States Meeting Transcript - 16/09/2010

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

THURSDAY, 16th SEPTEMBER 2010

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

1. Draft Annual Business Plan 2011 (P.99/2010): fourteenth amendment (P.99/2010 Amd.(14))..................................................................................5

1. The Deputy of St. Mary:.................................................................6

1. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:........................................................7
2. Senator P.F. Routier: ....................................................................7
3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : ...................................................7
4. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:........................................................8
5. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:.................................................................9
6. The Deputy of Trinity :...................................................................9
7. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................10

2. Draft Annual Business Plan 2011 (P.99/2010): thirteenth amendment (P.99/2010 (Amd.13)) (paragraph 3)................................................................10

1.2.1 The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................11

3. Draft Annual Business Plan 2011 (P.99/2010): thirteenth amendment (P.99/2010 Amd.(13)) (paragraph 4)................................................................11

1. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................11
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................13
3. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................13
4. The Deputy of Trinity :..................................................................14
5. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................14
6. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................15
7. Deputy D.J. De Sousa of St. Helier:....................................................15
8. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................15
9. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................16
10. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour:..................................................17
11. Senator B.E. Shenton: ...............................................................18
12. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:..................................................18
13. Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence : ..................................................18
14. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:..................................................19
15. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................19

4. Draft Annual Business Plan 2011 (P.99/2010) - third amendment (P.99/2010 Amd.(3)) ...........................................................................................20

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................21
2. The Deputy of Trinity :..................................................................24
3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................25
4. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................26

5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................26

5. Draft Annual Business Plan 2011 (P.99/2010): fifth amendment (P.99/2010 Amd.(5)) (paragraph 1) ............................................................................28

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................28
2. Deputy E.J. Noel: ......................................................................29
3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................29
4. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................30
5. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................31
6. Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier:.....................................................31
7. The Deputy of Trinity :..................................................................31
8. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................32
9. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................32

6. Draft Annual Business Plan 2011 (P.99/2010) amendment (P.99/2010 Amd.(re-issue)) ...........................................................................................33

1. Deputy G.P. Southern (Chairman, Health, Social Security and Housing Scrutiny Panel): 34
2. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................36
3. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................36
4. The Connétable of Grouville :...........................................................37
5. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................37

6. The Deputy of Trinity :..................................................................38
7. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................39

7. Draft Annual Business Plan 2011 (P.99/2010): tenth amendment (P.99/2010 Amd.(10)) ...........................................................................................40

1.7.1 Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................40 Deputy C.H. Egré of St. Peter:................................................................42

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

STATEMENTS ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY........................43

2. Statement by the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding the report of the Committee of Inquiry: Reg's Skips Limited............................................43

2.1 Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):.....................43

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................44
2. Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John : ........................................................44
3. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................45
4. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................45
5. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................45
6. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................45
7. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................46
8. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................46
9. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................46
10. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................46

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption..............................................................46

3. Draft Annual Business Plan 2011 (P.99/2010): eighth amendment (P.99/2010 Amd.(8)) (paragraph 4) ............................................................................47

1. Deputy T.M. Pitman (Vice Chairman, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel): ..47

1. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:........................................................48
2. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade : ........................................................49
3. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:..........................................................49
4. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................50
5. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................51
6. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................51
7. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................51
8. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..............................................................52
9. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................54
10. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................54
11. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................55
12. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:........................................................55
13. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..............................................................56
14. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................56
15. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................57

2. Draft Annual Business Plan 2011 (P.99/2010) fifth amendment (P.99/2010 Amd.(5)) (paragraph 2) ............................................................................58

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................59
2. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................60
3. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................60
4. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:..................................................................61
5. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..............................................................61
6. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter:...................................................63

7. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................63
8. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................63
9. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................64
10. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................64
11. Connétable P.F.M. Hanning of St. Saviour:..........................................65
12. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................65
13. Deputy J.B. Fox:....................................................................66
14. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................67
15. Deputy J.A. Hilton:..................................................................67
16. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..............................................................68
17. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen : ......................................................68
18. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................69 Deputy T.M.Pitman:.........................................................................70 Senator B.I. Le Marquand:....................................................................70

3. Draft Annual Business Plan 2011 (P.99/2010): seventh amendment (P.99/2010 Amd.(7)) (paragraphs 16 and 17) .......................................................70

1. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................71
2. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..............................................................71
3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................73
4. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................73
5. Deputy J.A. Hilton:.....................................................................74
6. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................75
7. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................76
8. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................76

9. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................77
10. Senator A. Breckon:.................................................................77

11. Senator B.E. Shenton: ...............................................................78

4. Draft Annual Business Plan 2011 (P.99/2010): thirteenth amendment (P.99/2010 Amd.(13)) (paragraph 5)................................................................79

3.4.1 The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................80

5. Draft Annual Business Plan 2011 (P.99/2010): fourteenth amendment (P.99/2010 Amd.(14)) (paragraph 2)................................................................80

1. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................80
2. Senator F.E. Cohen:....................................................................82
3. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:..................................................82
4. The Connétable of Grouville :...........................................................83
5. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................83
6. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................83
7. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................84

6. Draft Annual Business Plan 2011 (P.99/2010): fifth amendment (P.99/2010 Amd.(5)) (paragraph 3) ............................................................................85

3.6.1 Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................86

7. Draft Annual Business Plan 2011 (P.99/2010): fifth amendment (P.99/2010 Amd.(5)) (paragraph 3) - amendment.............................................................86

1. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence : .............................................87
2. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement:.......................................................88
3. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................88
4. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................89

8. Draft Annual Business Plan 2011 (P.99/2010): fifth amendment (P.99/2010 Amd.(5)) (paragraph 3) - as amended.............................................................90

1. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................91
2. Deputy J.B. Fox:........................................................................91
3. Deputy A.K.F. Green:..................................................................91
4. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................91
5. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................91
6. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................92
7. Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................92
8. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................92
9. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................92

3.9. Draft Annual Business Plan 2011 (P.99/2010): fifth amendment (P.99/2010 Amd.(5)) (paragraph4) ............................................................................94

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................94
2. Deputy A.K.F. Green:..................................................................95
3. Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................95
4. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................97
5. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................97
6. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................98
7. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................98
8. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................99

[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): fourteenth amendment (P.99/2010 Amd.(14))

The Bailiff :

We come next to the amendment of the Deputy of St. Mary, which is shown as number 30, but, Deputy , looking at 30 and 31 they are part of the same amendment. Although they have been listed as 2, in fact they are both paragraph 1 of your fourteenth amendment. So I would suggest that you take them together, although have separate votes. I think they should have been listed as one amendment.

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

I think it would be clearer if I took them separately, Sir, if I may. It is not the same principles. The Bailiff :

I think you ought to take them together because they are listed as paragraph 1. They are listed, in fact, as one amendment.

The Deputy of St. Mary :

On looking at this, I had decided to ask leave to withdraw (b). That is why I am slightly confused. I have looked at the reply carefully of the Minister and am satisfied that this is one that could possibly be ..

The Bailiff :

If you are withdrawing (b) the point is academic.

The Deputy of St. Mary :

I am sorry to have given such short notice but that is the way it has to be. The Bailiff :

You are withdrawing what is now number 31 in the list, so we have just got the debate on 30, which is the first part of your amendment. Very well. I will ask the Greffier to read that.

Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin :

Sir, before we start this morning could you just crave a little indulgence for one of the longest serving States Members? I am very concerned about where we are today and I do not want us to stifle any debate. However, I would ask the proposers to think of 2 options: (1) think carefully and seriously as to what chances they have of succeeding with their proposals, their amendments; or (2) if they do feel they are in with a chance that we just resolve ourselves to having the proposer make the proposition and the Minister respond and then go to the vote. With hand on my heart I just wonder how much difference it makes of what goes in between. So if I could make that suggestion maybe, with all seriousness. I do not want to stifle debate but do we really want to go through another tortuous day?

The Bailiff :

The Greffier will read number 30, which is paragraph A of paragraph 1 of the 14th amendment. The Greffier of the States:

After the words "withdrawn from the Consolidated Fund in 2011" insert the words "except that the net revenue expenditure of the Health and Social Services Department shall be increased by £51,000 in order to maintain the department's work in health protection and not proceed with the Comprehensive Spending Review proposal on page 62 of the plan, HSS-S1, Restructure Environmental Health/Health Protection Department', and the net revenue expenditure of the Treasury and Resources Department shall be decreased by the same amount by reducing the allocation for restructuring costs."

1. The Deputy of St. Mary :

As I went through the list of cuts and savings I was struck by this particular one, among others, because it was listed in the split between savings and cuts given to us by the Minister for Treasury and Resources in answer to my written question of 19th July. It was listed as an efficiency saving and yet there was "minus 2 F.T.E.s (full-time employees)" opposite it, so a loss of 2 posts. I found that very difficult to reconcile and so looked into it a little bit more. I also notice that in the line below there was "reduced public health admin staff costs" in a separate box. So it did look as if this was possibly not really an efficiency saving, but a cut. So that is why I was alerted to this. Health Protection is one of those invest to save' areas. It is not front line, as some people would define it, and that is something that worries me when I see answers to written questions from the Health and Social Services Department. I have seen it twice in answers to written questions, both this year and last year, where they say when they are making cutbacks or savings: "Well, we prioritised by looking to see whether it was front line, whether it was urgent, whether it affected acute needs." The implication of that is that some things can go on the backburner and this is the sort of thing where the risk is that it goes on the backburner. But for goodness sake have we not seen the results of putting things that are not urgent and are not acute on to the backburner? In the paper last night there was the headline of £600,000 on the Serious Case Review. That was a result of putting things that were not urgent, were not acute, on the backburner. I think it is a false economy and we do have to learn not to do things like that. On the other side, I read in our esteemed local paper - I think it was on Monday night - the consultant microbiologist reported talking about the newly introduced screening for A.I.D.S. (acquired immune deficiency syndrome) for the H.I.V. (human immunodeficiency virus) and he said to the J.E.P. (Jersey Evening Post) that this was cost-neutral because although there was a cost upfront it would be saved because of the early diagnosis and therefore the better prospects for those people who got earlier diagnosis. That is exactly the sort of area we are looking at here. Just a few of the functions of Health Protection are they look after our bathing water quality, monitor it and issue notices if it deteriorates to the point where it might be dangerous. They look after our shellfish quality. Some shellfish are eaten raw so there has to be monitoring and safety of that. There were 2 major outbreaks of food poisoning in 2007 and one of those was traced back to a product which then, through the channels, went right up to European level and led to an E.U. (European Union)-wide product recall. That is the area that we are talking about. So, having outlined the importance of health protection, I come now to what the annex says. I would like to have been reassured by what the annex said but the annex comments on this cut are not lucid or transparent. I will not read it out but it is a dazzling array of figures, going plus-minus, plus-minus, plus-minus, and you end up really not understanding whether it is a cut or a saving or what it is. So I lodged this amendment and in the reply of the Minister we do get an interesting version of what this is about. No, we do not, that is the next step. In her reply the Minister says the reduction .. I beg your pardon. No, it is. I did research some things with further emails and then I get confused about which bit of research is which. It is in her reply and it is a whole new ball game suddenly: "The proposal for restructuring reduces levels of management without affecting front line staffing levels." Amen to that. "The proposal extends the support for inter-island working in an area that has common ground, both in terms of role and national identity, and makes use of common professional resource across the islands." Well, that is news to me. Normally when we succeed in co-operating with our sister island in Guernsey - and this does seem to be an area where the issues are very parallel with marine protection and so on - one hears it trumpeted in the J.E.P., as it was in the case of the J.C.R.A. (Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority) amalgamating across the 2 islands. So I would have

expected to have heard about this blazoned in the J.E.P. but we only just find out about it now: "Support for inter-island working in an area that has common ground. This is part of redefining and reconfiguring of the role and delivery of the Health Protection Service at a time when changes are being implemented nationally."

[09:45]

Then it says about the savings. It releases 1.6 F.T.E. posts at management level and an additional £51,000 into the C.S.R. (Comprehensive Spending Review) process. So that sounds well and good and I am just testing. As the Deputy of St. Martin has pointed out, I find this quite interesting new information and I want to hear how this works from the Minister. It is an important area. We cannot cut it because of what I said about the folly of cutting off your nose to spite your face and it would be a false economy if it is a cut. So I want the Minister to explain in a little bit more detail what this inter-island working consists of.

The Bailiff :

Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded]

1. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier :

I always respect the research normally that the Deputy of St. Mary puts in and 4 times he said that he has researched this in the J.E.P.  [Laughter] Now, if he really had a problem with this inter- island item I will explain it very clearly. While we were restructuring at Health we had a present fall into our laps. One of our very high-ranking health promotion officers went for the job of senior health promotion officer in Guernsey and being a woman - no disrespect - she saw straight away how the things across both islands could work. She is working greatly with the staff she has been working with for years and at the moment it is costing us nothing. This is the foot in. This happened probably a few months ago when we discussed it round the Ministerial table: "Well, this is great", but she came to us and said: "Do you know what, there is so much work in Guernsey that I have been doing in Jersey. It does not need all these officers across." It is not front line staff, it is not your man going round with thermometers making sure the meat and the fish are at the right temperature; I hope I can really convince you all, it is a total restructure. I am sure the Deputy would have withdrawn this if he had only just come and spoken to myself, the Minister or the other Assistant Minister. [Approbation] It is straight forward.

2. Senator P.F. Routier:

May I congratulate the Health Department on such a good initiative. I hope that Members will reject this proposition and we will get on to the next one. [Approbation]

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

I do not think it is wise to reject it and, having been on the Environment Scrutiny Panel, I will tell Members very briefly why. It is all very well that we have joined-up governments in different islands using joint resources but when we cannot even get our departments within the same island working together what hope is there for Health Protection? I will give evidence on that. On 10th February 2010 in a private meeting with the Minister for Planning and Environment the Environment Scrutiny Panel, consisting of the Chairman, the Deputy of St. John, the Deputy of St. Mary and myself, interviewed the Minister, the Assistant Minister, the Chief Officer, the Assistant Director of Environmental Protection and the Principal Historic Environment Officer. Without going through it in great detail, because I think there is about 140 pages of transcript here (I would be delighted to share with anybody) we looked at the issues of health protection and also contamination in regards to the water and what was happening with the water. In the next year we have got to deal with the £400 million that we have to find to deal with our new sewage problem. The issues about the water contamination and the effluent going into the sea and the new E.U. bathing directive ..

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Point of order, Sir. The Deputy has said that it was a private briefing. Is that correct? Perhaps the Chairman of the Scrutiny Panel could put us right.

The Bailiff :

No, the Deputy is speaking and he is allowed to speak. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

I have got parliamentary privilege and if I need to I will use that, but I am going to say what I have got to say, even if people do not like it and even if they do not want to listen to it. The point I was trying to make, if I can just gather my thoughts, was that we have new standards on the horizon through the E.U. in relation to our water quality and our bathing quality. We have seen most recently what has happened to our fishing industry in terms of the pollution that occurred within the shellfish. The only reason that that emerged on to the floor of this Assembly was because there was a fire alarm in this building as we assembled that morning and we all had to exit the building and I overheard the Minister for Planning and Environment talking to the Minister for Treasury and Resources about: "What are we going to do about the oysters at Grouville ?" I came back in. At the time the Assistant Minister, who is now the Minister for Health and Social Services, could not answer my question and you, Sir, ruled for the first time in my favour that I could redirect my question from the Assistant Minister back to the Minister whose responsibility it was. The Minister then proceeded to issue us with a briefing note and it made the news that there was serious poisoning and problems with E.coli in the oysters. When these things are discovered by chance, that can affect many people's lives in extremely detrimental ways - possibly killing them - and we have to look at who has brought those to our attention and they are our Health Protection Officers and our Environmental Protection Officers. I will just read from this one line. It would have been a shorter submission, had I not had to retrace my steps. This is one extract to back up Deputy Wimberley and what he is saying. I said: "It just seems that, and forgive me for saying so and I know you have been answering a lot of questions, I would like to ask in your area of responsibility what can be done." The Assistant Director for Environmental Protection says: "I think predominantly it is .. I think there can always be improvements in liaison between, for example, Health Protection and Environmental Protection Department." When we have got Health Protection and Environmental Protection in Jersey not even talking to each other and they are at the hospital and the old maternity hospital, what chance is there for health protection in Jersey if we put one of them in Guernsey and rely upon that one in Guernsey? It is just not going to happen. Look at the air quality strategy: where is that? Promised to us at the end of this year, a year later than we asked for it, a year later than the Strategic Plan said it would be in place. It is not even going to be on the horizon for the next 2 years. Health Protection in this Island is vitally important and while the States remains the number one polluter in a vast majority of areas, with only the ability for the Attorney General to take us to court, we need to protect the public. In order to do that we need to protect the Environment Department and the Health Protection Department and we need to get those 2 units working more closely together, as evidenced by this document, and talking to each other before we think about some grandiose idea that we can outsource it all to Guernsey, because

they are going to outsource it as well.

4. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

I am going to speak to all the health amendments, if that is okay, and then after that, mindful of the comments of the Deputy of St. Martin, I am going to retire from the Chamber and go and do some real work because I have got work to catch-up on for my constituents, ironically due to ongoing problems in the Health Service. I will give one example and some Members here will be aware of the issue. It is to do with Oakwell in St. Brelade , which is a respite home. It has 4 beds in it and it provides a very valuable service, good value for money. Rather I should say it is a good value service for the users. It is parents who have usually chronically disabled children. I know that there are Members in the Assembly who will be able to appreciate directly what I am talking about. It provides a very valuable maybe one night every 6 to 7 or 8 weeks for those parents just to be able to relax, either at home, to go out and to enjoy things that perhaps we take for granted. At the moment, however, because of problems in the system one of those beds has had to be permanently taken up by one child in a case which I think may be similar to the Family X case. I may be wrong there and I am sure when the Minister replies ..

Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :

Could I just break in here? I think there are areas of confidentiality. I am concerned it is one specific child but ..

Deputy M. Tadier :

I am not mentioning any specifics. I would be grateful if the Minister later wants to give added clarification, because unfortunately some of us are having to work in the dark here because facts have not been forthcoming.

The Bailiff :

Deputy , sorry, what has this got to do with the Environmental Health matter? Deputy M. Tadier :

Sir, I am just talking about the health budget, the risk that we take if we are cutting the health budget in general.

The Bailiff :

I think you must concentrate on this particular aspect of the health budget. Deputy M. Tadier :

I will sit down and make that speech when it is more pertinent.

5. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I think it was Neil Armstrong when he landed on the moon said that: "This is one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." I would go as far as to say that what Health has done here is, as far as the Health Department  is concerned, a major step forward in the modernisation of the provision of public services. Working together with Guernsey, or indeed France or indeed other places, is exactly what we need to be considering as an option. It makes perfect sense and I would like to congratulate the Minister for Health and Social Services and the department for all the work they have done to deliver this. We need to do more of it in all areas of delivery of service in the public sector. I would make one other very brief comment. I was disappointed, I have to say, with the comments from Deputy Le Claire. In particular, if he was using what was private information from a private meeting it does not encourage Ministers to be as open as they would want to be in

the Scrutiny function. I would hope that that is respected in the future, because certainly from my point of view I always want to be as open as I possibly can with the Scrutiny Panel and it is the way in which we can deliver good quality government. I was disappointed by his comments, if indeed that was information that came from a private meeting.

6. The Deputy of Trinity :

I will just be brief and I thank the Minister for Economic Development for his support. I feel I am doomed if I do and doomed if I do not. With pressures of working we have been told time and time again we should be working with Guernsey, and here is an opportunity to begin that work. There is still much work to be done in looking at it but the work is beginning and it is looking very positive and it will happen. Regarding Deputy Le Claire about working with environmental areas within Planning and Environment, yes, it is an area that we should be working closer together in, and it is an area that we are and we will continue to do so. We are going through very tough times so everything that we will be doing will be looked at as a way of closer collaboration and this is the most important one to begin with.

The Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak? I call upon the Deputy of St. Mary to reply.

7. The Deputy of St. Mary :

I just want to make a couple of points, the first about Deputy Le Claire who has been impugned. My recollection of that meeting was that it was a Ministerial hearing, that it was not private. That is my recollection and, in any case, there certainly was not anything confidential in what he said.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

On a point of order, Sir, rather than get the Deputy into trouble as well, for the sake of clarity it was a private briefing and I will reserve the rest of my comments for another time.

The Deputy of St. Mary :

I stand corrected. The second point is just to emphasise the importance of what Health Protection do. A consignment of oysters was turned away by a Scandinavian country because of contamination issues. That has a reputational impact on the Island. We are not talking about unimportant issues here. The third point I want to make in reply to the Deputy Minister is that if the whole thing had been more clearly set out in the annex then we could have avoided this debate. I do not really see that I have to go running about trying to find out information that should have been there in the first place. However, taking on board what Deputy Le Claire said and my own view that this is a very important area, we are going to watch on the panel, I am sure, and other Members too, that this efficiency saving is just that: that it really is an efficiency saving and not a cut and that our services in this area are not affected but with the assurances of the Minister and the Deputy Minister I think I am going to ask leave for the House not to go to a vote on this.

The Bailiff :

Does the Assembly agree to this being withdrawn? Very well, it is withdrawn. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement :

I wonder if Members would consider, if they are going to withdraw propositions, that they do it before the debate rather than after it. It is absolutely ludicrous. [Approbation]

Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :

Can I intervene here and just say that really we have now had it 3 or 4 times where Members have stood up to withdraw after we have started debating on the basis they have now spoken to the Minister involved. Why not speak to the Minister before you bring the amendment? It is obviously common sense not to come here and waste our time with this sort of situation.

[10:00]

Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier :

In fairness to that, it is a bit difficult when people approach about withdrawing and you are told to wait until the matter comes up.

2. Draft Annual Business Plan 2011 (P.99/2010): thirteenth amendment (P.99/2010 (Amd.13)) (paragraph 3)

The Bailiff :

We come next to number 32, which is amendment number 13, paragraph 3, lodged by the Deputy of St. Mary , and I will ask the Greffier to read the amendment.

The Greffier of the States:

After the words "withdrawn from the Consolidated Fund in 2011" insert the words "except the net revenue expenditure of the Health and Social Services Department shall be increased by £400,000 in order to maintain services provided by the department and not proceed with the entire comprehensive spending review proposal to save £750,000 on page 62 of the plan, HSS-S20, Procurement Savings from Corporate Procurement Project', and the net revenue expenditure of the Treasury and Resources Department shall be decreased by the same amount by reducing the allocation for restructuring costs."

1.2.1 The Deputy of St. Mary :

I shall be very brief on this. The reply of the Minister for Health in her comments, which I will read out and then shut up: "The proposed efficiency saving for procurement is associated with the continued development of using agreed U.K. (United Kingdom), highly likely to be N.H.S. (National Health Service), negotiated health supplies contracts to drive down prices for consumables. Savings also occur from enhancement and monitoring of basic financial controls and the ability for Health and Social Services to comply with the financial direction for procurement of goods and services. The scheme attempts to source the same or similar supplies at a lower price and hence is an efficiency saving." That is a wonderful glimpse into the world of our public sector in certain areas. I notice the  J.E.P. pulled out a quote from me yesterday to the effect that everything was lean and we delivered fantastically good public services. I hold to that but, of course, there are exceptions, there are bits of fat, and this is clearly one of them. This is an astonishing admission here about procuring in line with N.H.S. contracts. I used to work in N.H.S. supplies; they have been around for a long time those contracts. Given this assurance, it is something that should have been done before but there you are, it is being done now, and I ask leave to withdraw this amendment.

The Bailiff :

At this stage you do not need leave, Deputy , on the basis that debate has not opened. So you withdraw it; is that right? Very well.

3. Draft Annual Business Plan 2011 (P.99/2010): thirteenth amendment (P.99/2010 Amd.(13)) (paragraph 4)

The Bailiff :

We come next to number 33, which is paragraph 4 of the thirteenth amendment, and I will ask the Greffier to read the amendment.

The Greffier of the States:

After the word "withdrawn from the Consolidated Fund in 2011" insert the words "except that the net revenue expenditure of the Health and Social Services Department shall be increased by £140,000 in order to maintain services provided by or with funds from the department and not proceed with the Comprehensive Spending Review proposal on page 62 of the plan, HSS-S22, Recurrent Reduction in all H. and S.S. third party provider S.L.A.s (service level agreements)', and the net revenue expenditure of the Treasury and Resources Department shall be decreased by the same amount by reducing the allocation for restructuring costs."

1. The Deputy of St. Mary :

I just want to put the context into Members' minds on this one. We are being told that this is an efficiency saving and in that context I want to tell Members about why I am suspicious about that claim before I go into the detail of this amendment. A further amendment lower down the list is about the Viscount's Department and in the list of cuts and savings - which is a cut and which is saving - of the Council of Ministers' savings, which I asked for the detail of on 19th July, under the Viscount's Department we have: "Delete a vacant post in the Viscount's Department", £33,000, I think, and that is listed as an efficiency saving, but it is not. It is not an efficiency saving, it is a cut. I did some research on that and asked a question of the people behind the cuts at the Chief Minister's Department, or the officers who answer these questions, and the answer was: "The post has been unappointed for some 3 years with all the staff in the Désastre Section of the Viscount's Department, as well as the Viscount, covering aspects of the role", so other people fill in.

The Bailiff :

Deputy , you are talking about some completely different amendment. The Deputy of St. Mary :

What I am doing is the argument is that the S.L.A. cut of £140,000 is being presented to us as an efficiency saving being driven through third party suppliers who have deals with the Health Department to supply X, Y and Z. This is being listed as an efficiency saving but if you look at another area you will find that an efficiency saving is not an efficiency saving at all. In black and white it is a cut, it represents a reduction in service level, and so one has to wonder whether this is in fact what it says on the tin. That is what I am saying. I am drawing an analogy, but I have drawn it now so I will come back to the S.L.A. issue. What the Health Department are doing here is looking at the contracts, the service level agreements they have with third party providers, and reckoning that they can get savings out of these suppliers at no cost to services. There are a couple of issues here. One is whether these third party suppliers are that inefficient that you can just find savings. There is always this assumption that there is always some inefficiency there and I would question that assumption. Bodies in the community who are doing work on behalf of the community and are being paid by the States to do that is quite a good model, you do tend to get a leaner and more dedicated performance that way, and yet there is an assumption built into this amendment that we can always lean down on people and squeeze another bit of extra product out for less money, and I do question that. I asked for a list of who these third party providers were. That was denied me. The biggest is Family Nursing Services but I do not know who the others are. The issue here is, firstly, are these savings to be found; can we be sure that this will not be cuts in areas that are quite likely to be sensitive, because these third party providers are likely to be in specialist areas, although we do not know who they are. The second issue is the way the States value people in the community doing work for the community. As we go forward into an age where there will not be so much money around, where resources are short and where we are going to have to learn to live in a very different way, the community is going to be more and more important, and the resilience and the third leg of the stool, business, government and civil society -

civil society is going to be more and more important. This amendment seems to me to say: "We do not value you as much as we should." I do stress that third party providers, people working in civil society, are likely to be specialist areas like Alzheimer's - I am guessing, I just do not know - and the people with the decompression thing and so on. They are likely to be quite specialist areas and they are likely to be cutting edge, they are likely to innovate, and what I suspect we are saying here is: "We do not really value you. We are going to squeeze until you are dry" and that is not the way to treat these public civil society bodies. So it is really a challenge to the Minister to explain that. Her response here is, to my mind, not satisfactory. It simply reiterates that we can get these savings out of these bodies and I am very unhappy with the underlying approach of this. I am very concerned about that we should be encouraging civil society. In the same way as we rejected, in a sense, the Battle of Flowers and all the work that went into it yesterday, here we are again saying: "We can get more out of you. We can get more out of you." I do not think that is an appropriate way to go and I look forward to the comments of the Minister and her Assistant Minister.

The Bailiff :

Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded]

2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

I am addressing the remarks of the proposer and the fact that he has received a lot of criticism and is continuing to receive a lot of criticism on the grounds that he has not had the opportunity to speak to the Ministers to determine exactly what it is within the Business Plan that he wants to drill

down into. I have just been chastised by the Minister for Economic Development, who is a member of the Council of Secret Society over here who do not want openness, for revealing one thing in a private meeting: that 2 departments were not talking to each other. That is all I said, that 2 departments were not talking to each other and I am chastised for it. With this new system of government we have got, we have got Scrutiny Departments that investigate Ministers, who meet - often in private - so the information that the Scrutiny Panel wants will not be able to be used and will not be able to be shared, and therefore Scrutiny Panels are then criticised and Members are criticised when they bring amendments or questions for not having done the work. The way it is set up is that they want it all kept behind closed doors. As I have said before, look at the Part A' agenda on the Council of Ministers; it is all Part B.' The proposer of this amendment is concerned, as I am, that the recent costs in health, as was with Deputy Tadier , have somehow disappeared in the ether overnight and we can afford all of these cuts, the £600,000 that a couple of Members have mentioned on the cost of the advocates in relation to the Family X. Let us not forget the £3.1 million it has cost to send those children away and how much money it will cost the States when they come back and sue. So my point is this: while the Ministers are standing up and chastising me for sharing information that departments are not talking to each other, maybe they might be wiser to sit down and talk about how more open they could be with States Members so that we are not in this mess in the first place and then people such as the Deputy of St. Mary and I would not need to stand up and question Ministers on the floor of this House because that is the only way we can get the information out to the public, just as when I was on the Health Committee when they wanted to chastise the Medical Officer of Health for revealing the fact that there were some issues in the water that might turn babies blue. The Deputy of St. Martin was on the same committee as I at the time and members of that committee wanted to chastise the Medical Officer of Health. The Chief Executive Officer pointed out, quite rightly, what the situation is with the Medical Officer of Health. You cannot stymie the Medical Officer of Health. The Medical Officers of Health for the good of the community can say what they want, when they want, to who they want, how they want, whenever they want, and that is how it should be for the protection of the community. That is why under parliamentary privilege, when I talk about health protection issues, about departments not talking to each other, I might break some Members' agreement on a private meeting but the trouble with the issue is it is not about me talking about small issues like that, it is about all of the private meetings that these Ministers have with scrutiny and the fact that they are all intertwined with secrecy. That is why we are in this mess and that is why I do not believe that we have got enough money in health. So do not look for 1(1)(h) support from me in

the future when you have got court cases and everything else you have not budgeted for.

3. Senator P.F. Routier:

This amendment does obviously ring warning bells for me as I was involved with 2 organisations that have S.L.A.s. I know certainly for one of them, Mencap, who run a respite service for children, we have had discussions with the department regarding how we can make savings and I do believe we have come to a reasonably satisfactory conclusion whereby the staff training that Mencap undertake through Les Amis will in future be provided by Health themselves. So there is a saving that can be made through that. So I think we have come to a conclusion that that is a satisfactory way of the Health Department not having to fund the staff training.

[10:15]

So that is a tick in the box for that. The question I would like to ask the Minister for Health and Social Services and her team is over all the S.L.A.s which are around the place: have the negotiations been concluded with those third party providers for next year? I am not convinced that they are concluded yet and they may need still some more work to be done on that side. I know with my Les Amis hat on we are working to the best of our ability to try and find some savings but it is the conclusion of that which we need to get to the bottom of. There is a will to make some savings but it would be good to understand from the Minister and the team what progress has been made with all of the third party providers.

4. The Deputy of Trinity :

Just a couple of points. First of all I really would like to say that I value all the third sector organisations, private as well as charitable organisations, that support the work of Health and Social Services. Some of them are supported by volunteers too and I would like to place on record all the good work that they do for all us Islanders. [Approbation] We have 25 S.L.A.s at present and the budget of that is £9.1 million. The biggest budget, obviously as you would expect, goes to Family Nursing Services who do fantastic work in providing primary care in the community. We have that range from Family Nursing Services down to very small grants; £15,000 I think is the smallest one. I am very happy to give the Deputy of St. Mary the list of grants. He only had to ask and I am very willing to do that, as I am very willing - no, I am not going to give way - to meet you at any time. I have always said to my staff, and that applies to everybody else, that I have an open door policy and I tend to stick by it. My officers and I have met all those organisations that we have a service level agreement with to discuss the C.S.R. process and all of them are acutely aware of the financial problems that lie ahead with this Island, and I was very heartened by this. I would even go on to say they really are one step ahead and they know exactly where the Island is, the predicament that we are in, perhaps even better than some States Members. Work is going to go on with each provider and where the savings can be achieved and that work can still continue and will continue. The open dialogue that we have with all the S.L.A.s is important and it is an ongoing one. Some we know will not achieve any savings; some have even offered immediately to have a saving. So there is work to be done there but we feel that the reduced level is achievable and I urge Members to reject this amendment.

5. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I came into this Assembly some years ago with a reputation of being an angry man. I think that was perhaps a little unfair but nevertheless that was an allegation levied on me. I note today that I have had the effect of making Deputy Le Claire an angry man this morning and I just thought I would correct that record, very briefly, so that I can clarify the position. I was not seeking to chastise the good Deputy ; I was simply saying that I would be disappointed if he broke a confidence from confidential meetings. Just to be absolutely clear to Members: I think it is important that Ministers share information with Scrutiny and share information ..

The Bailiff :

Senator, I am sorry. I allowed the Deputy to stray into this area in order to respond to what you had said. I do not think I am going to allow a further response, because it is not directly related to the amendment.

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

That is fine, Sir. I had one other point that I was going to make, and which is also not related so you will probably stop me before I finish, or maybe before I start, but it is very quick. It is a point, if I may, on the subject - and there is relevance - of cost savings and efficiencies. It does strike me that a number of amendments have been brought and a number of amendments have been withdrawn at the last minute. We had an example of the Deputy of St. Mary a few moments ago. He is not the only one. Departments spend considerable time preparing responses and defence to these amendments and to withdraw at the very last moment, without first having made an attempt to speak to the department and find out the true facts, is wasting money. We are here to save money.

I really think it is important that we do things in the right order in that respect and I thank you for allowing me to make that particular point of a general nature.

6. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

I will be very brief. The Minister has clarified the number of recipients under the S.L.A.s from her department and, as most of you know, Citizens Advice Bureau, where I used to be the manager, was one of those recipients. I would like to re-emphasise that we, and I am sure many of the other recipients of money from Health and Social Services, are very aware of our responsibilities and we are aware that we need to make savings in common with everybody else. I think over the years it is fair to say that we have now developed some nice-to-have services under S.L.A.s rather than some more essential services and so it is only right that we should be looking at those. What I would just say in summary is that the States are moving to 3-year budgeting and it would be very helpful for organisations who receive money under S.L.A.s to have that similar facility. It is very difficult going from one year to the next with uncertainty and 3-year budgets would be very helpful to those organisations.

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

I will be brief, as always. Can I just say that I fully understand why Deputy Martin made the speech that she did on Tuesday, and I am going to make a very similar one now. We are in danger of making ourselves look absolutely ridiculous. As Members can tell by the 2 long days that we have already had, we have been talking about budgets and cuts for 2011. Sitting the last 2 days until 6.30 p.m. incurs extra costs as well. We have had the Greffier and their officers sat here, we have had the ushers sat here, and already the general feeling of the House has been to go with the Annual Business Plan that has been put before us. Many people have brought amendments, which they fully have a right to do, but so far not one of those amendments has got through, even though some have been extremely close. I feel that we would have much more to say if we were just to vote either for or against the actual Business Plan. I know where my vote will be and I will vote against the Business Plan because I do not fully agree with it. I feel that the C.S.R. has been the wrong way around, that Ministers started at the bottom and worked up. If we had started at the top..

The Bailiff

Deputy , I do understand Members wish to make these sorts of points but we are at the moment debating the Deputy of St. Mary's amendment and if everyone speaks about the process we will be even longer.

Deputy D.J. De Sousa:

Okay, Sir, I will be brief. I am nearly finished. If we had started in the right place this would not have happened. It has already been explained by Health that this has been fully looked into. I had issues with some of the Business Plan but I went to Ministers and spoke to them about it. If more Members had done that we would not be where we are today. [Approbation]

8. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

New Members may not know that I chaired the Grants Committee for the Health Committee back in the old days. There were 2 things that were painfully obvious. Many things being done by the third sector are delivered a great deal more efficiently than through H. and S.S. (Health and Social Services). I will not mention them. Some of our charities also work in similar fields or they need similar premises and facilities. They can work together and share facilities and premises. Karen Huchet had taken up that torch but it seems to have been dropped somewhere. This is essential work. Some of our charities, with respect, work in silos. We need to get them out of the silos, encourage them, and this particular cut should encourage this mode of thinking and concentrate

9. Deputy M. Tadier :

Before I carry on with my speech, can I ask for a point of clarification as to whether Oakwell, for example, and also the Four Season Highlands facility have anything to do with this particular S.L.A.?

The Bailiff :

No, that is for you to know, Deputy . If you think it has, speak. Deputy M. Tadier :

It is not always easy to get information out of the Ministers. The Bailiff :

It is not question time.

Deputy M. Tadier :

Okay, Sir, I will carry on with my speech. It is relevant anyway. I know that Highlands is a private nursing home, which the States is putting people in at the moment. Now, of course we need the private sector, we need charitable organisations. The trouble is I am very concerned about Highlands in particular for 2 reasons. First of all is the fact that there has been recently an inquiry going on into that. I was directly involved and went to see one of the inspectors of the private homes at Le Bas Centre, because an employee was taken on there. She was not given adequate training, either for health and safety or for the job itself, and then when she got there she discovered that there were lots of inadequacies in the system. The concept in theory of Highlands is a very good one in the sense it tries to cater for very young people from, let us say, about 18 years old, some of whom have autism, right up to people of 70 or 80 years old who may have ..

The Deputy of Trinity :

Can I get a point of clarification from you? I am not too sure if this is still an ongoing inquiry or not.

Deputy M. Tadier :

The Minister is not sure now. Is she asking me? The Bailiff :

Carry on, Deputy .

Deputy M. Tadier :

I did not understand the point. The inquiry has taken place now but it has been a very recent one and in my opinion it has been a whitewash, and I can give more information about that later on.

The Bailiff :

Not in relation to this amendment, Deputy . Deputy M. Tadier :

No, I did not mean that, Sir. I mean in due time after this debate. The sort of initial problem, I do not think Highlands is fit for purpose and I am very worried if we are putting people into this private sector when it is not fit for purpose, and that seriously needs to be looked into. The second point is that it has come to my attention that Highlands has significant debt.

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Sir, I think this is taking unfair advantage of the privileged communication. The Bailiff :

It is a matter for individual Members. Clearly, if Members make sweeping assertions about other institutions this can be very damaging. One hopes that Members research their facts carefully and think carefully before making such assertions but under parliamentary privilege they have the right to do so if they wish to.

Deputy M. Tadier :

Everything I say here is done in good faith. I do it because I have people who I believe have researched well and if it is not the case I would prefer to make a statement like that rather than to assist in cover-up, which I think may be what is going on here. So those are the 2 reasons I am very worried about Highlands in particular. I am also worried because directly, as I have said with Oakwell, we are saying we do not worry about the fact that Oakwell has too few beds, which affects people not only in my constituency but throughout the whole Island, because they are saying they can go to Highlands, which I do not think is necessarily being able to cope at this point with people of that age and of such a diverse range of interests. So the point I am making in general is that we should not be looking to cut any funding in this area and we should not be cutting any money to the health service at all, in my opinion. If there are genuine savings that are to be made they should be reinvested until we have sorted out these problems. I think Deputy Le Claire's speech was very pertinent. It is very interesting that when we try and get these things out in the open in possibly the only way we can, because we come across such frustrations, that we get Members hopping-up all over the Assembly to try and shut us up. I am surprised that Senator Syvret lasted as long as he did, because it is almost like we are saying these problems can go on. We are allowed to waste £600,000 due to neglect. We are allowed to incur an extra £3.1 million because we have not put the right services in place, even though we are a low tax model. But as long as Finance is okay .. that is the massive increase, that is the main thing that the Treasury Minister was interested in getting through.

[10:30]

So I think we do need to get back to basics. We need to worry about the social issues. I wonder if this debate was taking place a while back and we did have the likes of John Le Marquand, whether it would be the finance men who were winning or whether the social conscience would be coming through a little bit more than it should be.

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

Right in the beginning of this whole debate the Corporate Services Panel have been doing a review and we had a public hearing with the Health Department on 17th June, whereby the Minister for Health and Social Services and the Deputy Chief Executive were in front of us. Although we were not able to look into the full extent of the savings within the Health Department, because that was not our remit, they did explain an area of S.L.A.s and I will just repeat what the Deputy Chief Executive said in this respect. No, it was a public hearing on 17th June, which can be researched: "I think with particular regard to that, one area we were looking at was without S.L.A.s because there is a real danger of being penny-wise and pound-foolish, because a lot of our third sector providers provide activities which stop people coming into the much more expensive secondary care. So we have worked very closely with those third sector providers to make sure that if they have engaged with us is the C.S.R. process that they can do it, and some of them can. They can drive some efficiencies into their business without having a perverse impact upon the secondary care sector. So we have had to be very .. you were quite right, we have had to consider that very carefully at this first stage." The Minister goes on to say: "Also to add there, the third sector, it is very important to include them into it, which we have done because they provide services that we could not be able to afford otherwise. They have been .. give them their due, they have been fully engaged." The only reason I feel I had to relay that information was that was in response to a question of our concern about the 2 per cent. If what was being saved within that 2 per cent might have an effect on the 3 per cent and the 5 per cent in the following years it may not be able to carry on and the saving would not therefore be made. That was in response to that, but I think it was relevant to this debate and that everybody knew exactly .. on 17th June, which was 3 months ago, that that was being looked at and the Minister and the Deputy Chief Executive had explained that to us. Any Member was able to pick up the transcript and able to look into it further if they required to do so. That is the end of that.

11. Senator B.E. Shenton:

What is becoming increasingly apparent during this debate is that this is not the Annual Business Plan of the States Assembly it is the Annual Business Plan of the Council of Ministers. It is an Annual Business Plan where yesterday we voted to give Jersey Finance an extra £400,000. Today, we are looking to take money away from Jersey Mencap, Les Amis and Family Nursing and Homecare. I have withdrawn most of my amendments simply because we will not have time to debate them. The whole Business Plan process is flawed and the Council of Ministers have known this for a number of years. I will not be voting for this Business Plan. It is not my Business Plan. It is the Council of Ministers' Business Plan and may they live with the consequences of that. I will be supporting Deputy Wimberley on this, but then I will not be taking part in any other debate, apart from trying to get States Members' salaries frozen for next year and cut in the future. This is a quite utterly disgraceful way for the Council of Ministers to run their business. I want nothing to do with a Business Plan that gives to the finance industry one day and takes from Jersey Mencap the next.

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

I was brought into the Chamber from listening outside by the words of Senator Shenton, because I find it very disappointing. Despite the flaws that we have in this system, this is currently the only system we have and to abrogate one's duty to contribute fully to the Business Plan, I think, is a shameful act. For anyone to say: "I will take no part in this, because it is a flawed system" is I think a wrong act. So, I would encourage Senator Shenton to do stay, because there are serious issues still to debate. We are into discussing cuts in health service, some of which are direct front line services - make no mistake - and will damage the public services that are available to our population. I think some of those actions are not efficiency savings, they are cuts in services, which in some cases are very dangerous and unnecessary, I believe. This House should be fully debating the issues around service cuts. I will be supporting the Deputy of St. Mary on this amendment. It seems to me only logical. If you are going to say: "We will reduce government spending." Who is going to take up the slack? Who is going to deliver those services then? It is going to be those third sector organisations, providers, and to cut their funding and say: "You tighten your belts as well, because we are pulling out of our services. You take the slack on less money," is a complete and utter nonsensical concept. Public services are there because of need, not of want. Public services are there because people out there need those services. We have to deliver them somehow. If we have efficient S.L.A.s with people we should not be cutting back, as Senator Le Gresley mentioned before. The thing with charitable organisations for service providers is the stability of funding; absolutely critical. To suddenly turn round late in the financial year and say: "Next year you have the chop." It is a ridiculous way .. it is irrational and it is crazy. It is crazy. Businesses do not behave like that. Why are we behaving like that? I shall be supporting the Deputy of St. Mary.

13. Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence :

I would just like to remind Members that all the 25 S.L.A. providers have an opportunity to participate in this process and to make efficiency savings. Some will be able to do that and some are willing to do that and some will not be able to do that. We are not forcing them and we are not cutting their budgets by 10 per cent, we are asking them to participate. The largest of which volunteered. They wanted to participate in the C.S.R. process, because they thought at the end their service would be a better service.

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

I am terribly sorry that I was behind Deputy Noel, because he could have answered the question I was going to ask. I was quite concerned, because reading the transcript of the Corporate Services Panel, it mentions that, yes, they have engaged with these firms and they said they have tried to bring them on, as we just heard that from the Deputy . But some of them have indicated that they cannot meet them, as we have just heard from the Deputy . Which ones are they? Which services are going to be affected? I would have liked to have that information out in the open, rather than just hidden in here and we will find out which services are going to be cut.

The Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak? Very well I call upon the Deputy of St. Mary to reply.

15. The Deputy of St. Mary :

I thank Members for their contributions. I think that was a good debate. The key issue here is partnership. We talk about working with the public, taking the public with us. This is almost the biggest area of partnership, with many organisations - as I said, many of them specialist, probably - working with Health, supported correctly by Health to do work that, in the words of the Senator Ferguson, can be done better by them. Many things can be done by the third sector and delivered more efficiently. I am sure that is true. I am sure that a body that is heart and soul in one particular area, like Cancer Relief, is going to be more passionate and is going to deliver a more efficient service. Yet we are now saying: "Let us pull out of this on the basis that we must have a cut and they have to play their part." I must say I picked up on the words of Senator Ferguson who said that first of all they could be done more efficiently .. that these agencies can do the work more efficiently and that the cuts would encourage them and concentrate minds. I am sorry. We have heard it again from Deputy Noel that they can carry on doing it with less money. The implication is that they are somehow wasting money and eating really expensive biscuits, but I just do not think this is true. So, the first point is partnership. Do we back the organisations out there, like Les Amis, that do such fantastic work? My second point is, and I have to pick up on this, I think Senator Le Gresley said, it is fair to say we have nice-to-have services not just core services. I do find it very difficult when people talk and make this distinction between nice-to-have and core services. It makes us think we are a poverty stricken Island, we cannot afford good services and we will just have to make do with what we can afford. I notice that one of the speakers, I think it was the Minister, said that all these 25 organisations are acutely aware of the financial problems, but they have been persuaded that these financial problems exist. We are not a poverty stricken Island and the amount we spend on the public sector is much lower than elsewhere. I was with my wife in Germany recently and I was staying in the house of her mum who is very, very ill, in fact terminally ill. The services in Germany that are available to support her in her home and then, if necessary, in hospital and in residential care are simply in a different league. It is really quite astonishing. But Germany is not richer than Jersey, so why can we not have the nice-to-haves? Why can people not die in dignity? Coming back to this amendment, why can we not have good services? Here we are talking about the provision of services by efficient, non-States, organisations. I do beg Members to support this amendment. I think it strikes at the heart of the way we should be doing business, the way we should be doing our work, working with people out there who know more about certain things than we do, who are more passionate than perhaps we are in their specialised areas. This is the way that perhaps more things should be done. We should

not be cutting this area. I beg Members to support this amendment. The Bailiff :

Is the appel called for? The appel is called for then in relation to the amendment of the Deputy of St. Mary, that is paragraph 4 of amendment 13. I invite Members to return to their seats and the

Greffier will open the voting. Have all Members had an opportunity of voting? The Greffier will close the voting.