States Meeting Transcript - 15/09/2010

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

WEDNESDAY, 15th SEPTEMBER 2010

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

1. Draft Annual Business Plan 2011 (P.99/2010): fourth amendment (P.99/2010 Amd.(4)) (paragraph 3) (continued)................................................................4

1. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:................................................4

1. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :............................................................5
2. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:.......................................................5
3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : ...................................................6
4. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:......................................................7
5. The Deputy of St. Mary:.................................................................7
6. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen:...........................................................8
7. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..................................................................9
8. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade : ........................................................10
9. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................10
10. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:..................................................12

2. Draft Annual Business Plan 2011 (P.99/2010): fourth amendment (P.99/2010 Amd.(4)) (paragraph 2) ............................................................................15

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................15
2. Connétable G.F. Butcher of St. John:...................................................17
3. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................17
4. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................18
5. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................19
6. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................20
7. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................20
8. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :..................................................22
9. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:........................................................22
10. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................23
11. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..............................................................25
12. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................26
13. Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier : ..................................................26
14. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement:....................................................26
15. Senator F.E. Cohen: .................................................................28
16. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................29
17. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................31
18. Senator J.L. Perchard: ...............................................................32
19. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:....................................................33
20. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter:................................................34
21. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement:..............................................35
22. Deputy A.E. Jeune of St. Brelade:...................................................36
23. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour:..................................................36

24. Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John:......................................................36
25. Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence : ..................................................38

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................38

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................39 The Deputy of St. Peter:......................................................................39

26. Senator P.F. Routier:................................................................39
27. The Connétable of St. Helier:........................................................39
28. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence:..........................................40
29. Deputy S.Power:....................................................................41
30. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence:......................................42
31. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................43 Senator B.E. Shenton:........................................................................45 Deputy M. Tadier : ............................................................................46

3. Draft Annual Business Plan 2011 (P.99/2010): eighth amendment (P.99/2010 Amd.(8)) (paragraph 2) ............................................................................46

1. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour (Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel - rapporteur):.............................................................................46
2. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................47
3. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................48
4. Deputy A.K.F. Green:..................................................................48
5. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................49
6. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................49
7. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................50
8. Deputy J.A. Hilton:.....................................................................50
9. Deputy D.J. De Sousa of St. Helier:....................................................51
10. The Deputy of Trinity : ..............................................................51
11. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................52
12. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................52
13. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................53
14. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin:.......................................................54
15. Deputy A.T. Dupré of St. Clement:..................................................54
16. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................54
17. Senator J.L. Perchard: ...............................................................56
18. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................56
19. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:........................................................56
20. Deputy J.M. Maçon:.................................................................57

4. Draft Annual Business Plan 2011 (P.99/2010): eighth amendment (P.99/2010 Amd.(8)) (paragraph 3) ............................................................................58

1. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................59
2. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................60
3. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:..................................................................61
4. Deputy J.B. Fox:........................................................................61
5. Deputy A.T. Dupré:....................................................................61
6. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:.......................................................62
7. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................62
8. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................62
9. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................62
10. Senator F.E. Cohen: .................................................................63

11. The Deputy of St. Ouen:.............................................................63
12. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................64
13. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:.............................................................65
14. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................66

5. Draft Annual Business Plan 2011 (P.99/2010): second amendment (P.99/2010 Amd.(2))..................................................................................67

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................68
2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................70
3. Deputy A.K.F. Green:..................................................................71
4. Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen:....................................................72
5. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................73
6. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................74
7. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................74
8. Deputy A.T. Dupré:....................................................................75
9. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................76
10. Deputy A.E. Jeune : ..................................................................76
11. Connétable P.F.M. Hanning of St. Saviour:..........................................76
12. Senator P.F. Routier:................................................................76
13. The Deputy of St. Ouen:.............................................................77
14. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................77

6. Draft Annual Business Plan 2011 (P.99/2010): twelfth amendment (P.99/2010 Amd.(12))................................................................................79

1. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................79
2. The Connétable of Grouville :...........................................................82
3. Deputy A.K.F. Green:..................................................................82
4. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................83
5. Deputy J.B. Fox:........................................................................84
6. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................85
7. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................85
8. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................86

9. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................87
10. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................87
11. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................88 The Deputy of St. Peter:......................................................................90

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................91

[09:30]

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

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption

1. Draft Annual Business Plan 2011 (P.99/2010): fourth amendment (P.99/2010 Amd.(4)) (paragraph 3) (continued)

The Bailiff :

Very well then, we return immediately to debate upon the fourth amendment lodged by Deputy Southern concerning school milk and the next speaker I have seen is Senator Maclean.

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

On a point of order, could I just ask in the interests of the order of the debate, it was very useful to have the Assistant Minister speak early because then we all knew what the position of the department was. It would also be useful, because I will be asking questions of the Minister (or would like to) but, of course, if he speaks first he cannot answer them. That is strictly a point of order as to ..

The Bailiff :

That is one of the conundrums of the rules of debate, Deputy , which has been in existence ever since the States has been in existence. It is for the Minister to decide when he speaks. Clearly, the later he speaks then the more he can pick up points which Members have asked; the earlier he speaks then people know what he says but on the other hand he is not available to answer the questions. But I am afraid you cannot ask him questions; it is not question time. Very well. So, Senator Maclean, do you wish to speak now or do you wish to speak later?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I am very happy to defer for a short while if that would be acceptable.

The Bailiff :

Very well, we have some other speakers who wish to speak. The Constable of St. Helier .

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

About 10 years ago primary school children were asked about their views of the town park and many primary school children did drawings and sketches which they submitted to the States, only for the States to decide in their wisdom not to build the town park. At least that was 10 years ago and a whole generation of primary school children, I believe, grew up with a view that the States could not be trusted. Yesterday evening I was pleased the debate did not finish last night because I was able to carry out some consultation with primary school children that are known to me, and perhaps I should declare an interest, I suppose, at this stage. I said to them the reason their dad had been out of the house from before 8.00 a.m. for early meetings until after 9.00 p.m. for Honorary Police meetings was that we were considering abolishing school milk. I have to say they were absolutely astonished. This was the important matter of State that kept this particular parent busy during the day: to do away with their school milk. So I asked them a bit more about it and why it was important and truly out of the mouths of babes and sucklings a lot of wisdom came out of that. I discovered a lot about the socialising that goes on around school milk. I discovered that the children do not have to have milk; that some of them choose to have water or juice; that some of them look forward to school milk during the morning; that some of them have not had a proper breakfast and have come to school probably after a bag of crisps and a chocolate bar and this is probably the only nutrition they are going to get before lunch. I was also thinking that it would be ironic for the Island that has given the world the Jersey cow to be a jurisdiction that abolishes free school milk to children. That surely is a headline that somebody will pick up. These are not

rational reasons perhaps: I am sure we will hear why the health benefits are overstated; why the benefits for agriculture and to the dairy do not hold water. But I certainly want to have no part in a decision to abolish school milk in Jersey. I must say that if Deputy Southern who has given us a good long innings if he does not succeed at this particular juncture, I shall certainly come back because I believe that free school milk for our primary school children is something we can afford to do.

1. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :

There has been comment by several Members on the health benefits of school milk for children. Over the years my department has been working with Education in building-up a Healthy Schools Programme and this is very important, not only in secondary schools - you would have seen recently a press release going out that now school lunches are going to be much more health- orientated and there is a set of criteria that the contractor has to follow, so we are very much health conscious. But also, the Healthy Schools Programme is rolled out in primary schools and a healthy eating programme is part of the curriculum. Out of the 28 primary schools, 7 have already reached it, 10 are working towards it and the other ones are just beginning. But part of that healthy programme is educating parents too on what should go in lunch boxes. As I said, brief comment has been made and much work is being done in schools about promoting healthy eating. A comment about Health: the M.O.H. (Medical Officer of Health) does not support the provision of the school milk on the basis of health grounds and she has been part of studies that have shown that children already get sufficient calcium from other food sources, some of which other food sources are fortified with calcium. I will just finish by saying that obesity is going to be more of a problem as we go on and I will just leave you with this thought that milk contains many more calories than a glass of water.

2. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier :

I am pleased to follow the Minister for Health and Social Services because I have to say anyone who says that low-fat milk makes you fat is talking complete and utter rubbish. It is not the word I was going to use. Among my many accomplishments, one of the stranger ones is I am a qualified fitness instructor. I know you are not surprised by that and my slim physique [Laughter] and if I am not as fit as I was, I think it has less to do me with not drinking low-fat milk than it has for me getting home, like many of you, at 10.00 p.m. or 10.30 p.m. at night and probably scoffing a load of cheese and Branston sandwiches and not going to the gym as much. Yes, there is a lot wrong with a lot of milk products but honestly you show me someone who can get fat on the orange milk that we sell over here, and I do not mean the colour of the milk but the packets. You could probably get fatter on one of the Assistant Minister for Education, Sport and Culture's glasses of Jersey water. For someone who has worked with young people for 20 years, I can tell you that the bigger problem .. well I will give you one example. I worked with a young man whose mother was convinced he was overweight because of drinking milk but when we analysed it he was consuming 6 bags of sugar through Coke and fizzy drinks. Now I think that is something we need to look at. Unfortunately, we have seen previous Members of this House, including the former Minister for Education, Sport and Culture, come out with this type of stuff again and again. There is an awful lot of difference between full-fat cream milk, milk products and skimmed or low-fat milk. If we really want to tackle obesity - and I fully support the Minister for Health and Social Services - what we should be doing is encouraging the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture as well to get as much physical activity as we can back into school programmes, we should be giving the Minister for Transport and Technical Services a lot more money so he can encourage cycle tracks, and that is tackling the real issue. Like all of you, I probably got home last night and read an email from one of our most prolific writers of emails and letters - I think he lives in Grouville - and I think he is keen to take us back to the Keynesian times. If you do not want to vote for Deputy Southern 's amendment, do it for the right reasons. Perhaps you just do not agree that our children should have milk. But do not do it under this false information that this little bit of milk is going to turn them into - to use one of the words we invented in our family - some kind of "blubbersome" creature because it is not. All the healthiest people I have known, and I do not get there as much as I used to, but all the years I have trained in the gym, the fittest people I know are those who drank milk - not full-fat milk - and they took physical activity and they did not guzzle loads of soft drinks. At the time the last Minister for Education, Sport and Culture was telling us about how we were all going to become obese from school milk, the diet at school was still very poor. So I am pleased that the present Minister and the Minister for Health and Social Services are tackling that; that is great. There is a lot to be said for milk and I am really pleased to follow the Constable because he is quite right, there is a lot of social things that spin around that sharing of milk. I can even sympathise with the Constable of St. Clement because the one thing I did not like about school milk when I was at school was it was regularly left out in the sun, it was heated up and it tasted absolutely disgusting. But it was not the milk, it was the fact that it had been left there in little Tetra Paks. I am really showing my age now. So, please, if we are not going to support Deputy Southern , do it for the right reasons; do not do it because of misinformation. I think there is still a place for school milk. I think it is very reasonable to ask the Minister for this and please do support Deputy Southern .

3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier :

I remember going to school and I had not had breakfast on many occasions. My mother used to work with my father late at night playing music in hotels and with 5 children first thing in the morning it was not the easiest thing to do to get them ready for school. So on some occasions the older ones, my older brother and I, would have to fend for ourselves and get ourselves ready.

[09:45]

I invariably was not really up for eating first thing in the morning and we would go to school without having eaten anything but when it came to the milk time, I remember enjoying the milk when it was not left out in the sun, as Deputy Pitman has pointed out. Rather than repeating all of the things that have been said and cognisant of your ruling on this, I wonder if we might not think about keeping it in place for the time being while we conduct some survey of the parents and the children themselves, maybe through the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture. We have heard from the Minister for Health and Social Services that the Medical Officer of Health has conducted surveys that it is not warranted on health grounds but nor is taking vodka to school and we used to do that when we were 11 [Members: Oh!] but at St. Helier Boys it was mandatory. But the reality is there are a lot of things that are not healthy for children, including people smoking in public places and children's playgrounds but we do nothing about that. So, rather than looking at this and crossing it off on the grounds that it has no health value because Health and Social Services need all the money they can get in all the other areas that they do not have money, I am wondering if we can keep this in place. There is an £11,000 profit to the dairy. I think we need to think about this carefully, about how much activity we would be reducing in the dairy if this was to stop and what that £11,000 profit would mean if the productivity was to stop, and ask the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture to conduct a survey of the parents and the children themselves. If we are going to go on to considering what the Medical Officer of Health has said about what is healthy for children, I know from our own experience - and I declare an interest with a son at school, having been through nursery school once again most recently - we would pay money for snacks to the nursery to augment their healthy eating and we were advised not to bring in things such as Coke and juice, et cetera, because that was not good for them; they wanted to promote healthy eating. It was quite interesting, especially from the Eastern European countries where my wife comes from and a lot of Polish people come from, but one of the things that most of the parents put up as to what they would wish to see in school was school meals. Hot school meals at lunchtime. In the U.K. (United Kingdom) where most people get a hot school meal and where some Members have come from, they will probably remember those meals. I have never had a hot school meal. I know there is a canteen at Hautlieu and it is well used but the value of a hot school meal during the lunchtime far outweighs what can be crammed into a sweating lunch box and left in the corner for 4 or 5 hours. So if we are going to look at the nutrition and the health issues around children and what they eat and what they consume at school, then we need to do it on a far better and more open and honest approach than what we have considered so far which is what the Medical Officer of Health has said constitutes a healthy or qualified needed income for the Health Department. I am going to support Deputy Southern and I am going to ask the Minister for Health and Social Services, the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture and the Minister for Economic Development if this is passed to go away and to conduct a survey of the parents. We are talking about consultation all the time. We are doing one at the moment and I urge all members of the public, all parents and all States Members to go on to the States website today and look at the one that is out there for play, the issues around play; the playground issues. The areas where we would like to see our children have opportunities to play. It is a very good survey and the States have done a very good job in doing that and I would recommend it. But I would also urge the Council of Ministers to do a survey on whether or not the parents and the children want school milk. I urge Members to continue to support this until we have the information to make a proper decision rather than just a financial one. Because in the next amendment we are going to be arguing about whether or not we should support Jersey Finance with another £400,000 of taxpayers' money to go off swanning it around the world for an industry that has just cost everybody all their jobs. They can far afford to support themselves. If we are looking at cutting overall States spending and not adding taxpayers' taxes on to issues, we can cut that £400,000 from the budget. The world will turn on its head in about 20 minutes and all the arguments we have been hearing will go the other way.

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

We have just heard from the Minister for Health and Social Services about the Healthy Schools Programme and the healthy eating programme and how they are educating parents into what should go into lunch boxes. Now that is fine and commendable but I found it shocking to learn that in a wealthy Island as Jersey is reputed to be that many children do not go to school with a lunch box or even have breakfast. Now, I found it absolutely shocking that the youth workers at First Tower are, for example, providing hot meals for children because they do not get a hot meal at school, so there are an awful lot of children who benefit from the free milk that we give them. It may be the only real nutrition they get during the day and I certainly will not be voting for any cut in this provision.

5. The Deputy of St. Mary :

Yes, first of all, I would like to thank the Minister. I think he absolutely did the right thing because at the end of the debate we will have the Minister replying to all the points made and then we will have the proposal and that really is the way it should be done and I thank him very much for that. I was going to focus on the wider implications for the dairy industry, but I would like beforehand to say just how much I was struck by the Constable of St. Helier's comments and now Deputy Higgins'. It does worry me. I was going to go down the route of suggesting that the actual economic benefits to the dairy industry of going this route are very, very small, if indeed they exist at all. So the issue I was going to put to Members was how do we signal our support for the dairy industry and make sure that it is there? That was the question for the Minister about how to reconcile the 2 different accounts we are getting in the amendment and the comments. But there are issues now I see that are stronger than I thought about school milk itself: its social role and the no meals issue. I think Deputy Le Claire had a very good point that it might be a good idea to find out what its role is before we think about cutting it. So I have been influenced by what people have said quite a bit in the way that I might end up voting, although I am still open. To go on to the wider issue, in the comments of the Council of Ministers they say that they are not cutting support for the industry, with the exception of the cessation in support for school milk there will be a net increase in the total of direct and indirect government support payments to the dairy industry in 2011 and elsewhere they say that they are not suggesting cuts specific to the dairy sector in 2011 or

2012. But what we read in Deputy Southern 's proposition is that on page 13 he claims: "The overall reduction in support to the dairy industry, part of the D.N.A. of the Island', amounts to at least £650,000 over the coming years." He points out that the price of land is also increasing because of the success of the potato sector. So we are getting 2 different stories here. We are getting: "We are continuing our support for the dairy industry at least for the next 2 years" and on the other hand we are getting cuts to the dairy industry being put forward by the proposer and that is a big contradiction. I want the Minister to clarify exactly what the level of support for the industry is and so on in the light of the fact that what we are discussing is £180,000 support for the dairy industry in the form of school milk. Now, I take the argument that it is not a terribly efficient way of supporting the dairy industry but in fact the Minister is perfectly free after the survey to find out about the social issues and the health issues about food and diet. He is perfectly at liberty, if we vote this money back in, to use it to support the dairy industry through other mechanisms which he already uses. We know that Ministers can do this, in fact, even across departmental boundaries. So the issue then is support for the industry. I have here the J.M.M.B. (Jersey Milk Marketing Board) and R.J.A. and H.S. (Royal Jersey Agricultural and Horticultural Society) submission on the Rural Economy Strategy 2011-2015 White Paper, so this is their last word on the whole consultation process around the rural strategy. They set out their vision and I was sure that Members would say "amen" to this but after the debate yesterday, I begin to wonder about certain attitudes here. But this vision is really spot-on: "Preservation of the Jersey breed as a viable herd in its Island home; maintenance of productive capacity of the Island's farmland and combining grazing  livestock within an arable rotation and the benefits of that; contribution towards self-reliance in society with the production of a wide range of locally-produced essential foods; preservation of the landscape with its patchwork of fields and meadows which are only of use to livestock and are the richest in biodiversity; a positive contribution to the environment; fauna, flora, air, water and soil with low- intensity agriculture that uses minimal artificial inputs" because of course the cows provide a different form of input: "Maintenance of road verges and countryside features; greater opportunities for the informal leisure; use of grassland by the wider public." That is their vision. That is how they start their submission and I cannot imagine that any of us would disagree with that kind of vision and yet here we are talking about support for the dairy industry. So do they need the support? They claim that they do. They claim that they are working hard, they are the only sector that has totally open books on their profitability, their costs are completely open to the department and yet they say they currently work on extremely tight margins and as such significant changes in revenue flows will directly affect farm profitability. There is a chart in the proposer's document on page 11 which shows you that they are nowhere near the 20 per cent E.B.I.T.D.A. (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortisation) which they need for sustainability. They are nowhere near that. The Minister said that they were somewhere near 10 per cent. They are not near 10 per cent; they are at 5.9 per cent in the current year, I believe. They point out that there are cuts in Quality Milk Payment and services in the White Paper and of the magnitude proposed they will have to be passed on and that will imply an increase in the wholesale milk price of 10 to 12 per cent contrary to the agreed strategy which is to become more and more competitive with other jurisdictions and to head-off the possibility of imported milk. So this is a different story we are getting from the people at the sharp end. Of course, it is special pleading, they are the industry, but we have to decide on whether we support that vision and on whether support for the industry does help that vision stay a reality because it is reality now. In their closing comments: "The next 5 years [not the next 2 years; the next 5 years] will require a cautious approach to changes in government support to the agricultural sector as any recovery is likely to be slow; a cautious approach." I just want to ask the Minister about the figure that Deputy Southern uses of £685,000 cuts in support for the dairy industry and whether or not we should not consider leaving this money in the budget subject to surveys about the value of using the budget as school milk but keeping it

there as support for the industry to be used in that way. That is all I have to say, thank you.

6. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen :

You spoke about a conundrum, but I think this is one of the difficulties that this States Assembly faces in trying to seek, on the one hand, to reduce budgets and re-prioritise the resources available; and addressing some of the other areas that we feel quite passionately about. School milk, I believe, is one. The reality is that we are faced with our "cutting our costs" pursuit. We also know that the economic argument that is being put and is being repeated by the dairy industry (and I believe it is sincere) we have heard it on many occasions used to support various decisions that this States Assembly has made, to improve and help the industry stand on its own 2 feet. There is absolutely a benefit from milk in the provision of milk to some of our school children. I think I pick up and would highlight one of the issues that Deputy Higgins raised. We do have concerns of a small minority of young people that are coming to school with a lack of proper food. Is it solely our responsibility? No. Should we do something about it? Absolutely.

[10:00]

I again thank the Deputy for highlighting the fact of one of the practical ways that we are helping these young people through the Youth Service, in this case; others it is through schools. More importantly, it is through helping and supporting those parents that are struggling to recognise perhaps their responsibilities in bringing up their children. Is it necessarily an argument to just maintain school milk? No. No, I think we have to be smarter. I think that the dairy industry absolutely needs support and there is a good case for them to continue promoting and providing school milk to children because I would expect that it would encourage those children later in life to continue utilising that product. That is a commercial decision. Yes, we can all argue about health benefits and the whys and wherefores of milk. That is not the issue. The issue here is that we have difficult decisions to make, not only in this Business Plan but in the next coming years. This is not a priority. If the choice is school milk or sufficient resources so our children can learn at school, I know which side I am going to fall on. Thank you.

7. Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

One of the benefits or drawbacks, depending on which way you look at it, of being in the States for many years now is that you hear the same debates time and time again. Many years ago when I was President of Social Security we had the debate on school milk then and we managed to get rid of it out of our Social Security obligation or objective and it was decided that maybe it was more appropriate as a health requirement. We debated that a second time and we decided it was not a health requirement so we moved it to Education because maybe it was an educational requirement. We debated that a third time and we decided it was not an educational requirement but it was quite simply support to the dairy industry. I thought that was where it was now acknowledged, having been debated 3 times, that this funding is no more and no less than support to the dairy industry. Yet the comments and arguments that we have heard yesterday and today have ranged over a wide range of areas, very few of which, with the exception of the Deputy of St. Mary, relate to the support for the dairy industry. But in fairness the proposer of this proposition is very clear that it refers to support for the dairy industry and in the second part of his proposition, which we will be debating later possibly, he talks about phasing-out the support for the dairy industry over the following 3 years. So he is quite clear that this is an economic justification for this money and if further justification were needed it is because the money rests in the budget of the Economic Development Department which has responsibility for the rural economy. So when we debate this we should be debating it in the clear knowledge that we are debating support or subsidy to the dairy industry. Now if we feel that we need to continue support to the dairy industry, let us at least be honest and say why we are doing it: in support as a form of subsidy. It is not a form of educational benefit, or health benefit, or social benefit; it is an economic benefit. To Deputy Le Claire, yes, I am sure if I asked parents if they would like the Government to continue giving them free school milk the majority of them would say yes. If I asked people: "Would you like to pay more taxes?" the majority of people would say no but there is no such thing as a free lunch or a free pint of milk. If we are going to give free milk then something else has to give. We would cut out some other

service or we increase taxes, and let us not forget that fact. It is a matter of priorities. Is this ongoing support to the dairy industry, in addition to the other support given by E.D.D. (Economic Development Department) in various forms in the rural economy, is this additional support also necessary? In my view, in the current economic times the answer is no, sadly, perhaps for some and therefore I have no alternative but to suggest that this proposition should not be accepted.

8. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade :

Briefly, 50 years ago I was 5 and I went to a primary school in the middle of Limerick City and I remember the pervading smell of sour milk but I did what I was told and I drank that milk. [Interruption] I have the odd occasion when I do not behave but normally I tend to do what I am told still. The comments of the Council of Ministers in relation to Deputy Southern 's paragraph on this are fairly clear: that this has been around the Houses on a number of occasions. It has been through the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture's assessment, it has been through the Minister for Health and Social Service's assessment and it is clear from E.D.D. that it is not a benefit or a subsidy that is needed to support the dairy industry. Whether it is 40 or 50 years ago or whether it is today, there are children who go to school for whatever reason and they have not had the benefit of a breakfast, either that is through parental choice or that is because they refuse to have that breakfast or whatever the set-up is in that family home. I constantly hear this sort of clamour that: "The States must do this. The States must do that. The States must provide some form of support to the parental governance of Jersey" whether it is to the Minister for Health and Social Services, the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture, the Minister for Home Affairs or even the Minister for Housing at times that we have to pick up and catch up for all the sins of the Island. Well we do not. Whether it is 40 or 50 years ago or whether it is today, for whatever reason, some children do go to school and they are not provided with sufficient provision for food early in the morning. Breakfast was always regarded as the most important meal of the day. Most of our primary schools (I am subject to correction by the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture) and our secondary schools, if not all, do provide some form of service where children can access some food. So, the argument that we have this morning is a simple economic one, and I will repeat today what I said yesterday: we are in a situation where we have to find ways of saving money. It was very clear yesterday with the amount of support for Deputy Vallois' ninth amendment that a lot of States Members want to go further than the Council of Ministers have. Some States Members do not want any cuts at all but the strong message coming out right now across this Assembly that reflects the mood of the public out there is we have to start saving money [Approbation] because the alternative is a swingeing budget in December. If that goes ahead, I can hear the clamours of protests now. My view is this is a "nice to have". It would be nice to continue to supply the subsidy but with looking at reality out there my view is I think the Council of Ministers have it

right and I urge Members to reject Deputy Southern 's amendment in this case.

9. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I have held back in the interests of being helpful, in particular to the Deputy of St. Mary who had some questions. The Deputy of St. Mary raised one particularly important point and that was the level of support for the dairy industry: do we support the dairy industry? Well absolutely we support the dairy industry from the whole process of moving the dairy from where it was to its current modern facility that it operates, to a range of facilities that are provided for the dairy industry in terms of subsidy support grants like Quality Milk Payment and other areas of agriculture that benefit from the Single Area Payment. The £600,000 Quality Milk Payment is currently afforded to support the dairy industry and there are many other areas in which we are supporting them to develop their export markets: ways in which the industry can become sustainable longer term; looking at higher-value products in the export market. All of these things are happening, we are working with the industry to deliver that and it is absolutely right and proper that we should be doing so. I will just pick up a point that Senator Breckon raised last night about grants in general. I think he was concerned about the level of grants, particularly to the agricultural industry. I should say to him that over the last few years grants as a whole have been slowly and in a measured way reduced from agriculture. They have come down by close to £2 million and over the next few years there will be a continued reduction but it will be done in a measured way in order to ensure that the industry can stand on its own 2 feet. It is not something that Jersey is doing alone; it is happening elsewhere and it is absolutely right that we should be looking to support the industry, to increase its productivity and to be able to be more sufficient as we move forward into the future. The Deputy of St. Mary also made a comment about how easy it is for money voted as part of the Business Plan to be moved around among departments. What I would say to him in this regard - and he also made what I thought was quite an extraordinary suggestion - that if this is voted through we could use it to support the dairy industry and not necessarily for milk for school children which is the purpose of this clear proposition. In any event, what he was trying to say ..

The Deputy of St. Mary : Would you give way? Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I am not going to give way. But what I think he was trying to say was we can move our budget around. What I would say to him and to other Members is if a decision is taken by this Assembly, I certainly - and I do not know of any Minister that would choose to go against the decision of an Assembly, if this was to be supported, Deputy Southern 's proposition - I would not seek to then try and use the money for some other purpose. It would just be a completely unacceptable position to be in. Do we move money around in our budget? Yes, we do. Of course; we are the Economic Development Department. We operate quite simply to capitalise on the budget we have. We move it around to deal with threats and to deal with opportunities as Members would expect. We need a maximum return from the investment of public money that we put into all the areas of the economy that we support. I would like to pick up on the Constable of St. Helier who made a very emotional speech earlier on. He said he had consulted, I believe, with some children; I was not quite sure if it was his own children. I have to say I have also consulted with my children. I am probably conflicted in this area of school milk because my children are recipients of school milk at the moment. Or certainly they have the offer of receiving it and certainly I had a totally different opinion or view from my son when I asked him the same question last night about school milk. So, there are always going to be opinions and I think what the Constable of St. Helier was proffering was an opinion, an opinion that he is perfectly welcome to pass on. What he did say, which was probably one of the most relevant comments that I think I have heard in this debate was that, yes, to school milk and some children like it and, yes, it is given at a time where there is social interaction but also he said children can choose between that and water and juice and quite often do. It is a choice, a choice that we are not paying for. It is a choice that they have and that is absolutely as it should be. I think if we consider that, it is a very important point. I would also like to just deal in conclusion with some final comments. First of all, we have had a long debate historically about school milk. Deputy Southern has got some stamina, I must say, the number of times he has brought this back and he has been quite successful. But we are living now in a different economic climate to the one in the past when he has brought it forward. Indeed, the last time he brought it forward and when it was successful and supported by Members it was done so with an outcome at the end, when the new dairy was in place. At that point school milk was going to be one of the subsidies that was helping and assisting the dairy industry that was going to be phased-out and was going to end with a new dairy. I remember the Deputy standing there and saying that very point. Here we are, now he is suggesting: "Well let us just go on a little longer. We have got the new dairy but let us just carry on a bit more." It is a different climate we are living in; it is not the time to be continuing on with that particular subsidy. We have heard from the Minister for Health and Social Services,  we have  heard  from the Medical Officer of Health, we have seen  plenty of evidence in the U.K. who also over many years have been reducing support of school milk to children. The health benefit is not there; the economic benefit is not there. I think it was Deputy

Le Claire who raised this point about the dairy making a profit, yes, £11,000 for school milk but the Deputy probably did not realise that that was in 2006. Today the dairy is losing money on school milk; around about £6,000 and that is from their own figures. So it is not supporting the dairy in terms of a subsidy. Finally, the proposition itself is flawed and it is flawed for one simple reason. The Deputy has brought forward a proposition that seeks we maintain school milk for next year 2011 and then to reduce it by a third in the following year and then a third and a third.

[10:15]

Well having spoken to the dairy it is not economic for them to do so. They cannot make money and, in fact, they will probably cease doing it altogether because they simply are going to lose too much. They are losing money now. If you reduce the form of subsidy from government it is going to be even less affordable. It just does not work; it is as simple that. I would implore Members to, however difficult this seems and however emotive it is, for obvious reasons .. I remember, not because I was about at the time, but I have certainly read the newspaper articles about when Margaret Thatcher took milk away in the U.K. in the early 1970s and was known as "Thatcher the milk snatcher" and I know how Members feel. It sounds terrible but the world has moved on in all respects from health, diet and from an economic point of view. I would implore Members to reject this albeit well-meaning proposition and maintain our aim. We have to cut costs. This is one, I am afraid, that has to go. Thank you.

The Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak? Very well, I call upon Deputy Southern to reply

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

I am grateful to all those who have taken part in this debate, particularly those who have spoken up in favour of my proposal. I remind Members that my proposal is not to maintain free school milk willy-nilly for ever. My proposal is to phase-out the support for school milk over a period of time which will enable the dairy - or should enable the dairy - to get alternative sponsors and alternative backing to continue with school milk. I believe that is certainly what the dairy suggested would be a reasonable way forward to me and certainly did not say: "Whatever you do, school milk is doomed, we are going to stop." That is not the case. If we pull this funding now, yes, school milk will stop. If we phase it out in a reasonable and, I believe, responsible manner which we should do, then school milk might continue because the dairy will seek alternative funding. A number of speakers, starting with Senator Breckon last night and the Deputy of St. Mary and indeed the Chief Minister today, have addressed the issue of what it is coming down to is the economics of the dairy industry. Well I refer Members to my report in which I go into some depth and it is all very well to say: "The dairy industry must learn to stand on its feet" and that we are progressively withdrawing support although the Minister for Economic Development seemed to suggest that all this support was being maintained. Nothing could be further from the truth. So let us have a look at the state of the dairy industry and in particular the role of subsidies to the dairy industry because as many Members will be aware, an agricultural industry in Europe which is not receiving some subsidy is doomed to fail. There is no way we can maintain agriculture in Jersey in competition with the subsidies which still go into E.U. (European Union) farming and hope to survive. Bear that in mind. We are told that the Jersey Dairy 5-year business plan previously indicates that by 2011/2012 the E.B.I.T.D.A. - the profit margin - could reach 17 per cent on Jersey farms. On page 11 of my report I show where we have got to by 2009 and 2010 and we are at 5.9 per cent; 5.9 per cent when the aim is 17 per cent by 2011. Jersey farmers in the dairy sector are not highly profitable yet. Then we examine what we are doing overall in the whole series of cut, cut, cuts in the dairy sector and for agriculture and on page 12, I outline some of them. For example, it says on page 12, and this is a part of the plan: "Royal Jersey Agricultural and Horticultural Society Service Level Agreement will not be renewed from 2014" a reduction of nearly £250,000 and they say that this is perfectly acceptable; it is not necessary the service that they do. The dairy tell me that this is

completely wishful thinking. What they are doing is running the insemination programme and the monthly milk recording service and they say that is: ".. an essential element in promoting the quality and traceability of our dairy products." This in turn: "The availability of these services is a vital part in negotiations to obtain export contracts for high value-added products. To cut this service would seriously damage efforts to raise export targets. The statement made about the diminishing need for such a service is misleading." That is what the dairy is saying: "You want us to maintain our dairy service, the herd on the Island, and part of that is selling high-value products into the U.K. That requires the absolute rigour of recording exactly what this product is and why it is such high quality. Without it we do not stand a chance of getting into Marks & Spencer; of getting into Tesco; of getting into where we need to be. Without it, I am afraid, we are going to see the slow decline of the industry on the Island." In addition to that, we are maintaining the Quality Milk Payment until 2013 when we will put a 10 per cent cut in. This 10 per cent cut that we are aiming for: 2 per cent; 3 per cent and then 5 per cent will be rolled into 2013, so we are just pausing with that part of the axe until 2013. That subsidy will be being withdrawn. If you look on page 11 of my chart you can see in the graph the element in bright yellow that is Quality Milk Payment and you will see that reducing from 2013, it gets smaller and smaller. On the graph - that is only a 6- year scale - you could extend that to 2018 when you will see Quality Milk Payment getting smaller and smaller and smaller and by 2018 it will be gone. There will be no Quality Milk Payment and I list some of the cuts that are about to be taking place. So R.J.A. and H.S., I have just mentioned, school milk, Jersey Product Promotion Limited again, shall we give them help promoting their products for export or whatever? No, that is going to be discontinued from 2013, a reduction of £140,000. Countryside Renewal Scheme, a reduction of £140,000. Quality Milk Payment I have obviously mentioned already, a reduction of £250,000 by 2010. If you add those up you get the best part of £1 million reduction in support to agriculture. Yesterday we saw the commitment to Tourism, I would say, be substantially reduced; wither on the vine. Now we are seeing £1 million worth of reductions in subsidies to this industry are going to be made. About £650,000 of that is directly applicable to the milk industry. I am suggesting that while we are intending to do that, while we are reducing support for this industry by £1 million, the very least we could do is be

reasonable and rational in phasing-out, rather than cutting immediately, support for school milk. That is the economic argument and I believe it is a substantial one. Amid what are a series of very serious and I believe not rational cuts to our agricultural industry and our dairy industry in particular, we may endanger the entire industry. It may well be that by 2018 when the herds are

producing properly as they should be and the bull semen is having its effect and the herd is up to standard, will we see us able to compete with cheap milk from abroad? Perhaps not. This is only a minor step along the way but nevertheless it must be set in the context of £1 million worth of reduction by 2018 in support for the dairy industry. That is the context. Crossing our fingers and hoping that everything works out is not the way to behave. Time and time again I have heard today - I heard it from Deputy Power, I heard it from the Chief Minister - that if we restore this money then we are talking about taxes rising. No, we are not. I heard it from the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture. He says: "If it is the case of cutting school milk or cutting resources so that people can learn, then I know which side I am on." No, but that is not the case. This proposition does not say: "Maintain school milk and cut your funding for books." It says: "Maintain school milk and take £180,000 from the £6 million we put aside to lay people out of work; to restructure." That is all it says. Not a penny on income tax. Not a penny on tax. That is what it says. Remember that. So that is the economic case. I believe the case for supplying school milk on the grounds, for example, there has been a survey done. The dairy industry has conducted a survey. It conducted a survey of primary school head teachers and said: "What is the take-up in your school? How much do you value free school milk?" Overwhelmingly, with one exception, every primary school head teacher bar one - that is before we go to children, before we go to teachers, before we go to parents - said: "Wonderful; absolutely vital for our kids; an important element in the day; an important element of their nutrition." One headmaster said: "I could do without it. We could do without it. I am not impressed by it." We still have kids going to school

without breakfast. We still have kids, despite the efforts for healthy eating, of which fat-reduced milk is part of a healthy diet and it is all about balance, as Deputy Pitman said. We are not talking about full-fat milk, we are not talking about obese kids through milk. We are talking about obese kids through 3 packets of crisps and a Coke in the morning and educationally, Minister, that child with its 3 packets of crisps and its Coke fuelled-up at break time is running around the classroom for half the morning. We would much rather that it has the milk than the Coke and perhaps it can study; that is the educational argument. The health argument, I believe, it is part of a healthy diet. The  survey  says  that  head  teachers  certainly  welcome  and  would  have  the  free  school  milk maintained. Long-term in terms of milk on this Island, I believe it is important to maintain as well. I thank Members for their tolerance in putting up with me for the fourth time on this debate and I urge Members to vote for a sensible and reasonable way forward, phasing out this particular service for subsiding school milk, in the hope that the dairy can work out alternative ways of funding this through alternative sponsorship and that this House does not earn the accolade of being the people who removed school milk. Could I ask for the appel?

The Bailiff :

The appel is called for then in relation to the amendment of Deputy Southern . I invite Members to return to their seats and the Greffier will open the voting.

[10:30] The Bailiff :

On the order paper we come next to a further amendment of Deputy Southern , but I raised this with Senator Shenton, it appears to me, Senator, that yours, in fact, is greater. Yours includes the lesser, does it not?

Senator B.E. Shenton:

If Deputy Southern 's is lost I will withdraw my one. The Bailiff :

The alternative, what we would normally do, I think, is take yours first on the basis that it is the largest change and then Members can decide on that, and then they can decide on Deputy Southern 's.

Senator B.E. Shenton:

Sadly, with hindsight, I should have done mine in a slightly different way because it is 2 separate issues, one is Jersey Finance and the other is the regulation of non-finance industry entities with the J.F.S.C. (Jersey Financial Services Commission).

The Bailiff :

Are you happy for Deputy Southern to go first?

Senator B.E. Shenton:

I am, yes.

2. Draft Annual Business Plan 2011 (P.99/2010): fourth amendment (P.99/2010 Amd.(4)) (paragraph 2)

The Bailiff :

Very well, we will proceed on that basis. The Greffier will read the amendment of Deputy Southern .

The Greffier of the States:

Page 2, paragraph (a) after the words "withdrawn from the Consolidated Fund in 2011" insert the words "except that the net revenue expenditure of the Economic Development Department shall be decreased by £400,000 in order to reduce the level of support for Jersey Finance Limited and not proceed with the comprehensive spending review proposal on page 62 of the Plan ED-S8 "Additional support for J.F.L. (Jersey Finance Limited)".

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :

I will wait for the adrenaline to go down a little. As they used to say on Monty Python: "And now for something completely different." Deputy Southern stands up and says: "Cut some funding please." Because that is the dominant philosophy and whether you are tourism and you are struggling, or whether you are agricultural and the dairy industry and you are struggling, we are cutting our support for you. We are cutting our subsidy to you, that is the new political dogma. For once, I am saying: "Right, let us push it through. Let us be consistent." Another industry that is struggling is the finance industry, the bedrock, the dominant industry in the Island. It is struggling to the extent that its profits in 2009 were halved. A sad day. It reduces our income substantially. Halved to only the total net profit in the finance sector of £809 million. £809 million. I would like Members just to hold that sum in their mind as we debate the possibility of transferring £400,000 of the £2 million support that we give the industry from Government, with its reduced revenues, to the industry itself and say: "Hang on, the new political philosophy is wherever possible you stand on your own 2 feet. We are not prepared this year to increase your support, your subsidy by £400,000." That is what we are talking: £400,000 against £809 million profit. We have had 2 Scrutiny Panels examine the way in which we support the finance sector and both of them, it seems to me, have come to the same conclusion, that there is a rather large

imbalance for Jersey Finance Limited, the body that was created to promote and support the industry. There is a severe imbalance between the levels of support that Government puts in and that which is put in by the industry itself. If Members will turn to page 8 of my report they will see that in the first year of main operation, after it was set up in 2002, Jersey Finance Limited received £250,000 from Government and added to that £345,000 from subscriptions from the industry. You can see the growth of that funding across the years, 2003 it was imbalanced. We were £400,000, the industry was £379,000. By 2004 we had added up to £600,000, the industry was still at £376,000. 2005 we are talking £600,000 again, and £400,000. 2006 £750,000 from the Government, £400,000 still only from the industry. 2007 £1 million versus £400,000. 2008 to 2011 £2.2 million. £2.2 million of support to £650,000. A ratio of 3 to one. So we put in 3 times the amount that the industry itself does. I remind Members that we have just reduced the tax bill of those industry members from 20 per cent down to 10 per cent. So they are paying less tax into our coffers than ever they were and our bill for supporting the industry stands at £2.2 million and they are putting in £650,000. That is the way it has grown. I will refer now to page 7 of my report, where I talk about the words of the Minister for Economic Development talking about the thrust of the policy that he is applying to support from the Government, support from his department, to the economy of the Island. I think that really is a point that needs to be emphasised, he says to the Scrutiny Panel, because in all respects what we are trying to do and what we are attempting to do, as we go forward into years 2 and 3, is to work more closely with organisations that receive grants to ensure that there is a better return on the investment we use, and allow the individual organisations to be more effective, both in raising private sector sourced funding themselves and being more effective in what they spend and getting a better return. The thrust is stand on your own 2 feet. When Jersey Finance was set up this was the ethos. Senator Walker , no less, who set up Jersey Finance Limited, stated this organisation, Jersey Finance Limited, would only work effectively if the industry considered it to be its own creation and essentially accountable to it. If it were wholly funded by the States it would become yet another government body to be criticised from a safe distance. He then went on to state: "The States would be invited to make a commitment to match the industry's funding pound for pound." So what we committed to was this is Jersey Finance Limited to promote the industry. We want it to belong to you, the industry members, and we shall support you in doing that pound for pound. Initially, in those early years, that is what it was. Around about £400,000. But, like anything else, Government spending grows like Topsy under various Ministers for Economic Development while the ownership of the organisation fades because the accountability is hardly there. Now we have £2.2 million of support from us, through the taxpayer, to this particular body and £650,000 from the industry. It will only work if the industry feels that accountability, we will match it pound for pound. Well, it is now £3 for every £1, that is what we are talking about. That is the matched funding. Is it not time to allow Jersey Finance and its members to stand on their own feet? I believe we should be consistent and that is what we should be doing. I will just refer Members to 2 of the bits of transcript from the recent hearing of the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel. This passage in particular is fascinating. The Deputy of Grouville said: "Sticking with Jersey Finance Limited, as we are on the subject, they are setting up an office in Dubai, are they?" The Chief Executive Officer says: "There is funding for a third office. The exact location is yet to be absolutely finalised. I very much doubt it will be in Dubai. It is going to be in the Middle East somewhere." The Deputy of Grouville says: "Those monies will come from where to set up this office?" The Chief Executive Officer: "Well, the initial funding to pump prime, that came from fiscal stimulus and was within the fiscal stimulus bid, E.D.D. (Economic Development Department) committed to make the recurring element of that funding, that is from 2012 onwards, available from our budget, because if you set up a third representative office the very worst thing you can do is to set it up and then close it down 18 months later." Now what does this mean? This means that in the timed, temporary and targeted, the 3Ts of the fiscal stimulus package that we were told was being strictly adhered to, somebody forgot about one of the Ts. We said: "Okay, have this fiscal stimulus money, set up a new office.

That is a good idea." But this is continuing funding. We are not supposed to be doing this. This is fiscal stimulus. So the commitment is there without this House even having a nod. Ministers for Treasury and Resources and Economic Development effectively agree an economic stimulus package that requires a commitment to continued funding. It is a fait accompli. So what we come into now, in the Annual Business Plan, is something that has already been decided. We set it up with fiscal stimulus, it is supposed to be temporary, knowing full well that we would have to have a budgetary input for that. I am not saying that that office is all well and good. I am not saying close it down, forget it, we are over dependent on the finance sector. What I am saying here is that commitment should not have been made because the Annual Business Plan is where we decide things and the new philosophy says stand on your own feet, subsidy has been withdrawn.

[10:45]

So I am saying that that funding, that £400,000 for that office, should come not from our taxpaying money, in the light of all the other cuts that we are making here, there and everywhere, but should come out of the industry members themselves and their £809 million-worth of profit. I think that is a reasonable position to take, and that is the position I will support. I urge Members to support it equally; what is sauce for the goose, agriculture and tourism, and whatever, our health service (because that is coming up), what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I urge Members to support this proposition.

The Bailiff :

Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded]

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

I wonder if I could get an answer from the Council of Ministers in relation to a table on page 7 in their comments on this proposition. It is stated in there that the States for next year, for 2011, will give a grant of £2.2 million. The J.F.L. [Interruption] .. it is stated that the proposed grant for the J.F.L. of £2.2 million with the J.F.L. putting in £600,000. There is a pro bono figure there of £2 million, which I am presuming is a figure calculated somehow or other by their membership as to what time they put into looking at legislation and various things, which is fair enough. What I would like to know is how much time outside of the £2.2 million is put in by officers, the Minister for Treasury and Resources, et cetera, going along to various functions supporting the .. there does not seem to be a pro bono figure in there to compensate for that, and I would like an answer on that.

3. Senator B.E. Shenton:

As Members will be aware, I also looked at this funding within the Business Plan and I was aware that this funding for Jersey Finance had increased substantially over the last few years. You have got to bear in mind this Island's best times in finance was a time when Jersey Finance did not exist. There is no doubt that we are going through tougher times, partly as a result of the regulation that we now have on the Island to make this a much cleaner, tidier and more compliant Island jurisdiction. But what I felt was that as chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, going through the Business Plan in a dispassionate way, I was reminded of the fact that the Comptroller and Auditor General, back in 2008, said that the funding for Jersey Finance should be cut. Back in 2008 and 2009, not only was it not cut but it was increased fairly substantially. The Council of Ministers have come up with some pro bono figures of work put in by finance industry members to compensate for this. But you have got to bear in mind that before Jersey Finance was formed Colin Powell and his department worked tirelessly with the industry, and there were no pro bono figures there. They were working for the benefit of the Island and primarily for the benefit of themselves as the industry. It is all very well for people to stand up, and it was notable that I believe that the Small Society or one of the members of the Small Society was, I believe, on the board of Jersey Finance itself. I mean this is a substantial increase in budget at a time that we are meant to be cutting our costs to the times ahead. I found it rather amusing, for example, that Jersey Finance have targeted India as a place to extract wealth from the wealthy individuals and corporations down