As it happened: Thursday at the States

All done at the States. Members have adjourned mid-debate on Deputy Goy’s amendment 36.

They’ve decided to start early tomorrow - 9am - and continue until the tax debate reaches a conclusion. Whenever that is...

We’ll be back and ready to provide updates until the bitter end. Look out for full States coverage in Friday’s Press.

From our senior reporter Matt Fallaize:

In any parliament, it’s important that those in the majority should respect the minority, and not trample all over the minority’s right to put forward their views and be heard.

What’s currently going on with some of Deputy Goy’s amendments is crossing that line. The sequence is this: get them ruled as going further than the original propositions, although many other amendments from other members have also gone (much) further without being similarly challenged, and then vote by a very small majority to throw them out with no debate allowed.

While slightly unconventional, some of Deputy Goy’s ideas and amendments are worthy of debate at least. Some of those members voting to ditch them with no debate don’t even particularly disagree with the content of the amendments - they just don’t care for Deputy Goy’s approach and don’t want to sit through more debate. 

One member even tried to make up a new rule on the hoof to prevent Deputy Goy from asking the States Greffier to read out his amendments to the Assembly. Fortunately, the Bailiff quickly ruled that out of order. 

Yesterday Deputy Vermeulen accused some supporters of GST/P&R’s tax package of slipping into disrespect towards those who hold opposing views. Although there has been no shortage of playing to the gallery by the anti-GST minority in the States, the majority who look set to back P&R will do itself no favours if it appears too triumphant in its (now very likely) victory.

Deputy Goy’s next amendment IS being debated.

With amendment 36, he wants P&R to investigate requiring a minimum tax contribution from future purchasers of open market properties who are shown to have considerable wealth.

A familiar story for Deputy Goy...

His next amendment was to introduce a requirement for advance public notice of any consultancy agreement with a total value of at least £100,000 which a States committee intends to sign.

Once again, it is deemed as going beyond the original propositions and once again members decide not to debate, voting 21-17 to throw it out.

Same again for Deputy Goy’s next amendment - this one to introduce a requirement for advance public notice each time a States committee recruits or re-grades a member of staff onto a package worth at least £100,000 a year.

It is deemed as going beyond the original proposition and members vote 22-17 not to debate.

Members have decided not to debate Deputy David Goy’s amendment to introduce a system which would allow the public to track the progress of any States project with a total cost of at least £1m.

‘In simple terms, this amendment is about creating a public record of what we said a major project would deliver, what we said it would cost, and how it is actually performing,’ he said in proposing it. ‘I think the States recent experience with major projects shows exactly why this is needed.’

The Bailiff ruled that the amendment went further than the propositions it was trying to amend and was then asked to put a motion that the amendment be thrown out without debate. That motion was carried 21-18.

Deputy Bury’s amendment to examine wealth taxes is heavily defeated.

It loses 9-27, with four abstentions.

Lots of deputies getting to their feet to talk about the sensitivity around this topic.

‘We actually do need a public conversation about this,’ says Deputy John Gollop. ‘The same time, we don’t want to frighten the horses because I think we forget that we’re not a steel town, we’re not a coal town, we’re not even a stone town or island. We have growing and fisheries, but they are small, even tourism to a degree. Our main industries are all about management and conservation of wealth. So we’re extremely foolish to endanger them in any way.’

We’re into debate on a move from Deputy Tina Bury.

She wants to examine more closely in the future whether there should be changes to the role of assets-based and wealth-based taxes in how the States generates revenue overall.

A swift nod for amendment 13, proposed by Deputy Camp, which would direct P&R to provide a detailed report to the States half-yearly on savings and efficiencies achieved in the public sector.

It is carried 33-1, with six abstentions.

Deputy Curgenven’s amendment was not debated after States members voted that it went beyond the original proposition.

The move to have it thrown out was carried 26-13, with one abstention.

From our senior reporter Matt Fallaize:

The States is certainly determined to conclude the debate this week if it can. It’s voting on an amendment every 30 to 40 minutes - a much quicker pace than round one in July.

There are several amendments remaining, but none expected to cause P&R too much trouble, either because they are innocuous or very likely to be rejected. 

The standard of debate isn’t terribly impressive now. A lot of members just want to get to the final vote after months of analysis, discussion and lobbying. Some others are increasingly frustrated that they are consistently in a minority in this debate. It’s a time for cooler heads, but longer sitting hours like these don’t help.

Two amendments recently approved (pending final votes, possibly tomorrow) particularly caught my eye: one laying down a clear pathway for GST to hit 5% by 2033 and one taking £350m. a year of social security benefits out of a proposed public spending freeze.

Together those votes tell us a couple of things about the prevailing view in this Assembly. First, there is a wide expectation that States expenditure will have to continue rising above the rate of inflation in response to demographic pressures and public expectations. Second, the case for gradually raising taxes on consumption and decreasing taxes on income is seen as increasingly acceptable - not only to plug funding gaps but also to broaden the island’s tax base and to use tax as a way of redistributing slightly from better off households to those less affluent. 

Finally, since the Assembly is now having rest breaks every morning and afternoon, I want to lobby for those for journalists covering meetings, too.

States members are back from a short break.

They’ve now decided to continue debate until 7pm tonight.

And we’re on to amendment 50 - from Deputy Curgenven - to freeze the cash budget of the Overseas Aid & Development Commission, and not apply any inflation-based increases to it annually, from 2029 onwards.

Well, that was a fairly robust half an hour or so.

Deputy Camp’s amendment eventually loses 14-25, with one abstention.

States members have taken a short break and will return at 4.30pm.

This has been a lively debate.

Deputy Sloan speaking in favour of the Camp amendment: ‘We don’t actually, as an assembly, really get economic growth or what goes into it. If we did, we wouldn’t be so blase about increasing expenditure and increasing taxes. We’ve gone through a cost of living crisis throughout this decade and our response is to increase spending and increase taxes.’

Deputy Inder against it: ‘Please, Deputy Sloan, Deputy Camp. Deputy Collins, come up with an idea. Something we can hold on. Something that is real, something you can actually do, something you can deliver, not just a strategy, a plan, funded. Tell me what you’re going to do. But stop please stop telling everyone they’re wrong.’

This one is from Deputy Haley Camp and seeks to direct the Economic Development Committee to present the States with a detailed plan for economic growth by the end of 2027.

‘If I sound defeated, I do kind of feel it,’ she says. ‘However many months in, we still haven’t really spoken about the economy at all. I don’t think we have the appetite for it. I think we have the appetite for taxing, and I think we have the appetite for spending. I don’t think we have the appetite for actually trying to get our economy moving again.’

Economic Development president Deputy Sasha Kazantseva-Miller responds: ‘I think the claims that we never talk about the economy are misrepresenting what happens in this Assembly. Certainly at Economic Development, this is all we are talking about’.

States members have supported a move which would see no GST applied to electricity and water in Alderney.

It was carried 23-15, with two abstentions.

This one is from the Alderney representatives and calls for no GST to be applied to public services provided by Alderney Electricity Ltd. and the Alderney Water Board.

‘The cost of electricity is literally throttling our businesses on our island, and frankly I don't know, given of the potential rises forecast over the next year, how some people are even going to be able to afford to heat their houses,’ says Representative Edward Hill.

Deputy Curgenven’s move has been carried.

It would rule out increases in GST until a planned review in 2030 and once £20m. a year has been saved from States expenditure.

States members backed it 21-13, with six abstentions.

We’re back from lunch.

Debate is under way on amendment 47, proposed by Deputy Rob Curgenven.

It is to rule out increases in the rate of GST until after the completion of a further full review planned for 2030 and once £20m. a year has been saved from States expenditure.

From our senior reporter Matt Fallaize:

One aspect of this which is becoming more and more interesting is timing. I mean the timing for P&R's changes actually to be introduced.

It's now saying that the spectacularly good news of a tax windfall from Pillar Two means 3% GST and reductions in income tax and social security contributions will come in 2029, not 2028. That may have happened anyway, as the timeline to complete preparations has always been quite tight, but now it's official.

But 2029 is also general election year. Is P&R really going to start GST months or even weeks before the general election? And how much would that increase the risk of a last-minute move to defer it until after polling day, effectively giving the final call to voters and a new Assembly?

That’s lunch.

The last business of the morning saw an amendment from Deputy Haley Camp thrown out without debate. An amendment she described as offering an alternative to P&R’s proposals.

Members have voted on seven other amendments this morning. They, and we, will be back at 2pm.

Proposed by Deputy Adrian Gabriel, it is to go ahead with additional transport taxes in P&R’s package, even if other elements of P&R’s package, including GST, have been rejected.

Carried 31-3, with four abstentions and two absent.

Deputy Tina Bury’s move is carried.

It would exclude social insurance expenditure, such as the old-age pension and long-term care payments, and also exclude Income Support from any policy directing that increases in public spending must be no greater than the rate of inflation.

It was passed 28-8, with two abstentions and two not present.

From our senior reporter Matt Fallaize:

Most of the amendments which really challenge P&R’s tax and spending package are being defeated rapidly and decisively. 

Delay - lost; referendum - lost; income tax rise instead of GST - lost; scrapping measures to limit the cost impact of GST - lost; zero-rating GST on all food and most drinks - lost. 

Yesterday the only amendment approved was one put forward by P&R itself and so far today the only amendments approved are ones P&R was relaxed about accepting or found only mildly inconvenient. 

P&R faced its biggest challenge at 6pm yesterday when the Assembly voted on Marc Leadbeater’s proposal to proceed with some tax-raising measures in P&R’s package but to hold off on GST until there was more clarity about company tax receipts and public spending reductions. But that amendment lost 18-21. Closer, but still P&R’s majority prevailed. 

If I can use a football analogy, I’d say P&R is now 2-0 up with half an hour to play. Defeat is not impossible - and rumours of one or two abstentions on the final vote could be influential. But the senior committee is in a very strong position to get its big tax-raising, tax-reforming package across the line.

Proposed by Deputy Haley Camp, it is to prevent GST from being introduced until the changes designed to limit its impact on households - such as income tax and social security reductions - are already operating.

It has been carried 33-4, with one abstention and one member absent.

This was to scrap proposals for a cash transfer to poorer households (known as the ‘Essential Costs Relief Payment’), even if GST and other tax changes in P&R’s package go ahead.

Deputy Andy Sloan’s move is rejected 9-29, with 2 abstentions.

So ‘food produced or grown by small independent suppliers’ could be set to be exempted from GST.

Deputy Leadbeater’s amendment is carried 28-11, with one abstention.

Deputy Matthews’ move to have food exempted from any GST is lost.

States members rejected it by 15 votes to 24, with one abstention.

On to amendment 16, from Deputy Leadbeater. It calls for food produced or grown by small independent suppliers to be exempted from GST.

We’re on to amendment 7, proposed by Deputy Aidan Matthews, which would see food and non-alcoholic drinks exempted from any GST.

Amendment 55 is carried by 21 votes to 16, with 3 abstentions.

Lots of back and forth on Deputy St Pier’s amendment - particularly the part about agreeing a pathway which could see GST rise to 5%.

Some want to support it for now and pick out elements when it comes to voting on the final propositions, but other deputies are concerned about what that would look like to the public.

‘I fear that supporting this amendment will be perceived as support for a glide path to GST and I just can’t sign up to that,’ says Deputy Charles Parkinson.

From our senior reporter Matt Fallaize:

Many more members have clearly become impatient for this debate to conclude at least at some point soon.

Yesterday the States dealt with nearly as many amendments as it took two-and-a-half days to deal with in July. That was partly because unusually the Assembly started yesterday by imposing fairly tight limits on the length of speeches. They are sitting longer, too, having shortened lunch breaks from two hours to one and remained until 6.30pm.

If they maintain this pace, there is even a chance they might finish this debate before the weekend, which at one time seemed impossible.

Welcome to day two of this week’s States meeting - and day five overall of this debate on tax reform, which began back in July.

States members have picked up where they left off last night, discussing amendment 55 from Deputy Gavin St Pier.

It is to agree a pathway which could see GST rise to 5% alongside additional reductions in income tax and social security contributions designed to limit or eliminate the impact of GST on less affluent households.

And to agree various detailed tax-related initiatives which were included in Forward Guernsey’s manifesto at the 2025 general election.