States Meeting Transcript - 4th December 2013

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

WEDNESDAY, 4th DECEMBER 2013

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

1. Draft Budget Statement 2014 (P.122/2013): fourth amendment (P.122/2013 Amd.(4)) - resumption................................................................................3

1. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:......................................................3

1. Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin : .........................................................3
2. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:....................................................4
3. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement : ................................................5
4. Deputy M. Tadier :.......................................................................6
5. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :....................................................................7
6. Connétable P.J. Rondel of St. John: ......................................................9
7. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:......................................................10

8. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:.......................................................10
9. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................10
10. Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade : ..................................................11

2. Draft Budget Statement 2014 (P.122/2013): second amendment (P.122/2013.Amd.(2)) ...........................................................................................14

1.2.1 Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:...............................................14

3. Draft Budget Statement 2014 (P.122/2013): second amendment (P.122/2013 Amd.(2)) - amendment (P.122/2013.Amd.(2) Amd.)................................................16

1. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade : ........................................................16
2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................22
3. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................27
4. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:......................................................28
5. Deputy R.C. Duhamel: .................................................................29
6. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..............................................................31

7. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................33
8. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................34
9. The Connétable of St. Clement:........................................................36

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................37 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................38

10. Senator L.J. Farnham : ...............................................................38
11. The Connétable of St. John : .........................................................41
12. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity : .......................................................42
13. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................44
14. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary:................................................45

15. Connétable S.W. Pallett of St. Brelade : ..............................................46
16. Deputy E.J. Noel:....................................................................47
17. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................48
18. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................49
19. Senator I.J. Gorst : ...................................................................51
20. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:.............................................................52
21. Deputy J.H. Young: .................................................................56
22. The Connétable of St. Helier:........................................................56
23. Deputy S. Power:....................................................................58

1.4. Draft Budget Statement 2014 (P.122/2013): second amendment - second amendment (P.122/2013 Amd.(2)Amd.(2))...........................................................63

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):......................63
2. Senator L.J. Farnham :..................................................................65
3. The Connétable of St.Helier:...........................................................65
4. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence : .............................................65
5. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................65
6. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................66
7. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................66
8. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................67

1.5 Draft Budget Statement 2014 (P.122/2013): second amendment (P.122/2013 Amd.(2)) - as amended..............................................................................68

1. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................68
2. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..............................................................69
3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................69
4. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................70
5. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................70
6. Senator L.J. Farnham :..................................................................71
7. Deputy J.M. Le Bailly of St. Mary:.....................................................72
8. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................72
9. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................72
10. Deputy J.H. Young: .................................................................72
11. The Connétable of St. Mary : ........................................................73
12. Deputy E.J. Noel:....................................................................73
13. The Connétable of St. John : .........................................................73
14. The Connétable of St. Helier:........................................................74

[9:30]

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

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption

1. Draft Budget Statement 2014 (P.122/2013): fourth amendment (P.122/2013 Amd.(4)) - resumption

The Deputy Bailiff :

We now resume debate on the amendment on paragraphs (e) and (f) of the fourth amendment of Deputy Young and I call on Deputy Southern .

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

I expected that was going to happen. I know what prompted me to want to speak on this. It is that with the exception of Senator Ferguson and Deputy Baudains, we are all a little bit green to one extent or another so let us vote for these amendments and get on with it.

1. Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin :

Members will know that I am Deputy Young's Vice-Chairman on the Environment Scrutiny Panel with Connétable Rondel as our third member. Members will also, I expect, if they have read our Scrutiny Report on the Energy Strategy of the Minister for Planning and Environment out to 2050, they would be expecting me to support this amendment. When it comes to supporting the installation and maintenance of energy conservation measures and the purchase, importation or leasing of ultra-low-emission vehicles, I do support these excellent initiatives. This might be a good point and Senator Ferguson has already been mentioned just to have a brief riposte to something that Senator Ferguson mentioned yesterday afternoon and I would quote these 2 figures at her. Domestic transport in the U.K. (United Kingdom) makes up 25 per cent of the U.K.'s carbon outside emissions and of these, road transport made up over 90 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions, with car travel accounting for 58 per cent and commercial transport for over 30 per cent. Members will, I hope, also know of my enthusiasm for high-tech, new-tech, clean-tech, indeed any technology for energy saving. They may also know of my even greater desire to promote ultra- low-emission vehicles, especially electric vehicles. Indeed, I would gladly take up and promote the case when it comes to convincing and converting the Island's drivers that electric vehicles for pleasure, personal and commercial use are the way forward for Jersey in the short and medium- term. But this is not a debate about the potential benefits of electric vehicles. It is about the funding of these energy saving measures, measures linked directly to reduction in carbon emissions and this is where for me unfortunately the amendment comes unstuck. I said at this time yesterday morning, and I say it again now, I cannot support any amendment that seeks to selectively change G.S.T. (Goods and Services Tax) on specific items. We urgently need some additional financial assistance with these important environmental subjects and I would urge the Minister for Treasury and Resources to consider this. It is a great shame he is not in the Chamber at the moment because I wanted to quote some figures at him but, for the benefit of Members, I will continue to do so. The U.K. Government, in its lifetime, have committed £400 million to ultra-low-emission vehicles. They also have a policy of giving grants of £5,000 on cars and £8,000 on vans. In France, the target is 1 million electric vehicles by 2020 and a government fleet of 50,000 electric vehicles. In France also they give tax credits and in 2012, those will amount to 400 million euros. In Germany, the target is one million vehicles by 2020 and they are investing 500 million euros in infrastructure. In Spain, they give 6,000 euros per vehicle and in Italy, they have a budget for this work of over 500 million euros. I am glad the Minister for Treasury and Resources has come back because I urge him very seriously to think about measures in this direction before next year's Budget and if he does not bring something forward, I certainly will consider that myself and I am sure I, along

with the Scrutiny Panel, would seek to do that. That is my stance. I wish to support these energy conservation measures as strongly as I can. Unfortunately I cannot bring myself to vote for a G.S.T. amendment in order to do that.

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

I am pretty much in line with what was said yesterday about the health insurance issues. There is a germ of an idea within what Deputy Young is proposing that does make sense in terms of trying to deliver less carbon emissions through our methods of transportation but the mechanism unfortunately is where this all comes unstuck. I think the better way round for any Members who are genuinely interested in trying to bring forward our commitment under the climate change programme or indeed just to move the Island into a more environmentally sustainable way of dealing with our transportation issues, is to go for green taxes. One of the difficulties I have got with G.S.T. zero-rating of purchases is that it is a one-dimensional approach and the monies go back into the Treasury to be spent on other issues. Green taxes, on the other hand, which is something that I think will have to be properly considered - and my department are undertaking some work in that regard for the next Budget - gives us a mechanism whereby we can encourage mechanisms not to just raise taxes for general spend but to give incentives or disincentives - sticks and carrots - to encourage behaviour change, and that for me is the fundamental difference between what is being proposed here as a G.S.T. zero-rating mechanism. Some of us might say that every little helps and in some ways it probably would, but I think if we are going to solve problems in the long-term, then we have to look at longer-term thinking which is more beneficial. The other thing that is said which is not quite right or, in fact, is not said enough, is that in just concentrating on the emissions from the tailpipe, we fundamentally miss out on the other huge issue of generating carbon dioxide emissions and that is the embodied energy and the embodied emissions for the use of the materials to deliver the technological changes that some of these measures are proposing. If you do the lifecycle analysis and you do it properly and you take into account the phenomenal energies and carbon dioxide emissions that are generated from the inception of digging your oil from the ground through to making the metals and the new carbon fibre materials and other high- tech materials to generate the vehicles that we are wanting to put these small G.S.T. zero ratings on, we miss out on the major part of the carbon dioxide generation. I think for me that is fundamentally an ostrich-head-in-the-ground type approach. We are looking backwards when we should be looking forwards. Where do we go? Another issue that has not been considered, and I had a quick look in my files yesterday, is that in suggesting that we should just go for these so- called ultra-low-emission vehicles, we have missed out on the ability of lower-tech, not high-tech, methods of delivering even lower carbon emissions than would otherwise apply. There seems to me a concept that people are tied into, in suggesting that ultra-low-emission vehicles is the only way forward in that we are not looking at the transport hierarchy which says that we should be

using the best vehicle for the length of the journey that we are going to make. [9:45]

So in some instances, the lowest tech is the best. I would not be suggesting - I do not think Deputy Young will be suggesting - that we should be having G.S.T. rating changes or whatever for people using their own legs or their own bodies which could technically be classified as a vehicle. If people think that is farfetched, then just go up a notch and look at the 8 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre that a cyclist generates, albeit eating locally grown food. If we want to take it up a notch because people do not wish to cycle - and I think people are getting the drift - you walk the walkable distances, you cycle the cycleable distances and then perhaps we go back a notch into history and we should consider the question that has been considered by other countries, notably Cuba, when we had the embargo, they had to look at mechanisms to run their tractor fleet in order to produce food. So they had to look at emotive power that was required in order to use the

agricultural methods that they had grown used to by using petrol driven tractors. So in looking at the carbon emissions of the carthorse, again fed on local grain that is grown at home, the carbon emissions per kilometre for a carthorse working to pull a large plough is of the order of 50 grams carbon dioxide per kilometre which is exactly the level that is being suggested under (f). Thinking outside the box - the horsebox probably - if we have got 50 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre for a carthorse pulling a heavy plough to replace a tractor, what would happen if we went back to the type of vehicles that used to grace our streets when we had lighter weight horses pulling lighter weight carts? You see where I am coming from. The whole area of giving grants or giving zero- rating considerations in order to assist in reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a fantastically huge area and I think the approach that Deputy Young is taking is essentially one-dimensional and he is using the wrong hammer to crack the wrong nut. One final thing before I put people to sleep, and that is to remind them of the importance not only of carbon dioxide emissions, which is used as a generalisation for the greenhouse gas emissions, but to also remind them of the importance of methane reduction. So in suggesting perhaps or if people are thinking that my speech is suggesting that we all forego our high-tech cars and either walk or cycle, or perhaps harness up the lightweight horse to the lightweight cart, there are a substantial number of cows in the Island as well and the methane production, if anybody is thinking that I am suggesting that we should harness up some of our local cows to a cart in order to provide a transportation system, we must realise that the methane produced is some 24 times greater in terms of the damage it does to the environment than the carbon dioxide emissions that you or I would be generating by walking or cycling. I think, all in all, this is a sensible idea generally to obviously wish to deliver the carbon savings that this House has signed up to but the mechanism is fundamentally incapable, I think, of delivering as flexible a set of options in order to encourage the wiser use of alternative transportation systems which we would all wish to support. I do not think I can support (f) in this particular case but certainly in the future I will be supporting green taxes which can be ring-fenced to make

behavioural changes in order to assist in the delivery of our climate change considerations.

3. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement :

For once I find myself at variation with the previous speaker which for a start I was not quite sure if he was suggesting we should walk to work or go on a cow or something like that but I would remind him that, of course, if we do walk to work, that human beings inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide so there is not a great deal of benefit there. But while I am talking about carbon dioxide, I would reiterate the point that Senator Ferguson made yesterday and that is the whole argument that carbon dioxide is greenhouse gas and creating global-warming. Because we have heard it 10,000 times, most people tend to believe it. I would remind Members there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that that is the case and if anybody thinks they have some, I would be pleased to see it because I have not found it yet. I will be supporting this but I am a little concerned about the enthusiasm for electric cars because again as an engineer who has worked extensively in R. and D. (research and development) over the years, I realise that this is already yesterday's technology. They are grossly inefficient and, of course, the battery which powers them has been changed now from a lead acid battery to lithium iron in order to save weight and such things and so instead of having a heavy battery, we now have one that occasionally explodes and things like that, so we are not making much improvement there. I am not overly excited about that part of it. What I am concerned about, and this argument has arisen during some of the debates yesterday, there seems to be a preference for not tampering with G.S.T. but having a grants system instead and I really cannot see the argument behind that at all. As a Member of the Public Accounts Committee, we have seen that grants are not always as efficient as they might be, and looking at it purely from an overview of the situation, would it not be simpler to not charge G.S.T. on a particular item? I believe there are some items already which are exempt from G.S.T. Would it not be simpler and more efficient to not charge it in the first place rather than to take the tax, administer it through a process and then hand it back out again as a grant? I know there are some taxes where over 50 per cent of what is taken is absorbed in administration, so we employ more civil servants to just shovel paper around various desks before it ends up where we would like it to go. It is a better use of taxpayers' money to not take the tax in the first place rather than put it through a whole long process. I get a little bit concerned about the argument: "Do not tamper with G.S.T. We want a grants system instead." Having said that, I do agree with the principle that G.S.T. should be as universal as possible in order to keep the cost down. Those people in the past who have said to me: "We would like G.S.T. taken off food", I said: In that case, G.S.T. will probably go up 2 or 3 per cent. Remember it applies also to your electricity, your heating oil and most of the other things you use so you will be no better off in the end." Having said that, I think this is a case where a situation arises where it could be taken off or not applied with benefit because the alternative, as I have said without repeating myself, the alternative is wasting money on administration.

4. Deputy M. Tadier :

We have been told that we have a positive Budget. We have a Budget that is the best that the Chief Minister has seen probably ever or certainly in his time in this Assembly, and I am not contesting that at the moment, but we do have an opportunity to make it also a green Budget and the only person in this Assembly that I can see who is bringing forward amendments to try and make this a greener Budget is the Chairman of the Environment Scrutiny Panel and we know he is being supported by one of his members on that panel. I am disappointed when I hear the Minister for Planning and Environment, who is supposed to be the champion for green initiatives in Jersey, saying he cannot support this albeit because it does not quite do what we should be doing. It is not absolutely perfect and there is some future thing which we should be doing which is perhaps complicated and will not even pass muster in this Assembly, which we will do in the future. But then we should not worry because the pretender for the position of Minister for Planning and Environment does not support this either so we are really stuck between a rock and a hard place where the only person who is bringing forward these amendments - and quite lordworthy the amendments are - is the chairman of the Environment Scrutiny Panel. We have to ask ourselves the question: do we want the Island to be greener in terms of its emissions, in terms of reducing traffic, making sure that the traffic on the road is not polluting, is quieter, et cetera, and all these initiatives. Presumably as a Government we do. That is why we have an Eco-Active service. That is why we have got a car-sharing website which I notice that Eco-Active seems to have recently launched so certainly the work is there in the department. There seems to be at least lip-service being paid by States Members. We know that we have got 2 unbelievers in this Assembly. We know and I suspect we have got some evangelists for the green cause. One of them is on my left but it seems that we either have a lot of agnostics in here or a lot of Sunday worshippers who are quite willing to talk the green talk but not walk the green walk and it seems to me also that as a Government .. I was going to say we should put our money where our mouth is but what we should be doing is let those individuals in our society who want to be buying these green vehicles - and I am particularly speaking to part (f) at the moment - if there are people out there who want to buy electric vehicles, hybrid vehicles which we know are more efficient .. clearly taxi drivers, for example, who are opting for hybrid vehicles do so on the basis that it makes economic sense for them. They may have the money to invest but what about the individuals who want to do the right thing that are being put up by an extra 5 per cent being slapped on at the point of purchase? We should be enabling them, taking down the barriers and the obstacles which might stop them from doing that. It was suggested by the Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources that we should wait until the cost of these vehicles comes down before we start to do anything, and I am sorry if I have misquoted but that is how it sounded to me. It is at this very point when individuals are having to make the tough choices about how they spend their money on this type of expensive technology at the moment, quite simply they may take the short-term option and go for conventional vehicles which are not good for the Island and not good for them either. So I think it is about helping people do the right thing with their money. It seems that if we do all agree that low-emission vehicles, electric vehicles, et cetera, are a good thing and I have certainly been convinced. I took up the offer of the Jersey Electricity Company to drive around in their Leaf. I thought that is a great piece of technology, a great way to get round in our Island and I think we could do with lots of those kinds of vehicles that would sufficiently meet our need as an Island. There are only 3 ways available to any government to effect positive change in behaviour and that is to do with tax, to do with spending and to do with regulation. So we could say we are going to change the law to say that in 5 years, nobody is allowed to drive petrol and diesel cars and that is one way to do it. It would be seen as heavy-handed. We can tax people out of existence by saying fuel is going to go up exponentially and you will have to drive round in electric cars and we can spend by saying we are going to give grants out and there have been a few talks about grants being the way forward. I notice China this year are doing rebates so you can trade your old car in for a new one and get roughly 10,000 US dollars for that. I do not see that on the horizon at all in Jersey so it seems to me the most modest thing we can do to encourage people is to say: "We will not take the extra 5 per cent tax off you." We know that there are exemptions for other things including school fees, interestingly enough. Maybe that is an area where G.S.T. could be applied in future, for school fees, but when it comes to doing the right thing, something that government wants people to do very modestly we can say: "For the foreseeable future in the interim until the tipping-point is reached and the prices come down, we will at least not charge you as a government for that because we want to encourage you to do the right thing." I would encourage Members to support (f) overwhelmingly. It is the right thing to do. It is modest and we should also be sending a message out to our Ministers that this is the direction that we endorse. With part (e), I think I will be supporting it. I think that there are some pieces to be ironed out to do with local suppliers and contractors, but similarly we should be encouraging the people in our community to take the

initiative themselves and as a Government simply supporting their decisions. [10:00]

5. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

The intention of this amendment is no doubt a good environmental practice and this Assembly often has to juggle the trade-offs the objectives of social objectives, financial objectives, economic objectives and environmental objectives and sometimes they are not mutually exclusive Sometimes there are trade-offs that we have to think about. We need to have to test every proposal that comes forward with the offsetting counter-arguments. We have to test the value for money of it. We have to test whether or not it is capable of implementation and we have to test the unintended consequences. In relation to part (e), the zero-rating of expenditure on installation of energy conservation measures, I think all of those Members who yesterday voted comprehensively not to confuse and to complicate the G.S.T. system; I think that the same principles importantly apply to this. I will not go on about any environmental equivalents of Pringles or Jaffa cakes or ferret food but I will say that, for example, I in my own property had a problem with a boiler 2 months ago and needed to install a new boiler. Presumably the boiler that I have put in place is now more energy efficient than the previous one. Deputy Young has criticised - and I understand the criticism but need to defend it - and says well how are you going to bring there is not going to be legislation. This is just a greening in principle. Treasury just sort it out, come forward with the legislation that could bring this into effect. What would be the treatment of the G.S.T. on my new boiler? It is more environmentally friendly. It is using less energy but it is a replacement. Do I need a G.S.T. zero-rating on that boiler? I do not think so. I think that the same argument that we applied to the debate on extending mortgage interest tax relief on energy efficiency applies and I would argue and I am grateful for the support of the Minister for Planning and Environment, we have the energy efficiency service and that is the right way to direct help and certainly encourage

and assist Islanders to invest in better energy, reducing our carbon footprint, making our fuel costs and energy costs lower and making those changes to our lifestyles. It should not be, however, using the tax system. In relation to part (f), I have had the wakeup call from the Deputy of St. Martin and I would like to read, if I may, a paragraph from the Economist which sometimes we often say good economics does not make for good politics and there is lots of good politics around green matters. Deputy Tadier said he wanted a green Budget. Well, here is what the economists have got to say about electric cars. They say: "Sadly politicians see electric cars not as a means to a greener future but as an end themselves. Barack Obama still prattles on about having 1 million of them on America's roads by 2015. So far he has only got 5 per cent of the way there. This week [this is in June] Angela Merkel restated her aim to have 1 million such cars on Germany's roads by 2020. A mere 3,000 were sold last year. Under fire from Congress, Mr. Obama has stopped lending to makers of electric cars and batteries. He still wants to increase the actual federal credit for electric cars from 7,500 dollars to 10,000 dollars." And the Chinese, as Deputy Tadier rightly points out: "The Chinese Government is planning to revive an old subsidy scheme where it is up to 9,800 dollars per car." The conclusion is this from that article. "Such subsidies make little sense. If governments want to cut emissions, it would be better to pay people to insulate their homes. Better Place achieved little in its brief expensive life but if its failure, despite having weighty backers including GE and HSBC, persuades governments of the folly of picking winners, it will not have died in vain." I understand there are politicians around the world that are telling their communities: "Yes, we can pick the winners for low-emission vehicles and we can use the tax system or we can use grant systems in order to influence people's choices and effectively remove subsidies." Around the world, we are seeing governments pour money into effectively very low- emission cars and we have been lobbied. I have been lobbied with my Assistant Minister very strongly by the J.E.C. (Jersey Electric Company) to put a subsidy scheme in for electric cars and I, like Deputy Tadier , enjoyed my weekend of driving the Leaf car that I am sure many other Members did. It is silent, it is low-emission and it certainly has a great future but the market is sorting out the price. At the moment, it is extraordinarily expensive to buy electric cars. Some would argue that the subsidy that governments themselves provide - we are going to rehearse in the duty debate - do not necessarily translate into consumer prices and they do not make markets work efficiently. We are seeing an unwinding of these green initiatives in the U.K. We are seeing the U.K. Government probably at the moment unwinding some of the green initiatives in the electricity industry which have raised electricity prices and put probably an extra £110 on every single electricity bill in the U.K. - we do not have that - because of their green energies. One of the things in McKinsey that recommends a structure and a thought process in our financial services industry is that while we are leaders in some areas, we should be fast followers. We need to be realistic about the size of our community and what we can achieve. Being first in the queue is sometimes extremely expensive. We like to think of ourselves as a large nation state with all of the nomenclature of a bigger government that can influence the world. I would respectfully say that there is a future for electric cars. I believe absolutely in the future of electricity as probably the main energy source for our Island and I am grateful for the support of Members in relation to the substation issue to make sure that we have got the right electricity which is fundamental to make sure we have got the charging points. I would say to the Deputy of St. Martin his time is shortly, I think, about to come in relation to electric cars. The market is sorting itself out. Price s for electric cars are falling and they are falling fast and we are probably going to be at the cusp of being able to encourage, probably through a grant system if that is the right way to go, an encouragement in one or 2 years' time to encourage electric cars and more of these very low ultra-low and perhaps hydrogen cars, et cetera, to be in Jersey but we are not quite there yet. It would have been folly to start subsidising the very high costs of electric cars to any great extent. It would have cost us a

great deal of money to do so. Deputy M. Tadier :

I am just asking if this is on cue because we are not talking about subsidies here, we are not talking about grants. We are talking about the issue of G.S.T. being removed from what was perceived as green vehicles. Just some direction would be helpful, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Well, it seems to me to be a parallel argument which the Minister is entitled to make and Members will make of it what they wish.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I will respond because it is important to know. It is the same arguments as always. If I want to buy an electric car, it is probably a lifestyle choice for me. Do I need to get a zero-rated G.S.T. exemption? I am probably going to buy one anyway because I think it is a nice thing and I like the silence of it. I try to be environmental. I do not need a subsidy. I should not have a subsidy. The majority of people who are buying electric cars at the moment are doing it because of lifestyle choices. If we come to a point at which electric cars are going to come down in price and we need to tip at the margin, we need to tip more people into being encouraged to buy electric cars, then the Deputy is absolutely right when he said in his own remarks that there are a number of tools that we have. There is effectively legislation, there is spending and there is tax. Tax is the wrong way to do it. It is the wrong way to effectively remove G.S.T. universally on one type of electric car. We can support ultra-low vehicles and we should aspire to be a community in 10 or 20 years' time. The U.K. themselves want by 2050 for all cars in the United Kingdom to be zero-emissions. We can probably beat that and we can probably do things in order to encourage it. The Deputy of St. Martin's time is coming. It is coming quickly, probably in the next couple of years, in relation to electric cars but the right way to do that is by probably a combination of carrot and stick, stick in terms of emission requirements having tougher controls, putting tax higher on high emission vehicles. We will have an interesting debate later on today, I hope, about fuel duty and how the fact is that fuel duty has not gone up but energy efficiency in cars has gone up very dramatically. In other words, the duty rates on petrol per mile has fallen dramatically. There are carrots and sticks that we need to do. The tax system is not the right system to do it and I urge Members to vote against the well-intentioned but not quite ready it is not quite fully baked in relation to a policy to encourage ultra-low-emission vehicles.

Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier :

Could I ask the previous speaker just to clarify a point? He quoted from an economist in an article. It would be very useful to know who the economist was, where the article was and its date.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

It was from the Economist which never attributes its name, and the article was from a print edition on 1st June 2013. There is a series on emissions. It was a special edition on low-emission cars and the article was entitled Flat Batteries.

6. Connétable P.J. Rondel of St. John :

As a former Environment Chairman, zero-rating for green issues should be the way forward. We in this Chamber paid the long-time lip-service to the green issues. Scrutiny Panels have given report after report after report and we get lip-service from the Council of Ministers that this is the way forward. Today they have got Members in this House and particularly the Council of Ministers have got a choice. They can talk the talk but now they can walk the walk and vote in favour of Deputy Young's proposition, and I will take note how many of these Ministers do support Deputy Young and the green way forward. That is all I am going to say. They have talked the talk. Now let us see them walk the walk.

7. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour :

Further to the remarks of the Minister for Treasury and Resources, T.T.S. (Transport and Technical Services) fleet management has acquired 10 electric vehicles which we are trialling at the moment also used by Environment and, in association with the Jersey Electricity Company, have installed 2 charging bays in each of our multi-storey car parks. Members of the public using this facility also benefit from a much reduced parking rate so it is a work in progress. I will agree that the batteries are not 100 per cent yet but it is experimental and we are getting there.

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

I am going to support (f) because as usual we have got jam tomorrow or a carrot or something coming down the pipeline and if we have seen it come in and if Deputy Young has got the wrong amendment, I would love the Deputy of St. Martin to support the right one, and you always need to give the donkey or the carthorse a little kick, this time being the Minister for Treasury and Resources. Then lo and behold it will come back next year, but come back as have we not thought of a very fine amendment to get people into electric cars.

[10:15]

I am slightly miffed about the absolute dismissal of the other amendment and the less talk about it. It seems to be costing £1 million. How many people are sitting in their houses now who would do this, could do this, and if it was going to have a green effect and cost them less .. cost them less but do not forget we are trying to boost the construction industry. How many local suppliers can install solar panels? We need an industry for our youngsters, get the apprentices in it, and do not be put off when the Minister for Treasury and Resources says we cannot distinguish between a local supplier and a non-local. Once they have got their registration under the new name and address under the law, they are local and they are employing local people who are under a licence entitled or registered. So a little bit of it does not make sense. I do not see it costing £1 million. If there are people sitting in their homes, it could bring in tax revenues of the employers to the coffers so. It is something when you look to see what we already financial services, insurance, postal service, zero-rated and we want to go green and I totally agree with the Constable of St. John. We all want to go green. We do not try anything to help people go green out there and I do not think it will in the long-run cost £1 million. I think it could put work and money into construction which is a circle, it will bring back tax through people's wages. Being taxed at the end of the day. The initiative will be: "Oh, you are going to just replace your roof or you are going to put solar panels in it." If the solar panels are going to be cheaper, you are going to do that. So I think we are being sold something here that could improve what the Minister for Treasury and Resources is trying to do, put money back into the construction industry, and I think you say one is £200,000 to kick- start something that we have just been told we are going to do by another means anyway, so I think I will support both but I am definitely going to support (e). I think it is being sold to us as a loss and we need to put our toe in the water and say: "This could make us millions of pounds and more jobs for our youngsters."

9. Senator P.F. Routier:

I just caution going down this road, particularly because of the issue of zero-rating G.S.T. Messing around with G.S.T. is something which I think we should be very cautious of. I think that we could always identify things which are good to do, nice to do, but I am not sure whether this is the correct way of going about it because G.S.T. needs to be plain, simple, easily understood and this really just does make it more confusing generally. So I urge Members to try and do their best to keep G.S.T. as simple as possible.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak? Then I call on Deputy Young to reply.

10. Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade :

Thank you for all the Members that have spoken. I think the right issues have come out. I think I can sum up the big picture of the debate, good intentions, well-intentioned, ahead of its time, do not worry, jam tomorrow and also I am guilty of one-dimensional thinking. I am having a real struggle with turning it into multi-dimensional thinking. I thought when I drafted this that this was a simple, pragmatic, practical proposal designed to follow through the evidence and the conclusions of the Environment Scrutiny Panel energy report that identified this was an area, as Deputy Martin said, where there are both major opportunities for us to develop new skills and build up specialist businesses in a local construction industry, employ people and also at the same time, introduce measures that benefit the quality of our environment and set examples. For example, the opportunities for electric vehicles or low-emission vehicles combined with renewable energy, which gives the opportunity of the Island to be an exemplar compared with other communities. We are ideally placed. I saw this as a very simple, very practical - not just modest - first step because of what has been said. We have said: "Look, we do not like to play with the G.S.T. system." I can understand that because we have not had this that long but we have already got exemptions in, and just list them, they are in my report: financial services, insurance, postal services, medical supplies, medicines on prescriptions, supplies by charities, registered childcare, burial and cremation services, school fees. Then you have got zero-rating buying and selling rented accommodation, exports and international service where the benefit is outside Jersey. We already have that because why? Because those things were thought to be important policy matters, and here we are again setting our face against it because of the issue of food. I absolutely accept the fact there is an issue there about making things overly complex but in this case we have got, I think, a more clearly definable workable situation, particularly in my proposition (f) relating to low-emission vehicles because there is already an established body of work done which will classify which of those fall within the category of less than 75 kilograms of carbon dioxide, and it is not just electric vehicles. It is whatever the technology produces. Whether it is hydrogen cell cars or whatever it is, they will fall within that band and I see a distinction between people saying that this is a subsidy. It is not a subsidy. This is income that we are proposing to tax which unless we provide exemption in the case of my proposition (f), we will never get anyway. It is a no-brainer that one. We are not getting the income. We are not getting the cars and so all I am saying is simply: "We will not charge you the tax and you buy them." It is not for ever because when they come into the mainstream and when those vehicles come into price parity with conventional vehicles, which they will in time, then these policies can be adjusted but it seems to me that it is reasonable to come forward with pragmatic proposals like that. Grants, again I really cannot see a number of Members have said we want a grants scheme. Are we really going to allocate money that taxpayers have already paid to subsidise, say, the Minister for Treasury and Resources when he wants to buy his electric car? I do not think so. So I do not see a grants scheme at all being a priority, I really do not, and yet using the tax method is more efficient because, after all, we are talking about 5 per cent of the capital purchase of it. I was really disappointed in our Minister for Planning and Environment there. I am sorry to say that because he and I do agree on a number of things but in this one, it is another example where we see completely differently. Green taxes are going to be difficult. What he is proposing there is a means of where we introduce new taxes and take it off of polluters and pay that money to people who behave in an environmentally favourable way. There is nothing wrong with that principle but I think introducing new taxes is going to be massively difficult and we have already got a tax structure which lends itself easily to the proposal that I have put forward and the Minister for Planning and Environment has made the point about horses and me even standing here is blasting off a fair amount of CO2 already so I really do not find that at all helpful. He and I disagree. Deputy Baudains, it is not only electric cars and now the Minister for

Treasury and Resources. I think the Minister for Treasury and Resources gave us a grand vision of the world and what the other parts of the planet do to encourage environmental measures. I hope he has read this report but I recommend to him in the appendix, which is the report written by our adviser that details very carefully how those measures have gone wrong elsewhere and the mistakes that we should avoid, and makes it quite plain that we do need to have incentives because unless there are incentives in some form then we will not encourage the uptake of this modern technology. He asked about boilers. I have to accept that of the 2 parts of my proposition, (e) and (f), proposition (e) has got some elements of it that is not entirely ideal. For example, had I known that there is a restriction about having an exemption linked to only local firms then, while we can identify them, I would have probably not included that but it is implied because this is small-scale work and we are not going to go out giving regular undertakings licences to off-Island firms hopefully to do this sort of work. We need to have the support to do the training but once we have built that capability up in the Island, we should be able to build a self-sufficient industry. We are not talking about issues so I am afraid the comments of the Minister for Treasury and Resources were spurious and the references in the Economist. Of course the technology is transient but nothing in my proposition says, yes, electric cars. It just sets criteria that is currently there and if the criteria change, then simply it is just revised and he makes the point about insulating homes. Yes, we need to do that, absolutely right, and part of my proposition is part and parcel of such a proposal. I thank Deputy Martin, Deputy Rondel and I think from Deputy Lewis was support in favour of at least proposition (e). So I ask this, please think carefully here. This is an opportunity to do a simple pragmatic change to give a green element to this Budget to make a start on green measures, and proposition (f) particularly is I think absolutely so simple it should just be agreed, so I ask Members for support and ask for the appel separately please.

Deputy J.A. Martin:

Before we go to the vote, could I ask for a clarification from the Assistant Minister, Senator Routier, on the local and non-local under the new rules? There are no non-local companies working in Jersey. I think this is slightly misleading and he would be the one who would know to put people right before the vote.

Senator P.F. Routier:

There can be non-local businesses working in the Island. They apply for a licence and they can be given a short-term licence at any stage.

Deputy J.A. Martin:

Once they have got a licence, they are local. The Deputy Bailiff :

Very well. We are now going to proceed to a vote. I would ask Members to return to their seats. The first vote is on paragraph (e) of Deputy Young's amendment relating to energy conservation measures and I ask the Greffier to open the voting.

The Deputy Bailiff :

The Greffier will now reset the system and we take a vote on paragraph (f) of Deputy Young's amendment and I ask the Greffier to open the voting.

[10:30]

2. Draft Budget Statement 2014 (P.122/2013): second amendment (P.122/2013.Amd.(2)) The Deputy Bailiff :

We now come to the second amendment, which has been lodged by the Connétable of St. Helier. I will ask the Greffier to read the amendment.

The Greffier of the States:

Page 2, paragraph (a) - after the words: "as set out in the Budget Statement" insert the words: "except that the estimate of income from taxation during 2014 shall be decreased - (i) by £989,000 by increasing duty on all categories of alcohol by the June 2013 R.P.I. (Retail Price Index) figure of 1.5 per cent and not by the percentages proposed in the draft Budget Statement; (ii) by £866,000 by increasing duty on all tobacco products by 4.5 per cent (being the June 2013 R.P.I. figure of 1.5 per cent plus 3 per cent) and not by 11 per cent as proposed in the draft Budget Statement; (iii) by £100,000 by increasing duty on fuel by the June 2013 R.P.I. figure of 1.5 per cent and not by 2 per cent as proposed in the draft Budget Statement."

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

I  hope that the new chair  of the Privileges  and  Procedures Committee,  who as we  know  is responsible for setting sartorial standards in this Assembly, approves of my tie with beer all over it. Not that I have been spilling my favourite tipple down it - who can afford to these days - but with its fetching pattern of pints. Speaking of beer, I feel I must wrest away from the Minister for Treasury and Resources the trophy he was clutching during a recent interview. He is not the champion of the working person's pint, nor is he a champion of the hospitality industry. The fact that he has consulted the drinks industry at the eleventh hour and proposed an amendment of his own to my already moderate and reasonable amendments to his proposed hike in duty on alcohol, fuel and tobacco smacks of the haggling you might see in a bazaar in Tangiers rather than a genuine attempt to engage with the industry. These amendments are not, as the Minister's report suggests, all about inflation. I understand that that is a one-off and relatively small factor in the rising cost of living, but the effect on people's pockets is lasting. Every drink, every gallon of fuel, every cigarette will cost that much more. Several years ago, the States adopted a policy of limiting increases  in  our  charges  for  services.   At  the  time  the  figure was  2.5  per  cent,  which  was challenging given the rate of inflation at the time, but even then it was honoured more in the breach than the observance. The justification in recent times for inflation-busting duty increases is that these products are bad for us. We must be deterred from using them. That argument might be valid if the Government was not seen to be profiting shamelessly from our continuing misbehaviour. That argument might be valid if the relentless pursuit of above-inflation increases in duty worked, but it does not. There is plenty of evidence that it is simply driving up duty-free sales of tobacco and driving drinking underground, and if not underground certainly away from licensed premises where drinking is only a part of socialising and eating and where it takes place in a controlled environment towards off-licences and drinking at home. The health arguments about this subject are repeated every year. We have them in triplicate and the Council of Ministers' comments on these amendments and we will  hear them repeated in spite of your  valiant efforts to enforce

Standing Order No. 104 in the course of today's debate. If something is bad for us, we should be persuaded not to do it. We should be persuaded through health promotion, through advertising, through education, through campaigns, unless it is so bad for us that it should be banned altogether, and I do not think even the Minister for Health and Social Services is calling for a ban on tobacco. Simply making a commodity more expensive means that it is only the less well-off who are required to change their behaviour. Rich people in Jersey will not even notice an increase in duty on their drinking, smoking or driving. Sensible, moderate drinkers who like a drink with a meal in a restaurant or to pop out to the pub for a game of pool with a friend should not be penalised because some people drink to excess. We know that above-inflation increases in duty will not affect those with health or other problems related to excessive consumption. Yet again this year we have heard the Minister blame the various industries involved in the sale of dutiable products for the excessive margins. This has become something of a proverbial broken record. At Budget time for as long as I can remember we have been assured that the villain of the piece is the drinks industry, the fuel suppliers, the tobacco companies, and their allegedly unjustifiable mark-ups. This must really demoralise local businesses and I think particularly of the Island's brewery, which makes a small but significant contribution to flying the Jersey flag abroad. Not only does the firm win prizes for the quality of its ale, but in common with other businesses involved in the hospitality industry - it would be invidious to name names but we heard on the news this morning that one local hotelier is promoting gourmet Jersey at a luxury hotel event in Cannes - these businesses have continued throughout the recession to invest in their premises. There have been several new flagship restaurants in particular which are really putting our Island on the gastronomic map. Members will note that I have appended letters from the hospitality industry to my report and proposition. They may not find all of what they say convincing, but I believe that many of the arguments they make are well-founded. Since submitting the amendment, I have had another letter. I am just going to quote briefly from it, again from another hotelier who has invested considerably in the local economy: "Dear Constable, thank you for making this sensible amendment. I am very worried about the lack of real support for tourism in Jersey from the States. There is plenty of talk but all the actions seem to be the opposite. If the States of Jersey are serious about wanting a growing tourism sector, they need to reduce duty on alcohol to make us more competitive with our European rivals. Anything less than a total freeze on duty for several years will ensure a continued decline in tourism and hence our decision to no longer invest in tourism in Jersey following this Budget." I think the public have the right to know what to expect. Last year's Budget saw an already high increase in tobacco duty further increased by the Minister's wish to make the books balance following Deputy Baudains' successful amendment to remove the rise in fuel duty. As I mention in my report, I think that it is high-time the Minister for Treasury and Resources gave the public and the industry some stability. I would suggest that it is perfectly fair and reasonable for a cost of living rise to be applied to alcohol and fuel duty with an additional levy on tobacco unless, of course, a future Minister for Treasury and Resources wants to assist the travelling public and delivery companies by freezing the rise in fuel duty, for example, or to help the hospitality industry by freezing or even reducing duty on alcohol. To be clear, what I am seeking from the Minister for Treasury and Resources is assurance that he will stop coming to this Assembly with above-inflation duty increases and let us leave it to a future Council of Ministers that really cares about tourism to drive down duty rates. As an aside, at the Parish of St. Helier Roads Committee meeting last month I accepted a recommendation from members that charges we make for al fresco permits in 2014 should be frozen at this year's level. I had suggested a cost of living increase but there was general support for making no increase at all to support the Parish's restaurants and bars, which, through their investment in pavement furniture and attractive planting, do so much to create the kind of welcoming and vibrant streets that are enjoyed by locals and visitors alike. It is only a small gesture perhaps, but it sends out the message to the hospitality industry that we value their ongoing efforts to make a trip to town as much about socialising as working or shopping. What message does the Minister for Treasury and Resources' proposals to increase duty on alcohol, fuel and tobacco send to the hospitality industry? We are not talking about taking the Island back to the days of cheap alcohol and cigarettes. That has gone and few would mourn its passing. But do we want the Island's reputation to include its having among the highest levels of alcohol duty in Europe? This is not so much a debate on impôts increases but a debate about supporting tourism. It is less about impôts increases than about supporting "our valued elderly community" that the Minister said he wished to help in his opening speech yesterday. It is about fairness, not attacking those things that the less well-off really enjoy: a Sunday drive, a pint or 2 of local ale, though not at the same time, of course, and even a smoke. Pegging duty increases to cost of living sends out a message not just of festive cheer but a year round commitment to supporting local industry, especially tourism and hospitality, and a year round commitment to stop punishing the people of Jersey for what is in most cases doing things which most of us enjoy in moderation. I make the amendment.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded]

1.3 Draft Budget Statement 2014 (P.122/2013): second amendment (P.122/2013 Amd.(2)) - amendment (P.122/2013.Amd.(2) Amd.)

The Deputy Bailiff :

Very well, we now come to the amendment to the amendment, which is lodged by Deputy Power. I will ask the Greffier to read that amendment.

The Greffier of the States:

(1) Page 2, amendment (i) - for the words: "£989,000 by increasing duty on all categories of alcohol by the June 2013 R.P.I. figure of 1.5 per cent and not" substitute the words "£1,254,000 by not increasing duty on all categories of alcohol." (2) Page 2, amendment (ii) - for the words "£866,000 by increasing duty on all tobacco products by 4.5 per cent (being the June 2013 R.P.I. figure of 1.5 per cent plus 3 per cent) and not" substitute the words: "£1,466,000 by not increasing duty on tobacco." (3) Page 2, amendment (iii) - for the words "£100,000 by increasing duty on fuel by the June 2013 R.P.I. figure of 1.5 per cent and not" substitute the words: "£399,000 by not increasing duty on fuel."

1. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade :

I want to thank the Bailiff 's Office for allowing the amendment to the amendment, even though it was a late submission. The background to this and the reason it was late as an amendment to the amendment was because I attended a series of meetings with the Constable of St. Helier, Senator Farnham and Senator Maclean, not always together, with the hospitality industry ..

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I would hope the Deputy would just step aside one second. I would rather hope he could pronounce my name correctly.  [Laughter] Maclean rather than "Macleen". Giving promotion to the toothpaste, it is, in fact, Maclean if he would not mind. Thank you very much. I am sure he was going to be very kind in his comments and I hope that does not change the picture.

Deputy M. Tadier :

Sorry, while the interruption is being made, could Deputy Power clarify what he means by submitting the amendment late? Was it still in order or was it simply ..?

The Deputy Bailiff :

The position, Deputy Tadier , I can inform you from the Chair is that my information is that the Deputy is taking a problem on himself which does not exist and that he was not late in filing his amendment.

Deputy S. Power:

I have probably expressed myself badly on 2 occasions in the last 2 minutes.  [Laughter] I apologise to Senator Maclean. I must have been thinking of toothpaste. It was not late. What I meant to say was the amendment to the amendment was submitted after I read the Constable of St. Helier's amendment. My main reason for lodging the amendment to the Constable of St. Helier's amendment was essentially to try and protect the hospitality industry in Jersey that has been, in my opinion, under siege for a number of years, essentially because of the operating cost of doing business in Jersey but also, from what I regard as unfair, unwarranted attacks on the industry by the Minister for Treasury and Resources. I take my hat off to those in the hospitality industry, as the Constable of St. Helier said, that continue to invest in Jersey's industry. I have spoken to a great deal of those that are owner managers or owners of hospitality businesses and all I can say is that it has been really tough factoring not only impôts increases over the last 5 years but also the effects of the recession in Jersey and the cost of getting to and from Jersey. That does have a knock-on effect on the hospitality industry. I also spoke in November to a number of those operating businesses in the hospitality industry in St. Aubin. Almost to an owner, they have all experienced serious trading difficulties over the last 4 or 5 years.

[10:45]

Very few of them in their opinion have made anything like a return on investment and 50 per cent of the restaurants or cafes in St. Aubin are struggling and at least 5 at the moment are for sale. The Constable of St. Helier has alluded to some of it. This Budget to a large extent is not about the figures. It is really a watershed Budget. We are emerging from recession. There is an expectation that the Minister for Treasury and Resources and the Minister for Economic Development have

professed that they are trying to balance the economy. We are trying to diversify the economy and I feel that this particular Budget does nothing to help that. Budgets are supposed to encourage spending and cash flow. This does the opposite. I listened very carefully to the Minister for Treasury and Resources' speech and I wanted to hear the number of times he mentioned the hospitality industry. I was very disappointed in how rarely he did mention it and I will check with Hansard when it becomes available as to how often he did reference the hospitality industry and the context. Everyone is aware in Jersey of the need for diversification. Everyone is aware here of the need to encourage investment in existing businesses. I think more than anything else apart from my wish to defend what is the existing good hospitality industry and the ones that have survived over the last 4 years is to correct some of the inaccuracies that have been contained in some of the press releases in the context of health. I will clear these up as I progress through the points I make. It seems to me that every year the treatment of impôts is almost akin to a rite of passage for various Chancellors or various Exchequers. When the Minister for Treasury and Resources does leap to his feet and speak after me, I would like him to indicate to the Assembly now, today, where he thinks the limit has been reached or will be reached in the application of impôts to alcohol, tobacco and fuel. I will deal with our rates in context with other European countries later on. This proposal to deal with impôts is an attack on middle income Jersey. It is an attack on middle Jersey and it is an attack on lower income Jersey. There is a tension at the moment and I feel sorry for the Chief Minister in some ways. There is a tension here in that the Treasury wish to keep milking the impôts thing. The Treasury wish to keep jacking up the impôts on cigarettes, alcohol and fuel. The Health and Social Services Department tell us all about the health consequences of the abuses of these areas. The Economic Development Department want us to develop the economy and diversify the economy and encourage expansion of the hospitality industry, and the poor Chief Minister is in the middle trying to deal with some of this. I will be very keen to hear from not just Senator Ozouf but also Senator Farnham and Senator Maclean. The Jersey Annual Social Survey produced some interesting facts in the publication that came out very recently. On page 16 it talked about confidence in institutions. It asked the public whether they had any confidence in 3 different institutions. That was the Government, the judicial system and the media. Their confidence in this Assembly was about 25 per cent. Confidence in the judicial system was 50 per cent and confidence in the media was higher than the States at 41 per cent. I find that a disturbing figure. When the Chief Minister talks about restoring the public's confidence in this Assembly, I do not think that is an easy task to carry out, particularly as the recent editorial in the J.E.P. (Jersey Evening Post) talked about the public's no confidence in this Assembly. I think this debate today on the Budget and this imposition of proposed increases in the cost of living does nothing for this Assembly. I managed to watch a Channel report last night after I got back in and they talked about a stark figure. I want to talk about health for a minute and some of the misleading messages that are coming from the Treasury, the Treasury and Resources Department and the Minister for Treasury and Resources. Channel Television reported last night that one death in 50 on the Island, or 2 per cent, 2 deaths in 100, is directly attributable to liver or kidney failure or directly as a result of excessive alcohol abuse. I have in front of me the latest report by the Health and Social Services Department, which talks about premature deaths in Jersey residents, 2009 to 2011. I could not get one for 2012 and 2013, but this was produced in September 2013. I will read the key findings. In Jersey, premature mortality, which is dying before the age of 75, was 258 people per 100,000. The actual death rate, the crude rate, was 823 people out of 100,000. Of those, the majority died of circulatory disease and cancers. Cancers rated ahead of tobacco. Then it says that liver disease in Jersey was worse than the average in England, coming out at 118 out of 150. The figure that Channel Television quoted was 2 per cent of the Island's population, but in actual fact when you look at the table that Health supplied, they are comparing Jersey liver disease with Hackney, which has a Muslim population of 35,000, and Leicester, which has a Muslim population of 64,000. So when you look at these figures, the actual figures are completely wrong. You cannot compare Jersey's figures to other cities in the U.K. because we do not have a difference in population like they have in other U.K. cities. There were 20 deaths because of liver disease in Jersey - I am