Figures in respect of the distribution of j category housing consents

1240/5(2964)

WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING BY DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER

ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 18th JULY 2006

Question

Would the Minister inform members –

1. of the figures in real and percentage terms for the distribution of j' category housingconsentsacross the employment sectors he referred to in his answerstooralquestionson 4th July 2006?
2. whether, as a result of the new j' category housing policy, anadditional600non time-limited consentswill be produced and, ifso, whether this numberis increased by dependants?
3. whether anynontime-limited j' category consents are to be issued in respect ofthe estimated 500new j'- category jobs arising from the economicgrowth policy and, if so,whatproportionof these consents will be non time-limited? and,
4. how the new j' category housing policy willnot affect population onebit' as stated in his answers to oral questions on4th July 2006?

Answer

1. The totalnumberof j' category employeesasat 31st December 2005, was 1,185. Of these, 740, or62%, were in the private sector, (afigure obtained from the 31st December 2005 Manpower Survey), and445,or 38%, in the public sector, (afigure extrapolated from the 2001 census figures). TheTreasuryandResources Department have recently enhanced their six monthlypublic sector manpower returns so, in future, the public sector figurecanbe reported on an actual rather than extrapolatedbasis.

O f the 271 private sector j' applications processed and approved in 2005 –

(i ) 7 4 , or 27%, were in the legal-financial sector;

(i i) 4 9 , or 18%, in banking;

(i ii ) 3 6 , or 13%, in services and transport;

(i v ) 3 2 , or 12%, were accountants; and

(v ) t h e remainder, 80, or 30%, were in a variety of other areas.

2. This change does not create essential employment and, therefore, it will not lead tomore essential j' employees.It will, of course, increase the proportion of unlimited consents from 10% to 60%approximately, and this does equateto600existing consentsbecoming unlimited. It does ofcoursenotincrease the number of j' consents, but merely transfers them from time limited, which in all likelihood would have been replaced byother time limited j's.

T h e average household size for a j' employee is 2.8, and therefore, it could be said that each j' employee

has on average 1.8 dependents'.

3. The EconomicGrowth Plan makes no reference to "500 new j'-category jobs". The EconomicGrowthPlan rather sets a target ofnomore than an average 1%growthperannumover the period of the plan in the working population, andwhichroughlyequatesto500jobs.

T h e agreed policy is to promote local employment, and all the evidence confirms that this objective is being achieved.  New  jobs  are  filled  over-whelming  with  locally  qualified  individuals;  in  2005,  83%  of  all employees were local, and of the additional jobs created, 96% were for locally qualified persons. Further, it

should be noted that non-local employment reduced by 70 positions in 2005.

E s sential j' employees accounted for 2% of the working population as at 31st December 2005, and 14% of

the growth in the working population in 2005.

4. As quoted in the report (j)' Category HousingConsents:ContractPolicy' – Report(R.54/2006 re-issue) " there is a continuous movement of employees in and out of the Island in response to the economic environment generally, so the granting of unlimited j' consent at the outset does not mean that all will stay and achieve local housing status".

F u rther, as noted in a written response to question No. 2945 tabled on 4th July 2006, "One could go further

and state that j' employees are highly mobile, career orientated individuals, who having been prepared to come to the Island for work, are equally prepared to leave..".

A ny impact on the population would only occur from those members of the current cohort of j' consents who

remain and would otherwise not have remained until retirement. It is expected that the net increase in j' consents who stay for more than 10 years and, therefore, gain their full entitlement at retirement will at most be minimal. Thus, if there is an impact on the population, it is expected to be very minimal.

F i nally, it is important to remember that this change was motivated in many ways by a desire for greater

equity; recognising the contribution these employees make to the Island, and the benefits of having a more stable society. As quoted in written response to question No. 2945 "..so long as the staff member remains essentially employed, contributing significantly to the Island, and they perform this for as long as it takes to obtain residential qualifications, then that is reasonable and equitable and promotes the kind of social inclusion and stability in the Island's population which is desirable."