The official version of this document can be found via the PDF button.
The below content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost, therefore it should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments.
STATES OF JERSEY
Economic Affairs Panel
Role and Funding of Jersey Finance Limited
MONDAY, 17th DECEMBER 2007
Panel:
Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier (Chairman) Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier
Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour
Witnesses:
Mr. M. F. Dubras
Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier (Chairman):
Right. So, welcome, Maurice, to this, the first of our hearings about the funding and role of Jersey Finance Limited. Obviously, I have to draw your attention to the notice in front of you, which are the conditions under which you appear.
Mr. M. Dubras:
Quite familiar with them, as an old hand, as it were, from Shadow Scrutiny.
Deputy G.P. Southern :
Yes. Obviously, as President of the Industry Committee in 2000, as a member of P. and R. (Policy and Resources) through 2000 to 2003, you were obviously heavily involved in the setting-up of what has become Jersey Finance Limited.
Mr. M. Dubras:
I was on P. and R. right through to 2005.
Deputy G.P. Southern :
Yes. Certainly. Would you like to start back in 2000 with what your recollection is of the start-up of what became Jersey Finance Limited, and what your involvement was?
Mr. M. Dubras:
Thank you. I am working from the question areas that I was sent.
Deputy G.P. Southern : Certainly.
Mr. M. Dubras:
If I might, just to help you, I asked for a chronology of main events during the period certainly that I was involved, and we have got some copies here for your members this morning. I am hoping that that will speed up the process and eliminate any memory lapses that people like me are likely to have. But I would like to take you back to 1999, although the first 2 entries are before that. In 1999, I was given the task by P. and R. of designing and organising for something called an Industry Committee. We decided to call it the Industries Committee, the Committee for Economic Development, or Economic and Commercial Development. That was the strap line, and that was approved by the States in 2 stages: in June 1999, and finally in October 1999. So that, by the end of 1999 there was a body --
Deputy G.P. Southern : Called the Industries --
Mr. M. Dubras:
-- called the Industries Committee. People did not appreciate, but we made it evident that we called it the Industries Committee because there was not only tourism and agriculture and finance, but the finance itself was several different industries within one. So, we decided to capture that situation, along with all the other minor industries, if you like, but it was clearly intended to be a body that would be looking forward and developing the economic development of the Island. Now, subsequently, it was called Economic Development, I think at my suggestion, at the end of 2002 when we made the second stage of conversion and reduction of committees, and, of course, we retained that notion when the ministerial government was introduced. So, I put that as a little bit of background. The reason I want to mention that is because the mandate for the Industries Committee was to bring all of the committees that had
anything to do with the economic development of the Island under one roof. At the same time, one of our mandate lines discussed the fact that we were responsible for the promotion of the Island from an economic development point of view. There had been no one body responsible. Everybody knew about tourism promotion; everybody knew about agricultural promotion. But at that time there was no promotion of the finance industry per se and it was subsumed to some extent. It was decided that we needed to not only be responsible for the, if you like, marketing and promotion of all of the industries, but also that they should, from the States' perspective, all be managed and funded if any, by us. It was designed in 2 stages. Some committees like Broadcasting and Lotteries and so on, they came in the first gathering of small committees, leaving tourism and agriculture, fisheries and finance, because finance was deemed to be part of F. and E. (Finance and Economics Committee), although it was not really F. and E.'s original role but it just had developed that way. They would be subsumed under Industries Committee, or Economic Development as it became, at the second stage. That is why, at the end of 2002, the Industries Committee turned itself into Economic Development, tourism disappeared, ag and fish disappeared, and during the next 18 months the transfer was made for finance. So, that is summarised on this set of sheets. When we first met as an Industries Committee in the April of that year, a paper was presented to us under our banner of the promotion of Jersey as a whole, to be first acquainted with the fact that the finance industry had started to look at how can we in fact do a better job of promoting finance in the Island. Now, one of the things that I wanted to do, and was designed into the original Industries Committee concept, was a Finance Strategy Board, similar to the one that was designed for the construction industry and similar to the one that was set up for new industries. Now, they were started up quickly. It was just very timely for that. The Financial Strategy Board took longer to set up and, in effect, as it was about to happen we converted over to Economic Development and all of that took place. So, it did not ever form. But the intention was - and this is critical - the intention was that the States would stimulate the looking ahead as to how the finance industry could be developed, because we were just going through a downturn at the end of 1999, into 2000 and beyond, when we had the first Gulf war, the world economic situation changed, and so people were already reading the signals that if we were going to continue to be successful, we had to do something about looking ahead as to how the finance industry was going to develop; what lines of business were going to stop,
what new avenues should be opened up. The Industries Committee, in its first year to 18 months had a series of briefings from different parts of the industry as to how it should develop. We were relatively ignorant because, in fact, in those days, very few States' Members really understood what the finance industry was all about.
Deputy G.P. Southern :
Can I stop you there? Was it not the case that, in fact, the funding of what was at the time called Promoco, I believe - which became Jersey Finance Limited - at the time of the start-up for that, the reasoning behind it was that the Edwards Report had said that Jersey Financial Services Commission should not be both regulating the finance industry and promoting its activity?
Mr. M. Dubras:
That is correct. J.F.S.C. (Jersey Financial Services Commission) was formed out of a department of the States. It got on with the job. Promotion was never a big part of its role, because it was there as a regulator. But nevertheless that had always been thought to be something that went hand in glove. I think some of the people were used to doing that anyway. It is how these things happen. But, nevertheless, the notion of promoting the industry was always sitting there. When Edwards made clear that that duality was not acceptable of a regulator, then the F. and E. Committee that was overseeing, together with P. and R. at that time, decided - and I think that is what helped to colour the thinking of us designing the Industries Committee, because on that committee we had people like Phil Austin and Geoffrey Grime who themselves were very much involved. So, they were all au fait with this. We not only talked about a finance strategy board and a single promotional body, but they in their own way were thinking about the need for something like Promoco - a working title.
Deputy G.P. Southern :
Can I also clarify that at that time the J.F.S.C. had been told, effectively, by the Edwards Report that it should not be doing that dual role? There was also a body called the Jersey Finance Industry Association, which represented --
Mr. M. Dubras:
Correct. It had another name at the time, but that is what it became.
Deputy G.P. Southern :
They had a promotional role for promoting their businesses, presumably.
Mr. M. Dubras: Individually.
Deputy G.P. Southern :
Individually, but collectively that was the body through which they could act to do that.
Mr. M. Dubras:
Yes. I am not sure it ever did. But carry on.
Deputy G.P. Southern :
Whether it was effective or not, right, is another question. Then, eventually, J.F.L. (Jersey Finance Limited) subsumed J.F.I.A. (Jersey Finance Industry Association) later on. I believe it finally happened in 2004. But we will pass over that for the moment.
Mr. M. Dubras:
All the time that I was involved, the J.F.L. that was formed in 2000, 2001, out of Promoco, was running in parallel with J.F.I.A. I can well recall meetings that Senator Walker and myself were invited to as the 2 presidents at the J.F.I.A. where we were talking about issues like the impact of the cost of doing business in the Island, the impact of the Regulation of Undertakings and Development Law, for which we were responsible, together with the consequences of Edwards, together with what was emerging then from the Dawn Primarolo involvement, of which I was aware as a member of P. and R., and so on. So, a lot of things were happening simultaneously during that very critical period of 1999 to 2002. In that transition stage, J.F.I.A. formed itself as a J.F.I.A. I think Anthony Dessain became the chairman or president, because there were 3 or 4 bodies that coalesced to create J.F.I.A.
Deputy G.P. Southern :
Could I also refer you back to what you say in the first place: the need for a holistic approach to the whole of industries, and in fact that Jersey Finance Limited, as in its early name Promoco, was designed to do that? I think it is probably the paper that you received on 5th April 2000, way back then: "The need for a holistic approach to the Jersey brand. It makes little sense to compartmentalise financial services and, for example, e-commerce more generally. It makes sense for the sake of a single brand for a single effort promoting Jersey as a tourism and business location, and the importance of bringing agricultural promotional spend within the same frame." So the original for us was that this should be the Jersey brand, but it happens to have come through Jersey Finance Limited in the end. How would you see that?
Mr. M. Dubras:
I am not sure it came through Jersey Finance Limited. I think it emerged. Because, if you allow for the fact that in that period 2000 through 2002, a lot of creativity was going on. Small groups were working at: "What do we do in the future?" We realise the Island is facing a very important water-shed in terms of the outside pressures on the Island: the forces of European Community on the one hand, the O.E. C.D . (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) on the other; world financial markets on the third, and the fact that there was a Gulf war which was creating a lot of pressure on us. Sorry, ignore the Gulf war comment - my mind has jumped further ahead - a lot further ahead. All of these pressures were being talked about and so ideas were being bounced around, so that we might have a discussion in April. Things had moved on by July, had moved on by December. So nothing was solid until the agreement of F. and E. Committee was: "Yes. We will go with this concept of Promoco, and we will call it Jersey Finance Limited." So, what is important to allow is that things were not firm; they were moving around. So, do not assume a statement made at the beginning of 2000 was necessarily a final decision.
Deputy G.P. Southern :
I think I have heard your answer to my next question, then. We come on to the financing of Jersey Finance Limited. Okay. You note in the minutes of the meeting on 5th April that in addition further thought needed to be given to the funding arrangements. But then the minutes say: "The Financial Services Commission might be prepared to contribute towards the costs." What was your thinking there?
I would suggest to you that the minutes record the general thrust. The main thing that the Industries Committee felt at that time, in that series of meetings, was: "These are very early days. We are not, ourselves, responsible, but we are party to the general discussion", as I was suggesting just a few moments ago. There was a lack of clarity, there was a lack of absolute certainty as to what was going on, because ideas were being bounced around. But, if you remember what I was saying a little bit earlier, Financial Services Commission had set aside some of its operating budget for promotion. That money had come from the industry by way of its fees. When it became clear that they would not have responsibility in the future, an amount was earmarked, round numbers £250,000, that was considered equivalent to what they had been spending, and therefore that would go through and not be retained by them. It would go to the States as part of the money that got handed on to the States every year. F. and E. said: "Right. We will use that as the basis amount to be given to J.F.L." and that is what we were told.
Deputy G.P. Southern :
From your knowledge of what happened, do you know if that did happen? Was money, as it were, siphoned off from that fee structure to end up --
Mr. M. Dubras:
Siphoned off is a bit pejorative. That money was allocated. Instead of it being spent by the Financial Services Commission, it got transferred by them to F. and E., who then put it into the plan for J.F.L.
Deputy G.P. Southern :
So, the connection was, if we are going to move the promotional activity from J.F.S.C. to what became J.F.L., we are going to move some funding from them via F. and E. into
Mr. M. Dubras:
Yes. It was F. and E.'s money, on behalf of the taxpayer, and it got directed towards the new body. Now, there has always been a bit of uncertainty as to how much was
appropriate, how much was going to be contributed by the industry, and you will see, I think in the early papers, there was always a concept that there would be a sharing. Just in the same way as we were talking to the tourism industry, and to the agriculture and fisheries industry, it was not just money from the States.
Deputy G.P. Southern :
Can I take you further there? In a minute from 12th July 2000, it is minuted by the Industries Committee: "The Committee noted proposals for the membership of Promoco." It is still called Promoco at the time --
Mr. M. Dubras:
Sorry. Which minute are you referring to?
Deputy G.P. Southern :
I am referring to a minute of 12th July 2000: "The committee noted proposals for the membership of Promoco and noted that the Finance and Economics Committee had advised that the States would fund the initiative during the first year, then to be funded by subscription in subsequent years." Is that an accurate reflection of how you thought the funding was going to be set up?
Mr. M. Dubras:
I do not think I can say that is necessarily an accurate statement, insofar as it is a minute of the committee. The most important thing is to note that those options were being looked at. It was not a definite decision at that stage. It was too early. In fact, you will notice that [2 weeks later] we heard from the then mover of Promoco, Geoffrey Grime. He came in on 12th July. Then we got further discussion on 26th July and I think you will find that there is the statement there about: "Initial funding would be provided through Financial Services Commission" which is the bit we discussed just a bit earlier. But we, again, concluded that we wanted to see what the finer details were. But if you look at the paper that was presented to the Industries Committee originally --
Deputy G.P. Southern : Back in 2000?
Mr. M. Dubras:
Yes. As part of that original discussion.
Deputy G.P. Southern : 5th April. Yes.
Mr. M. Dubras:
Yes. The paper talks about a sharing between the States and the industry. Traditionally in those days, there was a culture of one for one.
Deputy G.P. Southern :
Nonetheless, if I can just come in there? I do not wish to stop you in full flow, but these minutes of the Industries Committee, presumably signed off by you, and it clearly says on 12th July we are talking: "The F. and E. Committee had advised that the States would fund the initiative during the first year, then to be funded by subscription in subsequent years." Also, on 26th July, which you refer to, it says clearly: "Initial funding would be provided through the F.S.C."
Mr. M. Dubras: Correct.
Deputy G.P. Southern :
So, it seems to me there is a clear statement that initial funding is being provided, but that the vision was that eventually subscription would fund that activity.
Mr. M. Dubras: Never 100 per cent.
Deputy G.P. Southern : It does not say that there.
Mr. M. Dubras:
No. With respect, Chairman, you have got to look at not only the minutes, but you have got to look also at the supporting documents, which were the original Promoco proposal that came to us. You have also got to recognise that these were not verbatim minutes. These are a summary of what was said. You do not have today's Hansard as we have this morning, or as you have in the States. So, committee minute-takers, committee clerks of the day, are getting the gist of what was discussed, but you will not go back and say that is categorically what was concluded. Because, as I said earlier, this was a very much evolving situation, and you have got to read this together with the associated papers. The original paper was always talking about cost-splitting between the States and the industry. But you have got to look at how that evolved. The first year the money was there to kick-start J.F.L., so it could not have subscriptions at that stage. So, the £250,000 that we talked about being reallocated earlier was the money that the States put on the table. By the time J.F.L. had formed itself, got itself a chief executive in 2001, 2002 - it took them a while to get things arranged. I think you will find that it was only about 2003 that they held meetings at which members of the industry were invited to join the organisation. I can remember the general meetings that were held, I think at the Grand Hotel, where the J.F.L. had established itself - had formed itself - and had done its homework and was ready then, alongside J.F.I.A., and I think with J.F.I.A.'s support, to say: "Right. We are now ready to ask you to put your hands in your pockets."
Deputy G.P. Southern :
Could I suggest, Maurice, that yes, I do see that in the original paper from April 2000, Funding of Promoco, where it does talk about: "There should be joint funding of Promoco, with contributions from government and industry."
Mr. M. Dubras:
That is correct. That is the basis on which those --
Deputy G.P. Southern :
If that was the thrust, then that is not reflected in the minutes of the meetings signed off by you. I would suggest that it should have been.
Well, you can look back 7 years and say whatever you say today. That is your perception. I am comfortable that that minute reflects accurately the nature of the discussions that were going on.
Deputy G.P. Southern :
Then, the accurate reflection of what you thought you were doing was that you would be providing initial funding through the Financial Services Committee, and then to be funded by subscription in subsequent years. So, this was start-up --
Mr. M. Dubras:
Both/and. Both/and. Always both/and.
Deputy G.P. Southern : So, both through F.S.C.
Mr. M. Dubras:
No. Both through the States Ignore the F.S.C. for the moment. All right? You can set that aside, because it was a momentary decision that the money that F.S.C. had been spending, or deemed that it was to be spending on promotion, was no longer staying with them in their budget. It was effectively passed on.
Deputy G.P. Southern : I accept that.
Mr. M. Dubras:
Therefore F. and E. then decided from the monies that it now had in the public ownership, how much it was going to allocate to promotion. In the first year they said we will allocate £250,000. From that moment on, everything that was allocated to J.F.L. was coming out of F. and E.'s budgets before it got transferred in 2003, 2004, to Industries Committee, or then Economic Development. So, you have got to take this in a broad brush way, and you have got to accept that it was always both/and. But in the initial year it came from the States, only because there were no subscriptions. There was no body to subscribe to. By the time you went through that transition, which I have described earlier, you then have the combination of monies from the States and monies from the industry.
Deputy G.P. Southern :
These minutes do not clearly indicate that.
Mr. M. Dubras:
If you feel that. I am comfortable that the minutes accurately reflect the thrust of what was going on at the time.
Deputy G.P. Southern :
That is an accurate statement. Okay?
Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier :
Just to come in there. We agree to disagree on that last one, and say that in my understanding it does not read in the minutes that it was --
Mr. M. Dubras:
Sorry to interrupt. You should be much more concerned with the minutes of the Finance and Economics Committee --
Deputy J.A. Martin: Which I am coming to.
Mr. M. Dubras:
-- which were driving the thing. We were there as a new body, picking up our part of the action.
Deputy J.A. Martin:
Which I am coming to. All the way through from the inception, from 13th November 2000, after the initial setting-up of £250,000 --
Mr. M. Dubras:
I do not have access to those. They have only been offered --
Deputy J.A. Martin:
Well, it is mentioned not only in one minute but in quite a few minutes, that the funding for the company's activities from 1st January 2002 on the basis of a 50/50 arrangement, presently limited to the annual amount of the original £250,000. Looking at the accounts, I am not quite sure that it always worked on the 50/50, pound for pound.
Mr. M. Dubras: I have no idea.
Deputy J.A. Martin:
Well, you were the president.
Mr. M. Dubras:
No, I think you will find that it was Deputy Voisin was president after the end of 2002. In any case, the funding was decided by F. and E. As I say, they had responsibility. The thrust is absolutely what you said, that was that the intention was for an approximately equal split. Because that was the sort of language of the day, pound for pound. If you look at Sports Department, they used to allocate funding on a pound for pound basis. It is just sort of a way of speaking, if you like. It was in the language. But nobody knew in 2000 how much money would eventually be needed, looking 7 years ahead, for the promotion of the finance industry. Nobody could tell how the downturn would take place in the period between 1999 and 2005, and how subsequently we have had a resurgence. I mean, you can look ahead and hope, but just exactly what took place could not be predicted. What we anticipated was that a body was needed, and we have got that body, and as far as I can tell as a bystander now, it is doing a thoroughly good job.
Deputy G.P. Southern :
Can I take you on to factually what happened at that 13th November 2000 meeting of the Finance and Economics Committee, of which you were a member?
No. I have never been a member of F. and E.
Deputy G.P. Southern : Oh. Right.
Mr. M. Dubras:
I was a member of P. and R. through that phase.
Deputy G.P. Southern :
Okay. The sums agreed were £150,000 and £500,000 for 2000 and 2001, respectively, and that would be effectively seed money, start-up money, before any contributions from the industry came in. It clearly says that on the basis of a 50/50 arrangement. Have you comments on the fact that the 50/50 arrangement has gone by the board in the intervening years? That the States now contributes of the order of £1 million, and the industry contributes of the order of £400,000?
Mr. M. Dubras:
If you are talking strictly finance, actual pounds transferring hands, it appears to be imbalance, but I think you will find it was certainly very much the case when I was involved, at the time of all of the various working groups that were dealing with aspects of the O.E. C.D . pressures and the European Code of Conduct pressures, that a lot of time was given, and I think still is, by members of the industry, gratis. So, you have got to look at that and, just as I said when I came into this room, talking to the Overseas Aid Scrutiny Panel, I think you have got to look at the time that people give as a contribution. It does not end up in a till accounting, but I think you will find that the total value of the contributions is probably closer to the 50/50 split, or 45/55, or whatever it turns out to be, than you are suggesting. I think you have got to be very clear that in a matter like this, everything is not black and white. You can try and dissect minutes as you have been doing up until this time, that were written 7 years ago, and say: "Well, that is black and white", but it is not. You can try --
Deputy G.P. Southern :
The minutes should be accurate.
Mr. M. Dubras:
The minutes were probably accurate as they stood, but they do not tell the whole story because there are always supporting papers, and you have to rely on the fact that there are supporting papers. That is the danger of looking back 7 years and just looking at a minute. You know, I had to ask for these. I was refused these minutes initially, because they were considered to be in confidence. But I subsequently persuaded the Greffier that I was entitled to see them, because things have moved on.
Deputy G.P. Southern :
The exemption is under Article 14, which is about policy information --
Mr. M. Dubras:
That is right. But I was refused initially because no States' Member is entitled to see documents that are considered Part B. But life has moved on, and I won that argument. So, at least I got to see some of the --
Deputy G.P. Southern :
Could I take you on to the nature of Jersey Finance Limited and the way it was envisaged? Can I take you back to that vision that saw a general promotion of the Island under this Promoco banner, which became J.F.L.? J.F.L. does many things. It promotes finance activity on the Island, and thereby promotes Jersey as a tourism destination as a brand at the same time. It also is concerned with the interests of its members and is, in some ways, a lobbying group for the interests of its members within government. How do you feel about the clarity with which that mix of responsibilities is part-funded by the States themselves? For example, we are part- funding a group, part of whose activities is to lobby the government itself in the interests of its members.
Mr. M. Dubras:
Well, I think you have got to take that in 2 chunks. The first chunk is whether or not J.F.L. was, in fact, given a mandate to promote the whole of the Island, and I do not think that ever came to pass. It was one of a number of options that started with that first discussion in April 2000. Because that was on the agenda at the Industries Committee we started to look at it as it appeared for the first time. I am not completely up-to-date, but I think you will find that some of the discussions that are going on currently with the tourism industry are akin to what was being discussed back in 2000, and that came out of the consultative work that we did in 1999, where everybody was saying: "What is the States getting for its pound of flesh?" if you like, to change the analogy. I happen to like the Merchant of Venice, that is all. We looked at whether J.F.L. was the right body over that 2 or 3 years. It was an issue that was touched on during one of our economic forum meetings that we held quarterly during the period that I was president. I do not think it was ever concluded. J.F.L. got on with the finance industry and the other 2 industries that were not part of industries at the time got on with their own. But the concept was always there, and I think it is a good principle to --
Deputy G.P. Southern :
It has perhaps come back, yes, I accept that entirely.
Mr. M. Dubras:
That is all right. Absolutely. Now, dealing with the other issue. The J.F.I.A. was the body that was the association of legal firms, accounting firms, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. They were, if you like, the association of members. They were the equivalent of the J.D.A. (Jersey Democratic Alliance), perhaps, for the industry.
Deputy G.P. Southern : I like the analogy.
Mr. M. Dubras:
Well, I leave that to you to play with. It is Christmas time, after all. However, J.F.L. was not seen at the time it was formed, to try to be replacing the J.F.I.A., because it was a creature of both industry and the States to promote the Island as a finance industry; to respond collectively to the pressures and the criticisms and so on. However, as things do happen, over time it became clear that the J.F.I. was a bit superfluous and the 2 were amalgamated, and you can speak to others later today to go into more detail on that. The feeling is, I think, that there were always what I have described as a tension between whether or not the J.F.L. was a vehicle that individual industry organisations - the banks and the trusts and so on and so forth - whether they
were comfortable contributing to something that was taking money off the bottom line when they had their own promotional activity, and when they also had activity in a lot of other jurisdictions.
Deputy G.P. Southern :
But my fundamental question is in terms of its lobbying which has, in a sense, taken over from J.F.I.A. as lobbying on behalf of its members.
Mr. M. Dubras:
Sorry. Lobbying with whom?
Deputy G.P. Southern :
With Government, acting in its members' interests, on the Government to persuade, perhaps, that we do this or we do not do that, is partially funded by the States itself. You have accepted that it has taken over that role.
Mr. M. Dubras:
Let me use a completely different analogy. When you plug into the electricity socket, you get electrons. You do not know whether the electrons originally came over a water dam, or came out of a nuclear reactor, or came out of a steam plant fuelled by hydrocarbons. It is electricity. When you put money into an organisation like J.F.L., you are saying: "We are putting this money in to contribute to a body which is doing a number of things. It is promoting, it is marketing, it is doing research, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera." Now, you have got to look at it that way and not nit-pick as to whether the money is going into that pocket or into that pocket.
Deputy G.P. Southern :
You might call it nit-picking, but it is about a basic accountability as to who is paying for what.
Mr. M. Dubras:
If everybody contributes to the pot, and then everybody is satisfied that the range of services that it is providing meets the objectives of the Government of the day and meets the objectives of the industry, working collaboratively to improve the economic
development of the Island and the individual profitability of all the organisations, I think you should be satisfied.
Deputy G.P. Southern :
But there is an accountability question about it.
Mr. M. Dubras:
Of course, accountable to industry as well as to the taxpayer.
Deputy G.P. Southern :
In your time as President of the Industries Committee, did you have a service level agreement with the body that was set up, J.F.L.?
Mr. M. Dubras:
We were not responsible for it, so we would not have. In any case, service level agreements were something that was, for the first time, being created. Somewhere in there
Deputy G.P. Southern :
Well, there would have been a statement: "This is what we are doing", and somebody saying: "We think you are doing it because we are funding it, and we think you are doing it well."
Mr. M. Dubras:
I think if I can turn to a body that we were responsible for, and that was the J.C.R.A. (Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority), there was a law under which the J.C.R.A. operated, and there were documentation trails that established the relationship. Subsequently, that was enhanced. The responsibility for the J.F.L. was F. and E., so you would have to talk to F. and E. about that.
Deputy G.P. Southern : Do not worry. We will.
I am sure you will.
Deputy G.P. Southern :
I can see we are well over time. I thank you for your time.
Mr. M. Dubras:
Can I ask you a question?
Deputy G.P. Southern :
Is there anything else you wish to say before we finish?
Mr. M. Dubras:
Yes. This may be my lack of understanding of the question areas and terms of reference, but I was curious -- the nature of the questioning this morning has been sort of retrospective
Deputy G.P. Southern :
Because that is the appropriate view of your time in charge of it.
Mr. M. Dubras:
Yes. Except that I do not see anything in here that is talking about looking at the future role of J.F.L. and developing a strategy for the Island for the finance industry, to ensure that it is doing its job. Is that your intention?
Deputy G.P. Southern :
That is not our intention at this particular meeting. It may well have appeared on the questions and I am sorry if it misled you. We are intending to come back to this issue with a wider brief, because at this stage we see ourselves looking at the initial formation of and development of. We will look at the future on this in January, and by all means, you are welcome to come and --
Mr. M. Dubras:
It is just, as I mentioned, just in closing: the thrust of the Industries Committee of the day, when it was formed, was to look forward at how can we change the finance industry to do the work that is needed. I did not see that in your terms of reference but I am glad that you are going to be forward-looking.
Deputy G.P. Southern :
Almost inevitably. We do have a capsule at the end of our terms of references for any other matters that we feel are relevant.
Mr. M. Dubras:
That to me is critical. The whole point of having the J.F.L. was to do just that. Not just to spend cash.
Deputy G.P. Southern :
I thank you for that contribution, and thank you for your time, Maurice.
Mr. M. Dubras: I appreciate it.
Deputy J.A. Martin: Thank you.
Mr. M. Dubras:
Merry Christmas to you all.