States Meeting Transcript - 16/09/2011

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

FRIDAY, 16th SEPTEMBER 2011

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.....................................................4 Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary:...........................................................4

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption................................................................7

1. Goods and Services Tax: exemption or zero-rating for health foods (P.81/2011) - as amended...................................................................................7

1.1 Deputy S. Pitman:........................................................................8

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................11
2. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:..................................................14
3. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :..........................................................15
4. Senator F.E. Cohen:....................................................................16
5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................16
6. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................17
7. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:.......................................................18
8. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................20

9. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:......................................................21
10. Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary : ..............................................23
11. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:........................................................26
12. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:....................................................27
13. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................28
14. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen : ......................................................29
15. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter:................................................30
16. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..............................................................30
17. The Connétable of St. Mary : ........................................................30
18. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement:....................................................31
19. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade : ............................................32
20. Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence : ..................................................32
21. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ...........................................................33
22. Deputy S.Pitman:...................................................................36

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................39 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................39 COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER .....................................39

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption..............................................................39

2. States of Jersey Property Holdings and the States of Jersey Development Company Limited: structures, operations, protocols and controls (P.127/2011) .................39

2.1 Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................40

1. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour:.....................................................40
2. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................40
3. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................40
4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................40
5. Senator F.E. Cohen:....................................................................41
6. Deputy A.E. Jeune :.....................................................................42
7. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour:....................................................42
8. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................42
9. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................43

3. 1(1)(k) Category Residents: referendum (P.130/2011) .................................44

3.1 Deputy T.M. Pitman:...................................................................45

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................47
2. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement:.................................................48
3. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................49
4. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................49
5. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:...............................................52
6. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................52
7. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:.....................................................54
8. Deputy E.J. Noel: ......................................................................54
9. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................54
10. Senator F.E. Cohen: .................................................................55
11. Deputy J.M. Maçon:.................................................................56
12. Deputy S.Power:....................................................................56
13. The Connétable of St. Mary : ........................................................57
14. Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier : ..................................................57
15. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier : .......................................................58
16. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................58

4. Pan-Island Data Protection Commissioner (P.133/2011)...............................62

4.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):...........................................62

1. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................62
2. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................62
3. Deputy A.E. Jeune :.....................................................................63
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................63
5. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................63
6. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................63
7. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................64
8. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin : ..........................................................64
9. Deputy T.A. Vallois: ...................................................................65
10. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..............................................................65

5. Ratification of the Agreement for the Exchange of Information Relating to Tax Matters between the Government of Jersey and the Government of the Argentine Republic (P.137/2011) ...................................................................67

Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):.................................................67 5.1 Senator F.E. Cohen (Assistant Chief Minister - rapporteur): ............................68

1. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................69
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................69
3. Deputy J.B. Fox:........................................................................70
4. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................70
5. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................71

6. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................71
7. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................72
8. Senator F.E. Cohen:....................................................................72

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................74

6. The Connétable of St. Mary (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):.......74

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................75

[9:30]

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer. ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS

Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary :

I just wonder if I might at this stage make an observation on the business, I think it might be helpful. I think that it is quite achievable to finish the business that we have set down for this particular sitting during the course of today. I wonder first of all whether the Assembly might agree to sit until the business is concluded and have that done today. Secondly, my suggestion for forthcoming business, given we have a number which Members will appreciate could not be debated at this current meeting, would be to bring the 8th November sitting forward to 1st November and to have the full sitting then with questions, et cetera, and a continuation of that sitting on 8th November to do the budget business. I would make that recommendation.

The Bailiff :

Do Standing Orders not say though that the Budget has to be the first item on the Order Paper, Greffier? Would that be on the basis that if there is a continuation the Budget starts on Tuesday, 8th November and any other business then has to fall behind it?

The Connétable of St. Mary : Yes, Sir, that would be my idea. Senator A. Breckon:

I wonder if I could ask of the Chair; what is the procedure, does the Budget not have to be lodged so many weeks before you can debate it? Therefore, will it be considered to being debated on 1st November and not 8th November?

The Bailiff :

Normally the debate is the date of debate, which is why very often matters can be debated say on the Thursday but not on the Tuesday. So, I would imagine the same is true in relation to the Budget. All periods of lodging are counted until the day of debate normally. Yes, it is the date of debate.

Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade :

If the Chairman of P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) proposes bringing it forward a month, I have a long-standing 8 month commitment to a charity on 30th October for 5 days in Romania. I will be défaut.

The Bailiff :

Clearly some Members if we now sit on 1st November, which we were not going to, may not be able to attend.

Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence :

Sorry, just as a minor point, picking up on Deputy Power's comment, in the past when we have changed the weeks around there has kind of been an acceptance at the time that Members would consider making those Members défaut excusé? I was just wondering if we could bear that in mind.

The Bailiff :

We will consider that at the time, yes. Well now, what is proposed? I think we have 2 separate proposals, Chairman. The first matter is that we should sit this evening until business is concluded, obviously subject to any decision at 10.00 p.m. to change that. Do Members agree to do that?

Very well. The second one - and it would be sensible to agree it now - is therefore that what is proposed, it should now be a full sitting of the States on 1st November at which therefore questions may be asked and we will start in the usual way. A continuation sitting on 8th November; at the continuation hearing on 8th November the first item of business would be the Budget, but anything left over at that stage from the agenda of 1st November would fall behind the Budget. That is what is proposed.

The Connétable of St. Mary : That was my intention.

The Bailiff :

Yes.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I am very grateful for Members sorting out the Budget issues. Are we agreeing that we will sit on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd November and continue to deal with all of the business in the week of 1st November where the object will be to have all business completed so that we just have the Budget on 8th November? Is that the objective, Sir?

The Bailiff :

Thank you for that. The Chairman had better clarify which days she is suggesting we should sit in the week of 1st November.

The Connétable of St. Mary :

A number of Members have suggested to me that they would be happy to move business and so the list has grown for 8th November. I think it would be prudent to sit until that is concluded, to just have the matter of business being the budget on 8th November. So, certainly ..

The Bailiff :

So you are proposing to sit on Tuesday, 1st November and Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of that week if necessary?

The Connétable of St. Mary : If necessary.

The Bailiff :

In order to conclude all the business except the Budget. Then we will do the Budget on 8th November and that hopefully would be the only item of business. If there were any items still outstanding they would have to fall in behind the Budget.

The Connétable of St. Mary : Yes, I think that is sensible. The Bailiff :

Very well. Is that proposition seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to say anything about that proposition? Very well. Yes?

Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John :

I am aware that my own Scrutiny Panel have a meeting that week and we know there is a Chairmen's Committee meeting midway through. Taking up the Friday as well, we cannot even juggle our dates around, because that week and the following week will be full. We need some time in that week to be able to carry out other business of this House. By taking up the 3 days, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd, and then the following week with the Budget we are not going to have any time to finish some of our other work. We have reports still to put out prior to the end of this particular House.

The Bailiff :

I am reminded by the Greffier that there is nothing on the previous week. So, that will be the week after the elections, but the week before 1st November. So, that is available for meetings.

The Deputy of St. John :

I appreciate that, the Members - some of these things have been scheduled to try - ask our officers to bring things forward, especially when it comes to the reports, it is going to be rather difficult for them. Because the House have not been able to get their act together and sort out next week properly, which we should have been sitting, they are turning everything on its head.

The Bailiff :

Very well. Does any other Member wish to say anything? Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour :

The only compromise I would suggest would be to keep everything within the constraints of Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, to avoid the inevitable Parkinson's Law to which we are always susceptible.

The Bailiff :

At the moment the proposal is to sit for the Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and the Friday if necessary, in order to try and complete all the business but the Budget. Very well. That is the proposition. All those in favour kindly show. The appel is called for then. If you wish to proceed in that way you will vote pour, if you wish to proceed in some other way you will vote contre and then we will hear any other alternative propositions afterwards. So, I invite Members to return to their seats. The Greffier will open the voting.

POUR: 37

Senator T.A. Le Sueur Senator P.F. Routier Senator P.F.C. Ozouf Senator B.E. Shenton Senator A. Breckon Senator S.C. Ferguson Senator A.J.H. Maclean Senator B.I. Le Marquand Senator F. du H. Le Gresley Connétable of St. Ouen Connétable of St. Martin Connétable of St. Saviour Connétable of St. Clement Connétable of St. Peter Connétable of St. Lawrence Connétable of St. Mary Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S)

CONTRE: 7

Connétable of Trinity Connétable of Grouville Connétable of St. Brelade Deputy of St. Peter Deputy S.S.P.A. Power (B) Deputy of St. John Deputy T.A. Vallois (S)

ABSTAIN: 0

Deputy of St. Martin

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (S) Deputy J.B. Fox (H)

Deputy J.A. Martin (H) Deputy of St. Ouen

Deputy of Grouville

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire (H) Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré (L)

Deputy of Trinity

Deputy S. Pitman (H) Deputy K.C. Lewis (S) Deputy I.J. Gorst (C) Deputy M. Tadier (B) Deputy A.E. Jeune (B) Deputy T.M. Pitman (H) Deputy E.J. Noel (L) Deputy M.R. Higgins (H) Deputy A.K.F. Green (H) Deputy D.J. De Sousa (H) Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption

1. Goods and Services Tax: exemption or zero-rating for health foods (P.81/2011) - as amended

The Bailiff :

Very well. Now we come back to the business today. The Assembly agreed that the next matter to be taken will be Projet 81 - Goods and Services Tax: exemption or zero-rating for health foods. Deputy Shona Pitman you were not here yesterday. Are you happy to proceed with the first item of business?

Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier :

Yes, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Very well. I am going to invite the Greffier to read the .. Deputy S. Pitman:

Sir, may I just wait for the table to come? I do not have my glasses and I cannot read from this distance.

[9:45]

The Bailiff :

Is the table on its way? I gather Deputy Pitman is also asking the usher to circulate various papers, which although they do not all have your name on they do all come from you, Deputy ?

Deputy S. Pitman: Yes, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Deputy , the other matter is, do you agree we should take your proposition as amended? You have changed the dates from your original proposition. Do you agree that the proposition should be agreed in its amended form? Yes. So, I will ask the Greffier to read the proposition in its amended form.

The Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion; (a) to request the Minister for Health and Social Services to present to the Assembly within 12 months a report listing those foodstuffs that can be defined as "healthy foods"; and (b) to agree that the healthy foods as listed by the Minister for Health and Social Services should be exempted or zero-rated for the purposes of G.S.T. (Goods and Services Tax) from 1st January 2013 and to request the Minister for Treasury and Resources to bring forward for approval the necessary legislation as part of the Budget 2013 proposals to give effect to the decision.

1.1 Deputy S. Pitman:

I apologise to Members for the lateness of the documents that are about to be handed out. One in 5 of all Islanders die younger than 65. The big killers are lung, breast and bowel cancers, heart and liver disease and suicides. The main causes of the Island's burden of ill-health are tobacco, untreated high blood pressure, alcohol and poor diet. This statement from the Annual Report of the Medical Officer of Health 2009/2010 gives a picture of the stark reality of the very serious health issues that Jersey is facing today. This is why I feel so strongly that we, the Government, have a duty to do everything we can to enable every person in Jersey the choice to live a healthy lifestyle. I am not purporting that exempting G.S.T. from healthy food is the only answer to tackling unhealthy eating and illnesses caused by it. Indeed there are, as I will outline later, excellent programmes that the Health and Education Departments, which are very successful in informing and supporting people to live healthier lives. What I am arguing, however, is that we need to take a strong multi-agency approach on this big problem, which is now so prevalent in the western world and is fast becoming a huge burden on health services, including our own. Is it too difficult and what are the potential burdens? Will the apparent certainty of ongoing legal actions against the States arising from the complexities in defining G.S.T.-exempt foods become a reality? We have heard much about the plethora of legal challenges that without doubt will rise if G.S.T. exemptions are introduced from the Minister for Treasury and Resources, the Chamber of Commerce and tax experts in Jersey. This is what the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel, who were advised by the Chief Executive and Retail Controller of the Co-op had to say about it in their report in 2006. They felt that it would be extremely unlikely for companies on the Island to legally contest the definition of zero-rated items. Challenges in the U.K. (United Kingdom) predominantly came from manufacturers and as the zero-ratings would predominantly affect the Island's retailers rather than the manufacturers, who are mainly based in the U.K., this was not thought to be a potential problem. The sub-panel's adviser, who is a senior lecturer in Tax Law at Bournemouth University and a freelance tax consultant and writer, after reviewing recent V.A.T. (Value Added Tax) cases in the U.K. to see how many are caused by the various zero-ratings, informed the panel that there was not much evidence of food being a major complication. Furthermore, this same argument of legal challenges could also be applied to the so-called fat taxes on unhealthy food and drinks other countries, like Denmark, Hungary and Finland now have. Have these countries faced huge expensive legal challenges? No, they have not. What is the cost to Jersey businesses? I will start with the cost to the food retailers' I.T. (Information Technology) systems. In the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel report entitled  Goods and Services Tax Review a computer services professional was asked to comment on G.S.T. exemptions on basic foodstuffs. He advised that

from an I.T. perspective the additional cost of implementing systems which catered for the zero- rating of basic foodstuffs would be negligible given that businesses would need new or updated systems to cater for the introduction of G.S.T. Mr. Shead from the Chamber of Commerce also gave evidence. He agreed that the issue of adapting to zero-ratings after initial software adjustments distinguish between items that should be charged G.S.T. or zero-rated in the shops would be relatively straightforward. Furthermore, I recently spoke to an executive member of Sandpiper who own Checkers. He told me that although he did not agree with G.S.T. exemptions because of what he saw as the impracticalities in implementing the policy, there would be no technical problems at the checkout if a definitive list of exemptions were introduced. In their conclusion, the Scrutiny Panel said the compliance cost of zero-rating as an issue is grossly overstated, particularly in the context of the huge increase in compliance costs associated with the introduction of G.S.T. However, there will of course be other costs for businesses in implementing the revised legislation. Cost to the States: in an answer to a question from Senator Perchard on 3rd May about costs of zero-rating food and fuel, the Minister for Treasury and Resources wrote with reference to his department: "A reasonable approximation of the additional tax officer's administrative costs, based on the U.K. and international experience, is that 3 additional staff would be required and the extra pay role, social security, I.T., accommodation and other costs would be approximately £200,000 to £300,000." G.S.T. revenue will also decrease subsequent to those foods that will be exempt if my proposition is successful. In terms of lost revenue to the Treasury in compliance; this is what the same Scrutiny Panel, Corporate Services, reported. In making these calculations the panel only included business dealing with the retailing of basic foodstuff and therefore did not incorporate trading in the restaurant and takeaway industries, as their produce would not be subject to zero-rating. The sub-panel estimated that 4 companies make up approximately the majority of the Island's food retailing businesses. At the time that was C.I. Traders, the Channel Islands Co-operative Society, R' Stores and Spar. The Retail Controller of the Co-op calculated that if the initial focus on policing the boundaries between zero-rated and non zero-rated foods was focused on these 4 companies, the total tax revenue at risk it there were to be 100 per cent non-compliance by the remaining 41 businesses representing 10 per cent of the food retailing sales over 12 months would be approximately £300,000. A more likely scenario would be 10 per cent non-compliance in the remaining 90 per cent of the food retailing. This would imply an initial potential revenue loss of £30,000 per annum until policing efforts caught up. But let us just consider here that G.S.T. revenue from the consumption of all foods and non-alcoholic drinks in 2010 was approximately £4.5 million so the actual loss of G.S.T. revenue would be considerably less with exemptions on health foods only. There are, as we know, other costs, present and future, to the Health and Social Services in treatment and support, Social Security, in their financial support for people who are sick or cannot work and the Housing Department for the very same reasons. In addition, there will be implications for other States departments such as the Law Officers' Department in drafting further legislation; and Customs, who are already much stretched. However, there are other means for raising tax revenue, such as land development tax, increasing 1(1)(k) contributions, taxing non-local registered companies, charging G.S.T. to finance and insurance companies. One may even be the raising of tax on junk foods as it is currently being mooted in the U.K. and the U.S. (United States), if Members would like to look, if they have the sheets entitled "Fat Tax to hit McDonalds in Essex". As I said earlier it is already practised in several Scandinavian countries. So I would ask the Minister for Treasury and Resources if he is serious about making substantial future savings for taxpayers, please seriously consider the associated costs of the States not taking a multi-agency approach and doing everything it can to reduce the epidemic of ill-health associated with poor diets compared with the rapidly increasing costs for the States. At this point I think it pertinent to highlight some specific costs incurred related to poor diets to the States and the economy. Members might want to look at the "Costs of Obesity" sheet. In an answer to a question from the Deputy of St. Mary on 5th April 2011, the Minister for Health and Social Services presented estimated figures for 2002 of £1.5 million for direct costs of treating obesity only and £4 million in indirect costs. In 2006 the Medical Officer of Health, in her annual report, estimated that excessive weight alone costs the States and other employers around £7.4 million a year, a rise in 4 years by £2 million. I will repeat here the G.S.T. revenue from the consumption of all foods in 2010 was approximately £4.5 million, far less than the £7.4 million. Also I know a little about the cost of obesity on the Health Department because I have a family member who was morbidly obese. She had a gastric band fitted and medical costs since have run in excess or run near to the £2 million mark. Diabetes is also another serious complaint and it is very expensive to treat. The H.S.S.D.'s (Health and Social Services Department) Diabetes Centre has seen significant increases in caseload over recent years and it is expected that by 2016 it will be providing services to 7,500 patients, 8 per cent of the population compared to 500 in 1990. To add, other health conditions and illnesses caused by obesity or overweight that I have already mentioned such as heart disease, cancers, high blood pressure and

depression caused by low self esteem of the condition, have their costs too. [10:00]

Furthermore, there is the cost of premature tooth decay. Members should have a sheet demonstrating the increased cost to children receiving treatment. Let us now look at Jersey's health today in the context of unhealthy diets. In the Jersey Annual Social Survey of 2010, a survey that asks members of the public to self-assess their health rating, it found that overall two-thirds of people - that is 66 per cent - eat less than the recommended daily amount. Similar proportions were found in J.A.S.S. (Jersey Annual Social Survey) of 2008, 65 per cent; and J.A.S.S. 2007, 59 per cent. We are all aware that we should be eating the recommended 5 portions of fruit and vegetables a day. Sadly, J.A.S.S. reported that in 2010 over two-thirds of people - that is 66 per cent - eat less. I am repeating that. Sorry about that. J.A.S.S. figures also estimated that 19 per cent of men and 17 per cent of women are now obese, which is a body mass index of 30 or more. This is an increase on 2008 when 11 per cent of men and 12 per cent of women were found to be obese. One to 2 per cent of adult Islanders - that is over 1,000 people - have a B.M.I. (Body Mass Index) of 40 or more and around one in 5 men and one in 5 women have a waist size at a level associated with very high risk of cardiovascular disease. In the 5 years up to 2008 the main causes of death under 65 were 38 per cent cancer, 19 per cent circulatory, 8 per cent digestive diseases. The main cause of death over 65 is 24 per cent cancer, 36 per cent circulatory, 4 per cent digestive diseases. These figures come from the Medical Officer of Health 2009/2010. There are, however, other medical conditions and illnesses that can benefit better from nutrition. I consulted a friend recently who is a nutritional therapist about this. She cited such illnesses/medical conditions and these are: digestive disorders, depression, acne, infertility, stress and anxiety, insomnia, M.E. (Myalgic Encephalomyelitis), migraines, arthritis, menopause osteoporosis and asthma. So it is not just people who have diabetes and obesity that could benefit from cheaper healthy food. But problems caused by unhealthy eating are recognised and being addressed by the States. This is one area in which I think Government departments are working very well together. The following is just a few initiatives that are underway. For children and young people there is the healthy food reward ensuring healthy food and exercise is part of the curriculum, setting health food standards in school canteens, asking parents to provide their children with healthy lunches and a Youth Service, informal method of education of diet and nutrition through their various activities, yet we tax the very foods that we ask parents to put in their children's lunch boxes. For adults there is the exercise referral scheme, piloting a weight-watchers referral scheme, and of course there is the medical treatment and support from dieticians and psychologists. There is lots of work going on which is a good thing, but is it enough? These initiatives, however, may be .. however; there is a responsibility on behalf of parents ensuring that their children are eating well but if people cannot afford a healthy lifestyle these initiatives may go to pot because if people cannot afford it they will not do it. These initiatives, however, may be unsuccessful if the price of healthy foods is not affordable. It is well known that social disadvantage and poor health tend to go together. This is a well-recorded fact. In her annual report of 2007 the Medical Officer of Health stated that Jersey's

poorer communities tend to live in town, which should focus our attention to improve healthcare. The high cost of living in Jersey means that ordinary people struggle with the cost of being healthy. The introduction of G.S.T. in Jersey at the rate of 3 per cent contributed 1.9 and 2.1 percentage points to the annual rates of R.P.I. (Retail Price Index) and R.P.I.X. (Retail Price Index excluding mortgage interest payments) respectively in June 2008. These contributions from G.S.T. remained in the annual increase of these indices for 4 quarters up to and including March 2009. The increase of G.S.T. in Jersey from 3 per cent to 5 per cent contributed 1.3 and 1.4 percentage points to the annual rates of increase of R.P.I. and R.P.I.X. respectively in June 2011. These contributions from G.S.T. will remain in the annual increases of these indices for 4 quarters up to and including March 2012. During the 12 months to June 2011 R.P.I. increased by 4.5 per cent. This information came from the Jersey Retail Price s Index Statistics Unit. With regard to food, over the last 6 years food prices have increased by 38 per cent in Jersey. The effects of the introduction and increase in the rate of G.S.T. in Jersey in May 2008 and then in 2009 respectively are clearly apparent. The rate of inflation for food in Jersey has risen over the last 12 months to June 2011 by 6 per cent. Comparing Jersey and U.K. prices for some healthy food gives us an idea of how expensive food really is in the Island. Cereals, during the 12 months to June 2011, the price rose by 20 per cent in Jersey and 7 per cent in the U.K., on average 4 per cent more expensive than the U.K. Fresh fish, during the 12 months to June 2011, the price rose by 10 per cent in Jersey and 15 per cent in the U.K., on average 4 per cent more expensive than the U.K. Milk, during the 12 months to June 2011, prices rose by 6 per cent in Jersey and 2 per cent in the U.K., on average 39 per cent more expensive than the U.K. Fresh fruit, since June 2005, prices rose by, on average, 33 per cent and in the U.K. 17 per cent, on average 34 per cent more expensive than the U.K. figures at June 2011. Lastly, fresh vegetables, since June 2005 prices have risen, on average, by 35 per cent and in the U.K. by 36 per cent. On average we are 33 per cent more expensive than the U.K. on figures at June 2011. These figures were extrapolated from the Statistics Unit report of June 2011. In conclusion the problem of unhealthy diets is not just a financial one for the Health Department but it is for Social Security and the Housing Department. There are also substantial costs for the economy and social costs. This is what the Medical Officer of Health said about it in her annual report of 2007, and this was about tackling unhealthy eating: "Reflecting on the successes we have already had with our strategies to reduce smoking, alcohol consumption and drug misuse I have concluded that we need to tackle obesity on all fronts simultaneously; mount a large scale comprehensive cross-government campaign and ensure that economic policy works to reduce obesity including food marketing, to change buying behaviour." This is what we said in our Strategic Plan of 2009 to 2014: "A major shift in health and social care policy is needed if we are to improve Islander's health and social well-being enough to head off the projected increases in healthcare costs. We need to put the emphasis on prevention rather than cure and make the healthy choice the easy choice." Then it goes on: "In the light of the ageing population we must ensure that people stay healthier and remain living independently for longer. This will improve the quality of life for the individual and be less costly. If we do not health and social care costs will overwhelm

our resources." This is exactly what I am saying. I make the proposition. The Bailiff :

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded]

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I rise to speak. I think this is the ninth debate that we have had on G.S.T. amendments or exemptions. This proposition has some elements of similarity compared to other propositions, including a proposition that we debated only some 4 months ago. My main question to the Assembly is what really has changed since we made the decision on 18th May this year when all of the arguments were rehearsed, the principal arguments in relation to exemptions? So I do not propose to rehash the 9 speeches that I have given previously on G.S.T. amendments. I am not going to speak for very long because I think that those Members who are committed to a simple system of G.S.T. are very much aware of those arguments. Obviously, there are other Members who have wanted to put exemptions in place for various different motivations. I will address the motivations that are at the heart - the well-intentioned motivations that are at the heart - of Deputy Pitman's propositions. I would like to thank, if I may, the Deputy for recognising that the timescale included in her original proposition was impossible for the Treasury. The later debate, no criticism, of this meant that that was going to be even trickier with the Budget debate just a very short time ago. However, notwithstanding the fact that we are now dealing with a longer timescale the task, I will represent, still remains, I am afraid, impossible. The fact is that there is no definition of a healthy food. The healthiness of a food has much to do with how it is prepared as to the food itself. A potato, I think, can be healthy if it is boiled or steamed and eaten in moderation. That same potato if taken home and deep fried and turned into chips, depending on the type of the fat that you use, is certainly going to be unhealthy. Vegetables that are deep fried and turned into fritters are, probably, unhealthy. Milk mixed with sugar and then frozen to become ice cream is no longer healthy if milk was healthy in the start depending on its fat content. I would ask Members how our Health Department can possibly legislate for such post-purchase actions.

[10:15]

What about processed foods? Are tinned peas, to take one example at random, healthy? Possibly, but a lot will depend on the process that they have gone through. If salt or sugar is added to the tinned peas in the preserving process or treated with chemicals, are they still healthy? I would ask the Deputy , if she is genuinely asking the Health Department to have arrangements in place, to check the content, the label of every item of tinned, frozen or processed, of food that is sold in Jersey. It clearly would be impossible. Members know of the challenges that the Health Department has. We are all aware of them, they are significant and they are very time-consuming if we are going to improve the healthiness of the society which Deputy Pitman, rightfully, brings our attention to in terms of obesity. But do we really want to deploy our officials' time in an almost impossible path to identify foods which are healthy or otherwise? I think that their time is better spent, rather than trying to legislate on - while it may be emotive but it is quite realistic - what brand of baked beans is better for us than others. The practicalities apart, we must ask whether in adopting this proposition, we would be really genuinely making a difference to the lifestyle or eating habits of our community. In particular, the particular groups which Deputy Pitman is concerned about, the vulnerable and certainly the low income groups, which the evidence suggests, that there certainly are issues in the material that she has circulated. The answer and the advice that we have had from our health professionals is "no" and this view is also supported by international experience. There are a number of reasons for this. Inquiries into the reasons why healthy people do not make healthier food choices do suggest that price is a factor, almost as important is the length of time required to prepare healthy food as opposed to highly-processed food. Lack of knowledge about how to prepare healthy foods is an important factor and it is perhaps a reflection of modern society and busy lives that increasingly the traditional skills of preparing food - and I am as guilty of this as anybody - are being lost. There is a section of our community, not necessarily in one income group or more, particularly that has problems in relation to the decisions of how they buy food. It is not simply low income groups that are buying unhealthy foods. Frankly, a tiny reduction, and it is a relatively small reduction in the price of a healthy food, an onion, to take an example, will not have an impact on people who do not have the skills to prepare a meal in a healthy way. Other important factors, which people say prevents them from buying healthy foods include information, a lack of willpower, a lack of healthy foods in restaurants and poor choices of healthy foods in shops. I am afraid that none of these real issues, the underlying issues, why people are not buying, consuming and preparing healthy foods. None of these issues will be affected if we adopt the proposition before us. For those reasons there is no evidence that just reducing the price of healthy foods for every person will lead to individuals making healthy choice. Indeed, what is more likely is that if we do reduce the prices for people who would have made the healthy choices anyway without affecting those who would not have bought the healthy food, we are not achieving anything. It is clear that obesity and poor nutrition is a growing problem in our society and I agree with the Deputy that there is a really big issue that we have to deal with in Jersey. It is one that we know is being tackled by the Health Department and is something that the Minister for Health and Social Services has addressed this Assembly on in the past. The Medical Officer of Health and our health professionals have spent many hours investigating how we can encourage Jersey people to

take better care of themselves. It is at the heart of the Green Paper that we have recently concluded debating and consulting on. What our health professionals have found is that the international evidence is that unless we educate our community into how to make healthy choice and how to prepare and cook healthy ingredients, changing price will make very little difference to the people that need healthy foods and healthy lifestyles the most. I am trying to be, perhaps, a Minister for Health in this debate and perhaps I should not because I am the Minister for Treasury and

Resources. I would say that the money we collect through charging G.S.T. on food however is better spent by the Health Department by Education and Social Security and raising awareness of how to eat better, how to prepare food better instead of giving a tax rebate, a tax advantage, to those who are already making healthy choices. It is a difficult argument but I am sure that Members can understand that it has a great degree of truth in it. The difficulty – impossibility - of simply defining healthy foods is one set of the arguments. The rest of the argument on exemption in terms of G.S.T., which has been rehearsed in this Assembly on many occasions and succeeded; still stands in relation to this proposition. We decided a number of years ago to adopt best practice, the most modern G.S.T. system in its introduction. We chose to base our G.S.T. system on the New Zealand model which is internationally recognised as one of the best models of G.S.T. anywhere in the world. The New Zealand model - and the Jersey model - is based on the principle of having a simple low rate, low cost administrative system. The alternative is a move in a direction of the U.K. system which many Members will be aware is highly complicated with a high tax and high collection costs and high avoidance and other mechanisms in it. Indeed, Members may have been reading the media in the last few days with the final report of Sir James Mirrlees, in his report which recommended again, unequivocally, the fact that a G.S.T. or V.A.T. system should be simple and it should not have exemptions. That is a highly regarded group of highly informed experts that have been advising the U.K. Government in relation to the simplification of the tax system. The U.K. has, again, been recommended to look again at its systems of exemptions and we, today, are being asked to take a step in the direction, not simply lifting the U.K. list which would be, perhaps, more simple even though it would be very complicated. We are being asked to take a step into the further complex unknown which would have, in my view, detrimental consequences to the ability of collecting G.S.T. in a simple and easy way. Members do not need, I am sure, to be reminded that we do have - while it is controversial - we do have a low rate of G.S.T. At 5 per cent it is still, and I hope will remain, one of the lowest in the world. It is low because our system is based upon the presumption that we should have as broad a tax base as possible and keep it simple. So what I can say is that an almost identical Bill to that which Deputy Shona Pitman has brought forward was proposed and debated in the New Zealand Parliament in 2010. That Bill was defeated by a combination of cross-party support; both left and right came to the conclusion that this simply was not possible. The research and debate in New Zealand is a recent and relevant example. While we do not have the institutions of a larger country, such as New Zealand, in order to advise us in terms of universities and others, that debate and the conclusion of that debate is, I hope, important background, important evidence to Members which should inform this debate. The New Zealand Parliament was not convinced that any potential benefits to taxpayers and consumers of zero-rating

healthy food outweighed the damage to their G.S.T. system in terms of its simplicity and efficiency. This was on the basis of a G.S.T. rate which was 15 per cent so the potential price saving there was 3 times as great as Jersey and therefore was potentially even of greater benefit. If they did not conclude that it worked at 15 per cent in New Zealand, then it would be even more unlikely to have the desired effect of 5 per cent in Jersey. Members will agree that there is a worldwide problem with health-related  lifestyles and we do need to put in place measures to reduce the rates of avoidable disease by education. I can understand the sentiment behind this proposition and I agree with it, fundamentally, in terms of educating and improving healthy lives, we all do. But will this proposition be effective in changing lifestyle on eating habits. Would the potential reduction in G.S.T. of 5 per cent in the pound really persuade people to buy healthy foods? Of course, there is no guarantee that the tax content, if it were to be reduced, would even be passed on to consumers. Although, of course, some retailers would, there is absolutely no evidence at all that reducing and zero-rating gets passed on to consumers. I understand the comments that Deputy Pitman makes in relation to the price of food. If anything, I am encouraged to see the evidence that our food market

is becoming more competitive as opposed to less competitive over the last few years. We need to continue to ensure that we have a competitive retail market in order to check the unacceptable increase in food that we saw throughout the early 2000s. Things have got better in relation to the price comparison in some areas in terms of imported food than it was a few years ago and I think that is a relevant and important issue. When we last debated G.S.T. on food in May the Treasury was unable to find any examples, internationally, that reducing G.S.T. rates on food would be routinely passed on to consumers in the form of lower prices. This has been debated by numerous parliaments around the world and I think it is an important issue. In Jersey we both have Income Support and the G.S.T. bonus which both provide a targeted way of protecting the less well-off against the cost of G.S.T. I will maintain that our income support system and G.S.T. bonus system are the best way of giving targeted relief to those in our community who really need it. I would urge Members to carefully consider whether there is any evidence that those people who really need to be encouraged to buy healthier foods will do so if we reduce G.S.T. in the way that Deputy Pitman is proposing. I would urge them to weigh-up these arguments against the damage that could be done to our G.S.T. model, which will be enormously complex if we adopt this proposition. The Health Department cannot be expected to draft the list of healthy foods. It has not been done anywhere else and it will not be possible to deal with it here. There will be arguments of what is healthy and what is not, quite apart from the issue that even if you buy the healthy food that has been miraculously documented in terms of a list that it will be maintained as being healthy after the processing of it. It is well-intentioned but I am afraid it will not work. That is the experience and that is the evidence; that is the research, not only by our Health Department here, by health departments in other places and particularly in the jurisdiction that is most relevant to us, which is New Zealand. I understand the principles and the sentiments behind this proposition. We want to do something about healthy lives but this, I am afraid, is not the way to achieve that and on those arguments I would urge Members to vote against the proposition.

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

I think, unfortunately, the proposal of Deputy Pitman is flawed. She requests under item (a) that the Minister for Health and Social Services present to the Assembly within 3 months a report listing those foodstuffs that can be defined as healthy foods. But we have .. sorry? Yes, that is the amendment. [Aside] orry. The technical point that I am referring to is that if indeed the Minister

for Health and Social Services is unable to list any foodstuffs that could be designated as healthy foods she would still be discharging what this House would have decided upon in bringing forward a list that would have no items on it. If indeed that happened then, presumably, (b) could not be complied with, or would be complied with, because there would be no exemptions because there would be no items on the list. I think one of the problems which have already been identified by the Minister for Treasury and Resources is that we appear to be mixing 2 items, 2 issues.

[10:30]

One is about the general desire of the community to eat more healthily and to undertake more healthy lives and I think everybody would sign up to that one. But the second point is the extent to which taxation on foods, on foodstuffs, or any other items, is a moral or ethical issue and whether or not there is a direct correlation to suggest that if indeed items could be exempted with a basic healthy food list whether or not that would encourage more people to eat those products. I think the better way is to move in the direction which has been suggested by a number of jurisdictions to begin to bring in specific taxes - green taxes, environmental taxes if you like- but things which discourage the eating of unhealthy foods, we could set out quite a good argument. I think that we have already have begun to do this in terms of the duties that we raise on alcohol and tobacco and the way those monies are recycled back into the health system in order to discourage the over participation in those 2 products. In the same way I think we could begin to consider, as I mentioned earlier, as other jurisdictions are beginning to do, perhaps to overtaxing or raising extra tax revenue on foodstuffs which contain too much sugar, too much salt, too many preservatives or chemical colourings or E-numbers and then recycle those monies back to those who should be most encouraged to move to healthier lifestyles, the low income families through the low income support schemes or indeed whether a greater programme, pursued by the Health Department, for the re- education of the public into the benefits of leading healthier lives through healthier eating and exercise and what have you. I think there is an integrated approach that is required but at the moment I think the proposition falls because there is a technicality which could be played, which would take us no further. I think, notwithstanding that, that the Minister for Health and Social Services should try and come forward with an enhanced programme for healthy eating in

conjunction with other bodies. I am hearing that that is already being done in schools. We have had the other school milk debate, ad nauseam. All these issues are related and I think, really, it is incumbent upon the Minister for Health and Social Services to try to do a little bit more in this area, as I am sure that she is willing to do. But making the simple link that G.S.T. taken off a small number of food items I do not think is going to provide the encouragement that all of us would wish to see happen to ensure that our younger stock, if you like, do achieve old bones and healthy bones into the future. So on that basis although I probably could support (a) I think it would probably not be right if, indeed, the Minister for Health and Social Services was not able to put anything on the list so I shall vote accordingly.

3. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :

First of all I would like to thank the proposer for highlighting the issues that the Island faces and she has mentioned obesity, drug and alcohol, et cetera, but also to reiterate that this is true not only to our Island but other jurisdictions as well. As Minister for Health and Social Services I would always give my support to initiatives that have measurable positive effects on people's health. However, I do not believe this proposition will achieve that and I urge you all to reject it despite the good intentions. There is no available definition of what constitutes a healthy food. One thing is certain, whatever definition is put forward it will be disputed. Nobody in any jurisdiction has managed to define what healthy food is. If it could have been done, it would have been done by now. The concept means different things to different people. Is it food that helps prevent obesity, lowers cholesterol or is it high in fibre and prevents bowel cancer? The Minister for Treasury and Resources mentioned about the Jersey Royals and, being a good Jersey girl, I like my Jersey Royals, especially the organic ones grown from my Health and Social Services farm, they are good, healthy, but it is what I do with them that makes them unhealthy. I like them fried in butter with chives, both of which are unhealthy if eaten in excess. The definition of healthy is a minefield of complexity, one of which has been around many times before in States debates. Another one is the closer foods are to their natural state the healthier they are. We can all understand that. Whole wheat is a whole grain and packs nutrients in, high fibre, all very good for you, very good for our system. I think everyone would agree. But on the other hand highly processed white flour has lost much of its fibre and consists of just simple carbohydrates. Does that mean we should just exempt brown flour and not white? Just another example of healthy; nuts, some say they are very healthy but there is so much conflicting evidence. Some say it is good for our diet and the fat content but others say it is high in calories. So what are they? Probably both, so where do those fit on the list? If G.S.T. exemptions were introduced the people who would benefit most would be those on diets that were healthier. Research tells us that these people are in the higher income groups. Those with lower incomes, whose diets tend to include more saturated fats, sugars and salt would receive relatively little relief from any G.S.T. exemptions. A 5 per cent reduction would obviously make healthier foods 5 per cent cheaper than they currently are but it would not be sufficient to bring the cost of healthier foodstuffs down to the same price as less healthy options. For those on a budget health foods would still do not represent value for money. It is highly unlikely that a 5 per cent exemption would result in any noticeable shift in people's shopping behaviour. It is well recognised that these changes in taxation alone do not get people to change their habits. We know this from the work that has been done in relation to alcohol and tobacco consumption. It would be unrealistic to expect much change in eating habits because of small changes in taxation. How can we influence the people's choice to a healthy lifestyle? I think the most important thing is educating our children about healthier, delicious and nutritious food. That work is beginning and continuing with our Healthy Schools Programme and that is where we should direct our resources. We should be looking at extending that across all schools. The schools: they are the next generation. We need to make sure that whatever education that we give about healthy diets will be sustainable and will be for their lifetime. This Assembly has previously rejected G.S.T. food exemptions on the ground that they will place a considerable burden on businesses. I would argue that if benefits to health and wellbeing outweigh that burden then exemptions should be considered

but there is no evidence to suggest that this would be the case. The time and resources needed to put together a list, and I would remind everybody that one across the world has not been put together. I would rather put that resource, those limited resources, into education programmes not only for schools but across the whole Island. There is much to learn from other countries. The Government in New Zealand, which is often lauded for its progressive G.S.T. system, recently rejected a private member's Bill on a similar nature. Despite the very good intentions of the Deputy , I cannot support this proposition.

4. Senator F.E. Cohen:

I am going to differ from my old friends .. from the good old days when I was on the Council of Ministers. I am also sorry that my dear friend, Senator Ozouf , does not like chips. I, on the other hand, as Members can clearly see for themselves, am a glutton for chips. My position is not about criticising the Chief Minister, the Minister for Treasury and Resources or the Minister for Health and Social Services, all of whom I hold in the very highest regard and all serve the Island with great distinction. My position is about doing what I believe is right for Jersey. Members will know that I have favoured the healthy food exemption or zero-rating option for some years and indeed proposed it on a number of occasions at the Council of Ministers. In fact, in this case I was beaten to lodging a proposition by Deputy Pitman. It can be done and it can be done quite simply on the basis of unprocessed fresh produce. Unlike New Zealand we are in the fortunate position of around 75 per cent of our food being sold by 3 companies. It is easy for them to implement such a system on their computer systems. We already have exemptions anyway. So it is not a case that this would break the mould. One of those exemptions in which I am pleased I played a small part was exemptions for medical supplies. New Zealand did all the work and despite the fact that their Bill was not approved by the New Zealand Parliament much of the work has been done by them. While I am not suggesting we crib it, it could be a jolly good guide to assist us in bringing forward proposals. Zero-rating or exempting healthy foods is about giving a signal. It is about allowing changes of behaviour. It is about promoting good produce and good food and it is about giving a message of effectively penalising unhealthy food. It rewards the consumer for making the healthy choice. It is not about money because the amounts of money involved are relatively small,

particularly if the field is narrow. It is about sending the right message. It is, in fact, pretty much the same as the plastic bag initiative that the Deputy of Trinity and I introduced some years ago. This was enormously successful. By giving a simple signal to the community the number of plastic bags sold in the Island by supermarkets and stores dropped in one month by in excess of 90 per cent. In fact, we were told that it had dropped by in excess of 95 per cent, but I find that so unbelievable that I tend to use the lower figure of 90 per cent, but what an amazing achievement that Islanders were so enthusiastic to participate that plastic bag sales fell by such a spectacular amount. It was that people wanted to do it. They wanted to receive the signal. They wanted to participate and feel good about participating and the converse was they felt bad when they were not able to participate. I, like many others, feel bad when I forget to take my bag to the supermarket and am forced to buy bags. I always look around to see who is looking at me. So in summary this is not about taking a position against anyone. This is about doing the right thing for Islanders. We lead the world in financial services; let us lead the world in healthy eating. [Approbation]

5. Deputy G.P. Southern :

How refreshing it is to stand up following a speech by Senator Cohen and completely agree with it. What a refreshing fount of common sense and logic he has just shown. Of course, he has put to the sword the argument that we could not possibly make up a list because it is so complex and so difficult to do that it would be impossible and we would be doing it for ever.

[10:45]

The fact  is, as the good Senator has pointed out, New Zealand has already done it and laid essentially the ground work for that. So, in particular, for that point .. reasons not to do it, in that argument, dead in the water. It is has been done, it can be done; we have got a model waiting for us to pick up. Then we have a whole variety of specious arguments, (1) that we have got the income support system and G.S.T. bonus system which means that we take the tax off one set of people and we employ some civil servants to give it back to certain people and therefore that is the way to do things. That is really efficient, is it not? Hardly, so let us make that a little more difficult and change the numbers. It makes no difference whatsoever. If we have set up that system - it might not be the right system, I do not think it is, never was - but changing the numbers a little bit, by the odd fraction of a per cent here or there, will make no difference to that effort either, so that is not an argument. So hang on, that is (1) and (2), and then we have the absolutely scandalous accusation from the Minister for Treasury and Resources that, of course, retailers will not pass it on. They are all scoundrels, apparently, according to the Minister for Treasury and Resources; they are just scamming us and taking the maximum profit they can, and if we reduce the tax they will not pass it on. What a way to talk about our retailers. Some of them, some of them, it just may be possible, may be as honest as the day is long and would pass it on, and some more. It could be possible. So let us dismiss that, and it is scurrilous. Then we have the argument, of course, 5 per cent difference in the price of healthy food will make no difference at all, it is not significant enough. What is the end point of this logic? Wait for it: so let us wait for it to be 10 per cent - and it will be sooner or later - or 15 per cent, when it might make a difference, and we will do it then. Specious nonsense; illogical, irrational; it makes no sense at all. Then there is the argument which is often repeated by any Minister, and I believe there have already been negotiations about this matter, as to how long it would take to do. I believe the proposer has already moved the target to its current place of the beginning of 2013 because there was an argument: "We cannot do it quickly, give us some time to do it", and that was agreed by the G.S.T. controller, that that was a reasonable timescale and could be done if we want. But no, here we are, man the barricades, the Minister for Treasury and Resources is coming and saying: "No, we cannot possibly do it in that time", despite having agreed

with the relevant officers with the expertise, with the proposer, that that is a reasonable timescale. But no, let us throw that one into the pot as well, probably not true, but never mind. No can do, that is that one and that is that one. Right, and here is the only argument that makes any sense whatsoever, in my belief. If we take the step here of removing G.S.T. from healthy food, what we do is we lift the pressure a little bit on the demand to take it off all essentials, like food and heating fuel. Now there will be moves in the new House to remove G.S.T. from all essentials. Acting now to support this takes a little bit of that pressure off, and if your argument is, we do not want to make the tax position any worse, even by this relatively moderate amount, we could make it a little worse by this moderate amount and take the pressure off the demand that will come", because I have spoken to candidates who are doing their door-knocking like good ones, and they are saying: "That G.S.T., they really feel strongly about that, do they not?" They want it off essentials, at a very minimum. Yes, they do, and that pressure will not go away. Ease the pressure a little bit by voting for this measure and maybe, maybe, we do not create a bigger hole later on when, as I believe we will sooner or later, we take G.S.T. off food and essentials. So bear that in mind, because that does make sense, for those of you who are maybe swithering about this position. It will save us some money in the long run.

6. Deputy S. Power:

I do not intend to speak for long. When I first voted on G.S.T. I voted against G.S.T. Since then I have said I will be consistent and I will always vote against exemptions. This morning, I want to explain why I do not think this is going to work, and I do not think it is going to take very long for me. I compliment Deputy Shona Pitman for doing this. I think it is gutsy and I think it is a mark of my colleague that she believes strongly in this area, and my view on this does not take anything away from her. My problem is the list of healthy foods that we would come up with if we could agree on it. Given the trouble we have in agreeing dates for debates and stuff like that, I doubt this Assembly would ever agree whether a carrot or an onion was higher in order of healthiness. That is my first point, that it would be mission impossible to agree the list. If we were to agree a list on

some basic foodstuffs that we would all agree to be healthy, such as an egg or a piece of fish or a piece of chicken, that is fine. It leaves the supermarket in a healthy state, but what happens when it gets to the frying pan? What happens when it gets to the process in the house? It then becomes unhealthy. An egg is healthy if it is boiled or poached; it is unhealthy if it is fried. Likewise, a fresh piece of fish; you cannot control what someone will do to it to make it unhealthy; likewise, chicken. So we have a list of healthy foods, and then for whatever reason, people will take it and do what they want to do to it to make it to their taste, and then that piece of food becomes unhealthy. So therefore, trying to make a list of healthy foods and then not following through. To me, it seems that the message that we must get across is the way we deal and process the food. Senator Cohen talked about his plastic bag initiative, and that was a very good exercise, it was very successful. It followed many countries in the world. I remember reading that in South Africa, the national flower of South Africa was the plastic bag because there were so many of them stuck to trees and bushes around the countryside. So Senator Cohen and the Deputy of Trinity 's initiative was good. I would like to see a frying pan initiative. I would like to see maybe the Minister for Environment and Minister for Transport and Technical Services having some sort of tax break for people to hand in their frying pans so that they would stop frying food, and therefore we would have .. people would be boiling or poaching or grilling or doing whatever. Maybe we could have a tax break for people to buy grillers to replace the frying pans. Somehow, I do not think it is going to happen. So the point I would like to make is, we can have the finest list of healthiest foods, send it down to New Zealand and say: "This is what we are doing, guys, maybe you should adopt our Jersey healthy list," with the Jersey logo, the Jersey Fresh logo. We do not know whether it is a banana or an egg, but it is yellow. My view is that we will never agree the list and if we did agree the list, then we cannot stop people doing what they do to the food. Senator Ozouf made a relevant point in that good, fresh, healthy food takes time and money to get on to the plate. Now there is a trend in the Channel Islands, in the U.K., in Ireland and to a lesser extent in other European countries where busy mums and busy dads buy semi-processed food. Food in a box is what I call it; it is the food that is surrounded by 2 to 3 layers of packaging, and that food is full of sugar, fat and salt. That is the food where, you cannot criticise busy working mums, you cannot criticise busy working dads, you cannot criticise busy working parents for buying this food, but the point is that it is not as healthy as a fresh piece of food that is prepared simply in a kitchen, without ever seeing a box, or without ever seeing a supermarket such as the 2 big groups we have. So we are where we are today. It is 10 out of 10 to Deputy Shona Pitman for bringing this one.

Unfortunately, I think it is an incomplete report and proposition. I do agree with Senator Ozouf , I disagree with Senator Cohen, and I disagree with Deputy Shona Pitman and I shall be voting very much against it.

7. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

I think the previous speaker has raised a lot of very good points. I think, to bring this back into context, no Member should be under the illusion that this proposition in itself is going to solve all the problems surrounding (a) the healthy consumption of food and (b) the reduction in prices for the acquisition of healthy foods.  Nonetheless, I think it is a necessary condition on a step towards getting to a place where we want to be, encouraging and changing behaviour in society. I will explain in due course the 3 reasons why I think we can be supporting this proposition, even though it is not the perfect and single way to address the issue. Similarly, I am very pleased to have heard Senator Cohen speaking in support and I hope that this time he stays for the vote, unlike yesterday when he spoke in favour of the secret ballot and then he was not present for the vote. So he might even choose to vote.

Senator F.E. Cohen:

If the Deputy would give way, I was absent yesterday because I had to attend the I.O.D. (Institute of Directors) debate.

Deputy M. Tadier :

I am glad that the I.O.D. benefited from the Senator's presence, when we could have done with him possibly, in this vote. But in the end it was okay because it was a comfortable margin of 2. Nonetheless, I am also pleased to know about his plastic bag initiative, which reminds me of Al Gore, who allegedly invented the internet, as well, but we will leave those 2 little digs aside for now because essentially Senator Cohen is on our side for this one, and he is not the problem. There are also, I think, let us call them specious arguments about the impossibility of producing a list, because apparently now, in spite of what we tell people in school, in spite of this healthy food pyramid, there is not such a thing as healthy food. So 2 arguments, one from Senator Ozouf saying, if you take a potato, stick it in a deep fryer, it becomes unhealthy, you take some pineapples - I think it was pineapples - batter them, put them in a deep fryer, they become unhealthy. Yes, that is right Senator Ozouf , but the clue is in the deep fat fryer. It is not the potato which is unhealthy, or the pineapple, it is the fat. So what you would do is, you do not put fat on the list for healthy foods, but you can quite happily put bananas, pineapples and potatoes. Let us start now producing lists, and quite rightly, Senator Cohen said, let us start with unprocessed fruit and vegetables. We can do you a list now. We can do carrots, unprocessed peas, bananas, oranges, orange juice, mangetout, petits pois. The list can go on, and I think we could all agree to those things. So a list is not out of anyone's reach. I am sure we have experts who work in the Health Department who it is quite within their grasp to produce a list which could either be a cautious list or which could be more inclusive. Also, Deputy Power said that, how can you classify whether a carrot, I think, is more healthy than a pea, something to that effect. We do not need to put these in order, we do not need to say a carrot is more healthy than a pea or vice versa. We just produce a list of what we consider to be healthy foods. So I think that argument can be reasonably shelved. We know that, for example, nobody has ever died - I do not think, in Jersey anyway - or have been admitted to the hospital for overeating on a bag of Cox's Pippins or eating too many carrots, but they may, and I am sure many people have ended up in hospital, because they have had a lifetime of eating McDonald's hamburgers or something similar. So the first argument I think to support this is that it does set the ball rolling. Deputy Duhamel is quite right, we need to be looking at other initiatives

because the ultimate problem is that unhealthy  foods are usually cheaper than healthy  foods. Processed foods and the likes of things that they sell at Iceland or other things which are in the packet, which you peel back the film, which usually does not peel back from those kind of places because they are so cheaply done, they are full of sugar and fat. You can buy them for a pound, but one should be immediately sceptical when you can buy a ready meal, a curry with rice or whatever, for £1, but people are buying these things people because people do not necessarily have the money. And so I think the next argument is that I think we should not be putting barriers in the way of people who want to eat healthy foods. Taxation can be seen as a barrier. Now we know that taxation can be used for 2 purposes, either to raise revenue or to change behaviour.

[11:00]

Often it can change behaviour even when it is not intended to do that. So we should not be putting barriers in front of people who want to buy healthy foods. I think the same arguments have applied in the past.

The Bailiff :

We have just gone inquorate. Usher, please summon back Members. Now we are quorate. Please continue then, Deputy .

Deputy M. Tadier :

I think I should have been more circumspect at the beginning and not had a go at Senator Cohen, because probably we would have been graced with his presence. I must learn. So where was I? I think I was saying about how healthy foods, and the fact that we need to encourage people as often as possible and not put any barriers in people's way in order to stop them from doing what is right. That does not mean we cannot do other initiatives. I think we do need to be looking to put higher taxation or probably some kind of other taxation to dissuade people from and to dissuade shops from stocking and selling things which contain inherently harmful ingredients. I asked a question about hydrogenated fat, which is inherently bad for people - arguably even more than saturated fats, because they remain in the body - and Senator Ferguson was shaking her head, but clearly you would not let somebody sell a product with glass in it. That goes without saying so on the sliding scale of logic, if you were putting other things into food which were harmful to people and provably harmful, simply because it is more financially expedient for those who are doing it so they can capitalise on it, I think that their behaviour does need to be taken to task. I know that the Senator does not like taxation to change behaviour but I think we should not be dogmatic about these issues, that there is a place for that kind of mechanism which a Government can use in the right places. The third argument, I think, why I am happy to support this is because it damages G.S.T. I am not a fan of G.S.T. I am certainly not a fan of G.S.T. in its current form without any exemptions on the basics of food and drink, electricity, fuel and things that nobody can do without. Essentially this is what this proposition is doing; it is drilling down from that and saying: "Okay, we might all differ on what we think are the essentials in life but surely healthy food is what one needs to provide for one's family, especially for youngsters." I think those are the 3 reasons I have given. Of course this needs to be set into a context of the fact that Jersey, for various reasons, does have expensive food prices because it  is an Island. It is not uncommon for Islands to have expensive food, obviously due to the process of having to bring things into the Island. But there are other issues we need to look at, for example, in her handout, Deputy Shona Pitman has talked about milk being on average 39 per cent more expensive than in the U.K. That is fine. I am going to support this proposition. If we take it off milk it will be 5 per cent cheaper, but essentially I still do not understand in Jersey why we have this draconian kind of communist regulation surrounding milk. Why is it that we cannot buy English or French milk in Jersey; ostensibly to protect the Jersey cow, of course. Do we have similar measures in place to protect Jersey Royal Potatoes, saying that you can only sell Jersey potatoes in your shops, you can only buy jumpers which have