States Meeting Transcript - 17/09/2010

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

FRIDAY, 17th SEPTEMBER 2010

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption ...............................................................4 Deputy C.H. Egré of St. Peter:.................................................................4

1. Draft Annual Business Plan 2011 (P.99/2010): sixth amendment (P.99/2010 Amd.(6)) (paragraph 1) .............................................................................4

1. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:.............................................................8

1. Deputy A.K.F. Green:....................................................................9
2. Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................10
3. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................10
4. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence:........................................11
5. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:...............................................11
6. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................12
7. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................13
8. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:......................................................14
9. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................14
10. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade : ............................................15
11. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................15
12. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:........................................................15

2. Draft Annual Business Plan 2011 (P.99/2010): seventh amendment (P.99/2010 Amd.(7)) (paragraph 23)................................................................17

Senator B.E. Shenton:........................................................................17 1.3 Annual Business Plan (P.99/2010) - paragraph (a) as amended........................19

1. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................19
2. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:..................................................................21
3. Deputy A.K.F. Green:..................................................................21
4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................22
5. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................23
6. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................24
7. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................25
8. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................27
9. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................28
10. The Connétable of St. Brelade:......................................................32
11. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:................................................32
12. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier : .......................................................33
13. The Deputy of St. Ouen:.............................................................34
14. Deputy S.Power:....................................................................35
15. The Deputy of Trinity : ..............................................................36
16. Senator F.E. Cohen: .................................................................37
17. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................37

18. The Connétable of St. Helier:........................................................40

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................42

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................42

19. Deputy A.T. Dupre:.................................................................43
20. Senator P.F. Routier:................................................................43
21. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence:..........................................44
22. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..............................................................45

4. Draft Annual Business Plan 2011 (P.99/2010) - paragraph (b) ........................49

1.4.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):...........................................49

5. Draft Annual Business Plan 2011 (P.99/2010) - paragraph (c).........................50

1. Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):...........................................51
2. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:.....................................................51
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................51
4. Deputy S. Power:.......................................................................51
5. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................51
6. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................51
7. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................52
8. Connétable G.F. Butcher of St. John:...................................................53
9. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................53
10. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..............................................................53

6. Draft Annual Business Plan 2011 (P.99/2010) - paragraph (d) ........................55

1. Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):...........................................55
2. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................55
3. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................55
4. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................56
5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................56
6. The Connétable of St. Brelade:.........................................................56
7. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................56
8. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................57

7. Draft Annual Business Plan 2011 (P.99/2010) - paragraph (e).........................59

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

8. Draft Annual Business Plan 2011 (P.99/2010) - paragraph (f).........................59

1. Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):...........................................60
2. Deputy J.B. Fox:........................................................................60
3. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................60
4. Deputy R.C. Duhamel: .................................................................60
5. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................61
6. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................61
7. Deputy A.K.F. Green:..................................................................61
8. The Connétable of St. Brelade:.........................................................61
9. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................61
10. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................62
11. Deputy I.J. Gorst :....................................................................62
12. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................63
13. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................63
14. Deputy S.Power:....................................................................63

15. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:.............................................................63
16. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..............................................................64 Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.......................................................................65 Senator S.C. Ferguson: .......................................................................65

2. Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act, 2006 and Immigration and Asylum Act, 1999: Extension of Certain Sections to Jersey (P.80/2010).............................66

2.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):...........................................66

1. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:........................................................66
2. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................67
3. Connétable P.F.M. Hanning of St. Saviour : ............................................67
4. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................68
5. The Connétable of St. Ouen:............................................................68
6. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................68
7. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..............................................................68
8. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................69

3. Draft Census (Amendment No. 3) (Jersey) Law 201- (P.81/2010)......................70

3.1 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré (Assistant Minister, Chief Minister's Department - rapporteur): .........................................................................................71

1. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour:.....................................................71
2. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................71
3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................71
4. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:..................................................................71
5. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................71
6. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................71
7. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................72 Mr. T.J. Le Cocq Q.C., H.M. Attorney General: ..............................................72

Senator S.C. Ferguson (Chairman, Corporate Affairs Scrutiny Panel):........................73

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................73

4.1 The Deputy of St. Peter (Vice-Chairman Privileges and Procedures Committee):......73

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................73
2. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................74
3. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................74
4. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................74
5. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................74
6. The Deputy of St. Peter : ................................................................75
7. Deputy A.K.F. Green:..................................................................75
8. Deputy R.C. Duhamel: .................................................................75
9. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................75
10. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................75
11. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................75
12. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................76
13. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..............................................................76
14. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................76
15. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..............................................................76
16. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................76
17. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................76

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................77

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

[09:30]

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption Deputy C.H. Egré of St. Peter :

May I thank the Greffier's office for preparing our new running order for today. As Members will [Approbation] .. I think that is a reflection on the size as well as the amount of work that is put in to produce it. It would appear from what we have here that the work is very do-able today, but on that basis I would put Members on notice that I would want it to finish today no matter what.

The Bailiff :

Well, that no doubt depends upon on how long Members speak for. Senator B.E. Shenton:

Can I just notify Members that I will be withdrawing the Jersey Harbours amendment after discussions with Senator Routier?

1. Draft Annual Business Plan 2011 (P.99/2010): sixth amendment (P.99/2010 Amd.(6)) (paragraph 1)

The Bailiff :

The Jersey Harbours one, that is number 63, is that right, Senator? Very well. So number 63 is withdrawn. Members now have, as the Deputy of St. Peter has said, an amended running order so we move to the next amendment which is number 57, an amendment lodged by Senator Le Gresley 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 that the net revenue expenditure of the Social Security Department shall be reduced by £6,632 following the restructuring of the Christmas bonus (SS-S8) in the way recommended in the report of Senator F. du H. Le Gresley dated 16th August 2010 to provide the Christmas bonus is removed only for residents not in receipt of the Jersey Old Age Pension and all non-residents and that the Christmas bonus is fixed at £78 for 2011."

Deputy A.T. Dupré of St. Clement :

Excuse me, Sir, could I be excused from this debate? I receive the Christmas bonus since I receive my widow's pension.

The Bailiff :

I dare say one or 2 others may but .. [Laughter]

Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :

Despite being well under 60, I do receive the Christmas bonus. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Yes, I also have to declare an interest.

Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John :

I will have to declare an interest as well.

The Bailiff :

Senator, is this going to affect them? I do not think it is, is it? If you are a resident, you are still going to get it, are you not?

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

No, Sir. If my amendment was approved then those Members who have just stood up would lose £20 at Christmas.

The Bailiff :

They would lose £20, would they? Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin :

Could we have a ruling? I would not have thought it was necessary for those who are in receipt of a bonus to leave the Chamber, but if it is your direction I should, then I will do so.

The Bailiff :

Well, it is clearly direct financial interest but it is very .. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement :

Yes, indeed. Sorry, I presumed you were going to go on to say it is shared with a large category of people and, therefore, is outside of the ruling of Standing Order; something like 18,000 Islanders do receive the Christmas bonus.

The Bailiff :

It is like the rate of income tax and so forth .. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier :

Sorry, but I have taken advice on this and I am one of 5,000. I do not get a rebate. I never have but if rents are discussed, the ruling from the Bailiff was it is best you are not in a debate and even when the houses were being .. the last big housing debate I was .. It is a pecuniary interest. I am not saying anyone would vote like that but outside there it is up to the people, but I think the people who have retired from the Chamber are absolutely right.

The Bailiff :

Let me just remind myself of the exact provisions of the Standing Order.

Senator B.E. Shenton:

We could be in trouble when we debate States Members salaries. [Laughter]

The Bailiff :

One moment. The position is different there. We will need to lift Standing Orders. The Bailiff :

I am just trying to remind myself, Greffier, what is the Standing Order? I think on reflection it is a direct financial interest and, therefore, I think those who would be directly financially affected by this ought to withdraw .. Very well; I hope that is not too many. The alternative is for any Member to move .. One moment. The alternative, if any Member wishes to do so, is to move a suspension of Standing Orders. One moment, please do not all speak at once. It is open to a single Member if he or she wishes to move a suspension of Standing Orders, and it would be for the Members as a whole to decide whether to do so or not.

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

May I propose that we raise Standing Orders so that this can be debated but at the same time I think the ruling - your ruling, Sir could I ask if consideration be given to the fact that people should declare an interest whether they leave or not and it be recorded, because I think that is the proper thing, is it not, Sir, in the Standing Orders?

The Bailiff :

Let us take it one stage at the moment. Of course Members must always declare an interest, but I have ruled at the moment that it is a direct financial interest and, therefore, under Standing Orders at present it requires a Member to leave ..

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

I propose that we raise Standing Orders so this can be debated with those Members who are involved.

The Bailiff :

Is that seconded? [Seconded] Very well. It is a simple matter it seems to me. I mean we can have a debate on it if you wish but it is a simple issue and Members should, I think, move straight to a vote on whether to lift the Standing Orders so that those who are in receipt of this Christmas bonus can stay or whether they should go.

Senator B.E. Shenton:

I wonder whether those that are in receipt should just abstain from this vote so that they do not contaminate the vote.

The Bailiff :

No, they do not have a direct financial interest in this. This is just whether they should stay, so they may vote or they may, of course, choose to abstain if they wish.

Deputy J.A. Martin:

From the Chair, can I just ask if there is any danger if everyone had to leave we would be going inquorate? I do not think we would and I do not see any reason why we should lift the Standing Order. [Approbation] We are setting a very dangerous precedent whether it be £1,000, be it .. you might as well do away with the Standing Order. We can all vote for our money. We are going to be doing it later anyway.

The Bailiff :

Very well, that is a matter for Members, as I say. Deputy J.A. Martin:

I need to know if we are going to be inquorate. Can we have the debate without the people receiving the money directly?

The Bailiff :

I see. I apologise, yes. Well, could all those who would be affected by this put up their hands? Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier :

I do not think I would have to leave but my son receives the bonus and while I am his main carer I think I would be legitimate to stay but declare the interest.

The Bailiff :

It looks as if we would lose 9 Members. How many did we have, Greffier, today? Most of the Assembly were here, were they not? So I think we would be quorate.

Deputy I.J. Gorst :

Sorry, there are 2 more that have left who are in receipt. I think they have already left. The Bailiff :

There would be 11 then. Does anyone else wish to say anything on ..

Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen :

I wish to query something. The Member who has as not yet received, in other words who has attained retirement age in the last few months, is in my opinion in the same position as someone who is going to attain it in the next year.

The Bailiff :

No, at the moment, unless you are receiving it you do not have a direct financial interest. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement :

I am sorry to push it, but I need some clarity on that because I decided to take my Social Security pension early; it started in July of this year. Therefore, I will be entitled to the Christmas bonus in December. I have not yet received it. Therefore, I must have a pecuniary interest.

The Bailiff :

Yes, you do.

The Connétable of St. Clement :

So has everybody else who pays Social Security contributions. The Bailiff :

No, only those who are going to receive it this year. All of us may receive it or may not receive it when we retire but .. Those who either have already received it or are definitely going to receive it this year, they have a direct financial interest. Anyone else does not.

[09:45]

Deputy I.J. Gorst :

Just to put a further fly in the ointment, of course this proposition is not about this year's Christmas bonus it is about the Christmas bonus in 2011. [Laughter]

Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John :

Deputy , none of us are getting any younger.

Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier :

I still believe that is not direct. We might not survive until next Christmas. The Bailiff :

Does anyone else wish to say anything about this? No. Then the proposition before the Assembly now is to lift Standing Orders so that those who are affected may remain. If you wish them to remain, you vote pour. If you wish them to leave, you vote contre. The Greffier will now open the voting. Have all Members had an opportunity of voting? The Greffier will close the voting.

Very, well, so on that basis I am afraid those who are affected must leave. Are we 27, Greffier? No, we are 26. We are not quorate at the moment because [Laughter] a number of other Members who are eligible to be here  have absented themselves. Very well,  so we return now to the amendment, which has been read, so Senator Le Gresley.

1. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

I seem to have achieved what the States Members have been trying to do for years, which is reduce the  number  of  States  Members.   [Laughter] Bearing  in  mind  we  are  not  going  to  have discrimination legislation, I also fear that the law might not support me on that one. Now, to the matter in hand. Can I state at the outset to Members that I am very disappointed that the Council of Ministers are even considering cuts to benefits at this early stage of finding 2 per cent savings under the C.S.R. (Comprehensive Spending Review). However, I fully understand that the Minister for Social Security has been put in a difficult position and I think it is to his credit that he has come forward with savings totalling just under £2 million for 2011. The proposed saving of £439,000 on the Christmas bonus expenditure for 2011 is to come from a reduction in the qualifying conditions which are set out in Article 2 of the Christmas Bonus (Jersey) Law 1991, as amended. I would point out to Members that the law makes it quite clear that there is an entitlement to this benefit, which can only be removed by this Assembly agreeing to a future proposition from the Minister to amend the law. According to the recent Social Security Report and Accounts for 2009, 18,839 individuals received a Christmas bonus. The estimated  budget for 2010, that is this  year, is £1,848,300 and all people currently entitled can expect to receive a bonus of about £98 this Christmas.   The  budget  for  2011,  which  we  are  debating  today  for  the  Christmas  bonus,  is estimated to be £1,490,000 after the savings proposal. I would like us to look at the detail of who will lose their entitlement under the Minister's savings proposal, and here I have used the 2009 data which has kindly been provided to me by the Social Security Department officers. So people losing their entitlement are: 113 people on survivor's allowance, 480 on survivor's pension, 53 people on 100  per  cent  long-term  incapacity  benefit,  7  people  on  incapacity  pension,  1,018  people  on invalidity benefit, and I would just point out that some of this group will start to see a reduction in their income as protected payments under income support, such as the old Disability Transport Allowance start to be reduced from 30th September this year. Continuing with the numbers: 170 people who receive invalid care allowance, and for the benefit of Members I would remind them that these people are carers who look after people who are probably in receipt of some of the benefits I have just listed; 1,627 people, mostly women, in receipt of an old age pension but under the age of 65 years, 511 people who are over the age of 65 but are not currently in receipt of a

Jersey old age pension and, finally, 402 people who live outside Jersey. This totals 4,381 people. I would stress that these are based on figures for 2009 and, of course, they do change. I have purposely excluded from these figures 180 people who will continue to receive the bonus because they are currently in receipt of level 2 or 3 personal care components under the income support scheme. My amendment, if approved, would remove from entitlement only 2 groups: the people over 65 who have never contributed to the Jersey Social Security scheme and the people who now no  longer  live  in  our  Island.   This  is  a  total  of  913  individuals.   My  amendment  leaves approximately  17,900  people  still  entitled  to  the  Christmas  bonus  compared  to  the  Minister reducing  this  figure  by  a  further  3,400.   Now  in  preparing  this  amendment  I  would  like  to acknowledge the help that I have received from the Treasury and Social Security staff and also the Greffier in calculating the figures in my report. To remove the Christmas bonus from the 2 groups that I have just mentioned would produce a saving of £86,069 in 2011. This has been calculated

after splitting the recipients into those who would receive the full Christmas bonus and those who receive a reduced amount as they also receive the U.K. (United Kingdom) Christmas bonus of £10. So to remain within the proposed budget cuts of £439,000 for 2011, we need to find further savings of £353,000. In order to share this pot, as I am calling it, after excluding administration costs the Social Security Department has confirmed that the Christmas bonus for 2011 would need to be reduced to £78. This would be a reduction of £20 on the likely figure to be paid in 2010. Members need to decide whether my amendment is a fairer way of dealing with the Christmas bonus for 2011 and also in 2012 and 2013. I would argue that people with long term illnesses and disabilities are just as entitled to retain their Christmas bonus as pensioners over the age of 65 years. Similarly, I can see no justification for removing entitlement from pensioners aged between 60 and 64, from widows and widowers, and from carers. Once entitlement to a statutory benefit is removed, it is unlikely ever to be reinstated. I expect some Members will suggest that the Christmas bonus could be means tested in future, but I believe the administration cost of doing this would be prohibitive. I also ask Members to refer to the appendix to my amendment where they will see that Guernsey stopped paying a Christmas bonus back in 1990, that the U.K. has capped the bonus at £10 since 1972 and that the Isle of Man has been paying a bonus of £82.50 since 2006. I have checked with the Social Security Department in the Isle of Man and they intend to pay a bonus of £82.50 in 2010. I am pleased that the Council of Ministers is neutral to my amendment and acknowledge that I am giving Members the opportunity to discuss an alternative to removing entitlement to the Christmas bonus from 3,468 people and also reducing expenditure of the States by £6,632. The Minister maintains that he is trying to protect the most vulnerable groups who currently are entitled to the Christmas bonus but provides no evidence why all pensioners over the age of 65 are to be considered vulnerable and yet non-pensioners with long term illnesses and disabilities are not considered to be vulnerable, unless the household is in receipt of the personal care component level 2 and 3 and income support. In the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel report on the C.S.R. on page 106, their expert, Dr. Harkness says: "While withdrawal of the G.S.T. (Goods and Services Tax) bonus is not envisaged as having an impact, withdrawal of the Christmas bonus from 4,500 individuals may have some adverse consequence for some of the relatively poor. However, the disabled, those in receipt of income support and resident pensioners receiving old age pension will continue to receive the bonus, so it appears the poorest are protected." Now I would challenge that because I have already explained to you that of the disabled, as they are called here - not a word I would choose - only 180 people are currently on income support with impairment components levels 2 and 3. Also on her conclusions on page 109 of the same report, she also comments: "Among the poorest people in Jersey are single non-pensioners. I stress non-pensioners." Some of this group .. These are my words, some of this group are currently entitled to the Christmas bonus but would lose it for ever if the Minister's saving proposal is accepted. I hope that senior citizens listening to this debate will appreciate that it is with great reluctance that I propose that the Christmas bonus for 2011 is reduced to £78, but I hope the majority will agree that this is a fairer option than removing entitlement from so many other equally deserving people. In summary, I do not see any justification for taking away entitlements to the Christmas bonus from people who currently qualify except those who now live out of the Island, and those people over the age of 65

who have never paid into the Jersey Social Security scheme. Approximately 3,500 will continue to receive the bonus if my amendment is approved. I hope the majority of Members will support this and I make the proposition.

The Bailiff :

Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded] Deputy Green? [10:00]

1. Deputy A.K.F. Green:

I am very grateful to Senator Le Gresley for bringing this because it is not an increase in expenditure but a redistribution. I have to say it is a shame that we have to discuss it at all. Bar humbug came to mind when I read about this because Christmas for many of our older pensioners and our disabled and our widows and our carers is a very difficult time, and a time when the have nots realise even more that they have not when other people are spending more on a night out on parties than we are giving in bonus to some of our more worthy people. I will support this. I have to say I am sorry that as a result of it we have reduced it slightly for some of the pensioners, but I know the difficulty that some of the disabled people have in everyday life and to take away that little bonus that allows them not necessarily to have luxuries of life but to have a slightly warmer house over Christmas, or to buy a small present for their grandchild, I know how much it means to them and I am very grateful to the Senator for bringing this, and I will certainly support it.

2. Deputy I.J. Gorst :

Yes, I hope this will be a relatively short discussion because what Senator Le Gresley's amendment has done is allow the States to simply decide how we are going to cut up the cake, as it were, of the Christmas bonus benefit but retain roughly the same level of saving albeit, that the amendment is a slightly increased saving. As I tried to indicate yesterday, looking for savings in my department, as is common with other departments, is not an easy process and I took the view that the proposal that I put forward was the best way to deal with the Christmas bonus. Senator Le Gresley was absolutely right: this is just a Business Plan proposal. Any change will need to have regulation changed and I will have to come forward be it whether the States accept my proposal or Senator Le Gresley's proposal. That will come forward and they will have the opportunity to agree that in due course along with some other items of the Business Plan, which will require law changes. I think that the majority of people who think when they are asked to consider the Christmas bonus would expect that it was paid to those who are in receipt of pensions and probably that is all. The law obviously allows for these other categories of benefit recipient to receive a Christmas bonus but I do not believe that is probably what the majority of the members of the public think of when they think of Christmas bonus. They think of someone who has contributed to the pension scheme, albeit this is a tax funded benefit; it is not related directly to contributions. They think of someone who has contributed to the pension scheme, who is retired and are, therefore, eligible for this Christmas bonus. That is the view that I have taken in bringing forward this particular cut. I have had quite a lot of correspondence on the merits of my proposal as opposed to Senator Le Gresley's proposal, and Members will have seen the heated correspondence across the pages of the J.E.P. (Jersey Evening Post) and I believe that, on balance, the members of the senior citizens community would support my proposal as opposed to the amendment, which would be reducing the Christmas bonus. Senator Le Gresley made quite a few comments about those more vulnerable members of our community and he did, quite rightly, say that under my proposal those ineligible for income support personal component, personal care level 2 and 3, will continue to receive the Christmas bonus, and that does show us that the most vulnerable, those who are most in need of support because of their abilities, will continue to receive it, so that element has been protected, so I do not really have too much more to say. It  is a straightforward choice: Members either decide to maintain the benefit at its current level but, in effect, say those over 65 who are in receipt of the Jersey pension receive it or they decide that, no, they are making the same level of saving, they reduce the benefit level by £20 and continue to give it to all the other recipients. I believe that my proposal is the way forward. I believe it has the most .. It is an unusual thing for me to stand up and say. I believe it has the most public support and, therefore, I ask that Members do reject this

amendment. However, as Senator Le Gresley has also said, the Council of Ministers do not have a corporate view on this and it is simply for Members of this Assembly to decide.

3. Senator A. Breckon:

Just a couple of comments. I will support the amendment because what the Minister for Social Security appears to have done is he has gone into an emotive area for a cut at an early stage, and I say that because I remember not that many years ago when the Council of Ministers were talking about fiddling about with Christmas bonus and means testing and that, it was at the very time when there was a very kind gentleman in the Parish of Grouville who decided to give all Island residents over the age of 70 £100 and we, as Government, are taking or proposing to take money away from elderly people. The reason I say that is because for us as a government, of course, this is a P.R. (Public Relations) disaster, when we are in this sort of area in the particular climate where the pensions have not increased much this year, people are finding it fairly expensive, and then one of the target areas is old and vulnerable people at a very early opportunity. I would have supported not necessarily paying it to people outside the Island because it is supposed to recognise people living here on their costs and what they can do with it, so I am not in favour of paying it to somebody in Australia who will not need to heat their house probably in December, so that could have gone, but I would have supported increasing the budget to maintain that not just for pensioners but for those who have some particular illness or something that prevents them from enjoying, you know, the quality of life that some of the rest of us do. But again, just from this House's point of view, I am sure Members will be aware, this is a public relations disaster to be even debating this stuff. I would ask the Minister for Social Security, when he has got other things on the agenda, to be mindful of that when there is still some definite waste in the system that we could look at before we do this, and who is feeling this stuff. I think he needs to get his jacket off and have a look, as some other Ministers will do, rather than just do these emotive things at the earliest opportunity and pick on those people sometimes who are not best able to defend themselves. I think it is despicable.

4. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence :

I would just like it placed on record that I am married to a pensioner [Laughter] and he does receive a Christmas bonus and although it is not a direct pecuniary interest for me I would not be comfortable on voting either way for this so I will be abstaining.

The Bailiff :

I think, Connétable , in accordance with the ruling you should have gone because it refers to an interest of a spouse.

The Connétable of St. Lawrence :

I beg your pardon, Sir, I was not aware of that because very often we are told unless it is .. The Bailiff :

A Member who has or whose spouse has an interest.

The Connétable of St. Lawrence :

I did not read the Standing Order. Did you read that out?

The Bailiff :

No, I did not.

The Connétable of St. Lawrence :

No, so in that case it is my error, and I apologise, so I am glad I stood up to declare it now and I will leave.

Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter :

I will need to do likewise.

The Bailiff :

Are we now quorate? We are just all right. Does any other Member wish to speak?

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

I really wanted to congratulate the Senator on what I think is his first substantive proposition to the States since his election, and I respect his experience in this field enormously. However, I would like him to clarify in his summing up whether his proposition uniquely removes the right to non- residents to receive the Christmas bonus. This is something which I think bothers Jersey people a great deal, the money that goes off-Island, and could he clarify whether that is also the case for the Minister's proposals.

6. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Before we get carried away on devising how we remove money from elderly and vulnerable people and whether we should do it one way or another way, can I draw Member's attention back to the central premise: we are talking about taking money off the elderly and vulnerable, the sick, the disabled. That is what we are doing and we have heard from Ministers time and time again that, of course, we will protect the poorest and we will protect the vulnerable and we will protect the sick in everything we do and frontline services will not be affected, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Senator Breckon has already drawn attention to the deep, deep irony that this is represented by the fact that what we are talking about here is a Christmas bonus ..

The Bailiff :

Deputy , I am sorry, this is an amendment .. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Sir, I am talking to the amendment because I wish Members to reject the amendment and then vote out the main proposition. I am sorry I did not make that clear from the very, very beginning because that is what I intend to do. Oh, that is the short hand version. At Christmas when we are talking about ..

The Bailiff :

If I may, Deputy , you should simply, say, speak to the amendment and then speak again on the proposition thereafter.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

I think I am doing so. Stop me if I stray again, please. The irony is that private members out there, a wealthy person, can offer a Christmas bonus to substantial numbers of people while at the same time we cannot apparently. I am also drawn to the deep irony of, and again it is almost worth a fresh front page of the J.E.P., is it not? Yes. What was it: "Classrooms take cuts but finance does not" and look at the figures.

The Bailiff :

That has nothing to do with the amendment. This has got to do with whether there should be any cuts at all ..

Deputy G.P. Southern :

It does, indeed, Sir, have to do with the amendment because the amendment indeed cuts a sum of money approximately equivalent to the money we just landed on Jersey Finance, as does the main proposition. Therefore, I believe it is highly relevant to point out that the nature of the equivalent sums of money which we are taking from the old and the vulnerable and apparently giving to the finance sector so they can have a new office wherever, wherever, that is the reality. That is the P.R. disaster that this House may well be taking if, as maybe the case, it supports the amendment because it appears to be a less harsh way of getting into old people's handbags and wallets and taking money from them, a less harsh way than has been proposed by the Minister for Social Security. To hear the Minister for Social Security glibly say he is fairly convinced that most people would support his proposition rather than this proposition, and that he has the impression that senior  citizens  would  support  his proposition rather  than this  proposition, I  believe  is totally specious. So what I am suggesting to Members is that they consider what is happening with both of these propositions, reject the amendment even though it seems like a kind way to take money off people, a kinder way of taking money off people, and then go on to reject the main proposition and finally, finally, finally, vote that this is the cut to far.

Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen :

I have realised that I also need to retire.

The Bailiff :

All right, I think we are still just quorate. Does any other Member wish to speak? Deputy Martin. [10:15]

7. Deputy J.A. Martin:

Just briefly, I was confused which way to go before I listened to Deputy Southern and I am probably even more now confused. It was the speech of Senator Le Gresley, and it really is a shame that the Minister for Social Security has spoken early and his Assistant is not here. It was the removal of the Christmas bonus to certain people in the community on top of, in his words: ".. taking away the protective payments on 1st October." That concerns me and it is in the vein of which way do I go on this amendment; the same as Deputy Southern . I am damned if I do and I am damned if I do not because it did seem whinging when we were going to means test people for the Christmas bonus, but now I am taking £20 away from some very, very needy people but I am also not taking it away from some people who probably do not need it. I really wonder, when I hear the Minister for Social Security come in to say we have some very, very tough decisions to make and this is the way I felt we had to go. I find this a big, big shroud and I think Senator Le Gresley has probably fallen into the trap of he thinks he is helping. I totally agree he is helping the people. It is still reducing the people who needed it by £20. In fact, I think they could have been increased, the budget could have been cut and the people who need it be getting a lot more, so I think I am in the same position as Deputy Southern . I do not think I can support the amendment and I think I am going to vote against the main .. well, I will vote against the main proposition. My problem being if I do not support the amendment ..

The Bailiff :

I think there is no main proposition at the moment other than the Business Plan itself. Deputy J.A. Martin:

Well, yes, I would vote against the Social Security as part of the Business Plan, I am sorry. [Aside] Oh, well see, this is where we are and it is not a very good position to be in. I will probably now have to support this but I really want the Minister for Social Security to go away with his homework. We are talking about 17,800 people in receipt. They have all been paying tax, they have Social Security. He tells us the administration to means test a Christmas bonus is beyond his remit or would be more administrative cost than the bonus itself. I do not believe that and if he thinks we are going to come up with tight cuts next year, I still believe he is illegally, against the States direction, taking away protective payments. I will be looking at the law when we introduce income support. It is doing it by stealth. He cannot do it. Under the law, I am sure he cannot do it and he is doing it very slowly outside, so you do not get thousands of people writing to you at once. He is doing it, I think, by alphabet. I do not know how else he is doing it, so I will support this amendment now begrudgingly because I cannot vote against the cut, but I am very disappointed the way the Minister for Social Security has presented this.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

Can I ask for a point of clarification from the Chair? Can you put in simple terms what we can and cannot vote against in this particular budget debate? So I was suggesting that we vote against the amendment and against the main proposition. I think I have just been told you cannot vote against the main proposition.

The Bailiff :

The main proposition, of course, we are debating at the moment paragraph (a) of the Council of Ministers' proposition which is to approve summary table (a) with the aggregate expenditure made up of all the individual ones. We have been discussing various amendments with people trying to alter the individual ones but there is, in fact, no proposition to amend the Social Security one, other than the amendment put forward by Senator Le Gresley. So if you wish to amend the Social Security one, you will have to vote for Senator Le Gresley but if you do not, then you will either have to vote against paragraph (a) as a whole, against the Business Plan as a whole, or you will vote for it.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

There is no opportunity to vote against the Social Security components of that? The Bailiff :

No.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

Okay, I just want it clear. Okay.

The Bailiff :

Very well, does any other Member wish to speak? Deputy Pitman.

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

For once I can take credit. I told Deputy Southern what would happen and he did not listen. [Laughter] I would just like to express a lot of sympathy for Senator Le Gresley because I think he has done this with the absolute best intentions and I applaud him for that. I do not think it is his fault we are in this quite farcical situation. I will be voting against this now for those reasons and I will be voting against the Business Plan. I would also point out there is a rather strange sinister character up in the public gallery.

9. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

Social Security has a budget on part (a) of in the region of £170 million out of the total of £650 million that this Assembly will hopefully vote for departments; £99 million is in income support. That is a figure that is far greater than the sum total of the previous benefits that were approved in previous years by this Assembly. Income support has made a real difference to low income families and is directed in a way that was never done in the previous benefit systems. So we have an excellent Social Security scheme. We raise Social Security benefits, pensions, by earnings. While this year is lower, it is better than most other places. There are going to be some difficult decisions to be made to ensure that taxes are not having to be raised and to affect low income families, and there are going to have to be and has had to be some analysis on Social Security's budget. Christmas bonus is a non-contributory benefit; that means it has not been contributed by the Social Security system but people's contributions have not put money aside for the Christmas bonus. It is paid for by central taxation. It is not means tested and it is one of those benefits, and the Minister spoke passionately yesterday about the challenges that he faces in directing his budget to those people that are absolutely in need and where we should be directing public money. So the Minister I believe .. and I congratulate Senator Le Gresley on his analysis on looking at the options, and there are clearly views that can be constructed on both sides of this argument. I attended, as Members will know, a senior citizens' meeting at the Town Hall where the Christmas bonus was discussed. My own view is that the Minister's proposal is more appropriate than that of Senator Le Gresley, but there is not a massive difference between us on this. So there are going to

be difficult decisions to avoid increases in tax. Social security cannot be exempted but we simply cannot exempt Social Security entirely from the comprehensive spending review. There are going to be some difficult decisions made. It is a matter for the Assembly on Christmas bonus for all of the reasons that I have said in terms of its priority with other benefits. It is not a large benefit compared to others but it is a matter for Members. I will certainly, having been the peer reviewing Minister on Social Security, each Minister reviewing each others proposals in detail, I believe the Minister has made the right appropriate balance in relation to this one.

10. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade :

I an inclined to sympathise with the comments of Deputy Martin when she mentioned that we ought to focus more on means testing, and I quite candidly think in this day and age it need not be as expensive as was suggested. This is funded from taxation. There should be some liaison with the Income Tax Department to do this properly. No one condones the removal of benefits from the needy, if I can term it like that, but likewise it is difficult to condone giving a bonus such as this to those, shall we say, on States pensions or those who have no need whatsoever. So while I will support the Minister for Social Security, I would urge him to focus on more accurate means testing so those who really need it are not deprived.

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

Very briefly, I am going to be abstaining on this vote because I think we are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea on this one. I think Senator Le Gresley is to be congratulated on the work that he has done. We obviously have not been as sharp with our work as we might have been or we might have seen the paragraph (a) bundles are swarming with a conglomerate of things that belongs to the Council of Ministers and we are going to have vote against it or for it. We probably should have brought amendments not only to Senator Le Gresley's amendment if we wanted to see these things changed, which we did not. We probably should have brought amendments to the main proposition. None of us have. Just to finish, I would also say that I would like to see, I do not know if Senator Shenton is continuing with it, a debate on whether or not area payments for minimal activity in the countryside are means tested or done away with because thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money which could be going to the needy are going to people that have land that have millions of pounds and companies, and I think it is absolutely terrible.

The Bailiff :

Very well, does any other Member wish to speak? Then I call upon Senator Le Gresley to reply.

12. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

I do not propose to go through what each Member who has spoken has said but just to gauge the general feeling is how I really want to sum up. Yes, I would have brought the amendment that we do not remove the Christmas bonus from anybody and that the full amount is paid and continued and that the saving of £439,000 should come from restructuring costs out of the wherever, but the reality is, and we know that from the way this week has gone, that that would have been lost and the fact is that people on disability benefits would lose their Christmas bonus because that is what the Minister is proposing. I realise that you are all in a dilemma; those that feel that the mood is I cannot vote for this because we are taking money away from senior citizens, and those who want to abstain I can understand their view as well, but for those who are in any doubt about supporting me, I would just say to you if you do not support my amendments from 2011 onwards indefinitely the people on disability  benefits, people who  are aged between 60  and 64, survivors,  people on survivor's allowance will no longer receive the Christmas bonus. The law says they are entitled. Now if you want that to happen, fine, and I would say to the Minister, and he says he has gauged the view of the senior citizens, as did Senator Ozouf , well, I am sorry but a lot of these senior citizens today came through the Occupation and I would say to you Members, what would have happened during the Occupation if we had had a pie and there were people around the table and we

said: "Right, folks. We have only got this pie to eat. Now those of you who are disabled, will you leave the room, those of you who just lost their husband or wife, leave the room, and those of you who have not reached the age of 64 but look in need leave the room and then the rest of us can have the biggest piece." Now that is what the Minister is proposing and I cannot support that, and I hope that more people will support my amendments, and I  forget the terminology, but I make the amendment and call for the appel.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

Can I ask for a point of clarification from the Chair for the point before we go to a vote because I think it is important? As the proposer has said, it is a statutory right, this is in law, and we need to bring a change to that law to this House in order to enact whether we have this version or any version to enact what we do, and there is an opportunity then to not proceed with this whole process because we could turn down that amendment to the law. Is that correct?

The Bailiff :

In law it must be correct. Quite where that leads, I would not know because there would not be any money to do it.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

The second point of clarification would be when those regulations come to the House, will there still be a declaration of interest, direct pecuniary interest, as we have it on this debate? Would that apply then?

The Bailiff :

We will cross that bridge when we get to it. I am not going to give an advance ruling now; a hypothetical ruling.

Deputy I.J. Gorst :

Could I say that obviously, as I said in my speech, I will be bringing forward that very law. I will take the decision of the States today to influence the type of change I bring forward, be it either mine or Senator Le Gresley's amendment. However, if Members want to change that there will be no money for the change.

The Bailiff :

Very well, so the appel is called for then. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

Sorry, Sir, could I just clarify because I have read the law and while the removal of entitlements is a requirement of regulations, the amount of the Christmas bonus if I could just quote: ".. subject to the power of the States to alter the amount of the Christmas bonus under Article 8" so Members do have the power to decide the amount of the Christmas bonus, although it has been historically increased by the difference between the wages and the cost of living so there is a right within the law for the States Members to decide the amount but it would have to come back to us in the form of regulations as I understand it.

[10:30]

Deputy I.J. Gorst :

The Senator is absolutely right, however what we are doing today is setting the envelope of the overall spend, so we would be saying that I am only given so much money but now I have got to spend more than I am given by amending that particular regulation so it will, of course, be a decision then for the States.

The Bailiff :

Very well. The appel is called for then in relation to the amendment of Senator Le Gresley. 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.

2. Draft Annual Business Plan 2011 (P.99/2010): seventh amendment (P.99/2010 Amd.(7)) (paragraph 23)

The Bailiff :

Could you ask Members to return to the Chamber then? We will give a moment for Members to return to the Chamber I think. Very well. So, we move next to number 61. Could I have order please?   Amendment number  61  lodged  by  Senator  Shenton,  paragraph  23  of  the  seventh amendment. I will ask the Greffier to read the amendment.

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 States Assembly and its services shall be decreased by £44,400 by freezing the remuneration of elected members for 2011 at its 2010 level."

The Bailiff :

Senator,  this  is  clearly  a  matter  where  every  single  Member  has  a  direct  financial  interest. Therefore, it would be necessary for someone to move that Standing Order 106 be suspended.

Senator B.E. Shenton:

Can I move that Standing Order be suspended, please? The Bailiff :

Is that seconded? [Seconded] Very well.

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

Is there any discussion on such a motion because clearly, as has been pointed out by the P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) Chairman, we should not be discussing this at all anyway?

The Bailiff :

Very well. The matter before the Assembly therefore is whether to suspend the Standing Orders so that Senator Shenton's amendment can be debated. All those in favour of suspending Standing Orders, kindly show. Sorry, Deputy De Sousa, did you say you wanted to speak?

Deputy D.J. De Sousa:

Sorry, I was just going to ask that people really think about this, because again it is setting a precedent.

Deputy A.T. Dupré:

Can I ask for the appel, please, Sir? The Bailiff :

Yes, the appel is asked for then. Can I just say, when setting a precedent whenever this matter has been discussed in the past ..

Senator B.E. Shenton:

Can I just point out that freezing pay is a political decision and it is only this Chamber that can make this political decision.

Deputy I.J. Gorst :

Could I say that I .. sorry, we are not supposed to be speaking on the proposition, are we? The Bailiff :

No. Very well. So, the matter before the Assembly where the appel has been called for is for or against the proposition of Senator Shenton that Standing Order 106 be suspended. The Greffier will open the voting. Have all Members had an opportunity of voting? The Greffier will close the voting.

So, that means in effect I am sorry, Senator, your matter cannot be debated. Senator B.E. Shenton:

I think it sends a clear message to the public of how this House feels.

The Bailiff :

Can we not share observations across the Chamber, please? Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John :

As the seconder of the proposition, Sir, some of the comments that are being passed are not acceptable in the Chamber.

The Bailiff :

No, I quite agree.

3. Annual Business Plan (P.99/2010) - paragraph (a) as amended The Bailiff :

That completes all the amendments to paragraph (a). So, therefore we return to paragraph (a) subject to those amendments which have been passed. Does any Member now wish to speak on paragraph (a)?

1. Senator A. Breckon:

If I just may make some observations for a few minutes about perhaps the debate we have not had. What has happened is we had the Chief Minister make a short presentation and then we went into a series of amendments in different departments. Bearing in mind the attachment of this, if I was an officer or somebody who has presented this, I would be delighted and I say that because I do not think we have really had the debate and I do not think, unless they do it in the next few minutes, any Minister has been accountable for their portfolio apart from an area that has been picked upon by another Member to amend. What I would like to do is just give a number of examples of that. If we look at say .. if we take Economic Development and we have tourism, we have agriculture, we have a harbour and airport and we have a number of other things under the Minister's brief, gambling and whatever else. We have not heard anything at all about any of that from anybody, either the Minister or an Assistant Minister, and what I do not want to do necessarily is go to a presentation at St. Paul's where they have slides on the thing, it is rushed over a lunch period, and say: "Well, this is what we are doing" and I am not just saying about E.D. (Economic Development). With Education the Minister has said he is doing a number of reviews. Perhaps this would have been an opportunity for him to get up here and say: "I am doing reviews, it affects the budget, it affects the bottom line, this is what they are" and be open and honest, and the Minister and even the Assistant Ministers, dare I say, could have been questioned on the policies that fit into this Business Plan and where the money goes, and we have not had that debate either. Again, that extends to Health and Social Services, there is around about £170 million and what we have heard is where some of the Members tried to amend it. We spent half a day or whatever it is talking about £30,000 here and there. The reason I am outlining this is if it is a Business Plan then perhaps, and the Chief Minister is inherent of this situation, and has said: "Well, we will try and improve it next year" but maybe we should have a day's debate about Social Security and say: "Well, okay, people want their pensions protected." We need to look at income support. We need to look at how much the contributions are. We have not had that debate either with Housing. What is happening about selling properties, about maintaining, what is the 15-year plan? We have heard nothing at all in a Business Plan debate about Housing and it is a very emotive issue. It affects people's day-to-day lives. We are talking about things for 2011, 2012, 2013. For me, with other issues as well, Home Affairs, how will we deal with the prison? I mean there were 12 officers sworn in last Friday. What could the Minister tell us about .. 12 police officers, yes, sworn in last week; what could he tell us about things with that, with the prison, whatever else? There is money allocated but we have heard absolutely nothing about the functions, if they are better, if they are worse, if there are problems or not, and I think this is a failure of where we are today. This whole

thing is focused on some minute details and the Ministers, in my opinion, have got off the hoof about telling us what this is all about. Nobody, and I hope that they will take the bait .. Planning, where are we with the waterfront? Where is the Island Plan, North of Town Masterplan? This is something where the Minister could have taken the opportunity to say: "I have got money in the budget, I am doing this, I am not doing that." We have not had, in my opinion, a sensible debate about the real issues that concern us. We have gone on about things that are emotive. Now, from the other point of view, if I was somebody who wanted to say: "I want to do something", I would send you all over there while I did it over there and I feel, I really do, that we have done that. We have taken our eye well and truly off the ball. It has been kicked in the air and what has happened is the other team have gone off the pitch while we are looking to see where the ball lands, and I think really that is what has happened. I do not think the way this is presented, the way it is discussed, and the way it is debated does any of us any credit. We think say about Transport and Technical Services. Where are we with the incinerator? What is the .. I know there are issues that the Minister is working on but should we not share that and have some discussion so we can get it in a public domain. With respect, we do not want to go to the museum in 3 weeks' time on a Tuesday dinner time. We would rather have it in here where Ministers could be questioned. Now, how that fits in with this process which in my mind they say: "It is so important, it is £700 million or thereabouts then we should be doing that." Well, we should but I do not think we have. Then we have got the budget which flows from that. We are talking about: "Well, we have agreed that." So, the dilemma is, what do you do when it comes to voting on this? What have we done and what have we examined and we have only done that in my opinion of the amendments that have come forward which are a very, very minute part of how this goes forward next year and there are indications for the following 2 years. The reason I have done this now is what we normally used to have, and this debate does not allow it, and this is no criticism of the Chair whatsoever, but there is no preamble to the debate. We have gone from the Chief Minister said this and then we have gone to an amendment, and I know in the past that there have been tendencies for people literally to wander all over the place with a preamble. They have really rambled and perhaps we have done that in other areas. The reason I say that is I think it is something that for next year and future years we really need to focus on. Now, if that was a matter of changing procedures and we set aside a debate and discuss Social Security because the other thing, as well from the Minister for Treasury and Resources' point of view, he has to make sense out of this and come forward with proposals at the end of the year and with that I think if he had been given the opportunity in this debate to share some things with us, and I know Deputy Vallois said that the Corporate Affairs Scrutiny Panel had more background papers to this than we have had. Perhaps if that was shared with Members we could have had a more sensible debate than we have had. Now, some of the problems we have got are not the Minister for Treasury and Resources alone. We are going to have to take some difficult decisions but I would say if we share the information, share the knowledge, I think all of us will be more sympathetic because there are things that are nice to do but there are things that we will not be able to do, and I think we could go forward together from this, but I really am uncomfortable, not just sitting here for 4 days or 5 days with this process, but I think it has not served us well and we need to look at it again and see how we do that. From the Planning point of view there are all sorts of issues, transport, we have not discussed any of that. All we have done is we have danced around handbags, as it were here, and we have touched on a number of issues and we have only done that because an amendment has flushed the Minister out to say: "Well, I do not really want this money, I am doing something else" and for me for the amount of money and the importance it is I do not think we have addressed this properly at all, and it is not the Chief Minister's fault, it is not the Minister for Treasury and Resources' fault, it is not necessarily the Ministers' fault, it is the system we have got that has addressed this and not everybody was in on all of the information. We know what has been proposed to take out but we did not know what all the alternatives are and Members have suggested that by amendment, but I would say that we sit down some time, maybe go back to

an in-committee discussion in this House where Members can say: "Well, let us look at that." Where is the connection with the Parishes here? We have never discussed any of that at all. I think for good government, for us to go forward we need to do that because if there are problems in Health and Social Services, let us share them and let us do something about it. It is not just the Minister's remit alone, and I do not think we have done the inclusive bit and done that. I will just close by saying that I am not sure what the exact answer is but the usual cliché is: "Something must be done" because I do not think this process serves us well and I hope some Ministers will take the opportunity to say: "Well, now I am proposing the money but this is what I am going to do and this is what I am not going to do" because I think that is perhaps where we should be. Now, if that takes a little bit longer then perhaps we should do that and maybe we should have done it another way.

2. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:

I will be extremely brief as always. I just feel this whole process is completely wrong and even the way the C.S.R. was carried out was totally wrong.

[10:45]

We have had amendments brought to things that have been put forward in this Business Plan because a lot of Members feel that some of these things that are brought forward are a step too far. If we are doing that on the 2 per cent what is going to be happening with the 3 and the 5? The whole C.S.R. should have been started at the top and worked down at the 10 per cent. If we had have started in the right areas with the wastage that we make as a States we really could have made the big savings. More people would have been happy with the decisions that are being made in here and the Island as a whole would have benefited. I will be voting against this part.

3. Deputy A.K.F. Green:

I did not expect to be called quite so quick, but here we go. I think the way we have gone about this year probably given the timescales we had, to introduce pro rata cuts, so-called salami cuts, was probably the only way that we could do it in the time that we had and, to be honest, there are not many organisations, painful though it may be, that cannot find 2 per cent efficiencies. I have been reasonably quiet over most of the things about reducing expenditure but what we need to do next year is fundamentally - get down to that fundamental word - fundamentally review the services that we are providing. What we have done this time is just 2 per cent across the board. We have not looked at: "Do we need that service, could we do it differently, do we need to grow some of our services?" We know that we need to grow services in Health, particularly around primary care. All we have done is slice 2 per cent and frankly some of the things I have found very hard have been the cuts that affect the benefits directly to people and that is why I spoke on those. It is time as the Chief Minister says: "To get real." However, part of getting real is, as I said, to fundamentally review the services we provide. We have been working in silos. So, we have seen cuts in areas where we might not want to have seen cuts. While nobody has challenged, for example, and I am sorry, it will not be popular I know, but I am going to say it. Nobody has challenged: "Do we need a T.A. (Territorial Army) unit?" £1 million going out on the T.A. Do we need the regulation of undertakings to be the way it is? Do we need the Competition Regulatory Authority? I know the Minister is working with Guernsey now. We have got delusions of grandeur in this Island sometimes and I wonder, more worrying, whether we have got delusions of normality because we think this is the way to do it. Time and time again we appoint people from the U.K., and I am not anti bringing in expertise but U.K. people, they are used to working in huge departments that are not multi-skilled, that require time and time again directors reporting to them with all the different skills to run. This is Jersey. This is not much bigger than a council and yet we are not reviewing that and it reminded me of a story, I read it this morning, reminded me of a story about 2 teams rowing, the Jersey team and the Japanese team if you like, and there was this rowing race and the Jersey team lost. Why did the Jersey team lose? Because we had 9 people steering and one person rowing, whereas the Japanese team had 9 people rowing and one person steering and that is the route we are choosing to go down. So, what did they do? The Jersey team had a review. They got a Consultant in and they ended up the next year with a senior steerer, 4 district steerers, 5 assistant district steerers and one rower. They lost the race again the next year so they sacked the rower and gave good pay-offs to the people that were steering. That is where we are. We can all laugh about it, but that is where we are. We have got to fundamentally get in there, look at the administration, sort out where we are going. We are paying embarrassingly obscene salaries to some people and they are laughing all the way to the bank. The public are not laughing. We have got to stop it. It has got to stop now. We have got to get back to the Jersey way. I will support this plan this year because we had no choice but unless I see fundamental change on the way we go about services I will not support next year.