Amendment

Proposed Budget (Government Plan) 2026-2029 (P.70/2025): thirteenth amendment. Fort Regent

Published on: 21 November 2025

Lodged by: Sir Philip Bailhache

Debate date: 8 December 2025

Reference: P.70/2025 Amd.(13).

This content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost, therefore it should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments. Please see the PDF for the official version of the document.

STATES OF JERSEY

PROPOSED BUDGET (GOVERNMENT PLAN) 2026-2029 (P.70/2025): THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT

FORT REGENT FUNDING

Lodged au Greffe on 21st November 2025 by Deputy Sir P.M. Bailhache of St. Clement Earliest date for debate: 8th December 2025

STATES GREFFE

2025 P.70 Amd.(13)

PROPOSED BUDGET (GOVERNMENT PLAN) 2026-2029 (P.70/2025): THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT

____________

1 PAGE 2, PARAGRAPH (b)(iii) –

After the words "in line with Article 9(2)(c) of the Law, of up to those revised approval amounts", insert the words –

", except that in Summary Table 2, the row including borrowing of £43,000,000 for Fort Regent should be deleted".

2 PAGE 3, PARAGRAPH (b)(iv) –

After the words "Appendix 2 – Summary Table 3 in line with Article 9(2)(b) of the Law" insert the words –

", except that in Summary Table 3, the transfer from the Consolidated Fund to Strategic Reserve (Fort Regent) of £1,300,000 in 2029, should be deleted".

3 PAGE 3, PARAGRAPH (b)(vi) –

After the words "Appendix 2 – Summary Table 4 to the Report" insert the words –

", except that in Summary Table 4, the row entitled Fort Regent Redevelopment should be deleted".

4 PAGE 3, PARAGRAPH (b)(viii) –

After the words "Appendix 2 – Summary Tables 5(i) and (ii) of the Report" insert the words –

", except that –

in Summary Table 5(i), the head of expenditure entitled Financing Costs should be reduced by £650,000; and
in Summary Table 5(ii), the project head of expenditure entitled Fort Regent Redevelopment should be deleted;

with any consequential amendments to be reflected as necessary throughout the Budget".

DEPUTY SIR P.M. BAILHACHE OF ST. CLEMENT

Note: After this amendment, the proposition would read as follows –

THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion

In accordance with Article 16 of the Public Finances (Jersey) Law 2019 (the Law) to approve an amendment to the Government Plan 2025 – 2028 (entitled

"Budget 2025 – 2028") to a reduction in the 2025 head of expenditure "Grants to States Funds" as included in Table 5(i) Revenue Heads of Expenditure of that Government Plan from £119,821,000 to £69,821,000.

To receive the Government Plan 2026 – 2029 (entitled "Budget 2026-2029") specified in Article 9(1) of the Law and specifically –

to approve the estimate of total States income to be paid into the Consolidated Fund in 2026 as set out in Appendix 2 – Summary Table 1 to the Report, which is inclusive of the proposed taxation and impôts duties changes outlined in the Government Plan, in line with Article 9(2)(a) of the Law.
to refer to their Act dated 24th June 2003 in which they approved that no new user pays' charges be introduced without any such charge receiving prior in principle approval by the States Assembly and accordingly to approve the introduction of two new charges, to be levied by Health and Care Jersey to promote appropriate use of the Emergency Department and for repeated non-attendance of outpatient appointments, detailed in the section entitled "Departmental Income Sources" as set out in the Appendix to the accompanying Report.
to approve the proposed Changes to Approval for financing/borrowing for 2026, as shown in Appendix 2 – Summary Table 2 to the Report, which may be obtained by the Minister for Treasury and Resources, as and when required, in line with Article 9 (2)(c) of the Law, of up to those revised approval amounts, except that in Summary Table 2, the row including borrowing of £43,000,000 for Fort Regent should be deleted.
to approve the transfers from one States fund to another for 2026 of up to and including the amounts set in Appendix 2 – Summary Table 3 in line with Article 9(2)(b) of the Law, except that in Summary Table 3, the transfer from the Consolidated Fund to Strategic Reserve (Fort Regent) of £1,300,000 in 2029, should be deleted.
to approve a transfer from the Consolidated Fund to the Stabilisation Fund in 2026 of up to £50 million, subject to a decision of the Minister for Treasury and Resources based on the availability of funds in the Consolidated Fund as at 31st December 2025 in excess of the estimates provided in this plan, or from budgeted underspends identified before 31st December 2026.
to approve a transfer from the Consolidated Fund to the Agricultural Loans Fund in 2026 of up to £5 million, subject to a decision of the Minister for Treasury and Resources based on availability of funds in the Consolidated Fund as at 31st December 2025 in excess of estimates provided in this plan, or from budgeted underspends identified before 31st December 2026;

to approve each major project that is to be started or continued in 2026 and the total cost of each such project and any amendments to the proposed total cost of a major project under a previously approved Government Plan, in line with Article 9(2)(d), (e) and (f) of the Law and as set out in Appendix 2 – Summary Table 4 to the Report, except that in Summary Table 4, the row entitled Fort Regent Redevelopment should be deleted.

viii. to approve the proposed amount to be appropriated from the

Consolidated Fund for 2026, for each head of expenditure, being gross expenditure less estimated income (if any), in line with Articles 9(2)(g), 10(1) and 10(2) of the Law, and set out in Appendix 2 – Summary Tables 5(i) and (ii) of the Report, except that –

in Summary Table 5(i), the head of expenditure entitled Financing Costs should be reduced by £650,000; and
in Summary Table 5(ii), the project head of expenditure entitled Fort Regent Redevelopment should be deleted;

with any consequential amendments to be reflected as necessary throughout the Budget.

to approve the estimated income, being estimated gross income less expenditure, that each States trading operation will pay into its trading fund in 2026 in line with Article 9(2)(h) of the Law and set out in Appendix 2 – Summary Table 6 to the Report.
to approve the proposed amount to be appropriated from each States trading operation's trading fund for 2026 for each head of expenditure in line with Article 9(2)(i) of the Law and set out in Appendix 2 – Summary Table 7 to the Report.
to approve the estimated income and expenditure proposals for the Climate Emergency Fund for 2026 as set out in Appendix 2 – Summary Table 8 to the Report.
to approve, in accordance with Article 9(1) of the Law, the Government Plan 2026-2029, as set in the Appendix to the accompanying Report.

REPORT

Fort Regent has been a drain on taxpayers' funds since its construction during the Napoleonic wars between 1806-1814. It had cost the British £375,203 [1]by 1814 (circa £29.5 million in today's money according to the Bank of England's inflation calculator) but never saw a shot fired in anger. [2]A bequest by Sir John Ward law-Milne of £100,000 for the provision of "wet weather amenities for visitors" encouraged the States to accept the gift, which led to the expenditure of £2,650,000 in 1967 on the conversion of the Fort into a recreational centre. [3] Since then, it has continued each year to cost the States many thousands of pounds.
At the same time, in its heyday its facilities afforded delight to tens of thousands of families, both locals and visitors. Its slow decline and eventual closure on safety grounds have posed a problem for successive governments as to what to do with it. With the benefit of hindsight, it should never have been converted into a recreational centre. But crying over spilt milk is never very positive. For the avoidance of doubt, I support the Minister's plans for the Fort in broad terms. There seems much detail yet to be decided and explained, but in general terms, the proposals seem well considered and sensible. My concern is how to pay for them.
The Budget proposes that £43 million be borrowed to meet the cost of Phase 1. The estimated cost of Phase 2 is, however, £67 million so that the States are being asked, in effect, to approve borrowing of at least £110 million for the restoration of Fort Regent. This is a colossal sum. The repayment costs of borrowing even £43 million as set out in the Budget are substantial. When the capital repayment cost of £1.3 million (see amendment 2) is added to the financing costs (£650,000 in 2026 but £2.15 million in 2028 and thereafter – see p 60 of the Budget Annex and amendment 4), the annual cost of the borrowing is £3.45 million. The cost of borrowing £110 million will be more than £8 million every year. At present, States revenues are insufficient to meet current expenditure without recourse to the capital of Reserve Funds so it is difficult to see how that additional money is going to be found to service and repay the borrowing.
The plain truth is that, without raising taxes, Jersey cannot afford to spend £110 million on the restoration of Fort Regent. The Fiscal Policy Panel has warned in trenchant terms that "the trajectory of day-to-day spending is unsustainable given Jersey's revenues". [4]Yet the proposal is to make that trajectory worse by increasing current spending on the servicing of substantial borrowing. It makes no sense. Indeed, the Panel has recommended that borrowing should be reduced. [5]Yet this proposal seeks to increase the level of borrowing without any compelling necessity to do so.

It has been said that the public wants something done and that there is a pressing demand for the facilities which a restored Fort Regent would provide. If that is so, it can be put to the test. The public needs to be told that, in the current state of the Island's finances, and with the global uncertainties which threaten us, the restoration of Fort Regent cannot be afforded without increasing taxes. It would be possible to increase GST by 1% for five years, that extra 1% being ring- fenced for the restoration of the Fort, and to pay for the restoration in that way. GST at 5% currently raises £132 million. An extra 1% would raise £26.4 million each year giving a total over five years which would be more than sufficient to pay for the restoration. After five years, GST would revert to 5%. A ringfence would ensure that the money was only used for Fort Regent and that it did not lead to an increase in current spending. The surplus could be used to enhance the Community Bonus so that those at the bottom of the economic scale did not suffer any detriment from the increase in GST. Such a proposal could be put out to public consultation, or even a referendum, so that the public's views could be obtained.
Borrowing is not the answer. The amendment proposes to remove from the Budget the approval of borrowing £43 million for Fort Regent.

Financial and staffing implications

The amendment removes the major project head of expenditure for Fort Regent, the associated borrowing requirement, financing costs and transfer to the Strategic Reserve Fund to build a sinking fund for eventual repayment of the debt.

There are no staffing implications as a result of this amendment to current staffing or resource requirements.

Children's Rights Impact Assessment

I consider that this proposition (amendment) has no direct or indirect impact on children and that the duty to have due regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child does not arise. Accordingly, a Children's Rights Impact Assessment is not required under the Children (Convention Rights) (Jersey) Law 2022.

[1] Unverified figure given in Balleine's History of Jersey

[2] It was acquired by the Public of Jersey in 1958 as part of a collection of War Department properties for the bargain sum of £14500.

[3] See Davies, Fort Regent – a History (1971) at pp 191-204

[4] Jersey Fiscal Panel Annual Report – November 2025 p 6

[5] Jersey Fiscal Panel Annual Report – November 2025 p 10

Related Publications

Propositions