in hotels. An average of only one movement per lodger per
year would require 14,000 housing applications per year and the issue
of 28,000 permits per year (one to the lodger & one to the
landlord) and 28,000 amendments of records per year. This takes no
account of the appeals from any refusals of consent and the
relatively higher speed at which housing applications from lodgers
would have to be handled. An average of two or three movements per
lodger per year could easily double or treble this paperwork.
On the other hand, the issuing of perhaps 10,000 immigration permits
per year (some of which would be valid for up to, say, 8 years)
would be a far less onerous task. Policing would be "by
default"; in just the same way that nobody knows you are driving
a car without a licence and insurance until you are caught in the
act. Recording and monitoring all private homes, that take in
lodgers, would also ensure a decline in the availability of such
lodging accommodation because some householders would not wish to
declare the existence of their lodgers. In Guernsey, all homeowners
now know that they will be committing a serious offence if they take
in a lodger, who has failed to produce the relevant permit to
them.
6.3 It has been suggested that the Regulation
of Undertakings Law, having been "tightened up" from June
1998, is all that is needed to control future population growth. Many
would disagree. The Island is certainly suffering the promised
"pain" but, as yet, there has been pitifully little sign of
any "gain". Wage inflation has rocketed (reportedly 20% in
one year in the construction industry). Tourism Industry cannot find
adequate staff, not even seasonal staff. Small businesses are losing
their "five-year" qualified staff to poachers and cannot
find replacements with even two years’ residence in hand. The
employment of new immigrants by small businesses is reported to be
rife, just to enable such businesses to survive at all. Many small
businesses fear asking for consent to employ an immigrant
replacement, lest they draw attention to themselves as potential
prosecution fodder when that application is refused (often after some
delay). The demand for "quality" lodging accommodation has
not tailed off at all and there has been little sign of falling
demand for lodgings even at the lower end of the market.
6.4 It has often been mooted: "how would
you deport an immigrant who originates from the UK (being British
soil and bearing in mind our constitutional relationship with the UK)
if he is found to be working or living illegally in Jersey?" The
answer is twofold. Firstly an immigration permit could include a
condition that immigrants, convicted of an offence, render themselves
liable to deportation whence they came.
Secondly, though, Guernsey’s experience is that deportation is
irrelevant because offending immigrants deport themselves. The reason
is that both local employers and local homeowners (as well as
employees) are subject to conviction and punishment for breaking
Guernsey’s Right-to-Work and Housing Laws respectively. As a
result, it appears that, since 1990, a phone call from the local
Authorities to the employer and the landlord has generally been
sufficient to ensure that an illegal worker immediately becomes
unemployed and that an illegal lodger promptly becomes homeless. A
handful of prosecutions, over 9 years, has provided an adequate
deterrent factor. In any event, without a job or a place to live, no
illegal immigrant can continue to reside in the Island for very long.
Hotels provide no loophole either, as staying in tourism
accommodation also entails registration with the Housing Department
if a guest is not on holiday or short-stay business.
6.5 Some observers contend that the extremist
views on population control in Jersey are held by CONCERN on the one
hand and by the Institute of Directors on the other. The former says
(paraphrased) "Cap the population rigorously at 85,000 now, even
if we are already at almost 90,000, and never mind the economic
consequences, which will simply have to be borne if we are to protect
our environment for future generations". The latter says
(paraphrased) "Simply let market forces prevail and both the
economy and the environment will, in due course, look after
themselves". In considering either of these extremes, it is
essential that Islanders are made fully aware of all the possible
consequences.
For example, in the case of an urgent "population capping",
there are likely to be serious economic consequences. Where a
naturally growing and ageing population (such as we have) has to be
supported financially by a proportionately diminishing workforce,
something has to give. Also, in order to drive the population back
down to 85,000, some 4,000 jobs will have to go. Whose jobs would
these be? Whilst the cost of dwelling properties would probably drop
if the population were to fall, a loss of workers could well
precipitate a major tumble in the economy and any such recession
would mean a major loss of jobs. The result would be cheap houses
that nobody could afford because so many would be out of work.
Regarding the IOD proposal for unrestricted market forces, one might
observe that we have continued to see population growth despite the
existence of a number of controls. Therefore the exponents of the
proposition that "population would eventually fall if all
controls were removed" will certainly need to provide a
convincing explanation in support of their view for it to become
acceptable to States Members and Islanders generally.
6.6 It is argued by others that the proposal,
in this Paper, for the issue of Immigration Permits, coupled with the
Regulation of Undertakings Law, will not be any less
"painful" economically to the business community than using
the Regulation of Undertakings Law alone and that it will also
increase the Island’s administrative costs. Indeed, nobody seeks
to pretend to the contrary. However, Immigration Permits will
certainly be better understood by prospective immigrants and will
thus be fairer to them as they will know where they stand from the
first day they consider moving to Jersey. It is anticipated, for the
several reasons outlined elsewhere in this Paper, that the proposal
is a more practical means of controlling population growth and,
accordingly, should have a much better chance of achieving the
objective in the long-term. It will also provide continuous
statistics as to current population levels.
6.7 Both the Chief Officers’ Policy
Group, in March 1994, and the Boleat Report, in July 1996, observed
that a "residence" type of permit (even if it incorporated
control over the right to work) would be inappropriate for Jersey.
However, the PRIMARY conclusion, in the respective
reports of both of these bodies, was that the Island’s
population was actually set to remain relatively stable for the
foreseeable future at around 84,000 to 85,000. The Chief Officers
said until at least 2005 and Boleat merely stated "while the
economy continues to prosper", though warning also against
complacency. As their respective forecasts, of "no material
population growth in the early foreseeable future", both proved,
within three years, to be quite wrong, the validity of their
secondary conclusions, dismissing the value of residence permits etc,
has inevitably and effectively been thrown into serious doubt.
6.8 Other reasons have been given for not
favouring an itinerant work force (eg there will be a tendency to
employ poorly trained staff or those with no real commitment to the
Island). This view is frankly illogical. When choosing immigrant
staff from the 300 million Europeans available, employers will
invariably select the best they can find, not the worst. It would be
an insult to their intelligence to suggest otherwise. There are
downsides to be sure. Many good prospects for employment will have
doubts about accepting work on a five or seven year contract basis
and may decline the opportunity. But, in most cases, we can afford to
pay well and many prospective employees will be attracted by the
money.
6.9 It is recognised that Jersey employers
will not like the principle of having to employ almost all new staff
on short-term or medium-term contracts. Guernsey employers did not
like it either. However, in private conversations, when faced with
the option of no additional staff for expansion at all or the
alternative of a small number of extra staff on period delimited
contracts, both Jersey and Guernsey employers appear to prefer the
latter alternative. Despite the downside, it is considered to be much
better than total stagnation.
6.10 There can be no objection, in principle,
to the Island having in place suitable work-permit legislation for
use only in the event of future chronic unemployment. However, the
proposals in this Paper, if adopted, would, as a by-product, provide
the same protection as work-permits in times of high unemployment. So
the duplication of effort would seem to be unwarranted.
6.11 Where will everyone live? The Island has
built around 13,000 homes since 1960. Had the immigration policy,
proposed in this Paper, been adopted back in those days, everyone
entitled to live in Jersey would have been housed by now and the
population would be stable. Today is the start of the next 40 years.
Ideally, our children will not be looking back, in 40 years from now,
and asking why a formal immigration policy was not implemented when
we had the chance.
6.12 What we have to be careful to avoid is
first choosing the solution to our over-population problem that we
perceive to be the best and then trying to make our reasoning fit
that choice. As with every practical decision we make, we must list
all the pros and all the cons and then make our choice based on the
facts rather than emotive perceptions.
7 A possible Immigration Visa or Permit Scheme
7.1 A new immigration policy
for the Island should be based on the possession of a personal,
currently dated "Smart-Card ", doubling also as a Social
Security card. The concept of using a "Smart " ID card, for
some purposes, has already been tentatively approved by the Policy
and Resources Committee. Ideally, it should contain and deliver
sufficiently comprehensive information to ensure that, amongst other
things, the Island constantly has maximum practicable data on the
current population level
7.2 No person should be permitted to
reside or work in the Island without such a card; though there would
naturally be a proviso, exempting visitors to the Island for up to
say 3 months, when staying in registered tourism accommodation
or with relatives or friends. Such visitors would not be permitted to
work here during their stay of course.
7.3 If the "Smart-Card "
proposal were law, the following persons would be guilty of a
criminal offence:
a) anybody, living or working in the
Island without a valid card or who is found with more than one
card
b) anybody who works in an industry or accepts
a type of work for which their card is not valid
c) any person who obtains a card by
fraud, deception or theft or uses a card so obtained
d) any employer, who employs a person
not in possession of such a card
e) any person, who rents or sells
dwelling accommodation to a person not in possession of a valid
card
7.4 ALL persons, applying
for a card, would be required to:
a) complete an application form and
identify themselves beyond reasonable doubt
b) provide a current photograph (and
possibly a thumb (or fingerprint)
c) sign the card
d) produce it, within a given
time-period, on the proper request of any duly authorised
person
7.5 Fundamentally,
newcomers to the Island (ie those who arrive in Jersey
AFTER this proposed new law has come into effect),
wishing to apply for a card, would also be required to comply with
the following:
a) to declare that they had never lived
or worked in Jersey before OR that a minimum period of
"x" months had passed since they last lived or worked
here. "x" would be not less than, say, one-third of the
period length of their last Permit.
b) to provide the name and signature of
a sponsoring employer, from whom a job offer has been received and
for whom work is to be undertaken. This proviso would help to ensure
that only "reasonable quality" employees are permitted to
remain in the Island for the purpose of working here.
c) to sign an undertaking to leave the
Island on or before a given date (generally, say, nine months or one
year after arrival) and not to return for a given minimum period
thereafter, without consent. The period of permitted stay in Jersey
would be variable, commensurate with the value to the Island of the
job to be undertaken. The maximum acceptable limit may be fixed, in
due course, somewhere between 7 and 10 years. It should, however, be
short enough to prevent immigrants from"setting down
roots". Continuous unemployment in the Island (for say 2 months
or more) should oblige early departure.
d) to acknowledge the penalties for
breaking the Immigration Law and to agree that, if convicted of any
offence, they will, if so required, submit to deportation to their
country of origin at their own expense.
e) to remain working in the same
industry (and possibly in the same type of work), whilst living in
the Island, unless otherwise authorised. This should stem wage
inflation presently caused by "poaching" between
industries. Transfer between industries should necessitate further
sponsorship of a new employer. Secondary "casual " jobs
should be permitted if such work is available.
f) to refrain from starting or buying a
business in the Island.
g)to keep the Immigration Department notified of their current
address &, perhaps, live only in accommodation provided by, or
rented on their behalf by, their employer. The Department could be
asked for consent to live elsewhere. Small businesses should probably
be exempted from having to provide accommodation.
h) to undertake not to bring to the
Island (except on holiday as previously defined) any family member,
partner or friend, save those who shall have FIRST been approved by
the Immigration Dept.
i) to pay a modest refundable deposit
when applying for the card in order to ensure proper care of the card
and its due surrender on permanent departure from the Island.
j) to accept such other restrictions as
may reasonably be included in any such permit application.
7.6 Those with full (a)– (h)
Residential Qualifications would be entitled to a "Permanent
" card. A person with less than twenty years residence, on the
date the proposed new law came into effect, would receive a
"Temporary " card but one that specified no due date for
departure from the Island. Upon achieving twenty years residence (or
after such lower period as the States may decide) a "Temporary
" cardholder would become a "Permanent " cardholder.
Other current Housing Rules could be similarly applied
(eg regarding marriage of a non-resident to an Islander).
Newcomers would hold a "short-term " or "limited
period " card.
7.7 None of the above would cause any
problems with countries in the European Union, so long as the same
rules applied to citizens of the United Kingdom. The proposed scheme
also has the advantage of being more in the nature of a
"conventional " immigration policy (as adopted by most
other countries) and is therefore likely to be more readily
understood and accepted by prospective immigrants.
7.8 It may be necessary to modify the
constitutional relationship between Jersey and the United Kingdom
insofar as its citizens are presently free to travel to Jersey and to
live and work in the Island without the need for any general
permission. The United Kingdom may, however, wish to reciprocate by
imposing, on Islanders, similar rules to those, which presently limit
the rights of some of us to live or work in the remainder of Europe,
except the UK.
7.9 All immigration application forms
and notices should be available in several languages, to ensure that
all immigrants could truly be said to have "known the rules when
they came ". This requirement is also fundamental to the whole
proposition. All enquirers should, on request, be sent copies, of the
papers they would be required to sign on arrival, so they can decide
NOT to come to Jersey if they do not like the rules or cannot
afford the Smart-Card deposit.
7.10 The Regulation of Undertakings Law
would probably continue, at least for a while, as the appropriate
vehicle to regulate the commencement of, the size of and the
expansion of undertakings but should no longer purport to control the
type of individual, who may work in each undertaking. In this regard,
Article 2 of that Law prohibits "increasing" the number of
persons engaged in an undertaking but appears to make no reference to
"replacing " persons engaged in an undertaking. Is the
Committee currently acting ultra vires?
7.11 All immigration controls must,
without question, apply to the Private Sector and the Public Sector
equally. 7.12 Under no circumstances
should the proposed "Smart-Card" method of immigration
control be confused with "work-permits ", which are
inappropriate in Jersey’s present economic climate. The use of
that terminology is unhelpful to the point of being
counter-productive and should henceforth be avoided.
7.13 It has been suggested (by John
Lees, former Social Security Controller), that the Smart-Card might
be called a "Citizenship Card ". It would be issued to all
Islanders with 1(1)(a)-(h) housing qualifications. Existing
residents, without Housing Qualifications, would apply for a
"Temporary Citizenship Card " whilst new immigrant workers
would apply for a "Short-term Citizenship Card ".
Hopefully, possession of a "Citizenship Card " (even a
Temporary or Short-term Citizenship Card) might instil, in the
holder, some sense of pride and should also obviate any disquiet
about ID cards, from a "civil rights" point-of-view.
7.14 Policing of the scheme would
generally be "passive" rather than "active", just
as it is with the present Housing and Regulation of Undertakings
Laws. Additional border controls should not be necessary, except for
statistical purposes. However, the simple "swiping " of
Smart-Cards, on entry & departure, would make the collection of
statistics relatively easy.
7.15 There would naturally be civil
service staffing implications to be assessed, in respect of the
administration of a Smart-Card immigration policy. However, the
Social Security Department and the Immigration Department together
administer the Aliens Law, which worked well prior to the expansion
of the EU in 1993/94. That Law is still in place today for
non-Europeans; so the present administrative procedures could
probably be extended, as may be necessary, to cope with the
additional workload. Co-operation would be essential between
departments involved with immigrants (eg Immigration, Housing, Social
Security, Income Tax & Parish Welfare). The secrecy oaths, sworn
by these departments, would have to be extended to permit full
co-operation.
7.18 More-detailed consideration should
be given to the following questions:
a) whether children would be recorded on
a parent’s card or have their own card? To meet statistical
needs (eg card-swiping on arrival and departure), each child would
probably require its own card.
b) whether to remove the citizenship
status of any 1(1)(k) immigrant, who, having undertaken to pay a
minimum sum of income tax per annum, fails to pay that minimum sum
for two consecutive years during their first twenty years in
Jersey.
c) whether citizenship status, once
attained, can be lost due to subsequent departure from the Island or
divorce and, if so, after what period and in what circumstances.
d) whether the "grey market " in
labour will need any special attention, due to the relatively fine
line between "employees " and "sub-contractors
".
7.17 When the world’s population is
increasing, and Jersey’s own number of births in excess of
deaths are about 200 to 300 per year (ie approx 0.25% pa), can we
reasonably expect to avoid any population increase at all? A level,
at which the population may reasonably be capped, cannot
realistically be set until a workable immigration scheme is in place.
Even then, any capping level proposed should take into account any
continuing growth in population, resulting from the excess of births
over deaths. The proportion, of working population to non-working
population, needs to be maintained in order to ensure that social
security contributions are sufficient to provide for the forecast
increase in the non-working population.
7.18 Land Reclamation is not a new idea.
It has been Island "policy " for two centuries. Would it
not be a practical option, economically, to cater for any essential
or unavoidable population growth by continuing to expand
St Helier southwards in order to provide the necessary
additional housing on reclaimed land?
Published 13th September 1999 by Robert Weston (Tel [0]1534 766366)