Environment departments budget

2025.12.08

2.5   Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John, St. Lawrence and Trinity of the Minister for the Environment regarding Amendment 32 to the Proposed Budget (Government Plan) 2026- 2029 (OQ.268/2025):

Will the Minister advise what discussions, if any, he has had with the Council of Ministers regarding Amendment 32 to the Proposed Budget (Government Plan) 2026-2029 and its potential impact upon the Environment Department's budget, and whether any proposals were considered to reinstate the reductions to that budget?

Deputy S.G. Luce of Grouville and St. Martin (The Minister for the Environment):

The Council of Ministers have discussed all Budget amendments, as I am sure the Deputy would expect, including Amendment 32. However, funding department budgets from the Strategic Reserve is not an option supported by the Treasury for the reasons set out in the Government Plan, and I am sure the Deputy will understand. While the department's work will be constrained by the proposed reductions in the Budget, I accept that I and my department must take proportionate cuts along with all other departments to achieve our Government's future objectives.

1. Deputy H.L. Jeune :

Could the Minister advise if any assessment has been made of the long-term economic health and environmental costs related to these cuts?

Deputy S.G. Luce :

I am not aware of any long-term project work which has looked to the future to see what the overall reductions might be. I would expect that next year the Minister for the Environment, whoever that is, will fight hard to increase budgets. So looking long term can identify deficiencies, if you like, in areas which are going to struggle. But it is every year for the Minister of the day to come forward and make a growth bid and hope that it will be accepted.

2. Deputy A.F. Curtis :

The Minister said that he will accept proportionate cuts. Does he consider the proposed savings to his department proportionate with the other departments he mentioned, or does he consider his department is being more heavily affected than others in the context of the savings that Amendment 32 is looking to return back to him?

Deputy S.G. Luce :

Cuts are allocated proportionately across the Council of Ministers, but I accept that my department is not considered to be a front line department, therefore it does not enjoy some protections that others do. The other thing which is very significant in this instance, is that my department, probably more than others, relies on the income from fees and charges to balance the books over the course of any 12-month period. It will not be a surprise to the Deputy , in particular, that our income from planning applications over the last 2, 3 years, certainly this year, the shortfall in expected income from that revenue source is somewhere between £800,000 and £1 million. That is a significant amount of shortfall. That is something we cannot plan for. I would certainly say in the next Government I think somebody should look at the way that the Environment and Regulatory Department is funded because how you can plan ahead where you have a circumstance where the construction industry gets into challenging times, and you could receive less income that you cannot plan for, is a very difficult way to try to balance your budget when you are employing a significant number of staff.

3. Deputy J. Renouf :

When the Council of Ministers proposed that the Minister's budget should be cut, did they identify any activities or functions of the department that they felt were either overstaffed, flabby, or in other ways meriting of a cut?

Deputy S.G. Luce :

No, I do not recollect that any Minister came up to me and said that parts of my department were particularly flabby, and certainly that would be a surprise to him if it was, I would think, because over the last few years my department has not seen a great amount of growth monies coming in. Some of the projects we undertake on a regular annual basis now have received similar funding within the department for a number of years. We have a number of areas where we would like to do better. We would like to do more but, as a Government, we are convinced that we want to, as far as possible, not add to the cost-of-living increase. We restricted our fees and charges to nothing more than a 2.5 per cent increase. That is really good on one hand, on the other hand where you are trying to regulate more with the same number of staff, no new employees, and a really restricted income from fees and charges, that is a challenge.

4. Deputy J. Renouf :

Does the Minister agree that it is a bit of a nonsense to talk about efficiency savings when there are not any clearly identified efficiencies to be had?

Deputy S.G. Luce :

I guess we could call them efficiency savings. We could call them all sorts of other savings if you like, but this Government is committed to reducing government expenditure where they can. It is a challenge for all of us. Every department is facing some efficiencies, if you like, if that is the word you want to choose to use, but it is incumbent upon Ministers to go away and look at their resources, what they have available, the work they have to do. But I do not think any of us would deny the fact that trying to do more with less is a challenge.

5. Deputy K.M. Wilson :

Could the Minister explain what particular outcomes are affected by reductions to his department's budget? Deputy S.G. Luce :

There will be challenges across the whole department, certainly in this current year. We have, as I have just said to Deputy Curtis , received a lot less income from planning applications than we expected. In order to make the books balance, we have given up some vacancies that we very much would like to have filled, but those staff were not in place. We have given up those vacancies. I have previously listed the areas that we might see some reduction in services over the next 18 months if the efficiencies are accepted, and they are quite numerous. An example would be the Land Resource Management Department at Howard Davis Farm is responsible for 60 kilometres of footpath maintenance around the Island. The budget for that work has not really changed in 15, 20 years.

[10:15]

We are having to look at ways we can do it more efficiently, more cheaply. But we are at the point where I fear that if we cannot find a little bit more for that area of work, our footpath network will seriously suffer. It is one of the great selling points for the Island, the footpath network around our coast. We have got to maintain it. So that is something I am going to have to look at. We know the Met Office is under pressure every year for income because we provide our services. There is any number of things. Ones that do worry me a little bit are the multilateral environmental agreements where we have a number of these international agreements with other countries to monitor and study environmental matters. We are obligated to do that work with them. This is particularly the sort of work where I feel we may have to cut back on.

6. Deputy K.M. Wilson :

Thank you to the Minister for his response. It certainly raises a number of concerns. I wonder, does he currently have any other means by which he could recover the department shortfall in order to deliver on some of those pieces of work or programmes that he has just talked about.

Deputy S.G. Luce :

Off the top of my head, there are 2 major income streams for the department. One comes from the Minister for Treasury and Resources and the other one comes from fees and charges, as I have said. But the Government I am part of are committed to not increasing fees and charges by more than 2.5 per cent. We are not going to introduce any new charges. As a Minister for a department that relies on fees and charges for a lot of its income, that is a real challenge, and I cannot say off the top of my head how we might do better. But I would point to the Minister for Sustainable Economic Development and say that in certain parts of the Rural Support Scheme, for example, we are looking to work with private money as well as government money to facilitate that really good scheme can work even better. There may be some areas in the Environment Department where we can look to work with outside agencies, and that is certainly something I would be very keen to look at.

Deputy C.D. Curtis of St. Helier Central:

May I raise the défaut on Deputy Southern ? The Bailiff :

Are Members content to raise the défaut? The défaut is raised.

7. Deputy M.B. Andrews :

Can the Minister confirm how much of his departmental expenditure is going towards schemes where subsidies are given to firms and households?

Deputy S.G. Luce :

Off the top of my head, I am struggling to think of any areas of my Environment Department budget where subsidies are given. Certainly I am conscious that I work very closely with the Minister for Sustainable Economic Development in supporting the rural economy. That is one funding stream. There may be others, but I cannot think where subsidies to rural households come from my budget. The only other one, of course, which is quite a clear one that is sort of under my control, which is the Climate Emergency Fund, which allows money to be granted for the installation of electric heating, flow boilers and that type of thing.

8. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

The Minister stood up a moment ago and read out a list of what he thinks all the negative consequences might be - let us call it what it is - of these cuts that he is putting forward in this year's Budget. Could the Minister explain why he agreed to accept these cuts, because I think we agree they are not efficiency savings, it does not make the department more efficient? If he is fully aware both of the potential negative consequences, but also of the strength of public feeling that this has stirred up in the dozens of emails that all Members have been receiving about these cuts to the Environment budget.

Deputy S.G. Luce :

The Deputy uses the word "cuts" on a frequent ... used it a number of times during that question. While you might look upon them as cuts, and I am sure they will be reported in the media as cuts, I do not see it quite in that way. It is efficiency, if you like. We have decided we are going to run the department with less employees. We very much hope we are going to be able to achieve very much the same sort of output with less income. That is a challenge, and we can argue all day whether it is efficiencies, whether it is cuts, what you like. But we have resources, we have income and we are going to use that to the best way we can. I cannot remember the final part of the Deputy 's questions.

9. Deputy M. Tadier :

In general elections, especially in Senatorial elections, there has historically usually been one senior member of Government who has been thrown under the bus by Ministerial colleagues. Often that is a Minister for the Environment or it has been a Minister for Transport, but I look across at the Constable of St John and think how he has got one of the safest seats in the Island. I ask the Minister: does he think in signing up to these so-called efficiency savings that perhaps he is being thrown under the bus by his Ministerial colleagues? Does he hope that actually Assembly Members will support the amendment brought forward by the Environment and Housing Scrutiny Panel to actually get the money back in the budget that maybe he should have fought harder to get in the first place?

Deputy S.G. Luce :

I do fight my corner where I can, but I am part of a team, and as I said earlier on, I accept that every part of Government is taking some efficiencies and less money. When it comes to being thrown under the bus, the Minister for Infrastructure has done a great job of buses in the last 2 years. There are a lot more of them and the chances of me finding myself stood in the road in front of one is far more likely than it was in previous Governments. This is a tricky one. It is a little bit like everybody wants to support organic growing but when it comes down to efficiencies and money, organic growing suffers when households have less disposable income because it is not the cheapest. Everybody supports the environment and I try my very best to promote it as much as we can. We all do because we live in a wonderful place where the environment is fantastic. But, when you sit down around the table where people are arguing for more money for healthcare, arguing for more money for maybe additional footpath work is a very, very difficult argument to make. I cannot look people in the eye and say: "I am going to prioritise certain parts of the Environment Department over something that the Minister for Health and Social Services might be promoting, which is for the benefit of everybody on the Island. It is a really, really difficult one to call. I wish I had more funds. I fight as hard as I can for my funds. Having said that, I am part of a Government which is trying to deliver better things for everybody on the Island and I have to accept my responsibility as part of that team.

10. Deputy H.L. Jeune :

I thank the Minister for his answers but did the Minister assess whether these reductions would jeopardise Jersey's obligations under U.K.-E.U. (European Union)-related regulations, especially amid looming Brexit reset-related legislative alignment requiring work from the Environment Department, and this would ultimately affect Jersey's economy?

Deputy S.G. Luce :

I am absolutely aware of the challenges for the Island that are posed by the E.U.-U.K. reset. The work on sanitary and phytosanitary falls pretty much directly under my department's control. I do not think that work is going to be affected in this coming year, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind, and I have told the Council of Ministers of this on a number of occasions, there will be a considerable amount of law drafting and law officer work input that will be required to bring our Jersey legislation up to speed with the E.U. in order for us to comply with S.P.S. (sanitary and phytosanitary) requirements of the E.U. reset. We are all aware of that. It is a challenge we will have to face, and we will have to work out how we do that when the size of that challenge is known in more detail.