The biggest casualty of this week’s highly public spat over two leaked emails was the public’s trust in many of our deputies, with many – including Express – labelling them childish and Deputy Andy Sloan calling for “restraint and judgement” from his colleagues.
But Deputy Marc Leadbeater’s extraordinary decision to publish criminal accusations against a fellow deputy on Facebook – along with Deputy Jayne Ozanne’s decision to attack the same deputy over email for what she saw as wasting civil servants’ time – had another, arguably equally as worrying, effect – to suppress scrutiny.
The whole row erupted after Deputy Rob Curgenven sent Deputy Andrew Niles a list of seemingly technical questions about the GFSC.
We now have the answers to Deputy Curgenven’s questions, which we’ve published in full below.
What did we learn?
Staff loans
One of the most interesting things we learned was that the GFSC has given nearly £500,000 in loans to staff, including nearly £100,000 to ‘key management’.
The GFSC said the loans, which were introduced in 2025, helped it retain “experienced and high-performing staff”.
It said the scheme complied with “relevant tax requirements”.
However, the regulator didn’t answer Deputy Curgenven’s questions about the “terms, interest rate, security and approval route” or how much money loaned to staff had “been forgiven, and under whose authority”.
Forestry assets
Deputy Curgenven also asked if £230,000 of investment in “forestry assets” was an “appropriate use of fee-payers’ money”.
The GFSC revealed it had invested in some land, which was “bought as an investment, and once trees were planted it also acts as a method of countering some of the carbon emissions the Commission incurs through the course of its regulatory duties”.
It said the investment represented just 1.3% of its total balance sheet, and had performed “reasonably”.
Deficits, legal bills and financial risks
The GFSC also revealed that its £216,011 deficit in 2025, compared with a £1.9m surplus the previous year, was deliberate, with the regulator dipping into its reserves to invest in offices and technology.
However, it declined to put a figure on its potential legal liabilities, despite acknowledging that court costs could rise considerably following a series of legal challenges.
The regulator also confirmed that it provides financial indemnities to senior staff, despite being unable to obtain directors’ and officers’ insurance, but insisted its reserves made any additional cost to taxpayers or fee-payers “highly unlikely”.
And while £461,456 in unrealised investment gains helped reduce its reported deficit, the GFSC said it did not rely on such gains when setting its budgets.
What do we still not know?
Despite the GFSC’s responses, several questions remain unanswered, particularly around the terms of its staff loans, whether any have been forgiven, and who approved them.
We also don’t know the full extent of its potential legal liabilities, or whether its forestry investment represents better value for money than alternative ways of offsetting emissions.
In several cases, the regulator pointed to compliance with accounting standards or approval by its auditors rather than providing the specific information requested.
How did we get here?
Despite the email not being directed at her, Deputy Ozanne replied to Deputy Curgenven’s questions less than 15 minutes later, demanding to know whether he had used AI to help him write the questions, and asking what he was “hoping to achieve with creating so much work for our officers and colleagues”.
When Deputy Curgenven posted her first email on Facebook, Deputy Ozanne then sent an extraordinary email to all deputies, copying the Bailiff in on the chain, asking Deputy Curgenven if he’d been arrested the week before, along with a series of questions which seemed to suggest the nature of the suspected incident.
Deputy Leadbeater then posted her email on Facebook, effectively making Deputy Ozanne’s implied allegations public.
Deputy Curgenven has since confirmed to Express that he was arrested, but released without being interviewed, charged, or cautioned.
Despite admitting he didn’t know if the allegations were true when he posted on Facebook, Deputy Leadbeater has refused to apologise or explain his actions.
Deputy Curgenven’s questions
Here are Deputy Curgenven’s original questions, and the answers he received.
Financial sustainability
1. The 2025 accounts show a deficit of £216,011, against a surplus of £1.9m in 2024. Fee income of £18.9m did not cover operating costs of £20.7m. The Commission is no longer covering its costs from fees: why is this, and what is its assessment of the position for 2026 and onwards?
As noted in the annual report statements this was an intentional investment by the Commission of its reserves into both its offices and technology infrastructure to ensure that it remains fit for the future. The Commission aims to run a balanced budget over time, though this will naturally vary from year to year depending on our needs, large scale projects being undertaken etc. To ensure it remains a going concern in all situations it maintains a prudent, mostly liquid, reserve to cover unexpected or stress events.
2. The deficit was reduced by £461,456 of unrealised investment gains. Does the Commission’s budgeting depend on market movements, and will it ask for the underlying result excluding them to be reported in future?
We do not forecast any investment gains as part of the budgetary process but do recognise them when they arise which helps reduce fees for industry.
Legal costs and contingent liabilities
3. The Commission says Royal Court costs awards are likely to raise its cost base “considerably” in 2026 and beyond, and that it “will have to pay” costs in the Providence matter. The accounts recognise a claims provision of only £110,500, and the contingent-liability note (7.1) gives no estimate of wider exposure. Could the Commission explain its best estimate of total exposure on costs awards and pending appeals, and say whether the auditors considered that disclosure adequate?
The disclosures within our annual report and accounts are aligned to UK GAAP and FRS reporting requirements and were signed off by our auditors as appropriate.
4. The Commission cannot obtain directors’ and officers’ insurance, yet it has given indemnities to key management and officers. Has the Commission considered the potential liability to the public purse and to fee-payers, and who ultimately bears it?
As noted above the Commission maintains a prudent, highly liquid, reserve to cover unexpected or stress events. Such unexpected events could include any costs or liability that arises under the indemnities provided to key management and officers who are carrying out their roles at the Commission. The Commission does this to ensure that it is highly unlikely for there to be any liability to the public purse or to fee-payers from its activities, over or above the annual fees required to be licensed or authorised to carry out financial services in the Bailiwick of Guernsey.
Governance of staff loans
5. The Commission introduced a staff loan scheme in 2025, issuing £470,000, of which £92,038 relates to key management. What are the terms, interest rate, security and approval route? How much has been forgiven, and under whose authority? And will the Commission commit to publishing these details in the future?
The staff loan scheme was introduced in 2025 as a cost-effective multi-year staff retention tool for experienced and high-performing staff. The loan scheme complies with the relevant tax requirements, and we will continue to make relevant disclosures in line with UK GAAP.
Forestry and emissions reporting
6. The Commission holds £230,878 of forestry assets, bought to offset its carbon emissions. Is this an appropriate use of fee-payers’ money? Is there a stated policy or target, and has the cost-effectiveness of this approach been reviewed against other options?
The land was bought as an investment, and once trees were planted it also acts as a method of countering some of the carbon emissions the Commission incurs through the course of its regulatory duties. As the trees grow, they are forecast to offset the Commission’s future carbon emissions, and we consider this to be aligned with the States of Guernsey’s international climate related commitments. The end of 2025 value of £230,878 represents only 1.3% of the Commission’s total balance sheet. To date it has also been a reasonable performing investment in its own right.
Accounting and quality assurance
7. Regency Court had a rent-free period until mid-July 2025, yet rent is described as expensed “as incurred”. Has the Commission confirmed that the benefit was spread over the lease term, as FRS 102 requires?
Our calculations and disclosures within our report and accounts are compliant with UK GAAP and therefore FRS. These calculations and disclosures were reviewed and agreed by our auditors.
8. Total lease commitments are £8.1m and are due to come on balance sheet under the revised FRS 102 from 2026. What is the expected impact?
We have reviewed and considered the impact of the change in accounting standards for 2026, and we will ensure that the appropriate disclosures are made within our 2026 report and accounts. We do not think the changes will have a material impact on the Commission but will look to agree the new presentation of our accounts with our external auditors before making any public disclosure of how the changes look.
