Professor Michael McMahon:

We may have to get back to Deputy Doherty on the exact number. We are looking at a big table of numbers and trying to add up many of the columns ourselves and we might not do it on the spot. We have had discussions with Deputy Doherty previously about the difference between the standstill and the existing level of service. Weirdly, I am going to say I do not disagree with departmental colleagues who might say it is a policy choice. We are not saying the standstill is the policy that anyone should pursue. It is a hypothetical. Were the decision to be made to maintain the value of public services and the value of transfers and social welfare payments, adjusting for these costs and recognising the population evolves and there will be more people in retirement, when we do these calculations this is how we come up to the standstill. It is a benchmark against which to compare. Is it a policy choice? Absolutely. It is a policy choice to make these decisions. All we are saying is that at the time when an ageing population is having an evident effect on the cost of the existing level of service or the standstill, along with the fact we know there are higher wage settlements and prices are increasing, maintaining the standstill is more expensive. In this case, as we pointed out, it exceeded the amount that would be allowed under the pure 5% growth rule. If we want to maintain this as a policy choice and stick to a net 5% level of expenditure growth, we would have to raise revenue somewhere.

That is the sort of case-----