One of the two options for committee budgets put forward by Policy & Resources in its budget report strictly adheres to a resolution agreed earlier this year on making efficiency savings.
But the Health & Social Care president is warning his fellow deputies that if they back that proposal it would have ‘serious implications’ for his department.
‘There is no “demand-based” allowance in that proposition, and we have calculated that if it were to be carried, and the alternative defeated, then by 2029 HSC would have to realise savings of many millions of pounds, over and above those already needed to meet the 1% savings requirement, by 2029,’ said Deputy George Oswald.
‘These savings could only be achieved by a combination of cuts, and increased charges – where we can apply them – for which I have seen no evidence that this is what the community wants.’
Home Affairs is going even further, insisting that neither of the alternative spending limits on offer is sufficient. President Marc Leadbeater said the committee was considering amendments to address this, claiming that it has limited opportunities to make revenue savings.
‘While Option B provides some additional funding, it falls materially short of what we identified as necessary. The difficulty for Home Affairs is that the overwhelming majority of our expenditure relates to staffing. We have very little flexibility to absorb financial pressures without impacting operational capability and service delivery. We have identified significant resource requirements across several areas, including Population Management, Guernsey Police, the Prison Service and the leadership structure within Guernsey Fire and Rescue Service.’
Employment & Social Security president Deputy Tina Bury said that even the more generous option was unlikely to meet her committee’s needs. She confirmed the committee was considering laying an amendment.
‘I was never supportive of the 1% savings approach, not because I don’t believe in fiscal responsibility, but because I didn’t think it was realistic without serious impacts to services and benefits,’ she said.
‘I think that is being proven through this budget process, so I’m inclined to stick with that philosophy. It’s disingenuous to say to the public that we’re going to make these savings when we simply aren’t. All the big spending committees have indicated as such.’
Another committee president to confirm he intends to vote for the more generous committee budgets is the Housing president.
Deputy Steve Williams said that although he was ‘hugely supportive’ of finding any immediately available efficiencies within the States, he was also of the view that deputies have a responsibility to be good custodians of the assets they look after on behalf of the public.
‘We sometimes have to take a longer-term view. The Committee for Housing has a relatively small operating budget compared to some of our peers – £7.4m. of our £9m. 2026 budget was attributed to maintenance of the 1,650 States housing properties.’
Deputy Williams pointed out that the property maintenance budget has been a target for savings opportunities over quite a few years, and that Housing is spending the same on it as they were in 2016, despite considerable building cost inflation.
‘Although the maintenance team do a very good job to stretch their limited budget and identify new opportunities for savings, there is only so long you can defer substantial work for, particularly when a number of our estates are nearing a century old.’
Economic Development president Deputy Sasha Kazantseva-Miller said she is still to decide how to vote. ‘I am not going into the debate with a settled position and will vote based on the debate and any propositions as amended, if there are any.’
P&R president Deputy Lindsay de Sausmarez said it would be premature for her committee to take a stance on any potential budget amendment until all had been finalised and published.