Population and Migration - Report - 24 April 2012

CONTENTS

1. CHAIRMAN'S FOREWORD ..............................................................................................3
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................5
3. KEY FINDINGS ....................................................................................................................7
4. RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................9
5. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................10
6. 2011 CENSUS RESULTS ................................................................................................12
7. IMPLICATIONS .................................................................................................................18
8. FUTURE CONTROLS ......................................................................................................26
9. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................31
10. APPENDIX 1 - PANEL MEMBERSHIP AND TERMS OF REFERENCE ................33
11. APPENDIX 2 – EVIDENCE CONSIDERED .................................................................35
12. APPENDIX 3 – 2011 CENSUS HEADLINES ..............................................................36
13. APPENDIX 4 – EXPERT ADVISOR'S REPORT ........................................................38

1. CHAIRMAN'S FOREWORD

The results of the 2011 Census which revealed 97,857 people lived in Jersey have caused many Islanders to be justifiably concerned about the effect a growing population will have on the environment, housing, essential services, and employment opportunities for local people.

With this in mind the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel chose to conduct a review based on the latest Census information. Due to the tight timescale and the panel's desire to present some initial findings prior to the Strategic Plan debate, a decision was taken to undertake the review in two parts.

In this first part the Panel have considered the results of the 2011 Census with previous estimates and the implications these may have on any future population policy proposals brought forward by the Council of Ministers.

The Census results have confirmed population levels have increased by approximately 900 persons a year since 2001 and it is apparent that the 100,000 population limit set during the last Strategic Plan has almost been reached.

This is alarming as previous policies have sought to control population increases to sustainable levels and many other decisions made by the Assembly such as the provision of housing contained in the Island Plan and the Island's future Tax policy have all been based around the current levels agreed by the Assembly.

The Panel supports the Council of Minister's view that the challenge for Jersey continues to be the need to achieve a balance between an economically viable working population, and the provision of essential public services without threatening our environment and way of life.

However it is very unclear as to how the Council of Ministers is going to deliver on this most important priority, especially as it will take till the end of this year to update the population model and a States debate on population and immigration limits will not happen until July 2013.

The decision of the Council of Ministers to exclude immigration and population objectives from the Strategic Plan is significant, as other priorities contained within the Plan will by their very nature, be influenced by current and future population levels.

Evidence considered by the Panel to date, shows that the failure to meet migration targets is due to the fact that our current control mechanisms are flawed and were neither sufficiently managed nor enforced.

The inability to manage our population within agreed levels does not inspire much confidence in the new actions proposed by the Council of Ministers and raises doubts over whether Ministers and their departments are capable of managing and enforcing existing laws.

In Part 2, the Panel will be looking at the effectiveness of the proposed controls, specifically the subordinate legislation arising from the Control of Housing and Work (Jersey) law and the Register of Names and Addresses (Jersey) law, political responsibility and whether any changes that may need to be made in the interim. The panel will be making further recommendations once the further work still to be undertaken by the Statistics unit and the population office is completed.

Deputy James Reed Vice-Chairman Corporate Services Panel

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. The issues of Jersey's population and inward migration are highly significant and merit debate. Particularly in light of the 2011 Census results which showed a considerable rise in population numbers since the last Census was conducted in 2001. Furthermore, the total resident population figure was significantly higher than the estimate published by the Statistics Unit in 2009. These findings sparked concerns regarding the effectiveness of our existing control mechanisms in managing population levels in line with existing policy.
2. Discrepancies between the two Censuses and previous population estimates raised questions of statistical methodology. We asked our expert advisor to review the work undertaken by the Statistics Unit. He found that the recent Census was conducted in an efficient and robust manner. Furthermore, he supported the explanations that were provided for disparities between the 2011 Census figures and the 2009 estimates but acknowledged the need for methodological revisions for future year-end estimates. The Statistics Unit has advised that a reconciliation of the recent Census will be released around June this year and, while this will help to provide more accurate annual updates, we found that it will not solve the issue of measuring inward and outward migration.
3. A revised Population Model will not be completed until December 2012. In light of this information, the Council of Ministers has decided to delay the Population Policy debate until July 2013. Before this discussion can take place however, questions concerning population and migration targets need to be addressed. The fact that Jersey has already exceeded the Net Migration target that was set during the 2009 Strategic Plan debate, and is close to exceeding the population limit, makes us doubt its rationale. We found that a population limit or target should not be put in place unless there is confidence that it can be achieved through appropriate controls and measures. Before a debate on the new Population Policy can take place, there also needs to be a full understanding of the difference between the 2011 Census results and previous population estimates.
4. High population levels have a considerable impact on many areas of Jersey's society. The 2011 Census results not only affect the debate on population but also impact directly on policies in education, health, housing and employment. In light of the 2011 Census results which showed high numbers of unemployed Jersey born residents, the Council of Ministers has highlighted unemployment as one of the top priorities within the 2012 Draft Strategic Plan. The short-term aims are to encourage local people into lower value sector jobs and reduce the number of non-locally qualified licences. While we agree that the initiatives are necessary, their effectiveness in limiting population growth has to be questioned. We cannot have confidence in what is being proposed by the Council of Ministers given that the current control mechanisms for population and migration are failing, and have been for the last three years. In order to measure the effectiveness of the control mechanisms, the Chief Minister should ensure that a comparison is undertaken between the annual updates and the numbers of locally qualified and non-locally qualified licenses that are allocated.

5. The Control of Housing and Work (Jersey) Law and the Register of Names and Addresses (Jersey) Law are to be introduced in July this year with the notion that the new legislation will provide more effective means of controlling and monitoring population and net inward migration. A population register introduced under the legislation is due to provide an accurate measure of Jersey's population. However, there has been ambiguity over the timetable for its development and the date from which it can be relied upon as a true and exact measure of the resident population. Until such time as the register is operational and has been validated, any population policy that sets overall population limits is likely to be frustrated and runs the risk of failure. Before any decisions on targets and limits are made, further clarification is required about the implementation of the population register. Furthermore, views of the Chief Statistician, with regard to the completion date of a statistically viable rolling measure of the Island's population, should be provided to States Members at least three months before the Population Policy debate.
6. During this review, the Chief Minister informed the Panel that consideration was being given to an extension of the qualification period for access to work from five years to ten years. We recommend that the Chief Minister should advise the States Assembly during the Strategic Plan debate on discussions to date regarding the proposal to extend the current "5 year rule" to a 10 year qualifying period.
7. Ultimately, past and present failures to meet policy guidelines have been the result of insufficient controls and measures. The delivery of the population policy will depend on the effectiveness of the new population and migration control mechanisms. Further clarity is required with regards to the responsibility of those controls and accountability for their success. We shall explore such matters, along with others highlighted within this report, when part two of this review is undertaken, in which greater consideration will be given to; the implementation of accepted recommendations made in Migration: Control of Housing and Work (SR9/2011); the mechanisms of the new legislation; and the role and effectiveness of the Chief Minister's Department in overseeing the delivery and management of migration control mechanisms.

3. KEY FINDINGS

Please note: Each key finding is accompanied by a reference to that part of the report where further explanation and justification may be found.

1. The 2011 Census results called into question the Population Policy agreed in 2009 and the capacity to control inward migration. (See 6.5)
2. The 2011 Census was conducted in an efficient and robust manner and evidence to date suggests that the significant increase in the population figures results from the failings of our current control mechanisms. (See 6.19)
3. The reconciliation of the 2011 Census results by the Statistics Unit will help to provide more accurate annual updates. However, it will not resolve the issue of measuring migration to and from the Island and a degree of uncertainty will therefore remain. (See 6.20)
4. The Statistics Unit will not have completed a revised Population Model before December 2012. (See 7.3)
5. The current Population Policy was adopted on the basis that new population control mechanisms would be implemented. However, those new mechanisms are still not in place. (See 7.5)
6. There must be a full understanding of the difference between the 2011 Census results and previous population predictions before a debate on the new Population Policy can take place. (See 7.8)
7. A delay in the debate on population policy is unfortunate given that it impacts upon other policy matters: housing, education, employment, economic growth and infrastructure – all of which will be covered in the new Strategic Plan. (See 7.9)
8. If the current population trends continue then the population limit of 100,000, set by the current Population Policy, will soon be breached. (See 7.13)
9. Although the Chief Minister has stated that he would like to see the population constrained to 100,000, the Council of Ministers has yet to decide on whether the new population policy should include a set population limit. (See 7.15)

10. Further work on the granting, renewal and removal of licenses by the Population Office is required in order that a full understanding of the employment position in Jersey, and the impact of inward migration, can be developed. (See 7.21)
11. In order to have managed the population more effectively, measures should have been taken earlier to address high levels of inward migration to the Island. (See 7.25)
12. The Statistics Unit will need to validate the Population Register before it can be relied upon as a rolling measure of Jersey's population. (See 8.4)
13. Until the Population Register is complete and mature, two sets of population statistics will be available, thereby increasing the risk of confusion when discussing population policy. (See 8.8)
14. Until such time as the register is operational and has been validated, any population policy that sets overall population limits is likely to be frustrated and runs the risk of failure. (See 8.9)
15. The Chief Minister has begun to consider whether qualification for access to work should be extended from five years to ten years. (See 8.15)
16. Delivery of the population policy will depend upon the effectiveness of migration controls. There must be clarity as to the responsibility for those controls and accountability for their success. (See 8.16)

4. RECOMMENDATIONS

Please note: Each recommendation is accompanied by a reference to that part of the

report where further explanation and justification may be found.

1. The Chief Minister should undertake a fundamental review of the structure of the Population Office and, in particular, examine the compliance and enforcement function and licence allocation. (See 7.22)
2. Given that the current control mechanisms are failing, the Chief Minister should ensure that a comparison is undertaken between the annual population updates and the numbers of locally qualified and non-locally qualified licenses that are allocated. Furthermore, these findings should be published in a report and presented to the States on an annual basis. (See 7.28)
3. At least three months before the debate on Population Policy, the Chief Minister should request the Chief Statistician to provide his view on when the Register will be statistically viable as a rolling measure of the Island's population. (See 8.10)
4. The Chief Minister should advise the States Assembly during the debate on the new Strategic Plan about any increases plans to extend the qualification period for access to work. (See 8.17)

5. INTRODUCTION

1. In December 2011, the Statistics Unit published the results of the most recent Census which revealed that the total resident population of Jersey was 97,857.[1] In contrast, the previous Census in 2001 had reported a resident population of 87,186 and therefore we had seen a growth of some 9,100 people between 2001 and 2011 (including the undercount in the two Censuses).[2] Furthermore, the most recent annual update of the population produced by the Statistics Unit (for the end of 2009) had been 92,500 (5,357 residents short of the Census results).[3]
2. The Census results called into question the Population Policy that had been agreed by the States as part of the Strategic Plan 2009 – 2014. The Population Policy had aimed to:

• Maintain the level of the working age population in the Island;
• Ensure that the Island's population did not exceed 100,000;
• Limit inward migration over a five-year period to a maximum of 150 heads of household per annum (corresponding to an overall increase of 325 people per annum).[4]

3. In light of the Census results, the Chief Minister indicated that the Population Policy would be reviewed and renewed during development of the new Strategic Plan. There were questions therefore of what Population Policy' the new Strategic Plan would contain and whether it would propose specific limits for total population and inward migration. Following consultation on the draft Strategic Plan, the Council of Ministers has now decided to delay the States debate on immigration and population objectives until more information is available. The new draft Strategic Plan was lodged on 19th March 2012 by the Council of Ministers and will be debated on 1st May 2012. The draft plan confirmed that one of its top priorities was to manage population growth and migration' and referred specifically to the recent census results as one of the driving forces behind this decision.[5]
4. Furthermore, it has been confirmed that the population model would be updated using the new Census information and that realistic targets for population and immigration limits would be brought to the Assembly by July 2013. With regard to this matter, the Statistics Unit has advised that a reconciliation of the 2011 Census with previous population estimates will be completed in June or July 2012 and that a revised population model will not be ready until the end of the year.

5. The Census results also called into question the ability to control inward migration to the Island. Currently, inward migration is controlled' under the Housing (Jersey) Law 1949 and the Regulation of Undertakings and Development (Jersey) Law 1973. However, these laws are due to be replaced by the Control of Housing and Work (Jersey) Law which will work alongside the Register of Names and Addresses (Jersey) Law (population register). The primary legislation was agreed by the States in 2011 and implementation of the new laws is anticipated for July 2012. Approval of subordinate legislation (Regulations agreed by the States and Ministerial Orders) is required before full implementation can occur, however.
6. The Corporate Services Panel had no difficulty in agreeing that this matter merited review because, not only was there a concern over the Census results, but there were also concerns about the increasing unemployment levels in Jersey. Furthermore, this subject impacts not only population policy, but policy in many different areas. It was agreed at the start of the review that this work would be undertaken most effectively by incorporating two phases of activity. Firstly, in this report we have focused on the census results and the implications thereof for population policy. The 2012 draft Strategic Plan highlighted the control of migration and population as one of its main priorities and it was therefore imperative for the first phase of this work to be presented ahead of the new Strategic Plan debate in May 2012. Secondly, it is our intention to build upon the work undertaken for this report and present a second report on the new population/migration policy ahead of the implementation of the Control of Housing and Work (Jersey) Law in July 2012.
7. The focus of our review to date has therefore been the 2011 Census results; the implications of these results on future policy; the question of population targets and limits; and the issue of control mechanisms. Within these areas it becomes apparent that the following questions should be considered when discussing population policy:

1. Why did the Census results appear to differ from previous population predictions?
2. What implications do the 2011 Census results have for the Executive's Population and Migration policies?
3. What population and Migration policies will be included within the new strategic plan?
4. What changes, if any, will be made to the new migration legislation in light of the 2011 Census results?

6. 2011 CENSUS RESULTS

The Process

1. The 2011 Jersey Census was held on 27th March 2011 and was carried out on-Island and independently by the Statistics Unit.  In order to collect the information needed for the Census the Island was divided into 166 Enumeration districts, with one fieldworker in each district responsible for handing out census questionnaires to all households and checking that all dwellings were included. Each household was asked to return the questionnaires as soon as possible on or after census day. The Census office, which was made up of two Census Managers and ten staff, was then in charge of checking and processing the data collected from the questionnaires as well as validating it against other administrative data sources. [6]
2. It is understood that this in-house approach provided the Statistics Unit with much greater control over the entire census process and helped to improve the quality of the census data compared to when processing was carried out off-island in 2001. Furthermore, the Chief Statistician explained that the statistical expertise of his team and the local expertise of the fieldworkers were crucial in producing, what he believes to be, a dedicated, accurate and robust census.[7] This view is supported by both ourselves and our advisor who, within his conclusion, summarised:

"The 2011 Census, conducted in a robust, timely and cost-efficient manner, is an important statistical landmark for Jersey."[8]

Main Findings

6.4  The fact that the results of the 2011 Census attracted a great deal of media attention came as no surprise given that the resulting figures were much higher than anticipated. The total resident population on 27th March 2011 was 97,857, 10,700 higher than what was reported in 2001 (see Paragraph 6.11 with regard to the different treatment of the undercount in the two Censuses) and 5,357 greater than the figure that was estimated by the Statistics Unit at year-end 2009.[9] These figures made it apparent that the 100,000 population limit, set during the last Strategic Plan, had almost been breached. Interestingly, this did not seem to surprise many of our witnesses. For instance, the Minister for Housing, a member of the

Migration Advisory Group, even went as far as saying that he expected the population to be higher than 100,000 when the census results were published[10].

6. In  addition  to  these  headline'  figures,  there  are  a  number  of  other  statistics  worth mentioning. For example, the public's attention was also captured by a substantial increase in Jersey's working age population. Between 2001 and 2011 the number of residents within the working age bracket increased by 7,338 persons (from 57,015 in 2001 to 64,353 in 2011)[11]. The significance of this increase is further elucidated by the fact that it accounts for 69 per cent of the total change in Jersey's population over the last decade. Interestingly however, the Statistics Unit also discovered that the dependency ratio (the relationship between those outside the work force to those of working age) has remained steady over the last decade at 52 per cent (similar to the average dependency ratio for the period from 1931 to 2001). In the past, the dependency ratio has been used as a way of measuring the sustainable  balance  between  the  working  age  population  and  the  non-working  age population. For example, as well as seeing a significant increase in the size of the labour- force ages since 2001, Jersey has also seen a rise in Jersey residents that are above working age (an increase of 2,784 in 10 years) and therefore the balance has been maintained. Our advisor believes that the dependency ratio has been sustained due to the considerable increase in net inward migration of adults that fall into the working age bracket[12].
7. For instance, since 2001 the total net inward migration figure has increased by 6,800, out of which 4,100 were born in countries which have recently joined the European Union[13]. The high percentage increase of net inward migration has had an impact on, not only the total population numbers, but also the working age population[14].
8. Although there has been a significant increase in the working age population over the last decade, we have also seen a rise in the unemployment levels. At the time of the Census, 2,534 adults of working age were unemployed and looking for work. Of the unemployed persons, eighty-one per cent had A-H category residential qualifications and nineteen per cent were not qualified.

9. Furthermore, a staggering fifty-two per cent (1,310) of those people unemployed were born in Jersey[15]. The significance of these figures is further highlighted by the fact that unemployment has been identified as a top priority within the 2012 draft Strategic Plan.

Question of disparity

Notwithstanding these results, the important question that now has to be asked is why do the 2011 Census figures differ considerably to those that were predicted back in 2009?

10. When the Statistics Unit published the first Bulletin of the 2011 Census, they also included an explanation of the factors that contributed to the significant change between the 2001 and 2011 total resident population figures. This subsequently provided the public with some clarification as to why the 2009 year-end estimates were substantially lower than the end results.
11. According to the Statistics Unit the difference between the 2001 and 2011 Census measures can be attributed to the following three components:

• The 2001 undercount
• Natural growth (excess of births over deaths)
• Net Migration (into the Island)[16]

These components can also help to explain the considerable difference between the 2011 Census and the population figures estimated in 2009.

12. When the previous Census' total resident population figure was published it did not include the "undercount"[17], which, at the time, followed international practice. It was estimated that this number would be in the region of 840 people. However, when the Statistics Unit recently compared that undercount with administrative data (which had only become available after 2001) the undercount was re-estimated at 1,600[18]. As a result of these differing approaches, the gap between the population measures in 2001 and 2011 is less

than appears. If indeed the 2001 undercount was included in the 2009 annual update the estimated total resident population would have been 94,100, still far less than the recent Census figure of 97,857.

13. Similarly, a significant increase in natural growth made the gap between the 2009 estimate and 2011 results appear far greater. Between 2001 and 2011 natural growth accounted for an increase of 2,300 people, 928 more than in the previous 10 years.

.

14. The Statistics Unit also identified Net Migration as the largest contributor to the change between the 2001 and 2011 Census measures. As mentioned earlier, a sizeable number of 6,800 people have entered the Island, from various parts of the world, since 2001. For instance, one of the biggest changes Jersey has seen over the last decade has been the increase in inward migration of people from Eastern Europe (escalating in 2004 and continuing though to 2008). Interestingly, the sudden growth in net migration in 2004 occurred almost immediately after Eastern European countries joined the European Union in May that year and therefore no longer required work permits when entering EU Countries[19]. Furthermore, the inward migration of people from the UK and from outside of Europe has increased during the last 10 years; additionally there has been an almost constant level of inward migration of Portuguese / Madeiran.[20]
15. The explanations that have been provided by the Statistics Unit for the higher than expected' results seem comprehensive. However, given the complexities involved when discussing statistics, we asked our expert advisor, Dr Peter Boden, to review the work undertaken by the Unit (his report is attached as an appendix).
16. Dr Boden confirmed that the 2011 Jersey Census had been conducted in a robust and efficient manner and even went so far as to commend the Statistics Unit for their exceptional understanding of demographic data[21]. In regards to the 2001 undercount and Net Migration, he summarised:

 "People continue to refer to the 92.5k population in 2009. This is misleading as it excludes the 2001 undercount (of approximately 1.6k). It would be more appropriate to refer to the 2009 population, including the undercount (94.1k)"

"Net Migration..is the component of demographic change that is most difficult to measure – as evidenced by the difference between the census results and the most recent year-end population estimate"

17. It is important to acknowledge that, whilst the work of the Statistics Unit has proven to be of high quality, further work needs to be completed so they can assure more accurate annual estimates going forward. However, as our advisor has explained Net-Migration is a very hard component to measure. We have been advised by the Unit that a reconciliation of the 2011 Census with previous population estimates will be published around June this year. This will include a full disclosure and discussion of the differences between the Census results and the previous population predictions[22], which we believe is necessary before any future debate on the population policy can take place. Another important issue is the methodology that is currently being used for producing estimates. At the moment the Statistical Unit has to rely on a number of different sources[23] to analyse Jersey's annual migration history. While the reconciliation of the results in June will help to provide us with better annual updates in the future it will not solve the problem of measuring inward and outward migration. Unfortunately, until a more efficient measure is developed, a degree of uncertainty over migration figures will remain.
18. From the evidence provided throughout this chapter it is clear that Jersey's high population numbers are not a result of inadequate statistics but perhaps the failings of our current control mechanisms. This view is also supported by our advisor, who commented:

"Shortcomings in the population estimation methodology are not the reason for any failure to  meet  policy  guidelines  as  the  control'  element  resides  with  the  Regulation  of Undertakings."[24]

7. IMPLICATIONS

1. The draft Strategic Plan, which was lodged by the Council of Ministers on 19th March 2012, has set out six main priorities that Jersey's government will focus on over the next 3 years. As highlighted earlier, one of these priorities is to manage population growth and migration. With the Strategic Plan debate taking place at the beginning of May this year, we have to wonder what implications the recent Census results have had on the Plan itself and what changes, if any, have been suggested given the views expressed above. In the Draft Strategic Plan it was confirmed that the Council of Ministers would update the population model using the new Census information and bring realistic population targets to the Assembly by 2013. In this regard we were advised by the Statistics Unit that a revised Population Model would not be complete until December this year.
2. It is important to note here that, during further discussions with the Statistics Unit, we were informed that the decision to update the population model does not in fact reside with the Council of Ministers. The Chief Statistician explained that the initiation and undertaking of such  work  rests  solely  with  the  independent  States  of  Jersey  Statistics  Unit  and subsequently the information contained within the draft Strategic Plan, concerning this matter, is inaccurate. Furthermore, he stressed the importance of highlighting the apolitical nature and professional independence and integrity of the Unit in light of such inaccuracies.

7.4  These factors raise many issues. How are we supposed to have a meaningful debate on population and immigration without a new population model in place? Interestingly in 2009, during  the  previous  Corporate  Services  Panel's  review  on  Population  Policy,  similar concerns were brought to the attention of the Council of Ministers. The previous Panel believed  that  it  would  be  inappropriate  for  a Strategic  Plan  debate  to  take  place  on Population Policy in the absence of established population control mechanisms. Although the  recommendation  was  accepted  and  a  Migration  Policy  consultation  paper  was published in June 2009, the final draft legislation was not presented to the States until March 2011[25].

6. It could be argued, therefore, that the Council of Ministers would be repeating history if they were to hold a major debate on population before all relevant data is available. The Minister for Economic Development also spoke of his concerns:

 "I think to have a meaningful debate on population and immigration at this stage, without the model being in place, we would certainly be having that debate blindfolded and I think that would be thoroughly inappropriate."[26]

7. Following this, the Council of Ministers has now made the ultimate decision to delay the Population Policy debate until July 2013. For instance, although it was understood that the Population Policy would be amended and renewed during the development of the 2012 Strategic Plan debate, the decision has now been made to reschedule any discussions regarding Population Policy until the revised population model is in place. The delay of the Population Policy debate is unfortunate given that the subject encompasses other priorities that will be still be discussed during the Strategic Plan Debate i.e. housing, education and employment. As recognised by the Chief Minister:

"Well, I suppose you would say that we are dealing with the issues of the population that is here right through the Strategic Plan, so getting people into work, inward investment. All these things are related to population as well. Resources in the health service, that is related to the number of people obviously in our community and where we are going to nee do provide that help. Levels of population, of course, Sarah, is related to housing and the number of houses that we need to provide. As James will be aware, it is related to the education. We have to provide the amount of education, the amount of schools, and it is related to long-term planning. So it is the numbers flowing out of the census and how we are going to manage the population effects right across "[27]

The current States of Jersey Law, however, stipulates that the Strategic Plan must be lodged by the Council of Ministers within 4 months of their appointment[28]; hence why the debate is still taking place at the beginning of May this year.

Question of Limits and Targets

10. The issue of population levels is by no means a new one, and seemingly in the past the subject of population limits and targets has been at the centre of many discussions relating to this subject. The Population Policy review presented to the States on 1st June 2009 highlighted concerns about limiting' the size of the population and net inward migration. This resulted from the decision to include specific figures in the policy during the previous Strategic Plan debate, in which it was decided that Jersey's population should not exceed 100,000  and  Net  Inward  Migration  should  be  kept  to  a  maximum  of  150  heads  of household per annum over a five-year period. In light of the recent Census results it is now apparent that the concerns voiced back in 2009 were justifiable.
11. There was a common agreement amongst the Ministers that we met at the public hearings that a discussion concerning particular targets during the Strategic Plan debate would be premature. However, the opinions that were voiced regarding the size of the population targets in the future were much more ambiguous.
12. The  Strategic  Plan  states  that  the  Council  of  Ministers  will  bring  realistic  targets  for population and migration to the Assembly by July 2013[29], but how are realistic' targets defined? Despite being only 2,143 people away from exceeding the population limit set back in 2009, the Chief Minister provided the following view when asked about the limit size:

 "It is difficult to say. I have, as I am sure Members will know, said that I personally feel that I would like to see population constrained to under 100,000 but it will not just be my decision, it will be a decision of the States Assembly"[30].

Furthermore, whilst the Minister for Housing accepted that controlling the population level at  100,000  would  be  challenging,  he  did  not  agree  that  it  would  be  impossible[31]. Additionally, the Chief Statistician believes that within 7 to 8 years we will have reached the 100,000 mark through natural growth alone (natural growth accounts for 230 per year)[32]. In the same regard, our advisor suggests that the population would grow at approximately 7,000-8,000 over the next 10 years if the trends of the last five years were to continue[33].

7.14  Although the discussions concerning the size of the limit of the population are important and necessary if a target is to be set in July 2013, some believe that the debate should move away from the realm of numbers and statistics and instead focus on the mechanisms that are inevitably going to control the population. No decision has yet been made by the Council of Ministers about whether or not there should be a limit in place. During the public hearing, for example, the Chief Minister spoke of his preference to constrain the population to 100,000. However, we were also informed that there is a general agreement that there should be no target figure. As explained by the Minister for Housing:

"There is a consensus among the Council of Ministers that we do have to control it [population and migration] and I think there is a consensus that possibly we would have no target."[34]

16. As the Draft Strategic Plan does not include targets and limits, it is now important to acknowledge the implications that the increase in the population has for Jersey's society and the measures that are going to be taken in the short term to help tackle this issue.

Implications for Jersey's economy

17. During the public hearing with the Chief Minister, it was acknowledged that the Census results  and  the  issue  of  population  levels  in  general  not  only  affect  the  debate  on Population  Policy  but  impact  directly  on  discussions  and  future  polices  surrounding employment, housing, education and health services.[35]
18. Amongst other things, the Census results highlighted Jersey's increasing unemployment levels, specifically among locally qualified persons. The Draft Strategic Plan, therefore, includes two particular actions that have been proposed to help tackle this problem in the short term. These are to support the engagement and training of locally qualified people; and to reduce the number of non-locally qualified licences[36]. While it has been widely accepted that some inward migration is necessary for the growth of Jersey's economy, getting local people into work has been recognised as a greater priority[37].
19. With regards to the first action, one of the aims is to encourage local people to go for jobs that perhaps, in the past, have not been considered desirable. As explained to us by the Chief Minister:

"there are jobs in our economy which, perhaps historically, have required levels of inward migration. The challenge is for us to be able to equip the people who are already in our community to undertake those jobs"[38].

The Minister for Economic Development recognised that some local people may not wish to enter into work they perhaps feel is inappropriate for them or is not at the level that they want[39]. During the review, the President of the Chamber of Commerce told the Panel that he had experienced this problem first hand when he received no job applications from the local  population,  when  advertising  for  a  new  job,  but  received  many  from  non-local residents[40].

20. With regard to the second action, the Economic Development Minister informed us that the tightening up' of licences has in fact already begun. For example, 565 non-locally qualified staffing permissions in 2010 and 375 in 2011 were withdrawn from existing licences. Furthermore, 390 non-locally qualified applications were refused in 2010 and a further 334 in 2011[41]. The Panel was also informed that the Population Office cannot provide a figure for licences reviewed in 2009-2011 or a breakdown of the non-locally qualified licences removed or approved by sector without considerable analysis. This is somewhat surprising given that all joint staffing licences are expected to be reviewed on a 3 year cycle and one would expect this information to be readily available.

23. Although it is agreed that these initiatives are necessary in light of our present economic situation, we have to question how effective they will be in controlling population levels and why the tightening up of licences was not instigated earlier.
24. Firstly, changes in the application of legislation are being applied to an existing legislative framework that has been failing for the last 3 years. The Economic Development Minister recognised some weaknesses of the current control mechanisms:

"I  think  there  were  some  failings  in  the  current  system,  and  I  include  in  that  our responsibility through Regulation of Undertakings that do not give us and do not give the department enough ability to, in the past, be able to control these issues in the way that perhaps we would like to have done"[42]

The fact that implementation of current control mechanisms have been unable to meet our population  policy  guidelines  (migration  targets  were  seemingly  exceeded  during  the Strategic Plan period[43]) does not inspire much confidence in the new actions proposed by the Council of Ministers. This coupled with the fact that no prosecutions have been made for non-compliance under the Regulation of Undertakings and Development (Jersey) Law 1973[44] equally raises doubts over the ability of Ministers and their Departments to enforce existing laws.

7.26  Secondly, if indeed the new actions are successful in controlling our population, how could this be measured? The Economic Development Minister advised us that his team had already begun work to reduce the levels of net inward migration but he provided no indication of the impact that this had already had on Jersey's population. In the view of our advisor, it would be beneficial to compare the annual updates that are published by the Statistics Unit with the number of locally qualified and non-locally qualified licences that have  been  allocated.  It  is  believed that this  would  provide  a  useful  indicator  of  how effectively the control mechanisms are being used[45].

8. FUTURE CONTROLS

1. It was agreed in 2011 that the Control of Housing and Work (Jersey) Law and the Register of Names and Addresses (Jersey) Law will replace the Housing (Jersey) Law 1949 and the Regulations of Undertakings and Development (Jersey) Law 1973 later on this year. We have been advised that the new legislation will allow for greater control and enhanced compliance of future population and immigration levels in a more appropriate way than our current control mechanisms[46], which is paramount given the present situation. A previous Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel has already provided an extensive overview of the workings and expected benefits of the new legislation[47]. Therefore we will only discuss changes here that have been proposed in light of the 2011 Census results. Furthermore, our next report (the second phase of this review) will asses the new legislative framework in greater detail.

Timetable

2. It has been confirmed that the intention is to introduce the new Control of Housing and Work (Jersey) Law and Register of Names and Addresses Law (Jersey) in July 2012 (12 months after the Laws were approved by the States)[48]. Furthermore, a new population register is to be created that, we have been told, will provide a more accurate measure of the population than the annual updates that we currently receive form the Statistics Unit.

Population register

3. The new legislation will introduce a population register that will eventually provide names and addresses of all those residing in the Island. It has been made clear to us that the population register is a fundamental element of the new control mechanisms for population and migration. We have been informed by the Population Office that the register will be up and running and in full working capacity by April 2013. As the Director of the Population Office explained:

"What is important to complete the population register is the returns from businesses because that will inform the register and those will be due at 31st December 2012. We will

then need to do some analysis and I estimated last time by April 2013 we will have a figure from the population register for December 2012"[49]

However, before the register can be relied upon as a single method of measuring our population, the Statistics Unit will have to independently validate and calibrate it against the recent Census results and the reconciliation data.

5. Originally the States have been informed that the 2011 Census would be used to calibrate a population register that was already mature but due to delays in setting up the population register the Census became a measuring instrument in its own right. In fact, the idea of a population register was first discussed 7 to 8 years ago and we are still yet to see one in place[50]. Although the Population Office seems confident that it can be completed by April 2013, in the view of our advisor, it may take a number of years until the register can provide robust and real time measures of the population that are as comprehensive as the Census[51].
6. We believe  that  further  clarity  is  needed  in  regards  to  the  exact  dates  in  which  the population register can be relied upon. It would be neither appropriate nor effective to hold a debate on population policy without an accurate measuring system in place, particularly if the Council of Ministers was to decide to set limits for population numbers. As discussed earlier on in this report, the timing of this debate is crucial in determining the best outcome for our current situation. Therefore, a decision now has to be made on whether the debate should be delayed any further if there is a chance that the register will not be complete by July 2013.
7. It is understood that, in the short-term, before the register is populated and mature, two sets of population statistics will be necessary; those produced by the Population Office and the annual updates from the Statistics Unit [52]. In the view of our advisor, this in itself seems

problematic[53]. It could be argued that until we have complete confidence in the accuracy of the register, only one definitive source of information should be relied upon. Furthermore, if the register was to take a couple of years to complete, it is imperative that a longer-term plan  is  in  place.  In  regards  to  overall  responsibility,  we  have  been  advised  that  the Population Office is in charge of the development of the Population Register. However, it could  be  argued  that  that  the  Statistics  Unit  should  have  a  more  active  role  in  the Register's implementation given that it will eventually become a key demographic resource for Jersey[54].

Responsibility for population levels

11. Within the previous Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel's Report – Migration: Control of Housing and Work – attention was given to the proposed change in responsibility for the overall  population  levels.  For  example,  under  the  present  legislative  framework  the management of population falls under two Ministers; the Minister for Housing and the Minister for Economic Development[55]. The Population Office, which is part of the Chief Minister's Department, is the operational body in charge of overseeing the implementation of the current Laws. Going forward, however, it has been agreed that the Chief Minister will be responsible for the Control of Housing and Work (Jersey) Law and Register of Names

and Addresses Law (Jersey), with the support of a Work Advisory Group of relevant Ministers.

12. From the evidence presented throughout this report it is apparent that the current legislation was not successfully managed by those responsible. It is important therefore that, before the new legislation is introduced, consideration is given to the effectiveness of the Chief Minister's Department in overseeing the delivery of the new population and migration control mechanisms. Furthermore, it must be determined whether or not it is appropriate for the Chief Minister to have overall responsibility of population control given his other duties including encouraging economic growth for the Island. Although this discussion falls out of the remit of this report, it will be covered within our next report that will examine the implementation of the Control of Housing and Work (Jersey) Law and the Register of Names and Addresses (Jersey) Law in greater detail. For now, however, we will move on to consider any changes that have been made to the new legislation since the release of the 2011 Census results.

Changes to the new legislation

13. During the public hearing with the Chief Minister, we were informed that consideration was being given to a possible extension of the current 5-year rule' i.e. being restricted for the first 5 years of residency to undertake licensed unqualified' work positions, to a 10-year qualifying period[56]. This same change, however, was proposed during the consultation period for the new legislation back in 2009 and was rejected on the basis that it would be difficult to achieve and potentially undesirable on a number of levels around loss of rights for existing residents and complexity. Despite this, it has been argued that, because we are now in a different economic climate from when the new legislation was being developed (with higher levels of unemployment), the benefits for increasing the 5-year rule' needs to be reassessed[57].
14. No other changes have been proposed by the Council of Ministers for the new legislation since the Census results were released and due to the regulations being lodged on May 29th 2012 it is very unlikely that we will see any changes to the qualifying period before the legislation is introduced.

9. CONCLUSION

1. We found that the methodology that was used for population estimates did not play any part in the failure to maintain population levels in line with the current policy guidelines. Instead, our migration targets have been exceeded because our current control mechanisms were neither sufficiently managed nor enforced. The Statistics Unit will provide a reconciliation of the 2011 Census in June 2012 and, whilst this will help to provide more accurate annual updates, it will not resolve the issue of measuring migration to and from the Island.
2. Although the Council of Ministers has decided to delay the Population Policy debate until July 2013, the question of limits and targets still remains prominent and it is important that consideration is given to both their appropriateness and effectiveness. It can be argued that a target should not be put in place unless there is complete confidence that it can be achieved though our control mechanisms. In addition, further clarification is required with regard to the implementation of the Population Register. The exact timetable for the development of the register remains unclear and we are yet to receive a definite indication of when we will be able to rely upon it for an accurate' count of the resident population. It is imperative that a debate regarding future population and migration polices, which aims to set overall limits, does not take place without certainty that the population could be measured through the Names and Addresses Register. Furthermore, such crucial discussions should not transpire until the effectiveness of future control mechanisms has been determined.

10. APPENDIX 1 - PANEL MEMBERSHIP AND TERMS OF REFERENCE

10 .1 The Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel comprised the following members:

SENATOR S.C. FERGUSON, CHAIRMAN

DEPUTY J.G. REED, VICE-CHAIRMAN

CONNETABLE D.J. MURPHY

DEPUTY S. POWER

DEPUTY R.J. RONDEL

2. The Corporate Services Panel appointed Dr Peter Boden as its expert advisor.

 Dr Peter Boden is Director of Edge Analytics Ltd and a Visiting Research Fellow at the Centre for Spatial Analysis and Policy, University of Leeds. Peter is a specialist in demographic forecasting. Peter's recent research focus has been the evaluation and improvement of estimates of immigration to local area in the UK. He has been a member of ONS' Expert Panel on migration statistics improvement. Peter is a former Director of GMAP Ltd, having spent 15 years delivering bespoke geographical modelling solutions to a range of businesses that included WHSmiths, Asda, Ford Motor Company, Esso, BP, NS&I and HBOS. In the provision of specialist services in demographic analysis, estimation and forecasting, Peter continues to work with a range of public and private sector organisations in the UK and has extensive experience in the application of a range of research and analytical methods.

3. The following Terms of Reference were established for the review:

1. To consider the results of the 2011 Census, with reference to previous estimates of Jersey's population
2. To consider the implications of the 2011 Census results for the Population Policy of the Council of Ministers
3. To examine the measures proposed by the Council of Ministers in the new Strategic Plan in relation to population and migration matters, with particular reference to population targets and net inward migration limits

4. To assess whether accepted recommendations made in  Population Policy (SR3/2009) have been implemented and to consider whether rejected recommendations should be revisited by the Executive
5. To assess whether accepted recommendations made in Migration: Control of Housing and Work (SR9/2011) have been implemented and to consider whether rejected recommendations should be revisited by the Executive
6. To review subordinate legislation arising from the Control of Housing and Work (Jersey) Law and the Register of Names and Addresses (Jersey) Law, with particular reference to:

1. The 2011 Census results
2. Whether any changes have arisen since States approval of the primary legislation

7. To consider the role and effectiveness of the Chief Minister's Department in overseeing the delivery and management of migration control mechanisms

11.  APPENDIX 2 – EVIDENCE CONSIDERED

The following documents are available to read on the Scrutiny website (www.scrutiny.gov.je) unless received under a confidential agreement.

Documents

1. Strategic Plan 2009 – 2014 (P.52/2009), Lodged on 8th April 2009 by the Council of Ministers
2. Strategic Plan: Green Paper (R.5/2012), Presented to the States on 16th January 2012 by the Council of Ministers.
3. Population Policy (S.R.3/2009), Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel, Presented to the States on 1st June 2009.
4. Migration: Control of Housing and Work (S.R.9/2011), Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel, Presented to the States on 1st July 2011.
5. 2011 Census Bulletins, Statistics Unit
6. Draft Control of Housing and Work (Jersey) Law, Lodged on 15th March 2011 by the Chief Minister
7. Draft Register of Names and Addresses (Jersey) Law, Lodged on 15th March 2011 by the Chief Minister
8. Strategic Plan 2012, lodged on 19th March 2012 by the Council of Ministers
9. States of Jersey Law (2005)

Public Hearings

1. Senator A.J.H. Maclean, Minister for Economic Development 16th March 2012
2. Mr D. Gibaut, Head Statistician, Statistics Unit 16th March 2012
3. Mr D. Warr , President, Chamber of Commerce 16th March 2012
4. Deputy A.K.F. Green MBE, Minister for Housing 16th March 2012
5. Senator I.J. Gorst , Chief Minister 23rd March 2012

12. APPENDIX 3 – 2011 CENSUS HEADLINES

The Panel wish to highlight the following as further significant findings from the 2011 Census:

1. The total residential population of Jersey on 27th March 2011 was 97,857, 10,700 higher than reported in 2001.
2. The working age population has increased by 7,338 persons to 64,353.
3. There were 52,522 persons of working age who were economically active.
4. 2001 the total net inward migration figure has increased by 6,800, out of which, 4,100 were born in countries which have recently joined the European Union58.
5. 2534 adults of working age were unemployed and looking for work. Of those, 2052 had a-h residential qualifications and 1,310 were born in Jersey .
6. The number of people registered as unemployed and actively seeking work with the Social security department was 1,310
7. The dependency ratio for Jersey [the ratio of those outside of working age to those of working age] was 52%. This is similar to the average dependency ratio for the full period 1931-2001 and corresponds to every dependent being supported by slightly less than two persons of working age.
8. Between 2001 and 2011 natural growth accounted for an increase of 2,300 people, an average of 230 per annum. The total was 928 more than in the previous 10 years.

13. APPENDIX 4 – EXPERT ADVISOR'S REPORT

edgeanalytics

www.edgeanalytics.co.uk

[1] Jersey Census 2011, Bulletin 1: Total Population, page 1

[2] Strategic Plan 2012: Green Paper, Council of Ministers, page 6

[3] Jersey's resident Population 2009, Statistics Unit, page 1

[4] Strategic Plan 2009-2014 (P.52/2009), page 17

[5] Draft Strategic Plan 2012, Council of Ministers, page 8

[6] Transcript of Public Hearing with the Chief Statistician, 16th March 2012, page 6

[7] Transcript of Public Hearing with the Chief Statistician, 16th March 2012, page 6

[8] Dr P. Boden, Population and Migration Review (Appendix 1), page 8

[9] Statistics Unit: Jersey's Resident Population, 2009

[10] Transcript of hearing with Minister for Housing, 16th March 2012, page 11

[11] Jersey Census 2011, Bulletin 1: Total Population, page 3

[12] Dr P. Boden, Population and Migration Review (Appendix 1), page 3

[13] Includes Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia; Cyprus and

Malta; Bulgaria and Romania

[14] Jersey Census 2011, Bulletin 2: Place of birth, ethnicity, length of residency, marital status, page 3

[15] Jersey Census 2011, Bulletin 4: Employment, page 2 and 3

[16] Jersey Census 2011, Bulletin 1: Total Population, page 3

[17] The "undercount" is the small proportion of households and people from whom a census return was not

received.

[18] Transcript of Public Hearing with Chief Statistician, 16th March 2012, page 7

[19] Transcript of Public Hearing with Chief Statistician, 16th March 2012, page 23

[20] Transcript of Public Hhearing with Chief Statistician, 16th March 2012, page 13

[21] Transcript of Public Hearing with Chief Statistician, 16th March 2012, page 43

[22] Transcript of Public Hearing with Chief Statistician, 16th March 2012, page 12

[23] Department of Health and Social Services (pre-school children), Department of Education Sport & Culture (school age children), Manpower Survey (economically active adults) and the 2001 Census (non- economically active adults).

[24] Dr P. Boden, Population and Migration Review (Appendix 1), page 7

[25] S.R.3/2009, Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel, Population Policy Report

[26] Transcript of Public Hearing with the Minister for Economic Development, 16th March 2012, page 17

[27] Transcript of Public Hearing with the Chief Minister, 23rd March 2012, page 43

[28] States of Jersey Law 2005, Part 4, Article 18 (2)(e)

[29] Draft Strategic Plan 2012, Council of Ministers, page 8.

[30] Transcript of Public Hearing with the Chief Minister, 23rd March 2012, page 15

[31] Transcript of Public Hearing with the Housing Minister, 16th March 2012, page 18

[32] Transcript of Public Hearing with Chief Statistician, 16th March 2012, page 20

[33] Dr P. Boden, Population and Migration Review (Appendix 1), page 9

[34] Transcript of Public Hearing with the Housing Minister, 16th March 2012, page 19

[35] Transcript of Public Hearing with the Chief Minister, 23rd March 2012, page 43

[36] Draft Strategic Plan 2012, Council of Ministers, page 8.

[37] Transcript of Public Hearing with the Chief Minister, 23rd March 2012, page 32

[38] Transcript of Public Hearing with the Chief Minister, 23rd March 2012, page 15

[39] Transcript of Public Hearing with the Minister for Economic Development, 16th March 2012, page 7

[40] Transcript of Public Hearing with the Chamber of Commerce, 16th March 2012, page 12

[41] Transcript of Public Hearing with the Minister for Economic Development, 16th March 2012, page 8

[42] Transcript of Public Hearing with the Minister for Economic Development, 16th March 2012, page 4

[43] Dr P. Boden, Population and Migration Review (Appendix 1), page 7

[44] Transcript of Public Hearing with the Minister for Economic Development, 16th March 2012, page 13

[45] Dr P. Boden, Population and Migration Review (Appendix 1), page 7

[46] Transcript of Public Hearing with the Minister for Economic Development, 16th March 2012, page 6

[47] SR9/2011 Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel, Migration: Control of Housing and Work

[48] Transcript of Public Hearing with the Chief Minister, 23rd March 2012, page 50

[49] Transcript of Public Hearing with the Chief Minister, 23rd March 2012, page 50

[50] Transcript of Public Hearing with Chief Statistician, 16th March 2012, page 42

[51] Transcript of Public Hearing with the Minister for Economic Development, 16th March 2012, page 19

[52] Transcript of Public Hearing with the Chief Minister, 23rd March 2012, page 51

[53] Dr P. Boden, Population and Migration Review (Appendix 1), page 10

[54] Dr P. Boden, Population and Migration Review (Appendix 1), page 10

[55] Transcript of hearing with the Minister for Housing, 16th March 2012, page 4

[56] Transcript of Public Hearing with the Chief Minister, 23rd March 2012, page 41

[57] Transcript of Public Hearing with the Chief Minister, 23rd March 2012, page 46