Policy & Resources (P&R) has been accused of deliberately engineering the budget vote to secure higher spending, with critics questioning why all five of its members backed the more expensive one, despite describing the smaller budget as their “unanimous preference”.
Deputies were presented with two spending options: £700.4m and £716.1m, with the higher figure adding £15.7m to the budget.
Although the lower option secured more votes (24 to 23), both propositions were approved, meaning the later vote for the bigger budget effectively superseded the earlier one.
That left some deputies, not to mention pundits and the public, questioning why P&R had had abandoned the 1% efficiency savings the States agreed as part of the GST tax reforms just five weeks ago.
Deputy Haley Camp questioned why P&R had asked deputies to approve the lower figure, only to provide in the very next proposition for that decision to be replaced.
She asked why the committee had ordered the motions that way, if the committee’s “unanimous preference” was the smaller budget, knowing that Assembly rules would mean that the later budget overrode the earlier proposition.
“That was not an accidental consequence of the wording; it was precisely what the wording expected,” she said.
Reversed promise
Deputy Camp also argued that Home Affairs, Health and Education had all been “hedging their bets” by bringing amendments that would have favoured them under the lower option.
“That’s whole-government thinking for you!”
Deputy Camp also questioned the change to the £20m savings commitment, which must now be delivered by 2029 “or as soon as possible thereafter”.
“When we’re told that savings are impossible, that sounds like a reversal of the promise to me,” she said.
Deputy Camp argued that the two-option approach had allowed the States to bypass another resolution and keep adding to expenditure, saying it would have been more honest to deal with the budget amendment by amendment.
Corporate Services swallowing cash while frontline services struggle
Deputy Camp also questioned why committees were not required to explain how existing budgets were being used before asking for more money.
She pointed to Corporate Services – such as the States’ press office, HR, and procurement – growing faster than frontline services, despite widespread concerns about inefficiency and over-bureaucratisation at the centre.
She argued that committees treated the previous year’s spending as though it represented “perfection”, before seeking more money for the extras they wanted.
The bigger budget was described as “the easy way out”, with the warning that the States had kicked the can down the road on financial restraint and understanding how public money was spent.
‘A lot of theatrics’
Deputy Andy Sloan accused the States of using “a lot of theatrics” to “divert attention” from what he described as a budget that ignored savings, increased expenditure and added 70 new public-sector posts shortly after deputies voted to introduce GST.
Meanwhile, Deputy Rob Curgenven argued that the problems went beyond the latest budget, rejecting the suggestion that the machinery of government was simply broken.
“Having seen it from the inside, I disagree,” he said.
“A system produces the results it was designed to produce.
“Ours is not broken. It is working exactly as built: rising costs, more staff, always more staff, more process, always more process, and the same complaints on repeat.”
Deputy Curgenven said not enough deputies appeared willing to change that.
Forward Guernsey opposed bigger budget
Forward Guernsey voted against the higher spending option, backing the lower one instead.
The party said it had pushed for financial restraint throughout the process and had helped shape the choices put before deputies.
Deputy Sally Rochester said Forward Guernsey had been “instrumental in delivering financial restraint” and helping secure the commitment to deliver £20m in savings by 2029.
She said the party had also helped deliver the lowest year-on-year budget increase in recent times.
But the party’s preferred lower-spending option was defeated, leaving the States with the £716.1m settlement.
Deputy Rochester said the outcome showed how party politics could help shape government policy.
