By John Henwood
JERSEY’S minimum wage is due to increase from its current £11.64 an hour to £13 – the so-called living wage – next April. The government plans to go further by raising the minimum to two-thirds of median earnings by 2026.
At present the median is £850 per week; if applied now it would mean £15 to £16 an hour.
Understandably, the Chamber of Commerce, representing the views of business, has expressed concern. Chief executive Murray Norton stated the obvious when he said prices would rise as a consequence. “There will be job losses,” he said, “and some businesses will wonder if it’s worthwhile staying open if their costs are higher than their income.”
There seems to be a belief among some States Members that all businesses make excess profits and can readily absorb the additional cost without passing it on to consumers. If that is the case it applies to very few and the Social Security Minister Lyndsay Feltham was naïve when she said: “It [the living wage] directly supports many in our community who are most likely to be struggling with the cost of living”, without also referring to the inflation it will cause. In one hand and out the other.
That said, in most respects, the move should be seen as a good thing and many of the larger employers I have spoken with regard it on a scale from “it’s inevitable’” to “it’s the right thing to do”. However, I do have particular concerns in two areas: small businesses and young employees. Some small family businesses struggle now, carrying on because they can provide a useful service while making a reasonable living. The second proposed phase, aligning the minimum with the median, could turn profit to loss and some will disappear.
My main concern though is with the all-embracing nature of the change. At present the school leaving age is 16, some stay an additional year, but at 16 or 17 they are still regarded as children. Many will go into their first job to learn a skill, perhaps in a trade – electrician, plumber, carpenter, carer, hairdresser and so on – necessary to the smooth running of society.
Trainee and modern apprenticeship schemes are excellent in helping young people to acquire the skills to attain a good standard of living. They provide their time and their employer provides the necessary learning. During this period the youngsters are not productive; they may be a useful pair of hands, but they do not add value to the business. It seems likely that the requirement to pay the living wage to children in employment will cause employers to reduce or even abandon their trainee and apprenticeship schemes. Why pay an unproductive child on whom you must spend time teaching skills when for the same cost you can hire a trained, productive individual?
It is worth noting that the UK government’s recently announced increase in the minimum wage recognises the point: while over-21s will get £12.21 an hour, 18- to 20-year-olds will get £10 and apprentices £7.55, 38% below the adult rate.
The government has announced a £20 million scheme to support the transition to the living wage over the first two years. There is to be a sum to boost productivity, though how that will work is unclear, another to support traditionally low-pay sectors such as hospitality and what seems a small amount, £2 million, to help farming and fishing. Further and better particulars are urgently required, but I see nothing in the plans specifically to support trainee and apprenticeship schemes. The UK’s tiered method seems unnecessarily clunky and the more straightforward answer is to exclude children on trainee schemes from the living-wage requirement.
How do you assess your States representative?
Deputy Max Andrews, who sits in the States representing St Helier North, has had a go at his fellow Members for being lazy. He said they should “get off their backsides and start working”. If the outburst was a publicity-seeking act, it succeeded with extensive media coverage.
Before examining his suggestion, it is worth remembering this is the same Deputy Andrews who was censured by his peers when, following complaints, the Commissioner for Standards, Dr Melissa McCullough, said the Deputy had breached three articles of the code of conduct describing his comments as “gratuitous insults and malicious gossip” about another Member, Deputy Moz Scott.
It should be noted Deputy Scott was also judged to have breached the code; allegedly she swore at Deputy Andrews. Both were required to apologise to the Assembly. In his apology Deputy Andrews told the States he was “pleased to see action has now been taken to assist States Members with the provision of counselling [which was] a much-needed resource that I needed”. Later, in a podcast, he spoke of the requirement for mental-health support in a pressurised job.
Now it seems it may not be pressurised enough for him. Referring to the fact that 71 propositions had been lodged this year (107 were lodged in 2023) he told his peers, “You’re elected on the basis to bring about change and, if you’re not going to do your job properly by not lodging propositions, then what’s the point in being elected as a States Member…this is the first States Assembly since the Millennium where we have seen an insufficient number of propositions.”
An interesting observation: what is insufficient? Do we judge the way our Island is run by the number of propositions lodged? Bearing in mind the nature of some proposals put before the Assembly in the past, one person’s “insufficient” is another’s “excessive”.
I am firmly of the view that we have far too much government. I have voted at every election since I became of age, and not once have I voted for anyone on the number of propositions they have brought or might bring. Politics should be about quality not quantity.
-
Born and educated in Jersey, John Henwood decided work was not the best way to spend his time so he went into television. By 1998 it seems he had done just enough to catch the eye of whoever decides these things and was appointed MBE for services to broadcasting and the community. Ever since then he has been trying to justify the award.