States Meeting Transcript - 8th October 2015

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT THURSDAY, 8th OCTOBER 2015

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption ...............................................................5

1. Medium Term Financial Plan 2016–2019 (P.72/2015): eleventh amendment (P.72/2015 Amd.(11))..................................................................................5

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):.......................................................5 The Deputy Greffier of the States: .............................................................5

1. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of St. Saviour (Chairman, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel):...................................................................................5

1. Deputy R.G. Bryans of St. Helier:........................................................7
2. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour:......................................................8
3. The Connétable of St. Brelade:..........................................................9
4. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:.......................................................10
5. Deputy S.M. Wickenden of St. Helier:..................................................11

6. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:.......................................................11
7. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. Helier:.......................................................12
8. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................13
9. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................14
10. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence : ..........................................16
11. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier:....................................................17
12. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ............................................................17
13. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter:................................................18
14. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:.................................................18 Deputy R.G.Bryans:..........................................................................20 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:....................................................................20
15. Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin : ....................................................20
16. Deputy S.M. Brée of St. Clement:...................................................21
17. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet :............................................................21 The Bailiff :...................................................................................22

2. Medium Term Financial Plan 2016-2019 (P.72/2015): thirteenth amendment (P.72/2015 Amd.(13))....................................................................23

The Bailiff :...................................................................................23 The Deputy Greffier of the States: ............................................................23

1. Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................23
2. Deputy R.G. Bryans: ...................................................................25
3. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary : ...................................................27
4. Deputy M.J. Norton of St. Brelade:.....................................................28
5. Deputy A.D. Lewis :....................................................................28
6. Senator L.J. Farnham :..................................................................30

7. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :....................................................................31
8. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................33
9. The Connétable of St. John:............................................................34
10. Senator I.J. Gorst :...................................................................34 The Connétable of St. Mary:..................................................................36
11. Deputy M. Tadier :..................................................................36
12. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ............................................................38
13. Deputy G.P. Southern :..............................................................38

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................40 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................40 Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement : .......................................................40 Deputy A.D. Lewis :..........................................................................40 The Connétable of St. Peter:..................................................................40 Deputy M. Tadier : ............................................................................40

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................41 The Connétable of St. Clement:..............................................................41 Deputy G.P. Southern :........................................................................41 Deputy A.D. Lewis :..........................................................................41 Senator I.J. Gorst :............................................................................41 The Connétable of St. Clement:..............................................................42 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:....................................................................42 The Bailiff :...................................................................................42

14. Deputy S.M.Brée:..................................................................42
15. Deputy D. Johnson of St. Mary:.....................................................42
16. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:............................................................43 Deputy J.A. Martin:..........................................................................45 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:....................................................................45
17. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet :............................................................45
18. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:...........................................................46
19. Deputy J.M. Maçon:................................................................47 The Bailiff :...................................................................................49

3. Medium Term Financial Plan 2016–2019 (P.72/2015): tenth amendment (P.72/2015 Amd.(10))................................................................................49

The Bailiff :...................................................................................49 The Deputy Greffier of the States: ............................................................49

1. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................49
2. Deputy R.G. Bryans: ...................................................................52
3. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................52 The Bailiff :...................................................................................52

4. Medium Term Financial Plan 2016–2019 (P.72/2015): fourteenth amendment (P.72/2015 Amd.(14))....................................................................52

The Bailiff :...................................................................................52 The Deputy Greffier of the States: ............................................................52

1. Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................53
2. Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence:......................................................55
3. Deputy P.D. McLinton of St. Saviour:..................................................57
4. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................58
5. The Connétable of St. Peter:............................................................59

6. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................59
7. Senator L.J. Farnham :..................................................................60
8. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :..........................................................60
9. Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................61 The Bailiff :...................................................................................61

5. Medium Term Financial Plan 2016–2019 (P.72/2015): fifteenth amendment (P.72/2015 Amd.(15))................................................................................62

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................62
2. Senator A.K.F. Green: ..................................................................65
3. Senator Z.A. Cameron:.................................................................65
4. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................66
5. Deputy P.D. McLinton: ................................................................66
6. Deputy S.J. Pinel of St. Clement:.......................................................67
7. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................67

6. Medium Term Financial Plan 2016–2019 (P.72/2015): seventh amendment (P.72/2015 Amd.(7))..................................................................................69

1.6.1 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):................................................69

7. Medium Term Financial Plan 2016–2019 (P.72/2015): Amendment (P.72/2015 Amd.) ...........................................................................................69

1. Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):................................................70
2. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................70

8. Medium Term Financial Plan 2016–2019 (P.72/2015): as amended ...................71

1. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................71
2. Deputy S.M. Wickenden:...............................................................74
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................74
4. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................76
5. Deputy A.D. Lewis :....................................................................77
6. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................78
7. The Deputy of St. Peter : ................................................................81
8. The Connétable of St. John:............................................................81
9. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :....................................................................82
10. Senator P.F. Routier: ................................................................85
11. Deputy S.M. Brée:..................................................................86
12. The Connétable of St. Peter:........................................................87
13. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:............................................................87
14. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................88
15. Senator Z.A. Cameron:..............................................................92
16. Senator I.J. Gorst :...................................................................94

2. Strategic Reserve Fund: funding for Independent Jersey Care Inquiry and transfers from and to the Consolidated Fund (P.76/2015) - as amended........................104

2.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):..................104

3. Independent Jersey Care Inquiry: amendment to Medium Term Financial Plan 2013– 2015 (P.75/2015) ........................................................................106

3.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Treasury and Resources - rapporteur):.....106

4. Draft Christmas Bonus (Repeal) (Jersey) Law 201- (P.102/2015)....................106

1. Deputy S.J. Pinel (The Minister for Social Security):..................................107

1. Deputy M. Tadier :....................................................................107
2. Deputy S.J. Pinel:.....................................................................108

2. Deputy S.J. Pinel:.....................................................................109

5. Draft Income Support (Miscellaneous Provisions No. 2) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.103/2015)............................................................................110

1. Deputy S.J. Pinel (The Minister for Social Security):..................................110
2. Deputy S.J. Pinel:.....................................................................112

6. Draft Social Security (Amendment of Law No. 9) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.105/2015)............................................................................113

1. Deputy S.J. Pinel (The Minister for Social Security):..................................113

1. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:.............................................................114
2. The Connétable of St. John:...........................................................114
3. Deputy A.D. Lewis :...................................................................115
4. Senator I.J. Gorst :.....................................................................115
5. Deputy S.J. Pinel:.....................................................................115

2. Deputy S.J. Pinel:.....................................................................115
3. Deputy S.J. Pinel:.....................................................................116

1. Senator I.J. Gorst :.....................................................................116
2. Deputy S.J. Pinel:.....................................................................116

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ..................117

7. The Connétable of St. Clement (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee)....117

ADJOURNMENT..............................................................................118

The Roll was called and the Deputy Greffier of the States led the Assembly in Prayer.

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption

1. Medium Term Financial Plan 2016–2019 (P.72/2015): eleventh amendment (P.72/2015 Amd.(11))

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

We therefore resume the debate.

Connétable S.W. Pallett of St. Brelade :

Before we start I just ask if I could be excused as I have a funeral to attend later on this morning. The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Members will note, Constable, you will be absent for the funeral. We therefore resume the debate on the Medium Term Financial Plan. We come to amendment 11 lodged by the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel and I ask the Greffier to read that amendment.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Paragraph (b) – After the words "Summary Table C" in sub-paragraph (i) insert the words – "except that the net revenue expenditure of the Education, Sport and Culture Department shall be increased by £263,200 in 2016"; and after the words "Summary Table D" in sub-paragraph (ii) insert the words – "except that the allocation to Contingency for 2016 shall be reduced by £263,200 to offset the increase in the net revenue expenditure of the Education, Sport and Culture Department".

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Deputy Doublet .

1. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of St. Saviour (Chairman, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel):

It is a pleasure to kick off the proceedings this morning and I can sympathise with Deputy Tadier when he said yesterday he has had a sleepless night. I have had the same and I think this goes some way in showing how important this amendment is to me and to my panel. Yesterday I mentioned the healthy level of respect that I have for the Council of Minister and I reiterate that before I begin. I recognise they have a very difficult job to do and I have been very pleased to see that education has been a clear priority throughout this term of office so far. We do keep hearing this phrase "Investing in education": "Let us invest in education. We will make these difficult decisions elsewhere so we can put this extra money in." It is almost as if we have had this carrot dangled in front of us of:  "We are going to do this, we are going to improve in this important area of education" and that the stick is almost these cuts to the public sector. Being a moderate person I have thought on balance maybe we should make some sacrifices so that we can give our children a first class education system.  My panel and I looked at the financial plan to see objectively if there was investment in education and what kind of things the department were going to be spending the money on next  year and  beyond. We were  hoping to see some innovation, something new, something tangible, some details of how this very new and enthusiastic Director of Education that we are very lucky to have was going to be enabled by the Minister and by the Council of Ministers to start putting in place some of these exciting improvements we keep hearing about. There is a definite start in there, all credit to the Ministers. There are some things in there, there is some new growth. If you have the proposition, amendment 11, you can see on the back there is a table there and I would urge you to dig that out to aid your understanding. We are grateful to the department that they did break down the money for us and where it was going. If you have a look in that table you can see 2 areas where the panel have judged so far that the money is very likely to have this

tangible, positive impact on the children and we will be monitoring the effects as they go along. Where it says "raising achievement" and "early years" these are put in the category of new growth. This is money that will be going specifically to our youngest children through the early years and to the most vulnerable children with the raising achievement, and this is the equivalent of the U.K. (United Kingdom) pupil premium. This is what I understand to be investment and this is what will make a difference to the children in Jersey. This is possibly worth the difficult decisions elsewhere in terms of cuts. There are 2 other projects in there labelled as new growth, a data system and extending the professional partnering system  which  is our  Jersey alternative  to  Ofsted, thank goodness, and the panel will be monitoring those as well. The department do feel these are new growth and they should help to improve the standards so this is brilliant. Then if we look at the rest of the money that is going in on this table there is a category there called "Committed" and there are 2 items there, and one of those items is for the I.C.T. (Information and Communications Technology) strategy. This is something that has been ongoing. This is not new investment, this is a really good project which has been started and they are quite rightly putting some more money in. It is not really new investment. We have new buildings. There is a new school going to be built at Les Quennevais. This is an essential. The panel had a tour round this school. There are some fantastic and inspiring teachers there, polite children, it was a joy to look around but the building is crumbling and full of asbestos. This is an absolute must do. This is not: "Where shall we invest? Let us have something nice and extra." This is an absolute essential that children are not being taught in crumbling buildings. This is similar again when you look at the other category which is called "Demographics". This means there are more pupils going into the system. There is a bulge in the numbers, more babies being born, more children so we need more teachers and more classes. The demographics in particular is something that does not count in the panel's opinion as new investment because the Minister is obliged by law to provide these children that are going into the system and for these increased numbers and for the demographics. That is a have to do not a nice to have. That is something that has to be done just for the Education Department to stand still in terms of what it is offering. That is not investment. The panel did look at all of these and we dug down into what each of these were. If you total up those 4 new growth items that are at the bottom of the table you get a total investment in education of just over £1.5 million. We asked the question on the flip side of this how much money is the department being asked to cut? The answer was they are being required to cut just over £1.75 million. If you do the maths you subtract the £1.75 million from the £1.5 million it comes out as a negative. I am afraid the panel's view is that this is a cut in real terms which is not consistent with the Strategic Plan that has been approved by this Assembly. This amendment simply returns  just over a quarter of a million to the Education Department budget so that they are at least up to neutral. My panel and I feel that this is the very least that this Assembly can do to go some way towards fulfilling that promise that we have all

made to the children of Jersey that we will invest in them. [9:45]

We believe this is a relatively small amount and we have chosen to take it out of the contingencies being that it is a small amount for 2016, and we will be looking when we get the detail at the subsequent years to see if we need to do similar calculations. This money, a small amount, will have a massive impact. This will enable the Minister and the director and the department to choose perhaps one or 2 or 3 extra projects to invest in. If you look through their business plan there are so many more things that they would like to be doing and I know the Minister will be speaking against me, which I think probably without guessing he would probably find that quite hard to do but there are so many more things that education can be investing in. We want to give this relatively small amount of money in the grand scheme of things to the department so they can do one or 2 more things just to make that difference and to invest in education, to have a positive impact on the Islands' children. I urge Members to speak in favour of this amendment and stand up again as you did during the Strategic Plan and share with other Members how important you feel education to be, and I move this proposition.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak for the amendment? Deputy Bryans.

1. Deputy R.G. Bryans of St. Helier :

The Deputy did speak about respect and trust that was mentioned yesterday, and I do respect the Deputy . I respect the Scrutiny Panel, and I respect everybody that has brought these amendments. I would like to say at the outset that I am very pleased that the 3 Deputies that have lodged amendments have focused their attention on education because it shows we share the same ambitions regarding the welfare and education of our children. It also allows me to articulate and share with the Assembly what we have done and what we hope to do. I am also pleased that 2 of the Deputies prompted by their work on the Scrutiny Panel, who have praised the department for our openness and transparency, have felt that more can be done. I agree and look forward to working with them in the future. Those Deputies and I have the same aim, the best outcome for our children. It is not my intention to quietly govern. It is my intention and that of my new director, the department, heads and teachers to transform what we currently have into an education system that presents our pupils with the best this Island can offer. Read our business plan and you can easily see how creative and ambitious we are. We at Education are a dedicated department wholly focused on the wellbeing of our children and passionate about affecting the education of all of those who fall under our care. Every child must have every opportunity to reach their full potential, and it has been said before children only get one chance. We have already illustrated to our community through a new and improved business plan our commitment to a focused set of principles that we feel and have been universally accepted are the key to unlocking the potential for teachers and students alike. It is children who are the heart of our plan, and the Government has made a commitment to ensure all that can be done will be done to realise our goals. A question asked of me just the other day is how did this amendment arise? I think at its heart there is a misunderstanding and a difference in perception, a difference of interpretation, as Deputy Doublet said to me the other day: "Perhaps semantics." Since we began communicating to the Scrutiny Panel we have maintained a line of openness and transparency where nothing is hidden. In fact this aspect the panel themselves have been effusive in their praise for us so it may seem strange that we have been accused of hiding something. Nothing can be further from the truth. In fact it was agreed at the last panel hearing to provide an extra meeting so that they can fully appreciate what we are doing. Our door is always open and that is true for all States Members. It is the case that sometimes when looking at sets of figures they can be read in different ways. Both Deputy Doublet and I are focused on the wellbeing of the children. That is implicit. We are not accountants and I, like her, find the high level of figures that are produced sometimes confusing but there is no doubt we seek the same outcome. One of my roles is, while down in the detail, to maintain focus on the wider picture and to keep track of the Government's vision. Along with my director and finance director we have carefully picked a path that preserves our intentions while playing our part in balancing the budget. There have been no cuts to schools' budgets and where we have reduced

spending we have made that as painless as possible. At the last Scrutiny hearing I was asked by the Deputy : "Do you agree that overall once we have done the sums it is a cut not an investment?" to which I replied: "It is an emphatic yes, it is an investment." I believe there is an element of confusion. It happens. To articulate that answer as a department we had one of the biggest budgets in the States along with all the other departments to make savings. We carefully did that but managed to secure our frontline services and captured investment for our pupil premium. It was a balancing act. As I was once told: "When you pick up a stick you pick up both ends." When asked: "Are you making savings or receiving investment?" the answer is both. The end result is the same, meeting both our legal and strategic responsibilities. The Deputy suggests that the Council of Ministers are pretending education is a strategic priority. We are not pretending; it genuinely is. We have received investments in terms of capital commitments to the level of £55 million, and the Deputy is quite right when she talks about the situation we have at Les Quennevais. It is an old school, it does need redoing but £40 million is being spent on Les Quennevais, the rest going to improvements at Grainville and St. Mary's schools. The bottom line is we are up by £2.8 million in a year when we have £145 million structural deficit. This proves the Government's commitment is solid, tangible and workable. To summarise, we have created a plan that we have embarked on. To change now would present us with all kinds of problems. The children have won both ways. We have protected them from the savings and they have benefited from the growth, especially the most vulnerable. That is why the pupil premium is so important. It is a small team with a big job. We have a small lean team. Distractions can have a real impact especially when we have only just started on a new school year. Finally it does not matter about the ins and outs of the accountancy so long as the result is the best possible for our pupils. I appreciate what the Deputy is trying to achieve but we have already done what was asked of us in providing savings and have secured the funding for the future demands.  The amendment is unnecessary. As you might expect and as the Deputy has already suggested I will be rejecting this proposition. I hope Members can appreciate what we are trying to do in education and reject it also.

Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier :

On a point of order Deputy Doublet did not say in her speech that the Council of Ministers was pretending to prioritise education. She never did and Ministers must not put words into the mouths of those who oppose them.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

What is the point of order? It is not a point of order, Deputy . You are perfectly at liberty to speak and make that point if you wish.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Does any other Member wish to speak on the amendment? Deputy Maçon.

2. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour :

I will not reiterate the points that my chairman has already made. I have forwarded an email on behalf of the chairman to all States Members and it is taken from the latest innovation review. On one of the back pages of that review you trawl all the way through back to page 89 there is a table within which looks at Government expenditure on education as a percentage of G.D.P. (Gross Domestic Product). It looks at various jurisdictions, Malta, Iceland and Ireland, and then when it looks at Jersey we come to the bottom of that table at 2.5 per cent spending and these are taken from the year of 2014. When we are looking at our education services and the contribution that our society is making to education it is quite small. I am not entirely sure whether those figures also include how higher education is calculated in that fund because there is a slight difference between when you are looking at education spending in the U.K. compared to Jersey because they have a separate fund for higher education whereas in Jersey higher education is also lumped in with the old overall education spend, as I understand  it. Regardless, what  it does demonstrate is our contribution to education is quite limited and we have to ask ourselves is this the best that we can be doing. When we look at the aims of the Education Department with the arguable stagnation in the levels of our grades that we are receiving it shows that more does need to be done in education. We have signed up to various things such as the 101 Day guarantee and all of this comes to the importance of investing in young years and early years. Certainly within the review that we have just done on special educational need this fund which could be used would be perfect in the whole engaging and supporting parents in helping them with children with special educational needs because the department accepted that this is an area of work which needs to be worked on. Currently we do not know where the funding for that is going to come from. There you go, these are laudable projects which need to be done, the department accepts need to be done and this is the contribution towards that. It is key work. Let us not pretend it is not key work. Let us not pretend it is not essential work. This is why the Scrutiny Panel felt so strongly that when looking at the figures we did not feel that having a net reduction in the Education budget excluding capital was a

fair way of saying: "We are investing in education." As the chairman has outlined, a lot of the spend for growth bids for education are simply running to stand still because of the demographics. Certainly I would hope all Members would agree that the future of the Island is very much wrapped into how we support our young people and a pound which is invested in education is not a pound wasted. It is a pound for the future more so. I do hope Members find themselves able to support this amendment today.

3. The Connétable of St. Brelade :

Just briefly, I have heard it a few times in the last couple of days; it is a well-intentioned proposition and this is definitely a well-intentioned proposition. The department and I respect what the Deputy is trying to do in putting this proposition to the Assembly today. The Minister himself is deeply immersed in improving standards within education. I can echo all the comments that the Minister has made this morning. I have seen it close up. He is deeply passionate about driving up standards throughout our education system. The department is investing in many things within the education system. One of the issues that the department has been short on, the Minister said it quite a few times, is the lack of data about the performance of schools and that is something that he is working very hard to try to improve so that we can plan much more closely to the future. One of the innovations being implemented before too long will be the introduction of a scheme similar to the U.K. pupil premium. That is something that will be very important in terms of investing many of our vulnerable children. We are investing in education. There is £1.5 million in new growth and I know the Deputy has already mentioned the I.T. (Information Technology) which is vitally important to driving up standards and certainly providing as we move forward the skills that we are going to need within the economy especially in the digital sector. It is something that the previous Scrutiny Panel did a review and I would certainly ask her if she at some stage follows that up to ensure that that policy is implemented in full. I know it is something that the department is heavily involved in trying to ensure that we deliver. There is a huge investment in education going on at the moment. The Deputy did say the Les Quennevais school is a must do, and it is a must do. It is deeply close to my heart and it is a huge £40 million investment in the capital programme and what we have to remember is that as much as there are pressures on other parts of government in terms of investment, the capital programme is also under pressure. To spend £40 million on a school is not an easy decision to make and it was not an easy decision to find where that money was coming from. To say that we are not investing in education, and I am not saying the Deputy said that but if the view is that we are not, that is just not what is happening at the moment. There is huge investment in education. As the Minister said, the department has had to recognise it has to play its part in savings and it has done that. They have not been easy decisions. I have been round the table when some of these decisions were made, but the actual savings that we have been asked to make in terms of this proposition of £263,000 when you look at the overall budget, and I do not know if I have the actual figure right here but it is about right, it is a quarter per cent of the whole

of the Education budget. [10:00]

It is a really small part and the department has to play its part, as with all other departments, in meeting some of those savings. Again this proposition is looking to take even more money out of the Contingency Fund. It is something I am a little bit concerned about just overall when we look at some of the other propositions as well about the amount that we potentially could be raiding the Contingency Fund for. If all the propositions that are looking to take funds out of the Contingency Fund go through it adds up to around about £3 million, which over the term of this M.T.F.P. (Medium Term Financial Plan) is £11 million. It really is going to put extreme pressure on the flexibility of the Contingency Fund to meet demands as we move forward. All I would ask Members to do is be very careful about what they are going to vote for in 2 of the 3 propositions that are coming up. There is going to be an awful lot of pressure on our funding as we move forward and to bite into contingency at this particular time is not something I can support. I do see what the Deputy has tried to do with her proposition but, as has already been said by the Minister, this proposition is unnecessary. There is huge investment in education, something that the Minister and I know the 2 Assistant Ministers will fight desperately hard to ensure carries on over the period of this 3-year term. All I can say to the Deputy is I understand her proposition but I cannot support it.

4. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

After being in the Assembly for a little while you get to know what the coded language is and one of those expressions that is used quite a lot is well-intentioned proposition, patronising rhetoric that is trotted out when the Council of Ministers know they have been caught with their trousers down. That is when it comes out. It is used when they know they should not be opposing a proposition and when they know that their tricks in this case of sophistry and creative accountancy has been found out, and it has been found out by the Scrutiny Panel who have tried to work very closely with the Education Department and do, and perhaps in one sense with the new chairman has not realised the games that get played in politics. She and her panel have quite rightly called out the Council of Ministers on their strategic priority which says: "We will put more money into education and health and that is how we are going to justify the painful cuts" but when you look at the fine detail which any Scrutiny Panel worth its salt does independently and based on evidence they have said: "Hang on a minute, when you take out the basics that you should be paying for anyway, that you have already committed to the new growth, does not outweigh the cuts you are making" which is what the chairman said. That means that you are not putting more money in, you are taking money away from education. Of course that does not sound very good if the Council of Ministers say: "We are putting loads of painful cuts through but do not worry because we are also cutting the Education budget but only slightly because we are giving with one hand and we are taking more than we gave away with the other." We know in our own lives if that happens if someone says: "Do not worry, I am going to give you a pay rise next year. I am going to give you £1,000 extra for the privilege of being a States Member but I am going to take £1,200 back to charge you for your parking." I should not joke about that because that might happen, of course, but without the £1,000 part, and I will not look at the Minister for Transport and Technical Services over there. Clearly for us we would know that we had been short changed and that is exactly what is happening here with the Education Department. There is new money going in, more of the old money being taken out. It does not take a rocket scientist to know that one is being short changed. It is key because words about improving education are fine, we can all say that, but the bottom line is the bottom line. If you want to improve standards in education of course it is not all about money, but we already know that we have an over-stretched system in many of our schools. I am glad the chairman proposed Les Quennevais School because that is a success in spite of its building and not because of it. It is because of all the goodwill but imagine the kind of results that could be achieved in a brand new build with the space for the students to flourish and the teachers to feel more at ease in their teaching. The reason that it is important in the Jersey context is because we have a very divided society which is reflected in the education system. We know that it is very unusual if we compare it to the U.K. where they have some 6 per cent or 7 per cent of students in fee paying schools at secondary level,  in Jersey it is almost half and it is getting to the point  in Jersey unfortunately where if you want a good education, if you want to be guaranteed a good education you send your children to a fee-paying school. If you do not have funds or do not ideologically agree with that you take your chances in the public sector schools. That is the reality of it and that is not withstanding the great work that those schools do, but that is why it is very important. I am very concerned about where those cuts are, because this is a cut if we do not allocate this money, and who are they going to hit the most. Is it going to hit the ones who are okay, who have lots of parental support because that is the other key thing? If you have lots of encouragement, parental support and support networks around you when you are being educated you are more likely to succeed if you come from a better socioeconomic background. You perhaps get after school extracurricular activities. When your parent or parents, you may only have one, are working full

time and do not have the time to look after you that is where the money is needed in real terms. It is a choice today of either cutting the Education budget or leaving it as it is. It is not about growth because we know that is not what we are having. The key thing is for me it makes sense to support this. I thought we had a very diffident speech by the Assistant Minister for Education, Sport and Culture. He was saying: "Essentially I would like to support this but if all of the amendments were successful then we would be taking too much money out of the contingency, almost saying to be selective is what I heard about which ones you vote for: "Maybe vote for this one but do not vote for others." As to the Assistant Minister for Education, Sport and Culture, he should be the one leading the charge for extra budgets. He should be biting the hand off the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture. He should be biting the hand off Deputy Maçon when he brings his proposition and he should be biting my hand off when I come for a very small amount of money for preserving our French heritage in schools. I would say that the ball is in the court of the Ministers. They should be fully supporting this and we certainly as an Assembly should be backing the Scrutiny Panel.

5. Deputy S.M. Wickenden of St. Helier :

When I am listening to the debate here there is something that pops up in my mind quite heavily which is what is the use and the function of Scrutiny if not to work with the departments to try and pick up on things that may have slipped through the gap. It should be respected otherwise why is it there at all? The Scrutiny Panel here they have not ambushed, they have not come in with a proposition from out of nowhere. They have worked with the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture. They have been open and honest and transparent about what their figures are, what they see within them and of course I agree with the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture that figures can be looked at in many different ways. I know that from my work recently of looking through figures. They can be confusing. I had a friend recently having a go at me on Facebook as a politician saying: "What a good use of taxpayers' money for this, that and the other" and he is a teacher, and he was having a go at me about where there is not enough funding within education. I was assuring him that we are. It is part of the Strategic Plan, we are putting more money into education and that is one of the key priorities. I am little bit worried about whether I lied, I do not know. To say that the contingency has to be very careful, I have just looked at the figures and in 2014 £1.697 million from contingency went to Education. In 2013 £3.024 million went from contingency into Education. Does that mean that if we are not allowed to use it to try and make sure that we are meeting our strategic goals? I would like to hear from the Minister for Treasury and Resources about this. If we cannot use it to meet the strategic goals that we set out in our Strategic Plan here, then it will not be used for education for the year and we will not see it turn up as an extra bit of money in Education by the end of the 2016 financial accounts and reports. I am having a bit of trouble with this one and I would like to hear from the Minister for Treasury and Resources about such things.

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

I am reading the comments of the Council of Ministers and it was in response to the Constable of St. Brelade talking about contingency because when I read point one it says on page 2: "The Council of Ministers cannot support reducing central contingencies for this purpose of this amendment. Contingencies provide an essential buffer to volatile areas of expenditure such as social security benefits, and over the period of the M.T.F.P. provide an important part of the flexibility needed in the plan." They go on to say: "Contingencies should not be used for funding recurring spending, only to provide temporary funding until a permanent reallocation of funding is agreed." I look on contingency provisions on page 5 we have £5 million or 1 per cent of total States for general department expenditure and these are in the contingency prioritised, and £2 million or 2 per cent for social security benefits. The balance of the £37 million of contingencies, which in their own comment should not be used for one-offs or regular payments is .. I agree with point one, £10 million for redundancies will be a one-off; £5 million for economic and productivity growth initiatives surely that is not a one-off that is continuing over the plan; £7 million for restructuring projects to support public sector reform, continuing over the plan; £4 million for the Committee of Inquiry .. well, that can be continuing for ever; and £4 million for the provision of pay and pension proposals, all in £37 million a year Contingency Fund. Deputy Doublet has pointed out, this is their comments and the Minister reiterated it: "Some of the remaining savings relate to staff." If you look at the demographics I am very worried that you will get larger classes which will make it more difficult for teachers, and we do know that everyone should be making savings, but to say that this £263,000 cannot be taken out of the contingency because it does not fit with one set of criteria and then go on to itemise millions worth of criteria. We have lost the vote on being able to separate the years so we are talking in total contingencies of £148 million over the lifetime of the M.T.F.P. This is a very sensible amendment. It is not semantics. It is a matter with maths. If you put in what they have, you take away what they have saved, you are short £263,200. It is quite simple. Where would I want that? I reiterate what Deputy Tadier said of the Constable of St. Brelade, who is the Assistant Minister for Education, Sport and Culture, there are things being cut in different areas. There are things that should be done, and it is a small amount in the scheme of things, but again I wanted more from the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture. I wanted to know where these cuts were coming. I can only see, as I say, with the demographics they are standing still, there will be larger classes; teachers will be under more pressure. We are already having a problem with recruitment and retention so do not put the pressure on. This amendment is straightforward, it is easy and it does fall in what the bottom line contingency is because we do not know. Just trust us to spend this  but we are saying:  "No", support this amendment, put just over an extra quarter of a million into the Education budget and make life easier for our future children, the children in the system today and the children that are coming through in the next 4 years. It is an easy amendment for me to support. The Council of Ministers are all over the place with their comments. It really is what do you decide that you would like to

direct some of the contingency to. The money is there, I know where I would like to direct it. [10:15]

7. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. Helier :

Although I fully accept that part of this debate is all about financial discipline, I read an interesting paragraph on page 3 of the comments from the Council of Ministers because I was struggling to find out where the £270,000 had come from, and it is worth noting that this relates to the restraint of non-staff inflation, additional savings do not need to be found for this as the department has already been allocated the same amount higher in the table. Some of the remaining savings relate to staff and the department has been assisted in achieving these through a restructuring provision in the recent States voluntary severance scheme. Therefore the majority of the savings will not affect the education received by the children. I think that is quite an important thing that Members should note from the Council of Ministers, assuming that it is true, of course, and I would like to think it is. Playing devil's advocate here, if I was the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture, I would be snapping the Deputy 's hand off here because there is a degree of maths that perhaps the Minister had not spotted and an opportunity has occurred for Scrutiny to delve into those numbers and see a gap. It can be funded from contingency. The contingency is £37 million - Deputy Le Fondré is not here at the moment - as flagged up several times already. It is a very small amount of money but, as Deputy Maçon mentioned, these small amounts of money can do a huge amount of good in this area of public support and education, and you mentioned one particular initiative. Having said that, maybe that initiative should be identified within the detail of the Budget for next year. It is not and I do not know why. So, although I would advocate financial discipline, which is what this is about

- and the Council of Ministers has explained where that saving has happened because that is basically the saving the Minister has been asked to make by reorganising  his department, by accepting some severance from staff that perhaps were not core to the business of education - overall with an £111 million budget it is a drop in the ocean, but for one particular scheme, which the Deputy mentioned earlier, and maybe others it is a bit of a lifeline. I am slightly surprised that the Minister is not biting the Deputy 's hand off. So I am slightly torn on this one. I want to see

financial discipline - the Chief Minister is nodding there; he is quite right - but on the other hand there is a bit of a degree of maybe slight error here in terms of the maths, which is quite ironic seeing as it is the Education Department. The Deputy is only trying to put it right and I can see where she is coming from. So I would like to hear her summing up before I decide what I am going to do. As I say, we should be promoting financial discipline but there is an opportunity here for the Minister to grab a little extra funding and maybe just push one of those extra initiatives across the line which he was not expecting.

8. Senator I.J. Gorst :

I will go first if that is all right. When we look back at M.T.F.P. number one, I hope we have been quite clear that there were some lessons to be learned. I think the Scrutiny Panels, Corporate Services and P.A.C. (Public Accounts Committee), have majored on what they think those lessons were. The difficulty of those lessons are that they are mostly accounting lessons and, of course, on top of accounting factors we have to take into consideration economic factors and social factors. We look back on M.T.F.P. 1 and, okay, we know the history of the income forecasts but we also have to ask ourselves if there are things that we can learn. What did we do in M.T.F.P. 1? We, in effect - and I think it was the current chairman of the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel and the then chairman of P.A.C. that stood and spoke against what we were doing - allocated contingencies to departments because of what we thought the income was going to be virtually right at the start on day one. We said we are going to do this in the first year, this in the second year, the department wants to do this in the third year, and they were allocated. If we look back you could say it was right to get that money into the economy from an economic perspective, but from the flexibility that we then found that we needed in 2015, that flexibility was not there. What we then ended up having to do, which the Scrutiny Panel in their report have criticised and the C.I.P.F.A. (Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy) adviser has criticised, we ended up in a position of having to change budgets at fairly short notice in 2015 to make them balance. A Scrutiny Panel and the adviser have said that that is not a good place to find yourself in. It is better to have flexibility in your plan all the way through, and we took some of that flexibility out by allocating contingencies. We need to think about that argument as we go through the other amendments as well. But I just want to come back to the idea that Scrutiny .. they have done good work and I think that they are working very well with the department and they are very supportive of what the department is endeavouring to do. Therefore, it is difficult for the Minister and Assistant Minister to stand up and say they do not accept this amendment because they have a really positive, critical friend working relationship. They want to see the same outcomes for children that come across the department's desk, as it were. I do not think for a minute that the department have tried to hide anything. In fact, the reverse: the department have been absolutely open with their numbers. I am looking at the table on page 4 of the amendment and the number that the Scrutiny Panel have calculated. Members will see clearly they have from the growth money, from the money that the

Ministers have said they accept that the Education Department needs for 2016, that is £4.8 million - £4.8 million - Ministers have said the department is going to have in 2016. 2016, that is nearly £5 million. That by anybody's estimate is an investment in education and is a very good and positive thing. But what the Scrutiny Panel have then done is said: "Let us just drill down and rightly scrutinise those numbers. What do they include?" and we see that around - these are just rough calculations - £2.3 million is because the department needs to prepare for demographics and those demographic changes. The department makes projections about what those demographics are and I think it is fair to say that generally the department is and has historically been cautious and not all that money has been spent on demographics in the year that they have calculated it for. But the Scrutiny Panel seem to think that is not growth money because that is a demographic growth, but it is growth money and we deal with Health in exactly the same way. Health look at the operations that are coming online, the procedures that are coming online, the increased growth in drugs cost, the increased need for drugs, and they try to do a calculation and we give them growth money for that calculation. We do not say: "That is not growth money for Health because they have to do it

anyway." We say: "No, that is this Assembly, that is Government giving them more money" and that is what we are doing today. So I do not think it is right to make the arbitrary calculation with regard to demographics in that way. Then if I can take the other 2 amounts that the Scrutiny Panel have deducted from the growth money to suggest it is not really growth, they total - a slightly easier number without a calculator - £850,000 in 2016. Next to that we have the word "committed." What does that mean? That means that that is work that the department is doing but there is not funding for. Why is there not funding for it in the base budget? There is not funding because last time round we used contingencies to fund it. It was not the right .. the difficulty we find ourselves in is: is it right to use contingencies in this way or is it right to put things in base budgets? We all know that at the start of a plan it is better and more open and transparent to put it into base budgets because otherwise the money is not ongoing. Otherwise the money runs out and we do not want to do that again by saying we are going to give the Education Department a bit of extra money from contingencies, which will then run out. They are going to start a work which should have been put into base budgets. Because they started a fantastic I.C.T. skills strategy. The Minister could talk all day about it and I do not think any single one of us would bore from his comments about what is happening because we see it right across our schools. That is a fantastic piece of work but it was never properly funded. It was because we saw that there was a need for it. It came from contingencies. The department now is putting that right and saying if we want that work to continue and to improve we are going to properly fund it. Who would not say that we should not allocate for extra running costs of new builds? Yes, we should. Yes, we absolutely should. But we use that word "committed" because we have made the building. We do not need to say it is committed. We can describe it as something else. So it is difficult for me and, of course, I can dice and cut numbers any way you choose, being an accountant, because that is what the profession is all about, but as I see it this plan in 2016 gives nearly £5 million extra to Education. Rather than us making arbitrary decisions about where to cut it, I think we should congratulate the Minister for the robust argument that his officers have had with other officers and then ultimately with Ministers about money that he needs to improve standards. He has been no shrinking violet, let us put it like that. He believes passionately in improving standards and giving good outcomes to all the children under his care and he takes that very personally indeed. I believe that the £4.8 million is the right number. I do not believe that we should be arbitrarily suggesting that some of that money is not growth money when it is, because it is clearly in front of us, and, therefore, I ask that Members do not support the amendment but they support the Minister and his team in the fantastic work that

they are doing.

9. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

There is not much for me to add after the Chief Minister has taken my thunder a little bit.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair): You do not have to if you do not need to. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

No, I am going to just [Laughter] .. very kind of you to say so, Sir. I was just going to add a couple of points and a piece of clarification, if I may. I think the proposer of this amendment has done absolutely the right things in many ways and the panel themselves should be commended for the work they have undertaken, the passion that they clearly have for education, and I am sure that all Members in this Assembly share that the need to invest in our young people is critical. It is critical for the future of the Island in every respect, not just economically, socially and beyond. I think that the overall Medium Term Financial Plan makes it perfectly clear that there is £27 million of new growth funding for education, recognising exactly the position and importance of that particular area. The specifics of this amendment I have to admit at face value it looks very seductive. It is a small, in many respects, sum of money in comparison to the entire spend of the States, but just to pick up on the point that the Chief Minister made about the additional funding for 2016 - and this is contained within the helpful report from the Scrutiny Panel where it picks out the figures - £4.8 million of growth in 2016, and that is growth, it comes down in many respects to a definition of what growth is. We have had a discussion. The Chief Minister has given a very good explanation, I thought, about demographic spend. That is something that has to be funded whichever way you look at it and, therefore, it is not unreasonable to call it growth. I think the interesting point if you wanted to play with the numbers is the fact that £4.8 million of growth, there are identified savings that the department is delivering of £1.7 million. You could deduct the 2 and arrive at the conclusion that the growth was only £3 million if you wanted to look at it like that. But the reality is the savings that are referred to are largely efficiencies. They are not impacting on frontline services. They are not impacting on the quality of the education, raising standards or any of the important areas the department I know is impacting on.

[10:30]

Education, like any department, has to drive greater efficiencies, do more for less, and they are doing that and I think that is to be commended. So whichever way I seek to look at this, and I hope Members agree, there is significantly more money going into Education not just in 2016 but over the course of the plan. I would just pick up on the I.C.T. skills that, again, the Chief Minister mentioned. That is a really, really important area and it does talk to this issue about contingencies and how they have been managed in the past and how we must manage them in the future. That is to ensure that they are not used for recurring expenditure as they have been perhaps previously. What we saw with the I.C.T. skills area, which has been developed and is fantastic, is that it was short-term funding for something that was obviously going to be a longer term cost. That is not a good position for us to find ourselves in, but this growth of £4.8 million has a solution in there for I.C.T. skills to ensure that they can develop as they should into the future. Contingencies are not sustainable in the long term; they are for one-off emergencies. I would like to pick up Deputy Martin's point about the level of £37 million in contingencies. I understand. Many Members have mentioned this. I heard it yesterday. I see Deputy Le Fondré smiling. He talked a lot about it yesterday. What I would like to just focus on is the fact that the contingencies, the core contingency, is for emergencies where we have storm damage, a seawall falling down, pandemic flu, whatever it is that is unexpected. The Social Security area with regard to benefits is another possibility as well for genuine need for contingencies. That is £7 million. Now, what Deputy Martin has referred to are various other items which are included under contingencies and the reason that that is done is because there is a good and strong governance structure around the contingency funding area. The use of an allocation of contingency funding has to go to the Council of Ministers and ultimately it has to be signed off by the Minister for Treasury and Resources. It is important that there is a governance structure around it when we are dealing with these types of elements of funding like the Committee of Inquiry, for example. Some of the other ones that were mentioned by the Deputy were economic growth. There is a plan in there, if you look across the lines, for the repayment of that particular sum of money. It is being borrowed and we will come on to this later, from the Strategic Reserve, but it has to be repaid and it is being repaid and that is what the plan shows. But I will deal with that in due course. I hope that Members realise that as far as this particular amendment is concerned we have to stick to the plan that we have. There is significant additional funding in for Education and I would hope that Members will reject this particular amendment and support the Council of Ministers. Otherwise, as the Assistant Minister for Education, Sport and Culture pointed out, on a cumulative basis over the amendments that we are going to be discussing this morning and debating, there is a total of around about £3 million potential draw on contingencies. This may only be at face value £263,000 but the cumulative amount is significant and it is not the right use for contingency. It is not the right way to approach it. It is all about fiscal discipline, as Deputy Andrew Lewis referred to, and just to pick up on his

point, there are no errors in the maths here. I hope I have explained the growth and the savings and efficiencies. There is growth into Education, even in 2016. There are no errors in the maths. But fiscal discipline is critical and using contingencies as suggested in this way is not something I believe that the Assembly should be supporting or condoning. I therefore ask for the amendment to be rejected.

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

I am glad to be following the last 2 speakers. For the avoidance of doubt, I will be supporting the amendment. Originally, I had a couple of points to make but I wanted to pick up on a couple of comments from the previous 2 speakers. I will start with the Chief Minister, who I note from the information I received will be giving a speech to the local association for both chartered and certified accountants at their annual C.P.D. (Continuous Professional Development) next week. I am sure they will be delighted to know that his view of accountancy is about how they can slice and dice numbers any which way you like because that is effectively what he implied in his speech. I must admit I kind of thought we have a thing called ethical standards, believe it or not, and it is accountants that took the view of the expression of what is a true and fair view. The point of my approach to accountancy is one is trying to bring clarity to a fog generated by a lot of other people around numbers. Now, the reason I make that point is that we heard a couple of remarks but we keep going on about investment, we are investing in education, investing in health and all that type of stuff. I think that is one thing that does wind people up a bit and it is interesting when you speak to some of the new Members who have come in. When we have been in here for a long time we get used to a lot of the terminology and some of the people who come in from the real world outside very recently say: "What is this? Because outside in the private sector or wherever it is, that phrase means this." You realise over time you just get used to these expressions coming through. Surely if all we are doing is maintaining day to day responsibilities, that cannot be investment. That is maintaining your responsibilities. So if our legal obligation is about dealing with demographics, that is not something you can control. Therefore, any new money that comes in to deal with those extra demographic issues are an expenditure pressure, no question, but is that investment or is that maintaining your legal responsibilities? I will accept it gets slighter greyer, the next comment. If you are putting in, let us say, £40 million into a new school at Les Quennevais, if you are replacing an asset that was maybe £20 million of that, is that not replacing an existing asset? Yes, there will be some new facilities in there - that will be investment - but it is not fully £40 million of investment. It will be less than that because part of it is just replacing a decaying and old asset that needs replacing because that is your responsibility of maintaining your estate. The fact that people in the past have not done their jobs for whatever reason does not mean

that suddenly it is an investment.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Could we please let the Deputy continue without too much interruption from the left-hand side? Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

Thank you, Sir. It is this continuous colour and terminology where this is about maintaining our responsibilities. Yes, there is another terminology. Senator Maclean made reference to the contingency allocation for the productivity side is going to be repaid. That is great. It is not a spend, it is just a loan or something. My interpretation of the analysis on Summary Table I - I appreciate we are on C at the moment but I am picking up on a remark - is that the way it is going to be repaid is from the proceeds of sales of assets. So, in other words, at the moment you have something here which we are going to sell - hopefully at a profit - so we are not going to have that asset anymore and we are just going to replace the expenditure that we have just sold so that net potentially we are worse off. Or, sorry, it is not coming from nowhere is what I am trying to say. The money is being spent and the Strategic Reserve eventually will be put back to a position but the Strategic Reserve as a whole will be worse off because the money has come out and it has gone out for a period of time. I am not expressing myself very well there. The point is it is being paid for or, sorry, it is being replaced perhaps is a better expression from the sale or removal of another asset, and probably an income-generating asset I would suspect. The terminology just continually goes on that we are investing, we are investing, we are investing at such a high level. I think a lot of it is maintaining and fulfilling our normal responsibilities. Fine, that is where we are, but let us get the terminology right. Contingency: I have to say I am unclear. From my position, I go back to Summary Table B. We are likely, given the various debates we have had, going to be approving that bottom line, which is our total expenditure. That includes the contingency figures in there apparently but we will not know that until .. I am looking at 2017, 2018 and 2019. We will not know that until next year. What we are dealing with is 2016 but this proposition and some of the others that are coming through do not add to that bottom line, they are a reallocation between it. There are some very nice round figures in those contingency sums. I rather suspect there is some room to manoeuvre in there and certainly £263,000 is going to make absolutely no difference to the outcomes that are contained within that contingency figure. So I see absolutely no reason for not giving a reallocation priority out of some very round figures to something more precise in Education. On that basis, I am happy to support the amendment.

11. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier :

Just briefly, I enjoyed listening to the speech from Deputy Le Fondré. I think he made some important points, unfortunately points that I had on my piece of paper that I wanted to make, so I will not repeat them. I think, to be honest, the Government here has been clutching at straws when coming up with excuses not to accept this amendment. The one exception to that, I think, was the Assistant Minister, the Constable of St. Brelade, who I think made a legitimate point about the precedent it sets, about saying we will look at contingencies to raid when we come up with things we want. But that is only relevant really I think because of the vote we had last night, which I suspect will be provoking some Ministers and Assistant Ministers to be looking at those funds to see if they can keep their personal assistants. So I think the way the Chief Minister attempted to explain how these changes .. extra funding that is investment even though it is for additional students coming into these schools, I think Deputy Le Fondré has pretty much proven that wrong. It is to keep things as they are, to provide the same service that we are obliged to provide by law. I do not really accept the point that is being made there. It does not really count. If you are not taking into account demographic changes, then that completely muddies the waters over what impact extra funding is going to have on the service and what kids are getting when they go to school. I think this has been hidden. Some have said this has not been hidden. Well, I think technically it has, really. When the Government is going round saying: "We are providing extra investment in education" they have not been saying: "We are providing extra investment in education except 2016 where there is going to be a slight cut." So I think it has been hidden there. We managed to tease this out of the Minister and the director in a Scrutiny hearing and the Minister described it as a beautiful constraint, which I thought was just the most wonderful way of putting it. It is a beautiful constraint. It forces us to be innovative and creative. What a great way of spinning that. I hope that does not get used more often because that is spin at the end of the day. This is over a quarter of a million pounds that the department is not having to be able to deliver on the things it is meant to be delivering on, which is improving the education service provided to our young people. I do not see this as a case of you either support the Scrutiny Panel or you support the Minister. There is a way that you can support both and that is by accepting this amendment, because it does what the Scrutiny Panel is saying needs to be done and the Minister and the department get extra funding, which is what they should be getting anyway if we were going by what the Strategic Plan is meant to be, which is about investing in education. That is surely the default position. It is the best of both worlds. The department gets the money that it is supposed to be getting and children at the end of the day will not lose out, which is what they will do if investment is not going to take into account changes in demographics. It seems to me to be not a

prudent or sensible way of deciding how much money Education gets.

12. Senator P.M. Bailhache :

Deputy Lewis expressed surprise that the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture was not biting off the hand of the Scrutiny Panel and accepting this amendment. The reason that the Minister is not doing that is that he is a member of the Government of Jersey. Members seem to have forgotten that we are dealing with a situation where money is in very short supply and we are trying to save money. I took part, with a number of other Ministers, in a series of inordinately long workshops at which the problems that the Island faces in terms of finances were tossed backwards and forwards. There was argument for and against and at the end of the day the Council of Ministers reached a carefully balanced conclusion on the basis of give and take as to how the assets should be divided up and how the savings should be shared among the different ministries. Implicit in that is that a sum of money is set aside for contingencies to deal with the different matters that the Chief Minister and Minister for Treasury and Resources have dealt with.

[10:45]

It is wrong in principle to take money out of contingencies to deal with expenditure which will be recurring expenditure and I am surprised that the chairman of the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel did not take that point on board. If Members pass this amendment, what is the Education Department going to do with the money? Deputy Martin suggested it might go to reduce class sizes but that kind of expenditure involves recurring expenditure. It involves further investment in staff. The Education Department cannot do it. I am sure that the department will find something to do with the money but it may not be very useful. It will be a kind of nice to have and it does not seem to me that that is a very sensible way of proceeding. It is not a responsible thing to do. The balance has been struck. The Minister has made it absolutely clear that the needs of children can be met on the budget which has been put forward and Members should not accept this amendment.

Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour :

Just a point of clarification, I know it is a bit of a nuisance but I would be grateful if Members would remember - I know the radio presenter does his best - that we have Deputy Andrew Lewis of St. Helier and Deputy Kevin Lewis of St. Saviour .

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Never the 2 shall be confused. [Laughter] The Constable of St. John . Connétable C.H. Taylor of St. John :

Talking of confusion, I just thought I would correct the Minister. It is not the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel, it is the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel. His thinking clearly seemed to be a little bit muddled.

13. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter :

We have spent many hours over the last couple of days talking about where we are going to allocate monies. Many of us have raised the view that we must target how we spend these monies to get the best value for the people of Jersey. Because if we do not target it, we will be giving money to people that do not need it. They may want it but they do not need it. All that does is to continue to contribute to the growing cost of running the States as a whole. This is the one frustration I have here that I see on the page of the proposition, page 4, it is very useful there but what it does not tell me is what this £263,200 is going to be targeted towards. It has no identified purpose. It is a back pocket bonus, effectively. Here is some money, go away, spend it on what you think is the most appropriate without any sort of analysis of needs. I think when we start allocating monies like this, we are continuing down the slippery slope of continuing to spend, spend and spend. Viv Nicholson economics there.

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

It comes as no surprise that we are reminded in the course of this debate that we live in times of economic constraint in case anybody did not notice in the last 2 days when we have been cutting benefits to the really worst off in society left, right and centre, one after the next after the next after the next. We were reminded by Senator Bailhache that we live in times of economic constraint and that is followed up by the Constable of St. Peter, who said we cannot be encouraging spend, spend,

spend. Where is this money going to be targeted to? Well, it is probably going to be targeted to one of the parts of what Education wanted to do which they now cannot do because they are quarter of a million pounds light on their budget. One of the things that has just been cut, one of the: "Can we get away with only putting that much there? Yes, just about", all those decisions that have taken place over these hours of meetings about how to trim down, trim down and trim down until you have something that the accountants among us can be happy with. What a sad comment it was from the chief accountant in the Chamber when he said, yes, accountants, what do we do, we can cut and dice numbers how you like. I remind the Chief Minister that he is not being paid to be an accountant any more. He is being paid to be a politician and it is not about slicing and dicing how you like. That reflects also on the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture's comments himself when he said the figures can be interpreted in different ways. When he said that I waited. I waited and waited. So tell us your interpretation and tell us about what it is that these numbers mean. But it never happened. It was just this platitude. Of course, you can interpret figures in different ways. Accountants can do it in a million ways, but where was the education in that speech? It was not there. It was: "We have decided what the figures are. We have dished them about a bit and this is what we have come up with so leave us alone." Then we get, of course, you could not be taking it from contingencies, it is absolutely wrong to do so. I remind Senator Bailhache that we are supposed to be delivering a balanced budget and that if you want to balance the budget you either have to take money from a contingency, you have to raise some taxation in order to pay for it, or you take it from somebody else's budget or another part of the budget and you move it. That is the reality. To suggest that the chairman of the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel should have come to this Assembly without that balance, without saying: "This is where we want to take it from" is .. I do not know, scurrilous. Let us come back to what it means to scrimp and save on an Education budget. We heard several times that where the saving is, is the staffing, sufficient use of staffing. It is a staffing saving. I am thinking now what does that involve. Is this - and I leave it as a question because I do not know - the start of the voluntary release programme? How many people have left the profession at Education with their experience under their belt in their 50s, said: "I have had enough, please give me release, I want to escape" and how many senior professionals, teachers, on, let us say, head of department scales, with their 10 years', 12 years' experience under

their belt, masterful teachers, are being replaced by people fresh out of teacher training colleges? Get in there and get on with it. There is an argument that says teaching increasingly nowadays is a young person's game because it is exhausting, absolutely exhausting. Maybe there is an argument that that is an improvement, but what happens along the way and why people are tempted to do this is because the experienced teacher costs you twice as much as the inexperienced novice that you put in that class. If at the same time you are restructuring things, so let us do away with a head of department for history, geography and economics and let us call them humanities and we will have one head of department, there is a nice little 2-point saving on the scales that we could redistribute somewhere else. Fine, but is that improving education? Often I think it is not. Let us just remind ourselves about Deputy Le Fondré's points that he was making at the very beginning of this debate. We are also only given one year. There is only one year we can talk about in any concrete terms. So we do not have the faintest, foggiest clue what is going to develop in 2017, 2018 and 2019 because we do not have those figures, but still we are asked to take a leap of faith and deal with this budget, which I remind Members again, despite the additional money put into Education, overall what is this Medium Term Financial Plan doing? It is running a budget at the complete margin. Take into account inflation and we are talking about 1 per cent growth over 4 years. That is a target that the F.P.P. (Fiscal Policy Panel), the advisers to the Council of Ministers, say .. they do not quite use the word impossible, but it is a very, very difficult task. We are running an austerity budget. We only have some money to put into Education and into Health because of cuts elsewhere. That is the reality. This is absolutely running on the seat of our pants. There I will cease. I will, of course, be supporting this very eminently sensible amendment.