A BID to restore the full States grant to the Social Security Fund from 2028 has been rejected.
The proposition, from Deputy Max Andrews, was met with six votes in favour and 41 votes against.
It had sought to reverse a decision taken as part of the 2026 Budget, which saw a temporary annual reduction of around £50 million to the grant over the next four years implemented to support government spending plans.
Deputy Andrews raised concerns over “highly problematic” expenditure growth and cited the advice of the Fiscal Policy Panel, which has previously sounded alarms over the trajectory of day-to-day spending and use of reserves.
“Each minister has to be tasked [with] securing expenditure savings,” Deputy Andrews said during the debate.
“It’s pivotal. If we don’t do it, then how much in transfers will be made over this term of office? I think probably a lot more than what’s been planned for, and that’s the concern that I have.”
Ministers have described the Social Security Reserve Fund, which helps ensure pensions can still be paid out even in times of economic instability and reduced contributions, as being in “a strong financial position”.
Under “existing Budget assumptions”, it is forecast to grow from approximately £2.62 billion at the end of this year to approximately £2.96 billion at the end of 2029.
Treasury Minister Alan Maclean, who was among those who spoke against the proposition, acknowledged the principal behind it but urged Members to await the results of an actuarial review due in the first quarter of next year.
“This proposition, if approved today, would require the full formula-based grant to be restored by 2028,” he said. “On current figures, that would increase the annual grant from around £54 million pounds to around £100 million pounds.”
Senator Maclean continued: “That is approximately £46 million pounds every year, not as a one-off payment, but as a permanent, recurring commitment against general revenues.”
He argued that Deputy Andrews’ proposal “did not identify where that additional £46 million a year should come from”, noting that it would “ultimately have to be found from somewhere”.
Senator Maclean later stressed that: “This is not an attempt to kick this issue into the long grass. Nor should today’s decision be interpreted as accepting the reduced grant indefinitely.
“The current reduction has been described by the last Council of Ministers as temporary. Let me be absolutely clear: I regard it as temporary, and I want us to return to the question in 2027 once the evidence is available, so that this Assembly can make a properly informed decision for 2028 and beyond.”
