P&R backs Helyar and sticks with tax review
THE senior States committee was yesterday battling to salvage its tax review after the politician leading it described options he had put forward to raise taxes as ‘the wrong answer to the wrong question’.
Deputy Mark Helyar took to Facebook to explain his stance on Tuesday afternoon.
As a result, yesterday the committee was working with its communications advisers to save the proposal – which offers potential for tax rises, a detailed report it has not yet published, and a scheduled debate for September.
Fellow deputies were critical of Deputy Helyar's argument, but by the close of the day the committee said it remained fully committed to publishing the tax review report and to having a full debate in the States.
It described Deputy Helyar’s 'personal views' – he said on Facebook that he wants the States to stop wasting money and to cut costs rather than raise taxes – as being ‘helpful in stimulating the debate’.
‘The committee members each have their own views on the potential tax options, and the work carried out for the review will allow for a full debate,’ it said.
That September debate will form the basis of a further report and debate on the island’s ‘financial challenges’ to be discussed by the States next June.
P&R offered some support for its vice-president's views, but stopped short of full backing.
‘Alongside any new or increased taxes, the States must prioritise efficiencies and reductions in its spending, and this should form part of any solution to the problems we face with our public finances in the future. Deputy Helyar makes that point clearly and well.’
An update on progress on public service reform is expected within weeks, but P&R would not commit to savings being the answer to its public finance issues.
‘The committee recognises that cutting costs alone cannot provide enough to meet all of the revenue and capital requirements we will have, which are largely a consequence of our ageing demographic.’
In his social media post, Deputy Helyar repeated criticism of fellow States members and previous governments that it was easy to commit to more spending, but difficult to cut costs with no centralised control.
He said he would publish ideas to save money and encouraged public anger over possible tax rises.
‘The more angry in my view the better, because there remain many who are committed to doing things the way they have always been done and we know that does not work. Government just gets bigger and bigger, and the larger it becomes, the more silly ideas it develops to spend even more.’
But Deputy Peter Roffey, who has helped to shape the tax review, was critical of Deputy Helyar’s statement.
‘Sadly I can’t stay silent when I see a public statement, from a very senior politician, which suggests we chase unicorns,’ he said.
‘But to suggest we can close that [funding] gap by stripping £75m. out of public spending is a dangerous fantasy.
'It can’t possibly be done by efficiencies alone, and would require a slash-and-burn approach to public services.’
Other deputies yesterday queried why, given his opposition to the tax proposals, Deputy Helyar had not paused their progress or changed the process which led to the taxation review.
Some openly wondered whether he should lead a minority report to P&R’s proposals, or even resign from the committee.
