A proposed policy change which would allow non-Bermudian teenagers the right to work here during the summer without work permit control is “not likely” to be taken up by the Government, the Home Affairs Ministry announced yesterday.The Ministry said it was sensitive to public sentiment, but it is unclear exactly how the proposal found its way into the draft policy document in the first place.Home Affairs Minister Michael Fahy on Wednesday released the final draft of the Government’s work permit reforms, promised as a means of protecting Bermudian job opportunities.But it contained a proposal that dependents of work permit holders under 19 years of age would be allowed to work during the summer without having to secure work permits.The proposal was immediately opposed by many in the community and drew fire from the Progressive Labour Party which said it would disenfranchise young Bermudians.Yesterday Government announced that the measure will “not likely form part of the 2013 Work Permit Policies to be implemented in the spring. This decision is likely to be taken based on the significant preliminary public feedback which has been received since the release of the proposed amendments to the Work Permit Policies.”But the statement added that the draft policy document released last week represented the “collective views of the Work Permit Stakeholder Group, a group that commenced a work permit review under the former Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry, Patrice Minors. The Ministry awaits the final feedback from the various Work Permit Stakeholder Group organisations before confirming its final position.”A spokesperson thanked the public for its “robust feedback”.“It should be noted that the proposal evolved from the original Terms of Reference wherein the team had given consideration to ‘Embracing work permit holders and their families/dependents as a part of the Bermuda community in whole not in part’,” the spokesperson said.“Stakeholders have long argued that one of the reasons senior executives who had been in Bermuda for extended periods were moving to other jurisdictions — ultimately reducing the number of Bermudian jobs in the process — was because of the quality of life for their children, who were now teenagers.“These young people, like our young people, were too young to spend summers overseas on their own, and regarded themselves as too old for summer day camp. But they were old enough to find a summer job in Bermuda.“The Ministry accepts the views that the perceived impact that this change in policy might have is the reduction of available job opportunities for Bermuda’s youth at a time when summer employment is scarce.“As a result, the Ministry is content that the other significant proposed policy amendments may be sufficient to address stakeholder concerns with respect to the more pertinent business development and job retention issues facing our economy.“The Ministry is also content that the quality of life issue as it relates to the dependents of work permit holders can be set aside and revisited at a later date once the economy has improved.”The policy review document did not contain the controversial proposal before the election. Government acknowledged that it was included under its watch but did not answer further queries.Both the Bermuda Employers Council and the Chamber of Commerce said that they had to respect the confidentiality of the consultation process when asked how the proposal found its way into the document.“At the Minster’s request, the draft document has been circulated to our membership for comment. Until we have a clear consensus from our members on this and other proposed policy changes I am not at liberty to state the Chamber’s position,” said Joanne MacPhee of the Chamber of Commerce.The Opposition welcomed Government’s turnaround.“This sadly appears to have been another example of putting ‘the cart before the horse’ approach to pander to a certain minority at the expense of Bermudians,” said Senator Marc Daniels in a statement. “This sort of ‘decisive’ action, without popular endorsement, is not an example of good responsible governance.“We also note that in the Government statement, they have tried to distance themselves from this policy by referring to the former Minister and to the Stakeholder Group members by name. This is unbecoming of a Government who must accept responsibility for the publication of any policy under their watch, and not try and defer responsibility to others.”