States Meeting Transcript - 15th June 2016

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT WEDNESDAY, 15th JUNE 2016

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

1. Nursery Funding: implementation of proposed changes (P.39/2016) - as amended....3

1. Deputy M. Tadier :.......................................................................3

1.1.1 Deputy R.G. Bryans of St. Helier:........................................................8 Deputy L.M.C. Doublet :.......................................................................9

2. Nursery Funding: implementation of proposed changes (P.39/2016) - proposal of Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of St. Saviour for a reference back under Standing Order 83 ...........................................................................................10

1. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet :................................................................11
2. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ................................................................12
3. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:....................................................12
4. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence : .............................................12
5. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:.......................................................13
6. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. John:........................................................14
7. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement:.................................................15
8. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................16
9. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................16
10. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:..................................................17
11. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet :.............................................................17

3. Nursery Funding: implementation of proposed changes (P.39/2016) - resumption ...18

1. Deputy R.G. Bryans: ...................................................................18
2. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................22
3. Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier:..........................................................24
4. Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................24
5. Connétable M.P.S. Le Troquer of St. Martin:...........................................26
6. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................28
7. Deputy S.M. Wickenden of St. Helier:..................................................28
8. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ................................................................29
9. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................31
10. Connétable C.H. Taylor of St. John:.................................................33
11. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................34
12. Deputy K.L. Moore of St. Peter:.....................................................36
13. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity : .......................................................37
14. Deputy A.D. Lewis : .................................................................39

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................41 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................41

15. Deputy S.M. Brée of St. Clement:...................................................41
16. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :....................................................42
17. Deputy M.J. Norton of St. Brelade : ..................................................43
18. Connétable S.W. Pallett of St. Brelade : ..............................................44
19. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :.................................................................47
20. Deputy P.D. McLinton of St. Saviour:...............................................52

21. Deputy D. Johnson of St. Mary : .....................................................52
22. Connétable P.B. Le Sueur of Trinity :................................................53
23. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:.............................................................53
24. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................55
25. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................58
26. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet :.............................................................61
27. Senator I.J. Gorst : ...................................................................65
28. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................67

2. Draft Proceeds of Crime (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.44/2016)...............................................................................70

2.1 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (Assistant Chief Minister - rapporteur):..........................70

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................74
2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................74

2.3.1 Deputy S.W. Wickenden: ..............................................................74

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................76

3. The Connétable of St. Clement (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):....76

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................76

[9:31]

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

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption

1. Nursery Funding: implementation of proposed changes (P.39/2016) - as amended

The Bailiff :

We come now to P.39 Nursery Funding: implementation of proposed changes. Deputy Tadier , before I ask the Greffier to read the proposition, should he read it as amended or in its original form?

Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade : As amended please.

The Bailiff :

Amended, very well. Then, Greffier, please read the amended proposition.

The Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion to request the Minister for Education not to implement proposed changes to nursery funding, to cut the provision of free nursery hours to those earning a combined income of over £75,000 a year.

1. Deputy M. Tadier :

First of all, I would like to thank the Education Scrutiny Panel for their patience. We have tried to liaise as best as we can. It has not always been easy and I know that they have been caught in a hard place between scrutinising the Minister's proposals on one hand and, of course, having to deal with these last minute changes just as their report was being published. I found myself in a similar position, of course, as things progressed with the best way to seek to tackle this in a parliamentary acceptable way. We find ourselves today where the threshold has been moved so my amendment talked about a £75,000 figure but what I would like this debate to be about really is the principles of means testing. We know that the Minister can propose different thresholds at any time and that is the difficulty of having an in principle debate and many would argue possibly that is why we should wait for it to be included in the Medium Term Financial Plan so we can know exactly what it is we are dealing with and how to amend that. I would counter that argument by saying that there are 2 differences here. One of the key differences is that much of what is going to appear in the Medium Term Financial Plan, as we found out yesterday, is still unknown. It seems certainly unknown to Back-Benchers and to many States Members, although we have sneaking suspicions where the direction of travel is going to go. It also seems to be unknown to Ministers in many cases who have not yet decided to flip that coin because that meeting is probably going to be on 29th June before they decide what goes in and what goes out if we are to interpret how cagey they have been in this Assembly, even though we find ourselves some 2 or 3 weeks before the lodging of that Medium Term Financial Plan. The other point is, I think, that the Minister has come out well in advance of the Medium Term Financial Plan to say that he wants to bring fundamental changes to nursery education, to move it from a universal system, which is currently funded by taxation and is available to everybody, to make it a means-tested system whereby some currently receiving that established benefit, which the States decided on some years ago for their own good reasons, he wants to change that and, of course, quite rightly it is necessary to bring these kind of proposals well in advance of that so proper consultation, at least awareness, can be given to those

who the changes might affect, either the parents or the childcare provider. So I think we understand why this is different to perhaps some other technical line that would appear in the Medium Term Financial Plan and that is why I, my party and also others in this Assembly, believe that the

principle that is at stake here is worthy of a debate in its own right. So in lodging this, being fully aware that there was a Scrutiny process that was going on, being fully aware that there were proposals potentially to go into the M.T.F.P. (Medium Term Financial Plan) it was necessary to lodge this so we could have a proper debate on the principle of nursery funding; where it should come from, on the principle of means testing, and if we are going to move away from that principle it should be a proper debate in its own right. So I think that is what the debate is today. I would say to Members that if they are not happy with the Minister's proposals, if they are not happy either with the proposals of means testing full stop, or if they do not think that these proposals are right, that they have been properly tested or they think that there will be unintended consequences for both the children, the families and the childcare providers involved that will be ultimately negative. If they have concerns that the plans are not ultimately sustainable; sustainability is something that the Chief Minister talked about yesterday. If they have concerns that in the future the Minister might come back and move the goalposts again and say: "Okay, we need to make some more savings in 2 or 3 years' time so we are going to move that down to £75,000 or wherever", then I think this is the time to press the pour button this morning or this afternoon and to make those arguments. I am hoping that the Council of Ministers do not come out in support of this proposition and that is why I have moved the amendment because I think this should be the debate to decide whether or not the proposals that the Minister is putting forward go in the M.T.F.P. and it is also important to have this debate now to give the Minister sufficient time to decide if the Assembly does choose to reject these proposals. It will give him a clear message to say: "Look, we do not want these put in the Medium Term Financial Plan. It is necessary for you to go away and make more acceptable savings or find other income which is more acceptable to this Assembly." So I hope that gives some of the context about why we are having this debate today. Some members of the public have contacted me and my party colleagues saying they find it strange that Reform Jersey should be sticking up for the rich and that these individuals who earn £75,000 or more, or now £85,000, being scaled up to £100,000, that they find it strange that we should be sticking up for them and that these people can well afford it. I think what that highlights, and some of these people, I am not saying they are representative of our supporters, some people have contacted us and it shows how divisive these proposals really are. They are not just divisive because they purport to set the rich, or the slightly rich, against the slightly poorer, against those workers who might be earning, combined, something in the region of £85,000 to £90,000. Remember this is household income that we are talking about. This could be a couple, potentially a nurse, a teacher, they could have a third income in the household. They could have a young person who is working out there as well and we know how families work nowadays. They could be composite families where they have some very young children, some secondary aged children and those who are preparing to go to university. It is not inconceivable. We also know that one size does not fit all and that is the problem with means testing I think because it does not take into account disposable income. It does not take into account whether people have just taken on a mortgage and are having to meet those costs. It does not take into account whether people and families are renting their properties. It does not take into account whether they may have other financial obligations, a young child at one end, a child just starting university with the possibility of

facing grants either frozen or reduced going forward in the Medium Term Financial Plan. [9:45]

So I think the argument for universal benefits or universal childcare in this sense does bring stability and that is something certainly that the Scrutiny Panel has highlighted in their report. One example that the Scrutiny Panel talked about in chapter 6 was really about children. To come back to those who might find this proposition strange it is because ultimately Reform Jersey is not against the rich and wanting to support the poor. Reform Jersey wants a fair system and we want to

make sure, like I think everything in this Assembly, and also like the Panel themselves have highlighted, that we have put the children's welfare at the centre of our policymaking and I think what is quite clear is that these proposals from the Minister, no doubt done in difficult circumstances, and one gets the impression sometimes .. I do not want to speak overly personally but that the Minister's heart is not necessarily in this. He, no doubt, finds himself in a difficult position, which is partly of his own choice; that he is surrounded by a Council of Ministers which has decided that they must cut their cloth accordingly. We know that the familiar preamble about investing in education and health is out there but we also know that we have a Strategic Plan which is signed up to the 1001 Days plan for looking after youngsters, I think across the board. It does not say we will only look after youngsters if they come from relatively low income households. It says that we will look after children across the board and that is why it is strange that the Minister is being asked to cut his budget in this area because we were all told that we want to invest in education, we want to invest in health, but what has become quite apparent is that there is no extra investment in education. It is all smoke and mirrors. It is all accounting illusion which is what the Scrutiny Panel, in their robust questioning of the Minister, both in terms of this report and more generally, have found out. There is no extra money going into education especially when you take into account inflation. It is all just bluster and that is what the public needs to know. So it is a divisive proposition. It is divisive socially, I think, as well as economically. What the Panel said in 6.5 under the heading of "children", they said: "There are concerns of continuity." An example was provided within a submission to the Panel where a child who may currently be in a private nursery in St. Mary, they give the example, of when they are 2 years old, the next year, when the child turns 3, the family could now only obtain 3 hours in a States nursery. Therefore, as there is no States nursery in St. Mary that child can only obtain a free allocation of 20 hours in a school in another Parish. The child then has to return to the original Parish to start reception in the year they turn 4. "The lack of continuity cannot be in the interests of the child." It goes on to say: "The child's attachment to the caregivers in the public nursery would be broken and this policy would be in conflict with the attached principles of the young children and carers contained within the 1001 Days manifesto." So I think very clear strong words and I think it is important to go back to the reason why these proposals were brought in in the first place. I cannot find it offhand but I think there was a nice quote in the Scrutiny report which said that these kind of benefits are not just for Christmas, something to that effect, and it should not just be down to political whim to introduce a universal benefit one day which is not just well-intentioned but for good reasons, as we will see, and then to withdraw it later on with all the added instability that goes with that. I will give way to the chairman because she may [Interruption] ..  page 37, thank you .. point me in the right direction. Tax cuts: "Tax cuts should be for life not just for Christmas." I do not normally quote him but it is George Osborne who said that. I think there is a good point there. I think he has originally taken the phrase about dogs and used it for a fiscal purpose though which is quite clever of him. But the point is: why was this introduced in the first place? So if we look back in September 2008, before I was in the Assembly, the States approved the increased funding of nursery education. It meant that the additional funding was made available to pay for the nursery education of eligible children in registered day care centres in the private and voluntary sectors. It recognised that there was a problem with parity and that needed to be addressed, a problem with choice. He went on to say: "That as things stand to be eligible for the scheme." He explains the reasons that a child must become 4 years old, et cetera. He went on to say: "That at the time of its introduction the Education Department said that there would now be more choice and more places available and that through the partnership between the States of Jersey and the private and voluntary sector nurseries parents would now have a greater opportunity to select early years education providers that they feel best meets their child's needs and their own requirements." Those were the words of the Education Department of the day, not so long ago. Only 8 years ago. I think that was post collapse, was it not, September 2008? I think we already knew about the

economic crisis then as far as I can remember. So these arguments that we are in different economic times I do not think stack up. It was brought in there for a good reason. If we turn that on its head and say what the opposite of that is. So in withdrawing the universal benefit so that there is no longer that parity and the level playing field, if the department were to say that there would not be less choice, there would be fewer places available and that through the partnership, of course, which is being eroded, between the private and voluntary sectors, parents would now have less opportunity to select the early years education provider they feel best meets their child's needs for their requirements. Of course, the argument will come back: "Oh, well, these people can well afford it. They are super wealthy and we should not be funding their purse", if you like and I think that completely misunderstands what we are trying to do. We cannot have a policy, as I said, on the one hand which seeks to put the child's welfare at the centre of our policymaking and then on the other hand pick an arbitrary figure which it seems can change overnight at the Minister's whim from £75,000 to £85,000 because ultimately I do not think this is targeting the correct people. There is an underlying argument, of course, and people have their different feelings that we are tinkering with the system, but the Panel told us that we are looking roughly at a saving of £250,000. Now, that may be slightly conservative but that is the ballpark figure. That was with the original figure of a £75,000 threshold. Now, invariably when you move that threshold to £85,000, when you introduce a graduated system, the savings that the Minister will be able to make from that will necessarily be less. He has not told us what those savings are. I hoped he would present something to the States today. I have asked him for that but necessarily it will be a lesser saving than the one he originally wanted to make. Necessarily when you have a means-tested system there will also be an administrative cost which we do not know anything about. We do not know how much it is going to cost to administer the system to make a relatively small saving in the general scheme of the C.S.R. (Comprehensive Spending Review) programme. I think all these factors combined in the round give us sufficient reason today to reject these proposals. I will just go through the other concerns which I think are still valid which are supported by the general thrust of the Scrutiny Panel's report and I will explain what the concerns are. We are concerned that an arbitrary figure can be selected which seeks to define a household earning total gross income of a set amount, in this case £85,000, as being high earners with no thought being given to other family factors or outgoings; indeed what the net income of that family might be in real terms. We are concerned that insufficient consultation has been made with stakeholder groups, including parents and nursery providers, to justify the withdrawal of such a benefit. We know that the Scrutiny Panel have done a lot of that work themselves just simply by engaging through this process, but that was their work, it was not the Minister's work, which I think is sufficient for bringing this in in such short order. We also have concerns that many parents will have already planned financially for the medium term based on the presumption that they will have 20 hours of States-funded nursery care for 38 weeks a year and that the withdrawal of this provision will push some of the most marginal earners into making decisions that may adversely affect their children. We are strongly of the opinion that these

proposals, as they currently stand, are in direct contradiction to the principles agreed in the 2015 and 2018 Strategic Plan, particularly in the 1001 Days Strategy. We believe that the move is driven purely as a cost-saving exercise and not because it is the right thing to do socially or for the children. Lastly, we are concerned that it may disproportionately affect working mothers who may feel particularly pressured to give up full or part-time work if the free provision is withdrawn. Notwithstanding all of those strong arguments it is really that last argument which jumps out of the page for me because intentionally, or otherwise, these proposals of the Minister are sexist. We know that in the Jersey context your typical family, and let us take a family where you may have the main breadwinner being the male. I know that is not universally the case but it is traditionally, and I think it is borne out by the statistics. You have a female who may have a young family already. They may have a child already but is looking to work or is currently working part-time. So you have £50,000, a £25,000, you have got another person in the household who is in work or, let us just make it clearer; you have got someone who is earning £65,000 gross, the husband. The female has got a part-time job, the wife, the partner, has got a part-time job, earning some £20,000 and it becomes less viable to do that because the argument is, why do you not just stay at home and look after the child, reduce your hours at work? That will bring us under the threshold and that you find out that we have got women at the top end being driven back home, not necessarily voluntarily, to look after children and it has a divisive effect on an already unbalanced gender system in the workplace and socially. I think these are all the unintended consequences that are not easy to foresee although we can speculate what they may be. So what is the alternative? I think there are different alternatives depending on how we want to do it but I think ultimately we have to be honest with ourselves. First of all, the Council of Ministers cannot pursue a cuts agenda while at the same time having aspirations which require ultimately resourcing and spending. It is one thing to say: "Yes, of course, we support the 1001 Days proposals", even though that had to be brought by a Back-Bencher, the chairman of the Scrutiny Panel, as it turned out, put that as an amendment to the Strategic Plan. It was accepted, of course who is going to vote against the 1001 Day Project but when it comes to properly resourcing that and saying: "Well, in that case we need to really invest more in our childcare", the money is not there. The action and the finances are not matched by the rhetoric. Not only is the Council of Ministers not keeping the budget the same for nursery funding they are reducing the overall budget so that they can, as they would say, reprioritise it to those more in need, but there has to be a simpler way than doing that. Of course there are those who today will stand up and argue that we live in tough times, we must still tighten our belts, and that those who are earning that kind of money can quite well do without this benefit. If those Members want to stand up and make those kind of arguments that the rich should be paying more in our society then, by all means, come and talk to us at Reform Jersey and we will show you how to do it properly. You do not simply say: "If you are pretty rich on paper, have a good income, we want you to pay more by this stealth tax" which 12.3 talks about in the submissions. They said that this is a stealth tax, the people who made submissions. "It is a tax on young families. It is a tax by any other means." Of course it is. That is what happens when you get these kind of measures being brought in. We know there are lots of other stealth taxes being dreamt up at the moment by the Minister for Infrastructure and by the Minister for Health but they do not know yet what that is going to look like or how politically acceptable they will be. But this is one stealth tax that we know about already. They are saying: "We want to tax the slightly wealthier but we want to make

sure that we only tax them if they have got young children." [10:00]

Very bizarre. So you have got people out there in Jersey earning over £100,000 who would not qualify anyway, who do not pay anything additional on their social security contributions because that is capped already, who pay a flat rate of 20 per cent income tax, who have vast amounts of disposable income who are not being targeted and yet we are saying these people can afford it. I think that is where the difference is. There will be those who say: "Well, childcare is ultimately for the parents. If you want to have children, you have to look after them." I see it in a slightly more nuanced way. I do not personally have children myself at this point. Just for the record, I am not one of those people who would benefit from this anyway. My household income, with that of my partner, is not above either the threshold that the Minister is proposing or the original threshold just for the record but I have absolutely no problem in my income tax going towards childcare for this universal benefit because I think it is good for society. I think it is good for those children ultimately and I think it is much better. So I can walk into a bar and talk to a high earning lawyer and socialise with them or I can go inside a pub, The Horse & Hounds or the White Horse, whichever, and sit there with the low-earning family knowing that there is no division. We have social cohesion there because no matter what end of the pile you are at you get access to the same basic 20 hours of free care, which remember is still lower that what is being proposed in the U.K. (United Kingdom) for the 30 hours of childcare over there. I think I am going to leave the initial argument there. I think I have covered the main points. I appreciate this is a contentious issue. I think it is one that is worthy of debate in this forum, as I have said, outside the context of the Medium Term Financial Plan. I do ask Members to really consider this and if they have concerns about what is being proposed, not simply just to follow the lead and to trust the Minister on this occasion but really to go back and look at those people, our predecessors in 2008, who brought these proposals, why they brought them, whether anything really has changed and what the consequences are both socially and economically for us if we go with these Ministers' proposals now.

The Bailiff :

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded]

Male Speaker:

Can we raise the défaut on the Constable of St. Saviour ?

The Bailiff :

Proposed the défaut be raised on the Connétable of St. Saviour . The défaut is raised.

Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of St. Saviour :

Could I just ask for a point of clarification? I am not sure with the wording of the proposition what exactly we are voting on today because it seems to me that the request is for the Minister not to implement the proposed changes for those earning over £75,000 a year based upon the first policy presented by the Minister. It seems to me the Minister has, in fact, done that and has accepted the proposition. So could I have some guidance on whether .. is the proposition still valid in that case?

The Bailiff :

Deputy , if you will forgive me for saying so, I would prefer to hear from the Minister before I answer that question and then I think what we have heard from the Minister may set the meaning of the debate because I fully understand the purpose of the question.

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

I think from my taking of this that yesterday Deputy Doublet , and I do thank Deputy Doublet for raising this issue right at this point, said she was baffled as to why I was not accepting the proposition, the first one. The reason was because I was equally baffled. I found the whole sort of way it was put together it could be read so many different ways. I think what the Deputy is intending to do is to provoke a debate today here before we get to the Medium Term Financial Plan and, of course, that gives us some difficulty because what we would prefer to do, as a Government, is put the whole thing together and look at it as a whole package and I know that he has concerns about that. I am quite willing, at this point in time, to carry on the debate if that is what the Assembly wish but I have put out the proposals that I have and I think at this point in time I would like to explore the things behind what is being said or being asked. Do I carry on then? Okay. That is fine. Okay, sorry, thank you. Just to deal with some of the ..

Senator I.J. Gorst :

Sorry, Minister. It would be helpful to have a ruling on the question that Deputy Doublet raised because the Minister has changed his proposals from the ones that the mover of the proposition had on the table at the time.

The Bailiff :

Very well. The proposition, as it now reads, is: "The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion to request the Minister for Education not to implement proposed changes to nursery funding to cut the provision of free nursery hours to those earning a combined income of over £75,000 a year." As the Chairman of the Scrutiny Panel says, there is a difficulty with that proposition in the sense that the States are asked whether they wish to invite the Minister not to implement changes which it, in fact, is not proposing. So in that sense if that proposition were to be adopted the Minister can, nonetheless, go ahead with his new proposal without breaching the resolution of the States and so provide in the Medium Term Financial Plan figures. The issue clearly will not have gone away and will be a matter for debate at a different stage and really I cannot make the resolution mean what it does not say. The resolution says what it says. When it comes to voting on it Members will vote on it for whatever reason they want to vote on it but until such time as that happens it may be that speeches made by Members will be of political help to Ministers or indeed to the proposer. As to the effect of the proposition, it can only be what the language of the words say.

Deputy M. Tadier :

May I make a point of clarification? Obviously the first thing to say is that I could not amend this, so the timing of the Minister's proposal, I did go to the Greffe and say: "Can I now change this to £85,000?" I was not allowed to do that. I had to give 2 days' notice to do that even if I were to ask the States then to reduce the lodging period. But the point I would make, it may seem a technical point, but £85,000 is above £75,000 so the basic principle .. the Minister is still proposing to means test above £75,000. It is just that £85,000 and he is at perfect liberty to change this any time between now and the Medium Term Financial Plan or not do it at all. So I think this is an in principle debate which I am seeking to have here and I have no control over when or how the Minister might seek to change the goalposts before a debate comes to this Assembly but the principle remains the same. So I would hope we can still have a meaningful debate to give the Minister a clear steer on whether his proposals are acceptable or not.

The Bailiff :

Well, that matter has been fully ventilated and Members will either contribute to the debate or not, as they think fit. It is a political issue and Members will make such comment as they wish or use whatever procedural possibilities are available under Standing Orders. That is entirely a matter for Members.

Deputy L.M.C. Doublet :

Might I put something alternative to the Assembly? We discussed this as a Panel. I think given that it has been impossible to prepare for this debate, given the uncertainty, we have only just clarified what we are debating. Standing Order 83, I believe, allows for a reference back to the mover of the proposal for clarification. There is one sitting before the Medium Term Financial Plan will be lodged, which, I admit, is very close to the lodging of the M.T.F.P., but it would still allow us to have that separate in principle debate. I wonder if Members would consider referring the proposition back to the Deputy so that he can clarify his wording. That would also give Members another 2 weeks to look at the new proposition and I would very much hope that the Minister, in those 2 weeks, could provide some of his evidence and impact assessments that he has used to formulate the new proposals. So I wonder if the Assembly could consider this issue.

Male Speaker:

May I raise the défaut on Deputy Norton .. beg your pardon.

The Bailiff :

Proposed the défaut be raised on Deputy Norton. The défaut is raised. Deputy Doublet , Standing Order 83 enables a Member of the States to propose, without notice, that the proposition be referred back in order that further information relating to the proposition can be provided to the States or any ambiguity or inconsistency in information relating to the proposition already provided to the States be clarified. Given that the proposition, on one analysis, seems to be fairly clear what is it that you are asking the proposer to provide by way of further information or to clarify in the sense of ambiguity or inconsistency?

Deputy L.M.C. Doublet :

I think I would appreciate further clarification on exactly what we are voting on. I know that we have attempted to clarify it. Personally, I do not feel, to me, that is clear and also there is no time to prepare for the debate. I do not feel we can have an informed debate on something which we have only just decided what we are debating right at the beginning of the debate. So I do not feel it is as clear as I would like it to be.

The Bailiff :

Well, what is the clarification in particular you are asking for?

Deputy L.M.C. Doublet :

On exactly which proposals the Deputy .. perhaps the Deputy might clarify his proposition to say any proposals relating to cuts to nursery funding should not go ahead.

The Bailiff :

Well, I think he already has but just a minute.

Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. Helier : May I add something briefly?

The Bailiff :

No, not at this stage, Deputy . No, thank you. I am just about to rule on whether this proposition can be put, Senator. Deputy , as I understand the thrust of your proposition, it is that Deputy Tadier 's report is not addressing the current position and therefore needs to be clarified and you, therefore, wish to have it referred back in order that he can consider such amendments to his report or indeed to his proposition as would be appropriate so that in 2 weeks' time it will come back to this Assembly. That is the case, is it?

Deputy L.M.C. Doublet :

Yes, sir. I think the main benefit being as well that Members would have 2 extra weeks to consider the clarified proposal.

The Bailiff :

Very well. I allow the proposition. Do you wish to speak to it any further?

Deputy M. Tadier :

Before you do that can you just refer me to the Standing Order please, the number?

The Bailiff :

Standing Order 83. Do you wish to speak to it any further?

2. Nursery Funding: implementation of proposed changes (P.39/2016) - proposal of Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of St. Saviour for a reference back under Standing Order 83

1. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet :

I think I have covered everything. This was a Panel decision. We considered what would be best and we felt that if a Member of the Assembly felt so strongly that a separate in principle debate should be held that we should not attempt to override that. It has been difficult, as a Panel, to prepare for the debate. We do aim to help the Assembly in making these decisions. Several Members yesterday approached me asking, where should our thinking go on this? What is the evidence? I am afraid I could not help them because I only heard about the proposal as well maybe 2 days before the Assembly did. So I just think it would give the space and time for .. I am hoping the onus would be on the Minister and not the Panel to present the evidence behind the new ..

The Bailiff :

No, this is a reference back to Deputy Tadier .

Deputy L.M.C. Doublet :

Well, it is but I will say that I hope the Minister does provide some extra information as well as Deputy Tadier clarifying the proposition ..

Deputy M. Tadier :

May I speak? It is a point of order, Sir. It is a point of order. I do not think that the reference back is in order. Standing Order 83 says that a Member of the States may propose without notice for the reference back, (a) for further information relating to the proposition to be provided, and (b) for any ambiguity or inconsistency in information relating to the proposition, which has already been provided to the States to be clarified. I do not think there is any information that I can provide which is currently ambiguous or inconsistent or any information relating to the proposition because that is essentially the report.

[10:15]

I have been using the Scrutiny Panel's report also as additional information and the key point is that the amendment and proposition has already been moved and it is found to be in order.

The Bailiff :

Deputy , if it is a point of order then it is for me and not for you to address the Members on. I have ruled that the proposal to refer back to you is in order. I am going to invite you to address the Assembly as to whether or not it should be adopted and you can make all these points at a later stage. Deputy Doublet , have you finished proposing the reference back?

Deputy L.M.C. Doublet :

I think so. One further point to make is that I am trying to be helpful to the Assembly here. I am trying to .. so, perhaps, with that in mind Members could consider that. That is always my aim, to be helpful, and to give Members as much information as they can have when we are debating something relating to the work of my Panel.

The Bailiff :

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] Deputy Tadier , do you wish to speak?

Deputy M. Tadier :

Do I have to speak immediately or can I wait or reserve my right to speak?

The Bailiff :

You do not have to. I thought you wanted to but of course you can speak whenever you like. Does any Member wish to speak on the proposal to refer back?

2. Senator P.M. Bailhache :

I think that the Ministers on this side on this Assembly will probably support the reference back if the reference back proceeds but I must say that it seems to me that this is a rather futile way to proceed. I was very attracted to the explanation in Deputy Tadier 's report to his second amendment; that the purpose of the amendment was to have a standalone and informed debate on the merits of a universal free system as opposed to a means-tested system. If we were to have a debate on that at this stage it seems to me that it would be a very helpful debate. But the ruling that you have made at an earlier stage, following the Minister's intervention, means that we do not get that outcome from the ultimate debate, whether or not the reference back proceeds, because the Minister will be entitled, whatever the outcome of the ultimate debate, to come back with the same figures that he has put forward already. So there seems to me to be a bit of futility in this and I really wonder whether the Deputy could not save us all a great deal of time by withdrawing his proposition so that the debate on the principle of a universal free system or a means-tested system can take place in the context of the M.T.F.P. debate.

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

I think what we have got here is a device to ensure that Ministers can do what they like. The response from my colleague, in his proposition, was to the announcement from the Minister for Education that it was his intention to take a certain act. What this does is, it opens the way for any Minister to change his mind at the last minute and say: "Oh, you have responded to what I first said but I have changed my mind now and it is something else." It is just a device to get round our procedures and to get round having an in principle debate at the earliest possible opportunity to give a steer to the Minister as to what might be acceptable later on. The proposer of the reference back gave it away herself, when she started to speak, and she said, not quite verbatim but: "The reference back is to the Minister, the Minister, to supply further information." Not the Member and that matches absolutely with recommendation 3 of her own Scrutiny Panel, which says: "The Minister for Education should withdraw this proposal completely until there has been consultation, full impact assessments and evidence of connectivity with other financial policies, such as tax thresholds within the States." If Members accept this reference back it places that request, which quite appropriately is for the Minister to justify what he said he intends to do, either at £85,000 or at £75,000, as was, and not to load that on the Back-Bencher to say, supply what the Minister for Education has not done. Now, if Members cannot see that that is the device for the Minister avoiding responsibility for having a coherent policy then I do not know what is.

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

I would just like to say I do understand where Deputy Doublet is coming from and trying to be helpful, I fully understand that. I think there are a couple of points to be made, (1) it is obviously not the proposer's fault of where we are because it is as a result of an email or press release, whatever it was, that was released on Monday evening. The problem I have with the idea of shifting it to 28th June is the Medium Term Financial Plan will be printed on the 24th. So for me the decision is either you proceed today or you do not do it. For me, that is the practical thing because on 24th June the M.T.F.P. is printed. There will be no point in having a debate on 28th June no matter how helpful it is. If the debate goes into the M.T.F.P. my take at this stage of that is the whole M.T.F.P. debate is likely to be quite long and I suspect rather a lot of issues coming up. That is my guess. This will just make it even longer and the Minister, at that point, will be locked into whatever position he is taken to. He will not be in a position to having a steer from this Assembly, who may or may not agree in principle with the issues he is putting into it. That is

where I am coming from in trying to be practical. It is not an ideal situation where we are. This is all because it is all coming through too close to the date. But for me, I agree with what Senator Bailhache said at the beginning of his speech, although it is not ideal, and whichever way people vote you could vote for the whole proposition and the Minister can ignore it, but it gives Members the opportunity to state where their concerns are and the Minister can then take those on board. For me that is quite crucial and, for me, today is the time to do that. However, if it goes to a reference back and it gets pushed off to somewhere else it is pointless having the debate.

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

I fully endorse the comments from Deputy Le Fondré. My concern here, and I totally respect your ruling, you have agreed that this is a reference back, and I listened to what Senator Bailhache said. My question is this today .. and there was a lot of stamping when Senator Bailhache said: "This will be a debate or decided in the M.T.F.P." As, Deputy Le Fondré said: "Think back to last year." It was bottom lines. This is a fundamental in principle, do you agree that we are going to give the Minister for Education the go ahead to means test the children. Now, this is what it is about. I would go the other way. I absolutely respect the work of Scrutiny, what they were doing but the proposer of the reference back is looking for more information from the Minister. The Minister is at fault. It is not for the Minister to help Deputy Tadier out in a proposition. His proposition is quite clear. He opened the speech saying: "It is in principle, you decide on the principle." Do not let something that is parliamentary and a procedure avoid this debate, because if you do not have this debate today we will not have it. It will not be on record who supported means testing the children of this Island. So I absolutely urge the mover of the reference back to withdraw it. It should be withdrawn and we should have this debate. It has been long awaited. The proposer waited and waited, and I fully understand why, for Scrutiny to finish their report out of respect, and that was great, the report was very timely and it is a great report. Then we are scuppered by something that came out as a press release from the Minister on Monday. We had the information on the table. Deputy Tadier cannot produce any more information if you reference this back for a year. It is not going to happen. So today is you either play the game or you have the debate and you nail your colours to the mast. Sorry, I really urge Deputy Doublet to withdraw this reference back.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

May I ask a point of order? I just wish to clarify the order of events here because I am confused. We are on, today, 15th June. If the mover of the proposition, I am just trying to get the order right. The Council of Minister has to propose the M.T.F.P. on 30th June. Now, that means that the next States debate would be if the reference back is .. if you have ruled that there is a reference back, presumably that means that the proposer could come back in 2 weeks' time. So in 2 weeks' time will be the 28th, depending on how long we talk and I will try not to talk. But the point of order I want to make is: can it work that we have a debate on requesting a Minister to do something for a plan that is inevitably already at the printers being printed? Because it seems to me a complete and utter waste of time. I am asking for whether or not this is in any way practical, whether you rule that the whole practicality of whether or not this is chaos, because I think it is.

The Bailiff :

I do not call that a point of order, Senator. It is a debating point which Deputy Le Fondré has made already and it will be a matter for Members as to whether they accept that point or not.

Deputy M. Tadier :

May I raise a point of order? So before I speak I am not clear on what information I am supposed to bring back. The mover has made a reference back. Rather than waiting, for example, until later to use Standing Order 85 to move to the next item, to get me to provide further information relating to this proposition to get more information, which she thinks is ambiguous and inconsistent. I do not know what that information is. So if this proposition is successful, what is it that I am supposed to bring back to the Assembly?

The Bailiff :

Well, as I understood it, the proposer has made her proposition for a reference back because she seeks more information from you as to the nature of your report and proposition given that these are not the proposed changes which the Minister now has under consideration. But if you do not know what you are being asked to provide by way of further information this is not really a point of order. You can make a speech and say that and Members will no doubt take that into account in deciding whether or not the proposition should be referred back to you.

6. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. John :

I think the issue with this in particular .. I am a member of the Education Panel and the reason why this Standing Order came up is because there have been all these various kind of tactics working around the scenes. What we have come to is the proposition that is in place now, and I am not going to say this is the fault of the proposer because he has been placed in a difficult situation. The problem is that there is not a proposal on the table from the Minister at present. It was just a press release. Both things have been press releases. So the proposition would be to come in the Medium Term Financial Plan. The problem I have, specifically with the proposal we are being asked now by the proposer, is that if we do not agree to cut the provision of free nursery hours to those earning a combined income of over £75,000. Now, if I was to support that, there is nothing stopping the Minister coming back in the M.T.F.P. and putting a saving in there for £74,000 with a sliding scale. So we are not able to give the Minister, or the Council of Ministers, a clear direction from the States Assembly whether we agree with means testing or not, because that is not what the proposition is asking us. That is my difficulty. That is why I would like it to be referred back and this is a conversation I have had with various Members and the proposer and Reform as well with regards to the difficulty in understanding the direction we are giving as a States Assembly. Also with regards to the M.T.F.P., if anything was to come forward in terms of the savings, there is not anything stopping any Member amending that particular proposal but the problem that is seen is because if they amend it they have to find the money from somewhere else to cover it. Then the Council of Ministers, if they are given the direction that the States Assembly do not want to means tests this particular nursery fund, then there is the ability for the Minister for Treasury and Resources to amend that M.T.F.P. before the debate and there would be an ability to do that under the Public Finance Law.

[10:30]

Senator Ozouf , stop shaking your head at me. So I would agree with the reference back because the difficulty here is that we are not being asked whether we agree with means testing or not. What we are being asked is at a certain amount and above and therefore it means that the Minister can still come forward with a proposal to make a saving under that £75,000. So that is the difficulty, and so I would ask for the reference back to absolutely make the proposition clear, so that we can set the direction to the Ministers as to whether we want means testing or not, if that is the ultimate aim of the proposal.

Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary :

We are in an awful muddle here it seems to me and I would just like to ask a point of order which may make me ask you something else. If the proposition were to be withdrawn and we were to move to the next item of business, can that proposition be retabled at this current sitting?

The Bailiff :

Connétable , do you mean can a different proposition be lodged today so that it comes back in 2 weeks' time?

The Connétable of St. Mary :

No, Sir. [Indistinct] and then you can tell me that I am wrong and should sit down, Sir. [Laughter] It seemed to me that if Deputy Tadier had proposed his original proposition unamended but had not proposed the paragraph that referred to the Scrutiny report, which we now already have, we would be having a debate that simply says that the Minister should not implement proposed changes until they have been approved by the States. That would enable us to have the full and frank debate on what the changes are and whatever, without having the limit that the amendment puts in. If it were possible to move to the next item and then have Deputy Tadier re- propose the proposition without the amendment and only propose paragraph (b), I think it is, then we might be out of a muddle.

The Bailiff :

Connétable , as I understand it, your suggestion is that the States should reject the present proposal to refer back, adopt a proposition to move on to the next item and then Deputy Tadier should re- propose this proposition without the amendment. Is that what you are proposing?

The Connétable of St. Mary :

I was hoping that if it was in order that Deputy Doublet , and saw the understanding, she might withdraw her proposition, if we propose without the amendment and only propose paragraph (b).

The Bailiff :

Ingenious but, no, you cannot [Laughter] Can I just go back to the ruling? I was asked to make a ruling on what the amended proposition means and I did say that it is a matter for Members whether they wish to debate the present proposition and make such political representations to each other, as it were, as they wish but they cannot change what the proposition means because otherwise we would be in Alice-through-the-Looking-Glass territory. The proposition must mean what it means and really that is where we are, that is the context of the ruling.

7. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement :

Just briefly, Sir, and I totally agree with you. Of course the proposition means what the proposition says but we are enduring some rather pedantic niceties to try and get the debate on this proposition deferred. All Deputy Tadier seems to be saying is that we should: "Not cut the provision of free nursery hours to those earning combined income of over £75,000 a year." As he said earlier, that includes people earning £85,000 a year, £100,000 a year or £150,000 a year, all those are included. But the implication, of course, that we pass this proposition might be that we do not cut it for those people or the Minister could cut it for those earning under £75,000 a year. It would have been better if the Deputy had not mentioned an amount at all but he did.  The implication of cutting it for people earning under £75,000 is not on the table, is not acceptable and is not going to happen, it is not going to be proposed. It seems to be quite clear what we are talking about, what we should be talking about, is maintaining free nursery hours for everybody, whatever their income is. We are capable of debating that and, therefore, we should really debate that today and then get on with the Medium Term Financial Plan in due course.

The Bailiff :

Nobody else wishes to speak. This is really just for reference. Sorry, Deputy Tadier , you wish to speak.

8. Deputy M. Tadier :

Yes, I would like to follow the Constable of St. Clement. I think he summed it up. We do not always agree. The Constable is the Chairman of the P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee). He is the senior Member of this Assembly and I think he has seen many debates and many devices that have been used in the past legitimately or illegitimately. I think the point is that he summed it up. The argument that somehow the Minister is going to go away today if we manage to pass this and just tell him: "Look, we do not want you to implement these changes for people earning above £75,000", that he is somehow going to come back and say: "All right, I am going to target before then" because that is not on the table, it is not within its mindset. It goes against everything that his department has told us about the pupil premium, et cetera, it does remain clear. I know there are those people in the Assembly who do not want to have this debate at all. They do not want it to be done today and they do not want it to win. I take on board that the mover of the reference back, so she is trying to be helpful. But, ultimately, do we cover ourselves in glory when we have an opportunity to discuss this today and make a clear decision one way or the other, to tell the Minister? If people want to stand up and say: "Look, I do not agree with the £75,000 threshold but I do agree with the Minister's proposals", they can make that speech and they can vote accordingly. But I think the point is we can keep on amending this as much as we want. I can come back in 2 weeks, I do not know what information I am supposed to provide. I would have much preferred that it was a move on to the next item. I would have much preferred it if somebody had told me yesterday: "By the way, I think there is a problem with this and would you consider not taking it?" et cetera, and this was not raised. The bottom line is this is in order, it is being moved, it has been approved by the Greffier, it has been read out and it is in order and there is no information that I can provide. Let us be honest about this, it is all in my report, it is all in the Scrutiny report. If the Chairman of Scrutiny is not prepared and does not feel she has got the information to have a debate on the merits of means testing and what the thresholds should be after she and her Panel have been doing this report for the best part of the last 3 months, I do not know who in the Assembly could be better prepared or have the information at their hands that they need. We do not cover ourselves in glory when we have these kind of debates. It might be a tough decision to make. Let us have this

debate now. I am quite prepared to lose it. I hope that I win it and that it gives a clear message. But if I need to come back in 2 weeks I can bring an amendment to make this debate happen in 2 weeks, 2 days before the lodging of the M.T.F.P. If that is what Ministers want we can do that. Then at the time, no doubt, there will be arguments, well, it is too late now, is it not? We might as well just wait for the M.T.F.P. to be lodged. If I had moved the proposition to say that the States should just consider the Minister's proposals, there would be a reference back, would there not, saying that we do not know what the Minister's proposals really are because they have not been costed? We do not know what kind of savings they are going to give us because this was just done on the back of a press release. There is no gold and silver bullet here. I think, as Senator Le Marquand used to say, the only enemy of a good plan is the perfect plan. I think we have the debate, we send a clear message to the Minister, one way or the other, about what we think and then I think we can hopefully go home once we have done that. I think we came out here with a purpose this morning which was to debate nursery funding. That is certainly why I came here with that purpose for and that is what we should be doing. I do ask the proposer preferably to withdraw the reference back or certainly for Members not to support it.

9. Senator I.J. Gorst :

Not wanting to bring upon myself, I do just want to delay this slightly by saying I want to pick up on 2 speeches, one is the Deputy of St. John and the other is the Connétable of St. Mary. It is fair to say I came into the Assembly this morning fully expecting that Deputy Tadier would have moved his proposition in the way that the Connétable of St. Mary asked you, whether it would be possible to do because I think, to pick up on the points of the Deputy of St. John, most Members

this morning agree that they would like to have a debate on the principle. Yet as you have ruled, Sir, and clarified and the difficulty that Deputy Doublet finds herself in, that is not the debate that is before us. The reference  back does not solve that problem, it just puts a decision off for a fortnight's time. As Senator Ozouf has said, that is not satisfactory either or we go ahead with the debate that is not the debate that anyone is wanting, about the principle of whether we should means test these proposals. We would almost be debating something that is not written down and the decision would be on what is written down, which is not what we really are trying to get to. Which brings me to a difficult point to make, and I look to the mover of the proposition and the reason I say this, the ideal time to have the debate, and I understand that there will be groanings there in the Assembly, is the M.T.F.P. There will be lots of elements to that debate. It will take days to get through but some of the things that the Deputy referred to in his opening remarks about 1001 Days in particular, he might be surprised with some of the proposals in the M.T.F.P. too in that regard. Therefore, on the one hand he is asking Members to make a decision, as he rightly said on the principles, without having all the details of the other proposals that would meet various policy aims that the Members of this Assembly have. I ask the mover of the proposition whether he does not think the best solution today is for him to withdraw his proposition. I am sure the Minister will do further briefing and give further detail on his current proposals. I am pretty sure he could do that in advance of the 30th, working with the Scrutiny Panel. That, I think, will get us to an informed decision about the actual proposals because we would not have an informed decision on the actual proposals nor an in principle debate today, either way, whether we accept the reference back or not. I am not sure whether the mover of the original proposition and not the reference back would consider that.

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

Very briefly. I have great sympathy with all concerned, this is a mess. What is said in press releases, what is said in statements is completely irrelevant. We have the proposition; that is what we have to discuss today. Either we vote for it, vote against it or it is withdrawn or referenced back, that is it. This is what we have to discuss and everything else is a waste of time. The train has left the station.

The Bailiff :

Very well. Deputy Doublet , do you wish to reply?

11. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet :

I am trying to collect my thoughts on this and I thank Members who have spoken on the issue. I think there was value in proposing this reference back to the Assembly clearly because there have been so many differing opinions on it. I want to address the criticism from Deputy Tadier , that he would have liked some notice that we were going to do this. In fact, as the Chief Minister said, I would have liked some notice that we were debating the proposition as amended because the last conversation I had with the Deputy we were debating it unamended. Better communication all round, I think, would have improved this situation from all parties. There is so much uncertainty here and I am not sure I can be of much use in guiding Members on which way they should vote on this reference back. I present it purely as an option. When we discussed this as a Panel we were aiming to decide which would be in the best interests in terms of decision making, quality decision making, of when to have this debate. Do we have it today, do we have it in 2 weeks or do we have it along with the M.T.F.P.? Those are the options there. As a Panel, we were aiming to perhaps highlight that to Members and present a way that they could make a choice as to which of those options they thought were best, so that is my intention.

[10:45]

I think Members just have to vote based upon the conversations we have had. I am not necessarily certain what is the best way forward here. There is so much confusion, lack of clarity. I have to say I am not clear on what we are voting on. I am not clear on where the evidence is or what is the best decision to make here. Yes, as Deputy Tadier says, I could make a speech this afternoon, I could help you as best I can. As I said yesterday, most of the evidence and the points in our conclusions still apply to this debate. Yes, I could stand up and do my best to give you the evidence and to guide Members as best I can, based upon that evidence. But the option is still there, I propose the reference back but I do think Members need to make their own decisions and use their own conscience and their own decision-making capabilities to decide what they think is best. I am uncertain, so I am in the hands of the Assembly on this one.

The Bailiff :

Very well. The vote is on whether or not to refer this proposition back to Deputy Tadier . The appel is called for. I ask Members to return to their seats and I will ask the Greffier to open the voting.

3. Nursery Funding: implementation of proposed changes (P.39/2016) - resumption

The Bailiff :

Very well. We return, therefore, to Deputy Tadier 's proposition. Minister, I would ask you for clarification as to what your position was and not what you wish to speak about.

1. Deputy R.G. Bryans:

I apologise that Members have found themselves in this position. As I said earlier, we were in a situation where I was baffled by what was happening and I think the last few discussions and the last vote really shows that was true. Yesterday there was a lot of discussion surrounding my relationship with Scrutiny. Hopefully, today we can focus on the real issue of nursery provision for young children in the year prior to entering school. Equally, yesterday I sent around by email a comment given by the Executive Director of the Jersey Childcare Trust, which is an independent charity that provides services and information for parents, childcare providers and other professionals in Jersey, so reference to nurseries in particular. For those Members who did not receive it or have not read this I am just going to read it out, it is not very long: "Since the Education Minister's announcement yesterday with his plans to move the income levels and introduce a sliding scale of means testing, the Jersey Childcare Trust would like to comment publicly on these new plans. The Trust maintains the importance of the principle of universality of access to nursery education. There is a wealth of research and evidence now which shows that the universal model makes the biggest difference, with the return on investment ultimately benefiting the whole of society for many years to come. Taking a realistic view of today's economic climate this universal investment does not seem a possibility now or in the future. The Minister's statement outlines that the Nursery Education Fund in its current form is not sustainable with current expenditure exceeding budget and more private nurseries wanting to join. The Trust is encouraged that the Minister, in revising his proposal, has listened to others, taken into account their opinions and considered the context of the draft Scrutiny Panel report. The Trust is pleased that the proposed baseline income level has been increased to £85,000 with a sliding scale, which offers a more fairer approach. By proposing this the Minister has taken account of the very real financial pressures that families in Jersey face, balancing their childcare, housing and other living costs and the Trust supports his revised proposal." The overriding question now is: why are we still doing this? Why does it still make sense? Means testing, as a principle, is accepted as a progressive measure. This has been identified in the economic adviser's report released to States Members last week. At the moment taxpayers are funding a universal benefit for everybody, regardless of their earning capacity. We have people earning hundreds of thousands of pounds receiving the same free hours of nursery care as people right at the lower end of the earning scale. For some people £4,000 is a vast amount of money, a large chunk of their wages. For others it is the difference between having or not having an extra holiday. What we are trying to do is recalibrate, redress the balance. It also needs to be said quite clearly that the budget for the N.E.F. (Nursery Education Fund), the money set aside for this fund, has for the past 3 years been exceeded. The current funding structure is unsustainable and there is potential for more increase in demand that makes the funding for the N.E.F. even more difficult. We have the potential of 2 private schools now coming in and asking us to pay for that provision. The time is right to do something about this and the M.T.F.P. has provided the constraint and focused our minds on the problem. The original principle was born at a time of relative plenty when the economy was booming but times have changed and we are now having to ask ourselves completely different and much harder questions. Every taxpayer will question, why are we giving nearly £4,000 to people who do not need it who can easily afford it? We need to step away and take an objective look at the bigger picture. We have a duty to look at each and every area of spending and ask ourselves, what is the core role of our Government? Where are we supposed to spend our money? Should we be subsidising Islanders with high earnings when some of our own people no longer have any earnings at all? How do we continue to fund a scheme that we can no longer afford? These are the questions that led us to the

N.E.F. proposal. You all know that States finances are under unprecedented pressure and there is a need to make real savings and efficiencies so that we can invest in the strategic priorities of health, the economy and, of course, education. I make no apology for that mantra. We need a co- ordinated approach to this and that is why we need the M.T.F.P. I do believe this matter should be debated and thoroughly considered, it has already been discussed earlier and not in isolation. The reduction of the subsidy should be debated in September, along with all the other M.T.F.P. savings and in context. The Council of Ministers embark on an ambitious plan in the M.T.F.P. Education is playing a major part because it is one of the biggest spending States departments. It has one of the highest budgets. However, this is against the backdrop of rising pupil numbers, major changes to the curriculum and exams and recognition that our results should be higher. We have worked extremely hard on this over a long period of time to target the right areas so that we can invest the same time as we streamline our services. Reprioritising budgets on this scale is a huge and difficult task but it is not our only one. It sits alongside our business as usual, which is to improve the standards of education for as many young people as we possibly can. It is obvious that well- educated, well-skilled young people make a good workforce, a strong economy and a prosperous Island, and that benefits us all. We have to see the whole picture. What I am saying here is that the change to the N.E.F. funding is part of a bigger vision, which is to improve the educational outcomes for all Jersey children. Children from disadvantaged and less affluent backgrounds are most at risk of underachieving at school. The work to raise standards needs to focus on this group first, so the Jersey Pupil Premium Scheme has been introduced to give them extra help to achieve what they are capable of at school. I believe this is urgent and overdue. U.K. schools have been investing in poorer pupils this way for more than a decade and their standards have risen accordingly. We have been able to tailor ours to our own specific needs. But let us return to the N.E.F. and, in particular, the private sector businesses. We truly value what they do and want them to continue doing it because they provide something our school nurseries cannot. They cater for babies right from birth, an area the Education Department has no role in whatsoever. They provide care when schools are closed and in the holidays. They can offer a form of flexibility that schools cannot compete with and we should not. School nurseries are trying to provide an alternative choice for parents and they are, quite deliberately, 2 completely different offerings. We believe that if these proposals are accepted the landscape of nursery provision will hardly change. People will continue using the nurseries the way they do, either at the school or privately. What do the States nurseries offer? Free places aligned directly with primary schools and continuity and consistency with the start of formal schooling. Most are parochial with a great affiliation to their community or Parish. Contrary to what has been suggested by some Deputies and private providers, they are cheaper per hour to run and we can provide the figures. The heads of our primaries all want a nursery attached to their school because they know how effective they can be for children. The private sector has expanded from 22 to 29 nurseries since the N.E.F. was created but there has been no change in our States primary schools, 5 of the 23 States primary schools still do not have their own nursery but we know there is a rising demand from families, particularly in town. We must be careful here that the private sector businesses, by being vociferous, are dictating to the States what is in their best interest but not necessarily that of the whole community, again the bigger picture. We must be wary of pursuing equality when it is a mirage. States nurseries and private nurseries will never be the same. They serve different purposes for different families, that is why we will not be charging in States school nurseries. An ecosystem of care built up carefully over many years that would be broken if we impose the same rules. We want to maintain a position in nursery years that mirrors the rest of the school system in primary, secondary and beyond, that is parents can choose a free school place, irrespective of their income. They can choose to pay some of the cost in a States subsidised school or they can pay full fees at a private school. Charging for States nurseries, forcing them to act like private businesses, is wrong and will create many more difficulties than it resolves. The heads have already voiced their dissent. I believe in the principle of free education and that is why we are planning to expand the number of nursery places in our States schools. If our proposal is approved we will be spending about £1.3 million on the N.E.F. every year, so the majority of Jersey families will not be affected by the change unless they earn over £100,000. Up to that ceiling everyone will continue to have some benefit from the 20 hours of