The baseline shows a labour market full of vacancies, but too much demand sits in roles AI can cheaply absorb.

Baseline risk: demand is strong, but resilience is uneven

The inaugural snapshot captures 619 active vacancies across the island, with 496 in the medium-risk band and 35 in the high-risk band. That matters because the market is not short of jobs - it is short of the right jobs for a small island that cannot import labour indefinitely. If government does nothing, scarce housing and permits will continue to support vacancies that add employment but not enough long-term productivity or tax resilience.

The market is concentrated in office-heavy work that AI can reshape quickly

The baseline reveals 182 vacancies in Administration and 148 in Finance - together 330 roles, or over half of all jobs in the two largest categories. The occupation mix tells the same story: 115 Administrative and Secretarial roles carry average automation risk of 59, while 60 Elementary roles sit even higher at 62. If government does nothing, the island risks training and sponsoring people into work that software will steadily compress; if it acts, it can shift UCM provision and employer incentives towards roles built on judgement, compliance, care and delivery.

Task exposure is the real warning light

Across all analysed vacancies, the task mix is 1,127 routine, 2,460 augmented and 1,470 human tasks. That means the island's labour demand is dominated by work that can be accelerated by AI rather than protected from it. If government does nothing, employers will adopt tools unevenly and the productivity gain will accrue to a narrow set of firms; if it acts through the National AI Office, procurement and adoption support, it can spread productivity gains across finance, administration and public services where the vacancy pressure is greatest.

The wrong skills are over-represented in at-risk roles

The baseline shows Microsoft Office appears in 54 high-risk jobs but only 5 low-risk jobs. Administration and Management appears in 60 high-risk roles versus 22 low-risk roles. By contrast, Project Management appears in just 5 high-risk roles and 28 low-risk roles; Critical Thinking appears in 20 high-risk roles and 56 low-risk roles; Active Listening appears in 35 high-risk roles and 62 low-risk roles. If government does nothing, public funding risks reinforcing generic office capability with limited future value; if it acts, UCM and workforce schemes should prioritise project delivery, stakeholder management, compliance judgement, client handling and applied data analysis.

Salary opacity is blocking efficient labour policy

Only 74 of 619 vacancies publish salary data. The recorded average salary is £42,379 and the median is £37,204, but that is too thin a sample for confident market steering. This matters because the island's average house price is £384,179, and policy makers cannot judge whether vacancies are genuinely viable for inward movers or local workers under housing pressure. If government does nothing, migration, skills and housing policy will continue to operate with partial price signals; if it acts, salary transparency can become a condition of Jobcentre promotion, work permit fast-tracking and public procurement.

Public service pressure is visible in the vacancy mix

There are 60 Healthcare vacancies and 71 public-sector roles in the baseline, while low-risk examples include Salaried Portfolio General Practitioner and Chemotherapy Nurse, both at 18 automation risk. That supports current headlines about hospital bed pressures: the data suggests the constraint is not temporary noise but structural dependence on hard-to-automate clinical labour. If government does nothing, service pressure intensifies as the working-age population tightens; if it acts, AI should be deployed first to remove administrative burden around reporting, documentation and scheduling so scarce clinicians spend more time on care.

Intermediation is dominating hiring visibility

Agencies account for 286 vacancies, ahead of 241 private and 71 public roles. That creates a market intelligence problem: government sees demand, but often not the underlying employer, wage discipline or long-term workforce intent. If government does nothing, it will struggle to target permits, retraining and sector support precisely; if it acts, it should require richer vacancy metadata from agencies in exchange for access to public recruitment channels and labour market support.