But although deputies backed the amendment from Deputy Rhona Humphreys, some said that they were concerned about how such cuts could be made, while others feared that the commitment would likely prove to be meaningless.
The commitment, in line with the manifesto from Deputy Humphreys’ party, Forward Guernsey, would see government spending reduce by more than £7m. for 2027, with no allowance for inflation.
She described the cut as a ‘modest’ 1% reduction, but one that would hold the States to account as a published and explicit target.
The amendment directed Policy & Resources to incorporate a structured programme into the Funding & Investment Plan and consult with committees over this annual reduction.
Health & Social Care president Deputy George Oswald said that it would be very difficult to implement even a 1% drop in real terms in healthcare. His committee has an annual budget of more than £250m.
Cutting health spend in this way could lead to having to look at alternative means of funding ‘for those who can afford it’, although he stressed this did not mean a return to the ‘bad days’ before the secondary health care contract.
P&R president Deputy Lindsay de Sausmarez, who went on to abstain from voting, said her concern was that if certain areas were to be protected from the need to make reductions, then the burden would fall disproportionately on other committees.
She said that if the States was serious about savings, then the places it needed to look were in the areas of its greatest expenditure, especially Health & Social Care.
Deputy David Goy said that he was worried about the impact of the cuts that might be made and said he would have liked the amendment to be more nuanced about its likely impact.
But Deputy Andy Sloan, who tried to force through bigger cuts during debate on the 2026 Budget, thought the amendment was ‘largely meaningless’ and was more of a placebo, giving the impression of action without actually delivering it.
Other deputies were more supportive.
Deputy Andrew Niles described the move as a ‘marginal gain’ but at least it was a start. He said he thought it did not go far enough in terms of making savings.
A lot of the electorate and the business community wanted the States to restrain itself, and this amendment would put committees on the spot, said Deputy John Gollop, who supported the idea.
‘We can’t go to the public and ask for tax reform unless we are prepared to reform ourselves,’ said Deputy Jayne Ozanne, who had initially planned to vote against the amendment but had changed her mind.
Based on this year’s planned expenditure, Economic Development committee president Deputy Sasha Kazantseva-Miller said a 1% saving would be about £7.7m.
She would support the amendment, she said, but wanted members to know that this was the level of savings being talked about.
The amendment was passed by 29 votes to five with three abstentions.
How they voted
... on Deputy Rhona Humphrey’s proposal to introduce a structured public service efficiency programme that targets a 1% real-terms annual reduction in baseline public expenditure for the years 2027, 2028 and 2029.
For: Deputies Blin, Burford, Camp, Collins, Curgenven, Dorrity, Falla, Gabriel, Gollop, Hansmann Rouxel, Helyar, Humphreys, Inder, Kay-Mouat, Kazantseva-Miller, Laine, Leadbeater, Matthews, McKenna, Montague, Niles, Ozanne, Rochester, Rylatt, St Pier, Van Katwyk, Vermeulen; Alderney representatives Hill and Snowdon.
Against: Deputies Bury, Goy, Oswald, Parkinson and Strachan.
Abstained: Deputies Cameron, de Sausmarez and Sloan.
You need to be logged in to comment. If you had an account on our previous site, you can migrate your old account and comment profile to this site by visiting this page and entering the email address for your old account. We'll then send you an email with a link to follow to complete the process.