To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Why was our bill so much more?
Share this:
Such observers can hardly have failed to notice the controversy surrounding golden handshake payments to departing civil servants. Nor would they have missed the potential controversy associated with the more recent pay-offs for Postal executives.
It is, of course true that headlines featuring half-million pound dips into the public purse may simplify complex underlying stories. It is nevertheless true that very significant sums have ended up in certain individuals’ pockets while the rest of the Island has being urged to make economies and accept cutbacks.
Against this background, the revelation that the initial legal bill for government’s failed attempt to overturn the UK’s decision to scrap Low Value Consignment
Relief is £656,370 might well astound those outside observers. It is, moreover, highly unlikely to spur much favourable reaction from Islanders.
Indeed, now that the man in the street who keeps abreast of these matters knows that Guernsey’s bill for the same failed court action was only £75,000, questions are bound to be asked. Among them might be: ‘Did someone see us coming?’
Yet although more than £650,000 – plus a further bill when the UK makes a request for its costs – amounts to a very significant amount of money by any standards, the significance of the action on which the sums were lavished should not be minimised. Economic Development, the department at the leading edge of the legal challenge, was trying to secure the future of a major part of the Island’s fulfilment industry, an important pillar of the economy. It is fair to say that if the challenge had succeeded, we might now be talking about money well spent.
That said, a fully satisfactory and detailed explanation of how this Island’s costs
escalated so dramatically beyond the initial estimate of £360,000 has yet to emerge. Nor is it remotely easy to understand why we have already shelled out nine times as much as Guernsey on what ultimately proved to be a fruitless effort.
Are we to assume that Guernsey’s limited spend was linked to that island’s limited belief in the possibility of success? Or are we to understand that our cousins across the water were just as determined as our authorities to mount an all-out challenge but found a bargain basement way of doing so?
Related