STATES OF JERSEY
r
Senator Frank Harrison Walker, Chief Minister: Vote of Censure
Lodged au Greffe on 10th October 2007
by Deputy A. Breckon of St. Saviour
STATES GREFFE
PROPOSITION
THE STATES
are asked to decide whether they are of opinion -
to censure
Senator Frank Harrison Walker, Chief Minister, for his comments about the
validity of the 19,209 signatures attached to the petition of the Jersey
Consumer Council on Goods and Services Tax presented to the States by the
Connétable of St. Helier on 18th September 2007.
DEPUTY A. BRECKON OF ST. SAVIOUR
REPORT
I was surprised to
learn, if media reports are accurate, that Senator Walker had chosen as part of
his “State of the Nation” address, at a Jersey Chamber of Commerce lunch on
Wednesday 24th September 2007, to launch an unsubstantiated attack on the
validity of the signatories of the Jersey Consumer Council Petition.
Media reports,
written and verbal, confirmed the substance of the slur implied by Senator
Walker to the signatories.
I have been (and
still am) approached but many people who feel insulted by Senator Walker’s
comments in suggesting that they would cheat in the desire to prove something.
Even people who
would be delighted to pay a Goods and Services Tax find the remarks of Senator
Walker both unwarranted and distasteful. He cannot be left to stand
unchallenged.
I decided to
confirm with Senator Walker whether the comments attributed to him were
accurate and if they were to give him the opportunity to apologize publicly. I
wrote to him the following terms –
Deputy Alan Breckon
16 Royal Square
St Helier
JE2 4WA
T: 01534 618532
E: a.breckon@gov.je
2nd October 2007
Dear Frank,
Certain comments have been
attributed to you in the media following a talk you gave to a gathering under
the banner of a Chamber of Commerce lunch of Wednesday 24th
September 2007.
Transcripts that I have quote
you as saying:
'We are told that 19,000 people have
signed a petition urging the States to reject GST. The petition and the
supporting comments made by the opponents of GST are horribly flawed in a
number of fundamental ways. There are big question marks about the validity of
many of the signatures, the organisers made no attempt to spell out why 0/10
had to be introduced in the first place, failed to mention what the
consequences of not introducing it would be and quite falsely stated that the
States had not considered the alternatives. Basically people were being asked
if they wanted to pay more tax – yes or no. On that basis I’m surprised about 30,000
more people didn’t sign it – including me!!
'It was gratifying and very helpful that
your own adviser, David Kern, added his support to 0/10. Perhaps most
importantly of all, he agreed that Jersey does need an alternative source of
tax and that GST was the right tax
'So now the challenge is to introduce it
on time and to ensure that those who oppose it, for all the wrong reasons, are
not allowed to knock us off track and to jeopardise the confidence and business
growth that our fiscal strategy has helped to generate. I remain confident the
States will rise to the challenge and that GST will be introduced on schedule
next May.” Senator Frank Walker, Chamber of Commerce Lunch,
Wednesday 24th September 2007
This raises several
questions:
Question 1
Did
you really say this?
If
you did your comments above as they have been reported are wholly inaccurate
and deeply offensive to over 20,300 people who signed the Petition. In order to
put the record straight I wish to set your comments above against some facts.
Your quote above is:
“Basically people were being asked if
they wanted to pay more tax – yes or no”. Senator Frank Walker, Chamber of
Commerce Lunch, Wednesday 24th September 2007
This is WRONG.
The petition is worded as
follows;
We, the undersigned,
petition the States of Jersey as follows –
The Minister
for Treasury and Resources is requested to take no further steps to introduce a
Goods and Services Tax in Jersey until public finances have been examined
independently to identify potential savings and until alternative methods of
raising funds have been investigated.
Question 2
What is it about the above
that you do not understand?
Petition Process
Over
20,300 signatures were collected in about 8 weeks – I have no doubt that
given more time considerably more would have been collected. Many ordinary
people were active in the community and were collecting signatures, amongst
friends and family and at the work place. Many traders were active through
their customers (The Chamber of Commerce do not hold a proven majority view on
GST) Signed petitions arrived daily either by hand or through the post –
this was a true and genuine community effort.
Therefore, for you to say the
following is very wide from the mark:
“There are big question marks about the
validity of many of the signatures,” Senator Frank Walker, Chamber of
Commerce Lunch, Wednesday 24th September 2007
These
20,300 plus signatures were then handed into the Greffe as they require four
days to be checked over. The Greffe looks for any that may be “questionable”
because the signatory is not clearly identifiable by an address or to look for
duplication or fictitious names.
This
process was done by the States Greffe between 4 p.m. Monday 10th
September till 5 p.m. on Friday 14th September 2007.
As
a result of this IMPARTIAL exercise by the States Greffe the number of
signatures was verified officially as 19,209.
This
means over 1,100 signatures has been “disallowed” or “struck off”. This
officialises the number of signatures.
I
can say that many people in the community are deeply offended that you should
question the validity of their signatures and also their effort in collecting
them.
You
have succeeded in insulting not only over 19,000 petitioners but also others
who find your comments equally offensive and patronising.
Zero/Ten
Comments also attributed to
you:
“the organisers made no attempt to spell
out why 0/10 had to be introduced in the first place, failed to mention what
the consequences of not introducing it would be” Senator
Frank Walker, Chamber of Commerce Lunch, Wednesday 24th September
2007
On
the contrary in our June 2007 Newsletter which was distributed to every
residential address in Jersey (37,000) and emailed to each States Member you
will read the following:
Back in 2004 the States agreed to do two things:
1. Reduce tax
on corporate profits to zero from 20%
2. Increase tax
on Financial service providers to 10%
This is known as “zero-ten”.
“Zero-ten” is the States answer to keeping Jersey
competitive and in line with the demands of the European Union. However,
“Zero-ten” will reduce the States future annual tax revenue by an estimated £80
Million.
The States agreed to get this money back in a variety
of ways:
1. Restrict
States Spending (it is going up 7.7% this year to record £523 million!)
2. Detail an
Economic Growth Plan
3. Income Tax
Instalment System (IT IS has already produced an unexpected £21 Million for the
States for 2006)
4. Personal
Income Tax for shareholders in zero % companies
5. Phasing out
of certain Income Tax allowances for higher income groups
The States worked it out that even after all these,
and please see (1.) and (3.) above, there would be a £40 million
shortfall. Enter you and me. Enter GST – the Goods and Services Tax. The GST
that was designed to be as simple as possible, the GST that was to keep Jersey
competitive, the GST that was to have the minimum possible impact on the cost
of living.
Furthermore in Consumer
Council’s GST Press Releases dated 12th July and 20th
August 2007 Zero-ten was again mentioned:
As zero-ten (standard rate of corporate income tax of 0% and a special rate of corporate income tax of
10%) will not properly come into effect until 2010 ,due to corporate taxes
being collected two years retrospectively, there is no real reason for GST to
be implemented next year. This time should be used fruitfully and proper
investigations should be made into States budgets and expenditures, thereby,
creating a consumer- friendly remedy to the imminent revenue shortfall which
will neither effect; Health, Welfare or Education.
Therefore,
it is clear you have misled the Jersey population and it is quite clear that
the Jersey Consumer Council made every effort to spell out zero/ten and used
its reference on at least 3 separate occasions.
Therefore,
I seek the following:
(a)
Answers to Questions 1
and 2 above
(b)
A full public
re-traction of your comments with the acknowledgement that they were wrong.
(c)
A Public apology to the
Petitioners and others in the community.
I
seek a response by 12 Noon on Monday 8th October after which I will
consider what further action I should take – if any.
Yours
sincerely,
Deputy
Alan Breckon
In an e-mail to me on 4th October 2007
the Chief Minister wrote –
Alan,
I have now received all the information I requested and as a
result I will withdraw my comment that "there are big question marks about
the validity of many of the signatures".
My comment was based on information received which appeared
to have some credibility. However now that the petition has been checked by the
Greffe I accept that any doubtful names have been removed and that the
remaining signatures are valid. I am happy to so confirm and to apologise for
suggesting otherwise.
However, following receipt of a number of reports, a second
study of the petition document which you kindly sent me, and chronological
information, I do not believe I should withdraw any of my other remarks and
that they stand as valid criticisms. My reasons for maintaining my stance will
be fully outlined in the Comments to be issued by the Treasury & Resources
Minister to the Proposition of the Constable of St. Helier seeking to defer the
introduction of GST [P125].
Regards,
Frank
----Original
Message-----
From: Alan Breckon
Sent: 08 October 2007 16:08
To: Frank Walker
Subject: RE: needs a reply soon
Frank
in my recent email with letter attached to you I ended with the following;
Therefore, I seek the
following:
(a) Answers
to Questions 1 and 2 above
(b) A
full public re-traction of your comments with the acknowledgement that they
were wrong.
(c) A
Public apology to the Petitioners and others in the community.
I
seek a response by 12 Noon on Monday 8th October after which I will
consider what further action I should take – if any.
As this has not been complied with in the
timescale I requested I will be seeking a “Vote of Censure” at an early
opportunity
I am
informing you as a courtesy before you hear it from anywhere else. Alan
Following
the expiry of the deadlines of Monday 8th October at 12 noon I had set
Senator Walker and the conditions attached not being met, I decided to lodge
this Censure Motion as I do NOT believe the comments made are appropriate for
any States Member to make.
As an interesting footnote in an
exchange during Question Time on 4th July 2007 –
“4.4 Senator B.E.
Shenton:
If one of the Ministers were censured by the States Assembly, would the
Chief Minister expect him to resign?
Senator F.H. Walker:
I think that would depend on the circumstances, but in all probability,
yes.”
Financial and manpower implications
There are no financial or
manpower implications arising from this proposition.