By Stephen Le Quesne
I WOULD like to see greater discussion and questions regarding the long-term future of the government’s finances. Ten years, 15 years, 50 years into the future and the potential answers to them. Long-term solutions for long-term issues.
First an apology. I am about to write about a topic I have walked around and dipped my little toes into during the past few weeks. An apology because I will be repeating myself. I do not want to be negative but I do want to question, to challenge and be professionally curious.
Jersey’s budget and finances are a topic that I just cannot get out of my mind when I am sitting down to write. It will just not go away and every time I think I have scratched the itch, another news story comes out regarding how concerned individuals, managers and professionals are about how much government funding they will be receiving.
I am concerned as the things I care about are being directly impacted and I care about people and the challenges that we go through. I do not like decisions being made that negatively impact lives, especially as that is the opposite of what a government is there to do. It should be lifting us up.
Now, to no surprise to anyone, I am no expert in finance, nor government finances and I am not here to moan or complain or to single anyone out, but I do have genuine concerns and what may ease these concerns is clearer communication as I want to know the why. I like to be informed as to why these decisions are being made.
The first warning for me was when the Countryside Enhancement Scheme (CES) was quietly finished last year. The scheme was there to support initiatives designed to look after our natural environment and to increase biodiversity for landowners and farmers.
There is no real alternative leaving us ecologically poorer.
Since then, the examples have kept coming in. The Jersey Recovery College was shut, we have had the postponement of the building of a new secondary school at Mont à l’Abbé. We have had warnings regarding funding to the police and fire service and that there are “significant cost pressures” and that there has been “years of under investment”. The Children’s Commissioner’s Office has warned of “difficult decisions” if it is required to make savings, noting that it will be restricted in its ability to improve the lives of children. And most recently, Visit Jersey has warned that flat funding will “seriously constrain” its ability to grow the Island’s visitor economy.
The real kicker for me is that cuts to the Environment Department’s budget could “hit the competitiveness of our economy, livelihoods and essential regulatory work” according to the Scrutiny Panel chair Hilary Jeune. Not good at all.
The handful of examples I have just described are essential wheels and cogs that help our island grow, become healthier, safer and protect our natural environment. These are not small areas that are nice to have, they are essential. What also worries me is the examples and stories that we do not know about, as I suspect there are many of these that are yet to be known to the general public.
As mentioned before, I am no economist, nor a politician and I know there must be genuine reasons for why costs are being cut, but I would like
to know more about why services are being axed and every detail on what is being axed.
I feel that we need more discussion, more questioning and more challenging to be able to come to more balanced outcomes.
I am also going to add one more layer onto this, a point from a wider perspective. According to the Association of Jersey Charities’ website, the Island has 250 registered charities. If we say our population is 100,000, then that means we have one charity for every 400 individuals who live here. Is that too many? It may not be, but it is worth being curious as to why we have over 250 charities within an Island that is 45 square miles?
You may think that what I have just written about is a load of nonsense and is nothing to worry about. You may feel that I am not qualified enough or know enough to explore this topic, but what I am trying to be here is professionally curious.
The examples that I have mentioned make our island poorer in terms of physical health, mental health, the health of the natural environment and our safety from criminal activity.
I would like to see greater discussion and questions regarding the long-term future of the government’s finances. Ten years, 15 years, 50 years into the future and the potential answers to them. Long-term solutions for long-term issues.
If you have read this far, then my promise to you for next time is that there will be more animal chatter…
Stephen Le Quesne is a naturalist and outdoor learning instructor.
