By Richard Digard
IN THE space of two days last week, this newspaper led its front page with the stark fact that the birth rate here has plummeted to its lowest for around 30 years and, the following day, that while inflation is easing, “many will struggle to climb out of poverty”.
At the same time, there’s to be a debate on financial assistance for those needing fertility treatment to have children, while the number of people requiring caesarean sections to give birth has risen from 27% to 42% in just 20 years. And, yes, these things are all linked.
Guernsey, unsurprisingly, has a similar problem with birthrates, but there someone has helpfully put it into context: “The local ‘indigenous’ population is not replacing itself. This is a developed economy problem. However, the population is declining at a slightly faster rate than the UK or EU. Whilst births have exceeded deaths since 2015, the recent average fertility rate of 1.4 births per female is well below the 2.1 births required for a break-even population replacement rate,” said the Government of Guernsey-produced report.
Jersey, if you need reminding, has a fertility rate that’s even worse – a shade under 1.3 – and if the long term trend continues, it will deteriorate still further. What does this all mean? Simply that it’s an existential crisis for both islands.
The Guernsey report, which focused on housing issues, put it this way: “This means that the population will decline, unless there is significant in-migration. The long-term lack of replacement means over time it will become necessary to augment the labour force and the tax base derived from employment.”
I’ve quoted from the findings by consultants arc4 to show these are serious conclusions from experts rather than mere opinions from me, but data produced by the States of Jersey shows how far you’ve already gone down the path on in-migration.
In 1971, there were a little over 43,000 working age people here. That’s now ballooned to 68,000 – but despite this massively increased pool of people to tax, you’re still struggling to balance public finances and there are still around 3,000 job vacancies to fill.
An existential crisis indeed.
The problem, of course, is that no one wants to look at this in the round. It really is in the too difficult drawer for politicians and their advisers because it means asking the hard questions to which you really do not want the answers – why aren’t Islanders having children? And what’s the point of Jersey?
Many of us, of course, already know why our children and grandchildren aren’t having kids – the cost of housing, the need for both partners to have decent jobs to afford a mortgage, the fear of damaging a promising career with a maternity break… and, on top of that, just “why”? Why bring youngsters into an increasingly uncertain world riven with conflicts and climate change, even if you can afford to do so?
The exodus of working-age Islanders has been well documented, with many of them starting families in the UK or elsewhere, where it’s easier to get a house of their own. That’s another Bean lost, another one or more not born here as a result. Hence my other question: what’s the point of Jersey?
Is it to be a unique community that looks after its own and provides a happy and fulfilled life for its people? Or a kind of aircraft carrier in the Channel that values money, growth and success over everything, with a government support system that demands more and more tax every year?
Well, we know the answer to that. Successive States lost interest in their own people decades ago. Rising house prices? Ah, just the price of success as the economy boomed and money poured in. But then you look at another one of the headlines from last week – Number of families relying on food banks still rising – and you wonder where all that money and revenue went.
Better-off couples are increasingly having children only if and when it suits them, which is later in life. And that in part accounts for the demand for IVF and C-section births. Most first-time mums are now aged 30-34 and 41% of them will need or demand a C-section, with consequential health and cost implications.
Ordinary Jersey folk? My guess is that it’s the less well-off and the more rooted Islanders who aren’t having children (the number of live births was down to 799 last year from a recent peak of 1,124 just 11 years ago) and this explains why just 44% of people consider their ethnicity to be Jersey while 31% believed they were British.
You’ll have your own views on to what extent – if at all – this matters. The consequences, however, couldn’t be clearer. The more the birth rate falls, the more reliant Jersey becomes on immigration to prevent the population (and States of Jersey tax takes) from declining.
And while fewer people in Jersey might sound appealing, the cost of looking after those who are left is rising and entirely dependent on those who are still in work to support them.
Both Guernsey and Jersey started warning about and planning for what was then called the demographic timebomb decades ago. With the benefit of hindsight, neither has made a very good job of preparing for that, exacerbated by younger islanders quite consciously deciding not to have children. But that, too, was evident at least a decade ago, although the warning signs were there from 1999 onwards and nothing has been done to address it.
Well, two things on that. Something that’s taken over 25 years or so to develop will take another generation to resolve if – and it’s a huge if – you recognise that Jersey is not that appealing a place for many to have kids, and then set about rectifying that.
Doing so will be difficult, expensive and probably controversial. After all, you’ll also have to ask who’s looking after the little guys, the ordinary people of Jersey just muddling by propped up by food banks. But if you don’t, then the Island will continue its gradual drift into a sort of offshore Hampshire, dependent on people flitting in and out for the salaries, but never really putting down roots.
Your call.
