States Meeting Transcript - 25/02/2010

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

THURSDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2010

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption ...............................................................3

1. Minimum Wage: revised hourly rate from 1st April 2010 (P.14/2010) - resumption...3

1.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..................................................................3

1. Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John : ..........................................................3
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : ...................................................5
3. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:.................................................................6
4. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:........................................................7
5. Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary:..................................................9
6. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:...............................................10
7. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour:....................................................11
8. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:.......................................................12
9. Deputy A.K.F. Green:..................................................................14
10. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade : ............................................14
11. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................15
12. Connétable J.L.S. Gallichan of Trinity : ..............................................16
13. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:...................................................17
14. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement:....................................................19
15. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................22

2. Draft Employment (Minimum Wage) (Amendment No. 6) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.211/2009)..............................................................................25

1. Deputy I.J. Gorst (The Minister for Social Security):...................................25

1. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour:.....................................................26
2. The Connétable of St. Brelade:.........................................................26
3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................26
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................26
5. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................26
6. Deputy T.A. Vallois: ...................................................................26
7. Deputy D.J. De Sousa of St. Helier:....................................................26
8. Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................27

2. Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................29

3. Public Holidays and Bank Holidays: designation of 7th May 2010 (P.15/2010).......30

3.1 Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................31

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................34
2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................35
3. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement:.................................................36
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................36
5. Deputy C.H. Egré of St. Peter:..........................................................37
6. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................37

7. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :..................................................37
8. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................37
9. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................38
10. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................39
11. Deputy D.J. De Sousa ...............................................................39
12. The Connétable of St. Brelade:......................................................40
13. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................40
14. Deputy A.K.F. Green:...............................................................40
15. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter:................................................40
16. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................41
17. Senator B.E. Shenton: ...............................................................41
18. Senator T.J. Le Main:................................................................41
19. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier : ............................................41
20. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................41

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................44

4. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee): .........................................................................................45

4.1 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................45

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................45

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

[9:39]

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption

1. Minimum Wage: revised hourly rate from 1st April 2010 (P.14/2010) - resumption

The Deputy Bailiff :

We return to P.14, the proposition of Deputy Southern which has been proposed. Does any Member wish to speak? The Chief Minister.

1.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

I was reminded when Deputy Gorst spoke yesterday that it was back in 1988 when I was a much younger States Member that I was President of Employment and Social Security and put forward various employment reforms, including that of the minimum wage. I put those forward in principle and they were subsequently brought into law by my successor, Senator Routier. That was, at that stage, quite a controversial issue and even now there are some who would say that a minimum wage is very necessary and beneficial and there are others who would say it has been counter- productive. That argument will no doubt continue to rumble on. For my part, I remain convinced that a minimum wage is sadly still a necessity. Even if there was controversy then and now about the need for minimum wage, there was one matter on which everyone was united and that is that the minimum wage, whatever it might be, should not be fixed or should not be a political football to be knocked around the States Assembly. Any minimum wage needed to be set by an independent body after detailed consultation. That led to the creation of an Employment Forum with a balanced mixture of employees, employers and neutral people. It is they who have spent some months looking in detail about the various factors which lead to a minimum wage of one level or another and 3 of those factors are going to change from one year to another. When they are amended, employers and employees need to have sufficient notice of that change. So, I deplore the thought that we have propositions and amendments to propositions trying to second-guess an Employment Forum who have spent months on this matter. I do urge matters to follow the general principle that was agreed back in 1988, reiterated in the Minimum Wage Law and which has served us well over the years and that is to let the Forum get on with their job and for us, as States Members, to do what we ought to be doing and that is not interfering in that role. So, however well-intentioned the merits of the mover of this proposition or the amendment may be, I believe that we interfere with that process at our peril and I urge all Members to support the Employment Forum and leave them to get on with the job that they have been doing so well these many years now.

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

The minimum wage. I always maintain when I was an employer that my staff should not have to work more than the working week at that time, which was 42½ hours. I made sure that my staff were paid sufficiently; that they did not need to take on part-time jobs or work on the side because to me it was important that a person could have as much time to relax as they were working so as to be able to get the best out of somebody. In fairness, an 8 hour or an 8½ hour day at that time, if I got a good 6 hours work out of an employee working hard, that is what I expected because he had to have time off for his break and whatever at 10.00 a.m. or at 3.00 p.m. or 4.00 p.m., depending on the hours they were working, or if they were working overnights on shift work. I expected my staff not to have an income from elsewhere. This, in fact, created one or 2 problems at the times when we were extremely busy when you wanted people, members of staff, to work overtime. It was fine if it was coming up to Christmas, they would want to put an extra few shillings aside to buy additional presents for the family and it created one or 2 problems then. On average, it worked very well indeed. I always thought: "Do as you would be done by" to people. Unfortunately, many businesses - and particularly in the agricultural and horticultural sphere, and also the tourism industry - they used to and they still do in some respects. You see the owner of these businesses running around in their 4-by-4s today - and at that time it was Jaguars and whatever - and you think: "Well, their staff are poorly paid at £6-odd an hour."

[9:45]

You think: "Well, that is " you go along and you may visit some of these farms and you see people living in portacabins and the like. So, there is really no there does not appear to be real justice here. I think: "Well, are we doing the best by the people we employ?" I do not believe we really are. I do not believe we really are. People are working long hours to make a decent wage. Yes, they may get paid overtime at a certain rate above the minimum wage when they do the overtime, but as was said yesterday by Deputy Pitman, £240 a week does not go very far, especially if somebody has to pay rent at £100-odd a week for their accommodation. It does grieve me to think that we cannot do better. I heard this morning on the radio - and I see the Minister for Treasury and Resources is not in here - that we are putting £2.4 million into the finance industry through the stimulus and I see Senator Maclean nodding his head. That is good, but when I read the newspapers and I see that the finance industry across the world have not learnt the lessons of the credit crunch and we are still paying out huge bonuses in the finance industry, in particular in the banking industry, how do the poor people who are only earning the minimum wage really feel? We have to have some feeling for people. We are taking the small amount that they may have been able to save, £1,000 or £2,000, we have taken all their interest away from them that people might get. Yet the finance industry, the top end, the bankers, et cetera, are still creaming-off. They have not learnt from the credit crunch, which has created problems - it is still creating problems in 2010 and probably for the next 2 or 3 years - and it does hurt me to think that we cannot do better for our people at the very bottom end. Another area that concerns me, if I go into a restaurant and I tip somebody, on some occasions those tips go into a central box. Now, that box at the end of the year, or whenever they have their share-out, goes from top to bottom, i.e. the directors also have a percentage of those tips. It does not just go to the people who have given me the service: the chef, the kitchen porter and the waiter; it goes from the management down. Now, to me that cannot be right. The directors are getting their fat cheque at the end of every month. I am tipping for the service that I have at that table on that particular day, yet people are creaming-off higher up the ladder. These are the people that I am worried about; the people at the bottom. A few months ago I brought a proposition to give the people, the States employees at the lower end, a pay rise. Unfortunately it did not succeed, but these are the people out in the workplace that I am talking about now, these people on a minimum wage. Yes, and I respect the 7 or 8 people who work on the Employment Forum and I understand where the Chief Minister comes from when he made his comments earlier, but having spoken yesterday to the Minister for Social Security, he told me that we have over 1,000, or 1,107 people, on our - for want of a better word, I suppose - dole queue. It is a worry that we have that many people. A real worry. People who are out of work. It hurts me today to say that I cannot support this part of the proposition because we have got 6 months' work has been done on the minimum wage by a group of people who have done an excellent job, but I do not want to see that dole queue grow. That is what will happen, unfortunately, if we push much further because I know a lot of people in fact, I know personally of a small business that has gone out of business in the last couple of months and it is just by that little bit extra, having to push out, that it is going to create more problems. I would see the dole queue growing probably by maybe another 20 or 30 people if another one or 2 businesses go to the wall. It is hurtful to say - I am sorry on this occasion - that I cannot support going that little bit further because we are going to be giving a 12 pence an hour increase on the proposal by Social Security, which will be coming along shortly, which I hope everyone will support, but I would have liked to have gone that step further and supported Deputy Southern . It is one of the few occasions I am not going to be able to support Deputy Southern on this and those poor people out there who do need the help. Next year, when they come up for the minimum wage again, if a decent increase is not put in place by the

Employment Forum I will be bringing in an amendment myself. Thank you.

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

While I recognise that the Employment Forum does do a good job of work I think it is important that we take this opportunity to express our views about what the final recommendation is that is coming forward so that it can help weigh upon their decisions in the future. Some of the speeches that will be made and have been made then by the Deputy of St. John will give them some flavour as to what the concerns are of politicians for people in the community on minimum wage. We have got enough champions in this Chamber to defend business and they are leaping at the opportunity to do that at every occasion they can, so no doubt that set of the scales is balanced. I am minded that when the Chief Minister gave his speech that he spoke about this balance of employers and employees. Well, there is a far great deal more people that are employees than employers. I remember when we used to get pay rises in the Marines and they were on a percentage level across the Armed Forces and we used to get something paltry like £20 or £30 more a month or something and they would put our food and accommodation up £50 or £60 because they would always be arguing the economics of the fact that: "We have got to keep pace with inflation, property prices, food costs", et cetera. It got to the point where we really were quite fed up with it and because we were given our pay rises in an official military meeting by quite high-ranking officers we very rarely spoke out about how we felt because we knew that would get us into trouble. But on the last occasion when I was given a pay rise I was in the Royal Naval Military Academy for officers down in Dartmouth and I was pretty much finished my time in the Marines. I was getting ready to leave. I commented, because I thought there was no point in me keeping my mouth shut - I could comment because I was on the way out - that the majority of us felt quite annoyed about the fact that this 2 per cent pay rise meant absolutely nothing to us and in fact with the increases in regards to the accommodation and food across the board it was just not even fighting to keep still. It meant a great deal to the generals and the colonels and the majors who were getting significant sums of money; 2 per cent on their pay packets was significant. They certainly were enough to keep above the costs of the housing and above the costs of the food. So, I ended up, in my submission, which quite a few of my friends thought I was quite brave to make, by saying: "Please, please, please stop giving us pay rises; we cannot afford them." If we do not keep pushing for an increase in the minimum wage and if we do not keep giving due emphasis to a well-paid minimum wage and if we think we can address that in future years, we will be told the need to address it should have been made last year. Any increase the Deputy of St. John may wish to make in 2 years' time will be seen as a step too far. So I am going to ask him to change his mind and I am going to ask him to reflect upon his own words and think about these people who are paying this minimum wage and ask him to think about the lifestyles that they lead and the lifestyles that their employees lead. In many, many cases the minimum wage represents a job out in the open in the countryside. Far away from home, to save money, working in better conditions than home, but to take that money or to send that money home to help their families, sometimes meaning that they are away from their children or away from their wives or husbands to achieve that minimum wage. In certain respects there are deductions and there are living standards for taking those jobs; either portacabins or food or clothing. I realise that farming is about reduced profit, but all business is about profit. If we go back to the argument of a balanced consideration, what are we going to do with our black hole? How are we going to fill it? Where is it going to come from? Are we going to look to the finance industry to plug that hole? Probably not. Are we going to look to land tax development? Probably not. Are we going to look to capping the rents in this Island? Probably not. Probably not because too many Members represent business or have those interests close to heart themselves. If we have a black hole we will probably have to increase G.S.T (Goods and Services Tax). That is what we have been told. Unless we can find someone else that wants to send us their rubbish to burn. We are not going to address the standards of life in Jersey unless we continue to progress a better standard of life for those on minimum wage. The vast majority of people in Jersey are not having to deal with minimum wage, but the vast majority of people in Jersey are never going to own their own home. We cannot just say: "We have got to leave this to the Employment Forum. We should not meddle in the marketplace" because we do not take the checks and balances in the other end of

the marketplace. We do not effect protection at the other end of the marketplace. We let it run ragged and rampant. So, yes, we do need to stand up and we do need to support this proposition.

3. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Yesterday Deputy Southern , when he made his introduction about raising the minimum wage said, I believe, that he thought it had very little to do with economic conditions. He described the current economic climate - and I think I am quoting him correctly -as: "A little bit of a recession."

Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier :

That is incorrect. I then corrected myself and said: "A major recession."

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

If he did correct himself I misheard that, but I certainly heard the: "Little bit of a recession" element. I think without doubt that Members would appreciate that this is not a little bit of a recession. I was also interested to note the change of position that the Deputy has had compared with last year. If I recall correctly - and I am sure he will correct me if I do not - I believe that Deputy Southern was a supporter last year of the recommendations of the Employment Forum with regard to wages at a time when the economy was in a slightly more robust position than it currently is today. I do find it strange that he has changed his position in that respect. With regard to the state of the economy at the moment, I think that Members will appreciate that most economic commentators describe the current global economic downturn as being the worst for at least a generation; probably the worst since the 1930s. Jersey, as Members will appreciate, is not and has not been immune to the full impact of what has been happening around the world.

[10:00]

Despite that, the facts to date are quite stark. Unemployment, or those described as actively seeking work, number well over 1,000. It is already the highest number that we have seen since the early 1990s downturn. At June 2009, the number of job vacancies was at a 10-year low. A survey of the Chamber of Commerce members in September shows that 60 per cent of employers expected wages to be frozen or to fall in 2010. I have heard first-hand many stories of falling earnings in the private sector. The harsh reality of the current economic climate was described to me by a local businesswoman. She explained how she had been having a discussion with a friend of hers working in the public sector who was complaining about the possibility of a pay freeze. This businesswoman, who runs a small local business, told her friend that is an outcome she would find quite acceptable because in 2009 she took a pay cut of 35 per cent in her business. In fact, she took home less than one of her administrators. These are some of the harsh realities of what is going on not just in Jersey but elsewhere. Indeed, official figures support the example that I have just given. In December 2009 a net balance of 21 per cent of Jersey non-finance businesses reported a decline in business activity. Worse still, 49 per cent reported a decline in profitability over the last quarter of 2009. 20 per cent of non-finance businesses had reduced employment in the last quarter of 2009. I would just comment very briefly at this point on a remark that the Deputy of St. John made a moment ago when he spoke. He, I believe, was being slightly critical perhaps of the investment from stimulus funding in the finance industry that has been announced today. I think it is important to recognise, despite the reputational points that I know the Deputy was raising about bonuses and so on, nevertheless the finance industry - as Members will appreciate - is the major contributor to the success, profitability and tax receipts of the Island. The tax industry in Jersey employs 13,000 people. This move is all about protecting jobs. That is what we are doing. We are looking for new products, new markets and ways in which the industry can be maintained to become even more profitable to support local services, local employment, which is essential and I am sure Members will agree with that aim. Frankly, this is not a time to be raising the cost of employment when businesses are struggling and, in some cases, struggling just to survive. The sectors most impacted by raising the minimum wage are important what one might describe as legacy sectors, such as

tourism and agriculture. Tourism, hospitality, retail and agriculture accounted for approximately 30 per cent of the total employment in Jersey at the end of 2009; 30 per cent of the total employment in Jersey. One Member I know will be rejecting this proposition from Deputy Southern - and he might be surprised to hear this - but it is the Deputy of St. Mary, sitting over there. The reason that I am confident to make that statement is that I recall only last week sitting at a Scrutiny hearing with the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel and the good Deputy of St. Mary made it absolutely clear that my department should do more to support the tourism sector and I agree with him. We are always looking to do more to help the tourism sector. Raising the minimum wage will raise the cost base of sectors such as this. Despite the fact that Economic Development already put the largest percentage of our budget into sport and tourism - that is 41 per cent - it is still a sector that is struggling more than most and we have to be very careful raising the cost base by putting up to unreasonable levels the minimum wage. The Deputy of St. Mary was right yesterday when he saw or commented on the fact that I have a drive, and Economic Development has a drive, towards improved productivity. We do and it does appear in a lot of documentation we produce because we believe strongly in it. Unfortunately, he was perhaps confused or frankly wrong when he suggested that raising the minimum wage improves productivity. That is not the case at all. Make no mistake, raising the minimum wage in this difficult economic climate will do 2 things: it will threaten jobs and it will act as a disincentive for businesses to employ young people. Raising the minimum wage will probably harm a new stimulus initiative recently launched by Economic Development in combination with the Jersey Hospitality Association and Careers Jersey. This is a new scheme to help unemployed, young people - that is young people in the age group of 19-25. It is aimed to help them into employment in the hospitality sector. These are young local people currently unemployed and actively seeking work. If successful, the scheme would also reduce the need for local businesses in the tourism sector to import so many staff from off-Island. I have sympathy for Deputy Southern and his desire, which I am sure all Members share, to improve the earnings of the low paid, but the timing is not right at this time. The Employment Forum was set up to independently assess a fair

minimum wage and report its recommendations to the Minister for Social Security. In the current climate its recommendations are, in my opinion, fair and the Minister has agreed to them himself. Importantly, the Minister realises that there is no point in having a dog and barking himself. I recall, as I mentioned earlier, that Deputy Southern accepted the Employment Forum's recommendations last year and I really hoped that he would have taken a similar view in these far more difficult economic climates that we are currently facing. I would also add that businesses need certainty, especially in today's uncertain trading conditions. This proposal of an additional increase gives businesses no time to plan; time to plan which is so essential. Finally, I will close by briefly remarking on some comments by Deputy Vallois yesterday concerning red tape and bureaucracy. I am choosing to mention this because I am also committed to sweeping away unnecessary red tape and bureaucracy and I agree with her comments yesterday entirely. After all, to deliver economic growth, Government needs to do its very best to get out of the way and let businesses do what they are best at, which is delivering the economic growth the Island has benefited from in recent years. I urge Members to reject this proposition, to support the views, the independent views, of the Employment Forum and the Minister. Thank you.

The Deputy Bailiff :

I advise Members that although I have put my on glasses, notwithstanding what Senator Maclean has said, I cannot see the Deputy of St. Mary . [Aside] Deputy Tadier ?

4. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

I would remind Members first of all about the Strategic Plan and one of the aims that we agreed in the Strategic Plan, albeit after a massive, early long debate, was that equality should be a part of the Strategic Plan, although I think it was not equality at all costs, was it? I think we did not go quite that far. So equality is not a central theme in the Strategic Plan and I think we know why; because

ultimately, at the end of the day, as one journalist quite recently and quite rightly put it, the business party in the States of Jersey ultimately has the say. Now, it is quite appropriate after Senator Maclean has spoken about red tape, which was raised by Deputy Vallois yesterday, and I think that is quite correct, but there are also other factors far more important than the minimum wage, which are factors of life and death for local businesses. In fact, I would suggest that an 8 pence increase in the minimum wage is probably very insignificant compared to red tape, but also things like rent. I would suggest that big businesses have no problems in their turnover covering rents for their properties, whether they rent or, indeed, some of them may own the properties themselves. That is not so much a consideration, but it is a consideration for the smaller businesses. Let us look at how things like rents work because there are unintended consequences of low pay. It is my contention that if we increase pay, if we increase the rate of minimum pay, then what we do is not drive up costs, but we bring a balancing effect; so we bring down costs in other areas because there is only a finite amount of money in the economy. If somebody has got more money in their pocket, presumably other people have less money in their pockets and it works to close the gap. I will explain what I mean with this very simple example. We know that in Jersey rents are very high for accommodation and also for shopkeepers if they do not have big turnovers. So what happens in Jersey, we say we have an income support system, so: "If you do not have enough money to pay your rent we will pay it for you", so there is absolutely no incentive for rentiers to drop their prices because we then have a free market. Normally supply and demand is how it works. If you do not have enough money to pay rent, the renter will say: "I have to drop my prices now." But the States love to interfere with this, so they will say: "You have not got enough money; we will pay the rent for you" or: "We will give you the money so you can pay your rent" and this keeps rents very high and that has an affect both in the rental sector for accommodation, but it also has an affect for people renting the shops. This is the irony because people are on low wages this actual system is perpetuated so we are contributing because people do not have enough money to pay their rents; we are supporting the rentier classes in keep rents high. This is what is doing a lot more damage than 8 pence will do on the minimum wage. It brings me to my next point that there is an argument to say that businesses that employ workers at the minimum wage are probably not efficient and I would go one step further - it is quite controversial - and they should not be in business at all. If

they have to pay the minimum wage in the Jersey context then they are probably not worthwhile. This is the irony of having a monoculture; albeit of maybe finance, but it could be any monoculture that brings a lot of wealth into the Island and it will bring big disparities and big disbalances. So things like agriculture and tourism, for the most part, although there will be exceptions, certainly agriculture and to a certain extent not actually economically viable in Jersey. "That is not where the money is, mate" and that is why it is so difficult for the Minister for Economic Development, and he knows this ultimately. This is why whenever the question of diversification comes up it is always skirted around because you cannot diversify in Jersey. There is no money to be made in agriculture.   Agriculture  cannot exist in Jersey  without  subsidisation. The same  for tourism, although I hope that we will always have a good tourist market because we have such a beautiful island but certainly these factors are not being made easy by economic conditions, and they are not to do with the minimum wage. They are to do with we are investing in finance, and this has been a policy of the States of Jersey since the 1970s and 1980s. It has not come around by coincidence. Then today we have the cheek to turn around and say: "Well, if we start paying people a living wage" and let us face it, the minimum wage we have here, whether we increase it by the 12p that is proposed, which is purely inflationary, or the additional 8p that is going to make no difference because that is not even a minimum wage. What we need to do is analyse the actual structure in Jersey and this is what is lacking. Sadly, one way or the other, whether we increase the minimum wage by 8p, the ultimate problem will not go away. Nonetheless, I have to stand here and support the increase of 8p on many reasons, partly for what I have outlined, but also because of where I come from. My family itself came from immigrant workers in Jersey. At that time they were Bretons, they came over to Jersey and they were, no doubt .. they did not have minimum wage in those days. It is good that we do have today but they were no doubt subjected to conditions and

working conditions and remuneration which was not adequate, and I know that working people of that class, they die younger, they suffer from illnesses, they have joint problems, and this is the real consequence. If we want to talk about equality in society, I would suggest that we do not sit here sanctimoniously arguing about 8p, whether it is going to bring down the economy because there are far bigger structural problems in society than 8p. I would encourage Deputy Southern , and I would encourage other Members to support this, even if it is just a token gesture, because it is not going to bring down the economy. We can increase the minimum wage. If there are people that are forced out of employment, if businesses have to shut down, then that is because there are other bigger problems in the economy that we need to address and we should not be blaming it on the minimum wage, and we should not be saying it is for the fact of 8p. If there is fat anywhere, it is certainly not down with the workers who are earning the minimum wage. I think I have been very clear, I certainly have to support this. I would encourage other Members to support this. Search their consciences. I think if we met anyone who worked on the minimum wage we would say to them: "I am going to do everything I can to support your lot." I know the argument has been put around it is better for them to be in a job at that price than no job. I would say it is probably not. It is better that any jobs that exist should be at a living wage, and if there are not jobs at a living wage they should not be around.

[10:15]

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

It is nice to be here. Take a slightly different tack from the previous speaker, although I thought his discussion about rents was quite interesting. The only argument that can be seriously raised against this tiny increase on the increase suggested by the Minister for Social Security is the argument that the Employment Forum is a body that is there to do this job for us and should be left to do the job for us. I really do think that that is the only proper argument against the additional 8p, and I hope that the proposer will address that in his summing up, because it is the only thing that has some merit. I am just going to run quickly through a few concepts and then sit down. The idea that this will destroy jobs, I mentioned this yesterday, there is no evidence for this and what damages jobs in the current climate is demand destruction. There are factors far beyond this 8p which impinge on Jersey and have created the problems that businesses face. This recession is not going to be affected one way or the other by 8p an hour in the pockets of the low paid. Can we please remove this canard, it just does not apply. The inflation argument has not been touched on by anybody but it is in the arguments of the Employment Forum and I refer to the document produced by Deputy Southern on page 5: "In making its recommendation the Forum had been influenced by the Economic Adviser's advice regarding the States inflation policy." Now, I just want to compare the likely effect of 8p in the pockets of the low paid with the fact that we have a policy of encouraging 1(1)(k)s to come to the Island with very big pockets which obviously has an effect on inflation, and we are still awaiting the result of the cost benefit analysis that we were promised by the relevant Ministers in a debate some while ago on an issue to do with housing. We are still awaiting that. We do not know what the negative effects are of that additional demand on our economy. So I think we can just ignore the argument about this 8p contributing in any way to inflation. I just want to draw Members' attention to what 8p means in terms of the cost in the shop. I did some sums and if you were running a small business with sales of £100,000, hypothetical, for the sake of the argument, if your sales were £100,000 8p per hour is £166 in the year. The actual effect on a purchase of £100 would be 0.16 penny. It is one-six hundredth of the cost of an item. So when you go into a shop and you buy your £100 worth of plasma T.V. (television) or whatever, the additional cost on the sale will be 0.16 of a penny. If your sales were £200,000 it would be one-twelfth of a penny. So if we go for the additional 8p you are looking at those sorts of figures that the customer will have to find in addition. I really believe that the people of Jersey would be happy to find that extra one-twelfth of a penny for a business with £200,000 sales to it is effectively redistribution of a very, very small kind. I want to come on to agriculture and tourism. There is an issue with agriculture which they pointed out in their letter to us, that they cannot adjust the prices in the same way that I have just outlined. A business could, in theory, recoup that twelfth of a penny or sixth of a penny but the export industry is in a different place with the Jersey Royal. I would just say to that, firstly, that again it is a very small amount and if that kills the business then, as Deputy Tadier pointed out, then the business is rocky anyway. But also that the agriculture industry is supported by this House with, I believe single area payments is the latest name for the support that we give the industry. So, in a sense, that 8p is compensated for already. Coming to tourism, the Minister for Economic Development correctly said that in the Scrutiny hearing I very much queried his commitment to the tourism industry and he reiterated his support for the tourism sector, and he has challenged me in this debate to say how the 8p impinges on the tourism sector. But what we are doing .. I agree there is an issue with competitiveness between Jersey and other destinations, but what has driven that all through the years has been inflation in Jersey being far higher than in other places, in particular the U.K. (United Kingdom) which is the main source market. That inflation, I am sorry; again, it does not come down to 8p in an hour in somebody's pocket. What we are trying to do by saying what the Minister for Economic Development has just said, is to improve the competitive position of Jersey on the backs of the lowest paid. That is what we are saying. They can pay for the increase in competitiveness which would result from not voting the additional 8p, and that is a strange logic. That it is those who are at the bottom of the pay scales who have to somehow be responsible for improving our competitive performance in relation to other jurisdictions. I am sorry, the argument does not wash. I would just say to conclude that Deputy Le Claire has put the moral arguments far better than I can and I just hope that people remember what he said and how he said it, and vote for this increase.

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

Can I seek a point of clarification from the Deputy of St. Mary? I just wonder how many staff this hypothetical shop with a turnover of £100,000 have?

The Deputy of St. Mary :

The question is quite correct, and clearly if there were 3 staff then it would be three-sixths of a penny. I do want to say also, as you have raised that question, that yesterday I did imply that it was £166 when it was £320 with Deputy Pitman's amendment in response to the Constable of St. Peter , and I did not pick that up at the time. But I was making a speech about 2 amendments at one, so the increment was £160 on each amendment.

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

I have to say I am staggered by some of Deputy Wimberley's sense of economics. I have enormous sympathy for Deputy Wimberley but it is unbelievable the elisions in which he has participated. He has smoothly gone from one statement to another. He has used the purchase of plasma T.V.s as the great economic decision that we are faced with everyday, which is preventing payments. He has said - and I will be on the Rural Economic Scrutiny Panel with him, so we will have a good ding dong on this: "Farmers are subsidised so therefore the 8p is covered." We were pummelled for ever on the old Agriculture Committee that this Island had made a promise that subsidies would be on a par or the Chief Adviser, personally apparently, would be on a par with European subsidies. They never were and as a result agriculture would go into decline. They are not subsidised. Some farmers are very good at the property development game, and they use that game and that enables them to drive around in these big vehicles perhaps that the Deputy of St. Mary has cited. But essentially, as an activity, it is economically not possible. It has been cross-subsidised and so forth. So the idea that the one area payments which are environmental payments also they are not economically driven. We move to this other system which is not that good and we will look at it on Scrutiny. But the notion that these payments just pay is, quite frankly, ridiculous. Like a lot of Members, I have been torn by this. I admired Deputy Le Claire's passion but I will not be able to buy into it. I do not know if Members saw a programme last night called If the Immigrants Go

Home. It was about what happens when the immigrants were to pull out and we had to fill their jobs with people basically off the welfare rolls, and they used various examples and there were some incredibly good examples. It was a mixed result obviously, what did happen when these people went into the potato packing plants, an incredibly wonderful case of a young yobbish guy who went into a Bangladeshi restaurant and proved to be the only white employee there but did a sterling job, although he had to pull out half-way through the meal unfortunately as people were being served. In terms of the economics - other than the human side of it which was, I thought, quite excellent - they interviewed, more particularly at the farming end, several farmers and the British asparagus pickers never quite met their quotas, and they interviewed this farmer about this and he said: "Well, I will have to bring their wage up to the minimum wage, but the real issue is the supermarkets. They are driving it." As the Deputy of St. Mary does know, we run a cheap food policy in Britain, which is not sustainable. Dairy farmers have been pushed to the wall yet on the Radio Jersey phone-in we get a procession of people - one of whom I notice is on the advisory panel for the minimum wage - that person is constantly on the radio saying: "Is it not terrible the price of bread and milk in Jersey." Now we know there are elements of the milk price that can be taken out and we hope with the move to the dairy that unfortunate situation will start correcting itself. But they said that. It is because we go into supermarkets we expect cheap food and we put pressure on farmers to produce that food and the British dairy farmer and, to some extent, the Jersey dairy farmer have been pushed to the wall by these economics. They want their employees to earn reasonable money but it is us that are ensuring that they do not, quite frankly, because of this unsustainable cheap food policy. That really came out in the programme last night. I think we have to be very careful of what we wish for because when they asked in the potato packing plant, where there were actually some excellent employees - they were real stars these British chaps who went into that plant, they got on well with the workers, they had a good time and they really put their heart and soul into it But when they asked the manager there: "If you cannot get immigrants to staff the plant what are you going to do?" He said the classic economic thing: "I will

mechanise." So basically jobs will be eliminated. "I will mechanise. I just cannot run the plant." It is a sad situation but those are the economics that people operate under, under this skewed cheap food policy, for example, that we have at the moment. The other issue about economics, I am still going round the constituency and being accused of - although I have no particular interest in the issue, although I do take a broad .. of being accused single handedly of bringing about the demise of the tourist industry because we allegedly allowed people to install showers, en suite facilities in guesthouses, and that this ultimately led to a partial demise of the tourist industry. I notice the Deputy of St. Mary said: "Oh no, it is inflation." The tourist industry went because people can jump on planes to sunny destinations like Spain. [Aside] No, they want - and I would have thought this winter has been a remarkable example - certainty in terms of getting a suntan. We have an excellent example of a market-driven Minister there, or a suntan-driven Minister. [Aside] The Housing Department is engaged, as we know, in long term research on that, but anyway .. I started to make that little point but because of the Deputy of St. Mary's take on economics I thought perhaps we ought to draw attention to other matters. I think be very careful of what you amend with. I do not think there would be Armageddon if we were to give more money but, sadly, I think the economy is poised; it is an unequal economy, we know that. We know it is an utterly imbalanced economy and we know there are all sorts of perverse consequences, good and bad, because of the immense role that finance and its payments pay in this economy. But I do find some of the economics that underpin this debate very strange.

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

I am struggling to find the balance with this particular amendment because to me it is either one way or the other. You are either helping businesses or you are helping the individuals and there is literally no balance with this. If you help the lower paid then you are affecting businesses. If you help businesses you are affecting the lower paid, and we have to decide one way or the other. But effectively what this proposition is saying to me is it is agreeing to what the States had already agreed in a plan beforehand, in the past, and asking for us to stand by that plan.

[10:30]

The fact that it keeps on coming up in my head that last year we agreed £44 million for economic stimulus. That is £44 million to help people back into employment. To help businesses, for productivity, for more demand, et cetera, how the economy goes. The Business Tendency Survey which is mentioned in the Minister for Economic Development's comments which does not mention how the businesses and I believe, because I do not have the Tendency Survey with me, but I believe it is stated that 29 per cent of, I think, 71 businesses that responded were not aware how the monies were helping the economy. I think Government are partially to blame because we agreed the monies back in May last year to help the economy, to help businesses. The first set of monies I do not believe started going out until about October time and it is just one thing after the other. The Minister for Economic Development, I understand completely where he comes from. He is trying to help businesses. That is his role. But the problem I have is that all the monies that have been allocated with regards to economic development, he mentions about the hospitality industry which he mentions in his comments; tourism and agriculture are the 2 largest industries that would be affected by this change. The hospitality industry we have provided £20,000, I believe, of economic stimulus monies to help people back into work. I do not believe I have seen anything for agriculture. What I would like to say is I heard on the radio this morning that we are willing to pay £2.5 million to help the finance industry. But we have only given £20,000 to help these 2, in particular, industries. That does concern me. That does really, really concern me. I believe there is also monies for Business Incubator, Business Angels, et cetera. But where is it? The businesses are not seeing it. The businesses do not feel like they are being helped. The Minister for Economic Development mentioned about unemployment figures, that are roughly around I think 1,100 at the moment. Back in 2003, as I believe, if the Minister for Economic Development looked back on the unemployment figures on the Social Security website, it was over 1,300 people unemployed. That is only roughly 200 people different. Are these stimulus monies actually working? I just feel uncomfortable as to not agreeing to something that the States have already agreed to and planned and also with the fact that we have provided £44 million to help businesses, to help people back in employment. Also the fact that I am yet to see any measurements from the Ministers to say whether there is a benefit to this money being paid out, this is taxpayer's money. Although I understand businesses are finding it difficult, I have to continue and agree with what was agreed previously and I understand we have an Employment Forum that look at things, that do these kind of things for us. But in this particular situation, whereas years ago the last recession I know is nowhere near as bad as the one that we have at the moment, we never had £44 million of stimulus monies. So I think that is where the balance kind of hits for me, where it knocks me over and says 8p an hour extra and the fact that we should be stimulating the economy already. I just have to support Deputy Southern 's proposition because knowing that that much money is in the economy and these businesses are still finding it difficult to see where this is going, I think all Ministers have got a lot on their hands to help these businesses not only with stimulus monies but red tape and also the fact that we have provided over the years a false economy with

regards to rentals and subsidies. So I am supporting Deputy Southern 's proposition.

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

We have heard a debate this morning to let us sort out the supermarkets and we are where we are because everyone in the world wants cheap food. But I would like to bring this back to a bit of reality. If you look on page 6 of P.211 - and I started on the minimum wage in 2005 - up to last year I have improved my income by £1 an hour. £1 an hour. Really, really good incentive. In fact, over that time the income support would have gone up much more than that so for me to work 40 hours a week I am getting my nice bit of minimum wage and I am being subsidised by the State,

which I need. Just to bring the Deputy of St. John into the real world as well, he made an interesting speech but he said out of their monies some people have to pay around £100 rent. It just so happens, and it is a very nice figure on page 10, the minimum wage of £243.20, about 5 years ago was your average fair rent for a 3-bedroom social house. It is now around the £260. So forget your £100. Your minimum wage for your family person does not even cover their rent. Nowhere near in Jersey. We are sitting here arguing today because the Forum did not mention it too much but the comments do. Were they swayed by the people paying the minimum wage? Apparently it did not matter 5 years ago. Was not too interested. Last year it did go up. It went up a little bit more than normal, but it still only brings them up to in 5 years £1 an hour more. I cannot believe we are arguing. I have heard the argument about we do have and the Deputy of St. Mary wants Deputy Southern to sum it up, why do we have a dog and bark ourselves? Well, I am sorry, I was not elected by that pack. This dog barks for herself. I listen, I see what they have put in their paper and I am very interested to read the comments: "A percentage of the average .." and average earnings; what is the average earnings to a person earning £240-£300 a week? What does it mean? I talk to ordinary people in the street and they say: "Ooh, the average earnings in Jersey, round £28,000-30,000 a year." They look at me and say: "Where? What does that mean to me? I do not live on that. It is nothing to me. Why base anything I get on that?" I cannot answer them because these are the people .. Deputy Le Hérissier is worried about people who will do these jobs. I have just looked and it is retail and it is hospitality. In between them they have got about 90 jobs on the internet at the moment at Social Security. Why are these not being filled? Because people are not working. It is so much hassle to leave income support, get on to something that might not work out, as that programme showed last night, and then go back on to income support. We need to really look at everything we are doing, not just the minimum wage. Income support, making sure that people can take a job up and maybe it is secure for 2 or 3 months. These are all things that have been rehearsed for years and have not been taken on board. You want to get the Jersey person working in the good old industries, like farming and hospitality. I think it is a great job for some youngsters and it was only reported on the radio and T.V. the other day, the Minister for Economic Development, they cannot get these people even under this new scheme. Everybody interviewed said they do not want to do it. It is unsocial hours for a minimum wage and they either will not go out to work for that or they can do something else at the moment. Will it break the camel's back or will it upset a few employers? I can answer that one. It will upset a few employers. It will not put anybody out of business. Deputy Green asked the Deputy of St. Mary how many employers .. we know, we have the largest small businesses that have one and 2 employees. Most of them are the .. the one employee might be on the minimum wage so if that is going to break their bank they are not managing their business very well. If you do look, go even to I would say some of the lowest paid on the internet, they are already being paid £6.30, £6.28 an hour. They are paying over the £6.08. Not a massive amount but they are. I really cannot see the argument. As I say, I am glad we got the Employment Forum. They do some good work. They do take soundings from everybody and, as I say, my politics is that we have a living wage; we have a minimum wage and our minimum wage goes nowhere near the living wage and nothing else has stopped going up. In those 5 years where I have been lucky enough to earn an extra pound an hour we have also introduced G.S.T. (Goods and Services Tax) on food. We had the Le Fondré proposition and we still have not had the answer to how many people have applied for that rebate. In fact, if you are a single person on the minimum wage you are not allowed to, but you still have to eat. You still have to pay your £200 or whatever rent. I think it is £160 for a one-bedroom social rented house. So it will not leave you much. All I can say is it is a no-brainer, I do not think it will make anybody .. we have had the scaremongering from Economic Development - the people who employ people - the minimum wage if it goes up an extra few pence will be the final nail in the Jersey economy. Do not believe

it, very sorry. So I certainly will be supporting this. The Deputy of St. John :

I did not want to interrupt the speaker when she was speaking, if I might just correct what she said. When I mentioned £100 it was a figure they would probably be paying in rental after rent rebates.

Deputy J.A. Martin:

No, the clarification was you would be paying .. the rent you are asking for is more than the minimum wage a week. Please get that through your head. The rents we charge in Jersey is more than the minimum wage, our hourly rate now for a family home.

The Deputy Bailiff :

We are not going to have a debate about what the Deputy of St. John might or might not have said. Deputy Green.

9. Deputy A.K.F. Green:

I said yesterday that the words I was going to say yesterday would cover all 3 things, but I cannot sit here today without reminding people that we have got to get into the real world. People are losing their jobs. It is simple economics. I live with one that has had his hours reduced and there are many others out there that are either having their overtime taken away, their bonuses taken away, their hours of work taken away and sometimes employees are given the stark choice - and this is Jersey, not England - the stark choice of reduce your hours or some of you have to be made redundant. That is happening. It will be the most vulnerable in society that will lose their jobs. It is a matter of simple economics. I will make my own hypothetical company. If you have got a company that has a budget of £100,000 for wages and it goes up to £105,000 and the business is not making money then a job will go. It will be the person who is less skilled, who is less capable, who perhaps has been employed in some ways in a charitable sense, some of our less fortunate people, it will be those that will lose their jobs. Once they have lost them they will not return to employment in the market that we have at the moment. I know what I am talking about. I want to see people have as high a minimum wage as is practical. This is not the right time. This is wrong and you are going to put vulnerable people out of jobs and I urge people not to support it.

Deputy M. Tadier :

May I seek a clarification? Like the Deputy of St. John I did not want to interrupt but is the Deputy saying that the jobs that will be lost will be the minimum wage jobs, and how does he know that?

[10:45]

Deputy A.K.F. Green:

In the main it will be, and I do know that because I live with one that has suffered from that.

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

While I respect the Deputy 's proposition and its social aspirations, I am quite astounded how commercially naïve some Members are and I was quite refreshed to hear Deputy Green's speech just now. I speak as an employer of many years but would add that the proposition will have no pecuniary effect on me. But one point I pick up from previous speakers; one wonders in fact who this is going to affect. There has been a lot of generalisation and we all know that we have not got the massive industry in this Island that others have. I suspect in family terms there are very, very few or perhaps it is the exception rather than the rule where all parties are on the minimum wage and, as Deputy Martin quite rightly suggests, with a rental cost in excess of the minimum wage quite frankly it could not be afforded. I contend that more likely than not those on the minimum wage are those on secondary jobs or spouses of those who are on higher wages. My philosophy is that government should not interfere in the world of commerce and it should be left to employers to remunerate their staff adequately to enable satisfactory productivity in the nature of the business being operated. I believe that it is of paramount importance that there are as many job opportunities as possibly in the Island and to suit all the different strata of our community. This will range obviously from youngsters, late teens, early 20s, to families and older people. My feeling is that the late teens and early 20s are particularly vulnerable to increases of the nature proposed in that the jobs will not be offered. Business owners face increasing costs generally and reduced income in the present economic climate and I would hate the possibility that any job opportunities may end up being prejudiced by us today supporting this proposition. We have a great disparity between wages in the finance sector and those in agriculture, hospitality and others in the Island and working on a percentage minimum of the Jersey median I contend is really somewhat false and Members need to be conscious of this. I urge Members to reject this proposition and let commerce look after itself and its staff.

11. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I am pleased to follow the Constable of St. Brelade and Deputy Green, who I think brought some realism to the debate. I am sorry that Deputy Vallois is not here because I want to respond very briefly to some of the remarks that she made. This is not a fiscal stimulus debate, I need to tell her. This is also not our money in the same way that fiscal stimulus money is. But she has raised the issue of fiscal stimulus and I am surprised that she has criticised or raised questions about the fiscal stimulus programme because she has been, together with the Corporate Affairs Scrutiny Panel, part of 2 reviews on the fiscal stimulus money and, indeed, my reading of the reports that they have issued is that they have been complimentary about the way in which the fiscal stimulus programme has ..

Deputy M. Tadier :

Can I raise a point of order? It is a point of order. As Deputy Vallois is not here I do not ever recall Deputy Vallois criticising the fiscal stimulus package. What she was saying [Interruption] .. no, I do not think she was. I think she was saying it is inconsistent. Given that we have given money to the economy and Deputy Vallois is here for herself so I am sure she can reiterate, but I do not believe that Deputy Vallois necessarily was criticising the fiscal stimulus package, and I am sure she can speak for herself.

The Deputy Bailiff :

What is the point of order, Deputy , you are asking me to adjudicate on?

Deputy M. Tadier :

I am asking you to rule if that is a fair comment.

The Deputy Bailiff :

I am not sure it is a point of order. If it is a point of order I thought Deputy Vallois was drawing a comparison between the fiscal stimulus and the present proposition and therefore it is perfectly appropriate for Senator Ozouf to criticise that comparison.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I believe that sometimes the Assembly runs the risk of having almost collective amnesia. It seems that we think the political debate nowadays is just about simply adding more money, just simply that every political decision is about a new decision and new money. Life is not quite like that. We have a history of significantly supporting industries and significantly putting money into our economic sectors. We have put significant money already into agriculture, tourism, business enterprise. We have also, for those Members that are absolutely understandably concerned about individual people's incomes, we have put tens of millions of pounds into the income support system that is making a difference. We paid 3 times for the exemption of G.S.T. on food exemptions in the income support system. Political debate is not only about adding more money and portraying ourselves as being Father Christmas, in giving more money away. We have to take decisions mindful of what we have done in the past. The Jersey economy is weathering the downturn well but there is and always was a lag in the way in which downturns affect the Jersey economy and it is going to be over the next few months that we see that lag effect affecting our economy, and that is why we have calculated that we need to be making the investments in the economy for fiscal stimulus money over the next few months. I am confident that fiscal stimulus is working and will continue to work and will keep a significant number of people in work. I want to revert back to the proposal by Deputy Southern , and I do not really have much to add but to reinforce the comments that have already been made. We have set up an expert group to advise us on minimum wage and I do not believe that having set up a group we should be turning the minimum wage into such a political football which this debate is a good example of. We have an advisory group. We should stick to their advice. Members are well intentioned, however it is not only about the level of wages that matter. It is the number of jobs that matter and raising the minimum wage in the manner in which Deputy Southern is suggesting will cost jobs, and that is the decision that Members have. Do they want less jobs or do they want higher paid jobs? I want more people in jobs. In time the minimum wage will rise, that is inevitable, but it has to be at the right time and now is the wrong time. [Approbation]

Deputy T.A. Vallois:

Can I make a point of order? Senator Ozouf pointed out the fact that I was on the Corporate Services Panel and the fact that my speech referred to the fiscal stimulus monies, can I just make a point that what I do on the Corporate Services Panel is separate to what I do as an individual Member in this House. On Corporate Services we have a duty to be objective in our scrutinising of policy and legislation ..

The Deputy Bailiff :

It does not sound like a point of order.

Deputy T.A. Vallois:

Point of clarification then. Sorry, Sir. I just wanted to point that out. That is what I do as an individual Member in the States. I did not stand up to point out that I was a member of Corporate Services, and I just wanted Senator Ozouf to be aware that there is a separation between that.

The Deputy Bailiff :

That you have pointed out.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

Am I entitled to a second speech, to respond to Deputy Vallois? I like Deputy Vallois very much, and I value her words ..

Deputy G.P. Southern : Surely not a second speech.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

She criticised the fiscal stimulus and I was responding to that.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Can I just say something further from the Chair. I think I used the words a moment ago that it was appropriate for Senator Ozouf to criticise Deputy Vallois in the context of the fiscal stimulus. I meant procedurally appropriate and I did not intend in any sense to say whether his criticisms were valid or not. That is entirely a matter for Members.

12. Connétable J.L.S. Gallichan of Trinity :

I am pleased to follow Deputy Green and also Connétable Jackson . I visited a couple in my Parish when I saw these amendments coming on and I spoke to them and they said: "Well, I cannot believe they would want to raise the minimum wage again." They said: "Unfortunately because they are going for this extra height we will not employ any young person as a trainee. We would prefer to pay £8 or £9 to have someone who can do the job in the first place." This is where I am afraid we are .. I am concerned about the younger generation. I do agree we need a good wage. I totally support that. But if you do not train these young people to pick up a job that can stand them in stead for the rest of their lives, how on earth can we ever get people to take on the employment when we have other jobs needed? I am staggered by Deputy Tadier . He wants to try and be a farmer I think and see the hours that they put in. I will give him a little example. This week what is the weather doing? Raining every day. What is the farmer doing? He may have 30, 40 people employed. He has to pay this staff a minimum of wages, 40 hours, to be sitting most probably in the shed for the week. Now that is wonderful, you may think. But as a business it is very, very hard to suffer. You work it out. Thirty people on the minimum wage who because of the weather conditions no fault of the farmer, it is no fault of the worker either. I appreciate that. But these costs do add up. You put up the minimum wage, the overtime rate goes up, the double-time rate goes up. It is more than £116 a year. Do not get confused by that. It is a knock-on effect. I think we should keep to the Forum's recommendation. I totally agree we would all like to earn more but get realistic. The majority of people that have spoken against this have never been .. or want a raise, have never taken a business. If they think there is that money out there in a small retail shop why do they not leave the States, take on a business and try it because they say it is easy to find another 8p. Good luck to them. That is all I say. Stick to the minimum wage.

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

I do not think I have ever raised a point of order since I have been in the House but something that crosses my mind and perhaps you could give your ruling on it. Listening to some of the speakers, if there are any Members in the House who employ people on the minimum wage or near the minimum wage should that be declared as an interest and should they have even removed themselves? Because it is an interest, if there is anyone in that situation. Should you advise on that? Keep the minimum wage down it surely does benefit you if you are an employer. If there is anyone can I have my vote again yesterday, I might only lose by 15.

The Deputy Bailiff :

I am just reminding myself of the provisions of Standing Order 106: "A Member of the States who has an interest in the subject matter of the proposition must, if it is a direct financial interest, declare the interest and withdraw from the Chamber for the duration of the debate and any vote on the proposition. If it is note a direct financial interest but a financial interest which is general, indirect and shared with a large class of persons declare the interest. If it is an interest which is not financial declare the interest." It seems to me to be quite clear that the matter is not one where it is a direct financial interest. At most it could fall within Standing Order 106(b), that is to say it is not a direct financial interest but a financial interest which is general, indirect and shared with a large class of persons and if Members have such an interest then it might well be desirable for them to declare it but it does not prevent them from speaking and voting on the proposition.

Deputy M. Tadier :

If somebody does employ somebody on the minimum wage surely that is a direct interest, is it not, because that person will have to be putting out more money than they would otherwise. I can see if they are not employing someone then it is an indirect cost they may have to support.

The Deputy Bailiff :

The ruling I have just made is that it is general, indirect and shared with a large class of persons.

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Thank you for that, Sir. At least it was a real point of order. I think it was the Chief Minister, it seems a long time ago, gave us a little red herring about this being used as a political football. Deputy Southern of course is not doing anything of the sort, as I was not yesterday. What the Deputy is attempting to do is to ensure that we, as politicians, should ensure that those at the bottom of the employment ladder get the protection they deserve. It is as simple as that. That also means correcting matters when bodies like the Employment Forum get it wrong. It must do if we are to take our job seriously. Get it wrong they have. Perhaps too much listening to financially- stressed law firms - as quoted within the Employment Forum's comments - contribute here. Indeed, I am going back to my lawyer tomorrow to ask if all my future legal correspondence can be handled by one of their minimum wage staff because it might make justice affordable in Jersey. I am not very hopeful at the outcome, I have to say. Too much listening, perhaps; divested interest, people who have lost sight of the need for balance. Balance such as Deputy Southern 's proposition would begin to provide. I will say to the Deputy of St. John , he made a really good speech and I do not think we have seen eye to eye much recently but hope that he could change his mind and go for the balance of this proposition because I know that he cares about those people, it came across in his speech. It just disappointed me when he made those points and then said: "But I am not going to vote for it." Perhaps I can persuade him otherwise.

[11:00]

Deputy Le Claire really made this point well about balance. As he pointed out, strange how many in this House will speak about balance at the bottom yet will never ever ensure that we have balance at the top where we allow landlords - let us be honest - to rip people off hand over first. It is a fact and Deputy Martin touched on that as well. Senator Maclean: where to begin. One might be tempted to ask if the Minister for Economic Development would know the difference between profits and profiteering. He gave us another real red herring about the threat to the finance industry. Perhaps I know more finance workers than the Minister does. Indeed we have a couple of them who sit on the J.D.A. (Jersey Democratic Alliance) Council. They might tell him that finding a finance worker on the minimum wage is as difficult as finding a 1(1)(k) resident who pays the full amount of what they should as the figures were proven on Tuesday. Indeed, returning to Deputy Le Claire's points about balance or lack of it. As we saw on Tuesday, there is no commitment to balance from all too many in this House. Deputy Tadier made the point, and very well, about the impact of rent. I am not going to go over that again, other than to say that I agree with the Deputy wholeheartedly. I would also draw Members attention to what the Deputy told us yesterday within the debate on my amendment. Now we are being guided by the Employment Forum who are listening to the Chamber of Commerce. Well, the Deputy got in touch with the Chamber of Commerce, offered them all the chance to give their opinion on how many of them paid to the minimum wage or thought it was justified would have any of their family working on it. The Chamber of Commerce who, I have to say, regularly squeal - is the word I would have to use, I think - about not being talked to yet the Deputy gave him the chance, not one of them could be bothered to answer him. I wonder why that is. Yet these are the sort of people we go to for an independent picture of balance. 8p is what Deputy Southern is asking above the Minister's I watched the same programme yesterday, as Deputy Le Hérissier, and while I do not share his support for exploiting East European immigrants I too share what he said, that 8p in Jersey will not bring about Armageddon. It will not. But he is right. Again, there are much greater issues at hand here. Greater issues that we should debate and I wonder whether we will get round to debating the fact that the real reason issues like this are such a problem is because the politics of the Minister for Economic Development, the Minister for Treasury and Resources, and their counterparts the world over their politics have led the world to the brink. It is a fact. The banks are now having to be bailed out by States the world over. We talk about economics; well, it does not seem many bankers really understood economics and yet that is the real reason that we are in this situation. It seems to be some people want to believe that Jersey exists in a little vacuum. Well, it does not. I think it is Deputy Martin who raised the point of just how little this would put in people's pockets. Who could live on £240 a week and will that bring economic collapse? It is nonsense and I think Deputy Martin really brought us back to reality as she does regularly. We need to look at income support