LIVE / States: 2027 Budget day two

Members have adjourned for lunch - but not before supporting a motion from Deputy Mark Helyar to cut short debate on this amendment from Home Affairs.

We’ll be straight onto the summing up when they return...

Now, the third extra funding bid from Home Affairs, this time to increase its budget by between £790,000 and £988,000 to fund cost pressures in population management and financial crime divisions.

‘I’ve consistently said that population management is the area of our mandate that will prove the most challenging this term for the committee,’ says its president Deputy Leadbeater.

‘The change to open up of our employment permit policy to the rest of the world has created acute pressure for the small team at the population management office. For example, verifying references from the other side of the world can be extremely difficult and can take an inordinate amount of time. And this is just one of the issues the officers deal with that can add to the backlog when waiting for responses. I think we were processing about 160 odd applications a week and receiving over 200.’

Another defeat for Home Affairs.

Its bid for more money to fund sexual violence and domestic abuse services loses 12-19, with seven abstentions.

Home Affairs president Marc Leadbeater responding to debate:

‘Deputy Gabriel says "Oh, here we go. We’re asking for more money for essential services".

‘Well, of course, we want money for essential services, ‘cause they’re essential services. Who wouldn’t want to support essential services for vulnerable people. So this is why we’re here we go again. We are here asking for money to protect services for vulnerable people.’

P&R member Andy Niles responding to this debate:

‘The people are at the fundamental base of all of this, because the government has no money. We have no money. We only have the people’s money. They pay it to us, and they trust us with that money, and they expect us to be able to operate within our means and to be able to allocate it across the services that they require from us.

‘And if we just keep saying that we’re going to ignore that fact and we just want more money and despite how much they give us, we’re going to borrow more, to pay for more, then that really is losing touch with reality. And I would encourage all members to stay focused, to look at the budget, to understand what is in front of them, and to reject this proposition.’

Home Affairs member Deputy Munazza Malik is the seconder of this amendment:

‘The Sexual Assault Referral Centre started as a pilot project, and that funding is not part of the Home Affairs existing budget.

‘Both options in this amendment therefore include $400,000 to keep it running as it becomes a permanent service in 2027. Without that money, the cost would have to be absorbed elsewhere, putting more strain on other frontline services.’

Deputy Neil Inder, speaking in debate:

‘It is an important service as has been stated, but for the life of me - I genuinely can’t understand why the committee can’t find effectively £600,000 for protecting vulnerable groups from what is a £45m budget.’

From our senior reporter Matt Fallaize:

The defeat - and quite heavy defeat - of the first of Home Affairs’ three amendments for more cash is also bad news for other spending committees with similar amendments coming up. 

The vote indicates that the States will be very reluctant to go beyond Policy & Resources’ Option B budget, which itself would increase cash limits above the rate of inflation, and instead wants to drive committees to redouble their efforts to find savings to fund increasing demand in other areas.

On fiscal policy, this Assembly is starting to look more conservative than the previous Assembly, which frankly threw money around like it was growing on trees, but not as conservative as the few Assemblies before the last one. A happy medium, it would probably claim.

On to another funding bid from Home Affairs, this time to increase its budget by between £699,000 and £998,000, in particular to fund cost pressures in the justice system related to cases of sexual violence and domestic abuse.

Having rejected a similar move at the start of the meeting - and with lot’s more to get through this week, members have now agreed to limit speeches further.

Nine minutes to open and close debate, six minutes for members in debate.

The motion was carried 25-13.

A bid to increase the Home Affairs budget by up to £1.95m has lost 11-21.

There were six abstentions.

Deputy Simon Vermeulen, Home Affairs member:

‘The 1% is a target, and it’s been very helpful to Home. We’ve sat around our table with our heads of staff and asked them to look at making savings. And what we’re presenting here today is half of what was originally requested. So we have already done the paring.

‘But please don’t send your best batsmen, the people who are all about keeping your community safe and secure - don’t send them out on the beat with their shoe laces tied together. Don’t defund them. It's very, very, very short sighted.’

Environment & Infrastructure president Adrian Gabriel, speaking in debate:

‘The reality of our current financial position demands that we strictly keep to our agreed budgets. We cannot just open the taps. Every committee across the States faces intense operational pressures, and I know from E&I that we’ve had to make substantial changes to come within the 1% challenge. And yet approving an unbudgeted cash injection of up to £1.95m. for this amendment for one committee shatters the fiscal framework we’ve worked so hard to establish.’

From our senior reporter Matt Fallaize:

There was one common theme on day one of the budget debate - every time there was a choice, the States voted to spend more money or raise less tax. 

Six amendments were voted on yesterday. Three were for more generous tax relief, and therefore reduced income, and all three were approved by the States. There were two amendments defeated - one would have reduced spending and one was cost neutral. The other amendment, which was successful, had nothing to do with income or expenditure.

Those early amendments concerned relatively small sums. Deputies have now moved on to amendments with larger financial consequences. These are the amendments which will really determine whether spending next year will go up or down or broadly stay the same in real terms. Up seems by far the most likely outcome, and the scale of the increase could be much clearer by the end of today.

When the States adjourned last night, it was debating one of Home Affairs’ several amendments requesting more money, and next on the agenda are similar bids by a host of committees: Employment & Social Security; Health & Social Care; Housing; and Education, Sport & Culture. And one from Alderney concerning its subsidy for air services.

It will be interesting to see how many votes there are against amendments to increase budgets by members of committees with their own similar requests later on the order paper. If the answer is not many, Policy & Resources has a tough task ahead to hold the line on spending restraint, such as it is.

We’re back for day two of debate on the 2027 Budget.

Members are picking up where they left off last night with debate on an amendment from Home Affairs president Marc Leadbeater.

It is to increase the budget of his committee by between £792,000 and £1.953m., in particular to fund cost pressures at the Police, Fire & Reserve Service, Prison and Joint Emergency Services Control Centre.