States Meeting Transcript - 18/09/2007

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

TUESDAY, 18th SEPTEMBER 2007

PETITIONS.......................................................................................5

1. Goods and Services Tax: Petition........................................................5

The Bailiff :....................................................................................5

1. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:................................................5
2. Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Minister for Treasury and Resources): ......................5

PUBLIC BUSINESS..............................................................................5

2. Annual Business Plan 2008 (P.93/2007)..................................................5

The Bailiff :....................................................................................5

1. Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):..............................................5 Deputy A. Breckon of St. Saviour:.............................................................9 The Bailiff :....................................................................................9 Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen:.................................................................9 The Bailiff :....................................................................................9
2. Senator F.H. Walker :....................................................................9

3. Annual Business Plan 2008 (P.93/2007): fifth amendment: (P.93/2007) Amd. (5).....10

The Bailiff :...................................................................................10 3.1 The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................10

1. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................12
2. Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St. Brelade : ..................................................13
3. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................13 The Bailiff :...................................................................................13

4. Annual Business Plan 2008 (P.93/2007): sixth amendment: (P.93/2007) Amd. (6)....13

4.1 The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................13 The Bailiff :...................................................................................13

5. Annual Business Plan 2008 (P.93/2007): fourth amendment: (P.93/2007) Amd. (4) ..14

5.1 The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................14

1. Deputy A. Breckon:....................................................................14
2. Senator F.H. Walker :...................................................................15
3. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin : ..........................................................15
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:...............................................16
5. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................16 The Bailiff :...................................................................................16

6. Annual Business Plan 2008 (P.93/2007): eleventh amendment: (P.93/2007) Amd. (11) ...........................................................................................17

The Bailiff :...................................................................................17

6.1 Senator F.H. Walker :...................................................................17

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................18
2. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................18
3. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................18
4. Connétable T.J. du Feu of St. Peter:....................................................18
5. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en of St. Saviour:...............................................18
6. Senator F.H. Walker :...................................................................18 The Bailiff :...................................................................................19

7. Annual Business Plan 2008 (P.93/2007) - continued....................................20

1. Deputy A. Breckon:....................................................................20
2. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................21
3. Senator F.H. Walker :...................................................................21 The Bailiff :...................................................................................22

8. Annual Business Plan 2008 (P.93/2007): Objectives of the Economic Development Department, Jersey Airport and Jersey Harbours.....................................23

8.1 Deputy A.J.H. Maclean of St. Helier (Assistant Minister for Economic Development): 23

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : ..................................................26
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................27
3. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................28
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................28 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: .....................................................................30

Deputy G.P. Southern :........................................................................31

5. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade : ........................................................32 Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.......................................................................33 Deputy S.Power:.............................................................................33
6. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade:...............................................34
7. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................34

8. Senator F.H. Walker :...................................................................34
9. The Connétable of St. Peter:............................................................35
10. Deputy A. Breckon: .................................................................35
11. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................37
12. Deputy A.J.H. Maclean:.............................................................37 The Bailiff :...................................................................................42

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................43 The Bailiff :...................................................................................43

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................43

PUBLIC BUSINESS (continued) .............................................................43

9. Annual Business Plan 2008 (P.93/2007): Objectives and Performance Criteria for the Education, Sport and Culture Department.............................................43

The Bailiff :...................................................................................43 9.1 Senator M.E. Vibert (The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture):..................43

1. Deputy A. Breckon:....................................................................44
2. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................44
3. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................45
4. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................45
5. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................46
6. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................46

7. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................46
8. The Connétable of St. Peter:............................................................46
9. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................46
10. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity : .......................................................46
11. Senator M.E. Vibert :................................................................47 The Bailiff :...................................................................................49

10. Annual Business Plan 2008 (P.93/2007): Objectives and Performance Criteria for the Health and Social Services Department................................................49

10.1 Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):.............................................49

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................50
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................52
3. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement:............................................53
4. Deputy A. Breckon: .................................................................53
5. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en:...........................................................54
6. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier : .......................................................54
7. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................54
8. The Deputy of Trinity : ..............................................................54
9. Senator F.H. Walker :................................................................54 The Bailiff :...................................................................................56

11. Annual Business Plan 2008 (P.93/2007): Objectives and Performance Criteria for the Home Affairs Department ..............................................................57

11.1 Senator W. Kinnard (The Minister for Home Affairs):..................................57

1. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................59
2. Deputy A. Breckon: .................................................................59
3. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en :..........................................................59
4. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :...............................................60
5. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................60
6. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................61
7. The Deputy of St. Ouen:.............................................................62
8. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................62
9. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence:..........................................62
10. The Connétable of St. Peter:.......................................................62
11. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :...................................................62
12. Senator W. Kinnard:...............................................................62 The Deputy of St. Martin:....................................................................68 Senator W. Kinnard:..........................................................................68 Deputy G.W.J. de Faye of St. Helier:.........................................................69 The Bailiff :...................................................................................70 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: .....................................................................70

12. Annual Business Plan 2008 (P.93/2007): Objectives and Performance Criteria for the Housing Department....................................................................70

12.1 Senator T.J. Le Main (The Minister for Housing): ......................................70

1. Deputy A. Breckon: .................................................................71
2. Deputy S.Power:....................................................................72
3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................73
4. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en:...........................................................75
5. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................76
6. Senator T.J. Le Main:................................................................76 The Bailiff :...................................................................................79

ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED.................................................................79 The Bailiff :...................................................................................79

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................79

The Roll was called and the Greffier led the Assembly in Prayer.

PETITIONS

1. Goods and Services Tax: Petition

The Bailiff :

I understand that the Connétable has a petition to present.

1. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier :

Yes. I have been asked to present the petition organised by the Jersey Consumer Council requesting the Treasury and Resources Minister to take no further steps to introduce G.S.T. (Goods and Services Tax) until public finances have been examined independently to identify potential savings and until alternative methods of raising funds have been investigated. In case members do not know, a total number of 19,209 signatures have been approved on this, and I would just like to take the opportunity first of thanking the staff of the bookshop for undertaking this mammoth task in extremely short order, before, of course, thanking the Consumer Council and everyone who has signed the petition, most notably, I think, members of the senior citizens in the Island, local traders and businesses and the general public, so many of whom have been willing to put their name on this petition. I would ask that the Minister concerned and the States pays due attention to the significant proportion of Islanders who have signed the petition. I will formally hand it over to the States, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Very well. The proposition, Connétable , is accordingly lodged and you ask that it be referred to the Minister for Treasury and Resources?

The Connétable of St. Helier : Yes, please.

2. Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):

Clearly I acknowledge the views of a significant number of people in the Island, which I totally understand. Given the importance of this subject, Sir, I ask that I would be able to present a report at the earliest possible stage in order that we can deal with this and resolve it one way or the other. I am sure that I will get every co-operation from the Connétable in making sure that that does happen.

The Bailiff :

Very well, thank you, Minister.

PUBLIC BUSINESS

2. Annual Business Plan 2008 (P.93/2007)

The Bailiff :

Now we come to Public Business and the first item is the Annual Business Plan 2008. I ask the Greffier to read the opening lines of the proposition.

The Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of the opinion to receive the Draft Annual Business Plan 2008 and, paragraph (a), approve the summary key objectives and performance criteria for 2008 of the following States-funded bodies as shown in the annex to the Draft Annual Business Plan.

1. Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):

This is the second Annual Business Plan since the introduction of Ministerial government. It covers a year of unprecedented importance and change for the Island. 2008 will see a complete change in our benefits and taxation systems, a new over-arching social policy, a new direction for health, a new Social Housing Plan, the development of a new Island Plan, a new population policy and much more, so a significant year indeed. The 2008 Business Plan sets out the Council of Ministers' business proposals and confirms our determination to protect all aspects of Island life, maintain high quality public services and use our economic success to provide proper and full support to the vulnerable members of our society. It also sets out our proposed spending limits, the schedule for the disposal and management of States-owned property and the legislation programme. The Council of Ministers has promised that Jersey will live within its means, and this Business Plan delivers on that promise. We are indeed fortunate to be able to fulfil our promises without putting an unmanageable strain on our finances. The States made wise and well-informed decisions in agreeing the fiscal framework and we now have firm and clear evidence of confidence turning what was an economic downturn into real growth with increasing opportunities and employment for local people and increasing tax receipts on the back of it. May I remind the House what the key elements of this framework are: firstly, economic growth with an emphasis on local employment; secondly, combating inflation, which is, of course, a never-ending challenge; thirdly, the introduction of indirect taxation in the form of a Goods and Services Tax; and last but most certainly not least, increased efficiency in the delivery of public services. The economic picture for Jersey looks bright and the latest financial forecast based on the new health and vitality of Jersey's economy, which has enabled us to cope with the severe hit of the Zero/Ten regime in remarkable fashion, is very positive and robust. In 2006, a better than expected economic performance resulted in a £22 million surplus in States' finances and the Treasury and Resources Minister sees no reason why this pattern should not continue. But, as always, there is no room for complacency. If we are to secure a financially sustainable future, we not only need to protect this surplus, we must also continue with the agreed programme of fiscal reform to ensure that there is no underlying long-term deficit. We must not mortgage the future. Our best estimate of tax losses with the move to Zero/Ten is between £79 million and £94 million per annum. However, the actual figure will not be accurately known until 2011. Provided - and it is a big provision - the States sticks rigorously to the limits set out in this Business Plan, then no new taxes beyond those already set out in the fiscal strategy will be needed before 2012 at the earliest. That is no new or additional taxes other than those already set out in the fiscal strategy. If any remedial measures should be required in the future, they would be phased-in so that budgets would again be in balance by 2015. If necessary, interest on the strategic reserve could be used to make up any shortfall in the interim, although this could not be a long-term solution. I think it is a remarkable achievement that we have been able to absorb the losses in tax revenue of Zero/Ten without even resorting to using the revenue on our investment in the strategic reserve. Now, I am not scoring points here, but this is a fact. In Guernsey, in contrast to us here in Jersey, they are budgeting to use not only the revenue but half the capital from their strategic reserve as well. We are not budgeting to touch a penny from our strategic reserve at this stage but, of course, we could if it became necessary or if the States wished. I think this is an achievement we do not dwell upon sufficiently and it is one from which we should all take a considerable amount of comfort. One of the objectives in the business planning process has been to ensure that the financial implications of the new Strategic Plan are fully identified and included in the approved financial framework. This has been fundamental to the various prioritisation processes and the requirement for departments when submitting and costing their bids. This is absolutely essential if we are to operate the financial discipline which will be required over the planning period to maintain balanced budgets. There are a number of amendments to the

Business Plan which could seriously impact on the ability of the States to maintain its services to the public of the Island, but we will come to those, of course, later in the debate. Contrary to some widely held misconceptions, the States has reduced its spending year on year by £35 million and has cumulatively saved some £100 million since 2004. I do ask at this point, do we in the House - do members - really believe we can take out another £20 million or so each year without seriously

affecting service provision? If we do, will we be prepared to live with the public reaction and other consequences of cutting services? As we have seen over the last 12 months or so, nearly all the pressure from States members from within this Assembly has been to increase our services and increase our spending. We have agreed a winter fuel scheme, improvements in prison education, an additional Scrutiny Panel and third party planning appeals. All very commendable in themselves, very commendable in themselves indeed, but they all cost money and it all adds up. We are faced with increasing pressure from the public to control better our States' expenditure. Key to our success in reducing States spending principally in central departments to the extent that we have has been the introduction of a performance management regime across the public sector. Again, there is a common widely-held misconception that public sector employees these days are not held to account and are not expected to meet performance criteria. That may well have been the case in the not too distant past; it is most certainly not the case today. The framework requires States' departments to report on performance in key areas quarterly through balanced scorecards every 6 months through the Strategic Plan initiatives update and annually through the new performance report. The focus is on ensuring that we get best value for our investment and at the same time continually improve our standards of service. So there is no doubt that we are taking performance seriously and no doubt that both Ministers and officers now for the first time are seriously and properly being held to account. The Treasury and Resources Minister will talk more about expenditure in his introduction, but Members may have noted that of the 7.3 per cent increase in planned expenditure year on year between 2007 and 2008, only 2.2 per cent relates to growth in services. What is more, this growth is totally restricted to the key social services that are so important to the more vulnerable members of our society. This is growth in health expenditure, protection of benefit payments, prison education and improvement plan, winter fuel allowance, further education grants and supplementation, which is the topping-up of the pension entitlement for low paid people in the Island. These are the areas - the core, key, social service areas - that have

seen growth. Just about every other department and just about every other sector has experienced - suffered, if you like - a reduction in real terms once inflation has been taken into account. Unforeseen increases in U.K. interest rates, which are, of course, well outside our control, have

pushed up the headline rate of inflation beyond where we would like it to be. This has had a significant impact on the amount that we pay out in benefits and, inevitably, public sector pay. However, it is worth noting that for June 2007 the underlying rate of inflation - that is the locally induced rate of inflation, effectively - measured by R.P.I.X. (Retail Price Index Excluding Mortgage Interest Payments) and which, of course, excludes the direct effect of interest rates, was lower in Jersey than in the U.K. at 2.3 per cent as opposed to 3.3 per cent. Indeed, the underlying rate of inflation in Jersey has been considerably below that of the U.K. for the last 4 quarters. This is excellent news. It is excellent news and it shows that our policies are working. All of this information has been made available and presented to States members at an early stage in the business planning process. There should be no surprises for members in the Business Plan before us today. Every Scrutiny Panel has had the opportunity to scrutinise the Plan in detail. The Council of Ministers proposed a programme to the Scrutiny Chairmen's Committee very early on in the process and this included giving all States members a copy of the proposed spending budgets at the end of March, nearly 6 months ago. I particularly want to thank the Corporate Services Panel under the chairmanship of Deputy Ryan, who took a very active role in scrutinising the overall framework which has been extremely beneficial. I would also like to commend the former Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel under the chairmanship of the Deputy of St. Martin for their involvement, albeit at a rather late stage. A priority for the coming year will be to work even more closely with the Chairmen's Committee and this work has already begun in a constructive and helpful manner. We must ensure that a robust scrutiny process is in place before the 2009 planning process gets under way. This will give all States members every opportunity to influence our spending and priorities well before we hold the next Business Plan debate in 2008 in 12 months' time. The Annex to the Business Plan contains for each department a costed service analysis including the objectives and key performance indicators for each service. This year we have provided additional information on how objectives, funding and manpower are allocated across services, how they compare to 2007 allocations, and the reasons for any material change. This is a further step - and an important step too - towards associating the delivery of objectives with the financial and manpower implications; a further step towards full and clear reporting, measurement and accountability. So, Sir, to sum up, there are clear signs of economic growth. We are well on track to deliver the efficiency programme and we have made annual savings of £35 million and saved £100 million in total to date. G.S.T. will give us the financial certainty that we require as we move to Zero/Ten and the abolition of corporate taxation for most businesses. There is an air among the Council of Ministers of discipline, responsibility and confidence as we move towards the achievements of the Strategic Plan. If the States members back our plan and stick to the financial discipline that we propose for future years, there will - and I repeat this - there will be no need for any new or additional taxes outside those already put forward in the fiscal strategy before at least 2012. Even then, we are determined to do everything we can to ensure we can hold this position further into the future. That is some guarantee, basically, we are giving to the public because of fears of the effects of G.S.T. and so on, but it only holds water if we stick to our financial discipline and stick to our funding plans. We do believe that sound financial discipline, coupled with a tight focus on the policies set out in this Plan, will secure a prosperous and sustainable future for our Island and I commend the Plan to the House on this basis. Sir, now I think we move straight into the business at hand, which is the way through the Business Plan, starting with the objectives of my department?

The Bailiff : Yes, indeed.

Senator F.H. Walker :

If I could just make some structural comments, the debate will follow the same format as last year. Although it is not required by the Public Finances (Jersey) Law but it was agreed in the Strategic Plan debate, the Annual Business Plan allows States members to have a further say in the objectives which each department will be working towards and thus how resources are used each year. In part (a) of the proposition, each Minister will introduce his or her own department's key objectives and associated success criteria, which members will be asked to approve. After the debate of part (a) and the associated amendments, I will hand over to Senator Le Sueur - the Minister for Treasury and Resources - who will lead the Assembly through the various financial propositions, which will include the Property Plan. I will then present the final part of the proposition in relation to the legislation programme. Before moving on to the objectives themselves, I would like to take this opportunity to warmly and sincerely thank and congratulate all those who have worked so well together to produce the Business Plan and all the associated and very considerable amount of detail that members have received. That, of course, includes the Council of Ministers and Assistant Ministers, those Scrutiny Panels that have been involved in the process, the Corporate Management Board and their respective teams, the Greffier and his team, and not least Treasury officers and officers in my own department who have, indeed, worked long hours in recent months. I would now like to move to part (a) of the proposition regarding the summary key objectives and priorities of individual departments and explain briefly how this will be handled. Each Minister will propose their department's objectives and sum up the debate on their own department. The order for the debate has already been circulated through the Greffier and his office and members can see how we propose that we deal with the various amendments and how we will progress through the different parts of the proposition. I will start, if I  may, by proposing the summary key objectives and priorities of the Chief Minister's Department, and these are detailed on pages 11 to 13 of the annex.

Deputy A. Breckon of St. Saviour :

I wonder if it is possible to comment that the Chief Minister has done perhaps a preamble there as an introduction and the Chief Minister has made certain comments

The Bailiff :

I do not think so, Deputy , no. The Chief Minister has made some general comments and he is now going to talk to the objectives of his department, but there is not going to be a debate upon the Plan as a whole. Members must deal with the Plan in the context of each department and if there are general comments they can presumably be made at an early stage of the debate.

Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen :

Please, Sir, sorry, before we continue, I am a bit confused because my first amendment deals with paragraph (a) as a whole and not simply the Chief Minister's Department. Therefore, I was presuming that we would discuss my amendment first before we then went on to deal with the individual departments.

The Bailiff :

Well, there are a number of different ways in which this particular tangle can be unpicked, Deputy , but the decision has been made to invite the Chief Minister to propose the preamble and the objectives of his department and we will then come to your amendment and certainly you can address the whole of paragraph (a) when you come to propose your amendment.

2. Senator F.H. Walker :

The main thrust of the Chief Minister's Department for the coming year will be to ensure that the Strategic Plan is implemented efficiently and effectively in accordance with States' decisions. With the introduction of Income Support and G.S.T., 2008 will be a year of unprecedented importance and change for the Island. A number of other important policy areas, as I outlined in my introductory speech, will also be a high priority during the year. The social policy framework was published earlier this year and, once agreed, will start to be implemented in earnest in 2008. The implementation of the migration policy will continue with the creation of a population register and a full debate on population matters in this House early in the New Year. That will be based on the results of a study into the effects of an ageing population and, as promised, has been and will continue to be the subject of much consultation before it comes to the House. The programme of work to review and update our emergency preparedness and response will continue as we introduce a modern, fit-for-purpose emergency planning regime. We will be looking for closer co-operation with Scrutiny, and this is crucial if the checks and balances of Ministerial government are to work effectively. Importantly, we will also be looking at a more inclusive role for Assistant Ministers where we have not been as successful in the last so many months as we need to be. We will continue to raise the profile of the Council of Ministers and of States' policies, thereby increasing public awareness and understanding of those policies and our performance. We remain on track to deliver the overall target savings as set out in the plans and we will continue to look for and deliver further efficiency savings on top of those already agreed. This makes the continuing programme of change in the public sector for better, simpler and cheaper services even more crucial to ensure that the ever-improving services that customers want and, indeed, demand are delivered efficiently and effectively and represent value for money. The Law Draftsman continues to provide an excellent service despite the reduction of two posts since 2006. Our investment in corporate information technology will underpin the delivery of services, improve efficiency and will be needed to support

the implementation of many of the important new policy areas. However, it should be noted that the number of new projects has been severely curtailed. The new health systems project is one of the most important projects in recent years and the only other new projects in 2008 are the corporate population system and improvements to asset management systems, again very important if we are to be as efficient and provide the value for money that is required. There is no provision for other

new projects in later years. At page 34 of the Plan, I have published a comparison of our spend on I.T. (information technology) compared to U.K. local authorities. This shows a low level of overall spend and we do need to recognise that I.T. is a major contributor to efficiency and savings. The analysis that has been provided will be refined and completed in 2008. My department will, of course, also continue to develop Jersey's international identity and, in particular, to undertake further work to enter into agreements in our own name as we have very successfully done in recent months. The International Monetary Fund review during the second quarter of 2008 will be looking in particular at Jersey's anti-money laundering procedures. This is critical to reinforce our credibility as a co-operative international finance centre and the review must be supported to ensure a good result for Jersey. Government cannot function properly without good information about the economy, society and many other aspects of our Island life. Over recent years, the Economic Advisor and the Statistics Unit have made great improvements to the scale, scope and coverage of the information they produce and have greatly aided us in taking informed decisions. They are tasked to continue this process and to deliver that information in a truly independent and open way which I will ensure continues. The States is a good employer. A well-motivated, well-trained workforce is one of our most important assets. If we are to achieve the levels of performance and financial control we all want and which are set out in the Business Plan, it is vitally important that our staff are empowered and encouraged to work to their highest potential. Recent events have been debilitating and have set the change programme back quite significantly. It is, therefore, very important that our organisational development programme continues. It will ensure that we develop our local employees to their maximum potential and offer local graduates stimulating career opportunities in the public service and provide succession planning wherever possible. This will reduce our reliance on imported expertise. The investment in staff training and communication is also intended to develop and maximise the potential of our staff and to underpin the cultural change required for the public sector as a whole to become a performing organisation. Improving performance and putting the customer first at all levels will be a prime goal across the organisation. I would just like to briefly mention that while my department's total budget has increased by £8.5 million since 2005, this is entirely due to the significant budget transfers required for the introduction of Ministerial government and the centralisation of the P.E.C.R.S. (Public Employees Contributory Retirement Scheme) debt and corporate H.R. (human resources) and I.T. functions. This increase masks the £2.7 million per annum in underlying cuts in efficiencies that have been made by my department and which are detailed in the annex to the Business Plan. This represents 18 per cent of the department's running costs and expenditure for my department now represents less than three per cent of total States' revenue expenditure. I therefore submit, Sir, that my department is playing to the full its role in keeping a tight grip on expenditure while delivering more efficient and effective services to the public of the Island. Sir, I move the objectives for the

Chief Minister's Department.

3. Annual Business Plan 2008 (P.93/2007): fifth amendment: (P.93/2007) Amd. (5)

The Bailiff :

Thank you, Chief Minister. Are they seconded? [Seconded] The first amendment is that of the Deputy of St. Ouen and I invite the Greffier to read the amendment.

The Greffier of the States:

Annual Business Plan: Fifth Amendment. In paragraph (a), after the words: "as shown in the annex to the draft Annual Business Plan" insert the words: "with all the objectives to be achieved within approved revenue and manpower resources."

3.1 The Deputy of St. Ouen :

During my speech I will be referring to three documents. If States members have them available, I will be commenting on the Strategic Plan 2006-2010, the 2007 Business Plan and the current draft 2008 Plan. I am pleased that the Council of Ministers supports this amendment, albeit with some reservations. However, I would like to explain why I think that this amendment is necessary. The aim is to bring some clarity to current business plan process and, as I mentioned earlier, covers all key objectives and performance criteria of the States-funded bodies as listed in (a). I would, in fact, like to draw members' attention to the wording of the draft Annual Business Plan proposition which can be found on page 2. Part (a) basically asks States members to approve the summary key objectives for all States-funded bodies. Members should note that these key objectives are supposed to be consistent with the delivery of actions contained in the 2011 Strategic Plan approved in June 2006; that is last year. The Plan identified actions to be completed over a three-year period as well as work that must be started and implemented within a five-year period. This is confirmed on page 12 of that Strategic Plan where it states that although the level of detail is high due to the nature of the document, there is a clear linkage between the high level priorities set and the detailed departmental business plans published annually. The important point is that the Strategic Plan also included the cost implications of implementing those actions supported by the Treasury Minister's resource statement found on pages 10 and 11 of that Plan. In this statement, the Minister sets out the financial framework in which the States will operate, the resource implications and a five-year financial forecast. The Treasury Minister confirms that the Strategic Plan in that report is fully funded within existing spending limits and a detailed financial forecast is, as I said before, provided in that Plan. Members should note that these figures were not provided by States members; they were provided by all the departments involved, checked by the Council of Ministers and accepted by this Assembly. Three months later, the States were asked to approve the 2007 Business Plan, which was the first Business Plan - as we have heard the Chief Minister speak about - under the new Public Finances (Jersey) Law 2005. There were a number of parts to the proposition contained in that Plan, and in part (b) the States agreed that total States net expenditure for each of the years 2007 to 2011 should not exceed the amount set out in a summary table C which can be found on page 58 of that document, the aim being to set overall spending limits for the years 2007 to 2011

consistent with delivering the actions identified in the Strategic Plan. So, just to recap, the Strategic Plan identifies actions which the departments would carry out over a five-year period, together with a forecast of how much it would cost. The key objectives contained in this Business Plan are the more detailed departmental plans showing how they would implement those actions. There is a suggestion contained within this year's Business Plan that if States members approve all of the key objectives, then it follows that sufficient resources will be required to meet all of those objectives. This is somewhat of a departure from earlier statements made by the Ministers and is not consistent with previous States' decisions and instructions given by this Assembly to the Council of Ministers. The first decision the States made, as I said, was in the Strategic Plan and that it was to be delivered within the proposed spending limits contained within that Plan. The second important decision was the approval of the States' 2007 Business Plan.  In that Plan,  we agreed that total States  net expenditure for each of the years 2007 to 2011 should not exceed the amounts set out in the Summary Table C that was provided. It is interesting to note that in the Annual Business Plan proposition the actual wording of B asks us to agree that: "Total States net expenditure for each of the years 2007 to 2011 should not exceed the amount set out in Summary Table C." I suppose some might argue that "should not" is not the same as "will not" which is included in this year's part B of the proposition. I will just draw members attention to it. In this year's draft Plan it says to agree that: "Total States net expenditure for each of the years 2008 to 2012 will not exceed the amount set out in Summary Table C and to request [it goes on] the Chief Minister present Annual Business Plans to the States within these amounts." Clearly the inference in both of these documents is that there is an expectation that the maximum amounts would be adhered to and this is supported, I believe, in the changes in the wording of the proposition by the Council of Ministers this year that I have just read out. The expectation of both the States and the general public was that the Council of Ministers would deliver future Business Plans within these set amounts. When one considers the financial proposals contained in this year's Business Plan, it is obvious that there has been a divergence in this decision. Instead, the Council of Ministers is proposing a whole range of key objectives which, in its own words and reinforced this morning by the Chief Minister, will require

extra funding. It is also contained in its comments on this amendment. If you turn to the Council of Ministers comments and the second paragraph, it states: "The Council would wish to highlight that the fifth amendment of Deputy Reed requires the approved objectives to be delivered within the approved spending limits. If, as is proposed in these parts of the ninth amendment of the Public Accounts Committee, the financial framework is significantly reduced then the proposed objectives and performance criteria could not be delivered." So basically they are saying, I believe, we know what we were instructed to stick to - the agreed spending limits - but if you approve a new set of key objectives then you will be expected to provide all the money requested in order that those key objectives can be delivered. In my view this must be wrong. How can we properly make a decision on the key objectives if we are told that by approving those key objectives we will be going against a decision that the States has already made? Furthermore, how can we alter and change key objectives before we agree where the overall spending limits are to be increased? Of more concern is that the Council of Ministers are suggesting that if we are not prepared to fund all of the key objectives certain specific services will be affected. Members need to recognise that we are only able to determine overall States' expenditure and within that amount individual department allocations for the coming year. We might be able to indicate our preference on how the departments use the monies allocated to them, for instance, to maintain existing services. However, we cannot control how overall departments' budgets are spent in any detail. That is clearly the job of the Minister together with department officers and the managerial staff employed to support him. This is their responsibility, not ours. My amendment simply makes this clear and highlights further the need for the Council of Ministers and their departments to work within budget. Members must be aware that - and I am not aiming to comment on the specific services linked to the ninth amendment - not all of the services identified in the summary and the comments on the ninth amendment necessarily need to be cut. That will be addressed later. I would like to add that most of the services identified are and have already been provided for in the approved budget of 2008 contained in the 2007 Business Plan. Furthermore, the detailed 3-year budgets, as I said before, were produced - and this is an extremely important point - by the departments themselves. They are the ones that forecast and provided the figures for the States to determine. It is now time that we

ask both the Ministers and their departments to deliver services within the approved budget. I accept that some extra or additional services might be curtailed but that will always be the case in whatever overall limits we set. I ask that States members approve this amendment as it will further clarify the Business Plan process and give clear guidance to the Ministers that key objectives must be delivered within the agreed spending limits.

The Bailiff :

Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded]

1. Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

I certainly welcome the amendment from the Deputy of St. Ouen which I think reinforces my own thinking and indeed reinforces the thinking of the Council of Ministers. As he rightly says, this amendment is very much on all fours with the slight amendment to the wording that we have made in this year's Business Plan in respect of part 3 of the proposition where, as he says, the word "should" has been strengthened to "will". That is a very small but important change. It is designed to bind the Council of Ministers but I remind members it is designed also to bind every member of this House. It is not just the Council of Ministers that come up with objectives and bright ideas; it is every member of this House who from time to time does just that. We have to be realistic, that the Strategic Plan has a number of objectives, more than I can count perhaps. There is a desire that objectives within the Plan should be fully funded but they should be fully funded within spending limits. In other words one can create a wish list as large as you like but we have to work to deliver the objectives within spending limits. I think what we have seen in the last year or two is the inability to deliver very much by way of new objectives. We have been focusing on simply delivering what we are already doing in the face of increased costs. So I think in welcoming this amendment I do not know that we need to spend a great deal of time discussing it. The Council of Ministers has accepted it. I am sure members will want to accept it as an extra discipline which we all need. I stress that it is a discipline that we all need and have all to take part in. I thank the Deputy for the amendment.

2. Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St. Brelade :

Just a quick note to underline what my Vice-Chairman has said. This particular amendment clarifying the duties of Ministers and their responsibilities and of this House is absolutely vital. Just yesterday the Treasurer stated to the Chief Minister, the Deputy of St. Ouen and myself that the current rate of increase in States' expenditure is unsustainable. I would just give members a couple of quotes from the Public Accounts hearing on the annual accounts of the States which is available on our website to read if you wish. The comments are made by the Treasurer: "How you really control States' expenditure though is to have fiscal discipline and the answer would be for the States to agree their Business Plan for a year for three-year cash limits and then have their hands tied so they cannot change it. But the advice I have received so far is that the States are supreme in voting money and if the States decide to change their own forward cash limits there is nothing anyone can do to stop them." So we need to have discipline in this House. He went on to say: "Every year the States has a Business Plan that includes three-year forward cash projections which gets approved for one year and every year thereafter the States agrees a new Business Plan which totally ignores the cash limits they set themselves the year before." I ask members, and particularly the Ministers, to bear this in mind.

3. The Deputy of St. Ouen :

I obviously thank Senator Le Sueur for his comments and also Deputy Ferguson; and he is absolutely right - the Treasurer - when says it is the duty of all of us. However, I think we do need to appreciate the different roles and the parts we play in this government and ensure that we fulfil those roles to the best of our ability.

The Bailiff :

I put the amendment of the Deputy of St. Ouen. Those members in favour of adopting it kindly show. Against? The amendment is adopted.

4. Annual Business Plan 2008 (P.93/2007): sixth amendment: (P.93/2007) Amd. (6)

The Bailiff :

We come now to amendment 6 also in the name of the Deputy of St. Ouen. Can I ask the Greffier to read it.

The Greffier of the States:

The Annual Business Plan 2008 (P.93/2007): sixth amendment. In paragraph (a)(i) after the words: "Pages 11 and 13 of the Annex" insert the words: "Except that in Objective 1 for performance/ success criteria (viii) substitute the following performance/success criteria; (viii) replacement for the Waterfront Enterprise Board debated by the States."

4.1 The Deputy of St. Ouen :

I think it is quite self-explanatory and I acknowledge that the Council of Ministers have fully accepted this amendment and again, it is just to bring clarity to this objective.

The Bailiff :

The amendment is seconded? Does any member wish to speak? I put the amendment. Those members in favour of adopting it kindly show. Those against? The amendment is adopted.

5. Annual Business Plan 2008 (P.93/2007): fourth amendment: (P.93/2007) Amd. (4)

The Bailiff :

We now come to amendment 4, again in the name of the Deputy of St. Ouen and I ask the Greffier to read the amendment.

The Greffier of the States:

Annual Business Plan 2008 (P.93/2007): fourth amendment. In paragraph (a)(i) after the words: "Pages 11 and 13 of the annex" insert the words: "Except that in objective 1 after the existing performance/success criteria insert the following additional performance/success criteria; (xi) Annual Business Plans to be delivered within the total amount set in the 2008 Annual Business Plan for the years 2008 to 2012; (xii) additional growth for the period 2008 to 2012 to be delivered by compensatory savings elsewhere within the approved total amounts; (xiii) greater involvement of all States Members in the Business Plan process."

5.1 The Deputy of St. Ouen :

I would like to advise members that I am not targeting the Chief Minister necessarily. It is just that obviously, as Chief Minister, he has certain responsibilities and duties and it means that these areas are important. I am pleased that the Council of Ministers is supporting all parts of this amendment. In my view, as I said before, key objectives should be clear and unambiguous and these amendments are designed to do just that. The first two parts of the amendment focus on the responsibility of the Chief Minister and ultimately the Council of Ministers to deliver the Business Plan within the total amounts to be approved in this year's Business Plan covering the years 2008 to 2012. Again, with performance criteria this will be an excellent performance measure that the States can review annually. It also reinforces the view that any additional growth which we see in the changing of the wording of part B of this year's Business Plan needs to come from compensatory savings elsewhere within approved total amounts. My hope is that these objectives become one of the key aims of the Chief Minister as we all, I hasten to add, strive to control States' expenditure. The third part of the amendment is designed to address what I believe to be present failings in the Business Plan process. I am aware that this is only the second year of the new Business Plan format under the new Public Finances Law but it is obvious that more needs to be done to involve all States members in the process. Of equal importance is the timing of the debate and the ability of Scrutiny Panels to fully consider the detailed proposals put forward in the Business Plan by the Council of Ministers. This debate, I believe, is probably the most important debate of the year and, as such, more could be gained by Panels being involved at an earlier stage as well as all other States' members. I therefore ask members to support this amendment so that this might happen.

The Bailiff :

Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded] Does any member wish to speak on the amendment?

1. Deputy A. Breckon:

I think this is an appropriate moment to bring this up because the Chief Minister did mention in the preamble about the process and he mentioned Scrutiny and how people may or may not look at it, and the Deputy of St. Ouen is saying in the third paragraph to his amendment about greater involvement of all States members in the Business Plan process. In the introduction the Chief Minister does say that the whole process is under review; it is in the second year and it is a learning process. I would like to just relate an experience that happened in trying to look at this at an early stage and that was the quality of the information that was available and whether indeed it was worth looking at, at that stage. I would also like to say to members that this was lodged on 17th July and was scheduled for debate last week. I think, bearing in mind the magnitude of this, the process does need looking at because the main time to look at it would be August which is perhaps not the best time for anybody to do that for obvious reasons. Sir, I hope the Chief Minister would note that and take it in the way that I have said that. Having said that, there was a criticism as well of Scrutiny perhaps not looking at the process, which was something that I mentioned at the Chairmen's Committee, that perhaps we would try and get a method that all Panels could use to look at their particular area. We did get a small group together. We had an accountant on stand-by and when we sought out the quality of the information that was available, not just for 2008 but for 2009 and 2010, in the main the figures were the same for the three years. I will not say where it was but I had a conversation with the Chief Officer and he said: "Well, really, I do not know what it is so I cannot tell you for 2009 or 2010 but we are probably having to do this too early but that is the process that we have got and that is where we were with that." I say that because we have had other methods of looking at resources in the past - decision conferences and things like that - but perhaps more Members could be involved earlier because the policies lead to the expenditure, the revenue, the law drafting and everything else, and everything is here. I think we have been disrespectful not just to the process but also to the public in having this in the holiday period, as it were; lodging it on 17th July, perhaps some going away fishing, and then debating it early in September. Having said

that, from a Scrutiny point of view, there is not necessarily a window of two months that is left open with nothing else to do. All the Panels, I think, were working on something else so it was not a case of just dropping everything and looking at this. I think that is a fault in the system; we should be able to do that but it is not always the case because of resources. I do support the amendment as others do because I think it is commonsense. I have some other comments on the department of the Chief Minister but I will reserve that. I assume we are coming back to that after the amendments.

2. Senator F.H. Walker :

I was going to make similar comments to those of Deputy Breckon. It is quite clear that in the early process things have not worked as well as they might have done and should have done between Ministers and some, at least, of the Scrutiny Panels. What I am very encouraged with is the very constructive discussions that we have already had with the new Chairmen's Committee which I believe will add a great deal of value to the process and which will indeed ensure that as many members as possible can and will be, or will have at least the opportunity to be, involved in the business planning process in future years at an earlier date and in a more meaningful way. So I merely say that progress is being made. There is general acknowledgement that there is work to be done to improve on the way we handle this and I am very confident we will do just that in time for the next Business Plan.

3. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin :

I am heartened by what the Chief Minister has to say because I really wanted to follow on from Deputy Breckon because, during the preamble, the Chief Minister did give some praise to Corporate Services for their involvement. Of course, the Corporate Services Panel was involved right from the outset but the other Panels were not. Indeed, the Chief Minister gave a backhanded compliment to my former Panel and said: "Thank you for what you have done albeit it was a bit late in coming." I think the House needs an explanation because I think what our former Panel did at least is that we met the two Ministers as soon as possible after documentation was lodged. What we did find was there was so little information given to us that we had to go back to the departments for further information. I think both departments that our former Panel were dealing with worked very well, with a very close relationship, and it worked well and that is why at least we are able to produce something albeit a bit late. It almost seems that because we did something we are damned but if we had done nothing we would have been better off. I think we have got to look to the future, and I am pleased to hear what the Chief Minister is saying because I think Scrutiny Panels must be involved much earlier on. They must be given more information so there is clarity in what they are being asked to look at because I think, again, we have gone through a learning process. A lot of learning has taken place and I look forward to the future as I am sure those lessons have been learnt in the past.

4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour :

Just to reinforce what has been said and what the Chief Minister has said. There were real problems. It was not a question of people not meeting deadlines. It was a question, as Deputy Breckon said, that the material was vast. The categories they were examining were vast. It was not possible to ask meaningful questions about these vast categories. There was no way of distinguishing trends in terms of differentiation between what was happening now and what had happened in the past. It was very difficult to track that particular thing. Also, it almost demanded vast assumptions and vast knowledge about the programmes and policies of a Ministry which would have bogged-down the whole process. So, yes, we have gone back to square one. We are trying to develop a better template so we can ask more meaningful questions. We did do an experiment with one Ministry's Business Plan to see how far we could get. That was reported to the Chief Minister and the difficulties experienced were reported but we are now moving ahead in a much more positive way.

The Bailiff :

I call upon the Deputy of St. Ouen to reply.

5. The Deputy of St. Ouen :

Obviously, as States members are well aware with the issues and concerns raised by both Deputy Breckon, Deputy Hill and Deputy Le Hérissier regarding this business and also acknowledging Senator Walker 's determination to improve the process, I hope that we can indeed see that happen over the coming year. Thank you.

The Bailiff :

I put the amendment. I ask any member in the precinct who wishes to vote on this amendment to return to his or her seat. I ask the Greffier to open the voting which is for or against the amendment of the Deputy of St. Ouen .

POUR: 43 CONTRE: 0 ABSTAIN: 0 Senator L. Norman

Senator F.H. Walker

Senator W. Kinnard

Senator T.A. Le Sueur

Senator B.E. Shenton

Senator F.E. Cohen

Senator J.L. Perchard

Connétable of St. Ouen

Connétable of St. Mary

Connétable of St. Peter

Connétable of St. Clement

Connétable of Grouville

Connétable of St. Brelade

Connétable of St. Martin

Connétable of St. Saviour

Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S)

Deputy A. Breckon (S)

Deputy J.J. Huet (H)

Deputy of St. Martin

Deputy G.C.L. Baudains (C)

Deputy P.N. Troy (B)

Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en (S)

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (S)

Deputy J.B. Fox (H)

Deputy J.A. Martin (H) Deputy G.P. Southern (H) Deputy S.C. Ferguson (B) Deputy of St. Ouen

Deputy P.J.D. Ryan (H) Deputy of Grouville

Deputy of St. Peter

Deputy J.A. Hilton (H) Deputy G.W.J. de Faye (H) Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire (H) Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré (L) Deputy D.W. Mezbourian (L) Deputy of Trinity

Deputy S.S.P.A. Power (B) Deputy S. Pitman (H) Deputy A.J.D. Maclean (H) Deputy K.C. Lewis (S) Deputy I.J. Gorst (C)

Deputy of St. Mary

6. Annual Business Plan 2008 (P.93/2007): eleventh amendment: (P.93/2007) Amd. (11) The Bailiff :

Now we come to Amendment No. 11 which, as the Greffier's note makes clear, requires the approval of members before it can be debated because it was not lodged within the requisite 14 day period. Are members content to take the amendment of the Chief Minister? Very well, I ask the Greffier to read the amendment.

The Greffier of the States:

Annual Business Plan: eleventh amendment in paragraph (a)(i) after the words: "Pages 11 to 13 of the annex" insert the words: "Except in Objective 7 after performance/success criteria (v) insert the following new performance/success criteria: (vi) need for an independent personal agency to receive approaches from persons raising serious concerns to be assessed."

6.1 Senator F.H. Walker :

This, Sir, as members are aware is spawned by Amendment No. 8 which was lodged by Deputy Le Hérissier. His amendment said: "Need for independent person or agency to receive approaches from whistleblowers assessed." But that related specifically to Health and when the Council of Ministers looked at the amendment we could see the merit behind it but felt that it was unnecessary to restrict it to Health. Therefore the amendment that I am bringing forward on behalf of the Council of Ministers is that the principle of whistleblowers being able to go to an independent person or agency should be extended to the States as a whole. Sir, I would doubt if anyone would seriously argue with the principle and I hope that members would agree that this is something that could and should be covered across the whole of the States rather than restricted to Health. So, Sir, I make the amendment.

The Bailiff :

Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded] Thank you. Does any member wish to speak? Deputy Le Hérissier?

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

I thank the Chief Minister for his gesture and I think that is a very wise move. I apologise to Members, I notice that my rather pompous wording has been carried over but this is because colloquial terms presumably, like whistleblower, could not be used. Furthermore, Sir, the reason it is being assessed rather than being approved at this point is simply because it was very difficult to find out the cost from another jurisdiction, so hence the need to go through the assessment route. Again perhaps an unnecessary step but I thank the Chief Minister, I think it is long, long overdue and I think it hopefully will restore credibility in areas where perhaps it has been a bit dented.

Deputy J.J. Huet of St. Helier :

Could I just ask a question? Do we have to agree to debate this before we debate it?

The Bailiff :

You do and I think members have agreed.

Deputy J.J. Huet:

Right, sorry, I must have missed that. I do apologise.

The Bailiff :

That is why I asked members whether they were content with the amendment to be debated.

2. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:

Talk about the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. I wonder if the members of this Assembly are aware that the Comptroller and Auditor General has a whistle-blowing line on his website which,  for the information of  members  is  www.auditorgeneral.jersey.org and I would suggest that possibly the Council of Ministers or the Chief Minister needs to discuss with him how that has been working. I do not see much need for serious assessments, taking time, money, energy and resources; it is on the go. You can certainly get an idea of what kind of whistle-blowing there has been but there you have an independent gentleman who has no axe to grind who is not involved with the Civil Service: he stands totally independently. I think you might perhaps look at that, Sir.

3. Senator J.L. Perchard:

Just a question of the Chief Minister, if I may? The need for an independent person or agency to receive approaches from persons raising serious concerns to be addressed, does not appear to have any financial or manpower implications attached to this and perhaps the Chief Minister in summing up could just address that, please.

4. Connétable T.J. du Feu of St. Peter :

Could I ask the Chief Minister, Sir, this person or agency that would be appointed, would I be right in assuming it would be under the absolute and total control of his department?

5. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en of St. Saviour :

I would like to seek clarification in view of Deputy Ferguson's comments because I would not have personally thought the Auditor General would have been qualified to deal with all concerns. Financial concerns, yes. So are we talking about the same procedures here, the same types of concerns?

The Bailiff :

I call on the Chief Minister to reply.

6. Senator F.H. Walker :

First of all I would like to thank Deputy Ferguson for pointing out the role and the position - availability, if you like - of the Comptroller and Auditor General. That of course is something that we are aware of and something that we will be looking at if the States agree to this amendment. Senator Perchard has asked where are the financial and manpower resources? It is covered in my report, I think, adequately. The Connétable of St. Peter asked if the control of this would come under my department. It depends what he means by control because clearly somebody has to administer it and somebody has to organise it. If necessary somebody has to fund it and that will be my department. But the whole idea of the proposition is - and I repeat  it - the need for an independent person or agency to receive approaches from persons raising serious concerns to be assessed. So whoever it is - whatever it is - will be independent, but of course, as I say, somebody has to be responsible for the administration behind that and that will indeed be my department if the States  agree  today.   Deputy   Scott   Warr en  raised  some  questions  about the  actual  role  of  the Comptroller and Auditor General and I take on board what she said. But that again will need to be looked at when we sit down, if the States agree, to the assessment of how we move forward on this matter.

The Bailiff :

I put the amendment the appel? Yes. I ask any member who wishes to vote who is in the precinct to return to his or her seat. I ask the Greffier to open the voting which is for or against the amendment of the Chief Minister.

POUR: 39

Senator L. Norman

Senator F.H. Walker

Senator W. Kinnard

Senator T.A. Le Sueur Senator M.E. Vibert

Senator F.E. Cohen

Senator J.L. Perchard Connétable of St. Peter Connétable of St. Clement Connétable of Grouville Connétable of St. Martin Connétable of St. Saviour Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S) Deputy A. Breckon (S) Deputy J.J. Huet (H)

Deputy of St. Martin

Deputy G.C.L. Baudains (C) Deputy P.N. Troy (B) Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en (S) Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (S) Deputy J.B. Fox (H)

Deputy J.A. Martin (H) Deputy G.P. Southern (H) Deputy S.C. Ferguson (B)

CONTRE: 3 ABSTAIN: 1

Senator B.E. Shenton Connétable of St. Ouen Connétable of St. Brelade

Deputy of St. Ouen

Deputy P.J.D. Ryan (H) Deputy of Grouville

Deputy of St. Peter

Deputy J.A. Hilton (H) Deputy G.W.J. de Faye (H) Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire (H) Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré (L) Deputy D.W. Mezbourian (L) Deputy of Trinity

Deputy S.S.P.A. Power (B) Deputy S. Pitman (H) Deputy A.J.D. Maclean (H) Deputy K.C. Lewis (S) Deputy I.J. Gorst (C)

Deputy of St. Mary

7. Annual Business Plan 2008 (P.93/2007) - continued

The Bailiff :

Now we come back to the preamble and paragraph (a)(i) of the proposition. Does any member wish to speak on the Deputy Breckon.

1. Deputy A. Breckon:

I covered the comments I wish to make on the preamble in the Deputy of St. Ouen 's amendments, but the actual substance of the department, Sir, raised some questions for me. Perhaps if we are going to look with some seriousness at everything we do - and why - then I would ask the Chief Minister if he would note this and perhaps some time in future States members - and as part of public expenditure - could find out what this money is spent on and what indeed it does. Because within the department with External Affairs, Economic and International Finance, Information Services and Human Resources I understand there has been some coming together in there. But there is a significant amount of money there, and when I looked in the narrative attached to this Business Plan annex, it did not really tell me much more about that apart from some targets were being aimed for and met and meetings were being held and whatever. So, I for one, Sir, would certainly like some more detail about that to ensure that public money is being well spent. The other thing, Sir, sadly I have read reams of this connected with the Business Plan, and I cannot find where I read this, but I understand that nearly £1.7 million is being set aside to roll out the new Microsoft software system across the States, Vista. My understanding of the sum for that was nearly £1.7 million. I wonder if the Chief Minister could confirm that or not? I cannot remember where I read it but I have had various drafts and whatever else, but I did read it somewhere. Unfortunately, Sir I did not put a big sticker on it or colour it in at the time and I have not been able to find it again. But I do not think it was in my imagination. The other thing, Sir, that is in there and we are conscious of public spending, I hope, but what is in the narrative for the Communications Unit is an increase, and part of the increase in the Communications Unit is a full- time equivalent due to requirement for a dedicated E.D.D. (Economic Development Department) Harbours and Airport Communication Officer: money to be provided by E.D.D. Now, I really do wonder if £40,000 is appropriate for it to have a spokesperson for the Harbour and the Airport. I understand we have staff in those areas, they should be well able to do that and again, Sir, it is public expenditure: it is in there and it does raise a concern for me. If we are talking about taxing people then we should be able to justify it by saying that is money well spent. To me that particular

penny or that particular £40,000 did not drop straight away. There are some other issues in there, Sir, and I think that is why perhaps this Business Plan needs to be looked at in more detail earlier. I will not take up the time of the House but there are areas there where there is a brief paragraph - a sentence in some areas - where I do not think it justifies the expenditure of public funds and I will be addressing this to other Ministers as well because I do not think they should be just taking penalty kicks without the goalkeeper in. There should be something that is looking at this and I do not believe we have got the examination of public expenditure and the public accounting right yet. Sir, I should add to that my recent experience with the Public Accounts Committee has focussed me on some of this and I think other members as well. But I would hope that the Chief Minister, if he cannot respond to all of that today, then at some time in the future he could come back with perhaps more details, explanations of some of this because I believe this House deserves it and I think the public deserve it.

2. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:

Following the various debacles in the U.K. application of I.T. projects, the Comptroller and Auditor General will be conducting a review of I.T. projects and their management either this autumn or early spring next year. So again, should we be rushing into these things without having sat back and looked how we are managing it? Particularly considering, as I say, the various debacles in the health service, income tax - you name it - in the U.K. The bigger the project, the bigger the hole we dig. As to the possible implementation of Vista, this is not something that I have heard about but if it is correct then I would suggest that it is much too previous. No professional computer expert worth their salt would start looking at it before at least the first or second service pack which is a technical name for saying: "Well, we have just found out what is not working and this is the correction book." Anyway, Sir, I think these are matters that should be borne in mind.

The Bailiff :

I call upon the Chief Minister to reply.

3. Senator F.H. Walker :

I cannot, off the top of my head, answer the first question that Deputy Breckon raised about the £1.7 million for Microsoft but I will most certainly get that information. But what I would point out - and it is something I said in my preamble speech - if the States is going to be efficient and effective, we have no choice other than to invest in I.T. It is just not possible in this day and age to be efficient, to deliver public services effectively without full support of a robust I.T. structure. It is just not possible. I would point out to members again the chart in the Business Plan where it shows quite clearly that Jersey's I.T. expenditure is, at this moment, significantly below any other country that we can realistically measure against at this point. We are continuing to investigate that analysis. It is, as I said, an inescapable fact. It is also an inescapable fact that the I.T. budget has been cut and cut and cut in recent years. I mentioned in my speech that there were only 2 new projects that have been funded for 2008 - only two. Now I think a justifiable case could be made to probably fund at least half a dozen new projects as a genuine investment in the efficiency of the future. But the I.T. budget has been cut back and cut back and cut back and we are now approaching £1 million annual savings on our I.T. budget. Now, I would say to members we cannot be expected - it makes no sense - to continue to cut the I.T. budget in this way. We have gone as far as it is realistically possible and I think the arguments are stronger the other way that we should be investing more not less. But, Sir, I take on board Deputy Breckon's point about more detailed information, although I think there is a tremendous amount of detail already available. Again, of course, this should be something that falls out of the improved Scrutiny process that we referred to in the discussion on the earlier amendment. Sir, I am aware, of course, of the point Deputy Ferguson made that the Comptroller and Auditor General is to do a review of I.T. projects and I welcome that. We have a new head of I.T. within the States, a very effective, very experienced operator and I am looking to him to ensure that we are spending the optimum amount on I.T. and

spending it properly, and also for him to work closely with the Comptroller and Auditor General on a review so that all States members, and indeed the public, can have the reassurance they are entitled to that we are indeed running our I.T. systems and running the I.T. Department in an effective way. Sir, I thank members for their contribution.

The Bailiff :

I put the proposition. Those members in favour the appel, yes. I ask any member in the precinct who wishes to vote to return to his or her seat. The vote is for or against the preamble and the Chief Minister's objectives.

POUR: 40

Senator L. Norman

Senator F.H. Walker

Senator W. Kinnard

Senator T.A. Le Sueur Senator M.E. Vibert

Senator B.E. Shenton Senator F.E. Cohen

Senator J.L. Perchard Connétable of St. Ouen Connétable of St. Peter Connétable of St. Clement Connétable of Grouville Connétable of St. Brelade Connétable of St. Martin Connétable of St. Saviour Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S) Deputy J.J. Huet (H)

Deputy of St. Martin

Deputy P.N. Troy (B) Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en (S) Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (S) Deputy J.B. Fox (H)

Deputy J.A. Martin (H) Deputy G.P. Southern (H) Deputy S.C. Ferguson (B) Deputy of St. Ouen

Deputy of Grouville

Deputy J.A. Hilton (H) Deputy G.W.J. de Faye (H) Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire (H) Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré (L) Deputy D.W. Mezbourian (L) Deputy of Trinity

CONTRE: 2 ABSTAIN: 0 Deputy A. Breckon (S)

Deputy G.C.L. Baudains (C)

Deputy S.S.P.A. Power (B) Deputy S. Pitman (H) Deputy A.J.D. Maclean (H) Deputy K.C. Lewis (S) Deputy of St. John

Deputy I.J. Gorst (C) Deputy of St. Mary

8. Annual Business Plan 2008 (P.93/2007): Objectives of the Economic Development Department, Jersey Airport and Jersey Harbours

The Bailiff :

We come now to the objectives of the Economic Development Department and Jersey Airport and Jersey Harbours. Assistant Minister, I wonder if I could ask you to propose all those together?

8.1 Deputy A.J.H. Maclean of St. Helier (Assistant Minister for Economic Development): Yes, Sir. Before I present the objectives of the Economic Development Department can I perhaps seek your advice? What I would like to do is present Economic Development first and seek any questions that the Assembly may have and once completed move on to the Airport and then Harbours afterwards. So do them each individually but one after the other. Would that be appropriate?

The Bailiff :

Well, it is a matter for you. I had rather hoped that you might be able to deal with them all together so that members could have one debate on the whole of the Economic Development Department's programme.

Deputy A.J.H. Maclean:

I am more than happy to do that if the Assembly would like that.

The Bailiff :

I sense the assent of the Assembly.

Deputy A.J.H. MacLean:

Marvellous, Sir. I will proceed then, thank you. Sir, the principle objective of the Economic Development Department is to grow and diversify the economy in a sustainable manner. This objective is, rightly, central to the future prosperity of the Island. I am therefore pleased to present the objectives for the department within the 2008 Business Plan which I firmly believe will deliver that objective. To do so we have to grow and sustain the existing businesses from all sectors of the economy while seeking to develop new sectors to diversify our economic base. Long-term economic growth can occur with the necessary robust controls on population growth and within the essential context of low inflation. At present every economic indicator points to the fact that most sectors of the economy are performing well and showing positive growth. Employment rates are strong. Bank deposits, funds and bank activity, and trust activity are all at record levels and inflation is near target levels. The focus of the department in 2008 therefore shifts to a medium to long-term view with greater emphasis on developing the vitally important skills strategy. The successful development of a skills strategy will help address the supply and demand imbalance in the employment market and ultimately decrease the need for imported talent to meet the current shortfall. 2008 will see the formation of a Skills Executive with a proposal being presented to the Council of Ministers this October. The Executive will integrate the current skills and career services from across Education, Social Security and Economic Development Departments. It will interface with government activity, with business to achieve the optimum solution for the employee and employer. Another key objective will be the continued development of the Enterprise and Business Development strategy. This strategy aims to increase business start-ups, entrepreneurship and international trade from and into the Island. Members will be aware of the significant impact the strategy has already made in 2007. This will be further strengthened by the opening of the new one-stop-shop for business at Jubilee Wharf in January 2008. I believe the key long-term challenge for the department is containing inflation. The department intends to address this objective not only through the skills work, but primarily through the Competition Law. I will address Senator Shenton's amendment in due course, but the continued funding and review of the effectiveness of this Law is obviously key to the sustainable long-term low inflation. If there is any suspicion that the department has intentions to decrease its support to the traditional industries of the Island, I wish to strongly dispel these right now. For example, the department continues to provide the same amount of direct subsidies and business assistance as in previous years. Make no mistake, the rural economy is an important employer and has a vital role in preserving our environment. The importance and support for the visitor economy is exactly the same. Last year we put an increased budget into Enterprise and Business Development and it is from here that businesses from all sectors receive specific support. In fact business development, marketing and skill strategies and funding are available to all sectors of the economy without preference. The department continues to work closely with the tourism industry and will re-invest in targeted high-value events and marketing with the close advice and guidance from the industry. The benefits of this close communication were clearly evident in the two key Island events earlier this year - the Battle of Flowers and more recently the Air Display which were both highly successful in terms of quality, attendance and visitor numbers. The department will deliver all our objectives within a budget that is approximately three per cent of the States' total revenue spend and has attracted significant cuts since 2005, £1.3 million or approximately 10 per cent. I believe that Economic Development's Business Plan maintains a clear direction that offers the opportunity for sustainable long-term growth and diversification of the economy. These are the objectives based on the States' Strategic Plan and the already agreed Economic Growth Plan. In terms of business development and economic growth, standing still is clearly not an option. We need to continually invest for growth and move forward. We will continue to help businesses to establish themselves, to grow and to succeed. A strategy that will create jobs that will deliver the taxes that Ministers and this Assembly like to spend, hopefully wisely and with appropriate restraint. Sir, I commend the objectives in this