However, Deputy John Le Fondré, chairman of the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel which compiled the report, said that despite Jersey’s ballooning population an immigration policy was needed that supported the needs of businesses, which often require skilled staff who cannot be recruited locally.
Last month, the Council of Ministers lodged its new migration policy, which includes proposals for time-limited work permits as well as tougher criminal checks on immigrants.
It is due for debate in the States Assembly in September.
The panel’s new report on the policy assesses the possible impacts on the Island’s infrastructure by 2035 based on current and predicted immigration levels.
The report says that if net inward migration continues at 1,000 people per year, an additional 26,100 permanent residents will be in the Island by 2035, which is the equivalent of 13,200 households or 230 Le Marais high-rises.
It adds that there would be an additional 260 births per year under this scenario, meaning that an extra ten primary schools would be required.
Deputy Le Fondré said that projections of additional housing and schools that might be required ‘particularly stood out’ to the panel.
‘If the population continues to grow by an average of 1,000 people per year, as it has done over the last four years, then by 2035 we would need to build the equivalent of 230 Le Marais high-rise blocks and ten new primary schools,’ he said.
‘In light of the challenges of Brexit, it is important that the Island has a migration policy which supports the needs of businesses and does not send out a message that we are closed for business. Equally, the impact of continued net inward migration on our environment and infrastructure must be considered.
‘If there is one key message to pull from our work, it is that good data is essential to considering the migration policy. It is important for all stakeholders, whether they are members of the public, local businesses or States Members, to understand the implications of the policies that are proposed and, indeed, the implications of doing nothing.’
