A planted question and lack-lustre performances at St Brelade

Having taken a bit of a breather on Wednesday night at a quiet St Peter, the voting public were out in force again last Thursday at a packed Communicare Centre at St Brelade. However, the gruelling week appeared to be taking its toll on some of the candidates who, despite having had the opportunity to rehearse their prepared speeches at the three previous meetings, struggled to put their message across as eloquently as they might have wished.

Question time covered familiar ground: the Waterfront, taxation, GST and income support, and the value for money of the civil service. The evening also featured the most obvious "plant" of the campaign so far with the JDA's candidate for St Brelade constable, Steve Pallett, opening proceedings with a question designed to give Deputy Geoff Southern and Denise Carroll an easy ride.

What research have you done on the cost of implementing your policies, or are they just a wish list ?

Roger Bisson explained that the majority of his policies were "cost neutral." Ben Shenton, having skipped over the question, chose to criticise the inability of the States to correctly predict future income.

Deputy Geoff Southern took the opportunity presented by his JDA comrade to remind electors of the widespread consultation the JDA had undertaken on tax and again stressed the importance of a detailed and properly costed manifesto. This was endorsed by the JDA's Denise Carroll. Roy Travert referred potential electors to his website which, he said, had been compiled using publicly available information on www.gov.je. Senator Paul Le Claire, having admitted that the Centre Party's manifesto still required work, suggested that the amalgamation of Employment & Social Security and Health & Social Services was one example of how they intended to achieve savings on existing expenditure whilst at the same time improving efficiency and co-operation. Fellow Centre Party candidate Kevin Lewis added that they would look to reduce costs at the Harbour and Airport (a theme also touched on by Deputy Southern who wants to liberalise JerseyAirport.) Deputy Guy de Faye, having generously acknowledged that civil servants undertook most of a Committee's research, gave an example of where he felt additional income could be generated - from realising the value of existing assets, such as the Island's fortifications. Senator Terry Le Sueur defended the consultation undertaken by the Finance & Economics Committee and identified the need to properly research the impact on people in the community as well as producing detailed financial projections.

To much applause Jimmy Perchard said that he was not prepared to be "caught out" in attempting to answer a planted question. He said voters could rely on the experience he had gained in a "lifetime of research" to help determine Jersey's way forward. In similar vein, Deputy Jerry Dorey commented that it was only through close scrutiny that costs could be kept down.

Acknowledging the difficulty of adequately responding to the question when each candidate had a maximum of 60 seconds to give their answer, Freddie Cohen instead outlined the detail of his proposed shared equity scheme.

Gino Risoli returned to the central theme of his campaign: the need for transparency in order to uncover costs. Deputy Terry Le Main referred to his past record as Housing president as evidence of his cost control and suggested cutting existing expenditure on housing subsidy as a way of achieving further savings. Senator Stuart Syvret also reflected on his past record in balancing the Health & Social Services budget but warned that in facing current financial realities the Island might need to look at the introduction of a European style contributory health scheme in order to meet the increasing costs of the health service in the future.

What are the views of the candidates on proposed exclusions to the income support scheme, particularly in relation to immigrant labour? (The questioner also referred to the downside of economic success which, they suggested, had resulted in the creation of a two-tier system in the Island.)

Some candidates (including Shenton, Southern and Le Claire) took the opportunity to criticise the current income support proposals but others (Le Sueur, Perchard, de Faye, Le Main and Cohen) agreed that there should be a qualifying period before an individual becomes eligible for income support. It was accepted by its supporters that the new income support scheme still required some fine tuning (with Roger Bisson recognising that it was problem with an achievable solution) although Jim Perchard suggested that the current £2 million fallback provision was too low. Denise Carroll felt that current proposals demonstrated the failings of existing social policy whereas Gino Risoli and Roy Travert opted to lay the blame for the development of a two (or three) tier society on "big business" with Mr Travert complaining that the States had abdicated control of immigration by allowing businesses to determine who could work in Jersey. However, he was in favour of a qualifying period to determine eligibility for income support, as was Deputy Dorey.

Deputy de Faye endorsed the principle of a two-tier system which put the needs of Islanders first, whilst Kevin Lewis believed that Jersey's lifeboat was already "full to the brim". However, in a cracking piece of soundbite electioneering, he said that his take on a two-tier society was that current policies would result in the "have nots and have yachts".

Senator Syvret also believed that the population problem was the fault of business and was not convinced the income support scheme, as currently envisaged, would help those on low wages irrespective of whether they were locals or immigrants.

What is your opinion of the current tax proposals and what, if any, are your alternatives?

In defending the current tax proposals, Senator Le Sueur reminded the audience that the States had overwhelmingly approved the proposals put forward by the Finance & Economics Committee. The current proposals were further endorsed by Deputies Dorey, de Faye and Le Main. Roger Bisson was also broadly in favour of the proposals but both he and Freddie Cohen were concerned at the impact of the 'look through' provisions on local companies. Jim Perchard said he understood why the new tax initiatives had been introduced but believed that certain provisions (such as 20 means 20) needed refining. He also favoured exemptions to GST, along the lines of those unsuccessfully proposed by Senator Syvret, and still hoped this could be achieved. In line with JDA policy, both Deputy Southern and Denise Carroll repeated their desire to scrap GST and introduce a range of alternatives, which included an increase in the company registration fee, as outlined in their manifesto. Senator Le Claire was not in favour of a further tax on existing businesses but felt there were other alternatives. Gino Risoli felt it was not possible to close the "black hole" in the Island's finances without sufficient information on current spending. Roy Travert expressed opposition to GST in its current form while Kevin Lewis was concerned about possible future increases to the proposed three per cent rate. To highlight previous examples of unnecessary expenditure, he suggested that the Steam Clock be towed out to sea and sunk in order to create a new wreck for divers to explore.

Senator Syvret reminded the audience that the majority of States expenditure was on core services, such as health and education, and that any cuts would be likely to impact on these services. He predicted that the rate of GST would need to be increased in future years which, in his view, underlined the need to investigate other possible alternatives, such as a land value tax. This tied in with his earlier call for a root and branch review of what he termed 'the accommodation industry.'

Finally, Ben Shenton repeated his criticisms of "woeful" States income forecasts over the previous decade but expressed his continued confidence in the future of the finance industry in Jersey.

Having used information in the telephone directory, the next questioner calculated that there were 49 separate departments in the States of Jersey. He said that this did not tally with figures that he said showed that 80 “chief officers” were currently earning over £100,000 a year. He asked the candidates for their views on making the surplus 31 "chief officer" posts redundant which, he calculated, would achieve a cost saving of approximately £3 million a year.

Senator Le Sueur had understood the figure of 80 employees to refer to all those reported to be earning in excess of £100,000 a year, regardless of job title. He explained that this salary band also included hospital consultants, lawyers and other senior public servants, and not just chief officers. Nevertheless, he was confident that the restructuring of the civil service under the new ministerial system of government would achieve further savings to set against those already achieved in the past year. Jim Perchard agreed that the move to a new system would help but that it was up to the people to elect the representatives who would make it work.

Senator Le Claire repeated his earlier call for Employment & Social Security and Health & Social Services to be amalgamated and both he and Kevin Lewis expressed their desire to reduce duplication of posts and services through a rationalisation of the civil service. Freddie Cohen was confident that his proposed new audit office would help cut waste and duplication. Denise Carroll pondered the likely cost of any redundancies (and the resultant loss in tax revenue) arising from cutting the number of senior civil service posts.

Roger Bisson felt that that the necessary cuts should only follow after a careful review of the current structure. Ben Shenton felt that there was too much power vested in the civil service and that politicians were needed who would wrest back control. Roy Travert questioned what improvements these civil servants were making to justify their high salaries.

Deputies de Faye and Le Main, along with Senator Syvret, mounted a robust defence of the public sector, Senator Syvret maintaining that the cost of a good chief officer was more than offset by the savings and efficiencies they could help achieve (as evidenced, he said, by the success of his chief officer at Health.) Senator Syvret's comments were endorsed by Deputy Dorey, although he felt that too often in the past senior officers had been rewarded for poor performance.

Deputy Southern accepted that future job savings could only be achieved through negotiation but felt that not enough consideration had been given to identifying savings at the top end of the salary scale as opposed to those towards the bottom end, such as the manual workers.

Is the proposed Waterfront development, with its high towers and high density, what the people need?

Senator Le Claire was of the view that the development of the St Helier Waterfront had been "a complete disaster" which was beyond redemption yet, conversely, he was heartened by the amendments suggested by Marina Court resident Stuart Weaving. Jim Perchard was against 20-storey development but now perceived the issue to be less a question of buildings than "of society versus big business." Freddie Cohen would not be drawn into a discussion on height but maintained that the best waterfronts were those with the best architecture.

Denise Carroll was one of many (Travert, Lewis and Southern included) who were critical of what they perceived as a lack of consultation. Senator Le Sueur (and, to some extent, Deputy Dorey) felt it was more a case of bad public relations management.

Despite the negative publicity generated by the project, Deputy de Faye remained enthusiastic about the tremendous opportunity for the Island to make an architectural statement which reflected the tremendous success achieved by its finance industry. Deputy Le Main was also upbeat about the opportunities afforded by the development of the Waterfront, as was Deputy Dorey, but both expressed the view that it should not be driven purely by profit.

Ben Shenton questioned the need for the type of accommodation currently envisaged by the would-be developers whereas Senator Le Sueur argued that if more accommodation was not provided on the Waterfront it would have to be provided elsewhere. Roger Bisson was comfortable with a high rise development, subject to the usual planning considerations. He pointed out that the risk would lie with the developers and that no-one would be forced to buy their end product. Senator Syvret questioned whether the development was needed and remained unconvinced that the Island would enjoy much benefit from the proposed £350 million inward investment. This was also a theme taken up by Deputy Southern who complained that local building firms would lose out on possible contracts through being too small.

Find the dates of the remaining hustings meetings here.