“Reckless” Soulsby/St Pier alternative thrown out by States

Tuesday 17 October 2023

The main challenger to P&R's tax and spend plans, which would have seen a wholly new approach adopted by the States, has been rejected by deputies on the first day of a pivotal debate on funding the island’s future.

Deputies Heidi Soulsby and Gavin St Pier, who have been historically opposed to P&Rs wishes to deliver hundreds of millions of capital projects and servicing the debt through hundreds of millions of borrowing and GST, saw their attempt to stop that approach being defeated by 24-16 this afternoon.

Their amendment was also supported by Deputy Sasha Kazantseva-Miller who worked on the 'Fairer Alternative' with them.

Their original challenge in the February tax debate was tied 20-20 and was also defeated after it failed to secure a majority.

The trio wanted to see millions in short-term revenue recouped from vehicles, parking, visitors, and companies, while investigating the entire portfolio of capital projects and authorising a smaller amount of borrowing.

The most controversial element was stopping the States’ contribution to the defined benefit element of the public sector pension scheme for three years, making £76m available for projects. 

Heidi Soulsby, leading debate on the self-named “Fairer Alternative”, criticised P&R’s three option plan saying the narrative had switched from raising revenues to deal with demographic challenges to a way of delivering the States’ to-do list

“We have a plot twist here,” she said. “Where we've gone from being told that we need a significant income stream because of our ageing population to needing to fund significant capital expenditure as well. It's a bit like the hobbit started to look for a necklace rather than a ring."

Little otherwise had changed from the February debate when P&R’s reform package was defeated, she added.

“These are not realistic or deliverable options right now. And it should have been obvious that was the case. What is clearly needed is a pragmatic, realistic and deliverable approach. That is what we have here.”

Pictured: Deputies Heidi Soulsby, Sasha Kazantseva-Miller and Gavin St Pier.

P&R’s wishes to spend hundreds of millions on capital projects in the coming two years were misguided, Deputy Soulsby said. She accepted there has been underinvestment for several years but argued a sudden spending rush would be foolhardy given construction capacity concerns.

“Thinking that means we need to catch up as quickly as is suggested really is pie in the sky. More haste, less speed.

“We're saying if we need to do it, let's do it properly. Let's reset the clock and plan the next eight years to follow the policy. This can mean spending more now, but it doesn't mean taking the last eight years and saying that the consequences of that so called underinvestment, we need to we need to catch up by spending hundreds of million pounds in the next two years."

She rebuked criticism of her amendments’ suggestion of temporarily stopping government payments into the States’ public sector pension scheme, saying P&R’s sudden admission that the value of the fund has fallen raises “some very important questions that need answering".

“I did put in our policy letter that the States started reducing the employer contributions last year, or are they saying the deterioration of the situation only happened since then? Is this an issue? We are now told that we've got this huge trade deficit. Are the actuaries telling us that we now need to increase employee contributions?

“Have we got an issue here? Should we be putting more funds in? We haven't heard anything from P&R to suggest that that is the case.”

Deputies could vote out that element of the package, and just proceed with the rest without major consequences, she concluded.

Pictured: P&R's three options remain on the table.

Deputy David Mahoney, a member of P&R, said the package wasn’t clear enough on how committees should slash budgets, despite all of them currently experiencing demand and inflation linked pressures. It also was unclear what infrastructure projects could or should proceed. 

“There's a lot of words in here, there's not a lot of substance. Claims of great bounties, scientific savings. Bit of misdirection, bit of slight hand. A hospital pass to the next assembly of a £76m underfunding of the pension scheme…. a lot of words and not a lot of substance. What my dear departed mum would have called all mouth and no trousers,” he said.

Deputy Jonathan Le Tocq, also a P&R member, said he was “rather shocked” when he read the plan given the skills and experience of Deputies Soulsby and St Pier.

“It demonstrates the worst kind of financial planning… just playing with numbers to see what balances out does not make the island sustainable,” he said.

Talk of inflation on the public pension pot being a cost to the taxpayer is “scaremongering of the highest order” and doesn’t grapple with the “financial hell” the community is sure to experience, he added.

Meanwhile, Deputy Rob Prow said the proposals were “based on flawed assumptions”, and he and Deputy Al Brouard suggested the approach was “politically motivated”.

How they voted: 

Pour: Burford, Bury, Cameron, De Sausmarez, Fairclough, Falla, Gabriel, Kazantseva-Miller, Leadbeater, Matthews, Parkinson, Queripel, Soulsby, St Pier, Taylor, Trott.

Contre: Aldwell, Blin, Brouard, De Lisle, Dudley-Owen, Dyke, Ferbrache, Gollop, Haskins, Helyar, Inder, Le Tissier, Le Tocq, Mahoney, McKenna, Meerveeld, Moakes, Murray, Oliver, Prow, Roberts, Roffey, Snowdon, Vermeulen.

Debate continues…