No pressing "pause" on government's savings plan

Thursday 28 November 2019

Politicians have voted against "pressing pause” on a controversial government programme to make £100m in savings.

The proposal was put forward by Scrutiny Chair Senator Kristina Moore on the second day of debate over the Government Plan 2020-2023.

She argued that more time was needed to review the cuts and efficiencies being used to fuel the Council of Ministers’ spending priorities, which have so far divided politicians, civil servants and the public. 

Many of the concerns on the ‘Efficiencies Programme’ appended to the Government Plan revolved around the limited detail provided about where the £100m savings proposed for the next four years might come from, and how staff and services might be hit as a result. 

Pictured: The Efficiencies Plan sets out the savings that will be used to fund the Government Plan.

After months of questions, including from Express, the government finally broke its silence on the plans last month - around just five weeks before the Government Plan vote – revealing that parking charge changes, higher education course fee hikes, and workforce cuts were among the measures being considered.

The latter formed the focus of a letter sent to all politicians earlier this week by JCSA Prospect – a union representing hundreds of civil servants – in a bid to make them think twice about approving the plans. 

But the eleventh-hour plea did not convince States Members to temporarily halt the programme.

In a speech aiming to convince her colleagues to vote in favour, Senator Moore emphasised that Scrutiny did not feel there was adequate time to probe the £100m programme, adding that “sensible, measurable and achievable” scrutiny of efficiencies was vital. 

She further added that the Chief Minister himself had acknowledged this, having agreed that the Efficiencies Plan should be released alongside the Government Plan in future.

Pictured: Senior scrutineer Senator Kristina Moore argued in favour of pausing the plans for further review.

The Treasury Minister, Deputy Susie Pinel, was deeply critical of the idea of “press[ing] the pause button”.

She said that it was fiscally irresponsible to make decisions on spending and delaying funding decisions until next year, warning that such an approach might lead the Government Plan to “grind to a halt”. 

In the end, 13 politicians voted in favour and 34 against. There were three abstentions.

The proposals came during an intense day of debate, with a total of eight amendments to the Government Plan on the agenda.

In addition to the Efficiencies Plan idea, States Members also threw out:

• changes to child tax allowances (14 votes to 32);
• increasing stamp duty on properties over £1m (13 to 32);
• cancelling the creation of a Financial Stability Board (15 to 31);
• and employing an additional full-time assistant youth worker for the ‘Move on’ project (17 to 30). 

The latter proposal from St. Helier Deputy Inna Gardiner sparked considerable debate, particularly after Home Affairs Minister and St. Clement Constable Len Norman said St. Helier wished to reduce its contribution to the ‘Move On’ project.

Both the Constables of St. Martin and St. Lawrence agreed that St. Helier should contribute more, only the former said she would be supporting the proposal for the government to pay more.

Ahead of the vote that saw that plan rejected, Deputy Gardiner urged any wealthy islanders following the debate to “please come forward."

“Make [a] donation to [the] youth and community trust and we’ll pass it on,” she said. 

The second part of her proposals received resounding support, however, with 47 States Members voting in favour of securing £106,000 for a pilot scheme to engage with young people from communities with English as a second language.

Pictured: Deputy Inna Gardiner's amendment secured funding for a project to engage with young people from communities with English as a second language.

States Members also voted overwhelmingly in favour of increasing funding to replace sporting equipment in public facilities by £125,000 – a proposal put forward by the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel.

The final big success of the day saw 40 politicians vote in favour of increasing the Food Costs Bonus – a measure to protect the island’s vulnerable from the impact of GST on food – to £258.25 per household. 

The idea was suggested by the Citizens Advice Bureau and put forward to the States Assembly by the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel. 

Politicians had been due to consider a bid by St. Helier Constable Simon Crowcroft to establish a board to consider and identify how a Town Council could work, but this idea was withdrawn.