The UK’s second-largest trade union has called on Policy and Resources (P&R) to share its GST modelling – or the methodology and assumptions behind it – with deputies before they vote on the latest tax proposals next week.
The local branch of Unite the Union wrote to deputies this week to express “serious concerns” about P&R’s proposals and the evidence being used to justify it, arguing that any decision “must be based on robust, current and transparent evidence”.
The union, which represents many of the island’s lowest-paid workers, said it also needed to “highlight the potential consequences for households that have the least capacity to absorb further increases in the cost of everyday living”.
The letter, seen by Express, said: “Given the significance and far-reaching consequences of the proposed GST on the community, we respectfully urge all deputies to ensure they are satisfied that they are familiar with, and have access to sufficiently current, comprehensive and transparent evidence to make a fully informed decision.
“It is difficult to see how such assurance can be achieved where discussions are being considered, without having had sight of the modelling and understanding its assumptions.”
Three concerns
Unite highlighted three main concerns:
- Deputies haven’t seen the modelling
Unite said: “As deputies you are being asked to consider fundamental changes to taxation without having sight of the underlying model. We appreciate the need to protect confidential personal information, particularly within a small island community. However, protecting individual data should not prevent elected representatives from having sufficient access to the methodology, assumptions and outputs necessary to properly scrutinise the proposals.” - We don’t know how well the models reflect Guernsey in 2026
“Whilst the modelling has now been updated to incorporate the 2023–24 Household Expenditure Survey, the updated figures also demonstrate the sensitivity of the GST revenue estimates to the underlying expenditure assumptions, with the estimated revenue from household consumption being revised downwards. This raises questions about how accurately the modelling reflects current household circumstances and spending patterns in Guernsey, particularly given the significant price increases of housing, food, energy and other essential living costs. Therefore, this updated data cannot be assumed to accurately represent the financial pressures facing the community in 2026.” - Low-paid workers can’t tighten their belts much further
“The consideration of the overall economic impact risks overlooking the impact on individual households. A proposal can appear broadly neutral when considered across the economy while still leaving particular groups significantly worse off. For a lower-paid worker, much of their income is already committed to essential expenditure, such as basic living costs, i.e. rent, utilities and food. There is limited scope to reduce spending when prices increase because the majority of their expenditure is not discretionary. For many of our members and the wider community, this is the difference between being able to cover the weekly food shop, energy bill or other essential household costs and having to make further difficult choices.”
P&R has consistently maintained that the models cannot be shared with deputies or anyone else due to privacy laws, but noted that the model was updated with recent survey data which produced roughly the same results, with that work being audited by a local firm.
The committee has also emphasised that the 3% GST proposal is part of a broader tax reform package, which includes a lower 15% income tax band and increased allowances designed to ensure low-income households are better off overall.
Alternatives need ‘impartial consideration’
Unite represents a “substantial proportion” of Guernsey’s lowest-paid workers, many in blue collar roles, including about 1,000 public sector employees.
The union said it believed Guernsey needed a “sustainable” tax system, but “it must also be fair, progressive and capable of being justified to the people who will ultimately pay for it”.
The union said the fact no deputies had been allowed to see the modelling – or the methodology and assumptions – placed “an even greater importance on ensuring that all credible alternatives are given thorough and impartial consideration”.
It added: “Asking households to absorb further increases in the cost of everyday goods and services without clear evidence that they will be protected would be deeply concerning.”
“Ultimately the responsibility rests with each deputy to ensure that their decision is informed by the best available evidence, a full and proper understanding of the potential impacts, and a fair assessment of the options available to Guernsey.”
