Skip to main content

Living Wage for Jersey: investigation (P.37/2013) – comments.

This content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost. Let us know if you find any major problems.

Text in this format is not official and should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments. Please see the PDF for the official version of the document.

STATES OF JERSEY

LIVING WAGE FOR JERSEY: INVESTIGATION (P.37/2013) – COMMENTS

Presented to the States on 30th April 2013 by the Council of Ministers

STATES GREFFE

2013   Price code: A  P.37 Com.

COMMENTS

The Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers are unable to accept this Proposition.

The Council is aware of the work being undertaken in other jurisdictions in relation to the living wage and to the benefits it can deliver for some individuals and the wider community. However, the potential positive and negative effects of the living wage on a small Island's labour market are not understood to any degree. This would require detailed, in-depth analysis that would cost significantly more that than the £10,000 to £20,000  estimated  by   Deputy  G.P.   Southern  of  St.  Helier  and  would  also  divert existing resources from our current social policy priorities as set out in the States Strategic Plan. Work that includes –

Back to Work initiatives.

Supporting  work  related  to  migrant  controls,  including  access  to States Services.

Establishment  of  the  Social  Housing  Unit  and  development  of cohesive housing policy.

Extension of ratification of UNCRC.

Delivery  of  objectives  in  Children  and  Young  people  Strategic framework.

Improvements to safeguarding for children and adults.

Development  of  initiatives  that  help  tackle  disadvantage;  such  as community transport for people with a disability or special need.

Work to improve the relationship between the States and Voluntary and Community sector.

In his proposition, Deputy Southern calculates that the living wage would potentially deliver £14 million in benefit payment savings and in tax revenue. His calculations in relation to income support savings do not however, allow for the fact that minimum wage  employees  are  predominately  people  with  less  than  5  years  residency  and therefore not entitled to claim income support.

In  addition  the  projected  supplementation  savings  are  also  flawed  based  on  the premise that it is highly unlikely in the current economic climate that low wage sectors, such as tourism and agriculture, would adopt the living wage and hence supplementation would continue at existing rates.

My Department is working on Sustainable Long-Term Planning and will be refreshing the existing Social Policy Strategic Framework during the course of this year, in addition to all the other social policy initiatives outlined above. To divert attention and resource  from  those  initiatives  and,  to  agree  to  do  so,  based  on  flawed  initial calculations  and  within  a  wholly  unrealistic  timeframe  would  only  result  in  this Assembly  failing  to  deliver  the  positive  changes  it  committed  to  in  the  current Strategic Planning and Medium Term Financial Planning cycle.

As such, I suggest to Members that this Proposition should not be accepted at this time.

The Chief Minister apologises for the delay in the distribution of these comments owing to a delayed return from an overseas business trip late last week.

Page - 2

P.37/2013 Com.