States Meeting Transcript - 7th October 2015

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT WEDNESDAY, 7th OCTOBER 2015

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

1. Medium Term Financial Plan 2016–2019 (P.72/2015): ninth amendment (P.72/2015 Amd.(9)) - as amended....................................................................4

1. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:........................................................4

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................11 Deputy M. Tadier : ............................................................................11

1. Deputy S. Pinel of St. Clement : ........................................................12
2. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:....................................................13
3. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................14
4. Deputy G.J. Truscott of St. Brelade : ....................................................15
5. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................16
6. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................16
7. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................16

2. Medium Term Financial Plan 2016–2019 (P.72/2015): fourth amendment (P.72/2015 (Amd.(4))................................................................................23

1. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence (Chairman, Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel):..................................................................................23
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................27
3. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. John:........................................................27
4. Senator Z.A. Cameron:.................................................................28
5. Deputy P.D. McLinton of St. Saviour:..................................................29
6. Senator A.K.F. Green: ..................................................................29
7. Connétable C.H. Taylor of St. John : ....................................................30
8. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of St. Saviour:.................................................31

9. Connétable P.B. Le Sueur of Trinity :...................................................31
10. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. Helier : ....................................................31

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................33 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................33

11. Deputy S.M. Brée of St. Clement:...................................................33
12. Deputy K.L. Moore of St. Peter:.....................................................34
13. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:.............................................................34
14. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................36
15. Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier:......................................................37

16. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................37
17. Senator I.J. Gorst : ...................................................................37
18. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:..................................................40
19. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ...........................................................40

3. Medium Term Financial Plan 2016-2019 (P.72/2015): first amendment (P.72/2015 Amd.(1))..................................................................................42

1.3.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Treasury and Resources - rapporteur):......42

4. Medium Term Financial Plan 2016-2019 (P.72/2015): seventh amendment (P.72/2015 Amd.(7))..................................................................................44

1.4.1 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):................................................44

5. Medium Term Financial Plan 2016-2019 (P.72/2015): seventh amendment (P.72/2015 Amd.(7)) - amendment (Amd.(7)Amd.).................................................44

1. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................45
2. Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence:......................................................48
3. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :........................................................50
4. Deputy P.D. McLinton: ................................................................50
5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................51
6. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :..........................................................51
7. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter:...................................................52
8. Deputy D. Johnson of St. Mary:........................................................52

9. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................53
10. Senator P.F. Routier:................................................................53
11. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier:....................................................53
12. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................54

6. Medium Term Financial Plan 2016-2019 (P.72/2015): seventh amendment (P.72/2015 Amd.(7)) - resumption...................................................................55

1. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement:.................................................55
2. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................57
3. The Connétable of St. John:............................................................57
4. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence:........................................58
5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................58

6. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................58
7. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :....................................................................59
8. Deputy A.D. Lewis :....................................................................59
9. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................59

7. Medium Term Financial Plan 2016-2019 (P.72/2015): sixth amendment (P.72/2015 Amd.(6))..................................................................................61

1. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................61
2. Deputy S.J. Pinel:......................................................................63
3. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................64
4. Deputy A.D. Lewis :....................................................................64
5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................65
6. Deputy M.J. Norton of St. Brelade:.....................................................66
7. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................66
8. The Connétable of St. John:............................................................67

9. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................68
10. Deputy R. Labey :....................................................................68
11. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:.............................................................68
12. Senator I.J. Gorst : ...................................................................70
13. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................70

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................73

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

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption

1. Medium Term Financial Plan 2016–2019 (P.72/2015): ninth amendment (P.72/2015 Amd.(9)) - as amended

The Bailiff :

We return to the debate on the Medium Term Financial Plan and the next amendments are those of Deputy Tadier . Deputy , you have sought to amend your own amendment and presumably you would like us to take the amended amendment as amended. Greffier, would you please read the amendment as amended?

The Greffier of the States:

The ninth Amendment, part 1 - page 2, paragraph (a)(i) - After the words "as shown in Figure 18" insert the words "except that the intended total amount of States income shall be increased by the amounts in the following table by the introduction of a higher rate of income tax in the 2016 Budget for individuals whose income is greater that £100,000 per year to offset the 2016 financial impact (and the ongoing financial impact in 2017 to 2019) of not proceeding with the proposed savings in the expenditure of the Social Security Department shown – (i) 2016 0; 2017 £4,400,000; 2018 £3 million; 2019 £3,100,000. Apply index-linking to core components of Income Support; (ii) 2016 0; 2017 £1,200,000; 2018 £600,000; 2019 £600,000. Maintain current I.S. (Income Support) disregards for Long Term Incapacity Allowance/invalidity/survivors' benefits; (iii) 2016 0; 2017 £300,000; 2018 £200,000; 2019 £200,000. Maintain current levels of emergency grants/loans." Subparagraph (iv) was withdrawn by Deputy Tadier . 2. Page 2, paragraph (a)(ii) – After the words "Summary Table B" insert the words "except that the total amount of States net expenditure shall be increased in the years 2016 to 2019 by the amounts in the following table by not proceeding with the proposed 2016 savings (together with the ongoing financial impact of these savings in 2017 to 2019) in the expenditure of the Social Security Department as shown – (i) 2016 £1,500,000; (ii) 2017 £2,900,000; (iii) 2018 £3 million; (iv) 2019 £3,100,000. Apply index-linking to core components of Income Support (I.S.); (ii) 2016 £600,000; 2017 £600,000; 2018 £600,000; 2019 £600,000. Maintain current I.S. disregards for L.T.I.A. (Long Term Incapacity Allowance), invalidity/survivors' benefits; (iii) 2016 £100,000; 2017 £200,000; 2018 £200,000; 2019 £200,000. Maintain current levels of emergency grants/loans."

The Bailiff :

Deputy , I take it you will be proposing the income and expenditure side in one go and you may wish to take both separately or do you have some other way of dealing with it? Very well, then please would you propose it?

1. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

As has been said by my colleagues in previous speeches, some of this will go over familiar territory. Obviously responsible politics means that you have to fund the type of policies that you want to implement. Because it is Reform Jersey's policy to maintain rather than cut, reduce and outsource, the political reality and responsible politics is that we have to find money from somewhere else. Other individuals, because we are separating the vote, have the luxury of wanting something and not being able to pay for it. We as a political party do not have that luxury but nonetheless we are presenting the cases individually because we know that not everybody is quite yet on the same moderate page as our own party. I would ask initially, and I want to bring this back to some of the theory of social justice before we look at the specifics of what is being proposed, and

I did have a slightly restless night. I woke up early with certain thoughts running through my head, the nature of which were somewhat existentialist and related to this Assembly, and I was asking myself questions like "Why did you come into politics?" Not in a negative way but in a neutral way, and I would ask the same question to other Members, through the Chair. Why did one come into politics in the first place? The broader question of democracy is who are we here to represent and what does it mean to run a society in a democratic and fair way? Hopefully questions that at some point in our lives, perhaps for some of the longer serving Members many, many moons ago, were the kind of questions they were asking themselves perhaps when they .. I will not finish that sentence but perhaps when they were in a different position. It has led me to think that in Jersey we have been preached a mantra for a very long time and it has been internalised to the point where most people believe it, that what is good for the wealthy is good for the rest of us. That is essentially a throwback to 1980s Thatcherism and Reaganism, although the roots may lie elsewhere, and it essentially is still the same trickle down politics and economics that was sown then and planted and has become so popular and since has been seen to be both morally and economically bankrupt. Because even if it was true at one point in time that what was good for the wealthy in Jersey was good for the rest of us, that there was enough of a loaf on the top table so the crumbs would keep feeding the rest of us, that is certainly not true nowadays. We know that the facts out there are that the wealthy have continued to get wealthier even in our Island as across the rest of the globe. The number of millionaires has quadrupled, we know in recent times, yet the standard of living has gone down by 20 per cent. These are simply the facts. I am not making them up. They are provided by the Stats Unit and independent economists. Did we as politicians come into this Assembly, whether we were new here, whether we have served 3, 6, 9 or more years, to preside over that kind of social inequality? Because that is a political choice at the end of the day and surely if Government and the State has any role to play whatsoever it is to mitigate the vagaries and the negative consequences of the free market. Yet in Jersey it is the free market which dictates

and the Government not only does not intervene to stop those trends occurring but it exacerbates those trends. This is exactly what we are talking about today. Given the political choice, and it is a political choice, this Government and their adherents, because they need our legitimacy in order to make decisions, they are in the minority as a Council of Ministers, have chosen to put even more pressure, heap on the pain to the most vulnerable in our community rather than address the fundamental reality that their economics, which might have been okay, as my colleague said yesterday, in a recently post-war economy, no longer reflects the needs of the day and as a Government, as a State and as an Assembly we must make sure that we adapt and are flexible enough to meet those requirements. It is no longer satisfactory to trot out the same belief that this system has served us well for the last 70 years. The 20 per cent tax rate is sacrosanct. Forget about the stealth taxes. Forget about the fact that the Long Term Care Benefit has completely changed the 20 per cent tax rate. The low tax, low spend model does not serve the greater good anymore, and this is not a question of whether you are on the left or on the right. It is simply a question of whether you are perhaps at least a utilitarian when it comes to your socio-political outlook in this Island. The reality is that this Assembly, and in particular this Government, is so far to the right that they think that mainstream social democratic policy is radical. In fact, it is even worse than that. They think that basic Fordism, where you pay the workers a wage, not necessarily enough to emancipate themselves but certainly enough to be able to buy the products that they are making or essentially to keep the economy functioning, that is seen as radical because this is not even commonsense conservatism. We have a Government that is cutting so savagely that the only consequences, and it is not just about these cuts, of course. Globally it is about the fact that they are taking £90 million out of the economy in terms of staff wages, replacing that with poverty wages, giving a certain section of that presumably to their mates as the vernacular would go, so that they can have their profit.

The result is worse public services or in some case no public services which were previously provided, a dissatisfied work staff on poverty wages without any concept of a living wage, which at least their parent party in the U.K. (United Kingdom) has had the foresight to pay lip service to.

The Bailiff :

Deputy , can I interrupt you just a second? One of your colleagues just nearby is using a laptop or machine that is I think causing the interference on the system and the advice I have been given is that it is better when someone is speaking if possible not to use those machines during that time if someone is speaking nearby you.

Deputy M. Tadier :

It is slightly problematic insofar as I have an iPad on my screen. I am not specifically using it but I will need to, seeing as we are trying to go paperless to refer to the .. and it may well be the phone, Sir, so I think in my experience phones tend to generate more interference even when they are not necessarily receiving a text message but that is perhaps something that needs to be considered in the round. But thank you, Sir, for that. I was just finishing off about the current local Tories are not keeping up with latest Tory policy back in the U.K., which is, I am not going to say unfortunate but it shows that they are slightly behind the curve. It goes back to what I said yesterday, that there is no mandate for the cut. They never came to the electorate saying that we will impoverish you, we will lay you off, we will give you less money in your pocket. I am fascinated about this concept of financial independence. Again, it is one of those aphorisms that is trotted out so many times as if to make us believe it but how can one be financially independent if one does not have any money in the first place? Surely you need to give somebody money if they do not have any to make them financially independent. You cannot give somebody a hand up if at the same time you are putting your foot on their head when they are trying to pull themselves up. That is essentially what this Minister for Social Security and this Council of Ministers is doing. They are not even delivering on that good old conservative phrase of hand up not hand out. They are saying: "We will give you a kick while you are down." That should be the slogan for their election. "Vote for us, we will kick you when you are down." This is exactly what they are doing to the most vulnerable in our community. I thought again, going back to the theory of social justice, what does that mean? People have different bases for that. For me it is always a constant surprise, even though I have been in politics for some time now, just how much lobbying and how much vested interest there is in politics. Perhaps that is the stark reality of it. We know we do not live in the era of the philosopher king where people are slightly detached from politics and they make the right benevolent decisions based on a utilitarian approach. But certainly what has informed my politics in my younger years was John Rawls' Theory of Justice, that we should all take a somewhat back seat and decide what kind of society we would decide to live in if we were ignorant of the position that we would eventually end up in society. He calls that the veil of ignorance or the original position and that is the point from which I think certainly in theory we should be setting out the ground rules for what kind of society we would like to live in. Because the reality in Jersey is that it is a place that is run primarily for the wealthy and that is the way it has been for many decades, and that has allowed our State to become captured to the point where they will only make decisions, or primarily make their decisions for the interests of the wealthy, not simply to keep tax low but to keep tax as a zero per cent and the economic and social consequences of that is putting more and more pressure on to ordinary taxpayers which we know has been the consequence if not the deliberate design. When I look at the theory of justice we think about not knowing where one will find one's place in society. If we are sitting round a table there may be 6 of us there. We know that maybe one of us will be chronically disabled. We know that one of us may be very wealthy. We know that one of us may be a low paid worker. We know that one of us may be, let

us say, a retired individual. Again, the list can go on. The point that John Rawls makes is that we do not know where our position will be in that society and so we would agree to conditions for running that society that were both reasonable and rational and that made us risk-averse, so that those who are least able in society would have some basic protections. I think that really is a long- winded way of saying what many other religions and philosophies probably worked out quite a long time ago. It is called the golden rule that runs through all faiths or those of no faith who are interested in morality. It is essentially do unto others as you would have them do unto you and do not do things to people that you would not like done to you. It is interesting that we have a religious leader in this Assembly on occasions and it is interesting that we have an established Church of England who is very vocal on certain issues such as equal marriage. They will make sure that the position of the church, if indeed there can be said to be a coherent position on matters like that, are very well vocalised and are not just so but enforced in legislation so that their rights are protected. We know that similarly perhaps in an area where I am more inclined to agree with them they are quite happy to pontificate or even engender valid discussion and welcome discussion on issues such as the refugee crisis. What should a compassionate and civilised society's response be to a humanitarian crisis that is happening some distance across the world and coming towards us? Those are all valid and laudable points of view to put across. Where they are deafeningly silent of course is when the social injustice is happening on their very doorstep and we do not hear one peep out of the established church or indeed, as far as I can see, any church groups in Jersey about the austerity measures that are happening. That is not the case in the U.K. because we know that many of the anti-austerity movements and activism are led in many cases by church groups and one has to ask if the State has been captured, whether to a certain extent the church has also been captured for those financial elites. The reason I use that as a kind of segue is because the basic philosophy is whether you talk about Jesus or whether you talk about John Rawls, the point is what would Jesus do and what would John Rawls do? He certainly would not be advocating these kinds of cuts. Members might notice that I do not partake in prayers in this Assembly because I am an atheist and I find it hypocritical to do so. But what I find even more objectionable is that Members in this Assembly can stand up on a weekly basis, trot out the same religious expletives and say "Give us today our daily bread" while we are taking the bread out of the mouths of those who most need it in our society. So, let us turn to the next part of the propositions. Think again always in one's mind of the fact of why we were put here, who voted for us and those many who did not vote because they are disenfranchised or do not feel part of the system, do not feel represented, quite understandably. What we are saying, and none of this seems to make sense, is that we are not going to anymore index link for components of income support. Very bizarre because at the same time the Minister for Social Security and the Council of Ministers are not saying that they will stop inflation. They are not saying: "We are going to freeze your benefit." Incidentally they are not freezing the housing component, as Deputy Bryans often reminds us, because Andium needs their money to pay back to the Treasury so we will make sure that they are all right. Jersey Electricity does not get the same advantage. The supermarkets do not get the same advantage of having that food component because all of income support is a living component. You have a housing component that is obviously compartmentalised but the rest of it is all living component because it all gets spent. That is the reality of it. In fact it gets spent more than once over. One asks the question why we have people at the bottom of the economic pile, if you will excuse the expression, and maybe they will excuse the oppression as well from this Government, is that at the end of the month they have less than they started with. That is not just people on income support. This is

standard now for many people who are in paid, poverty wage jobs because this Government is quite happy to put the pain and the cuts in to protect their golden 20 per cent rate or their golden Zero/Ten per cent rate or their golden no more than the golden threshold of social security for those who are already wealthy and protected. This is not just political mantra; I mean words can tend to sound hollow after a while but this is the truth. They are protecting those who are most able to get

us out of this economic crisis. It is frankly bizarre. Who caused the economic crisis, be it in Jersey or elsewhere? It was not created by people on income support. It was not created by L.T.I.A. claimants, invalidity claimants, those who are on survivor's benefit. It is not created by those who have nothing and so knock on the door of either what was the Parish Hall or currently the Social Security Department and say: "I really need an emergency loan but because I have been systemically poor since I was young, I have not seen a dentist ever and now I have no teeth left and I am only 35. Please, can you do something about my mouth?" "No, sorry, I cannot because you need to be financially independent, so we are not going to give you some money to go and see the dentist" who, presumably, I am sure works hard but is not too badly off: "We are not even going to do that, we are going to lend you some money. We are going to lend you £500 so you can go to the dentist and get some dentures presumably or perhaps get some fillings put in." They will say: "Well, you know what, I cannot really deal with having £500 of debt hanging over my week, even if that means I am paying £3 a day or £21 a week because that £3 a day is my cereal, my milk and my bread. I think I will just do without my teeth and because I am poor and the social status and the economics that go with it mean that I will die early anyway" as we were reminded yesterday by Senator Cameron. They will just go away and that is the kind of society we have. It is the kind of what-would-Jesus-do society because, of course, he would be there at the Tory conference sitting with the Institute of Directors in the middle table

The Bailiff :

Deputy , I think, if I may say so, that is offensive to all those who have a belief in Jesus Christ, to attribute political views to Jesus that he would be at the Tory Party conference would be offensive to some and you should please withdraw it.

Deputy M. Tadier :

Sir, I will not withdraw that at all because the point is I believe in Jesus because he was a historic figure and the point I am making is that he would not have been at a Tory conference. He would not have been at an I.o.D. (Institute of Directors) dinner. Obviously the historical context does not allow for it but

The Bailiff :

Deputy , I am sorry, I have asked you to withdraw the allegation, the statement that Jesus would be at a Tory Party conference.

Deputy M. Tadier :

No, Sir, I am not withdrawing that because I did not say that, Sir. I said Jesus would not have been at a Tory conference or an I.o.D. dinner, obviously like he did not live in our times so he would not have been able to, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Just one moment

Deputy M. Tadier :

I frankly resent that kind of intervention, Sir

The Bailiff :

Just one moment, please.

Deputy M. Tadier :

when I am trying to make a valid political speech.

The Bailiff :

Just one moment, please. Both the Greffier and I think that you said that Jesus would have been at the Tory Party conference. Now, if that were a mistake, then withdraw that.

Deputy M. Tadier :

Sir, it is called rhetoric. It is when I say he would have been there, the obvious implication is that he would not have been there because he was in the temple driving out the moneylenders and that was going to be the next part of my point, Sir, to negate what I have said. If elected parliamentarians cannot be free to use the rhetoric that they choose because it might upset some sensibilities, in fact completely spuriously, then I do not know what we are put here for, Sir. I think that goes against parliamentary privilege and the ability for us to speak openly, Sir.

The Bailiff :

It is a question, Deputy , of using offensive language and offensive language means offensive to some and not necessarily to all. When you use language about Jesus Christ and bring him into political debate, then to those who are believers in Christ that is offensive and that is why you are being asked to withdraw it.

Deputy M. Tadier :

Sir, I do not withdraw that. I think we have a Dean in this Assembly who is not even elected who is able to refer to Jesus Christ in his speeches to make political points. When I seek to do that it is somebody who I believe adheres to the philosophy of Jesus from what I can see of his teaching, the point I am making and I will not apologise for any offence because one is elected here to speak.

[10:00]

One cannot control what is heard, one can only control what one means and I think that is the issue, Sir, so

The Bailiff :

Would you please sit down now? Greffier, please Deputy , perhaps I can remind you of Standing Order 109 and Standing Order 110. I have indicated to you that I consider that the allegation that Jesus Christ would have been attending the Tory Party conference amounts to objectionable, offensive, unparliamentary language and I have asked you to withdraw the words and you have not yet done so. Standing Order 109(6) says that: "If the Presiding Officer determines that the words are offensive, objectionable, unparliamentary or disorderly, he shall direct the Member to withdraw the words and he may direct the Member to apologise." I have directed you only so far to withdraw them. Under paragraph 6: "The Member must withdraw the words and, if so directed [and you have not been] apologise." Under Standing Order 110: "The Presiding Officer may require a Member of the States to withdraw from the Chamber, either for the remainder of the day or for a lesser period, if the Member has used offensive, objectionable, unparliamentary or disorderly words and refused, when directed by the Presiding Officer, to withdraw them." May I just invite you, again, to withdraw the allegation that Jesus Christ would have attended the Tory Party conference?

Deputy M. Tadier :

Sir, I am sure you are providing rich pickings for satirists all over the world when you make such ludicrous interventions. But the point is obviously your reading of that Standing Order is completely incorrect because I do not accept the fact that I have made any offensive statement. In fact I was cut down in the middle of my sentence and if I had been allowed to finish it Members would have quite easily realised where I was going with it, saying that what we would have expected from the historical Jesus from what we know about him and where his political and social sympathies would have lied, Sir. I am quite happy to give way to another Member, perhaps the Chief Minister, if he wants to say something.

The Bailiff :

It is a matter for the Presiding Officer, rather than the Chief Minister but, Chief Minister, do you wish to say anything?

Senator I.J. Gorst :

Sir, I am not sure whether my intervention is going to be helpful or not. In my job I am used to being criticised and I was taking, perhaps incorrectly, the Deputy was referring to myself and indicating the view of the church and those who might be of faith and questioning my own beliefs and my presence at the Conservative Party conference and putting it into that sort of context. I was not offended with regard to what he was saying about faith. I think he was simply asking Members of this Assembly, and perhaps particularly myself, to consider whether it was the right thing and the belief system that I follow, whether I should question that in light of my attendance. I think he used some term: "Sitting at the I.o.D. table" at the Conservative Party conference. I was taking it, Sir, as normal political challenge and banter and not perhaps in the way of questioning what Christ himself would do and I would not want to necessarily go there. I may not be helping that he may not have been meaning that at all but that was certainly how I was taking his comments, Sir. I was listening to them, of course, I do not agree with them but I took them as a legitimate challenge to my position as head of this Government and what I do in representing my community.

The Bailiff :

I have to say, Chief Minister, it had not occurred to me for one moment that the reference to Jesus Christ was a reference to the Chief Minister. [Laughter]

Senator I.J. Gorst :

Sir, I must say that that is not what I said. I think he was referring to those who have belief systems which, hopefully, sometimes coincide with the belief systems of the church and he was simply, as he went on to say, asking us to think about what we do politically and perhaps attending the Conservative Party conference, which, of course, is a political thing, in light of those belief systems. I was in no way at all, Sir, trying to indicate that I would take such a title on to myself.

The Bailiff :

Deputy , I will give you one last opportunity to withdraw the language that I have mentioned. Deputy M. Tadier :

Thank you, Sir. I would like to give you an opportunity to withdraw from the Chair and allow the Greffier to Chair, Sir, because I think that you have overstepped the mark on this one.

The Bailiff :

In the light of your refusal to withdraw as requested, then I must ask you to withdraw from the Chamber for the next hour.

Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier :

With respect, Sir, I believe you have gone over the top. I am going to withdraw also for an hour. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier :

Sir, we are in the middle of Deputy Tadier 's debate or opening remarks. I propose we have an hour adjournment because I do not think it is fair we carry on, whether we agree with your ruling or not. Where do we go from here practically?

The Bailiff :

Is that seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak? All those in favour of the proposition, kindly show. Those against. The proposition is adopted, the States will adjourn for one hour.

[10:08]

ADJOURNMENT

[11:10]

The Bailiff :

Right, after that interlude, Deputy , if you would like to continue with your speech. Deputy M. Tadier :

Of course, he would not, he would have been driving out the moneylenders from the temple. He would have been out there looking after the sick, the poor and vulnerable and even though I question the actual literal interpretation of the healings, I think that certainly he would have been doing what he could to help the most vulnerable in society. He certainly would not have been waging cuts on them and taking out the bread from their mouths. He would have been feeding them, literally perhaps with bread and fishes or at least fighting their corner in the best way that he could. The reason I make that reference is because wherever we come from in our politics we need to have some kind of, at least, theoretical background. We have to have some consideration of the thoughts about where our politics come from, whether the inspiration be from individuals in the field of economics, in politics, in philosophy or religion/philosophy. I think enough of those comments and now turning to the actual reality on the ground. Why I cannot support these Council of Ministers in their cuts is because we know that the cuts will hit those disproportionately. As I said earlier, they are not the ones who caused the financial crisis. They are not the ones who created the forecast deficit in Jersey. It is the fact that the economic model, the tax and spend system, no longer stacks up in Jersey. We may not wish to do it today but at some point in the very near future we will be obliged to change. We know that we have a younger generation out there and even up here and I think in many ways that kind of intervention is welcome because it reminds us perhaps of whom we are here to serve. It is not simply about us, it is about the next generation. We know that be it in Jersey or be it in the U.K. or elsewhere that times are tough. We are looking at lost generations who are in the political wilderness. The old mantra that if you go out and work hard you will do well for yourself is, unfortunately, no longer believable for many of them because we see people working very hard, very long hours and not even able to necessarily meet their rent and their living costs, certainly not with anything to show for it or to save and without any chance of being homeowners. I think I have said enough but I will simply leave Members with this figure, be it for emergency grants and loans, notwithstanding what I said earlier. Remember that individual who I said about the teeth, that he did not have teeth because she had been impoverished since a young age but we will be taking money away from people, be under no illusion of that. We know from the report that I have submitted that the disabled, those on invalidity benefit, will be at least £7 a week worse off. It does not make any sense to say that we are not going to index-link components of income support when we know in the real world the bills will be going up. If one's issue is that we do not like income support, we do not think that there should be any kind of welfare state and that they should just fend for themselves or charitable organisations or families and not

everyone has a family, should be taking care of them, then that is one argument.

[11:15]

But it simply does not make sense to erode, as we have been doing over the last 5/10 years and the I.S. components have lost their index linking anyway, it does not keep up with what we should have been doing, that does not help anyone, it just adds to the misery. I make the proposition and, hopefully, at least one of my party members, if nobody else, will second this.

The Bailiff :

Seconded? [Seconded]

1. Deputy S. Pinel of St. Clement :

In an attempt to bring this debate back to the amendment in question I will start. I get the impression that Deputy Tadier drew the short straw when Reform Jersey was drafting these amendments. This final set of amendments includes the remaining proposals that make up my package of £10 million worth of savings. Together they are something of a jumble of income support changes with few specific arguments put forward by Deputy Tadier to support the individual sections. However, I am grateful to the Deputy for withdrawing his fourth amendment, which was debated and rejected in another form at the last States meeting. Returning to the first section of this amendment, so this is closely linked to a similar proposal from Deputy Southern for pensioners that has already been debated and rejected. During that debate I drew the attention of Members to the difficulty of creating separate rates for working-age adults and pensioners across each of the income support components. As the decision has been taken to maintain existing component rates for pensioners, I strongly urge Members to make a similar decision for working- age groups. The arguments for holding income support levels steady until October 2017 have already been rehearsed. Please note that our Medium Term Financial Plan projections include an uprate for all income support households in October 2017 and 2018. The current rates will remain in place for the next 2 years, not the full period of the M.T.F.P. I have previously circulated a breakdown of the income support available to a pensioner household in 2008 and 2015. Working- age households have also seen a significant increase in household income since the start of income support. There has been an improvement in the disregard rates for earned income from the original 6 per cent set in 2008 up to the current 23 per cent. This creates a substantial incentive for working-age households to take up and remain in employment. For each £100 of wages received the households will keep £23 over and above their basic components. This improvement in the treatment of wages means that any income support household receiving earned income has seen a significant improvement in their total income since 2008. As with pensioners, many working-age households will have seen an increase in spending power since the beginning of income support. As a simple example, a couple with 2 young children with one of the parents working full time at minimum wage has seen an improvement in spending power for the family of £28 per week or £1,472 a year. Holding current benefit levels steady is a simple and cost-effective way of creating significant reductions in benefit budgets. The impact of the reduction is spread across all benefit claimants. As you have heard me say several times before, taking decisions to restrict benefits is always very difficult but without this measure I would need to find an extra £4 million from specific claimant groups. If some groups are protected from changes other groups would inevitably face more restrictions on their benefits, including cutting benefits to existing claimants. I have avoided this as far as possible in this overall package. I urge Members to reject this part of amendment 9. The second part of this amendment deals with the interaction between income support and other benefits. I will briefly explain to Members how this current disregard works and why we are seeking to remove it. The current income support legislation includes a 6 per cent disregard against some types of contributory benefit income. These mainly cover claimants with long-term medical conditions who are claiming either L.T.I.A., which is long-term incapacity allowance or the old invalidity benefit. It also covers a small number of working-age individuals

who are claiming a survivor's benefit. These individuals are receiving 2 benefits from the department at the same time and the current disregard means that they keep a small percentage of the contributory benefit on top of their income support award. The maximum standard rate benefit is about £200, so the maximum additional benefit kept is £12 a week. However, most of these contributory benefits are paid on a percentage basis, leading to a lower average of less than £7 per week retained. This extra allowance is not aimed at any specific need or additional cost. It is not provided to people claiming sickness benefit, maternity allowance or carers' allowance. It adds extra complexity to the income support system and does not encourage claimants to move towards financial independence. Claimants who have a long-term health condition or a disability can claim a range of medical benefits through income support to assist with extra costs associated with their condition. The Back to Work teams have already extended the support they can offer to people with long-term conditions to help them return to suitable employment. I do not believe that this part of the income support system is well targeted to a specific need and I urge Members to reject this part of the amendment. The final section of amendment 9 deals with one-off payments available to income support households. Income support is designed to support basic weekly living costs. One-off payments, known as special payments, are used to help with the cost of bigger items, such as rental deposits, white goods and dental costs. At present most special payments for white goods, furniture and fittings are given as grants and do not need to be repaid. Other special payments, such as rental deposits, are provided as loans and the department has procedures in place to recover the loan in small weekly amounts. My proposal is that payments for white goods, furniture and fittings will now also be provided as loans. This ensures that a household can always receive help with basic items but reduces the cost to the department as loans are repaid. Household circumstances are always carefully considered when setting the level of repayment. Vulnerable claimants, such as care leavers, will still receive grants when needed. Other special payments, such as help with funeral costs and dental costs for pensioners, will continue to be available as grants. This is a minor adjustment to the income support system and I urge Members to also reject this

final section of amendment 9.

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

I have had a very enjoyable day today listening to the spin coming from the Minister for Social Security. When it comes down to reality though one has to look at what her intention is and her intention is clearly to save money from the poorest and those most vulnerable. We have seen a whole series of what was described by one recipient yesterday as an attack on those most vulnerable and to paraphrase Bonhoeffer I think, they came for the young and we did nothing, the under-25s, that was last week. They came for the senior citizens, that was yesterday and we did nothing. They came for the lone parents and we did nothing. Now they come for the children. How shall we act? Finally, they come for those with disabilities. What will we do to protect those who are least able to look after themselves? As I said earlier, I think yesterday, long-term incapacity allowance is not a replacement for income. It is a compensation for loss of faculty, quite literally lose your arm it is compensation for that, for example. So to say that there is no reason to have a disregard on a long-term incapacity award is a nonsense. The old award, incapacity benefit plan B, was a replacement for loss of income. You could not work if you were on that benefit. This one you can work but look at those figures of whom this is going to affect. The average award of L.T.I.A. for those on income support, i.e. those at the very bottom, is around £116 a week, which works out at 6 per cent disregard, £7 a week approximately. So we are proposing to take £7 a week at least, between £7 and £12 if they are top end, if they are most disabled, away from these people. This will include wheelchair users, for example. That is what we are proposing. I ask Members to think very carefully about whether that is what they wish to do at this stage and because of this apparent crisis. Is it appropriate that we take away from the most vulnerable and poorest in our society? We have already dealt with children who are growing up in a lone parent household.

Yesterday you refused to act on that while we know that many of those children will be in relative low income, i.e. relatively poor. Today we get a second bite at that because the Minister is freezing the child benefit, a couple with a child is going to see if the predictions of inflation are correct, something like £15 a week taken away from their spending power. When we look at what evidence we have got we look at the 2002, 2009-2010 income distribution survey, we see that after housing costs we had been making progress. Fewer children in relative low income, i.e. the poverty threshold, below it, fewer children in 2009, 24 per cent compared to 33 per cent. We were making progress. Without checking to see if that progress has been maintained we are going to change the rules and reduce the benefit going to these families. While it is obvious to see that that applies to single parents, they can only have a single income, we find that the same argument, and they are significant numbers, are below the poverty threshold, the low income threshold for couples. So couples with at least one dependent child in 2002, 28 per cent of them, nearly one in 3, in relative low income. We had reduced that by the action we had taken in income support to 19 per cent. So 28 per cent to 19 per cent, significant progress. It is at risk of being thrown away on the back of zero research at all. That is the reality. It is all very well to talk about changes to the disregard for earned income but many of those who have a disability cannot work.

[11:30]

They may be, according to the rules, allowed to work but they cannot work. Finally, the Minister glides over the condition of what is called the community chest in the U.K., the pot that is there for emergency or big item expenditure for the poor. When she says: "We negotiate a rate dependent on circumstances for the repayments of any payments given to a household" whether for a deposit or for white goods or buying a bed because your bed collapses,  et cetera, when she says: "We negotiate those rates and have paid clear attention to what the income of the household is" that is simply not true. The minimum rate today was not that in the time of Senator Routier, was not that approach taken by Senator Gorst when they were Ministers for Social Security? I do not believe it was the attitude taken by Senator Le Gresley either but today the minimum rate at which you pay back is £21 per week, £3 a day. I hear that week in and week out when people come to me and say: "I cannot afford that." It is no wonder people cannot afford that because what we do is calculate the minimum people need to have a decent life. If we have given them a loan that will be the minimum you need to lead a decent life less £21 a week. Try it if you can. That inevitably will lead to increased hardship and increased poverty. That is what we are doing today. So when we come to the disabled I suggest we do regard what we do today with extreme seriousness and at least act to support the disabled.

3. Deputy J.A. Martin:

I will be brief and I will just stick to the point about freezing the components at 2015 rates. Some figures the Minister read out I cannot let them go. The Minister mentioned that households have seen themselves increasing something like over £1,000. The Minister has very carefully included the rental component in this and the rental component will not be frozen, the rental component will go up. But, as I say, if you look at the answer to that question, I said it yesterday, overall the adult component has gone up £3.80 in nearly 8 years. The household component, which is everything you need as well, your food, clothing, your children's food and clothing, has gone up £5.60 in real terms. The rental component, yes, has jumped in these figures to £32.48. But the actual rental .. that will cover everybody's rent unless it is above the income set by Social Security, which now for a one-bedroom flat is up to £200 a week. Because this is what they agreed with Housing, Andium, when they decided that they must borrow £250 million - I was going to say billion, the noughts escape me sometimes - but I cannot have the Minister for Social Security absolutely, in my opinion, misleading or interpreting the figures to suit her department and telling me that some of these components were already frozen in 2013 and 2014. This is why from 2008 to 2015 they have not really caught up. So be aware exactly what you are doing. You are cutting the spending power for people with young children who are trying for the next 2 years. Be quite clear why you are doing it because in the answer the Minister said: "The measure to freeze core components at 2015 rates makes a significant contribution to the total of £10 million in tax funded benefit savings required as part of the overall Medium Term Financial Plan. It is inevitable that it will have some impact on income support claimants." It will not have some impact, it will have a real big impact and if that is what you want to decide please be honest with your vote, vote against Deputy Tadier , vote with the Minister but really be aware of what of you are doing, you are freezing people's spending power at the 2013 rates, do not be influenced by the uprate in housing benefit. As I said yesterday, the majority of people there is a deal done at Social Security, and Andium, and most of the private trusts, they do not see a penny of that money, quite rightly, it goes across, their rent is taken care of, but do not tell me it is in their household spending power to use that money for food, electricity, children's shoes, anything like that. Be aware, the Minister is interpreting her figures, read her comments, this is all about her saving her £10 million. Deputies Southern and Tadier are completely correct, hitting the most vulnerable who cannot .. some of these have got children under 3, they cannot go out to work. Childcare costs, they cannot afford them. They are single parents. You have just cut £40 off of their benefit and now you want to freeze the rest of their money into the future. She said it might only be until 2017. As we started this debate yesterday, we do not know beyond what is happening tomorrow. Sorry, I went on a bit but I really am pleased on what you absolutely .. the figures are not right. The figures are very, very tiny increases and frozen for years. The only uprate is money that goes to the landlord not have money to spend in their pockets, juggle Peter to pay Paul. Just on one note, I was going to leave this my speech, it is very good that we heard from the Constables yesterday that they are now going to start a mini welfare fund and I hope they have all contacted the Grace Trust, they have all contacted C.A.B. (Citizen's Advice Bureau) and they have all given their numbers because I am fed up with them ringing me or Deputy Southern . Where they have got our numbers down there, we get the faxes: "Could you represent this person because da, da, da." So now it is good that the Constables are getting reinvigorated, re-involved with welfare. They want to feed these people .. well, the

Constable of St. Peter is, I am not allowed to say he is nodding because I am not looking at him, but he is disagreeing with me. When you make your ruling about speeches maybe you could say people should not interrupt when other people are speaking. [Laughter] Because I know that will be your next point.

The Bailiff :

I hear you, Deputy . Deputy J.A. Martin:

I have obviously upset the Constables but that is what I heard yesterday, there will be a mini welfare. They want to get to know the people in the Parishes again who are struggling. They will help. Apparently there is money there. I hope their ratepayers know that they are putting in this pot. But I will leave it there. Do not be misled by the Minister for Social Security's figures. They are incorrect for spending power. I will leave it there.

4. Deputy G.J. Truscott of St. Brelade :

As Assistant Minister for Social Security, it goes without saying that I will be fully supporting the Minister for Social Security in this debate and will be voting to reject Deputy Tadier 's amendment. I urge Members to do likewise. At this point I would just like to correct Deputy Southern and can assure Members that the calculation for pay back of goods is based on what people can realistically afford. There would be no sense in making the pay back become a hardship to the people on income support. Deputy Martin, we could have made cuts. We did not make cuts. I think the most sensible thing to do was hold rates and freeze rates, and I think that makes absolute sense. I think that is fair and that is the appropriate thing to do. Thank you, I have made my point.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

A point of clarification? Is the Assistant Minister suggesting that freezing is not equivalent to a cut in inflationary times?

Deputy G.J. Truscott:

I am making that point.

5. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Just very briefly. I reminded Members  yesterday when Deputy Southern and Deputy Mézec brought their amendments that in fact they, although being extremely responsible in identifying a funding mechanism that funding mechanism is of course raising the personal rate of income tax. As I pointed out yesterday, and I will not rehearse the argument again, I know Members are fully aware of them, that is a decision that we would not and should not be considering taking very lightly. It is a tax rate that has been in place for some 60 years. Our economy is built on that

stability and certainty and if any changes were to be made then they would have to be done over a period of time and after good and due consideration and assessment. So I will just remind Members that the concept of raising the funds to pay for this proposal by raising the personal income tax level is not a matter that I can support and I would urge Members also not to support it either. I think the Minister herself has made an excellent case of what is clearly a difficult decision. In fact it is freezing the exemptions with R.P.I. (Retail Price Index) currently at 0.9 per cent the impact on individuals is mitigated in the current low inflationary environment that we are in. There will be some impact, of course, but nevertheless it is lower than it might have been if inflation had been higher. I think that relatively benign R.P.I inflationary level is helpful, if nothing else. I do urge Members to reject this amendment and support the Council of Ministers.

6. Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Just responding to the Minister for Treasury and Resources: it is all right spouting figures about inflation, inflation is not the same for everybody. Believe it or not, if you are a pensioner there is one rate of inflation for you because inflation is determined normally by a shopping basket or by looking at the items that they purchased and how they have gone up. We know for example with the health service, there is inflation in the health service which is way above the normal rate of inflation. So Senator Maclean may be talking about a negative rate of inflation by the sound of it, in which case deflation can be exceptionally bad as many economies are finding out. What I would say though is that there is a real cut to these people who are having their benefits removed and I do think, again, going back to what Senator Maclean was saying, he said it is a rise in income tax. What is proposed is a rise in the rate of those earning more than £100,000, who can afford to pay the extra. I am surprised the Chief Minister is nodding his head, he does not think that they can afford more, but certainly they can afford it far better than the people who are on lower incomes. So I have no problem in supporting this amendment because those who can afford to pay should pay and those who are least able to do it should not be penalised in the way that they are being treated.

The Bailiff :

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

7. Deputy M. Tadier :

In one sense I am glad that we have not had too many speakers, it is somewhat easier to sum up, I think, because of that. But notwithstanding that I think the main points have been outlined, if not in this debate certainly in previous debates, and the points remain the same. I am fascinated by the - I would call it - spin but certainly the position that the Minister for Social Security takes when she says: "Oh you do not need to worry about these cuts because we are spreading them right across all benefit claimants" which were her words, or certainly the sentiment. As if that is some kind of comfort. So to say we are not just targeting some individuals, we are spreading the hardship among all of them. So chances are those who are already down and out, if we can call them that - although that is not a completely satisfactory phrase because it does not capture the real struggles and courage that these individuals have in their daily lives - will be hit and they will be affected. They are our constituents. Let us not be under any illusion, they will be worse off. That was confirmed in question time. At least I appreciate that there was not an attempt at spin to say: "No, they will be better off in the long term." They will be worse off and that is just part of the plan that we need to get the economy back on track. I certainly do not buy that anyway. The other thing to remember is that many of these claimants, be they working, be they looking for work or bringing up young children, are obviously affected by different components. So they may have double, triple whammies in some cases. They might be on a personal component, they may also be a single parent, just had that single parent component removed, they may be on L.T.I.A. benefits and it is not really much comfort to say to them: "Do not worry, you can keep 6 per cent of your long term incapacity allowance as a disregard so even if you are receiving that maximum of £200 a week that the Minister spoke about, that is only £12 compensation for you being disabled and possibly either partly or fully unable to work."

[11:45]

I thought Deputy Southern 's reminder that L.T.I.A. is not really income as such, it is not to be treated like that, even though it is treated like that by the department, is a compensation for a disability. Again, that ties in nicely with where I started off with the original position and the theory of justice. If we did not know where we were coming from in this world or where we would be situated in this Island, I doubt we would all sign up to a position which said: "You might be dealt the card which says that you suffer from a disability with those challenges that go with it, you may not be able to work but do not worry because we will give you a benefit with one hand and claw back 94 per cent with the other hand." That is not something that I would certainly sign up to. It is not anything that a reasonable, a rational or even a compassionate person would sign up to either. We have also been given the idea that we are targeting benefits better. But that is not the driver here, is it? The driver across all departments is to cut. That is the primary driver. They have not gone into this saying: "We want to target income support better" because you could have done that a long time ago and you could have done that on the many occasions where Deputy Southern has called for a complete review of the Social Security system. That is not because we disagree, and I think there is general consensus that the Social Security system does need a complete root and branch look at but it should not be done with the Sword of Damocles hanging over one's head where the imperative is simply cut, cut, cut, rather than help, help, help. We know that this is not the driving force, it is about implementing the hidden Tory agenda which this Government did not have the courage to stand on at the last elections. I repeat once again that they have no mandate for these cuts and they do not have any mandate for breaking the presumed social contract, which we have all been working to up until this point. I will not go through all of the arguments but I thank those who have reminded us that it makes an absolute nonsense not to index-link income support components when we live in a real world which is inflationary. If the Minister, either for Social Security or Treasury and Resources or Economic Development, has a magic wand where they can freeze the inflationary tendencies of Jersey Electricity, which incidentally we have learned with our Scrutiny  hats on that the price of electricity is coming down dramatically and has done,  not reflected in the electric bills. We are coming up to winter now. We know those gas prices in the long term will go up, the heating prices, the food prices, et cetera. If the Minister for Social Security can promise me that there will be no inflation either next year or in the next 4 years then I would be quite happy to withdraw part 1 of the amendment, but I do not think that is the reality and it certainly will not be. That is, of course, why the Council of Ministers have quite sensibly made sure they have protected the rental components for their friends at Andium because they need that return to the Treasury. I will go back to the point because this is essentially not about technicalities, this is a political debate about why we are here, about what our politics should be. I have said, and we have said, previously that the current economic model is not sustainable. It is essentially the Emperor's New Clothes, we can go riding around on the horse with no clothes on and it will only take a short amount of time before more and more people just point at the person riding around on the horse and say: "He has got no clothes on." It is the same with our economic model. It is no longer fit for purpose. The longer we bury our heads in the sand to that reality, it is only delaying the inevitable and storing up pain for our constituents in the meantime. Our - I would like to say "your" constituents but probably cannot - constituents will be worse off under these measures. I did not get into politics to harm people's standards of living. I think most of us, and I will remind them of the expression I said earlier, people want a hand up, they do not necessarily want a hand out and they certainly do not want our foot on their head when they are trying to get up on their feet. These amendments seek to take out some of the worst of the austerity measures that we are seeing and I would urge Members by saying you can quite easily support all of these parts. We know that from previous amendments yesterday, it is quite unlikely that the changes to the tax system will go through but, as the song goes, which side are you on? Which side are you on? I hope Members have maybe seen the Jersey version that was released by our talented local artists only this week in response to austerity doing what they can in the way they think they can for the cause. Which side are you on? I would encourage Members who perhaps up until now have not had the inclination to vote for the first part, to send out a strong message that we do need a different economic model so that message can get registered by the Council of Ministers, by those decision makers perhaps who are not in the Council of Ministers that we cannot go on as we are. It does not mean that if you vote for these amendments today that you are supporting a long-term socialist agenda. It does not mean that you are a closet member of the Reform Jersey Party or that you are a member of the wider Corbin, Russell Brand school of politics that is sweeping some corners of the U.K. But you can know as middle-of-the-road conservatives perhaps that you are supporting a commonsense approach, as I said earlier, a forwardist type of model where you say: "We do not want to make the worst off in our society even more worse off so that they cannot spend, they do not have enough to buy things in the economy." We do believe that a welfare state is a necessary part of any civilised society and that is not a leftist thing, it is simply common sense, it is socially democratic and it keeps capitalism functioning. If we undermine that welfare state by not giving people at least index-linked increases that they need, if we do not help those who have got difficulties with disability, other challenging circumstances, if we do not maintain emergency grants and loans then we are only making the situation worse. What it will do is lead to a greater social division and ultimately a bigger demand for change when the inevitable happens. So I make

the proposition. I do ask Members for their full support. The Bailiff :

You asked for the appel and, Deputy Tadier , you wanted to take 3 votes or 6 votes? Do you want the income and expenditure vote separately or in pairs, as it were.

Deputy M. Tadier : The 6 separately, Sir. The Bailiff :

The 6 separately. Very well, I invite Members to return to their seats. The first 3 votes are on the income side of things, as amended the first vote is on whether to increase the rate of tax for those whose income is greater than £100,000 a year so as to raise for 2017, £4.4 million, £3 million in 2018 and £3.1 million in 2019. I ask the Greffier to open the voting.

The Bailiff :

I will ask the Greffier to reset the system. The second vote is for £1.2 million in 2017, £600,000 in 2018 and £600,000 in 2019. I ask the Greffier to open the voting.