Finding the right balance

When all is said and done, the Senator is suggesting that a certain class of Islander should be treated more favourably than others.

In reality, of course, the particular circumstances of this Island – notably its limited resources and finite area – have long led to rules which, to the outsider, might appear to be highly divisive. The Housing laws are obviously a case in point.

However, anyone with an understanding of Island life will accept that we are in the business of devising regulations and methods of operation that are as fair as possible but protect the long-term interests of the community as a whole.

Controlling the right to occupy property – and hence excessive immigration – could be said to fall into this category. If it were not for such controls, coupled with a restriction on automatic benefits, Jersey’s population problem would be even more acute.

An existing policy which offers preferential job market treatment to Islanders with five years’ residency is, in fact, already being revived. As Economic Development Minister Alan Maclean has explained, increasing pressure is being applied to employers to take on long-term residents as opposed to those who have arrived more recently.

That said, the policy does not appear to be operating at a level which conforms with the stringency that Senator Le Main would like to see. Although an almost unprecedented 1,250 people are registered as out of work, during the first six months of this year only 164 jobs were classified as available only to job seekers who have lived here for at least five years.

From the point of view of anyone eager to recite the suspect mantra ‘Jersey jobs for Jersey people’ this might be seen as timid. In truth, it represents a necessarily measured approach.

Senator Maclean, his advisers and job centre staff will be aware that not all jobs suit all people and that there is little sense in sending an out-of-work banker with ten years’ residency for a position as a kitchen porter. Equally, everyone must realise that depriving potential employers of staff through the imposition of a rigid rule would be no way to encourage economic recovery.