While the reported directive for Government Ministers to cut back on operating expenditures and to remain fiscally accountable and responsible makes sense, it has raised concerns for members of the public. Some of these concerns relate to how the cutbacks will impact Government services, including immigration, police, and welfare programs. Further, civil servants’ salaries could be affected.

Regarding immigration, weekly Court cases observed by Loop News highlight continued breaches of immigration regulations. In one case involving an alleged false declaration submitted to WORC, a business owner explained how the business obtained ten work permits for persons who did not even work for him.

In another instance, a man’s work permit expired, however, he continued working for his wife’s business. Both the man and his wife were found guilty by the Court of work permit offences (the man working without a work permit and the business allowing a person to work without a work permit).

A cutback in the immigration budget could mean that the immigration department may have fewer resources available to enforce these types of violations. This may lead to more illegal workers going undetected for prolonged periods and permanent residence and citizen applications becoming further backlogged. National security risks could also arise if less funding is available to protect borders and air and sea ports.

Staying on the theme of protection, when we look at the police service, escalating armed robberies and periodic shootings suggest that the police urgently need more funding now rather than less.

For example, as criminals get armed, police must boost intelligence and acquire new gear and equipment. All of this costs money.

A budget cut in this area could result in a disaster for policing and safety in the Cayman Islands.

Regarding safety, this affects both residents and tourists. Concerning tourists, if they do not feel safe, then fewer tourists may visit the Cayman Islands. Understanding the economic effect is essential because a loss of tourism could mean less overall revenue from a sector the country places reasonable reliance on to operate.

Speaking of economic effects, there are people in the Cayman Islands who are struggling with the cost of living and who supplement their income with Government financial assistance.

If funding for the Needs Assessment Unit is cut, for example, this could lead to challenges for people living on or who have fallen off the financial edge. To assist these people, charities may have to step in and raise money from the private sector.  This may be the only way for these vulnerable members of our community to get assistance due to a shortfall in Government funding (if it happens).

As an alternative to the foregoing expenditure reductions, some have said in the past that the real issue is that the Government is too big. Therefore, the size of the civil service should be reduced and their salaries cut.

The reality is, however, that if the number of employees in the civil service is reduced, fewer people will be available to provide Government services. This could increase waiting times and processing things for basic things.

Reducing the salaries of civil servants may also be a challenge because it could lead to an overall decrease in morale, which, in turn, could impact the delivery of Government services.

From the perspective of the civil servant at the lower end of the salary grade, a pay cut would be disastrous as some may have only received small one-time nominal stipends over the years or small pay increases that are still trying to catch up with inflation.

From a political perspective, cutting the civil service or their salaries could be suicide for any politician agreeing to these options, i.e., it could mean that the civil service voting block may not support the relevant politician in the next election.

While these examples are not exhaustive, they demonstrate that cost-cutting discussions cannot just be about numbers but also the people impacted by such cuts.

In addition, there are political and social implications that Ministers must maneuver if they want to keep their seats.