In listening to the Consultative Forum yesterday, I was never more disappointed by the presentations and voting by some members. It was clear that some of the members read from scripts prepared for them by others. Some of them had no clue as to what was going on. For the Chairman of the Forum to say that the political parties were “ducking” from presenting at the Forum is just mischievous on her part, given that the parties’ views that they would not be subservient to that body as it did not represent a mandate from the people of this country.
What was very curious though, was that the vote on the bill was 5 for and 5 abstentions. That did not sound like a ringing endorsement to the bill, but indicated a lack of support from serious quarters. We know that the government officials would support a government presented bill, but it gets it “legitimacy” from the other members of the body and that was not present.
The Chair certainly danced on the head of a pin from beginning to end. She started by stating the obvious in that as far as the Interim Administration was concerned, it was a done deal and why have a hearing. However, she found a way to toe the line by buying into the fake presentations of the Administration in that this system would stop the “rich businessmen” from having an affluent life style as they made money from their business venture. The other fallacy is that you would be able to comply with the VAT programme by a “back of the envelope” calculation, when everyone knows that it is a complex system that requires specialist training in order to comply.
To say that the Political Parties did not participate in the process is absolutely not true. A number of my colleagues attended the meeting in Grand Turk that I participated in. A number of our National Executive Committee attended the meeting in Providenciales. I saw the exchanges on WIV 4, so I know that it happened. So it is just tongue and cheek to say otherwise. Furthermore, the PNP put out a position paper and held a press conference recently and one of the topics dealt with why VAT should not be implemented at this time. Added to this, the Chair of the Forum acknowledged that she had received a joint communiqué from PNP and PDM stating their opposition to VAT. It might not have been in the form that the Chair preferred, but nonetheless, it was in the public domain.
I can agree that the business community might have come late to the party, but they are here now, front and centre. They have been making a very impressive case in opposition to the imposition of VAT on TCI at this time. They clearly do not want to act as tax collectors for government and having to invest significant sums in putting in place the necessary infrastructure and human resources that would be necessary to comply. As far as big businesses are concerned, once they are geared up to operate, they will only act as a conduit. It will be a clear pass through to the end user.
Stanbrook quoted IMF correctly, in that if there is nothing being manufactured in country to which value can be added, then it make a nonsense to change the system of charging duties on imported items for a VAT system. To date, the VAT team headed by Groves has not been able to show any empirical data to support their assertions that VAT would guarantee a steady stream of revenue or that it implementation would not cause inflation or that in the immediate future that they would not have to raise the rate because the projected income is not being generated.
It is very clear from the presentation at the Forum yesterday, that the team does not have its talking points “down pat”. The CFO say one thing, the PS/Finance another and other members of the team yet another. That does not give the type of confidence that people need to have when they are telling us “trust us, we will get it right”.
It was not self-serving on the part of Stanbrook when he said that he was ashamed of the way the Interim Administration was going about this particular imposition. There is scant regard for the rule of law and due process on the part of these people. Now Stanbrook is English, a lawyer, and a QC at that, so he should know a thing or two about the legal system. For it to have been said that bills coming before the House of Assembly were not made public before it passage was a bold faced lie. To say that some bills went through the first, second and third reading at a particular sitting would be true. Many of us might not have liked that, but the rules allowed that to happen, by the suspension of the rules provision in the Standing Orders, which is the document that guides the House. I have not had sight of any such rules as they relate to the Forum, so the Chair makes them as as the sessions go on.
When the CFO said that he could not release the documents on which he based the VAT system for TCI, I could not believe my ears. Here is a man that has consistently tried to mislead us in the face of data and information that we can see and read is saying to us, “I have the information, it is confidential, but trust me” and I say to him that “pigs can fly”! the opposition to VAT has taken root. Those 3,000 + signatures of ordinary citizens coupled with those of th e businessmen must count for something. No matter how they try to side step the issue, it comes right back in their faces. The first sign of a shift is when they have decided not to sign the bill into law today as was previously contemplated. They have to take into consideration the representations made.
VAT in its present form would not shield us from the vagaries that currently beset us. Let us go back to the drawing board and come up with proper options to raise our necessary revenue. The throw away with Bermuda and Cayman is that their financial services sector is booming. We have been saying, invest in the restructuring of the products on offer here and the manpower necessary to police the sector and we will get that level of revenue. Additionally, put more manpower in Revenue Control that would give them the ability to stop the leakage of the uncollected revenue that is out there. That would certainly be far cheaper that putting in 25 persons initially to implement VAT from TCIG’s stand point.
Just remember that over time, we have not had a real revenue problem. Our problem has been in runaway spending in some areas. Once we have tied to policy-based initiatives, then we will be alright. There is no reason at this time to “change black dog for monkey”! so I say, step away from the precipice that we are being pushed to by the British to comply with the EU just for us to benefit by $5M in the next financial year and a further $15M in the years to come. We will realize more than that when SIPT is completed. So do not be fooled. This is not of our making. The smoke and mirror is to satisfy external forces. Just remember that the British did not tie themselves to the Euro and from the state of things over there, it seems to have been a good decision for them. Do not let them hamstring us to VAT to satisfy their European colleagues to our demise!
Royal S. Robinson, MBE
