Guernsey Press

Hats off to Helyar

Last week’s tax review debate was far from a meeting of minds, but Deputy Peter Roffey saw much to be positive about

Published
‘Deputy Helyar has shown real strength of character in facing down his populist party members and insisting on telling it as it is.’ (Picture by Sophie Rabey, 30036612)

IN THIS column I was hoping to be reflecting on the outcome of the big debate on P&R’s ‘discussion paper’ on future taxation. Events have determined otherwise. So instead I’m more like a pundit commentating at half-time during the big match but painfully aware it could turn out to be a game of two halves.

So what to make of it so far? I think there have actually been more positives than negatives. In particular a genuine appreciation by many members – more than I expected – that societal and demographic changes are creating unavoidable costs. Costs on a level which simply can’t be met by savings and growth alone. Costs which need to be met if we are going to be able to look ourselves in the eye as a community.

This understanding was pretty widespread.

The question of how to meet those costs proved more divisive. There was a reluctant acceptance among some that a form of GST, with mitigation to prevent it being regressive, may be needed. However, where that concession was given it was through firmly gritted teeth, and the feeling was certainly not universal, so I can’t see Proposition 4, which half commits to a GST, being passed.

Others preferred to double down on Guernsey’s current (over) reliance on taxes on personal income. Still others were convinced the dilemma could be solved by reforming Guernsey’s corporate taxation regime. Then there was another camp which preferred a mosaic solution involving environmental taxes, motoring taxes, property taxes, and so on.

So no meeting of minds over the solution but a far better than expected acceptance of the problem – and that’s halfway there.

Once we accept the existence of a common challenge then it is surely only a matter of mature debate to determine the best way to tackle it. And as many pointed out, that debate needs to be far wider than just among States members.

Neither do I want it to sound like there was universal agreement that extra revenues will need to be raised somehow. Of course there were some with their heads firmly, and comfortably, stuck in the sand, but refreshingly few. Really just the Guernsey Party (sans leader) and a few camp followers.

On that side of the debate there was a lot of trite nonsense spoken. The usual cliches about never putting up any taxes until every other idea in the known universe, and beyond, has been explored in depth. And don’t worry, once you have looked at those through a microscope we will then suggest yet more alternatives – however barking – to be weighed up before doing anything unpopular like raising revenues. We’ll keep that up until more-responsible colleagues are forced into taking the unpopular decisions and then we can grandstand saying ‘It was them – it wasn’t us’.

Let’s look at a few stand-out speeches from both the responsible and irresponsible sides of the Assembly. From the realists, I would single out five.

There was a real no-nonsense and hard-headed appraisal of where we are, and the realistic options available, from Deputy Yvonne Burford. In fact those adjectives are starting to be firmly coupled in my mind with our Scrutiny president. She was also the first to point out that the P&R proposals were likely to flounder due to a dearth of public engagement. Others reinforced this. They are right, but neither is there a lot of time to spare.

Deputy Parkinson gave an erudite explanation of territorial taxes and a persuasive speech in favour of Guernsey adopting one. I simply don’t have the expertise to know if he is right but I do think the time has come for all of the Crown Dependencies to look again at zero-10 and consider possible reforms to their corporate tax regimes.

On a related subject, Deputy Sasha Kazantseva-Miller gave a well-researched speech showing how company profits had increased far faster than wages since zero-10 was introduced. Over the same period the tax burden had (unsurprisingly) swung from the corporate sector to the backs of individuals.

Former P&R president, Deputy Gavin St Pier, gave a sure-footed and impressive speech on the strengths of including some sort of consumption tax in a territory’s tax base. Just for a second I thought he was going to bring himself to vote with P&R.

My fifth stand-out speech was from Deputy Mark Helyar. Not so much because it was brilliant in its own right – although it was good – far more because of the political capital I know he must have spent to make it.

I’ve spent many difficult months sitting on a tax review committee under Mark’s leadership. None of us liked the conclusion we came to, that significant tax rises were unavoidable, but sometimes the truth is the truth, however unpalatable. So I was gutted when I saw Deputy Helyar publicly attacking our work and its relevance. ‘What is the point?’ were the exact words going through my head.

I have no evidence but I strongly suspect that ‘wobble’ was largely due to pressure from the political party he leads in the States. If so, it says two things to me. Firstly, the impact of party politics is every bit as pernicious as I predicted. Secondly, that Deputy Helyar has shown real strength of character in facing down his populist party members and insisting on telling it as it is. Hats off.

Sadly, the contributions of the rest of the Guernsey Party were lightweight, to be kind.

One opined that what was needed was not tax rises but lots of fresh ideas. That brought me to the edge of my seat all-agog. I was ready to be inspired. Sadly, having made this tantalising statement, he regained his seat without going into any details.

To be fair, some of his colleagues did. One felt the answer to Guernsey’s woes lay with shifting the airport to L’Ancresse and freeing up swathes of the Forest for a sort of Guernsey version of Milton Keynes. Seemingly this was to be developed by a shadowy body known simply as ‘the consortium’. Hopefully not the friends of any politicians in positions of influence.

Yet another genuinely believed all thought of tax increases could be banished simply through the construction of an offshore wind farm. I’m not against that idea in principle but please, please can we have some realism over our revenue requirements before the coffers run completely dry?

To be continued.