In a letter to deputies sent yesterday, on the eve of the States debate resuming, the Institute of Directors claimed that pushing the final vote into a later States meeting would be ‘directly contrary to the objectives of fiscal stability, economic growth and responsible governance’.
Deputy Andy Sloan told the IoD that its call had ‘crossed the line’ between reasonable lobbying on behalf of its members and making voting demands on politicians dealing with complex and far-reaching issues.
‘The IoD needs to distinguish between representing the views of its members on economic policy and prescribing how elected members should discharge their responsibilities in the Assembly,’ said Deputy Sloan.
‘By all means, argue strongly for a goods and services tax, or for [Policy & Resources’] package as a whole.
‘But instructing members to reject amendments because they may require more time, while presenting contested economic propositions as settled fact, crosses that line for me.
‘We have moved into the “something must be done, this is something, therefore it must be done” territory.’
P&R published its proposed tax plan on 8 June.
Two-and-a-half days of debate on it in July ended without the States getting beyond more than a handful of amendments.
About 30 new amendments have been submitted since then, bringing the total number of amendments to an unprecedented 57.
Deputies on all sides of the debate have accepted that there is a high chance of it not concluding this week and instead being adjourned again until the States’ next meeting towards the end of October.
IoD chairman Glen Tonks told deputies that the business group had four requests – to conclude the debate this week, reject procedural delay, throw out amendments to P&R’s proposed package, and get on with delivering public spending reductions and economic growth.
‘The analysis is complete, the options have been weighed, our members, who represent a significant proportion of the business community, have spoken. We ask every States member to vote, decide and deliver this week,’ he said.
Deputy Sloan claimed that the IoD was effectively asking States members to overlook proper debate of amendments on contentious proposals carrying uncertain outcomes.
‘There is a legitimate criticism to be made of the way the States reaches decisions,’ he said.
‘But reducing a difficult fiscal debate to “finish the job this week”, irrespective of what is actually contained in the amendments, feels more like grandstanding than a serious contribution to that debate.’
You need to be logged in to comment.