States Meeting Transcript - 13/09/2011

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

TUESDAY, 13th SEPTEMBER 2011

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

1. Draft Annual Business Plan 2012 (P.123/2011)..........................................4

1. Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):............................................4

2. Draft Annual Business Plan 2012 (P.123/2011): fifth amendment (P.123/2011 Amd.(5)) ............................................................................................6

1. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:......................................................6
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : ...................................................8
3. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..................................................................9
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:...............................................10
5. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................10
6. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:......................................................12
7. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................12
8. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:..................................................13
9. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:.....................................................13
10. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................14
11. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..........................................................15
12. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................16

3. Draft Annual Business Plan 2012 (P.123/2011): fourth amendment (P.123/211 Amd.(4))..................................................................................18

1. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................18
2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................21

4. Draft Annual Business Plan (P.123/2011): third amendment (P.123/2011 Amd.(3)) - paragraph 1..............................................................................22

1. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................23
2. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................24
3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................24
4. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................24
5. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................24

5. Draft Annual Business Plan 2012 (P.123/2011): fifteenth amendment (P.123/2011 Amd.(15))................................................................................25

1. Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):...........................................26
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................27
3. Senator B.I. Le Marquand..............................................................27
4. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................28
5. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:..........................................................29
6. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................29
7. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:........................................................30

8. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade : ........................................................30
9. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen:..........................................................31
10. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..............................................................31

6. Draft Annual Business Plan 2012 (P.123/2011): second amendment (P.123/2011 Amd.(2)) - paragraph 2..................................................................34

1. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................34
2. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:.......................................................35
3. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :..........................................................36
4. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................37

5. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:......................................................37
6. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................37
7. Deputy A.E. Jeune of St. Brelade:......................................................38
8. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................38
9. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..............................................................39
10. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier : ............................................39
11. Senator J.L. Perchard: ...............................................................40
12. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................41
13. Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John:......................................................41
14. The Deputy of St. Ouen:.............................................................41
15. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour:..................................................42
16. Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence : ..................................................43
17. Senator B.E. Shenton: ...............................................................44

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................47

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................47

7. Draft Annual Business Plan 2012 (P.123/2011): sixth amendment (P.123/2011 Amd.(6))..................................................................................47

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................48
2. Deputy A.E. Jeune :.....................................................................53
3. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................53
4. The Deputy of Trinity :..................................................................54
5. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................55
6. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................55
7. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................56
8. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................58
9. Deputy E.J. Noel: ......................................................................58
10. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................59
11. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................60

8. Draft Annual Business Plan 2012 (P.123/2011): eleventh amendment (P.123/2011 Amd.(11))................................................................................76

1. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................77
2. Deputy J.A. Hilton:.....................................................................78
3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................78
4. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................79
5. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................79
6. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence : .............................................79
7. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................79
8. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..............................................................80
9. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................81

10. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................82

9. Draft Annual Business Plan 2012 (P.123/2011): second amendment (P.123/2011 Amd.(2)) - paragraph 1..................................................................84

1. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................84
2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................85
3. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................87
4. Connétable P.F.M. Hanning of St. Saviour : ............................................87
5. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................87
6. Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier:.....................................................88

7. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................88
8. Deputy A.E. Jeune :.....................................................................89
9. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement:.......................................................89
10. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..........................................................89
11. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:....................................................90
12. Senator P.F. Routier:................................................................91
13. Deputy J.B. Fox:....................................................................91
14. Deputy A.T. Dupre of St. Clement:..................................................92
15. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:........................................................92
16. The Deputy of Trinity : ..............................................................93
17. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................93
18. Senator B.E. Shenton: ...............................................................94

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................97

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer. PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption 1. Draft Annual Business Plan 2012 (P.123/2011) The Deputy Bailiff :

We now come to the Business Plan and, in the anticipation we are not going to complete it today, I am going to ask the Greffier only to read paragraph (a) of the proposition.

The Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion to receive the draft Annual Business Plan 2012 and (a)to approve the summary set out in Summary Table A, page 69, being the gross revenue expenditure of each States funded body, including depreciation, a proposed transfer from the Health Insurance Fund of £6,131,000, and the additional provisions of net revenue expenditure for central reserves of £12,485,000 and restructuring costs of £10,000,000 as part of the total net revenue expenditure of the Treasury and Resources Department and, having taken into account any income due to each of the States funded bodies, the total net revenue expenditure of £655,920,000,to be withdrawn from the consolidated fund in 2012; with any increase above this figure to be compensated by appropriate measures within the draft Budget 2012 to enable the Minister for Treasury and Resources to present a draft Budget which forecasts a return to balanced budgets by 2013 as set out in Figure 4.6.

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

I stand here today to present my last Annual Business Plan with a mixture of feelings, all of which I am pleased to say are positive ones. Naturally after 24 years there is a twinge of regret that I am coming to the end of a long and generally satisfying political involvement. At a personal level, I have a sense of satisfaction that the plan before us today represents an ongoing step in our longer term objective of seeing the Island in the sound and secure position it has enjoyed for many years. Indeed we are in a sound financial position at the current time, thanks to the prudent policies we have adopted in the past but I do want to return to balanced budgets as soon as possible. Our objective is to do that by 2013 and this plan confirms that, if we adopt it, we shall indeed be on course to achieve what is a very challenging but necessary objective. We are on course and we must not allow ourselves to be deflected by pursuing fleeting promises or jumping on an election bandwagon. The future of the Island is too serious for us to get side tracked. As I say, Jersey starts from a sound and secure position; however, we are not immune from global pressures and the current state of the global market remains uncertain and fragile. We have to be firm in our resolution to pursue what looks like being a long and difficult road to recovery. This underlines the importance of our objective of balancing our books and controlling our expenditure so that it does not exceed our income. We do face some challenges. Jersey's economy declined in 2009 by about 6 per cent and was not forecast to increase significantly during 2010. The Fiscal Policy Panel told us to plan for a fragile and drawn out global recovery and that panel has estimated that although growth will resume this year and next, it will be at relatively weak rates. More recently, the European and American situation since that report only serves to harden that expectation. The fact that interest rates look set to remain at a historically low level will clearly not be helpful for our banking industry so the focus now must be on economic growth. We must improve the competitiveness of Island businesses and help them to gain market share so they are well placed to benefit from global growth. It is timely that the Minister for Economic Development has published a draft economic growth strategy for consultation and I hope Members will be making their views

known. Jersey's financial services industry remains a vital component of our economic prosperity. We need to develop new products, attract business from emerging economies like China, India and Israel and maintain our global reputation as a jurisdiction with the highest standards of regulation. We must also create a more diversified and balanced economy through exploiting the growth in global e-commerce, putting ourselves at the forefront of the digital economy and investigating the potential to use the Island's natural resources in a sustainable, environmental and commercial way. We must work to create new opportunities for existing sectors by developing our tourism strategy and continuing to support growth in the rural economy. I am sure Members will agree that in the current economic climate, having restored our public finances to a sound footing, securing future economic growth is the challenge for our Island but the key to our success in the future will not just be the performance of our economy; it will be the performance of our public services. If we want to compete in the world, if we want a fair society, if we want to get real value for money while providing the decent, reliable public services that make life better for people, then we need to modernise. That is why it is so important that funds have been earmarked for modernisation and restructuring and why it is vital that we continue to apply those monies for that purpose and that purpose only. If we fail to modernise we cannot expect to achieve longer term sustainability. There will be no progress if we just stick with the status quo. This Business Plan maintains our commitment to saving £65 million by the end of 2013. As we continue to work to reach this target, we also need to focus on developing a modern public sector that can meet Islanders' needs not just today but in a challenging future where we know there will be increasing demands on many of our core services. This will involve changing the way our public sector works, harnessing new technology and making best use of the people and resources we have available. That is why the Council of Ministers is putting forward this vision for the future based on a business plan which must ensure that we have balanced budgets by 2013. It is only when we have achieved this that we can go on to benefit from a recovering global economy. Previous generations saw the wisdom of not letting our spending exceed our income. We must follow that good example and continue our savings programme. Last year we were looking at a structural deficit of around £100 million. This year we have brought that down by successfully removing £12 million from budgets in 2011. Next year we will add a further £20 million to that figure and in 2013 a further £33 million will be removed from expenditure, making a total of £65 million over those 3 years, just as the States agreed in the Budget last year. We need to stick to our policies of facing up to challenges and finding the best solution for Jersey. In that respect I have been looking at some of the amendments before us today with some concern. It seems that some Members are still not thinking through the long term consequences of their short term priorities. It takes courage to take decisions which are not populist, decisions which secure a successful foundation for our economy. I was pleased that Members found the political resolve to approve measures in the 2011 Budget which are now being implemented and are beginning to bear fruit. I hope Members can maintain that courage today. I hope we can look beyond the next few weeks of frenetic electoral activity to make the right decisions for the future that will present serious funding challenges for some of our most fundamental public services, a future in which tax receipts will not immediately bounce back to their previous levels. This Business Plan is part of a structured transition from global downturn to

economic growth. It is the latest step in an ongoing process and should not be viewed in isolation. It proposes a continuation of the 3 part plan to deliver savings, support economic growth and to deliver a flexible tax strategy to enable that return to balanced budgets by 2013. It sets out in detail how departments plan to spend the funds we propose to allocate to them. We have been put through challenging times and I believe we have put in place the right mechanisms to meet future challenges head on. Today I am presenting a plan that is comprehensive and clear in its vision and also flexible enough to withstand shocks along the way. The 2012 Business Plan is the right way to steer us clearly through the years ahead and is the rock of stability on which a sustainable recovery depends. We are in a good position for continued long term success. We have strong finances with no debt. We have a resilient economy, thanks to successful long term strategic planning. We have implemented a successful fiscal stimulus strategy, supporting local people through one of the most turbulent global economic environments in living memory. We have been able to maintain comparatively high levels of employment and take action to reduce the impact of unemployment on the more vulnerable members of our society. This Business Plan is well thought out. It is realistic. It allocates extra money where needed and it cuts spending elsewhere. It acknowledges the

pressures we face but is realistic about the way we need to face the future. I hope that my successors can build on these developing initiatives to the benefit of all of us who are privileged to live in these islands. That is our task, our challenge and our opportunity. I urge Members to endorse the proposals of the Council of Ministers, to support these measures to continue to work to reform our public services and to balance our public finances. I hope that Members will see the value of remaining resolute and prudent and will support this plan in its entirety. The first part of the proposition deals with total net States revenue for 2012 and I am pleased to say that we are on target to deliver the savings that were proposed, and even though we have had a slight difficulty with Projet No. P.72/2011, the Council of Ministers remains absolutely committed to developing that £65 million of savings and avoiding the need for additional taxation. These proposals do that and I propose part (a) of the proposition for States net revenue expenditure for 2012.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Are those proposals seconded? [Seconded]

2. Draft Annual Business Plan 2012 (P.123/2011): fifth amendment (P.123/2011 Amd.(5)) The Deputy Bailiff :

We now come to Amendment No.5 which, according to the Annual Business Plan running order is the next on the agenda in the name of Deputy Southern and I 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 2012" insert the words: "except that the net revenue expenditure of the Chief Minister's Department shall be increased by £60,000 to enable the Statistics Unit to produce a Relative Cost of Living' comparator between Jersey and the United Kingdom by 2013 and the net revenue expenditure of the Treasury and Resources Department (Provision for Restructuring Costs) shall be reduced by an equivalent sum in 2012".

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

Although a small sum of money in terms of £600 million plus this, I believe, is an essential amendment to the Business Plan. It addresses a comparison between the cost of living in Jersey and the cost of living in the U.K. (United Kingdom) and that, I believe, is a central issue as we go through not only the immediate future but into future years. Time and time again we are told of comparisons between Jersey and the U.K. with no benchmark fixed figure to make any absolute statement about. Quite recently we were told, for example, that the average earnings in the U.K. rose by 2.1 per cent and the average earnings in Jersey increased by 2.5. Thus we can make a similar parity; however, in terms of the cost of living, what does that mean? It means our cost of living, if you look at the R.P.I. (Retail Price Index) figures, the most recent ones being R.P.I.y. of 3 per cent, below that of the U.K, the change is comparable but what does it mean? In terms of the pensioner with her or his £184 per week, compared to the U.K. with £102 per week, what does that mean? The answer is it sounds very generous but the answer is not in comparing relative R.P.I. changes or relative average earnings changes. Where is the starting point? Where is the marker that says: "the cost of living in Jersey is ..?" If I went round the room and said: "how much more expensive is it to live in Jersey than it is in the U.K?" we could all have a guess. Where would we be? My guess is that even the Council of Ministers would be talking about the 20 per cent mark. It must be at least 20 per cent more expensive over here. Some others might well be, I believe, more realistic and start talking about 30 or plus more expensive to live here than in the U.K. but: "we do not know" is the answer. Nobody here knows how expensive it is to live in Jersey than it is in the U.K. and yet we educate our children at university level in the U.K, we bring them back, we

employ them. We set the pay rates by comparison with the U.K. Why do we do that? Because we need to recruit skilled workers. We need to recruit teachers. We set the terms and conditions and the pay rates in comparison with the U.K. It has to be healthy and the most vital case that we have come across day in and day out is the critical lack of nursing skills in the Island. Why? Because we can't apparently recruit and retain skilled specialist nurses in Jersey. Have we got an absolute marker that says: "and that is because it is 20 per cent more expensive to live here so therefore we ought to be paying them 20 per cent more"? We do not have that marker. Now, the £60,000 suggested as ultimately the cost of doing such research is actually a reserve position. Despite the Council of Ministers' words that say this comparison between U.K. and Jersey has a low priority compared to other initiatives and is not on the schedule to be done, I have spoken to the Chief Statistician and he says he has got it pencilled in for this year's work. He wants to produce a comparator between Jersey and the U.K. so that we can start to make those benchmark figures so we know where we are. Not only that, he has allocated some time for one of his officers to do that. He tells me if they can get access to the figures, either from the O.N.S. (Office for National Statistics) or the European figures and make the comparison, he would do it the way he likes doing it, which is in house. He says he likes to do things in house and he does not want to go out of house unless he can help it. If he can get access to the right figures, it can be done. We can start to have a reasonable comparator that places us where we are in comparison with the U.K. (United Kingdom) so we can make those benchmarks about how much more expensive it is here. He is quite willing to do that and he is prepared to do that. The £60,000 comes into play as a plan B if the access to those figures becomes difficult or he cannot get access to them, then he is prepared to go to an outside body to do a different piece of research to give us some figures to work on but it is definitely a fallback position. He trusts the work his own department does and that is what he intends to do. So the £60,000 although it is sitting there, we have got to make that transfer, it is not the real spending of £60,000; it is from one pot to another. It is there; it is very much a plan B fallback position. While we are on that, that £60,000, which is made to seem quite a lot by the Council of Ministers' comments, let us examine what is happening. We are told that we are conducting a root and branch examination of terms and conditions along with pay for our public sector and we are doing that from next week when the negotiations open if I am to believe the Chief Minister and his answer yesterday. As part of that, what do you think will be happening? Each sector will be seeking to have a proper comparison. The teachers have just gone through such a position. They employed Tribal, they have changed their name since, and the system and the assessment, the review, has completely broken down. It has been working for some 3 months now and they are getting nowhere. Why? Because terms change, conditions change but they have no figure on which to base what is the absolute cost of living between Jersey and the U.K. so how can

we place teachers at the bottom end and head teachers compared to their counterparts in the U.K.? The answer is they cannot. In fact, things have got so bad they cannot even do a decent comparison with Guernsey who were initially interested in joining in because they would like to know their figures for their purposes as well. Ditto; 2 surveys, how much did they cost? IDS and Tribal again into the relative pay and the problems around retention and recruiting nurses. How much did those 2 surveys cost? £10,000 apiece, £20,000 apiece? I do not know. We will be spending money on such comparisons and we will be producing answers which are partial. I do not believe that is good enough; I believe we can do better. The Chief Statistician says he is quite prepared to do it and get on with it. It would be a useful figure for everybody in this Chamber and for everybody out there to know where is the benchmark in comparison because we use terms and conditions, we use pay scales from the U.K. all the time. If we do not set the figures right, we will get what we have got in nursing recruitment, which is we cannot find the staff. Just as a by the way, the IDS survey said you should increase the pay scales for grades 5, 6 and above by 5 per cent immediately. The States Employment Board has refused to do that and that is the minimum comparator if you want to recruit specialist nurses at the top end.

[10:00]

So the problems are already here about the lack of the comparator. The work can be done. It could be done in house and delivered and that going into the future, come to the end of the year, the time scale is right, again, I have checked that out with the Stats Department, I have said before 2013. He says: "That is exactly the right time scale, I can deliver in that period." We can have a figure for future reference which gives us some real idea of what we are doing when we are making that comparison and make life easier for us, for the Chief Minister, for us all, in terms of where are we relative to the U.K. What do Jersey figures mean in terms of cost of living? This is a vital step. It is something that has been considered for the past decade but never quite made it to the top of the list. Put it on the list now and in the future, we will all be better off.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak?

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

Deputy Southern 's amendment, I think, is probably the most important amendment within the Business Plan we are debating. He says it is a vital step and I agree with him. It is imperative when we bring about savings of the order of £65 million within 3 years taking that money out of the economy that we understand fully the implications of that. Politically, it seems good business and it is argued that it is good business to do this and we are told about the laudable position in the past about spending less than we have made and it sells great to the I.o.D. (Institute of Directors) and the wealthy in the Island. It also sells well to those that are comfortable in the Island but it does not sell well to those that are struggling day to day, week to week, month to month. Year on year, the position of the ordinary person in Jersey is diminishing and very interestingly this morning on the radio I heard that Guernsey has just produced its comparison with the United Kingdom and it has found that it is 25 per cent more expensive to live in Guernsey than in the United Kingdom and 50 per cent more expensive for pensioners. So when they introduce cuts and savings to address their budgets and when they introduce taxes and when they introduce policies and when they look at the measures that they can influence their economy upon, their people can understand, along with their politicians, exactly how things are in Guernsey compared to the United Kingdom. When you get to pensions and how much money you decide to give in terms of pensions, when you get to pay and you decide how much money to give in terms of pay, it must be a significant opportunity for a real decent comparison for the people and the politicians, for the politicians to go to the people and look them square in the eye and say: "I have done this and it is justified." At the moment, I do not think any of the proposals that the Council of Ministers has been making or the previous States of Jersey were making, have been justified because there has never been a real decent comparison with the United Kingdom. On the weekend, I went to Les Quennevais swimming pool for a swim and on the way home my wife said to me: "Oh, look at that lovely house for sale on the left." I did not even turn my head to look at the house because the concept of buying a house has just been completely driven out of my mind and on a wealthy States Member's income if it has been driven out of my mind, what about the majority of the people in the Island and the young people? We are talking about an economic growth strategy that is going to encourage people to be in Jersey and do business in Jersey and retain our younger people and succession training. The only thing I hear successively in the States is how we fail to train successioning. The reality is that the cost of living in Jersey, especially the cost of accommodation, the affordability and the availability of accommodation, which is a key factor in living anywhere, is through the roof and beyond reach: £460,000 or £540,000, I have lost the figure, an astronomical amount of money for the ordinary average house. We do nothing relatively to protect people within Jersey from an open door policy within the European Union for people to come in and undercut existing workers and existing contracts by people who are paying for houses in the European Union where you can buy a brand new house, deck it out for £70,000. So we are failing completely in our duties and it is because, I would say, and this may get some people upset, because too many of us are too comfortable in here financially because we do not understand and we do not appreciate the reality of people's lives in

Jersey for the majority of people. The majority of people are not represented, I would say, by the presence of the Members in this Assembly. There is a smattering of people that come from and understand and represent them. Although we all argue that we represent them, very few of us have the experience and those that do are actively campaigned against at every opportunity, dismissed, demonised and driven out. So I am certainly supporting this this morning and I think if we are going to do anything in the future, any kind of plan, as I said yesterday, this whole debate is going to be a load of waffle that will not last as long as a waffle because once they get past the elections, they will be divvying the cash out among themselves for this, that and the other as and when they need it, £800,000 on a compost heap and another £5 million to keep the smells under control and we are celebrating the fact that we are planting 2 trees in the middle of town, 10 years late. Nothing is in reality in focus and it will not be in focus until we as an Assembly recognise what we are doing in light of reality, the reality of the ordinary person based upon a U.K. comparison. How can you justify a pay rise that is in line with the U.K.? How can you justify a pension increase that is better or worse or the same or in line as the U.K. when we have no concept, no understanding, no real numbers on comparisons. It is 25 per cent more expensive in Guernsey to live than in the U.K., news today on the radio, and 50 per cent more expensive for pensioners. I implore Members; this is a very, very small amount of money. Senator Ozouf came into the Assembly screaming and shouting from the rafters, rightfully so, about the need for better information, better statistics. He was absolutely right then. I am absolutely right in reminding us all about what he said then and I am certain if we can save £56,000 last year on advertising with the Jersey Evening Post, we can put some of that money and some more money next year if we can do anything like that in savings in areas where we are just not paying attention, and pass this money over for better statistical information so when we make decisions like we are going to make for the rest of this debate, we do them in line with reality. I certainly will be supporting Deputy Southern .

3. Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

This is the first of several amendments and I think we need to put its relevance into context and try to understand just how we can use our time fairly wisely. It is a fairly simple amendment based entirely on the need for further statistics. Now, I am very keen on having statistical information, reliable information rather than hearsay, and I very much applaud the fact that our Statistics Unit in recent years has grown from one man and a dog to a few more people. Certainly, one can carry on creating more and more statistics, almost ad infinitum and one has to say you have to be realistic and say how many of these statistics are needed and which ones are the most important. That is a judgment which is perhaps not best made by politicians because that judgment tends to be coloured then and for that reason, the States some time ago set up a Statistics User Group, an independent group of people whose remit, among other things, was the relevance and appropriateness of the statistics for the purposes for which they are used. What are they going to be used for in this case? According to Deputy Southern , for entry into wage negotiations to create a far greater differential between Jersey and the U.K., a differential which perhaps we cannot afford, a differential which may be [Aside] .. the Deputy can have a chance to respond at the end. This particular statistic is not one which the Statistics User Group, the independent group, suggests is particularly necessary at the current time. Why is that? That is because the Statistics Unit is already producing a U.K. Jersey price comparison on a simple basket of goods. In other words, they are doing the basic amount of work which can be done already. What is being suggested by Deputy Southern is far more complex and has a danger of being misleading. Are we comparing with the price of goods in London or the price of goods in Lerwick? They again are going to be totally different. So is this information going to be statistically useful for us or not? I have to say that neither Guernsey nor the Isle of Man currently produce a purchasing power parity index, which is what this is and at the current time, this is not something which is high on the list of priorities. Yes, it is something which would be nice to have along with lots of other statistics but we have to prioritise here, we have to say what is the best use of our resources. If another £60,000 were to be made available to the Council of Ministers, to the States, what would we use that £60,000 for? Would we use it for some social benefit, would we use it maybe to provide some additional benefit to carers or something like that or would we use it to produce more statistics, statistics which have limited practical value? The Deputy in his proposition suggests that this comes from the restructuring provision and I said how important it is in my opening speech that that restructuring provision is used for modernising the public service and not as a help yourself buffet and £60,000 may not sound a great deal. It is indicative of the thinking which says it does not matter, we can carry on spending in the same old way. We cannot carry on spending in the same old way. We have a deficit of £65 million to address and unless we address it seriously, we are not going to get anywhere. This may seem a simple amendment. It is not necessary and it is really contrary to the objectives which we should be looking for in this Business Plan. I urge Members not to waste undue time on this particular amendment but to reject it.

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

I have to say, oddly enough, I did start partially in agreement with the Chief Minister but as his peroration proceeded, I have to say I lost the spirit to live. I think we have to put this in context. There is no doubt this might be seen as a Trojan horse by Deputy Southern in order to pursue a particular trade union agenda. I do not think there is any doubt that that is what some people are thinking. My view is it is a slightly more nuanced proposition and there is an issue of be very careful of what you wish for. I have got no problem with this because clearly there is a recruitment issue but the group he has used, nurses, of course, the recruitment issue is global. It is not U.K. only and if he were to go, as he well knows, into U.K. hospitals as well as obviously the local hospitals, he would find a multinational workforce from places like the Philippines, Spain and so forth. It is a much different situation and to try and characterise the situation as one only of Jersey's high cost of living versus the U.K.'s lesser cost of living is not really the full picture. The second issue is I have got no problem in nurses' conditions being examined. They have to be examined, quite frankly, bearing in mind the global recruitment crisis. The second issue is what are the issues locally and I have had complaints about accommodation, for example, the standard of accommodation and the availability.

[10:15]

Particularly now that we have moved to the permanent (j) situation, perhaps if we were offering them innovative solutions or shared equity solutions in dealing with accommodation rather than the blunt approach of just comparing the cost of living in one country versus another, again, that might be more helpful to them. So my view is yes, I have got no problem with this and I certainly do not think it is the end of the world or the end of our budget cuts if we approve this. I really think in terms of the overall scheme of things, it is a modest proposal but I do wonder about the identification of the real issue here and quite what is being sought because I would much rather that the Health Department have set up a taskforce to look methodically at what are the issues preventing nurses from coming here. What annoys and frustrates them when they do come here and they try and cope with the cost of living and, particularly, as they tell me, with the property issue. It would be nice to think we were looking at innovative solutions in a particular way to deal with that. I have no problem with the overall. I do not think it will lead to the dire consequences outlined by the Chief Minister although I do appreciate his concerns but I do wish and hope that Deputy Southern will look at the issue in a broader context.

5. Senator A. Breckon:

For me the issue this touches on is a longstanding one and I think it was looked at years ago by the former Economic Adviser and then Chief Adviser and that was pound price parity. If we forget about wage negotiations and you think perhaps about pensioners, then I think Deputy Southern mentioned in his speech about a single pensioner getting £184 a week and that sounds a lot of money until you try and do something with it, of course. In the U.K., the basic pension is about £80 a week less but it is supplemented by about another £30. The basic pension is lower but

probably nobody gets less than £130. On top of that, many pensioners do not pay any health care costs at all, nothing. Dental, optical, G.P.s (General Practitioners), do not pay a thing, nothing. They also get, not means tested, £300 in about October of each year so they do not have worry about switching on the heating or the electricity or whatever else it is and these payments have been looked at obviously but that is where it is. I remember there were discussions many, many years ago with the Economic Adviser, the Chief Adviser, how can we compare? You can say easily pensioners in Jersey, of course, are much better off, but are they? In the U.K., for example, many pensioners living in social housing pay hardly any rent at all and the reason for that is it creates a "money-go-round". What do we do here? We have got a "money-go-round" where we might have say Hue Court where a single pensioner is assessed as having to pay £400 a month. Of course, they do not have £400 a month so we create a subsidy system that goes from Social Security to Housing and back to the Treasury and some of it goes to private landlords. So if we look at some of the real issues which I think are in here, the other thing where there are some differences is in basic living costs, utilities, food, things like that. Now, as the Chief Minister has mentioned, there is an annual consumer price comparison which comes out at the end of August/September every year but it is not as comprehensive as this. The Statistics Unit are very professional and they can produce this but what is a little bit disappointing for me is the Chief Minister's Department has a budget of over £4.5 million and I would question who is in there, what are they doing? I would have thought there is a cost saving in there because we are having a debate here about a sum of money which is a fraction of a percentage and there is a: "We cannot do this, save the money, we need to save;" £65 million. The next thing is some people we have not heard of have been paid £100,000 to produce a report that we are never going to take any notice of so that is really where we are. The problem is with this Business Plan and the processes, who is setting the agenda? What is on it and what is off it? I think this is a worthy thing and it is a shame that we have to go to this length to get this in.

Whether it will go in or not is another issue but maybe there is another way and if the Chief Minister and others are going to come to this debate and say: "Oh, we cannot do this, no, no, sorry, it is not our idea. It might be a good idea. It does not fit." Well, let us cancel the Foreign Minister's next world tour. Let us stop that. That would create the money to do this. Let us think outside the box a little bit. So there are things that we can do to prioritise but it is a question of who wants to do it and this might not be high profile. The other thing, of course, is it could prove to be very embarrassing and there is an example that is available. If you look at the average earnings, it is about £33,000. If you look at the average property prices, it is about £500,000. Where does that fit with affordability? If you bring that down to groceries, utilities, whatever else you want to do, then you can say Jersey is a nice place to live but it is very expensive and that then becomes an embarrassment for the people who are promoting whatever they want to do, economic growth and whatever it may be. That is where I think the problem is. It is not on the Council of Ministers' agenda because I think there is a serious embarrassment factor. It has got nothing to do with nurses or anybody else. It is about statistical information and that is the way we should look at it. It may well be used as a comparator for pensioners and others say: "Well, yes, you get this" but is it enough and the answer is probably: "No, it is not." So that is maybe where it should be. There are other things that could relate to this and I think it is an important piece of work and while it is, as I say, a minuscule part of this whole thing but again this Chamber is the final arbiter of this and we have this torturous business planning process and unfortunately this is a part of it. Members should consider any amendments that individuals have brought having looked at it in the whole because the other thing for Members to remember is most of us were not party to bringing this thing together so we have been presented with it in mid July: "So there you are, there is your present for your summer holidays. Who wants to do some work?" Some Members have done that, some scrutiny panels have looked at things but we need to restrict that and not just dismiss it because the Council of Ministers or a Minister says so because they are not the final arbiter. This House is and I hope Members will take note of that. It is a small amount. It can be worked around and I think it

will be a worthwhile piece of work. For those reasons, I support this amendment.

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

I hope I can set a bit of a guide for the day and the week and just be fairly short. It was interesting to hear the Chief Minister say how he is keen on statistics. I think most of us would probably argue yes, he is very keen on statistics as long as they are not inconvenient. But surely knowing what you are basing policy on is a fundamental cornerstone of responsible government. I would really commend Deputy Southern for giving us that guide on getting through the Business Plan: concise, factual, logical, to the point. I think the Statistics Unit deserve a lot of credit; they do a lot of very good work. Why would we not want them to continue that good work by doing something that could clearly be so beneficial? Deputy Southern used the example, and he was right to, of course, for the nurses but in getting this core information out into the public, because the public should have this information, what about looking at the other end and how this might help us justify or not the completely over the top salaries that we seem quite happy to hand out willy-nilly to the boys at the top? Completely over the top salaries. What are they based on because I think if you spoke to 100 people, 99 out of those 100 would say they are not based on any reality whatsoever. Too many Members, I believe, have no idea of how those at the bottom and, indeed, middle Jersey, really live and struggle to live and this that Deputy Southern  is suggesting for £60,000 can only go to enlightening all of us. The 53 of us could probably be asked a question, as Deputy Southern said, and we would each come up with a slightly different answer. Why not get the facts? As to why the Chief Minister really does not want this, I would have to wonder if it is because he has already allocated the entire central reserve. Possibly that is why he does not want this and life looks very different from an ivory tower. While we have got Zero/Ten and we can dismiss £10-15 million as it is not a cash flow problem, it is deferred payments, then I do not think we should even be squabbling over £60,000. What Deputy Southern is offering us is a chance to have something very solid and very beneficial in place and I would just urge all Members to support it and let us get on

to the next item.

7. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

I have to say I was disappointed with the Chief Minister's speech on this matter because when I first read Deputy Southern 's amendment, I thought "that sounds very sensible and I am sure the Council of Ministers will accept this amendment." However, we now know that we do not want to go to getting this very useful information for the reasons that the proposer outlined. I would like to draw Members' attention to the response to the comments on the eighth amendment, which is also Deputy Southern 's proposition. At the back of that one, from the Council of Ministers, we have an appendix and it sets out what is going to be possibly taking place with regard to review of terms and conditions. It starts with the words: "The Steering Group [and I am not sure who is on that] which considered the Tribal review on terms and conditions summarised the Tribal recommendations in the table below." One of the key ones here is: "Migrate to U.K. pay scales for jobs which have direct U.K. counterparts, e.g., teaching, fire and police" and then the estimate potential savings: "More detailed costings to be carried out, impact long-term." So I would read from that that we cannot migrate to U.K. pay scales unless we have more detailed information about the comparative cost of livings between Jersey and the U.K. Now, that is exactly what Deputy Southern is requesting and it seems that the Statistics Unit are quite happy, if they are given a little bit more money or time, to produce this information. The Chief Minister also mentioned that the Statistical User Group saw this as a low priority and again quoting from the Council of Ministers' own comments to the fifth Amendment of Deputy Southern , this is the current one we are debating: "In 2002, a previous Statistical User Group.." Now, that is 9 years ago for the people who are not too sure when that was, 9 years ago. Since then, we have had a recession and we are still going through a recession and also this House has agreed to find £65 million of savings. Now, I would suggest that the Statistical User Group might be asked today if they still believe that this comparative is no longer required or not urgent. I think there are a number of reasons that the Chief Minister's speech was rather poor in my opinion and that I would suggest that Members

should be supporting Deputy Southern 's amendment.

8. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour :

We all know the saying: "There are lies, damned lies and statistics." Therein lies the problem. When we are dealing with averages, it is an extremely useful measure in some ways but confusing measure in another. The Chief Minister mentioned what comparators were going to be drawn up if, indeed, we were going to come out with an average figure to peg against for the U.K. The U.K. consists of many communities all doing different things economically with various cultural habits which make people eat different foods. Indeed, if we go to fishing villages, fish may be cheap; other things might be more expensive. To assess against a basket of goods does not necessarily represent anything that is actual or, indeed, very useful. The actual comparisons, to do them properly, have to take into account a whole wealth of other directions and that would be expensive if, indeed, it were done. I think perhaps it should be done but not for a base figure which is just based on ordinary arithmetic means, the usual average.

[10:30]

The use of statistics and benchmarking is really down to give us an opportunity to assess or reassess our policy directions and therein lies another problem. We are having an argument fleshed out by Deputy Southern that the main comparison should be with the U.K. I personally think that it should be with a wider basket, if you like, of countries or group of countries and I certainly, if this work were to be undertaken, would wish to consider policy differences and cultural differences and community differences for not only the U.K. but for Europe, Scandinavian countries. Indeed, it was Deputy Southern who brought on another occasion arguments as to how the Scandinavian countries appeared to be happier and better off and spent more money on social issues and perhaps we should be moving in that direction. If indeed that is the case and it might well be that Jersey will wish to copy the Scandinavians and move towards those cultural values, then indeed just relying or over-relying on an average, a Mr. Average figure, for a person or a group of goods that do not necessarily exist in reality and pegging everything to the U.K. does not make sense. One might say £60,000 again is not a large sum of money but, indeed, in picking up what the Chief Minister said, it is indicative of this idea that this House likes to spend money that it does not have on things that it does not need. So my final point is that I think Deputy Southern has put his finger on something that could perhaps be useful in the future but in wording his amendment, I think he has drawn the terms of reference far too narrow and, indeed, on that basis, I do not think I can support it.

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

As a person trained in economics, I have been amazed at the level of economic data gathered by the States and how economic policy is determined by the Council of Ministers. Their policies, to my mind, are largely based on political dogma rather than on hard economic data. We have all read in the Jersey Evening Post during the summer recess that the Minister for Treasury and Resources stated that Jersey is doing rather better than the rest of the world and that we will sail through the recession and the ongoing crises that are going through the currency, banking and sovereign debt markets largely untouched. But on what data does he base his statements? Now, I can acknowledge that we have no public debt and that our structural deficit is minuscule compared to Ireland, Greece, Italy and the other countries but how does he reconcile the fact the our finance industry, the pillar of our economy, is based on what is going on elsewhere in the world, in the United States, in Europe? If those markets are depressed, it will have a knock-on effect on to our economy. So I have been critical in the past of the amount of data that we get and have called for other information; for example, the amount of bank lending that is going on in the economy. We are told constantly by the Minister for Economic Development that he has all these discussions with the banks and they are lending large sums of money to people but there is no data to back any of these sorts of statements up. So on this particular issue, I think there is merit in having this data and I will support the proposition.

10. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

Deputy Le Claire kindly recalled the call for better statistics when we both joined the States 12 years ago. He was right and today I think that this Assembly can be proud of having some of the best, if not the best, statistics of any

The Deputy Bailiff :

Deputy Higgins, we will be inquorate if you leave the Assembly. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I am also quite pleased he is going to be able to listen to what I have to say but we have some of the best statistics of any small nation state in the world and it is not only the Minister for Treasury and Resources that says that. I recently organised for 2 of the external J.F.S.C. (Jersey Financial Services Commission) Commissioners, Lord Eatwell from Cambridge being one of them, to meet the Head of Statistics and the Chief Economist for them to explain what we do. The feedback that I had from Lord Eatwell and the other Commissioner was that they were, quite frankly, bowled away with what we do in Jersey, the quality of our statistics and the way in which we make economic policy on the back of it. I am also not a Jersey Nationalist but I think we also should be proud that the Head of Statistics is home-grown in terms of having come through the ranks. [Approbation] He does an excellent job with his colleague, the Chief Economist, and I think that this Assembly should have a great deal of confidence in the £432,000 that we spend in Statistics and the £418,000 that we spend in the Economics Unit. A Member asked where we spend money in the Chief Minister's Department. If they will look at page 11 of the annex, they can see the breakdown of where we spend money. I have to say that I do not think that Deputy Higgins' remarks were particularly relevant to this debate. He asked where we get economic advice. I would just politely remind him that, in fact, again, a world-beating difference in Jersey is the fact that we have the Independent Fiscal Policy Panel which writes reports, which independently reports to this Assembly twice a year. They will be reporting again in advance of the budget just as they have done so in advance of this. I do not think it is fair to say that the economic advice that Ministers get is coloured by political dogma. I certainly do not think that any of the eminent ex-M.P.C. (Monetary Policy Committee) members of the Fiscal Policy Panel would be happy with the characterisation that Deputy Higgins has made. Quite apart from the fact that we should not be politicising statistics and, indeed, economic advice, as the Chief Minister has correctly said, we do have an independent Statistics Unit. There should be a Chinese wall between politicians and statistics and, to some extent, economists. We should not be playing with statistics or seeking to have statistics for political purposes and we should rely upon the independent office of the Head of Statistics and, indeed, the Statistics User Group. I just say that because they themselves are saying that this is not a priority in relation to their own work. Deputy Southern , I think, wants to have a statistic for political purposes and I understand that but I would say to Deputy Southern that there is not a silver bullet in a statistic that could be got from a P.P.P. (Pound Price Parity) in terms of assisting with wage negotiations. We already have various different Jersey statistics of U.K./Jersey price comparisons and also I think it is fair to say and I do not know whether he is going to speak but we had a very good discussion at the Council of Ministers as to whether or not we thought that this was useful. We have a mathematician in terms of the Minister for Planning and Environment and we have an individual who is very interested in mathematics to my right. The point was very forcibly made that a figure of a U.K.-wide figure is not necessarily going to be very useful for our own wage comparators. The figures of prices in Lerwick or Cornwall are going to be different from those in central London and, indeed, perhaps more simply, statistics in terms of wage negotiations, one could take some advice from the respected Economist magazine who publish a Big Mac Index which shows the real price comparisons in different towns and cities across the world in terms of a P.P.P. The Head of Statistics does not believe that we need to spend £60,000 on this figure. I think we should listen to his advice. I do not think that we should be effectively using politics to influence their own independent advice. Where I do agree with Deputy Le Claire

is on his concern about housing costs. There is much work to be done on affordable housing and this statistic will not solve that. In fact, if anything, if one was going to spend £60,000, I am not suggesting it, but one would probably be better spent on improving the policies that we have to deliver affordable housing. I agree absolutely with the remarks that have been made about nurses' accommodation. We need more and better nurses' accommodation, one of the issues that Property Holdings has got to deal with in terms of finding a better remuneration package which is not just about pay but is about pay and conditions and accommodation for our much needed nurses. A P.P.P. figure is also not going to deal with that. Guernsey has been mentioned and I am advised that the media reports in Guernsey yesterday do not talk about the release of a similar statistic in Guernsey. Guernsey do not have a P.P.P. figure, neither does the Isle of Man, and neither was one produced in Guernsey yesterday. It was a policy panel I think from the University of Loughborough that basically was remarking on the minimum wage issues in Guernsey and I have confirmation that they have no P.P.P. figure, they have no plans to do one and neither does Guernsey. It is an entirely different issue. If Members want to look on their internet sites and look at the reports in Guernsey, we can certainly get the report on social pay in relation to minimum wage. I do not think the case has been made for this figure. We already have good figures in relation to some aspects of U.K./Jersey price comparisons. We should rely upon the independent office of the Chief Statistician but we should also rely on the Independent User Group. The case has not been made to spend an additional £60,000. The final thing that I would say is that the restructuring provision is not there in order to pay for services in different departments. It is a one- off amount of money available for just 2 or 3 years which is designed to invest in reorganising modernising services, doing what the Connétable of St. Mary asked yesterday about investing in I.T. (Information Technology) systems, reorganising services, the one-off investment that is required in order to get sustainable £65 million worth of spending reductions across the public sector. It should not be used in order to effectively find solutions for service improvements in other areas. I am confident in the advice that we have received and I urge Members to reject this

proposition.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Can I seek a point of clarification from the Minister for Treasury and Resources? I have also had private discussions with the F.P.P. (Fiscal Policy Panel) members and is he going to deny that they have been seeking additional economic data?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

The F.P.P. always want better information but they are extremely impressed by the information that we have and, indeed, for a short period of time, they were also the F.P.P. of Guernsey and it is fair to say that Guernsey does not have dataset and the statistics that we do. Of course, the F.P.P. want more information. They always do in order to base proper economic advice but I have not had one conversation with them that they need this statistic in order to better advise us.

The Deputy Bailiff :

I am very much aware that there will be Members listening to this debate in the anterooms of the Assembly but until about 10 seconds ago, we were on an absolute minimum for the purposes of quorum and I suggest to those Members outside the Assembly that for the rest of the Business Plan debate, which is one of the most important debates which the States have to consider, [Approbation] it would be appropriate to have Members in the Chamber listening to the debate.

11. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I rise to add weight to the excellent speech already made by Deputy Duhamel, my fellow mathematician. This is an apparently beguiling proposition but as Deputy Duhamel has ably explained, a comparator between Jersey and the U.K. average will be of very limited value. It would be a very crude comparison. I believe that we do need to obtain comparative data but what is or what are the appropriate comparators? In pay comparisons, we have often looked at the comparison with central London. A study of comparisons with the costings in central London would, in my view, be of a much greater value than the generality of the U.K. We also have the potential comparator with our fellow Island of Guernsey. However, as Senator Breckon very ably explained, even if we do pick on the right comparator, it is only a small part of the overall picture because there are issues such as taxation rates. There are issues such as the exemption levels for taxation which in Jersey are very, very high compared with the U.K. There are issues such as the cost of local rates which in the U.K. are very, very high compared with the modest sums exacted by our Parishes. There are, of course, good reasons for that which I do not need to explain. So there are a whole bundle of differences. There are differences with Social Security rates; there are differences with extra bonuses and payments as was outlined. Having said that, I do accept that we do need to obtain some comparisons. I think a comparison with the central London figures would, in fact, be the most useful but I do not think that this particular limited comparator with the average of the U.K. is helpful at all and for that reason, I do not feel able to support this amendment.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak? If not, I call on Deputy Southern to reply. [10:45]

12. Deputy G.P. Southern :

I rise to my feet smiling at the words of the previous speaker because nowhere in this text does it say "average". Nowhere in his speech did he show any trust of the statistical validity of any work that our Chief Statistician will do. Nor did the Chief Minister and nor, indeed, did the Minister for Planning. They should because, quite rightly, as Senator Ozouf pointed out, we could be rightly justifiably proud of the level of statistics and the dependability of those figures and the independence of those figures that we do have. If we were to accept this amendment and go on to this stage of making the P.P.P. comparator, then those figures would come to us from the Chief of Statistics and I do not know why the Minister for Treasury and Resources is shaking his head would come to us from the Chief of Statistics with his caveat and with his reservations around it to say: "This is what it means." As always, as always with these figures. The Minister for Treasury and Resources said that the Chief of the Statistics Unit does not need to spend £60,000. He said he does not need to spend £60,000. Quite correct because he believes he can do this in house with his own resources and that is what he trusts best; work done by his own officers in house and he has got it pencilled in. The desk is there waiting to be occupied by somebody doing this work. Only if the relevant statistics prove difficult would he resort to using an external body, hence the need for the £60,000 which might be required but it is only "might be required". The Head of Statistics is quite happy to do this work, has it scheduled, and is prepared to do it in the time scale and it will not cost a penny. That is the reality; that is the reality because time and resource is there. The Chief Minister also said we have to be realistic. Realistic about what? I think Senator Le Gresley pointed him in the right direction when he said this survey done by Tribal, again how much did that cost, those 3 reports from Tribal in the last round? I do not know, £30,000, £40,000, I do not know, do not know what the figure is and we have not heard it but this is happening all the time. £60,000 is nothing compared to what we continually spend getting reviews of this, reviews of that and the Tribal stuff came up with something and nothing. As Senator Le Gresley said, if we were to migrate to U.K. pay scales for certain sectors, which might be a perfectly reasonable thing to do, we would have to do some research first in order to work out what that means. This is one of the steps towards doing that research and quite rightly. The Minister for Home Affairs was suggesting that, of course, P.P.P. straightforwardly is not a great deal to base anything on. It is a step in the right direction though and, yes, we do have to take into consideration the tax and benefit situation and I have talked to the Head of Stats about that and the exemption levels and the cost of housing. Of course, it is a complex business but unless we make a start, we will never know. We can sit there on our hands and say: "We do not quite know what the situation is compared to the U.K. so we

cannot make any absolute statements whatsoever but in the meantime we would like to chip away at your terms and conditions." What a nonsense starting point that is and I refer Members to the words in the Chief Minister's introduction on page 7 of the Annual Business Plan where he says confidently:  "The  provision  of  quality  economic  advice  will  continue  to  support  effective management of the economy as will the production of relevant statistics and statistical qualities." Relevant statistics. What more relevance can you get to today, to tomorrow, to next year and the following year? Exactly. This piece of work needs to be done. This specious nonsense that whether we will be looking at London or Lerwick, have some trust in the Chief Statistician. What he produces will be solid. If there are reservations about it, they will be there. If you want to look at the cost of Inner London, then fine. There are widespread stats about differences between the rest of the U.K. and Inner London and the Minister for Home Affairs can satisfy himself that that is a valid comparison and let us go ahead with that. Come on now; do not be scared of this. It is not a revolution. Nothing is going to happen overnight. It is not a Trojan horse. We are not going to see troops coming out of it. It is a simple piece of statistical information that we have needed for the past decade and we could get on with it now. Let us do so. To Deputy Le Hérissier, quite rightly he points out that one of the big issues is the standard and affordability of houses. Of course it is but to say you have not addressed that in this particular amendment is rather specious and side- tracking. The fact is, as the Minister for Treasury and Resources said in supporting Deputy Le Hérissier's reservations, yes, housing is the issue but we have got a housing transformation plan about to come forward with the future of housing and particularly affordable housing dealt with in that and it took 2 years in the making, so we are already doing that, we are making steps there. Let us make steps in the information on which we are basing the economic future of this Island and every employee and every employer in it. Whether or not the Guernsey information is about minimum wage or other conditions. Well, there is a thought; is the minimum wage set correctly? We do not know. It is compared with the U.K. and it keeps leapfrogging the U.K, April and October, April and October, but is it set at the right level? We have no idea and we will not until we start doing this type of work to find out. Please vote for this amendment. It is simple, it is

straightforward, it can be done. We should be doing it. The Deputy Bailiff :

The appel is called for on the amendment of Deputy Southern , amendment number 5. I invite Members to return to their seats and I ask the Greffier to open the voting.

3. Draft Annual Business Plan 2012 (P.123/2011): fourth amendment (P.123/211 Amd.(4)) The Deputy Bailiff :

Very well. We now come on to amendment number 4 which is in the name of Senator Ferguson and I 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 2012" insert the words  "except  that the  net  revenue  expenditure  of  the  Chief  Minister's  Department  shall  be increased  by  £18,400,100,  (£10,194,500  in  respect  of  the  Information  Services  Department, £4,395,500 in respect  of the Human Resources  Department  and £3,810,100  in respect  of the P.E.C.R.S. pre-1987 debt) by transferring responsibility for the Information Services and Human Resources Departments back to the Chief Minister's Department on a permanent basis, and the total net revenue of the Treasury and Resources Department shall be reduced by £18,400,100."