More States of Guernsey companies could become independent
Guernsey Water, Guernsey Ports and States Works could be commercialised to give them more operational independence, if proposals are agreed by deputies.Under plans from the States Trading Supervisory Board, they would remain wholly States-owned but with less political involvement in their day-to-day operations.Vice-president of the committee, Deputy Charles Parkinson said: "We noticed that the incorporated businesses function much better."Guernsey Post and Guernsey Electricity are very successful for example and Guernsey Water, which is at the moment unincorporated, is well-run but we think it would be even better run if it was incorporated."
The three businesses already operate commercially, but to all intents and purposes are still States-run operations. It means that a number of functions are provided centrally by the civil service, including recruitment, HR, and IT.The new proposed arrangement has been in place for Guernsey Electricity and Guernsey Post for the past 20 years.According to the States of Guernsey's latest budget report, unincorporated trading entities should raise sufficient revenues to fund all their expenditure. However, they note that the only trading asset to be consistently recording a surplus is States Works.If States members give approval, Guernsey Water would be the next business to be incorporated, with the target being the start of 2028.Guernsey Ports, which operates the harbours and airport, and States Works would follow at a later date.The proposals are expected to be debated in March.If passed, STSB would be directed to report back to the States by the end of next year with more detailed proposals.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
ScotGov pulls plug on lifeline finance of state ferry fiasco firm
The transport secretary Fiona Hyslop has confirmed that more money would have had to be pumped into the yard to allow it to get a direct uncontested contract to build seven new ferries and secure its future. But she has admitted in correspondence with former community safety minister Ash Regan that that subsidy was not justified and the contract went to an overseas firm. Ferguson Marine has been dogged with issues with the delivery of lifeline ferries Glen Sannox and Glen Rosa which were due online in the first half of 2018 when it was under the control of tycoon Jim McColl. The last estimates suggest the costs of delivery of the vessels for CalMac will have soared to more than five times the original £97m cost. The shipyard firm which currently employs over 400 staff including over 100 sub-contractors was brought under state control by the Scottish Government at the end of 2019 following its financial collapse under the control of Mr McColl as a row erupted over long delays and mounting costs over the delivery of the vessels. Nicola Sturgeon on a past visit to the yard (Image: PA) The yard's business plan to 2029 assumed that the Scottish Government would sanction a direct award of the small vessel replacement programme. It was an integral part of a plan to deliver a "sustainable, profitable, efficient and competitive yard". After it was decided that the £175m contract would go to a competitive tender, Caledonian Maritime Assets Limited (CMAL), the state-controlled ports owner and ferry procurer declared in March that the job to build seven new loch-class electric ferries would go to Poland. It previously awarded two other ferry contracts worth to £220m to Cemre Marin Endustri A.S (Turkey) - with Ferguson Marine again losing out. The board of the loss-making Scottish Government-owned ferry fiasco shipyard firm has admitted that questions over further financial support from ministers was casting a "significant doubt" on its ability to continue operations and that the contact for the seven ferries was seen as crucial. Meanwhile the Scottish Government said there was an "intention" to give a direct award of a £3.7bn contract to run the Clyde and Hebrides lifeline ferry service from October 1 after a due diligence exercise concluded that there was no legal issue in terms of state aid rules that would prevent that. Ms Hyslop was asked what assessment was undertaken that resulted in it determining that state-owned ferry operator CalMac should be directly awarded the Clyde & Hebrides Ferry Services (CHFS) contract without an open tender process while stating that doing the same for Ferguson Marine with the small ferries contract was presenting a legal risk. She replied that there was "no financial, operational or legal impediment" to implementing a direct award to CalMac. And she added: "Shipbuilding is a competitive global market and a designated sensitive sector under the UK Subsidy Control Act. "For SVRP [the Small Vessel Replacement Programme] it was assessed that a substantial subsidy would have been required to support direct award of the Phase 1 contract to Fergusons, which we did not consider would be capable of being justified. "Given no clear path to subsidy control compliance and the risks of legal challenge, ministers concluded that directly awarding the Phase 1 contract would have been likely to lead to the worst of both worlds - a delay in adding new ferries to the network and the yard ultimately not securing any work from the programme." Her position raises questions over whether it will can win the second phase of the ferry-building programme which involves building three further small ferries. Ms Regan said: ' If the Scottish Government wants to protect commercial shipbuilding then they will need to invest in Scotland to ensure that Scottish ferries are built in Scotland - not Turkey or Poland. "The minister says that directly awarding orders to a Scottish shipyard would've resulted in the worst of both worlds, but right now we already have the worst of both worlds - a nationalised shipyard without government orders that can't win private contracts because of mismanagement at the top. "The response from the Government has revealed that it's not direct award that's the issue it's the unwillingness to put public money behind a public asset. "The longer this saga goes on, and the government fails to invest in its own shipyard, the less likely it is that there will be a future that ensures Scotland retains a ferry building capacity and that can only mean Scottish ministers being willing to pull the plug on the lower Clyde's last commercial shipyard. ' READ MORE by Martin Williams: Why did Scots ministers support award of £395m in ferry contracts to firms abroad Why does ScotGov keep ploughing public money into the ferry fiasco firm? ScotGov raises 'doubt' on CalMac getting new ferry contract from October 'People going bananas': New ferry fiasco hits vital island supplies 'Mismanagement': Public cost of Scots ferry fiasco firm hits £750m amidst overspends The completion of due diligence to confirm vital investment funds worth £14.2m for the yard has already has been held up for nearly a year, even though the money has technically been pencilled in to be awarded over two years. The Port Glasgow yard, which was featured in a Standing up for Scotland SNP video fronted by former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, is also not certain to get the money it needs to complete a lifeline island vessel at the centre of a "new farce" over soaring delays and costs. The £35m extra public costs for Glen Rosa being asked for by Ferguson Marine is to become subject to further 'due diligence' probing by ministers before a decision is made on whether the extra money will be provided. Glen Rosa was expected to be taking passengers in September - but now state-owned Ferguson Marine has admitted the full sign off and deliver will not be till the summer of next year - between April and July. The Scottish Government had already carried out a 'due diligence' exercise over the provision of a direct uncontested contract to Ferguson Marine to build the ferries but minister previously said it was rejected as it was felt it would be subject to a state aid legal challenge. Ferguson Marine's business plan which assumed that there would be a direct award was approved and submitted in June, last year before being verbally accepted by ministers the following month, when Ms Forbes publicly stated an intention to invest £14.2m to upgrade the yard. The plan was based on the yard remaining under public ownership for at least the next five years. Concerns over the funding of the yard come after the Herald revealed that the public cost of Ferguson Marine had hit up to £750m. A £69m overspend in 2023/24 alone - with costs totalling £131m was said to be in the main due to huge slump in the value of the two fiasco ferries. Financial statements up to 2025/26 had revealed that budgets set by the Scottish Government for Ferguson Marine were overspent to the tune of £210m in the first five years since it was nationalised at the end of 2019 as it attempted to deliver two long-delayed and wildly over-budget lifeline ferries. The costs so far of the beleaguered Inverclyde shipyard firm - which includes sums to cover running costs, wages and a dramatic slump in the value of the stricken vessels - soared to just nearly £710m before the board last month sought £35m more public money from the Scottish Government because of further rises in costs to deliver Glen Rosa, the second of the two ferries. The Ferguson Marine bill is enough to cover the cost of 13 ferries of the type currently being built for Scotland at the Cemre Marin Endustri shipyard in Turkey. Kate Forbes at Ferguson Marine (Image: Andrew Milligan) Ms Forbes has consistently told MSPs that the £14.2m support package over two years to help secure Ferguson Marine's future was in place and in March told MSPs that "hundreds of jobs have been protected only because of the actions of the Government". In March she told MSPs that there needed to be support for Ferguson Marine to be as competitive as possible so that it is able to secure work through a fair and open procurement process and that "that is the reason for the £14.2m investment" She further told them: "The bottom line is that we have agreed to invest £14.2 million in equipment for the yard so that it can compete on a global basis." But officials had consistently confirmed to the Herald that the two-year investment remains subject to the kind of due diligence tests that stopped the yard from directly getting the small vessels ferry contract. That due diligence investigation, which involves passing detailed legal analysis and independent financial and commercial assessments, was supposed to be complete by the Autumn of last year. The board of the loss-making Scottish Government-owned firm has admitted that questions over further financial support from ministers is casting a "significant doubt" on its ability to continue operations as losses incurred by Ferguson Marine have totalled over £2.7m in the last two full years. Ferguson Marine has a 'letter of comfort' which says that "it is our present policy, including with active consideration of the business plan budget and future work of the group, subject to the approval of the Scottish Parliament and in so far as permitted by applicable laws and withing agreed budgets for at least a period of 12 continue to provide support to the group". Despite that, the board in financial papers acknowledged that there [is] uncertainty surrounding the future levels of support due diligence surrounding letters of assurance and investment in the yard [that] indicate a material uncertainty related to events or conditions that may cast significant doubt on the group's ability to continue as a going concern and, that it may be unable to realise its assets and discharge its liabilities in the normal course of business." Ferguson Marine (Port Glasgow) which made a net loss of £1.3m in 2022/23 had previously been concerned about the risks to the business and pointed to a failure to get a committed investment at that point of £25m to support future work at the Inverclyde after the delivery of Glen Sannox and Glen Rosa. Ousted Ferguson Marine chief executive David Tydeman has indicated that even the reduced £14.2m over two year would not itself be enough. Under his leadership, the shipyard which relies on public funds, had stated that a failure to get a committed investment of £25m to support future work had cast "significant doubt" on its ability to continue. Investment was required for a vital new plating line and software to raise productivity and help it compete for future work and it was hoped there would be delivery by December, last year. But that hasn't happened. At the time Ferguson Marine admitted it was not as competitive as other yards that have modern plating lines and modern facilities. As the plating line cannot be installed for nearly two years the yard would not get decent productivity until 2027, even if ordered now, which makes pricing for future work harder. Mr Tydeman was fired on March 26, last year after a tumultuous two years at the helm of the nationalised shipyard after he told ministers there would be even further delays to Glen Sannox and Glen Rosa. Ferguson Marine declined to comment.
The Independent
9 hours ago
- The Independent
Trump's plan to begin 'phasing out' FEMA after hurricane season burdens states, experts warn
President Donald Trump 's plan to begin 'phasing out' the federal agency that responds to disasters after the 2025 hurricane season is likely to put more responsibilities on states to provide services following increasingly frequent and expensive climate disasters, experts said. 'We want to wean off of FEMA and we want to bring it down to the state level,' Trump said Tuesday in an Oval Office appearance with administration officials about preparations for summer wildfires. Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem have repeatedly signaled their desire to overhaul, if not completely eliminate, the 46-year-old Federal Emergency Management Agency. While there has been bipartisan support for reforming the agency, experts say dismantling it completely would leave gaps in crucial services and funding. 'It just causes more concern on how states should be planning for the future if the federal government's not going to be there for them,' said Michael Coen, FEMA chief of staff during the Obama and Biden administrations. Disaster response is already locally led and state-managed, but FEMA supports by coordinating resources from federal agencies, providing direct assistance programs for households and moving money to states for repairing public infrastructure. Trump said Tuesday he wants to 'give out less money,' and to 'give it out directly,' sidestepping FEMA programs. He said he did not know who would distribute the funds, saying they could come 'from the president's office' or DHS. 'I was left with the impression that he doesn't really understand the scale of what FEMA manages on a yearly basis with a budget of over $30 billion,' said Coen. Dismantling FEMA, or even changing how much of the costs it shares with states in the event of a major disaster declaration, would require action from Congress, including amending the 1988 Stafford Act, which outlines FEMA's roles and responsibilities and the cost share between the feds and the states. Declaring fewer major disasters or giving less federal support could put an untenable financial burden on states, said Sara McTarnaghan, principal research associate at the Urban Institute. 'Very few of them would have had enough funds set aside to anticipate the federal government stepping back from its historic role in disaster recovery for major events,' McTarnaghan said. A recent Urban Institute analysis found that between 2008-2024, quadrupling the economic threshold of when major disasters are declared would have shifted $41 billion in public assistance costs alone to state and local governments. 'I think the trade off for states and communities is going to be, do we accept a less full recovery or do states draw on other resources to meet these goals and needs, perhaps at the cost of investments in other kinds of social programs or functions of the state,' said McTarnaghan. Not all states will be able to generate much more revenue, she added. 'The confluence of states that have really high disaster exposure and states that have relatively limited fiscal capacity are overlapping in many ways,' she said. 'That's the case for a lot of states along the Gulf Coast that we're concerned about going into hurricane season but also the case for some Midwestern states that face issues with severe convective storms.' Trump dismissed the idea that states can't handle the bulk of disasters on their own. 'The governor should be able to handle it and frankly if they can't handle the aftermath, then maybe they shouldn't be governor,' he said. He suggested that some of the gaps could be filled by more collaboration among states. Noem said FEMA is building communication and mutual aid agreements among states 'to respond to each other so that they can stand on their own two feet.' A national mutual-aid structure called the Emergency Management Assistance Compact already exists, but its operations are typically reimbursed by the federal government, said Coen. 'There's already robust communication between states. The confusion is what they can expect from the federal government.' Regarding the current hurricane season, which began June 1, Noem said FEMA 'stands prepared.' But there have already been changes to how the agency operates. It suspended its door-to-door canvassing program that helped enroll survivors for assistance. More than 2,000 FEMA staff, around one-third of the full-time workforce, have left or been fired since January. After severe weather this spring, some states waited as long as eight weeks for their disaster declaration requests, and several requests are still pending. Trump has not approved any requests for hazard mitigation assistance since February, a typical add-on to individual and public assistance that helps states build back in more resilient ways. A FEMA review council established by Trump and co-chaired by Noem and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth will submit suggestions for reforms in the next few months, according to Noem. In its first meeting in May, Noem told the group of governors, emergency managers, and other officials primarily from Republican states that Trump is seeking drastic change. 'I don't want you to go into this thinking we're going to make a little tweak here,' she said. 'No, FEMA should no longer exist as it is.' ___
NBC News
10 hours ago
- NBC News
Wisconsin group sues Elon Musk, alleging million-dollar check giveaways were voter bribes
A Wisconsin watchdog group has filed a lawsuit against Elon Musk claiming that he unlawfully bribed voters with million dollar checks and $100 giveaways in the state's latest Supreme Court election. Wisconsin Democracy Campaign — a non-partisan, nonprofit organization that investigates election transparency — along with two Wisconsin voters, filed the suit against Musk, his super PAC America PAC, and another Musk-owned entity called the United States of America Inc.. In the suit, the plaintiffs claimed that Musk and his entities violated state laws that prohibit vote bribery and unauthorized lotteries. It also accuses Musk of conducting civil conspiracy and acting as a public nuisance. Musk and America PAC did not respond to a request for comment. 'In the context of an election for Wisconsin's highest court, election bribery—providing more than $1 to induce electors (that is, voters) to vote— undermines voters' faith in the validity of the electoral system and the independence of the judiciary,' the suit reads. The complaint alleges that Musk violated state laws giving away $100 to voters who signed a petition 'in opposition to activist judges' and handing out million dollar checks to those who signed the petition. and The suit says that those who had won the checks had voted for candidate Brad Schimel. At a town hall in Green Bay, Musk gave away million dollar checks to two different people, both of which the suit claims voted for Schimel. In a video America PAC posted on X, one of the winners said he had voted for Schimel and encouraged others to do the same. 'Everyone needs to do what I just did, sign the petition, refer your friends, and go out to vote for Brad Schimel,' the winner, Nicholas Jacobs, said in the video. The suit mentions that Musk had said that the $1 million awards would be given 'in appreciation' for those 'taking the time to vote.' Despite Musk's America PAC spending over $12 million dollars on Schimel's campaign, candidate Susan Crawford still won the race. Before the race had been called, Wisconsin attorney general Josh Kaul filed a similar lawsuit against Musk for his involvement in the state Supreme Court election, but a county judge declined to immediately hold a hearing. A Pennsylvania judge similarly declined a request to block Musk's million-dollar giveaways in the state. During the presidential election, Musk's America PAC had also given out million dollar checks to people registered to vote in swing states, which the Justice Department had warned could be illegal. Musk defended his giveaways during the presidential election despite the allegations of unlawfulness by saying that those who signed the petition weren't given the money as a prize and that chance 'was not involved here.' Those who signed the petition were instead America PAC spokespeople with the 'opportunity to earn' $1 million. 'Make no mistake: an eligible voter's opportunity to earn is not the same thing as a chance to win,' Musk said, according to Reuters. Jeff Mendel, the co-founder of Law Forward — the law firm that filed the suit on behalf of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign — said in an interview with NBC News that this lawsuit has the advantage of additional time. 'The election is over. Some passions have cooled, and we are bringing this in a normal posture, asking the court to go through its normal procedure,' Mendel said. 'We are confident that we'll get a complete and fair adjudication.' The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign's lawsuit also seeks to bar Musk from 'replicating any such unlawful conduct in relation to future Wisconsin elections.' 'Almost everyone who was watching closely or saw what was happening here in Wisconsin in that very tight period was pretty horrified, and would say things like, 'Well, this can't possibly be legal,' or 'he can't possibly get away with this,'' Mendel said. 'That's really the purpose of this lawsuit, is to make sure that a court does say — in accord with both the law and, I think people across the political spectrums intuition — that this is not legal conduct, this is not consistent with how our democracy works, and to make sure it doesn't happen again.'
