States Meeting Transcript - 10/12/2009

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

THURSDAY, 10th DECEMBER 2009

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption ...............................................................4

1. Draft Budget Statement 2010 (P.179/2009) - resumption................................4

1.1 Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour:......................................................4

1. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:......................................................4
2. Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier:..........................................................6
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:................................................6
4. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade : .........................................................8
5. Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John : ..........................................................9
6. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:........................................................9
7. Deputy D.J. De Sousa of St. Helier:....................................................12
8. Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary:.................................................12
9. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:.....................................................15
10. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement:..............................................16
11. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:.............................................................16
12. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity : .......................................................18
13. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..............................................................19
14. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................19

2. Draft Finance (2010 Budget) (Jersey) Law 200- (P.180/2009)..........................29

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):......................29
2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................29
3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................29
4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................31
5. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................31
6. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................31
7. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................31

3. Draft Income Tax (Amendment No. 34) (Jersey) Law 200- (P.181/2009)..............31

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):......................32
2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................32

1. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin : ..........................................................33
2. Deputy T.A. Vallois: ...................................................................33
3. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St.Clement:........................................................33
4. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................33
5. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:..................................................33
6. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................34

3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................35
4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................35

4. Draft Goods and Services Tax (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Law 200- (P.182/2009)..35

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):......................36
2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................36
3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................36

1. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................36
2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................36

4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................37

5. Draft Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.183/2009)37

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):......................37
2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................37

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................38
2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................38
   3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................38

6. Draft Taxation (Land Transactions) (Jersey) Law 2009 (Appointed Day) Act 200- (P.158/2009)..............................................................................38

6.1 Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence (Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources - rapporteur):.............................................................................38

1. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................39
2. Deputy E.J. Noel: ......................................................................39

7. Draft Taxation (Land Transactions) (Amendment of Law) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.159/2009)..............................................................................39

1. Deputy E.J. Noel (Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources - rapporteur):........39
2. Deputy E.J. Noel: ......................................................................41

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................41
2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................41
3. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................41
4. Deputy E.J. Noel: ......................................................................42

3. Deputy E.J. Noel: ......................................................................42

1. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................42
2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................42
3. Deputy E.J. Noel: ......................................................................43

8. Draft Tariff of Harbour Dues (P.178/2009).............................................43

8.1 Senator P.F. Routier (Assistant Minister for Economic Development):.................43

1. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:..........................................................44
2. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................45
3. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................45
4. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade:...............................................45
5. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................45
6. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................45
7. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................46
8. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................46

9. User Pays' Charges: pathology (P.185/2009)..........................................49

9.1 The Deputy of Trinity (The Minister for Health and Social Services):..................49

1. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................50
2. Deputy A.E. Jeune of St. Brelade:......................................................50
3. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................50
4. Deputy A.T. Dupre of St. Clement:.....................................................51
5. Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................51
6. Deputy J.B. Fox:........................................................................51

7. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:..................................................................52
8. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................52
9. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................52
10. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................52
11. The Very Reverend R.F. Key, B.A., The Dean of Jersey: ............................53
12. The Deputy of Trinity : ..............................................................53

10. Draft Health Insurance (Medical Benefit) (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.184/2009)........................................................................55

10.1 Deputy I.J. Gorst (The Minister for Social Security):...................................55

1. Senator P.F. Routier:................................................................55
2. Deputy D.J. De Sousa: ..............................................................56
3. Deputy I.J. Gorst :....................................................................56

11. Rate Appeal Board: appointment of members (P.191/2009)...........................56

11.1 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):......................57

1. Deputy D.J. De Sousa: ..............................................................57
2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................57

12. Jersey Police Complaints Authority: appointment of members (P.192/2009).........57

12.1 Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs): ...........................57

1. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................58
2. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..........................................................58

13. Public Employees Contributory Retirement Scheme Committee of Management: membership (P.199/2009)................................................................58

13.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):...........................................59

1. Deputy I.J. Gorst :....................................................................59
2. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..............................................................59

14. Jersey Appointments Commission: appointment of Chairman and member (P.200/2009)..............................................................................59

14.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):...........................................60

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................60

15. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee): .........................................................................................60

1. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................60
2. Deputy T.A. Vallois: ...................................................................61
3. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................61

CHRISTMAS GREETINGS....................................................................61 Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.......................................................................61 Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen:..........................................................62 Deputy R.C. Duhamel:........................................................................63 The Connétable of Grouville :.................................................................63 The Dean of Jersey:..........................................................................64 The Bailiff :...................................................................................64

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................65

The Roll was called and the Greffier led the Assembly in Prayer. PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption

The Deputy Bailiff :

We resume debate on the Budget Statement as amended. Does any Member wish to speak?

1. Draft Budget Statement 2010 (P.179/2009) - resumption

1.1 Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour :

Well, here we are, the Draft Budget Statement 2010. As a new Member, in one year I have managed to survive the Strategic Plan, the Business Plan and now the long-awaited budget. [Approbation] [Laughter] I echo the words of fellow Members on congratulating and commending the Minister for Treasury and Resources on his first budget proposal and I certainly look forward to seeing what he has in store for us in next year's budget following the vital and ever so important reviews being undertaken by him and his officers. As a new Member, I have to say I have found it difficult with the way in which we, as a government, address the processes of the Strategic Plan, the Business Plan and the budget and believe these are 3 of our downfalls in trying to achieve a more effective and efficient government. One thing that has stood out at me during this debate is the way in which some of the Members are happy to stand and commend our Minister for Treasury and Resources for his budget, however, not address the other important items contained in this document which we are about to vote upon. As the Minister for Treasury and Resources will note from my membership on Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel, I tend to be fairly analytical on equalities and have bombarded him with plenty of questions over the last year and will continue to do so for the remainder of my term with particular interest in both the reviews, Comprehensive Spending Review and Fiscal Strategy Review, which are both mentioned in this budget. Therefore, I have a few questions for the Minister for Treasury and Resources with regard to the budget that I would like for him to address in his summing up. Firstly, the reviews that have been planned are to be completed by his team in June 2010 for States Members and public consultation to take place. However, I understand that this has changed and will be completed a month earlier to go out for consultation. Could the Minister explain what flexibility there is within these reviews should he need to shine his torch a little deeper into the department or to ensure that no stones are left unturned? Also, as per page 17 of the budget, it mentions the abolition of Articles 115(g) and (ga) as per the deemed rent. Could the Minister inform us whether he has looked at the possible effects this may have on property value in the commercial market and how this will affect the future capital programme for the States? On page 19, there is a mention of certain collective investment vehicles being exempt from taxation rather than subjecting them to tax at a zero per cent. Could the Minister please elaborate further on this and explain or give an example of certain collective investment vehicles? Finally, on that note, I would just like to say that as a member of Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel that we will be looking very closely and trying to work with the Minister with the reviews coming up in the next year and I would just like to thank everyone for being patient with me as a Member trying to understand the processes going

forward.

1. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier :

It occurs to me that as I get older, I become less flexible. I can no longer bend like I used to. I can no longer do a flick-flack and barely keep wicket without putting my back out. It always amazes me why many in the House, although older than me, appear to be so much more flexible. They can contort themselves into all sorts of shapes in order to give praise, in this case, to the Treasury and Resources Minister and his budget. I am at the stage no longer being able to do flick-flacks that I cannot contort myself into such a shape. This budget is undoubtedly a missed opportunity. It is meretricious. On the surface, it looks attractive but beneath, one has disappointment. It is dressed in the colours of a harlot. In the Strategic Plan, reluctantly nonetheless, the Council of Ministers

acceded to putting the words "promotion of equality" making a fairer society into its Strategic Plan. One has to ask in what way does this budget in any way attempt to do such or even to have a token gesture at improving fairness? It does not. While this House has managed to knock off £4.25 million of additional regressive taxation that was going to impact on the poorest worst and the most wealthy least, it is only £4.25 million and while we might feel better about ourselves for having done it, it is a mere scratch on the surface of this harlot, for this is the harlot's budget. Here we have no attempt to increase fairness.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Deputy , if I may say so, while it is permissible to call the budget a harlot, I do not think it is a harlot's budget. I would like you to withdraw that.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

I will certainly withdraw it and rephrase it. It is, as I say, dressed in the clothing of a harlot, superficially attractive. So what we have here, given the dire nature of the recession that we are in, that we are advised, and maybe double-dip, which will lag that of the U.K. (United Kingdom), which is so dire that we can nonetheless freeze exemptions starting in 2010. So 2011 tax bills, freezing exemptions, I remind Members, and I warned it of the time when we took the route of using tax exemptions to alleviate G.S.T. (Goods and Services Tax) and the rise in prices that we have seen. That is so easy to get rid of. All you have to do is do nothing, freeze exemptions, do not operate them and fiscal drag sooner or later will claw that money back. So already, as we enter we are still entering the recession, we are getting some more money back off the poorest, most damage at the poor end if you freeze exemptions. That is what this budget does. In it, we find out that Zero/Ten, already dead in the water, is now subject to review along with every other tax policy apart, of course, from any progressive taxation policies. Let us have a look at the makeup of the fiscal review body that is going to examine and review thoroughly our tax strategy in the future. It consists of the Minister for Treasury and Resources and the Chief Minister, along with the Minister for Economic Development and the Minister for Social Security. It has got 2 Assistant Ministers from Treasury and Resources. Despite the promise of the Minister for Treasury and Resources earlier in the year, twice, I believe, where in that membership is the advocate of progressive taxation, fair taxation? Completely absent. That is the front bench of the party opposite. Oh, and it is joined by one other, a real revolutionary hothead, the Constable of St. Peter. [Laughter] So we can really expect a thorough going review of our fiscal policy from that body, rest assured. I do not believe so. So where is the progressive taxation? Where is the move to fairness? It is not there and we sit here and we accept that, ho hum. I will not give way at all. You may correct me later. You will have plenty of time to praise the Minister for Treasury and Resources to the skies, but I am not today. We also see, I believe, what I think will be the dying breath of Blampied, the deemed rent proposal. I warned at the time when it was raised, this will not pass muster with H.M. Treasury in the U.K. They will see it for what it is, a way to get round U.K. Regulations. It will not exist and yet it is still there. It is still somehow surviving even though it is complete nonsense. In order that we do not have a real good go at this budget and examine what it really means, we are

told we have not only got a fiscal review but we have got this fundamental spending review - whatever label it goes under, it is still fundamental spending - and we are going to examine the spending departments. Let us have a look at them. We are going to shine the torch into places where the light never shines, in Health and Social Services, in Education, Sport and Culture, in Home Affairs and in Social Security. The top 3 there are the largest spending departments. On what? Health and Social Services, Education, Sport and Culture, Home Affairs. What links those 3? Why? Ninety per cent of their costs are staffing of that order. So what is this fundamental spending review going to do? Where are the real hard-edged cuts that can take place? There is only one place. There is only one place and that is in staff. So what level of redundancies are we waiting to hear about in the coming year? That is the question we should be asking, what is this spending review going to do? I warn Members now I know exactly what it is going to do. It is going to cut staff members and thereby it means cutting services. Again, back to basics of economics, in the middle of a recession, the last thing you do is cut your public spending and cut your services because that is when the people out there need it most but that is what we are going to be doing, mark my words. Social Security I take as the exemption, it is not completely staffing costs there. They have something to do and it is about paying out benefits which goes on their slate but, again, if we are going to make savings there, are we talking about cutting benefits? Is that an option? We do not know yet because we do not know really what the terms of reference are apart from shining the torch where the light has never been. Very instructive, that. Of course, we are cutting back, and this is a tight budget, we are told, especially on staffing, apart from the Minister for Treasury and Resources' own department where we have an extra 8 to 10 staff in order to have a look at how we are spending money presumably on staffing and we let that one go, all right? Minister for Treasury and Resources, you can have the extra staff. We will be taking staffing cuts in the future. One rule for us and another rule for them. So we are unclear whether this recession is going to end in 2010, 2011, 2012. We have got an old-fashioned budget that has attempted to raise money in a very regressive way, that refuses - as it always has done and as this Minister for Treasury and Resources, I presume, always will - to examine realistic alternatives of progressive taxation and doing things properly. So I will not be praising the Minister at all. I think this budget is completely meretricious. It looks good on the surface but it is doing nothing and, if anything, it is making things worse. I will be voting against it.

2. Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier :

I have a number of questions for the Minister for Treasury and Resources so I would ask him to put down his BlackBerry and pick up his pen. Firstly, I would like to know, as I have asked the Minister but he did not get back to me, when will the Fiscal Strategy Review and Comprehensive Spending Review be done? Can he give a guarantee that it will be finished before next year's budget? The second question, Jersey Finance is receiving £2.5 million and we know that their income has risen exponentially over the last few years. My understanding of their role is that they are there to promote the finance industry and there was a review done on this a few years ago where it raised concerns about the money they were receiving, the extra money was not being used for that promotion. So I would like to know what that money is being used for and why this huge rise in income. On page 32 of the Budget Statement, it talks about land development tax and says that, in 2008, there was some initial research carried out and I would like to know when that research was undertaken. It also goes on to say that there are a limited number of opportunities in developing this tax and I would like to know what those limited opportunities are. Lastly, as we have heard, the Minister has spoken of increased funds for social projects, health projects, et cetera, but we also know that he is aiming for 2 per cent service cuts and this will impact on services. I would like to know in the Comprehensive Spending Review what those likely impacts are going to be. I would like them to go alongside this review.

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

When the revolution does come, I am sure we will have the courtesy to attend the execution of the Constable of St. Peter [Laughter] since he is a fully fledged member now of the reactionary tendency. We have had from Deputy Southern and, in a sense, built-up by Deputy S. Pitman, the redistributionist angle. I am slightly different to that in the sense that a budget obviously has to be a balance between equity and the ability to generate wealth and, of course, that is the fault line that runs throughout this debate. I refer to the comments of Deputy Power yesterday when he said: "Well, we need innovation and we need reform" because I think he did maybe stumble well, not, I am sure he deliberately came upon that point because it is the lack of innovation that is worrying because I do think, oddly enough, and this is where I would agree with Deputy Southern , that we all know that there are some long-term and worrying trends emerging and there is a worrying tendency also not to face up to them and to confront our demons. For example, there has been the inability to put Zero/Ten to bed. Is it or is it not a viable vehicle for the future? We get all sorts of

contradictory stories and I am being lobbied intensely by one person who definitely thinks it is yesterday's theory. To give another example, we have had a stream of legislation from the European Union and I was lobbied oddly enough on the way here this morning. One that is frightening people is the alternative fund management directive. They really think within that directive there are hidden some very, very serious issues. It raises the issue, so I raised the issue with the individual. I said: "If it is fund management, how is it affecting people like Luxembourg and Ireland?" and the banker told me: "Well, that is no problem. They are in the European Union." There is no justice in dealing with the issue. It is a question of where you are situated and if you are in the European Union, you now get that degree of protection. I am not saying you get protected from all adverse directives that affect finance but that raises some very serious issues. This Island, from 1973, and Protocol 3, has always stood strong on the issue that we will not become part of the European Union because of the various issues, that it will try and interfere with our finance industry. Well, it is directly or indirectly doing so big time and how are we confronting that issue? Are we just saying: "Let us dig in, let us follow the independent path" which, to me, is a total reckless path to follow without having given it a lot more thought. The other thing that came out yesterday very clearly from the debate initiated by Deputy Power's proposition was, as I said, the inability to confront different approaches to taxation. Why has 20 per cent become so immovable? Here we have a tax that bizarrely was introduced in the first year of German occupation for reasons I have never quite worked out and it has become a lynchpin, it has become unchangeable, immovable. Why? Does it really matter these days that it is 20 per cent and 20 per cent only for ever more? Again, I would like the Minister for Treasury and Resources' views on that because I think he himself has got locked into this mindset. I oddly enough also agree, although I will depart from this agreement quickly, I agree with Deputy Southern 's view that there is only so much more efficiency you can get out of the system. I think the Minister is right to look for it because we have grown like Topsy. There has been, as our dear, possibly late, lamented Prime Minister - according to Deputy Martin - Gordon Brown has said there has been a culture of excess. We have paid public servants enormous rates. We have ended up with an enormous inflationary situation in the public service which it is very hard, it has to be said, to get out of, but those are major issues. Whether we can cope with them politically is, in a sense, a debatable issue.

There will come a limit to which we can squeeze more efficiency to which we can confront these particular issues and then, as I have said before, can we remain a low tax but a high level of service society? I have quoted often the case of Britain and America. They are seen as societies that try and do that in contrast to other places like Sweden, like France, who are very open about the fact that they are high taxation societies because they want very high levels and they accept high levels of social service. Oddly enough - and I think this is where again I think the Minister, despite his formidable energy, and I have to be careful I do not give any accidental compliments [Laughter] - I do admire his energy. I think this is where the Minister misunderstood yesterday but I did have a phone call during the debate from a constituent and he said: "I will pay more taxes if it can be proved that the money will be spent well. I will pay more taxes because I want good social services" and, oddly enough, there is a realisation there that we have reached it or we are reaching a crossroads where we can no longer remain a low tax society or no longer remain a society where a high proportion of our taxes are paid by people who do not live on this Island and pay taxes on funds and that is their only relationship to this Island which is quite an odd situation. So I think the public could be convinced but they are going to have to see a lot more reform and they are going to have to see a very different mindset from the Council of Ministers as to how they approach this efficiency issue and the management of a public sector issue and how they approach the balancing out of the tax system. While on the radio this morning in a very robust interview, Senator Ozouf said he would take soundings. Who will he take soundings from? Will he take it from the generality of the population or will he take it from a very closed group of people who will simply reinforce his own views and let us face it, we all tend to do that from time to time. Will he really, as that poor British M.P. (Member of Parliament), Frank Field, was ordered to do by Tony Blair, will he think the unthinkable? The fact that Mr. Field lost his Ministerial office within a few

months of thinking the unthinkable is unfortunate but will he think the unthinkable? I have my doubts because although he is formidably energetic, as I have said, and enormously so and has shown an apparent willingness, to that extent I would agree with Deputy Southern . I have my doubts whether he is prepared to go where no Jersey Finance Minister has been prepared to go. I think there is a real issue there because the public are worried, the banking industry is worried, we end up having to square a circle. This is almost, if I may mangle the English language, unsquareable but, nevertheless, that is what the Minister for Treasury and Resources has to do. So I do advise him, please confront the demons. Please face up to some of these long term issues that are gradually building up in this society. Be aware that if you could win the hearts and minds campaign - and it is a question of winning both - the public may well support you. Unfortunately at the moment there is polarisation in this society just as there is in this Chamber.

4. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade :

My hoarseness has nothing to do with the last 2 days. I find myself in a position this morning whereby the mood of the Assembly yesterday did pick up the mood of the public. When I first started this amendment debate I said that I was a very reluctant warrior. This morning I find myself very much in the situation I do not know whether I am a reluctant hero or whether I am a reluctant villain but I am here this morning. I have to tell the Assembly that the Minister for Treasury and Resources phoned me very early this morning and I was grateful for that phone call. [Laughter] I am pleased to say that it was a very friendly conversation and he was magnanimous in his conversation to me. I am going to sit down with the Minister for Treasury and Resources in the next few days because I firmly believe that there is a way forward. I also spoke to the Minister for Health and Social Services this morning before the Assembly started and I have told the Minister for Health and Social Services that there are solutions to be found. But as Deputy Le Hérissier has just alluded to, and I refer to in my speech, this Assembly and particularly the Minister for Treasury and Resources is going to have to be very innovative in the way he approaches - and I pick up the words of the Constable of St. Clement - how we match expenditure to income. That is what we have got to do. There are ways that we can do it. In a subsequent speech that I am going to make today and in speeches I am going to make in the New Year, I am going to prove to this Assembly that the money that we did not give yesterday - that the money that we took out - is out there and can be taken in. I can prove it to this Assembly. I would not have done what I have done in the last 2 days unless I was on firm ground. I can prove to this Assembly that there is huge reform needed, not only of the machinery of government, when I loosely refer to the public service, but to the way the actual departmental structures operate. There are huge innovations and changes to be made. That does not just apply to the Housing Department where I can tell you with my Minister for Housing there will have to be changes next year but it refers to other States departments. I will bring that out in the New Year. One of the things I referred to with the Minister for Health and Social Services this morning was the perception that regulating the price of tobacco or alcohol and the Medical Officer of Health's concern of the result of the amendment is in some way a band-aid to the levels of consumption of alcohol and tobacco on this Island. I have to say to the Minister for Health and Social Services and the Medical Officer of Health, there is another way. I alluded to that in my speech yesterday. It is not the price of alcohol. It is the supply of alcohol and the supply of tobacco and it is something we have to face. It is up to the Minister for Economic Development and Treasury to deal with this in the New Year and it can be done. It simply can be done. Every corner shop on this Island sells half bottles of vodka, cigarettes in packets of 10 and there is hardly any regulation or control. That is a fact. Whether it is St. Brelade of St. Helier. So there is a way round this but we have got to change the way we do business. We have got to change the way we do business. That is called innovation. I was the cause of a debate that went on for over 5 and half hours and it is still going on. I say to the Minister for Treasury and Resources, the Chief Minister, the Minister for Health and Social Services, the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture and the Minister for Economic Development, thank God you are not in the U.K. or Ireland right now where you will be facing swingeing, punishing cuts to expenditure which would have to be forced on this

Island. We are not in that position. What happened yesterday, please keep it in perspective because in the New Year there will have to be changes to the way we do business. That will involve a completely different approach to the way departments spend money. I, for one, will be at the vanguard of that change, with or without the Minister for Treasury and Resources' approval. I will be there. That is why I am warning this Assembly now I am bringing 2 significant reports and propositions in the New Year to this Assembly and it is up to this Assembly to say, yes, we are going to have to do things differently. We are going to have to change the way we do business and this is the way it is going to happen.

5. Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John :

Yesterday we saw the unusual sight of a Minister for Treasury and Resources getting floored on several issues. But he is still in the ring. He has been down but he is not out. We saw him vote against Deputy Breckon's amendment. We could have recovered approximately £5 million. That tells me that he can find the funding from elsewhere. Yesterday in fact the Members, which I am pleased to say, were listening and had been listening to the people who were hurting out there on the streets, in their homes, who contact Members, et cetera. They have been listening, hence, the vote yesterday on Deputy Power's amendment. To me, we are told so often you get in the House and nobody listens. On this occasion Members listened and they made it known through the budget that the Minister himself has to be listening to what is going on out in the wider Island. I would like over the next few months for the Minister to address the Zero/Ten, given that on page 14 we see Zero/Ten, we are having a loss of something in the region of £81 million and over the next several years it is a similar figure. We are told we have got a black hole. If that had been addressed sooner rather than later that black hole I am sure could be filled. I have correspondence and I am sure other Members have had it also from a well known person who follows the tax issues. He is absolutely right in some of his comments. So I raise it and I sincerely hope the Minister will by this time next year have that resolved. Will the Minister also look at instructing the Statistics Unit and getting more information on green issues that come in over the quay. If the Minister is going to be taxing green issues let him make sure that they are green. I will refer to one, as I have already said yesterday in the Chamber, is to bottled water where you pay £3.25 for a bottle of water in a restaurant when you have quite easily had a carafe free of charge. Therefore, if the Minister is minded to go down the road of taxing issues to do with the environment, can he please make sure they are environmental issues, not something that is nice to have. We saw Senator Le Main's amendment yesterday which very few people could support so, therefore, they will not be getting many Christmas cards. That being the case .. because that was not a green issue. Not in the mind of my panel for sure. Please, Senator, do not have a seizure on the far side of the Chamber. [Interruption] I was worried that the Minister for Housing might have a seizure over there. When we met the Minister several weeks ago at the Environment Scrutiny Panel we did ask him that anything he may bring forward which he may call environmental tax has to be exactly that, an environmental tax not a wish list, which is very, very vaguely connected to the

environment. It has to be an environmental issue. Therefore, I think the Minister needs to take that on board. With that, I think I have said sufficient. But if the Minister could make comment when he is summing up on his view on where environmental taxes will come from and how he will be dealing with that, it would be appreciated  because then it will be on record on Hansard and members of the public who are supporters of my panel will know exactly where the Minister is coming from.

6. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

I am not going to add any extra praise to the Minister for Treasury and Resources. Not because I do not think he deserves it but I think that has already been done. It is quite possible in the Assembly that people get sick of fancy words but I think people also get sick of sick of fancy itself. That said, I will add some praise to one of the previous speakers. I thought Deputy Le Hérissier summed it up pretty well in his analysis. That is what you would expect from a seasoned academic.

But some other praise is also due I believe because the budget would not be quite the same and the debates would not be the same if it were not for the valued amendments that have come along. I think we have had 3 amendments which certainly needed to be debated. I think if anyone needs praise it is my colleague in St. Brelade, Deputy Power, who as he said did have to make a tough decision bringing that amendment. Whether he is a hero or villain, I should think it is not a yes or no. He is both. I think it depends who you ask. If you ask the public, certainly the ones I spoke to, they were very pleased that there was not going to be any increase in impôts or duties. Certainly I do not think he is the most popular person in the Chamber at the moment with Ministers although that seems to have been resolved overnight. To cut to the chase really; I want to pick up on the words of our Minister for Home Affairs who I think hit the nail quite on the head. It has already been said that while the budget has been fairly safe, it has been lacking in vision. I think the Minister for Home Affairs, to paraphrase him, said that there are hard truths or there are difficult truths that do need to be faced up to in the next few years or that should be being faced up to already. These hard truths are manifold. We know that there is the issue of an ageing population. We know there is the current issue of supplementation. But we know in a more global sense that there will be problems with water supply perhaps. There will be issues of petrol, of fossil fuels, of the supplies of CO2 emissions which are, as we know this week with Copenhagen, on our mind. All wrapped up in that the whole distribution of resources and what is wealth. I think that really has been highlighted in these difficult times by the Consumer Council about the whole waste that exists not only in Jersey society but also in Jersey society. At a very basic level when we are throwing away huge amounts of food, and also at Christmastime when people are buying nonsense and rubbish that we do not need. Little trinkets that will be thrown away the next week or 2 later. I really think it does behove us to think about what we value in society. I think the underlying reason that we are in recession is basically because our value systems have been completely messed up for many, many years. It is really this is just a rebalancing of the books. To speak of whether the recession is going to last one year, 5 years, 10 years, whether it is going to be a double-dip or be a "W" is missing the point completely. The point is that we have come to a certain juncture in time where things cannot go on as they were before. We have been living on hallucinated wealth. We have had our value systems, as I said, messed up for such a long time. This is just a re-jigging of the natural order. It should not be any surprise to us if there are some uncomfortable but necessary truths to which we have to face up. This has not been done in this budget. What does need to be done is we need to have vision. We do need to speak truthfully with the public and with the electorate. Senator Syvret is not here but he is not the only one who has said it. Other people have said if we were truthful with the electorate, none of us would get elected because there are some things that people do not want to hear. I think that is perhaps slightly cynical. I think you can convey truths in a way that people do have sympathy and that people do understand to be true. The reason I bring this subject up is because we are constantly told from the Minister for Treasury and Resources himself that we have a binary choice to make; an either/or that we need to increase taxation or cut public spending. This is simply disingenuous. In fact what we will need to do, like it or loathe it, in the next few years is increase revenue, whether that be through taxation directly or indirectly or through fees or rates, whatever you want to call it. That will need to be going up by

necessity. Also public spending will also need to be going up because of the nature of the world we live in and the changes that we have spoken about and the changes that are about to come. That is the truth. The public will have to pay more. We will also have to pay for those fees, those services and all those things. It is not an either/or choice. The simple question though, especially in Jersey, is who pays for those services? Where does the tax burden fall? Is it going to be spread right across the classes, right across society? Is it going to be simply paid by some very wealthy people and by consumption taxes? Is it going to be paid by people in the middle? As Deputy Le Hérissier pointed out, and I thought it was very interesting, is it going to be people who do not live in Jersey who are indirectly paying taxes in Jersey which is an interesting way to look at it because we often think it is the other way round. That it is local people paying for the wealthy to stay here but it is a lot more complicated than that. That raises the question of what is the Jerseyman's and

Jerseywoman's link to society. Ironically, speaking to the Deputy of St. Mary earlier, that is why G.S.T.  in some ways  is a good thing  in the sense that it gives people a direct  link to their government and to feel that they are contributing. But it needs to be a 2-way thing. These are the truths we need to be dealing with. That taxation will go up but who pays for it? That is why we need fairer taxation. I think the positives we can take from this is that we do need to have a review of company fees, for example. We do need to look at the very difficult question of raising money from wealth as opposed to simply from income and from taxation. I would also hope that we do finally address the issues of changing behaviour, whether it be in the field of health to do with smoking and alcohol or whether it be in the field of transport and public transport, the reduction of the use of fossil fuels, of emissions by the use of the car and encouraging people to get out of their cars, to lead a healthier lifestyle but to do it for the right reasons and to be able to do it in a context where the arguments are not clouded by revenue raising. Where they can be see holistically and not simply the easily attacked as being revenue raising mechanisms. I think that is really what has come out of this debate, is that Members have not been satisfied that the motives for these changes have been correct. I think that has been a sticking point. I am interested in the integrity of the budget now because we have been preached this doctrine of balanced budgets on a yearly basis which seems very strange. This seemed to be the main sticking point with those who wanted to reject Deputy Sean Power's recommendation for a freeze in duty. Indeed I think it is probably a fair criticism that the Deputy did not identify other areas of revenue. That said, he is confident that he can do that. But I think this idea that we have been sold, balanced budgets on a yearly basis, that in itself needs to be challenged as a myth. I think in our personal lives, whether we are married or single, we do not always operate on the fact that we have to have the exact amount of money that particular year or that particular week to pay for things. Sometimes we do book in advance if we are going on holiday. We do not expect to have the money there and then. Probably lots of us have bought houses which we cannot all afford to necessarily pay for in hard cash. We do not go up to an estate agent and lay £500,000 on the table in cash although maybe some people are in a position to be able to do that. We say, no, it is right to borrow. I think we do need to make long term investments sometimes and acknowledge the fact that we may not be getting returns for 10 or 20 years but in fact if we do not do that, if we do not put the money out now, that it will not be in our long term best interests. I think that basic idea does need to be challenged otherwise it will blinker our view. I think if we stick to that categorically we are being sold a lie. I would simply say, going back to the behavioural changes, these will all require courage, leadership, innovative thinking and

also the ability to take the public with us on our decision making. I suspect that the latter is not quite as much of a problem because in reality it will be the public that is taking us along with them because they have already moved on. The public are fairly wily. They know what problems are facing the Island and the world. It would do us a lot of good to listen to them but also to listen to the expertise in various sectors and take that on board. I do not have a great deal left to say, Members will be pleased. Simply to say that I do think that we cannot tarry any more, we have heard already today. We had a very good amendment I thought from Senator Le Main. What is the world coming to - and I do not mean that with any disrespect - if we have to rely on people like the good Senator to flag-up issues to do with transport and to do with the environment because we as a society have been dragging our feet on this issue for far too long. That is something that we need to get behind. I hope that it comes up in the next year. Also the whole area of duty free, of health. This needs to be seriously looked at. I do not think anyone would propose to get rid of duty free at the airport but I think this week has shown the inherent contradictions in the system where on the one hand as a government we are more than happy to want people to smoke. I think that was the term used by a Member, that the Minister for Treasury and Resources wants people to smoke and he wants people to drink because he is quite happy, he rubs his hands with glee about the taxation revenue. But on the other hand we as a society all have to pay the cost when somebody falls ill, when someone dies in hospital or if they are looked after by hospice. That is the nasty side of the libertarian argument. It is not a simple nanny State argument. There are complications. I will simply leave it there but I would suggest that a review does need to be taken of a cost/benefit

analysis or of an analysis of harm reduction and whether duty free and things like that are sustainable, whether the government has any place in selling alcohol or taking revenue in that sense. I will not be supporting the budget. I do not think I can support the budget. I did not support the Strategic Plan. I did not support the Business Plan. The budget is simply a direct consequence of those 2. I would suggest that anybody who did not support the Business Plan or the Strategic Plan also reject the budget or at least abstain. It would be nonsense for anyone to vote for the budget in that respect. I would also suggest that anyone who voted against Deputy Sean Power's amendment also reject the budget because it has undermined the integrity of your balanced books.

7. Deputy D.J. De Sousa of St. Helier :

Can I just say first of all the Deputy of St. John stole my thunder a bit so you will be happy to know my speech is considerably reduced, so I will not be long. Can I firstly just reiterate that I do feel the Minister for Treasury and Resources did miss an opportunity yesterday in accepting Senator Breckon's amendment? Can the Minister please reassure the House, as stated yesterday in the debate on Senator Breckon's amendment, that his reviews to be carried out next year will leave no stones unturned and that he will seriously look into increasing company fees?

8. Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary :

I think this is a bit like a seminar for the benefit of the Treasury and Resources Minister. He is busy taking a lot of notes. I hope that means that some of the things that people are asking for will happen. What I am going to say is some allusions to what people have said before and some new material, if you like. The budget was basically a keep it simple plus I will review everything' which I think is fair enough for a first year and a first year in Council of Ministers as well. I do not really have a quarrel with that. But the problem is of course that people did not like the keep it simple bit so we are left with the review. "I will review everything." I think that is a bit problematic because this debate is about something that is going to happen, if that is what it is really about. We are talking about the nature of the 2 reviews. Just to start, there are 2 lessons from that debate yesterday that I took. One was that it appears that what happened was that we were not able to vote on the 3 suggestions of extra duties separately because the Minister for Treasury and Resources took an all or nothing view. He may want to correct me on that but that is what I have gathered from that exchange of emails and certainly from talking to Deputy Power. The option was there to allow the separate debates on tobacco, on alcohol and on fuel. I certainly would have voted for 2 and not for one because I think the case for tobacco .. people are nodding and talking in the background. But anyway the point is that if there had been 3 separate debates we could have made up our minds much more clearly. But the option was taken of all or nothing. I think that is a little lesson because what the Minister for Treasury and Resources ended up with was nothing. The second thing was that I asked for an assurance from the Minister for Treasury and Resources about the nature of the review group, particularly the Fiscal Strategy Review group, and would it be inclusive and would he announce a membership with at least 2 non establishment, if you like, figures. That assurance was not given. So we get this situation where to start with you have a review that does not seem to be going to be inclusive. That raises really big problems. We risk going down the route of polarisation, of lack of trust, of feeling that the agenda is predetermined. We cannot have hidden agendas. We have heard person after person talking about there must be no sacred cows. Yet we have a review group, a political steering group, which appears to be narrowly drawn. It is like a closed shop. We heard Deputy Le Hérissier talking about the finance industry and an interesting point about the impact that the latest E.U. (European Union).. and it is going to go on and on. They are going to keep on putting more pressure. There are 2 fundamental ways of dealing with this. You can be entrenched. You can say, no. You can deny the dialogue and you can be fixed. Or you can be open and flexible and innovative which seems to be the word of the moment, innovative. This is like a symbol of where we are going. We have a political membership of this group which is not inclusive, not listening to all sides, which is

exactly what we need. I find it astonishing. I am very, very sad about it. I urge the Minister to rethink that aspect of the 2 reviews. Who is going to steer them?  The second area I would like to touch on is savings. I have this image in my mind which I cannot get rid of of the Minister for Treasury and Resources with his cavalry waving his - not carbine - big torch and riding off across the plains shouting: "Yee hah" to find these savings; find these millions of pounds of savings. I have to echo what other people have said. There may not be as many savings as we think. I accept that in some areas we know that there is over-management and so on but I have my doubts because we have been here before. We have driven out the efficiencies last year and the year before and the year before. I cannot believe that there is much fat left. Other people may disagree. But I just have doubts on this wonderful magic torch. The second thing about savings is that I demand really that the reviews do not produce cuts in the guise of savings. This is a very dangerous thing to do because once again it undermines trust. If we in this House and the public are presented with what are dressed up as savings but are cuts then the public just loses all faith and so do we. It must not happen. I fear that it might. I will just refer Members to an astonishing piece of prejudging the issue in the budget. Page 9, Proposals for the Coming Year: Comprehensive Spending Review, last sentence: "The objective would be to determine an appropriate and sustainable level of spending after identifying a target level of savings for all departments." There is an assumption in there, and it is built in later on as well, every department can find a fixed rate of cut. He talks about 2 per cent a year. How can you say that you are being open-minded and balanced and shining your honest torch if you start with a presupposition of 2 per cent a year efficiency savings when we have been efficiently saving for years? My fear is that the soft targets will be areas where people can say, well, it is not the teachers or the nurses. My fear is that the soft targets will be targeted. The problem here is, and Deputy Tadier alluded to this I think, when times are hard we need better social provision not less. Times are going to be hard in my belief. I am not at all sure that we are going to come into some golden sunset after this recession. In any case, climate change and peak oil will see to it that we are entering a different scenario. It behoves us to protect everybody by good social provision. That is where this agenda comes a cropper of cuts, as I say, possibly dressed up as savings. We have to be very, very wary in this House about that. The third area of comment is taxes and charges. I do congratulate the Minister for Treasury and Resources here because on page 36 of his document he says that we will need to increase income. I welcome this frankness. It is, as the previous speaker said, going to be essential. There is a backlog - and I will not go over the backlog - of necessary expenditure that has simply been neglected and we have to find the

money somehow. We must not forget that we are short of nurses, we are short of policemen. There are funding pressures in many areas and they will not go away and we cannot magic them away. The trouble is of course that all this is happening, all this is coming together, because when the C.S.R. - the Comprehensive Spending Review - happens it will identify the funding pressures. It will identify the need to spend here and there, for instance, in the protection of people who are unemployed - but that is just one issue - or the elderly. How is he going to increase the taxes and charges when this House is reluctant to increase taxes and changes, as we saw yesterday? There is a built-in reluctance there but it will have to be done. So there are 2 options that I would suggest. There may be others. One is to do it by stealth. This is quite handy if you can get away with it. But it contradicts the honesty principle. It will always be found out and there will be a backlash, both here again and out there in the public. We cannot go against the need to build trust. So I think the stealth option is not really an option. The other one is to bite the bullet and introduce fair and acceptable taxes and charges. Here we come across again the issue of no sacred cows. I make no apology for saying it again so the Minister for Treasury and Resources is going to get it. No sacred cows. The other thing that someone said which really rang a bell with me was we cannot tarry. We cannot do this in slow motion. I just noted from yesterday, Deputy Hill 5 years for a proposal I think on share transfer with land transactions. That has now been brought in; 5 years. Deputy Labey was talking about some other aspect, 5 years. F.S.C. (Financial Services Commission), we notice that the fees had not gone up for 11 years. Land windfall tax, how long have we been waiting for that? So I think not only no sacred cows but an abattoir that works more quickly than the present one. I am not sure about that image but anyway. Now the fresh material, if you like. I think this is very important and it worries me immensely and I hope the Minister is going to take this on board. It can be called spending to save or it can be called a holistic approach or wider vision. Sometimes I think that we consider issues of taxing and expenditure in a very narrow way. Deputy Tadier again did mention the idea of investment. That sometimes you borrow to buy a house. I would see that as a principle that applies across a lot of government expenditure and we do not often recognise it. I want to spend a few words on this. Sometimes we do understand it and there is not a political problem of seeing that something is an investment. I refer to the emphasis on early years. We have put through universal nursery provision and/or in the past House. We understand that if we put money into early parenting provision and early intervention, there will be savings. That seems to be a generally accepted and understood view in the House. Notice that those benefits are future, they are intangible and they are immeasurable but we still accept the benefit of early intervention and we have just voted Williamson through and so on. That is only part of a package of supporting parents and young people. There are costs to be avoided. As I say, we cannot measure them but we still do it. But in other areas we do not get it. We do not get this understanding of investment and saving. I would just give an example that occurred to me as a result of a meeting we had last night about the town park. If you were to employ a new person at T.T.S. (Transport and Technical Services) - new person, shock, horror, extra staff, one person - to promote green transport plans, green travel plans, in businesses and States offices, you would have if they are successful .. I assume they would be successful in helping people to transfer out of their cars maybe into someone else's car to travel share or on to the bus or on to walking or cycling and also to do the additional work involved like provision of showers and so on. That person would produce savings in emissions which would produce savings in health, savings in noise, savings in visual intrusion which would lead to better quality of life and savings in land. All apart from the last there are difficult to quantify. They are future. They are avoided costs in the case of less emissions leads to less pollution leads to better health. That is an avoided cost. You cannot measure it. Yet it is the right thing to do. I think if the Minister for Treasury and Resources cannot.. he must. I will put it positively. He has to develop mechanisms for recognising future savings, for recognising avoided costs and for recognising future benefits that are not direct. In this connection I remember as if it was yesterday, Deputy Le Fondré in the Millennium Town Park debate claiming that the increase in house values that would arise after Millennium Town Park is done were not real. He would not think that about his own house that if it went up in value it was not a real increase. But when it is public policy, when we are going to provide a town park and the

values of the houses round about or in the vicinity go up, it suddenly becomes not a real benefit. But it is a real benefit and I beg the Minister for Treasury and Resources to take that kind of thinking on board. To labour the point, there are 44,000 square metres of parking space within the ring road. That is excluding Talman and Gas Place. 44,000 square metres. Using rough valuations provided by the Planning Department with Property Holdings - and they are rough valuations - we are talking about £52 million of land development value. That is a huge amount of money and that is the sort of money that this one new person at T.T.S., this new prospective green travel plan officer, that is the sort of money you are getting into. It is that kind of area. I just beg the Minister for Treasury and Resources to take those sorts of things on board. It is a difficult issue. We were talking about the Hopper bus yesterday and the Minister for T.T.S. said it would be a cost basically because it would have to run free. There has to be an understanding that built into that expenditure is a corresponding saving and a corresponding benefit. These things are investments and we have to learn to fund them. Another issue that came up in Environment Scrutiny was the insulation programme and States efficiency in energy. There are huge savings to be made with States energy efficiency but you have to spend the money first. You have to invest to save. Please again work out a way of including that sort of thinking in the C.S.R. please, Minister. While on that subject, equity and fairness has to be part of the package of any major environmental programme. The

reason is this: if you charge people for water, if you charge them for waste disposal, if you charge for fuel .. as we heard yesterday in the debate. There are old ladies living on their own in the country and if you increase fuel duty, it hits them. If there are poor people living in the country who have to use a vehicle, fuel duty goes up, it hits them. This is true. But the answer is not to abandon the environmental policy. The answer is to tackle the poverty. There is a social justice element when we consider environmental benefits and environmental charges. That too has to be part of the review. The same applies to savings with carbon. I have mentioned the fuel duty. This issue of equity will always be there and it has to be included by the Minister. To recap, it is a big leap of faith and I urge the Minister to act in a way that justifies it because I am thinking about which way to vote. I do not want to be disappointed personally. I do feel that to serve the people

of the Island better, he has to take on board the sort of things I have been saying. To recap: honesty, the need to build trust, inclusion without which we cannot have the first 2. Will he undertake to announce a properly inclusive review steering group because if he does not I really cannot see how I can vote for this? Will he acknowledge the wide vision not the narrow and the connections between charging and social justice - charging for environmental bads and social justice - and a real understanding that as time gets hard .. we are in a recession and later on we are going to be in social transformation because of peak oil and climate change. Will he accept that again social justice has to be part of the package? We have to protect our people. We have to provide quality public provision because that is part of the fabric of our society and it protects everyone. I hope the Minister has taken some of that on board. I await with interest his reaction.

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

A point of clarification, Sir. I wonder if the Deputy of St. Mary has read the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General in which he says that the main savings will come from cross- cutting issues and we could really look for about £40 million there.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Have you read the Comptroller and Auditor General's report? The Deputy of St. Mary :

I remember reading one of the Comptroller and Auditor General's reports and also the various comments and one that was alluded to frequently in the hustings. When you looked at it carefully, most of the savings were cuts, and political at that.

9. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier :

In yesterday's debate it was questioned why more amendments had not been brought forward to the budget by Members. It was implied that Members must be largely content with the Minister for Treasury and Resources' proposals after Deputy Power's amendment was carried. Let me say from the beginning that I am not content. By announcing the Comprehensive Fiscal Strategy Review and the Comprehensive Spending Review - 2 measures I have advocated and fully support - the Minister has stopped Members from bringing forward amendments to widen the tax base and make the budget more balanced and fairer to all members of our society because had they been brought, Members would have said they were premature and we must await the outcome of these reviews. I am concerned, however, at the proposed composition of the Fiscal Strategy Review body which if it remains constituted as proposed will not be a fully balanced and independent body. Members of a different political persuasion must be involved in the process if its report and recommendations are to be accepted by Members of this House and in the Island as a whole. I am also concerned that the timescales for both reviews will not be met and may well be dragged out to thwart some fundamental reforms in time for next year's budget. We have some major problems going forward, not least stemming from what I would call the Zero/Ten fiasco and the structural deficit which need to be dealt with. We need a fully inclusive, comprehensive and balanced approach to deal with these problems and wide early disclosure of the information generated during the review so that Members can put forward alternative solutions to the problems we face. I am also concerned that the Minister for Treasury and Resources has not learned any lessons from yesterday's defeat over impôts duty. Rather than accept the fact that Members are concerned about the burden being placed on ordinary citizens - middle Jersey, to quote Deputy Power - he has spun the defeat on Jersey radio by saying Members passed the amendment because they were faced with an all or nothing amendment and implied that had it been split the outcome might have been different. But of course he failed to mention the fact that Deputy Power had asked him to agree to his amendment being modified to allow this to happen. Secondly, he stated that he had ring-fenced the money for Health and Environment, et cetera, in his budget. But in reality, when questioned in the debate by I believe Deputy Southern , he would not confirm it was ring fenced. Finally, I look forward to the Minister for Economic Development who acknowledged that many fees or charges relating to the finance industry needed to be brought up to date. I look forward to him bringing back to the House, proposals shortly so that we can make up some of the budget shortfall as a result of yesterday.

10. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement :

As an aside, a few moments ago Deputy Tadier was worried about the apparent contradiction between the duty free shop at the airport and the sale of alcohol and tobacco to local residents. He really should not worry about this because the duty free shop at the airport encourages purchases by people leaving the Island to buy alcohol and tobacco. It is the duty free shops in other places such as Southampton, Gatwick, Liverpool and Manchester which encourage local residents to buy alcohol and tobacco at low prices. I think we have very little influence in those particular areas. The only thing we could do probably is reduce the concession that the customs allow on duty free imports. That would be extremely unpopular in many quarters including this particular one. Earlier this year the Minister for Treasury and Resources made it quite clear -or, in fact, I would go as far as to say promised - that he would be proposing no new taxes in the 2010 budget. Yet in the budget statement we are asked to approve the introduction of a vehicle emission duty and land transaction tax. He may well argue that the land transaction tax was approved in principle before but, nevertheless, there they are. Yesterday the Minister also resisted quite successfully and quite rightly the proposition of Senator Breckon to increase company fees. He opposed this on the basis that such a move should only be undertaken after a thorough review and certainly consultation with those upon whom it is going to impact. What I would like the Minister to tell me is what consultation has taken place over the introduction of vehicle emission duties? What consultation is taking place with the motor trade, in particular? It is a matter of record that the sale of new cars has reduced by 20 per cent this year with no help whatsoever from the Minister for Treasury and Resources meaning that there are 20 per cent less environmentally friendly cars on the road than there might have been otherwise. What consultation has taken place with the bus and coach companies and indeed Transport and Technical Services because they are going to be financially impacted by this move? Transport and Technical Services already subsidise the bus service considerably and this is undoubtedly going to put up their cost. What consultation has taken place with the hire car companies? What is going to be the impact on the tourism industry and their businesses? What consultation has taken place with the agricultural industry, who will be severely impacted upon? When they replace their tractors or buy new tractors, they will always be paying the top whack because the tractors these days are right at the top of the power league. They will be paying this tax but having no reduction in emissions unless of course the agricultural industry declines because of this. It is probably my fault for not bringing an amendment but if I am opposed to the introduction of a vehicle emissions duty I suppose that I cannot support the Budget Statement or perhaps I could and then simply vote against the appropriate Article in Projet 180 which comes

after the budget. I would appreciate your guidance on that, Sir. The Deputy Bailiff :

I think how you vote, Connétable , is entirely a matter for you.

11. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I would like to begin by congratulating, as many Members have, Deputy Power for the proposition that he brought yesterday. I think it showed courage to bring the proposition that he brought but I think more than anything else it reminded me - the result of that particular debate - that it is rarely a day when this Assembly makes a wrong decision. Even with the help perhaps from time to time of the odd ring-binder, nevertheless, it is very rare that the Assembly makes a wrong decision. I think it was interesting to reflect overnight on the decision taken by the States in this regard. I think it reflects the general public mood at the time as we currently stand. Certainly I think it is something that we need to reflect upon. There are clearly serious issues that need to be addressed. I appreciate very much, from the Minister for Treasury and Resources' point of view, the difficult task that he has in terms of trying to balance budgets. The revenue raising - tax raising - is clearly an option. Efficiencies are clearly an option. The reality is it is going to require both of these measures in order to balance books. But equally we need to make sure that we get our timing right and more importantly we need to make sure that we communicate what we are doing correctly. We need to make sure that we take people with us. We need to make certain that Members in this Assembly are taken with us but more importantly that the members of the public are taken with us and fully understand and appreciate the difficult decisions that are undoubtedly going to have to be made in the future as we move forward in order to maintain the level and quality of services that I think Members will agree we are fortunate to benefit from in this Island. If we want to maintain them in the future there are going to be difficult decisions in order to do that. I think it was the Minister for Treasury and Resources who first started talking about his torch and shining it into dark crevices. I think one of the pieces of advice that I would give to him, it is not just a torch that he needs to shine into these dark places in departments. I think he needs a big strong stick as well because the reality is that in order to deliver efficiencies - and I am pretty clear about this - it is not a question of just cutting services. There is an opportunity and there are opportunities in every organisation including the States of Jersey, with the amount of money that we expend, to make efficiency savings without necessarily cutting services. There are some services I think we need to question whether we should be delivering at all. That is another matter. But certainly the ones we should be delivering, in many cases can be delivered in a more efficient way; more cost effectively, a better quality of service. I think in order to deliver that, the Minister for Treasury and Resources and other Ministers and Members of this Assembly are going to have to work in a collaborative way or we are not going to change it because it is a change of process. The Minister for Treasury