There may be trouble ahead

IF THERE are a few yawns going round the chamber this week, they can probably be forgiven. The Budget debate has been somewhat neutered, with the dual shadow of needing to scrap zero-10 and plug the £40m. annual structural deficit to come next year.

It is the calm before the storm and as the song goes, there may be trouble ahead. I'm just not sure how much moonlight, music, love and romance, let alone dancing, there will be in the meantime.

Health and Social Services will probably find itself at the centre of things come Wednesday.

The biggest spending department, and one that has already put everyone on notice that it does not think it is getting enough money, is the subject of the solitary amendment to be placed.

It all surrounds the thorny subject of off-island placements, spending on which has been gathering pace at an alarming rate in recent years.

In fact, these days it does not feel like Budget time unless Health has announced another overspend in this area.

It argues unanticipated and expensive treatment can occur without warning, rendering it difficult to budget for.

Maybe so, but the continued growth has set alarm bells ringing:

2005 - £10.1m.

2006 - £11.7m.

2007 - £13.1m.

2008 - £13.6m.

2009 - £17.4m.

These bells have rung so loudly that Treasury is no longer willing to keep picking up the overspend tab at the end of the year and has proposed Health will have to cover any excess from within its main budget, reducing what is available for on-island spending.

Guernsey's chancellor, Charles Parkinson, has, during past interviews, stressed how difficult this area is, but now seems willing to act.

Health overspent on off-island placements in both 2006 and 2007. In 2008 the overspend reached £3.25m. and is this year around £3m.

The solution is widely seen as provision of more facilities on-island, but there is only limited scope for this. And no one would relish making the call when someone is denied treatment.

Deputy Jane Stephens believes Treasury has acted too quickly in scrapping the ring-fence.

She wants this delayed a year and a report produced to show areas where savings will be made and services improved. She wants to see the ending of the safety net justified.

This could be an early test of how aggressively members are willing to pursue savings. But don't forget that Treasury has agreed a sizeable increase in the off-island budget anyway.

Elsewhere, the Budget is another 'conservative' effort from Deputy Parkinson and his team – that was the buzzword last year, too.

There are some hints of tensions, but nothing spectacular.

Social Security wanted £75,000 for two short-term employees to work at the Job Centre to help cope with increased unemployment.

Treasury told it to find the money from elsewhere and that seems to have been expected.

Social Security confirmed early last week it would not try to amend the Budget and, for those thinking the wage seemed quite high, it works out at about £25,000, with the rest covering other employment costs like social security contributions.

There may be some grumbling from Treasury and those that have returned unspent balances to the centre – step forward Commerce and Employment and Environment – that others did not follow suit.

Someone could try to probe the oil tankers, to which only light reference is made, and that simply to show that the holding company established for them, JamesCo750, has not paid back any of the £16.1m. loan yet. Maybe the intellectual property office, predicted to lose £55,000, could spark some interest, but that's unlikely.

So much of the spending debate, like the £725,000 subsidy for Beau Sejour, is already wrapped up in the fundamental spending review.

So for those interested in a spectacle, bring on 2010.