It was profoundly depressing (in this week’s budget debate) to hear a succession of ministers argue for a CUT in the budget of the Children’s Commissioner on the basis of deeply misleading and flawed arguments. This is my speech arguing AGAINST a cut in the budget.
The basis of the case against the budget cut was closely argued evidence from the Children’s Commissioner, explaining that she had already had to absorb 2 years of cuts and lose a member of staff (down from 9 to 8). She outlined very clearly the work that she would not be able to do if a further £61K of cuts were made. The functions she will not be able to perform are part of her statutory responsibilities, not “nice to haves”.
In my speech, I challenged ministers to say on what basis they thought the Commissioner was wrong. What work had they done to assess her evidence-based assessment? It was absolutely clear from their responses that they had done nothing at all. The best Assistant Minister Ferey could come up with was that the Commissioner had recently refreshed the Commission’s website – an example of waste, in his eyes. It was pathetic.
Deputy Gorst’s speech was deeply disappointing because he was the Chief Minister who ushered in the role of the Children’s Commissioner. The creation of the role was the very first recommendation of the Care Inquiry report – a recognition of its vital importance. There were many fine words spoken at that time about the importance of the role and the absolute requirement to resource it adequately. But this week Deputy Gorst resorted to shabby distractions – we’re spending lots of money on children elsewhere in the budget. A more egregious misunderstanding of the role and importance of the Commissioner is hard to imagine – as he should very well know. You don’t trade off spending on Children’s Services with the vital role of the Commissioner. That this argument should come from the minister who effectively created the role was beyond depressing.
The Chief Minister resorted to blatantly misleading statements. He based his case on the argument that arms lengths organisations such as the Office of Children’s Commissioner keep on growing. He seemed blissfully unaware that the Commissioner wasn’t arguing for more money, she was simply arguing for her budget (that has already been cut) to be maintained at its current level. Here’s the key section of his speech. I tried to intervene to correct the Chief Minister, but he declined to take my intervention.
The Housing Minister Deputy Mezec – who shepherded the legislation setting up the Children’s Commissioner through the Assembly in 2019 – said back then: “[The Commissioner] has got to have adequate resources and part 2 of the draft law identifies the responsibility of the States to appropriately fund the Children’s Commissioner, in order that the commissioner can fulfil the functions set out in this draft law.” But he was silent in this debate. One can only hope that he was embarrassed at voting to cut the Commissioner’s budget just 6 years later.
The cut to the Children’s Commissioner’s budget is part of the general government assault on what they claim is the continual growth of regulatory bodies – an agenda driven by the CEO. In the case of the Children’s Commissioner the argument falls apart because – contra the meta argument – the Commissioner’s budget has been cut and the organisation has shrunk over the last couple of years.
My case is that we need to properly fund the Office of the Children’s Commissioner in line with our statutory commitments. Given the government’s incoherent and misleading case, this was a shameful performance in a dishonourable cause.
The roll call of shame (those that voted to cut the budget of the Children’s Commissioner) is here:
Jonathan Renouf 