Elected Member for Road North, Mr Edison Baird, speaking during the debate of the 2014 Budget in the Anguilla House of Assembly on Tuesday this week, came out strongly against the Interim Stabilisation Levy which, for the second year, is one of the pillars of the budget.
His contribution to the Budget Address had an allotted time of one hour, but he was eventually forced by the Speaker to end his presentation and to take his seat for not withdrawing a statement to which Mr Jerome Roberts, the Elected Member for District 1, and Minister of Home Affairs, had objected.
The debate on Tuesday and Wednesday followed the presentation of the Budget Address by Chief Minister and Minister of Finance, Hubert Hughes, on Thursday, December 12. The 2014 Budget is estimated at 183.4 million EC dollars and, as stated above, it is highly dependable on the Interim Stabilisation Levy imposed by Government as the island’s first form of income tax.
“I want to make the point, Madam Speaker, that because tourism has failed – not enough monies have been generated by the Government to a pay for its operations – is why the Government is coming back to once again impose the Stabilisation Levy on the Anguillian people,” Baird charged. “The Stabilisation Levy was designed to generate funds to create a National Health Insurance because, as a matter of practicality, the Government is the insurer of all persons in Anguilla in the final analysis.” He argued that “the Levy never put a cent in the National Health Fund. Instead, the Levy has been used to prop up the economy – they used a fancy word to stabilise it…Without the Levy, the Government can’t meet its demands and now the Government is coming back to impose the Levy on the people.”
Mr Baird continued: “My recollection is that the employer pays three percent and the employee three percent – and if it is a private company it pays six percent. Up and down this country, that Levy has been devastating businesses and I do not support the Levy. I believe that the Government had sufficient time to turn this economy around, and had the Government turned the economy around, the Levy would have been able to fertilise the National Health Fund. And after fertilising the National Health Fund, we would have been able to introduce a comprehensive insurance plan for all the people of Anguilla, but this has not been done.
“The economy, Madam Speaker, is not generating any surplus to speak of. If your main locomotive, which is the tourism industry, is not capable of pulling the economy up to the top of the economic hill, it means then that the Levy has to stay in place. No responsible person can support the Levy.”
The former Minister of Social Development, who was dismissed by Chief Minister Hughes earlier this year, turned his attention to the Cap Juluca agreement relating to land made available to the property by the Government. He alluded, that at a House of Assembly meeting, the Member for Valley North, Evans Rogers, asked the Parliamentary Secretary, Haydn Hughes, who owned the pond in the area – and that, Mr Hughes, in turn, privately asked the question to Jerome Roberts, Minister of Lands, who could not tell him.
The following dialogue ensued:
Mr Roberts: “Madam Speaker, on a point of order. That statement was made at a political meeting the other day at Landsome Bowl in which the Member for Road North continued to mislead the public. At no point in time did I indicate that I did not know who owned the pond to which he referred to. I wish that he would withdraw that statement.
Baird: “Madam Speaker….”
Speaker (interrupting): “Member, I am just going to ask you to stick to the facts.”
Baird: “Madam Speaker, I am speaking to the fact. You can put a video to it.”
Roberts: “Madam Speaker, it is not a fact. I am stating that he is accusing me of not knowing who owned the pond to which I had some discussions and deliberations in the preparation of this particular document to which he is referring to. We do not have that information in front of us to dispute this and, Madam Speaker, I am asking that he withdraws that statement.”
Baird: “You did not know. Madam Speaker, the Member for Valley North, in this very House, on video tape, asked the Parliamentary Secretary who owns the pond.
Speaker: “Was that a question brought to the House?”
Baird: “It was a debate, Madam Speaker.”
Speaker: “Questions aren’t permitted from members during the debate. Please, Member for Road North, that question was not brought to the House – please Member, take your seat. I am speaking to you and I am saying to you that question was not brought to this Honourable House as a question. So therefore, the Member had no opportunity to answer it. The Member for Valley North just admitted that it was brought in a debate. Therefore he had no opportunity to answer so please withdraw that statement and continue with your debate.”
Baird: “Madam Speaker, I can’t withdraw this statement because it is factual.
Speaker: “Member, did you hear me, Member?”
Baird: “I am putting it to you, Madam Speaker, it is on video tape.”
Speaker: “Member, what I am saying is – there is a procedure for questions in this Honourable House. No question was brought so that the Member can answer. That is what I am saying, so he did not have an opportunity to answer…Member, please continue.”
Baird: “I will continue.”
Speaker: “Thank you, and do not go back to that.”
Roberts: “Madam Speaker, with due respect to you, I wish for the Member to withdraw that statement. It is not a factual statement and I will not stand here and allow the Member to send through these airways such untruths which he continues to do; and I wish the Member would withdraw this statement, Madam Speaker. As you indicated, he did not come to this Honourable House … by way of a question which formed part of the Order Paper. This Member has been in this Honourable House for almost 20 years and this Member should know what the parliamentary rules and procedures are – and abide by such. I wish he would withdraw his statement, Madam Speaker.”
Speaker: “Member for Road North, I am going to ask you again to withdraw that statement.”
(Baird said he couldn’t.)
Speaker: “Well then, I will not allow you to continue, Member.”
Baird: “It is entirely up to you, Madam Speaker.”
Speaker: “Thank you. You may take your seat.”
Baird: “Let me finish.”
Speaker: “No, I am not going to allow you to finish. I am asking you to withdraw that statement…I am telling you that question was not brought to this Honourable House and the Member did not have any opportunity to answer if it was brought in a debate. Therefore, I will not tolerate it. I am asking you to withdraw it and if you are not going to withdraw it, I will not allow you to continue.”
Baird: “Madam Speaker, are you suggesting that the Member for Valley North did not ask the Parliamentary Secretary, who owns the pond?”
Speaker: “I am clearly stating that that question was not brought in the form of a question to this Honourable House.”
Baird: “It was during the debate, Madam Speaker…”
Speaker: “Member, please. You either withdraw that statement or you take your seat and we will continue.”
Baird: “I am not withdrawing the statement, Madam Speaker.”
Speaker: “Thank you. You may be seated Member.”
