States Meeting Transcript - 14/09/2011

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

WEDNESDAY, 14th SEPTEMBER 2011

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

1. Draft Annual Business Plan 2012 (P.123/2011): eighth amendment (P.123/2011 Amd.(8))...................................................................................4

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :...................................................................5

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :....................................................................6
2. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:........................................................8
3. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:........................................................9
4. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade:...............................................11
5. The Very Reverend R.F. Key, B.A., The Dean of Jersey:...............................12
6. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:...............................................13
7. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:......................................................14
8. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour:....................................................16
9. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen:..........................................................17
10. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..............................................................18
11. Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary : ..............................................19
12. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:........................................................23
13. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................24

2. Draft Annual Business Plan 2012 (P.123/2011) - paragraph (a) as amended ..........26

1. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................26
2. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................28
3. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................29
4. Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................30
5. Deputy A.E. Jeune :.....................................................................32
6. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : ..................................................32
7. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................34

8. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :..........................................................36
9. The Connétable of St. Brelade:.........................................................37
10. Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen:.................................................37
11. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................38

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

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................39

12. The Deputy of St. Ouen:.............................................................39
13. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................40
14. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................41
15. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................41
16. Deputy T.A. Vallois:................................................................41
17. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:..................................................42

18. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................43
19. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..............................................................44

1.3. Draft Annual Business Plan 2012 (P.123/2011) - paragraph (b) .......................47

1. Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):...........................................47
2. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................47
3. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................47
4. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................47
5. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................48
6. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................49
7. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................51
8. Senator A.J.H. Maclean................................................................51
9. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................53
10. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..............................................................54

4. Draft Annual Business Plan 2012 (P.123/2011) - paragraph (c)........................56

1.4.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):...........................................56

5. Draft Annual Business Plan 2012 (P.123/2011): tenth amendment (P.123/2011 Amd.(10))................................................................................57

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):......................57
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................58
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................59
4. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................59
5. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................60
6. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................61
7. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................62
8. The Deputy of Trinity :..................................................................63
9. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................64
10. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................64
11. Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier : ..................................................66
12. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................66
13. Senator T.J. Le Main:................................................................66
14. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier : ....................................................68
15. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................68

6. Draft Annual Business Plan 2012 (P.123/2011) - paragraph (c) as amended..........71

1. Deputy J.B. Fox:........................................................................71
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................72
3. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................72
4. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................72
5. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................72
6. Deputy A.K.F. Green:..................................................................73
7. The Deputy of Trinity :..................................................................73
8. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................74
9. The Connétable of St. Brelade:.........................................................75
10. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................75
11. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..............................................................76

7. Draft Annual Business Plan 2012 (P.123/2011) - paragraph (d) .......................78

1.7.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):...........................................78

8. Draft Annual Business Plan 2012 (P.123/2011) - paragraph (e)........................79

1.8.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):...........................................79

9. Draft Annual Business Plan 2012 (P.123/2011): ninth amendment (P.123/2011 Amd.(9)) - paragraph 3..................................................................80

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................80
2. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................80

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................81

[9:30]

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

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption

1. Draft Annual Business Plan 2012 (P.123/2011): eighth amendment (P.123/2011 Amd.(8)) The Bailiff :

We continue the debate upon paragraph (a) of the proposition and the amendments to it and we come next to the amendment number 8 lodged by Deputy Southern and I will ask the Greffier to read the amendment.

The Greffier of the States:

Paragraph (a). After the words "withdrawn from the consolidated fund in 2012" insert the words "except that the total net revenue expenditure shall be increased by £7 million by reinstating this amount in Central Pay Provision in respect of staff terms and conditions and the net revenue expenditure of the Treasury and Resources Department (Provision for Restructuring Costs) shall be reduced by an equivalent sum in 2012."

Senator A. Breckon:

Sir, I would like to declare an interest in that my other half works in the public sector and I believe it might be considered a direct pecuniary interest; not that she is going to give me the money, but ..

The Bailiff :

Very well.

Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier :

Sir, can you explain why that is a direct pecuniary interest? I think we might enter the .. The Bailiff :

Your partner is employed in the public sector.

Senator A. Breckon:

At a fairly senior level; therefore, this is to reinstate the monies and terms and conditions for public sector employees.

The Bailiff :

Well, there is clearly a financial interest. Greffier, have we had to consider this one before? The proposition itself merely reinstates the amount. It will, of course, be for negotiations then to see what happens. So I think probably it is not direct, Senator. It is certainly financial and you should declare it, but if you wish to stay and vote I think you are entitled to. It is up to you.

Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement :

Sir, could I make the same declaration? However, I do concur with your ruling that it is direct but it is shared by a large group of individuals and, therefore, I will not be withdrawing.

Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier :

Likewise, Sir.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour :

Sir, I think I should declare an indirect interest as well. The Bailiff :

A similar interest. Yes, thank you.

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Are there any more for any more? I would request that you examine that ruling later, Sir, because I think that sets for me - and I have been here 9 years - a precedent, otherwise we will never end up talking about any form of payment to our public sector. I declare that I have no direct or indirect pecuniary in this. My wife, who used to work for the States, has retired. So, loins girded and a smile on my face, back into battle. What have we got here? What we have got here is a restriction on the ability of the States Employment Board to negotiate and to negotiate honestly and honourably and in good faith. What we have is £7 million, potentially, for a 2 per cent pay rise in the pot, and we also have an expressed wish, a figure, that says: "But at the same time we are going to take £7 million next year from terms and conditions." Effectively, any negotiator for the States is going into the negotiations with their hands tied. We have not seen yet what the bids for a pay rise this year will be but we know what will happen if, as in 2009, we impose a pay freeze. The danger is that that will become the outcome. Not only that, but the possibility of negotiating £7 million worth of reductions to terms and conditions is extremely unlikely as well. The reality is that far from the starting point being: "We are quite happy with a reduction in our terms and conditions," public sector workers will be looking for an improvement in their terms and conditions and certainly an improvement if the pay offer is any way behind the cost of living rises we have seen recently. That is the reality. It is all very well to put figures down on a spreadsheet and say: "This is what we are going to do and this is policy" but we have to judge that against reality. Now, why do I say that? Well, I say that because it is startlingly obvious that the 2 largest pay groups in the public sector, the health workers: £126 million for the pay bill, and the teachers, Education Department: £81 million for the pay bill, make up by far the majority of the total pay bill and let us look at their terms and conditions. What happened last time we imposed a pay freeze and they said: "That is not satisfactory. We are looking for improvement in our other conditions"? What the teachers did was to threaten to ballot for a strike action, which resulted in their being relieved of

lunchtime duties. That is just being organised now, still not organised but is due to start in January. A low offer for a pay rise or no pay rise will result, in any case, in their examining their terms and conditions. That process, too, is already happening because one of the terms was: "We will negotiate and talk about our terms and conditions as a result of you imposing of you [us] imposing a pay freeze on this body of workers." The result is that what they found is that terms and conditions fairly reasonably with the U.K. (United Kingdom) with one exception: a substantially worse maternity leave provision for teachers and indeed for all public sector workers. I keep repeating this; when we come to be looking at recruitment and retention, those sorts of factors matter. Far from meekly accepting a reduction in their terms and conditions in return for a 2 per cent pay rise, or vice versa, teachers in particular .. because the Tribal investigation, as the one single startling factor found out, the maternity provision is far worse in Jersey than in the U.K. and that affects the number of teachers prepared to come here, inevitably.

[9:45]

A similar argument applies to the nurses. The nurses, far from looking to say: "Reduce our terms and conditions; do not give us a pay rise" are lobbying hard for a pay rise and certainly, in terms of recruitment and retention, the Minister for Health and Social Services knows that she has got a problem. If she were to make substantial differences between the U.K. and Jersey in terms and conditions for nurses and doctors and other health allied professions then there would be no one coming here and they, too, will be pressing for increased maternity benefit. Then you look at the timescale. I am very pleased that the Council of Ministers, in their comments, have included the Tribal review on terms and conditions and what you have to look at there is all the pretty colours and take out the longer-term, which is doing awful things to the Pension Fund, and the longer-term: "New single harmonised pay spine for manuals, integrate U.K. pay scales for jobs which have direct a U.K. counterpart and [here we are again, we mentioned it yesterday] transfer U.K. terms and conditions." Not an easy thing to do and needs substantial extra work. Messing around with a pension, it says: "Professional actuarial advice required." It is not going to happen tomorrow. That

is somewhere in the next 5 years if we are lucky, 10 years probably in reality. It is not happening next year and that longer-term implement: "To be implemented beyond 2013". It is not going to happen in 2012. Then you look at the medium-term: "Medium-term impact is in place by the end of 2013." Not 2012; not easy to do either. "Reduce sickness pay scheme." That is a nice one; medium-term though. "Freeze annual award: could be done instantly." Could be done instantly. It is the single element that does not require negotiation and there is the key word "negotiation". All of these proposals have to be negotiated with the single exception, because we have done it before: the imposition of a pay freeze. If we do that this time, a second time - 2009, 2012 - what do you think we are going to see? It is not a threat. A happy workforce prepared to go round saying: "Oh, hunky-dory, everything is fine. My standard of living is not going down. I can afford exactly what I did 3 years, 4 years ago. It is not affecting me." That is not going to happen. You will see a very disenchanted and angry workforce prepared to do what it can to try and maintain its standard of living and that is the reality. So in timescale a lot of the factors cannot be done for next year. So where are we going to be? Where are we going to be? Who is left? The uniform branches: something like £40 million on their pay bill. Shall we substantially change their terms and conditions? How easy will that be? Can we do that next year? I doubt it very much. Where else shall we be then? Transport and Technical Services: £20 million pay bill. Can we squeeze £7 million out of that in terms and conditions? Again, I doubt it very much. Where are we getting this money from? The reality is that it is not achievable. As the Council of Ministers say themselves: "It is hoped that negotiations would be successful on some of the proposals." So with these extremely difficult, sensitive proposals, it is hoped that we will be successful and we will get an outcome. So the question is do we cross our fingers and say: "This is the projection; we can take that £7 million out and we will successfully negotiate that and everything will be fine"? No, we cannot. I am saying what we should do is take out that £7 million and allow the Council of Ministers, when they have completed their negotiations, to say: "This is how far we got. So we put the money and, therefore, the Minister for Treasury and Resources can move between heads of expenditure appropriately. At least that way we shall go into negotiations, and there will be serious, prolonged and heavyweight negotiations, with honesty and honourably and in good faith saying: "We have not set a target but we would like to." That is the issue we should be doing and not tying the hands of our negotiators. I think what we are proposing lacks good faith and should

be avoided if we possibly can.

The Bailiff :

Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded]

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

Staff costs represent 50 per cent of gross States expenditure and if this Assembly is to deliver on its commitment, which we as an Assembly have made, to deliver savings of £65 million in terms of our spending we simply have to look at the most important budget item in our spending and that is of terms and conditions and the cost of employing people. More than that, I will argue that the States must take a lead as the largest employer in the Island in terms of wage settlement. When we started the Comprehensive Spending Review a number of independent reviews were set up for a number of the big spending departments and, importantly, on terms and conditions and I would like to restate my thanks Mr. Tony O'Neill from Sandpiper who chaired the independent review that assisted with the Comprehensive Spending Review that looked at the terms and conditions from States employment across the board. Members should be perhaps reminded of the conclusions of that report, which are set out in the Council of Ministers' comment, which set out that there was, over time, a possibility of making savings and efficiencies of approximately £27 million on terms and conditions which excluded pensions. This Assembly is not the right place to negotiate wage settlements. I think that we have all learned lessons in relation to the chicken and egg in terms of whether or not the budget should be set first or negotiations first. There has been a long history of a disconnect between wage settlements, negotiation and the budget that is available. In my view, it is

very clear that one should set a budget and negotiations should then continue. It is absolutely appropriate for appropriate individuals, properly qualified, employed by the States, to negotiate with individual staff groups, because certainly there are going to be differences in different staff groups in terms of their different requirements, in terms of the evolution of the competitive issue, the availability of staff, the particular terms and conditions. I would remind Members that the States Employment Board has made determinations to increase pay; to reorganise the pay scales of, for example, paramedics in the last couple of years where there was a clear issue in terms of recruitment of paramedics and a particular need to look at the pay scales in order to attract the highest qualified paramedics. Indeed the negotiations with that pay group successfully reorganised the management structure, increased pay but, I think - I have not got the figures in front of me - did not include an overall increase in terms of the costs. That is a good example of a pay group negotiating with the appropriate staff individuals in H.R. (Human Resources) and getting the right and fair solution. Clearly there are also, as this business plan recognises, issues in relation to nurses' pay but these issues should not be the subject of political negotiations in this Assembly. The wage year is now January to December and that is the reason why the negotiation with union groups by our officials has been commencing over the last few days and will continue over the coming weeks. The wage bill of the States does need to be contained. If we do not contain it we will not deliver on our savings targets, but there are a number of ways that that can be achieved as the Tribal report indicates that there are a number of issues that do need to be tackled: simplified grading systems, dealing with the whole issue of allowances which do need to be looked at in some areas of our pay group, quite apart from the reorganisation of the whole structure of the employment nature of different departments as clearly is evident and has clearly been successful in terms of paramedics. It is clear that the ultimate objective of saving £14 million over the 2 years - this is the first tranche of the £14 million - should be achieved and can be achieved without a universal pay freeze, which would be inappropriate for some of the sectors. So I believe that the public believe that we should be remunerating our public sector employees who, in the vast majority of cases, work diligently and hard to provide the public with good levels of services. The public believe that pay should be fair, it should be transparent and it should be competitive. There are difficult times in the whole issue of pay and remuneration, not only in Jersey but across Europe, and the States simply have to take a lead as the largest employer in the Island. There is an issue in relation to settlement within a budget and this Assembly does need to set an appropriate budget in order that our officials can deal with that negotiation. If one takes on board the recommendations of the Tribal report, it is appropriate to be targeting a reduction of £7 million this year. In fact some representations to the Council of Ministers and to me, in consulting on the Comprehensive Spending Review, have said we have not gone far enough in relation to the Tribal recommendations. I believe that the £7 million is an appropriate and a fair amount in order to target in the first year. So, for those reasons, I would argue that £7 million is an appropriate and achievable target and leaves an appropriate balance, a significant balance, of terms and conditions budget available. The other problem with this amendment is the source of funding which is, again, targeted as the restructuring figure. If we simply spend the restructuring figure we will not deliver on the re-organisation and the modernisation of the public sector. I would remind Members that I am grateful and that we are grateful for the support of Members in having set up a restructuring provision previously under an Article 11(8) request in order to put forward a voluntary redundancy programme, which has allowed a number of departments to reorganise their structures and to reduce, I think, approximately 138 posts without cutting front line services and making the public sector more efficient. The restructuring provision is there in order to do just that. It cannot be used on a repeated basis in order to fund a year-on-year increase in the public sector pay bill. It simply will run out after 2 years and we will not have the money in order to do that. The restructuring provision is a crucial element of delivering the £65 million and, whatever the arguments in terms of increased spending, that must be funded by an area of expenditure which is not the restructuring provision. We cannot simply use the restructuring provision to increase services or increase expenditure on a year-on-year figure. So there are 2 compelling reasons why this amendment

should be rejected. We must maintain the restructuring provision and we simply have to deliver some reform on terms and conditions in a fair but a properly negotiated way over the coming months if we are to deliver our savings targets.

2. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

I am going to make essentially 2 speeches in one. The first one is going to be a token speech to the Assembly because I know that most Constables, Ministers and Assistant Ministers will no doubt be fully equipped with their affirmative heads as usual. I will make a second speech to the public and, in particular, to the public sector, the private sector workers and union members, but they can also listen to the first part as well.

[10:00]

Now, one has to admire Deputy Southern 's tenacity to stand up here year in, year out and fight the cause of what he must think now and again is a losing battle. But, of course, Deputy Southern , myself and other supporters of workers in Jersey know that this is simply the beginning; the first battle of a very long and drawn-out process that will be happening in the next few years as we see civil unrest in the Island as pay is reduced, as conditions are imposed against the will of workers, while the greedy capitalists of the Island go on to make more and more to feather their own nests at the expense of those who are least able to pay. But that is the Island we have and we are where we are. We will be going where the current Council of Ministers take us, is probably the better expression. Now, let us pick up a few points reading through the comments of the Council of Ministers and, before we do that, let us comment on one aspect that Senator Ozouf has just mentioned. He tries to say this is a chicken and egg situation, almost in the sense that you could flip a coin and it does not matter whether you decide the budget first or whether you have negotiations first. So he completely tries to dismiss the argument that Deputy Southern has quite correctly made, because it is of fundamental importance whether you set the budget first, whether you reduce the budget by £7 million then go into negotiations, or if you go into open and frank discussions and then you hear what the unions say, you hear what the workers say and the other representative groups of workers and then you come to a clear consensus rather than being predetermined in advance. It is interesting, if we read paragraph 4 of the comments, towards the end it says: "There is a clear process to be followed and the formal discussions will provide the opportunity for constructive dialogue with all pay groups." Now, these are the comments of the Council of Ministers but clearly it is not much of a process if we are already going into it saying: "There is £7 million reduction whatever happens and then, if you do not like it, well, we are going to have to change the business plan because the budget is not there." It simply is not a fair and level playing field. Now, let me qualify this again. I will say that, of course, I am not one of those who believe that the Civil Service must and has to remain as it is. Of course there are fundamental changes, I think, that need to be made and I can give some examples of that. For example, I think it is quite correct that we look at the pay increments. When we were on Scrutiny for Home Affairs we looked at the police pay and certainly it does need a bit more research, but we were quite astounded that there were so many different levels of incremental pay increases over the years which just seem, for one, to need simplification and it is an administrative nightmare. I think also it is an area which we can save in. Of course, we know that we can save money by not giving away

golden handshakes to people who do not deserve them; when they have either been fired or have to leave in suspicious circumstances only for the public not to be told where that money is being spent. So, of course, there are reforms that need to be made but I do not think we can go into this process with it being predetermined and there are other things which are completely unacceptable. For example, if we look down the list, we talk about reduction in overtime, which may sound like a good idea to States Members. But how many people in the past and currently still rely on overtime to pay the bills and to pay their mortgages? I certainly know the older generation - my parents, for example, and their contemporaries - would just rely on overtime to make ends meet, to pay the bills, to pay for clothes for children and to pay their mortgages so that they can own their own

homes as well. So we cannot be naïve and think that by reducing the amount allotted to terms and conditions, which is essentially pay because it ends up in the pockets of our very hard-working public sector workers, it is not going to have consequences. The Senator and the Minister for Treasury and Resources went on to say, as is said in the comments, that the States must take a strong lead to the rest of the Island on pay increases and remuneration, and I absolutely agree with that. We must take a strong lead and say: "Yes, we should be paying a fair and living wage to our workers." Now, we cannot compare public sector work and private sector work because they are completely different. The public sector does not run for profit. We have an ethos that we pay our workers a fair wage and we have an ethos that they should not be dependent on the States for income support, et cetera. We should be paying them enough to be able to live independently so that they do not become dependent. Now, the private sector, which does run  for profit and therefore needs an element of Marxist exploitation in order to extract that profit from the workers; of course, they cannot pay the same wages as the States because they have to extract a profit for those at the top who are doing less work for more pay. So, of course, we cannot compare; it is chalk and cheese. So let us not forget that. I am always worried when we hear this new "Blairite" Conservative talk of restructuring and modernisation when what we mean is taking a razor to the public sector and, in fact, butchering it so that they can only effectively be replaced by jobs from the private sector. So I am sceptical about this. This is just the beginning. But now I will speak to the public. I would implore ..

The Bailiff :

Well, Deputy , I am sorry. The purpose of parliamentary democracy is to address Members of the Assembly.

Deputy M. Tadier :

Okay, Sir. I will address Members of the Assembly. I would encourage all Members of this Assembly to join the union. It is imperative for the weeks, months and years ahead that, because we are all workers, we must not let ourselves be divided. Whether we are working as we are in the public sector or those of us who also have private sector jobs, we must stand united. I would encourage everybody in this Assembly to go out and join the union, if they have not joined already, because they will need the protection of the union. We must not let ourselves be divided as an Assembly between the usual rifts that may occur and we know that the current Council of Ministers will be trying to divide us as workers between those in the private sector and the public sector. So I would ask that all Members of this Assembly stand firm and that there should not be allowed to be division between those of us who experience less favourable conditions and who have to perhaps stay after work and do extra hours without pay and those who have got a reasonable expectation, because they know how the system has worked in the past, that their labour be honoured. Incidentally - I will just throw it in - I heard a comment yesterday from the Minister for Treasury and Resources that he was grateful for all the extra hours that the members at the Treasury were doing. He said that they went beyond the call of duty and I interpret that, as a union member, as saying that they were doing lots of unpaid work and having to stay over hours of their contract and not necessarily being remunerated or given time of in lieu. So what I would say to them is that if the Minister for Treasury and Resources asks you to do that again, if he asks you to stay on and do work when you are not getting paid for it, just work to rule. I would say just go home at 5.00 p.m., clock off, and then if he wants you to come in and do more work, make sure you get paid at least double-time and get some time in lieu for it.

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

We are again here, as Senator Ozouf says, discussing the minute details of things that probably - well, no, I will not say "probably" - he tells us started with the pay negotiations and the unions and their representatives on 5th September, in their comments, and Deputy Southern says there have been no meetings. Whichever one I believe, I will say that it is much, much too late because we are having to debate this now. Now, if I read the comments on page 2 where the comments say: "It is acknowledged that different pay groups  have very different pressures on them and it will be recognised in negotiations", that gives you some comfort. But I will start on page 4: "Pay and grading: honour the 2 per cent pay award agreed for 2011." Now, how many times do I have to stand up in this Assembly and say: "Two per cent of £60,000, £70,000, £80,000, £100,000 is well nice to have; 2 per cent of £10,000, £12,000, £15,000 will not cover your rent increase this year"? Now, there is a total flaw there that has not been tackled. It will not be tackled because who is tackling it? The people on the £100,000 and over; these are the people dictating. The bullet point: "New staff: introduce market-related pay structures for all new staff", to me, I read: "Minimum wage." I cannot read it any other way, except, again, for your civil servants. Now, this is very frightening: "Migrate to U.K. pay scales for jobs which have direct U.K. counterparts, teaching, fire and police." It says "examples". I am hoping that does not mean nurses and doctors. We do have a problem recruiting. This is all up in the air. Again, I go back to the change to the premium of time and a half for weekdays for manual workers and civil servants to 1.33 and 1.5 for Sundays. Again, it is a completely different amount of money depending on what your starting point is; again, all grouped together: "Develop an allowance rate on overtime, call-out and standby which applies to all pay groups" I do agree that some of our structures across the board are archaic. People do get called out or do not get called out or are on standby who do earn a lot of money but this does not tackle it. Then the sick pay; for years and years and years manual workers have got 3 months and 3 months non-paid and civil servants have got 6 months and 6 months. They agreed to tackle this and then harmonise it by giving 4 months and 4 months to everybody. Now, manual workers who are on a low pay could probably get their benefits uprated on the 3 months and it does not really make that much difference to them. But why then go for civil servants - because it will affect them if they are on 3 months full pay and 3 months sick pay - to 4 months? There is no explanation in here why you are giving people on higher earnings more money for longer? It is totally flawed. I think it is a hard one because if we go with Deputy Southern we put the £7 million there for the renegotiations and I think we need it. If we agree not to go with Deputy Southern we automatically say what is in this brief paper is going to be right. I think there are some very frightening things in here. I cannot read it any other way. I would have really, really liked to have heard from the pay groups who it was going to affect. Senator Ozouf gives the explanation that because we now pay January .. well, I thought the pay may not be but the tax year has always been January to December. These negotiations should have started, much more effort should have been done with S.E.B. (States Employment Board) and not just S.E.B. I mean, all due respect to politicians  in this House  who  are all on S.E.B., they are  not  negotiators. They do note the intricacies of the pay scales and what is in the Black Book and what the civil servants .. but I will probably support Deputy Southern because, as I have just said, the starting point is fundamentally flawed when you keep talking about percentages of pay and percentages in overtime because your bottom line is what you will get times the percentage. Now, if that is nothing you get nothing. If it is a small amount you get a small amount. If you are on a very large salary, which we know a lot of people are and we do not agree .. we do not know what some of them are doing. We do not know. There is a big wad of money for the restructuring, which I totally agree with, but will we get it right this time? In my book, not when we are starting with the same flawed argument that we give our workers 2 per cent across the board. It should be performance-related. It should be a different scale and, I am sorry, if you are earning £100,000 and you have not performed, you have not saved money in your department in the last 2 years, you get nothing; you get nothing at all. This is flawed. So I think Deputy Southern 's argument just about being: "Oh, we need to put this back into .. we are taking it away from certain people", be very careful because there is some frightening reading in this little bit of comment. But do remember who is doing the high negotiations on this: highly-paid civil servants with a few, probably, outside negotiators, because we seem to be getting outside negotiators for everything because we probably are paying very good money for people who would appear not to be up to the job because, as I say, there has not been one round of

conversations.

[10:15]

If they have from 5th September I do not know; nobody has spoken to me out there on the street. But we are protecting the higher paid. Whatever way you go for this amendment, remember you are protecting the higher paid and the Council of Ministers' comments reiterate this all the way through everything they are proposing to do. So even I have just talked myself into supporting Deputy Southern on this one because I cannot take this away on these really, really frightening estimates that appear in the appendix of the Council of Ministers' minutes.

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

I am not going to speak in the same vein as my colleague Deputy Monty Red from St. Brelade. I am going to speak with an S.E.B. hat on in an endeavour to convince Members who I am sure will be aware that there is a need to address the pay and conditions of our public service. The initial meetings have taken place with Prospect last Monday, as was alluded to before, and with Unite on 14th September; which is today in fact, is it not? So that is taking place now and those with the medical staff, teachers, uniformed services, et cetera, will be taking place in coming weeks. I think it is important; we have to learn from the process of 2 years ago, I think, which we would all agree got into a right pickle because we tried to debate wage negotiations in this Chamber, which, as absolutely was demonstrated, was the wrong place to do it. From an S.E.B. point of view, we have tried to learn from that and change the process so that we can deal with it in a proper and reasonable way and keep people informed. Now, initial meetings will focus on the need to modernise the public sector and review employees' terms and conditions and I do not think anybody argues with that. We are certainly intending to work in partnership with all recognised representatives to produce a set of proposals by the end of this year. So what is the purpose of these talks? We are trying to make sure we create an affordable and sustainable system which supports job security. That, to me, is one of the essential planks of our negotiations. People are concerned whether they have got a job and that is the important thing in this climate. We need to create equal status and parity of pay between civil servants and manual workers. We need to avoid this them and us' business which is just causing an enormous amount of difficulty. We need to pay market rates for the jobs. We need to pay appropriate allowances. We need to rationalise other allowances into core terms and conditions across all the pay groups. We need to improve the way we plan and organise our work and we need to enhance our service through improved performance. We need to remove barriers to progression across the States of Jersey. We need to allow people to progress should they so wish and demonstrate the ability to do so. We need to improve the opportunity for self-development. We need to enable more flexible job roles. So we are really trying to modernise those terms and conditions and this is what we are focused on. We need to reward employees, all employees, if they are prepared to show the ability to perform, but we have to maintain the total pay bill at the end of December 2011 level until December 2013 and we need to devise a way to do that. We need to link pay to market rates for the jobs, as I said before. It is absolutely essential. One of the important things, of course, is securing long-term employment for existing employees. That is what people want to hear. They want to know they have got a job. We need to introduce effective performance management and performance-related rewards systems. We want to implement new terms and conditions for new starters and people moving to a higher grade in the summer of 2012. We anticipate moving existing employees to new terms and conditions the following winter. As I pointed out before, we are keen to work collaboratively in partnership with all trade unions and staff representatives. A number of working groups will run alongside formal talks in order to keep up momentum and provide adequate opportunity for debate and resolution of key issues and concerns and there will be issues and concerns. I have no doubt about that at all. So, as I pointed out earlier, regular meetings with Unite and Prospect are scheduled and meetings with the other pay groups will also take place regularly over the period. We started this consultation and negotiations with the representatives and changes will not be made until discussions are concluded. So we look forward to input from the States employees. We need to move this forward, I do not think any of us have got any doubt about that, and we feel this is the

proper way to do it. I do not think Deputy Southern 's approach by trying to interfere in the pay negotiations is the right way forward. I think the proposed terms, which S.E.B. is following at the moment, is the correct way and I cannot support this amendment.

Deputy M. Tadier :

May I ask a point of clarification of the last speaker? On 2 occasions the speaker mentioned that we must pay market rates. Does the Minister mean at both ends of the scale? So is he simply saying at the bottom end we must pay market rates or does he also mean to the people at the top, we should also be paying what the market would be paying those?

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

I think it is quite clear that we must be paying market rates and that applies all across the bands. Deputy M. Tadier :

Because when the Minister says that he must know - and this is a question that, for example ..

The Bailiff :

It does not sound like a point of clarification at the moment. It sounds like an opportunity to make a point, Deputy .

Deputy M. Tadier :

The question I am asking is does he mean that the multiplier effect between the lowest paid and the highest paid, which is significantly less, for example, to the order of 10 in the public sector but to the order of 100 in the market sector, should we be following that as well?

The Bailiff :

Well, I do not consider that a point of clarification. It is simply making a point. Now, does any other Member wish to speak?

5. The Very Reverend R.F. Key, B.A., The Dean of Jersey:

I just rise to ask for clarity of thinking from Members in all of this area of pay and negotiations. For some Members the market is the governing factor so that determining pay is simply taking the supply of labour and the demand curve and seeing where that meets and that is what the rate is. It was an airline boss - I will not mention which one - who, when asked by a stewardess why their pay rates were so low, replied: "Because I can replace you from the supermarket checkout any time I want to." I am not suggesting that anybody in this Chamber would take that view but it is there. But it is not simply the boss' side of the negotiating thing that have a responsibility for this. If you have seen that wonderful film  Made in Dagenham, you will know that, historically, male-led unions kept female rates of pay artificially low for many years. So both sides bear some responsibility in this. The fact is that we do not let the market decide all the way across. I speak as somebody who has just had a pay freeze for 2 years, so I do not have an axe to grind particularly, but if I might say to Members that we could fill the Chamber with 50-odd people who would do the job for nothing. So we could say the market would decide it was zero. I am not suggesting that would be right. I believe it would be profoundly wrong, but we could take that view. So I am simply asking that when we come to make all our pay negotiations decisions - and I make no comment on what I would do on this particular one - we need to think clearly rather than simply in a doctrinaire way on either side or the other. Secondly, to ask that we bear in mind that for the person in the street perception is everything and sometimes we are perceived to, rightly, make sure that we get the best value from most of us: ordinary politicians, Deans, dustmen, taxi drivers, whatever. But sometimes we appear to pay very large sums of money to a very few people because we say that is what we need to bring in the best brain for this particular job. That may well be right and I have absolutely no problem with paying vast sums of money to people who do very specialist jobs, but I do want, transparently, to see whether that has worked out; so that if we pay somebody

£250,000 to undertake a particular job I would love at the end of that year to say: "Do you know, we paid him or her £250,000 but they made savings of £5 million" or: "We paid them £250,000 but they have raised the bar in their school, their college, their department so that the value is much greater than it ever was before." That way we can counter the perception, which has been expressed in this Chamber, that there is one rule for those lower down and another rule for those higher up the pay scales. So it is simply to say: Please, can we have rather more than simply doctrinaire stuff on other side?" Can we realise that the market alone does not deliver what we want, it is market plus fairness, and can we address the perception issue that it is one law for some and another law for others?

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

Very quickly, in fact the Dean has taken the words out of my mouth. I think one of the issues with negotiation is the context and do people feel, with all the inevitable drama and theatre that surrounds labour negotiations, that there is equity in the way in which the process has been handled and, as the Dean quite rightly said, that means at the top of the system and the bottom. There is no doubt, for example in Britain, that the rates paid, particularly in the commercial sector, to senior executives has spiralled totally out of control and the ratio gap has itself also spiralled totally out of control. It has become impossible to prove that these people are worth the money, particularly when you see executives depart after a year with millions of pounds in share options which they apparently negotiated. We have seen that in our public service. Although it looks to be a "miserabilist" kind of argument that I have been pursuing, that is why I believed the high pay policy mindlessly pursued at the top of the service has led us into a cul-de-sac because what it has done is enabled us to employ lots of people at fantastic salaries. They have always been imported because there is utter hypocrisy at the top of this organisation in terms of development of local staff. They have always been imported and they have always been brought in on the basis that there will be stupendously good performance. Now, I know they have collided with our political system. It is a micro-management political system and it is not easy, as a senior civil servant, to work in this culture in this environment. I know that. But these are meant to be sharp-minded people who can cope with these situations, who can ride the rough parts and have worked in highly- political environments. So they cannot be entirely excused. But what it has done is it has embedded a culture that we expect a lot and, quite frankly, I have to extend the Dean's argument to say it has not brought the results. It has brought a lot of resentment. It has brought a lot of inequality in the Civil Service and, although I am not sure I am going to agree with Deputy Southern 's proposition, I do agree with Deputy Martin's point in the sense that you have got to be much more differential in your negotiation, and blanket 2 per cents and so forth do not work. But, of course, there is a collision, I have to say. It is a slightly different point. I noticed yesterday Deputy Southern poured contempt on people, like Senator Ozouf , who said the conditions in Lerwick are quite different to the conditions in London, for example, and British unions are absolutely wed to the holy grail of national bargaining. It is well known. If you work in Northern Ireland where, for example, housing costs are much less expensive than they are in the southeast of England on national public sector pay scales you do very well. You do very well. But the unions resist differential bargaining because they feel it will undermine their national power. So it leads to illogical situations where the people in parts of the country like Northern Ireland who are in the public service, quite frankly, do very, very well because major parts of their budget, even with the London allowance for example, are nowhere near the kind of burdens that people in the southeast have to bear. So I would like to see from the unions much more flexibility, quite frankly. I think Deputy Martin is right but surely, as good fighting unions, they are not just going to accept the

Tribal report. [10:30]

But, by the same token, they have got to be fleet of foot. They have not got to be doctrinaire. They have not got to say: "Five per cent for everyone." I would like to see, as I said yesterday with nurses, for example, much more emphasis - because I have had complaints on this and it may be not the total solution - on housing provision for them because when people come over from the U.K., having kept a house there in the innocent belief that selling their house there will immediately allow them to buy a Jersey one. Well, if they are in London it might, but elsewhere they are in deep, deep hock, as we know. So I would like to see special programmes to help them to deal with this massive differential in housing costs once they realise what they have got themselves into. So I do not take the gloomy view and I believe a lot will depend, and I rely very much on our Back- Bencher colleagues, the Constable of St. Lawrence and Deputy De Sousa. I hope that at least at the policy level, even though they, themselves, cannot - and maybe they will speak,- they cannot interfere with day-to-day negotiation. I hope at the policy level they are fighting these issues. I know they are but I hope they will fight them even more. The differential in pay between the top levels of our service where things have gone totally out of control, where there is not the demonstration that there was promise of better performance in many cases. But, I think the trade unions have got to wake up, they have got to realise, and we all know the painful reawakening that occurred in Britain after the Thatcher years when we saw the collapse of companies like Leyland and we saw a couple of decades of, quite frankly, suicidal and self-destructive industrial relations. They have got to realise that they have got to be more fleet of foot and that often the solutions to these things have got to be more innovative. They have got to be innovative and the brothers just have not got to say, sometimes supported by the sisters, post-Dagenham, they have not got to say: "5 per cent for everybody, 5 per cent it will be." There has got to more flexibility and they have got to fight, as they are talking about, oddly enough, in their congress in London this week. They have got to fight in a more flexible fashion.

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

There might be a few diverse points I have been trying to cross out, points that other people have made but it is always nice to start with a joke and Senator Ozouf did, he told us about the independent assessment completed by a businessman from Sandpiper. It must have been about as independent as the Withers Report, I would suggest. But I have to ask is this the same Minister for Treasury and Resources who was only yesterday resisting Deputy Southern 's attempts to ensure that the Statistics Unit had all the information that they needed and wanted to do proper comparisons with the U.K.? That does not seem very logical to me but then this Council of Ministers do seem to be able to change what they have said just like George Orwell, 1984. Difficult times, says the Minister for Treasury and Resources and, of course, many of us have all wept tears of sympathy with those top civil servants given £500,000 payouts when they should have been sacked. But I am afraid when it comes to difficult times this Council of Ministers still cannot be strong enough to sack those people. It is fine for a road sweeper but: "Oh no, let us hide behind contracts. Let us give the boys a nice big payout. Let us not tell the truth that they have actually done one awful, totally unacceptable job and sack them. Let us pay them a nice big fortune", the price of a house that most of these people will never be able to afford, thanks to the policies of the Council of Ministers. So I think the Minister for Treasury and Resources has to take it on board that when he is coming up with things like this it is going to cause upset and discord because it just is not consistent, as Deputy Martin said. Two per cent on a minimum wage that does not make a great deal of difference to getting by but it is an absolutely luxury if you are being paid £200,000 a year. It is fine. The unions, of course, must be fleet of foot as Deputy Le Hérissier says, but negotiations are a 2-way street. It needs give and take on both sides. I used to be a negotiator for staff and that is what negotiations are about. You sat down; you did not sit down with one side having already decided what was going to happen. Ultimately, what you came out with, normally, and for the best was not everything that the management side wanted, it was not everything that the staff wanted, it was something in the middle but it was generally acceptable and workable and fair and that is the important word. I do not think that is a word the Council of Minister understands I am afraid. Of course, all savings such as this are futile so long as we have Ministers for Treasury and Resources like this one and the last one who have wasted far bigger

sums with their incompetence on things like the incinerator contract and police stations. But to be fair to Senator Ozouf , certainly, I mean people should not be surprised, he is a proponent of a 2-tier society. He believes in the survival of the greediest, that is where Jersey is going. Maybe, if this election does not change things, we will be past the point of no return. Most democracies, it seems to me - and I do follow international politics, sad person that I am - they are trying to move forward to a fairer society. Jersey seems to be taking us back to the times of Dickens. "A strong lead", the Minister for Treasury and Resources says, well would that not include trying to do something about this over-the-top cost of food in the Island, of housing in the Island. You know, as I say, we have got an election soon. I read one of the establishment party candidate's manifestos; it is very relevant to this, understanding that social housing is an extreme fallback position in exceptional circumstances. What planet do these people come from? The Minister for Treasury and Resources is supporting this person in my own district. What planet do these people come? Yes, it is a real person, Mary O'Keeffe-Burgher. The Hay system. There are things wrongs with the Hay system. I will tell you what is wrong with it, having been a negotiator in the past; it is that those at the top can manipulate it. So they decide: "Yes, I really do need a couple more assistants just to file the paper clips, appoint them, and push their grade up." Meanwhile Joe Bloggs, down on the shop floor, can barely afford to eat. Where is that going to be tackled with this strong leadership from the Minister for Treasury and Resources? Now, as Deputy Le Hérissier and I know, Ha-Joon Chang points out that over-the-top salaries for top civil servants and directors do not guarantee and lead to improved, more efficient, delivery of services. It is just a system that has evolved so that the rich can get richer and power for the more powerful. Deputy Southern is talking about something fundamental, you sit down and you negotiate, you do not have preconceived ideas. Well, you may have them but you cannot force them on people; that is what negotiation is all about. The first shot, this is the first shot, not of a battle, of a war I would suggest because this Island is heading straight into abyss with these policies. One thing I really thank from this week is that Senator Ozouf has proven why he will never be Chief Minister and nor should he ever be. Minimum wage, how many of us can really say that we know what it is like to be on minimum wage. I have got lots of constituents like that and I really think some of the comments in this House are absolutely glib; they have no understanding of what it is like in Jersey. So when you hear that rubbish, like in that manifesto, the Government is not run on a business model. Yes, we have got to make money but the idea should be how much more do you need than enough. We look after our people, we do not reward scroungers but then we should not be rewarding tax dodgers at the top. How do union members feel when they see this and then we are giving one per cent tax to people who make £100 million profits. It is morally bankrupt, it is sick. It is disgusting and I will continue to raise it and that is an issue worth taking to the U.K. Government. It is absolutely deplorable. Deputy Southern , credit to him, he keeps fighting this. I will keep fighting it, Deputy Tadier will and others. I say to Deputy Tadier on a more optimistic note, he should not worry about members of the right not wanting to join unions because I think, Oswald Mosley was a member of a union, was he not? Sadly, British Union of Fascists. Is that the way we want this Island to go? This Island belongs to everyone and everyone is entitled to a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. If they do not do that then get rid of them and that should be no different whether you are at the bottom or at the top. Unfortunately, under this Council of Ministers we have just seen rolling over to have your tummy tickled when someone threatens to sue us. Yes, we need an election and we need a new Council of Minister and we can put an end to these redundant, malicious, revolting, despicable and deeply flawed policies that Senator Ozouf continues to trot out based on his ideology, nothing to do with reality, nothing to do with doing the best for all Islanders and that is just not good enough. Frankly, to take up on Deputy Tadier 's tone, if the people just

accept this at the next election then I am afraid we deserve what we get. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence :

May I ask for a point of clarification please because the Deputy just made a reference to the Council of Ministers rolling over when they were threatened to be sued. I do not know what he is referring to there. I wonder if he could clarify that.

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I had it on very good authority for the Constable that a certain very senior civil servant who has just been given a lovely big amount of money to go and do his gardening, threatened to sue if he did not get it. Of course, as I am told, rolled over, tummy tickled.

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

I am, in a way, grateful for Deputy Southern bringing this amendment because it has raised a few questions in my mind, particularly surrounding .. of course Members will know that I have had quite a concern over the central contingency that has been set up by the Minister for Treasury and Resources. Looking at what is put here, and I am hoping that the Chief Minister might speak on this to clarify some points that I have, because in my view, and I think it has been made many times now with Ministerial government, this Assembly, all we are good for is agreeing the bottom line. At this point £778 million will be agreed, if so, as net Revenue Department expenditure allocation for 2012. Now within the central pay provision in the central contingencies it shows £7,325,800, terms and conditions savings target is £7 million. The question I have to ask is that if the money is not there, does that mean, therefore, that the negotiations will not take place and what right does the States Employment Board have in not being able to take negotiations with staff? Because in my view it is only fair that employees have a right to negotiate their terms of contact whether that be for more money or less money or more overtime, less overtime or whatever it may be because it is 2 sides of the coin. We have employees there to produce a service which we require as a government in order to provide a public service for the people of this Island who pay taxes in order to fund that service. In any business you will have people who will try to assume that they can work the absolute minimum that they have to in order to receive the pay they get but also on the other coin ..

The Bailiff :

I am sorry, we have just become inquorate. I will ask the usher to summon back Members. Very well, we are now quorate so please continue, Deputy .

Deputy T.A. Vallois:

I find it quite appalling that people cannot be in the Chamber on a Business Plan debate. On the other side of the coin you will also have numbers of employees in any business, shape or form, whether it is the public sector, financial services or anything who will work extremely hard, more than what is ever asked of them, all the hours that God sends, you know, wasting .. not wasting time but ..

The Bailiff :

All the hours that are sent. Deputy T.A. Vallois:

Sorry. All the hours that are available within the allotted time that life gives you. [Laughter] Sorry. But these people have families as well and I have always been of the view that we do not live to work, we work to live. People in the public, well many of the people in the public sector I have come across, are very, very passionate about what they do and they do try really hard no matter how much they get criticised by politicians or by members of the public. The problem I think that Deputy Le Hérissier made was about the transparency point of view. That is our issue. That is our problem with all this.

[10:45]

But I think the biggest question that comes out of this is that if negotiations are going to continue with the States Employment Board and employees of the public services then the £7 million that is identified within the central pay provision but is then taken out with the terms and conditions savings target. If the negotiations go ahead and say, for example, that we have to pay more money in terms of the terms and conditions; so say, for example, out of the terms and conditions review or the negotiations that are held, there is an extra £3 million produced from that negotiation with employees. Will that mean that this baseline that we are agreeing, or might agree this week, will actually increase and, if so, how? Because as I understand it Article 11(8) is no longer there. As I understand it the £22,485,000 that has been identified as essential reserve and restructuring costs have already been allocated by the Minister for Treasury and Resources as per conversations with the Council of Ministers. So, I would really like some clarification on this because unfortunately, I mean not unfortunately, but in my view the negotiations should go ahead. It should be natural practice. It should only be right for that to happen. If I have to agree on a Business Plan for next year when I know that there is a possibility that that baseline is going to increase I do not want to be a part of that. So therefore I would have to agree to Deputy Southern 's amendment to allow those negotiations to take place because I think it is wrong for this States Assembly, as they have done in the past, to agree a baseline and it consistently go above that. I have been of that view all along so I would really like some clarification, especially from the Chief Minister.

Deputy M. Tadier :

May I ask a point of order? It relates to the use of the word which was forbidden. Is it not correct that there must be a differentiation between using the word in a blasphemous sense and using it in a .. So, for example, when Deputy Vallois said: "All the hours God sent", my question would be if God did not send the hours, who did send them and it must be okay to say "God given" or God .." No seriously, "a godsend" because the principle of the States ..

The Bailiff :

I agree, Deputy , that the use of word "God" depends entirely on the context. In some context, where it is used in a sense akin to some form of swear word or something like that then it is unacceptable but, of course, reference to the word "God" in a normal context is perfectly acceptable and one has to make a judgment call on each occasion. Does anyone else wish to speak?

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

I would like to start by saying something that I think that very few people have and it is the fact that we acknowledge the efforts and the work undertaken by all our States employees in delivering the public services that we all come to expect. But I also think that whether it is a union's employees or indeed the employer that we all recognise, that it is high time that we review the terms and conditions and the pay structure that is currently in place because we have already heard in the debate today that it is, in many respects, no longer fit for purpose. In fact, how can we justify 21 separate pay groups within a 6,500 individual workforce that takes 2 years for negotiations to be completed with all the staff and the resulting fact that increases otherwise are not addressed in the appropriate time limit. I want to see a reward or a pay structure being put in place that rewards individuals for the work that they do, that encourages them to go the extra mile, that recognises whether the individual, whether he is a person that sweeps the road or indeed the Chief Executive of the States, appropriately. That is the question that the current pay structure that we currently have needs reviewing. As the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture I am not directly involved in pay negotiations with staff because that is the responsibility of the States Employment Board but I am well aware of the concerns raised by teachers and others who provide the services that my department is responsible for. They want a review. I recognise and I pick up the point that Deputy Southern made earlier that, yes, targets have been set and it is right that we set targets but equally negotiations, proper and meaningful negotiations, need to be undertaken. Timescale is important but - and it is a big "but" - they need, also, to acknowledge the ability to conduct the negotiations appropriately. I know this has already been recognised by the States Employment Board and there is an expectation that that will be undertaken. So rather than being negative about this particular proposal I think we need to see it as an opportunity and I hope it will be considered in that light.

10. Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

In my opening speech yesterday morning I said I had 2 objectives in this Business Plan. One was to deliver the £65 million worth of savings between 2011 and 2013 and the other was to modernise the way that we do things. We have, perhaps, focused this morning, to a greater extent, on the £65 million than on the modernisation bit but I really wanted to stress the importance of having an organisation and a workforce fit for purpose for the 21st century. As far as the £65 million is concerned and the £7 million element in respect of terms and conditions, that strikes me as being something which ought to be within our grasp. The review carried out not by a leading businessman but by an independent firm of consultants and reviewed by an independent body, including businessmen, and States Members and others, indicated that over time something in the order of £25 million to £30 million could be achieved in respect of terms and conditions. What this year is looking for is the first £7 million of that. Members, I think, understand that the first parts of savings are often relatively easy to deliver; as you get towards the end they become more difficult. So I have no doubt that with goodwill on both sides we can deliver the £7 million worth of savings on terms and conditions. I say goodwill on both sides because we have to be flexible just as much as employee groups have to be flexible and certainly, the States Employment Board, of which I am chairman, recognises that fact. When we reviewed our policy position on terms and conditions, earlier in this year, we acknowledged that a one-size-fits-all solution is not the answer. There will need to be variations across the piece. We will need to be imaginative and it may well be that some higher paid groups have a different situation from those in lower paid. That is a matter for negotiation with employee representatives. I have to say that those are starting and they need to be ongoing. Deputy Southern , in his opening comments, suggested that what everyone is looking for is improvements in terms and conditions. Yes, but I am not sure whether his understanding of improvement in terms and conditions means more benefits or simply changing and modernising the way we do things. He talked about recruitment and retention and that is uppermost in States Employment Board Members' minds but recruitment and retention requires staff who expect to work in a good environment. If they are working in a 19th century environment under 19th century conditions, or even 20th century conditions, they will say: "This is not a modern environment. This is an outdated organisation for which I am working. I do not want to work for them." We want to make sure that there is a workplace in which employees feel valued, feel respected and their contribution is welcomed. In short, Deputy Southern seems to want to have the opposite of what I want. I want a can do' culture. I suspect Deputy Southern wants a "cannot do" and "will not do" culture. I am sorry about that because unless we have a willingness to talk, if we insist on being set in our old ways we are never going to succeed. Deputy Martin suggests that maybe we were