ONE of the paradoxes of the States decision to restrict Guernsey’s population to ‘at or around current levels’ is that its other policies actively encourage it to grow. As one minister put it last week, the growth taps are on full.
The reason is that the two biggest constraints on a rising population here are availability of housing and the state of the economy.
The current requirement is to build around 300 new homes a year and, as the Policy Council’s Sustainable Guernsey report made clear last year, the average increase in the number of people living here is 273 per annum.
So since 2001, almost an extra 2,000 will have taken up residence and next month’s update of the report should provide the latest picture of how many people are actually here, which is likely to be nearly 2,000 above the 60,000 line-in-the-sand figure that many islanders would consider tolerable.
As we suggested last week, the time is overdue for a mature debate on what kind of an island we all want to live in and a key part of that has to be population.
Yet the consequences of further restricting immigration will be well known to the island’s wealth creators, struggling to fill vacancies in a tight labour market and not wanting to turn away new business.
The Guernsey Financial Services Commission believes its sector needs no more than about 250 top-flight staff to come in to unlock the potential that already exists and thus make its contribution towards filling the ‘grey hole’ in the States finances.
Would that inflow be acceptable to islanders?
The other problem is that the current level of controls do not enable government to ensure that of the 273 people coming in on average every year, at least 250 of them are of the calibre required by the GFSC.
And while manicurists and life coaches might provide a valuable service, they are unlikely to add value to the community in the same way that, say, an expert in derivatives would.
It’s a further example of why there needs to be debate on what sort of island people want.
What sort of island do we really want?
ONE of the paradoxes of the States decision to restrict Guernsey’s population to ‘at or around current levels’ is that its other policies actively encourage it to grow. As one minister put it last week, the growth taps are on full.
The reason is that the two biggest constraints on a rising population here are availability of housing and the state of the economy.
The current requirement is to build around 300 new homes a year and, as the Policy Council’s Sustainable Guernsey report made clear last year, the average increase in the number of people living here is 273 per annum.
So since 2001, almost an extra 2,000 will have taken up residence and next month’s update of the report should provide the latest picture of how many people are actually here, which is likely to be nearly 2,000 above the 60,000 line-in-the-sand figure that many islanders would consider tolerable.
As we suggested last week, the time is overdue for a mature debate on what kind of an island we all want to live in and a key part of that has to be population.
Yet the consequences of further restricting immigration will be well known to the island’s wealth creators, struggling to fill vacancies in a tight labour market and not wanting to turn away new business.
The Guernsey Financial Services Commission believes its sector needs no more than about 250 top-flight staff to come in to unlock the potential that already exists and thus make its contribution towards filling the ‘grey hole’ in the States finances.
Would that inflow be acceptable to islanders?
The other problem is that the current level of controls do not enable government to ensure that of the 273 people coming in on average every year, at least 250 of them are of the calibre required by the GFSC.
And while manicurists and life coaches might provide a valuable service, they are unlikely to add value to the community in the same way that, say, an expert in derivatives would.
It’s a further example of why there needs to be debate on what sort of island people want.
Share this article:
What are these?