States Meeting Transcript - 24/09/2009

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

THURSDAY, 24th SEPTEMBER 2009

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption ...............................................................5

1. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):5

1. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:......................................................6
2. Connétable G.F. Butcher of St. John:....................................................6
3. Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John : ..........................................................6

2. Draft Annual Business Plan 2010 (P.117/2009): eleventh amendment (P.117/2009 Amd.(11)) continued ......................................................................8

Senator S. Syvret:..............................................................................8 Senator T.A. Le Sueur:........................................................................9 Senator J.L. Perchard:........................................................................10 2.1 Deputy T.M. Pitman:...................................................................11

3. Draft Annual Business Plan 2010 (P.117/2009): third amendment (P.117/2009 Amd.(3)) (paragraph 1)..................................................................14

3.1 Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................14

1. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................15
2. Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier:.....................................................16
3. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................16
4. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................17
5. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:.......................................................17
6. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :..........................................................18
7. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................19
8. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................19
9. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement:.......................................................20
10. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................20
11. Deputy A.E. Jeune of St. Brelade:...................................................20
12. Senator B.E. Shenton: ...............................................................21

4. Draft Annual Business Plan 2010 (P.117/2009): nineteenth amendment (P.117/2009 Amd.(19))................................................................................22

4.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):...........................................23

1. The Deputy of Trinity :..................................................................24
2. Deputy D.J. De Sousa St. Helier:.......................................................26
3. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................26
4. Deputy A.K.F. Green:..................................................................27
5. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................28
6. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................28

7. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin : ..........................................................29
8. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : ..................................................29
9. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................30

10. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:..................................................30
11. Senator J.L. Perchard: ...............................................................31
12. Deputy A.E. Jeune : ..................................................................31
13. Deputy I.J. Gorst :....................................................................31
14. Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence : ..................................................32
15. Senator S. Syvret:....................................................................33
16. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..............................................................34

5. Draft Annual Business Plan 2010 (P.117/2009): tenth amendment (P.117/2009 Amd.(10))................................................................................36

5.1 Deputy S. Pitman:......................................................................36

1. Connétable P.F.M. Hanning of St. Saviour : ............................................37
2. The Connétable of St. John:............................................................38
3. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................38
4. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :..................................................38
5. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :........................................................38
6. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................38
7. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence : .............................................40
8. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................41
9. Deputy A.T. Dupre of St. Clement:.....................................................41
10. Senator B.E. Shenton: ...............................................................41
11. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................41
12. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier : .......................................................43
13. Deputy E.J. Noel:....................................................................43
14. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter:................................................43
15. Senator S. Syvret:....................................................................44
16. Senator T.J. Le Main:................................................................44
17. The Connétable of St. Mary : ........................................................45
18. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................46 The Deputy of St. John:......................................................................46
19. Deputy S.Pitman:...................................................................47

6. Draft Annual Business Plan 2010 (P.117/2009): seventeenth amendment (P.117/2009 Amd.(17)) (paragraph 6)................................................................48

6.1 The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................48

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................50

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................50 The Deputy of St. Mary:......................................................................51

1. Deputy C.H. Egré of St. Peter:..........................................................53
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................54
3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................56
4. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................57
5. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................57
6. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:..................................................58
7. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................59
8. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................60
9. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................61
10. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................61
11. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................62

7. Draft Annual Business Plan 2010 (P.117/2009) - paragraph (b) - as amended........64

1. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:..................................................................65
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................65
3. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................65
4. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................65
5. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................65
6. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................67
7. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................68
8. Deputy A.E. Jeune :.....................................................................68
9. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................68

8. Draft Annual Business Plan 2010 (P.117/2009) - paragraph (c)........................70

8.1 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):......................70

9. Draft Annual Business Plan 2010 (P.117/2009) fifth amendment (P.117/2009 Amd.(5)) (paragraph 1) ............................................................................70

9.1 The Deputy of Grouville :...............................................................71

1. The Connétable of St. Brelade:.........................................................73
2. The Connétable of Grouville :...........................................................73
3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................73
4. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................75
5. Senator T.J. Le Main: ..................................................................75
6. The Connétable of St. Saviour:.........................................................76
7. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:..................................................................76
8. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................77
9. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour:....................................................77
10. Deputy A.T. Dupre:.................................................................78
11. Deputy J.B. Fox:....................................................................78
12. Senator J.L. Perchard: ...............................................................78
13. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................78
14. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................79
15. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..............................................................80
16. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:..................................................80
17. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................81
18. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier : ............................................81
19. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:.............................................................81
20. Deputy A.E. Jeune : ..................................................................82
21. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade:.....................................................82
22. The Connétable of St. Mary : ........................................................82
23. Deputy I.J. Gorst :....................................................................83
24. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence:......................................83
25. The Very Reverend R.F. Key, B.A., The Dean of Jersey: ............................83
26. The Deputy of Grouville : ............................................................83

10. Draft Annual Business Plan 2010 (P.117/2009) - paragraph (c) as amended..........85
11. Draft Annual Business Plan 2010 (P.117/2009) - paragraph (d) .......................86

11.1 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):......................86

12. Draft Annual Business Plan 2010 (P.117/2009) seventh amendment (P.117/2009 Amd. (7))........................................................................................87

12.1 The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................87

12.1.1 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................88

13. Draft Annual Business Plan 2010 (P.117/2009) amendment ...........................88 13.1 Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................89 Deputy S. Pitman:............................................................................91

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................91
2. Deputy A.K.F. Green:...............................................................94
3. Deputy S.Pitman:...................................................................94
4. Deputy D.J. De Sousa: ..............................................................95
5. The Connétable of St. Helier:........................................................95
6. The Connétable of St. John : .........................................................97
7. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..........................................................97
8. Deputy J.B. Fox:....................................................................97
9. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................98
10. Deputy M. Tadier : ................................................................100
11. Deputy R.C. Duhamel:............................................................101

ADJOURNMENT..............................................................................106

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

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Perhaps I could just advise Members from the Chair that as part of the States Greffe business continuity plans with a view to matters such as pandemic flu, we have asked a number of our staff to take a turn sitting in the Chamber today to familiarise themselves. If the "Catch it, Bin it" or whatever it is, Madam Minister, did not quite work for us, I am sure Members will understand that various staff are coming and going. Secondly, it was agreed that the Chairman of P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) would just give some initial thoughts on the matter of the continuity of this debate. Chairman.

1. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee): The Assembly had set aside 4 complete, clear days for this debate and I would have hoped that it could have been finished within that timescale. There is, as Members will well know, always a risk that debates can expand to fill the time available. Of course, this is a very important debate and as Chairman of P.P.C. I would not wish to suggest that it should be hurried. But I would urge Members to put across their arguments in as concise a manner as possible. [Approbation] On that point, and as less is quite often more, I would simply refer Members to Standing Order 104 which, among other things, requires that a speech by a Member of the States must be relevant to the business being discussed and that a Member of the States must not unduly repeat his or her own arguments with the arguments of others. I fear that once the barrier of going into another week is broken, and having spent some considerable time last night trying to gauge the likely length of debate on the remaining business, it is possible that we could well be sitting not only on Monday and Tuesday but possibly on Wednesday as well. For that reason, as a first step, I would ask Members to consider restricting the lunch hour today and tomorrow to one hour - from 1.00 p.m. to

2.00 p.m. - and to agree to work on until 6.30 p.m. or perhaps even 7.00 p.m. in the evening. There is also a precedent for agreeing to start tomorrow's sitting at 8.30 a.m. When this was done during the 2003 Budget debate, a surprising amount of business was covered during that day. If after these measures, if agreed, the debate is still not concluded by tomorrow evening, we will obviously have to agree either a continuation day or to carry over items to the next sitting. As the whole of this week was set aside for States business, I am aware that many Members have a heavy schedule of meetings for next week and there are a number of important Scrutiny meetings and all States Members' briefings scheduled for Monday and Tuesday, including, I understand, an Economic Affairs Panel Hearing on Monday with an adviser who has come over from Canada especially. It is fair to say then that a great deal of disruption would be caused by meeting next week. It would be possible to take the remaining Business Plan business at the next sitting on 6th October but doing this would require the Assembly to do 2 things. Firstly, to take a conscious decision to finish the Annual Business Plan in October and not in September, as the Public Finances Law says that the Business Plan must be lodged in time for it to be debated and approved by the States at least 3 months before the start of that financial year or such other period as the States may decide. I believe that a simple decision to defer to the first sitting in October would fulfil that requirement. The second point, as a result of the Business Plan debate is required, of course, in order for the Treasury to finalise work on the budget, I believe that the whole budget process would need to be pushed back by one week as well. Therefore, the States would need to agree to meet on 15th December for the budget debate. I would ask Members to reflect on these options. For now, I would propose a one-hour lunch adjournment for the remainder of this week and that the Assembly sits until 6.30 p.m. tonight. At the close of business I suggest that we review how far we have got and make the decision about the start and finishing time tomorrow and about how to proceed thereafter. Thank you.

We do not wish to waste too much time on this but we obviously need to take the important points. Deputy Higgins.

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

I just want to emphasise that the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel is not only meeting on Monday with a hearing with our adviser, we have also brought Oxera to the Island and we are meeting them during the lunchtime tomorrow and tomorrow evening. We have other meetings scheduled as well and if the States does continue using this time period which we have set aside for this critical phase of our review in order for us to complete our work to bring it back to the States on 20th October, we will not make 20th October to report back to you. That will mean that debate will have to go back 2 weeks, so I would hope Members will realise we are at a critical phase, we want to meet the timescales, but if the States carries on, we will not be able to. Thank you.

2. Connétable G.F. Butcher of St. John :

Can I just make a short comment, something the chairman of P.P.C. has not mentioned? I wonder if  Members,  in  view of the timeframe that we have  in  front of us at the  moment, when an amendment has been agreed by the Council of Ministers that we do not need to make long speeches on something that has already been agreed.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

She did address that point, Constable. She did urge Members to keep to the point and keep relevant. The Deputy of St. John .

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

I appreciate where the P.P.C. chairman is coming from but in my case I have prior engagements at

0. p.m. thiseveningandotherMembers may bethesame. Shewassupposedto come back with a plan, not immediately to be effective from this evening. I will have to leave here at 5.30 p.m. at the latest [Approbation] because that is the procedure that we put in place: in these long debates we finish at 5.30 p.m.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Well there are 2 matters the chairman has proposed I think need to be decided immediately because they do affect today's sitting; let us take them one at a time. Chairman, you had proposed that lunch should be restricted, notwithstanding the comments - that the Members will have heard - of the chairman of the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel. That related to tomorrow, chairman?

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Tomorrow is the hearing with Oxera but we still have meetings today relating to that meeting tomorrow.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

So you are proposing, chairman, the lunch break today is restricted to one hour from 1.00 p.m. to

0. p.m.?

The Connétable of St. Mary : Yes.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Is that seconded? [Seconded] Those in favour of restricting the lunch hour to one hour kindly show? Unfortunately, we need the appel. The one-hour lunch hour is proposed. The Greffier will open the voting.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Secondly, chairman, you wish to propose the Assembly sits until 6.30 p.m. this evening.

The Connétable of St. Mary : That is correct.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Is that seconded? [Seconded] The appel is called for. I ask the Greffier to open the voting. I ask the Greffier to close the voting. That proposition is equally adopted: 34 votes were cast in favour, 13 votes against.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

As you say, chairman, the other matters can be addressed at the end of this afternoon's sitting.

2. Draft  Annual  Business  Plan  2010  (P.117/2009):  eleventh  amendment  (P.117/2009 Amd.(11)) continued

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

The debate now resumes on the amendment of Deputy Trevor Pitman to the Business Plan.

Senator S. Syvret: Just a point of order.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair): You have already spoken, Senator.

Senator S. Syvret:

I am aware of that but there was some question yesterday evening about the information I provided to the Assembly in my speech. I just wanted to inform Members that I have in fact emailed a good deal of material around last night. I am more than happy to answer any questions to clarify any points that I made in my speech.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

It is not Question Time, Senator.

Senator S. Syvret:

Members may wish to question me; I am just indicating that I am entirely happy to do so. I also indicated last night in an email that I would distribute today some further evidence which showed the Chief Executive to the States of Jersey to be a liar. [Members: Oh!] That is now emailed to all Members and it can be found on their email system now.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair): Chief Minister, you have also spoken.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

I have also spoken but I did, yesterday in the States, ask the Senator - who made, I believe, comments in his privileged position - to substantiate allegations of improper conduct relating to States employees. I asked for evidence of that and so far I have seen nothing which I would consider as evidence of those allegations. I have a duty ..

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair): Is this a speech, Chief Minister, or is it ..?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

No, I believe that in failing to produce that evidence, the Senator has made an unfair slur against States employees, employees who are unable to defend themselves in this House. [Approbation] They cannot speak here but I can speak on their behalf. In view of the fact that the Senator has been unable to substantiate the allegations, I call upon him formally to withdraw the allegations until such time as he can give evidence to genuinely substantiate them. It is not fair to our employees that they should have allegations like this hanging over them maybe for days, weeks or months, never substantiated and I do urge the Senator to withdraw them now in the interests of treating our employees fairly and in the interests of natural justice.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

You have asked a simple question that requires a yes or no answer from the Senator. Senator, I simply require a yes or no from you, are you prepared to withdraw the allegations?

Senator S. Syvret:

The Chief Minister made assertions in his remarks just then to the effect that I have provided no evidence. I have, in fact, provided evidence and I am not prepared to withdraw ..

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Senator, are you prepared to withdraw the allegations or not?

Senator S. Syvret:

I am not prepared to withdraw one word of what I said because it is all true and it is demonstrably true.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Very well, thank you, Senator. Please resume your seat, we are in the middle of a debate on an amendment of Deputy Trevor Pitman to paragraph (b) of the Business Plan.

Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier :

Could I ask you for clarification then of where we are?

Late yesterday afternoon Senator Syvret gave his views on the Communications Unit and made certain assertions. He was asked to produce evidence he had and, as he said, he has emailed all Members 3 times overnight with a number of documents and explained that other material he has is not currently available in Jersey. It is entirely a matter of political judgment for Members to decide whether or not they are satisfied the documents provided substantiate the assertions made by the Senator. This is not the time or the forum to adjudicate on whether or not Members consider that Senator Syvret may have abused [Approbation] that vital privilege of freedom of expression that he and other Members enjoy in this Assembly. If any Member wishes the matter to be investigated further by P.P.C. or another body, that is a matter for another time and we must proceed with this debate. I am not prepared to allow the normal rules of debate to be further set aside and pursue the issue and I wonder if any other Member wishes to speak on the amendment.

Senator J.L. Perchard:

Yesterday I gave notice of my intention to propose closure. The half hour has transpired and I would like to, as is my right, propose the closure of this debate on the amendment.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Yes, just checking the time, Senator. The Deputy Greffier assures me that the correct notice was given; you are entitled to propose that. Is the proposal seconded? [Seconded]

Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary : Can I ask how many people wish to speak?

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

None on the Bailiff 's list at the moment. Very well, I do not believe it is, at this stage of the debate, an abuse of the procedure, therefore the proposal is in order. The vote is therefore for or against the proposal of Senator Perchard that the debate be closed and Deputy Pitman invited to sum-up before the vote. The Greffier will open the voting. If all Members who wish to do so have cast their votes. The Greffier will close the voting. The closure motion is adopted 32 votes in favour, 15 votes against and

Senator S. Syvret:

Could we have the 15 against please?

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

The 15 Members voting against: Senators Syvret, Le Sueur , Breckon, Ferguson and Maclean; the Connétable of St. Lawrence; Deputies Fox, Southern , Grouville , Gorst , Tadier , T. Pitman, Vallois, Higgins and Green.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair): Accordingly I call upon Deputy Trevor Pitman to reply.

1. Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I was only going to offer - and it is not ideal for me in the light of the confusion, and I do not know the procedure - if we could have just deferred this so whatever evidence is coming forward from the Chief Minister or Senator Syvret could be presented. It is not good for me but I was happy to do that if it was possible.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

I do not think it can be deferred, Deputy , because we are in the middle of an amendment to this paragraph. You could seek leave to withdraw it completely but I do not think we can defer, unfortunately.

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

That is all I wish to know, thank you. I thank the Member but I do not think I should withdraw it; we have come this far, let us get on with it. I would like to say that I thank almost every Member who spoke indeed. [Laughter] However, I am not going to respond to what Senator Le Main said other than to thank the 31 people who, I have to say, contacted me last night to express their disgust at the behaviour and the interruptions and I will say no more. Senator Le Sueur , the Chief Minister, talked about the efficiency of what he saw is the Communications Unit and the importance of it and linked this to their mandated role. I had no problem with any of that. I would agree with him on many of the issues; I just wished he would have talked about some of the problems now but that is his call, so thank you for that. Senator Shenton, he said that he did not even know what the Communications Unit  did, which was  interesting. Perhaps that explains why  he was  only  a Minister for 18 months, I do not know. He also raised the very pertinent issue of how many people will vote to keep the Communications Unit in this form and will vote against very important calls for funding for respite care, so a very good point; something to keep in mind. Deputy De Sousa felt she could not agree with me on my kind remarks to the Treasury Minister's speech. She thought the Communications Unit is there for spin and was a waste of taxpayers' money. The Deputy of St. Mary, again, he raised some very good points. I do not think he was quite sure which way he was going to vote but he recognised the need for communication. He did really put his finger on a lot of the problems which I will not go through in detail: the form design; the fact that they only work for the Council of Ministers. He did raise an interesting issue that it would be nice to have a breakdown of the percentage of what they do and who they do it for. He really used the example of Imagine Jersey and the damage that he said had been done with the way that unfolded. Senator Ferguson made some very good points. She highlighted the very different and the excellent role of Scrutiny and the officers, and the way they deliver their press releases and evidence. Although I have different political views to Senator Ferguson, I think we have a good enough relationship to tell her that I often wished she would sit down and stop speaking when she is giving her take on global warming, which I obviously differ with, but on this occasion I wish she had carried on talking. Because my experience of Scrutiny, not just our own officers, Sam and Liz, but all of the Scrutiny Officers, the way they deliver their work, put across just fact, evidence, completely unadorned, I think is absolutely brilliant.  [Approbation] It really highlighted for me the concerns I am getting at, as I felt if the Communications Unit, whether it continues, if that is the approach that can be taken, then it would be all so much for the better. The Senator also talked about subliminal messaging but I do not think I am qualified to go into that in detail, or the capabilities of Mr. Ingram and Mr. Campbell, so I will not go on to that. Deputy Noel, he felt that he could not support the proposition, that the work could not be absorbed within Ministers, their Assistants and officers. He drew attention to my statement about this within my report. Interestingly, he also mentions the good work done with swine flu. If he had looked further up the page he would have seen that I do use that as an example of the good work that Communications Unit do, so I agree with him there. Deputy Maçon, he viewed the Communications Unit as just "nice to have" and something we could do without in these tight economic times and he was going to support the proposition as well, so I welcome him for that. Deputy Southern , when Deputy Southern , my colleague stood up to speak, I did wonder for a moment whether he had too much sun last week on his holiday because he seemed to be saying that Senator Le Main was his inspiration for staying in politics, so he did momentarily throw me. But after that he went back to his usual incisive manner and talked about the need for the Communications Unit and Ministers, all of us, to put across the real facts; not just selected bits to show things in their best light and he was going to support the

motion too. The Deputy of St. John, he paid real tribute to the Home Affairs Minister and the way he tells it how it is and linked this to how the Communications Unit should operate. He also was going to support the proposition. He spoke about how he felt we no longer had investigative journalism as he felt we had when he first came into the House. He also made the point that we pay our civil servants "top dollar", to use his words, and the Ministers' departments should be able to do much of the reports and work, et cetera, undertaken by the Communications Unit themselves, so I thank him for his input. Deputy Tadier spoke first about he felt we did not perhaps need the Communications Unit to represent and advertise the Island or communicate overseas, and raised the issue of perhaps whether it should be focused locally. He asked the question: "Who does the Communications Unit represent?" A very valid question, I believe. Deputy Tadier also raised the

issue of the Historic Abuse Inquiry saying with such an important issue he would have really expected an absolute top job with advice to Ministers in a very difficult situation. He felt that the Council of Ministers at the time - obviously the previous one - had been made to look stupid and he highlighted the press conference. He asked for confirmation that the Communications Unit were involved in that, which I think was given later by Senator Syvret. He closed by saying that maybe it was time to disband and have a rethink, and it is probably one of the lines I am suggesting, really. Senator Ozouf , again, I have absolutely no problem with Senator Ozouf 's comments other than one point which I will come to later. He talked about individuals and I think I touched on that in my speech. In answer to Deputy Tadier , he highlighted what he felt were clear differences between the need to have representation abroad; he talked about Financial Services. He highlighted the difference saying that we do not have in place a full-party political system yet, so there were some differences there and could not be really compared. He made the observation that what we all put around sometimes has an element of spin and that is, of course, fair comment from the Senator; I would not disagree with him. What I would disagree with him, and I think, again, Senator Syvret highlighted this, is whatever a Back-Bencher may put out and whether subliminal leanings creep into it, none of us do that with taxpayers' money, so I think that is a very important issue to acknowledge. As I say, I have no problem with any of the Senator's comments; I welcome them. He did say that he felt I cast aspersions on the members of the Communications Unit and I have to say that that is not the fact. I have criticised the work they do but it is certainly not a personal attack on any of them and if anyone took it that way, then I am happy to clarify that, but it is certainly not the case. My problem is the way that some of the work has been delivered. The Deputy of Trinity talked about the Communications Unit being vital, highlighting the flu pandemic, again, something I touched on in my report. She said it would have been impossible without their input. I would have liked her to say about how Health managed before the Communications Unit; how they coped then and was it Health Officers who put the message across? Senator Syvret was next. He started by referring to Senator Le Main's speech, pointing out that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. I was going to talk about that but I was glad that the Senator did because I could not remember who said it but Senator Syvret obviously has a bigger book of quotes than I have. [Interruption] Yes, he probably phoned Deputy Le Hérissier, so true. The Senator also talked  about his concerns  about manufacturing  consensus  within  the Island  and  manipulating people to think a certain way. He used the example of Imagine Jersey to say how opinions were manipulated by leading them in a direction that they could almost only come to one conclusion. He asked the very relevant point whether taxpayers' money was being used for the benefit of all or, as he put it, to the advantage of what he called a "de facto political party". He also made the point about his concerns about press releases and content that the media has put out, people should just focus on honestly and I think that is something for everyone to dwell on. The Historic Abuse Inquiry, the Senator stated that the Communications Unit were indeed heavily involved and he felt responsible for the press conference which is now, I believe, featured on YouTube according to some Members. He highlighted this as an example of what he felt were the failings of the Communications Unit. I do not want to go too far into this but the Senator stated how the Communications Unit ran campaigns containing what he felt to be were half-truths and even slurs against individuals, and flagged this up as an issue that really needed further investigation which I think we are going to have now or later, hence my offer to defer the debate. He stressed strongly the fact that the Communications Unit should have no mandate or leeway for spin because it was taxpayers' money at the end of the day and it should be giving just facts. I think the Senator was the last one to speak and I do apologise if I have missed anyone out. I would just say to the House that in many ways I have achieved part of what I wanted to achieve because I have raised the issue

and they are genuine concerns. I fully respect that people have different political views on this. That is politics and I think that is a good thing. My concerns were genuine, this proposition was brought for good reasons. In its present form I do think £203,000 would be far better spent possibly on matters such as respite care, areas where we are being squeezed due to the current situation. But the fact that this has been raised I think can only be of benefit to the Island. It can certainly only be of benefit to transparent and democratic government. With that I would really just, again, thank everyone and hope that we can maintain a nice, tight debate and make the proposition, call for the appel, and wish everyone a lovely lunch.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Very well, the Members are in their designated seats, the vote is for or against the Eleventh Amendment relating to the Communications Unit in the name of Deputy Trevor Pitman and the Greffier will open the voting.

3. Draft Annual Business Plan 2010 (P.117/2009): third amendment (P.117/2009 Amd.(3)) (paragraph 1)

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

We come now to the first part of the Third Amendment in the name of Senator Shenton and I ask the Greffier to read that amendment.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

On page 3, paragraph (b), after the words "withdrawn from the consolidated fund in 2010", insert the words "except that the net revenue expenditure of the Health and Social Services Department shall be increased by £475,000 to provide funding for adult respite care."

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Now, Chief Minister, the Council has presented comments on this amendment but perhaps you could clarify to the Assembly your position on it.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

I think the sentiment of some of those comments may still remain but in the interests of a good debate and in recognising the excellent work that needs to be done in respect of respite care, we have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  we  will  not  maintain  any  opposition  to  this  amendment. [Approbation]

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

With that in mind, I call on Senator Shenton to propose the amendment.

3.1 Senator B.E. Shenton:

In light of the Chief Minister's comments obviously I will keep this speech fairly short. It was not going to be a speech designed from a political level. The amendment was brought out of a genuine need to provide funding for an area of our society where too often more important things have taken the funding away from them, and they have never quite sort of risen to the top of the tree with regard respite funding. Although the proposition and the amendment is in my name, I feel, after speaking to many Members of the Assembly, that this is an amendment that is agreed by most Members of the Assembly regardless of their political persuasions. I would just like to thank Deputy Power, Deputy Tadier , Deputy Green, Senator Routier and Senator Perchard for their assistance in putting the proposal together and also the assistance of members of staff at Health and Social Services who obviously I had to contact to get the facts and find out where the provision was needed. I think a lot of people when they are calling for cuts probably do not even know where Maison Allo, Oakwell or Aviemore are or see the good work that they do. We have a number of carers in society that look after people suffering from mental or physical disabilities that as a child we provide reasonable facilities. But, of course, people grow up and people are living longer and it does put a tremendous burden on the carers. To be honest with you, it would be a false economy not to accept this amendment because if we drive people into institutional care because the carers cannot look after them any longer, it is increasing the cost to us and the cost to the taxpayer. So I would thank the Council of Ministers for accepting the amendment and I would like to put it forward.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded] Senator Routier.

1. Senator P.F. Routier:

Firstly, I just need to remind Members of my voluntary position which I hold as chairman of the charity Les Amis which provides full-time care for children and for adults with multiple physical and learning disabilities. I have campaigned for over 30 years for services for people with learning disabilities and I have no intention of stopping now. In fact, it was 16 years ago, before I was a Member of the States, that I met with the Presidents of Health and Social Services to ask about respite care. It was at that meeting that I decided that I would stand for the elections because I was not getting very far with them at that stage but I think things have changed a little bit since then. It has been suggested to me that because of my interest in it I have a conflict of interest, but I do not agree with that at all and I believe that I should take part in this debate. I am obviously thrilled that the Chief Minister has now decided to accept this amendment because it is vitally important that respite services are provided to families within our community. There are, of course, people living within our community who do try and continue to live in the community with the obvious support of having respite care. As the proposer of the amendment said that if you wanted to be mercenary, for instance, you would support this because it is a cheaper option for you because otherwise the States would end up having to support people in full-time residential care. I am not sure that Members will realise that this proposition, although it is focused on supporting adults in respite care which is desperately needed, this will, in effect, also help children's respite services as well because there is a pressure within the children's respite service who is currently looking after children who have grown up, who have now become adults, who would be more appropriately cared for in an adult respite service. So there is pressure in the children's respite service and also in the adult's respite service, so providing this additional support to adults will ease up places for children who are now adults or to move into the adult service. But in saying that, even if we approved this today, the children's respite service at Oakwell still needs additional support because they have had their service restricted in recent times. They are now closing at weekends and on bank holidays, which is not the best of things to be happening, and I hope at some stage that the Minister for Health and Social Services will be able to find the necessary resources to replace that service which has been restricted in recent times. I am grateful to the Minister and the Assistant Minister, Deputy Noel, for taking the time to visit Les Amis last week. I hope they will be able to confirm that the current service that we provide at Les Amis is in a constrained building, it does not provide what would be expected to be a proper service at the present time because the building was originally developed for children and the rooms are very, very small. We do our very, very best within those confined circumstances but I should mention that Jersey Mencap, the parent charity which I am president of, has launched a project to have a full respite service in a new building. We will take on that commitment of finding the building but certainly the funding that will come from accepting this proposition will help us to fund the service within a new building. I am delighted that the Council of Ministers has now accepted this and I do hope that all Members will get fully behind it. I know the Minister for Health and Social Services and her team are fully behind it as well and want to ensure that there are good respite services within the Island and I thank all Members who do support it. Thank you.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

I will just remind Members the amendment is accepted and those speaking in favour may wish to [Approbation] keep their remarks relatively brief. Obviously, any Members who wish to speak against the amendment will no doubt wish to speak at greater length. I have seen Deputy Green.

2. Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier :

I will cut out most of what I was going to say and thank the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers for supporting this. But there are some things I would like to just pull out of this because I think it is quite shameful that we find ourselves in this position today where an amendment had to be brought. Most Members of this Assembly - there are a few exceptions - have no idea what it is like to be a carer 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, day in, day out: never to be able to eat a meal in peace, never to have an uninterrupted discussion with friends or your partner, never being able to vary your arrangements in terms of going home, holidays are impossible, a simple trip to the pictures denied, a peaceful soak in the bath impossible, the list is endless. As I say, few people would understand what it is like to have that level of stress; not day in, day out but year in, year out. The only release that comes from that is on the person, the carer's, own death or the death of the person they are caring for. Clearly, something is wrong when carers look forward to going into hospital for surgery, not because it will relieve the condition they suffer from - and I have seen many cases of this - but because it will give them a day off. Something is very, very wrong. We have been in a position where we have been for years employing social workers, which is a complete and utter waste of time unless we give them the tools to do the job, and we are going to do that today; I am pleased to see that. It is no good writing good care plans and action plans unless there are facilities there for those plans to be fulfilled, and I am delighted that we are going to see that today. [Approbation] There has been a total lack of understanding by officers in the Department of Health and Social Services of the pressures carers find themselves under, the need for good community support for children and vulnerable adults. It is estimated in the Carers' Strategy that there are 10,000 carers in this Island. Mencap do an excellent job around people with learning difficulties and some young children. I am looking forward to seeing the Green Paper from the Minister on the people with dementia but there is a whole raft of people not catered for. Frankly, I am delighted to see this money come in but I doubt that it will be enough but it is a good start. The lack of understanding is evidenced. The lack of understanding of the support that the carers need is evidenced in a number of ways. I have to question the advice that the Minister and her team were given at the start of this Business Plan process with the shutting of Maison Allo and places like that. [Approbation] How can the department justify a reduction in the budget for those elderly suffering from dementia of over 25 per cent reduction in that budget since 2005 and a 49 per cent reduction in the rehabilitation budget for elderly since the same time? This has got to stop. Senator Shenton's proposal has started the move in the right direction and I urge Members to

support it.

3. Senator J.L. Perchard:

In the interests of efficiency, there is little to add to what Senator Shenton, Senator Routier and Deputy Green have just said and I will not repeat what they have said. I just want to say I do question the priorities that the Council of Ministers give to spending programmes. Deputy Green has highlighted the difficulties of a carer and the cared-for person and the incredible circumstances in which they have to function. We expect carers to manage without reasonable support and it is not only questionable priority as to whether the Council of Ministers have their priorities right; we see massive investment at the airport, for example and the tightening of the belts at Health and Social Services. Not only do they have their priorities wrong but they also have their business model wrong. There are approximately 10,000 people in Jersey who are involved in caring for their loved ones. It is estimated one in 7 of us, in some way, are involved in caring for somebody who needs support. Of course, there are massive degrees of that level of support. But if 0.25 per cent of those carers just say: "I cannot cope. I have to give up, I cannot do this", that means 25 people will come into the care of Health and Social Services. Those people will probably have complex needs. That is quite likely to cost in excess of £50,000, more like £100,000, per client. Not only does the Council of Ministers have their priorities wrong in the moral debate but they have their priorities wrong in the business debate here. This is nonsense. For them to have considered rejecting this proposition was wrong and I am delighted and I thank them for having second thoughts. The Carers' Strategy is a draft that the new Minister for Health and Social Services has circulated and hopefully will be seeking funding. The Carers' Strategy, it is vitally important that we do fund it; it is an investment. It is a sound business investment which the Treasury surely will support and it has to be right to support carers in the community. These unpaid heroes need our support.

4. Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Again, I want to just follow on from the last 2 speakers; all speakers really. Senator Perchard raises some excellent points. I have seen, certainly from family circumstances, how people have to struggle to look after a loved one once they have had a series of strokes, even having to transport them to hospital and things when they are 78 years-old themselves and unwell. As I said the other day, we need to get back to looking at causes and not treating symptoms because that is how we will save money long term. Deputy Green raised the points that I really wanted to talk about with the carers. I thought he might just touch on young carers as well, because I know that he will be aware that there are many of those; I have been fortunate enough to work with quite a lot. For them the problems and the strains are perhaps even greater because you are still developing and you are almost being an adult before your time. The other part of that, of course, is you do not get to be a child and that, as I say, we really need to find - I think we are moving towards finding - a better way where money might be spent. It might seem a lot but in the long term what we are getting back is worth that tenfold because we are enabling all people to play a part in the community. I just pay credit to Senator Shenton for bringing this and, of course, I will support it.

5. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

Yesterday may not have been our finest day but I think we have achieved something very important here in this decision and I think it is important that I personally, in one sense, thank the Chief Minister for his decision for changing his mind. I think credit where credit is due. One is often criticised for criticising, sometimes unduly or sometimes validly, but I think this is a correct decision and that has to be acknowledged. The Council of Ministers could have remained hardnosed and tried to justify on a superficial level purely economic grounds, but as we have heard from Senator Routier, it would have been a false economy because in the long term I believe it would have lost us money and, of course, there is a human price. The reason I rise to my feet is that I did not really do much in all this; I was on holiday a lot of the time when all the negotiations were going on but I did act as a point of contact for 2 parishioners. I will not talk at length but, briefly, they are 2 parents and they have very different situations but in some ways very similar. One is the parent of a child with severe autism; the other a parent of a child who I believe has cerebral palsy. Although the conditions themselves are very different, the requirements for the parents and the rest, which Deputy Green pointed out, are absolutely important. These are people who work very hard. They often never ask for anything and the little they do get is always gratefully received. For example, I believe that in the past they have benefited from one night a week where they know that they can put their child into a place of care and the children will be looked after, and that simply gives them one night off a week where they can do things we take for granted like watching television, having a bath, things that were mentioned only a moment ago. This was exactly this that was being threatened. It is very much an issue when the child gets over a certain age and they no longer qualify automatically for certain benefits. One person in particular, rather than being offered one night off a week was being offered 2 half days, and although it seems like that adds up mathematically, it is not the same at all. It is very important, and I cannot stress that enough, the parents have a complete break to really recharge the batteries and also to get away once in a while from the Island. Not because they want to do that; because it is necessary just for their own sanity and their own wellbeing. So I think what we have seen today is really a triumph for compassion, it is also a triumph for democracy because this really started at the grassroots. Some of us had varying amounts of knowledge about the problems and also the commitment that these carers put in, but it really started off from the parishioners themselves getting in contact with the Deputies or the Senators, and the Constables as well, of course, advising us that there is a problem. It really shows that things can change and that we are not right to be cynical all the time. The system can work and it serves as an example for people really to get engaged in politics at a grassroots level, I believe. I do just have a couple of further points to make. I imagine we will hear from the Chief Minister and I would like to know what caused this U-turn. I am not asking that to crow; I am really asking just so that we might get an insight into it. I would also just give one last point as a warning to us all to maybe search our souls. Because we will all support this today. I am sure that when it comes to the vote and an appel will be called for, that it will have unanimous support. But I would also say that if the Council of Ministers had not accepted this amendment, which I am glad that they have, I wonder how many people would have voted against it. Certainly one should have been the Chief Minister. That really has to lead us to question how many times do the Council of Ministers get things wrong; when they do not do a U-turn? How many of us who want a debate go simply along with them purely because we have trust? That is not to disparage or diminish any of our judgments, it is just simply to say that people do have some trust in the Council

of Ministers; is that trust always well based?

6. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :

I rise really to thank people for comment and especially those that are mentioned and I will add to that the good service that is provided by different organisations like Les Amis, Maison Allo, Mencap and others. This is a very difficult one: do I rule my heart or my head? I am very much aware that I have had a big budget and hopefully will be supported with the next amendment. I also want to make sure that Senator Shenton's proposition in the report focused on children with special needs. This is a big area and will need to be addressed and with this funding, I hope that it will go some of the way, but also it is wider than that. It is special needs and also adult respite care and those other vulnerable groups such as the elderly and those with dementia that would benefit from respite care. It is very difficult to single out one area rather than another because all of them have their own special needs. This will become even more important as we go into future years because of good medical treatment and good medical intervention, as we all know that we are living longer and those with special needs and the elderly will fall into this as well. I just want to mention briefly because we are looking at all these issues and Senator Perchard mentioned the Carers' Strategy of which he was the start of it, under his ministerial, and I commend Members to read it, but more importantly we are looking at this. We are taking the broad approach and under the chairmanship of Dr. Margaret Bayes it is progressing, so we have not just been sitting back idly doing nothing. It is important that any strategy that we do put in place is broad and encompasses all areas. That is the most important thing that I want to get the message across. It is progressing and there is a policy team led by Jurat Myles who is away, who, I am sure most of you will know, leads by action. It will be put in place over the next year and the following years. So, a lot of work is being done and we have to look at this right across the board. As people have mentioned, it will need more funding and that is one of the challenges that I will have next year and future years. I do not want to do it by piecemeal. I want to make sure that what is in place is going to be fit for purpose and is going to help every single one that needs respite care. I would like to thank the Chief Minister too that we, the Council of Ministers, have changed our minds and I will leave it there. Thank you.

7. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

I would just like to reiterate the fact that I think everybody here has their own particular area of caring that they support and there are different types of respite for different types of situation. I agree entirely with Deputy Green. Like him, I do have some experience of this and whatever else, you do develop a wonderful sense of black humour. My particular area is the number of the aged and we are considering the carers, but I would also remind people that better respite for the cared for is in their own homes and in familiar surroundings. That is an area that we do need to keep in mind plus the necessity for helping the carers when they find themselves in a state of caring. If it is a child looking after a parent, you suddenly realise that there is a total role reversal and you are not the child any more; you are the parent and that psychologically can be incredibly difficult. Thank you.

Senator S. Syvret:

Could I just propose a point of order? There is a Standing Order, is there not, about repetitious and time-wasting speeches. We did discuss the nature of the business we have to get through earlier this morning and I am sure we could all stand up and speak for 5 or 10 minutes [Approbation] about how strongly we support this proposition but I really think, given that it is not contested any more, I would urge Members simply to get on and accept it.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

That is a helpful intervention, Senator, I am sure Members will bear that in mind. I saw the Deputy of St. Mary .

8. The Deputy of St. Mary :

I take Senator Syvret's point but I do have some experience in this area, as I worked for Jersey Mencap for a number of years with people with learning difficulties, not that that is directly relevant to this but I have been sensitised to these issues. We have to remember that this amendment originally was opposed and now it is accepted and I am really thankful to the Council of Ministers for their change of mind and we have heard exactly why from other speakers. I just wanted to make 2 points: one is that in their original comments and, remember, these opposed this and it is so important to get this right for the future that it is imperative that funds are invested in the high-risk areas already identified. Now, Deputy Le Hérissier asked a written question, I think, in the last session - perhaps this one - and he asked about the prioritisation process within the Health Department. All S.M.T. (Senior Management Team) members on 19th May were formally requested to identify, based on their professional opinion, the 10 "lowest priority service areas" with regard to risk to patient life/urgent care. That is what this is about. It is about the fact that if we always just do what is urgent, what is necessary to save lives, we are not going to find the money for this sort of amendment. I am so glad that it has been accepted, I am so glad that it has been taken on board but I hope that it is a structural change and that we do not see that kind of wording again because that is so important. The other little point is that also in their comments the Council of Ministers originally objected to this on the ground that it was not quite ready and that somebody else was working on it: the Carers' Partnership Group. I fully support their work but to say: "Well we are not quite ready, so maybe not the money now and maybe later" I am so glad that we are voting the money; we are saying that this matters, this has to be committed to and within that group and within Health in general, we will find out how to spend the money in the best way for this purpose. I think that is the right way to go and I am so, so pleased and, of course, will vote for the amendment.