|
UNREVISED
(12.05)
Mr P. Bérenger (First Member for Stanley and Rose Hill): Mr Speaker, Sir, after all that has been said, I think we should be able to agree on two things. One, that this budget is a budget de rupture à la FMI and that this budget de rupture à la FMI est le contraire of the electoral platform on which the Labour Party, l’Alliance Sociale, was elected. When I am saying that, I am not making a value judgment. I will explain why. I believe that it is a statement of fact. I said budget de rupture à la FMI. I have used the expression ultra libéral. The former Minister of Finance, Mr Vishnu Lutchmeenaraidoo, has described it as plus FMI que le FMI.
(Interruptions)
Some people, on the other side, had this rasoir in their pocket, nicely, for quite a while!
When I said that it’s a budget de rupture à la FMI, when I described it as ultra libéral – as I said, I don’t want that statement to be interpreted as a value judgment - I believe that I am making a statement of fact. Why do I say that? I say that à partir l’ensemble des mesures principales contenues dans le budget et aussi - hon. Duval said that proudly a few minutes ago – le fait que c’est la première fois dans l’histoire de Maurice qu’il y a eu unanimité dans le secteur privé en faveur du budget. I am not making a value judgment, I am making a statement of fact. Budget de rupture à la FMI - when we look at the package of measures - l’ensemble des mesures, lesquelles? Corporate Tax, down from 25% to 15%, imposition de all income, except dividends, doing away with tripartite annual wage compensation, amending the Labour Act and the Industrial Relations Act to give flexibility to the private sector to fire employees, raising pension age to 65 with only two years of préavis - and I will come back to that later on – opening the doors wide open to foreigners - not just investors - investors, professionals, really anybody, doing away with the subsidies on rice and flour, doing away with payment of fees for SC and HSC for certain members of the population – and I will come back to that later on, of course; doing away with the School Feeding Project, disbanding the DWC, I could go on. But when we look at the package of measures, again, I am not passing the value judgment, I am not saying that it is good or bad. I am saying when you look at the package, and I’ll say later on that I don’t agree with this budget de rupture à la FMI. We believe that there should have been un budget of continuing reform, not un budget de rupture à la FMI. I will come to that later on.
When we look at the package of measures, this, I believe, as a statement of fact, allows me to say that it’s un budget de rupture ultra libéral à la FMI. It is clear, I don’t think we have to pick a big quarrel on that, we can leave it behind us, but no one is going to tell me, seriously, that this kind of budget de rupture à la FMI is, what my good friend, the hon. Prime Minister, l’Alliance Sociale, the Labour Party, but especially him, the platform on which he campaigned the last general election.
I went back yesterday through different interviews by my good friend, the hon. Prime Minister. Let me say that the statements are forceful. Je crois vraiment qu’il faut que le parti travailliste soit un parti de gauche, qu’il faut un programme de gauche pour l’île Maurice and so on. Let us be serious. No one seriously is going to say that what we have before us is un programme de gauche, très à gauche, comme disait mon bon ami, le Premier ministre. I think we can agree on that, but it is un budget de rupture à la FMI. It is the exact opposite in fact, to what was promised very genuinely.
As I said, the other consideration that allows me to say that is that for the first time ever in Mauritius there has been unanimity in the private sector. I am saying that again not as a value judgement. I do not blame the private sector. It is obvious that they look after their own interests. They look at this Budget, they see their interests all over the place and, therefore, first time ever, à l'unanimité, the private sector approves. So, this is the opening statement of fact that I wanted to make, not as a value judgement, but as a statement of fact.
Mr Speaker, Sir, let us move on and look at the Budget itself. What is the target? Quel est le but de ce budget? I think there has rarely been a clear statement of what the purpose of the Budget is. At page 8, paragraph 33, the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Finance was as clear as one can be, and I quote -
" Mr Speaker, Sir, the single over-riding purpose of this year’s Budget is to create jobs, promote employment and return to growth (..)"
At least, things were made very clear. This is the target. And the real question that I ask myself, and I offer my appreciation, my judgement, is: will the Budget succeed? This is the target - "growth, employment creation." Will it succeed?
Mr Speaker, Sir, in honestly coming forward with an appreciation, a value judgement, on whether the Budget will succeed, one thing that struck me was the absence of previsions, except on two things: GDP growth and budget deficit, and I will come to that. Apart from that, we see no previsions. The Minister offers no previsions as to the future - short-term, middle term and long-term. This is really surprising when one looks at page 8, his assessment of the situation today. In one week's time, it will be one year that this Government is in power - one year! And the assessment at page 8 is damning. What the hon. Minister of Finance describes, at page 8, est une situation catastrophique - one full year in a week's time after the last general election. I do not think one can find more damning words of the present economic situation. He points out, and I quote -
"That the unemployment rate in September 2005 was 9.5%."
He said that this year is the lowest savings rate since 1980. He adds at paragraph 41 -
"But, the most worrying of all is the trend in investment as a ration of GDP. "
and then adds -
"And even more disturbing is that private sector investment as a ratio of GDP has declined (..)
Indeed, when we look at the description, it is damning - one full year after the last general election! It, therefore, makes the absence of previsions, of projections, very, very disturbing.
En passant, Mr Speaker, Sir, we have heard - I must say not in the Budget Speech - this ongoing list of bétises - la guerre des squelettes! One full year after the last general election, I think it is about time that we leave this guerre des squelettes behind us.
History has already recorded what was the bilan in 2000 and what was the bilan in 2005.
(Interruptions)
I will tell that to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance that we should be fair. We cannot just take figures as at 2005. We have to look at history 2000/2005 and let's leave this guerre des squelettes behind us, one full year after the last general election. For our part, we know that history has already recorded what was the bilan in 2000 and what was the bilan in 2005 and what was achieved between 2000 and 2005.
Mr Speaker, Sir, when I say what strikes me, after this damning assessment of the present economic situation, amongst other things, is the absence of projections, of prévisions, except on GDP growth and the budget deficit. On GDP growth, the Minister expects growth of 5% of GDP. Mr Speaker, Sir, one of the best Economists, Mr Gnany, I am not talking about the Minister of Finance. The way he was looking me I thought he was thinking of himself! One of the best Economists of this country, Mr Gnany, before the Budget, projected that GDP growth in 2006 would be 4.5%. So, my point is that the Minister is being très modeste, after all the measures that he has proposed, after un budget de rupture à la FMI, targets this growth and employment creation. He is being très modeste. Mr Gnany projected 4.5%; he projects 5%. I sincerely hope that it will be more than 5%, by the end of the financial year, but I have very strong doubts, and I will come to that later on.
I listened to the hon. Minister responsible for tourism and what worries me, as far as GDP growth is concerned, is again this guerre des squelettes, which should be left behind us. If we look about the number of times, under the previous Government, that myself, the former Prime Minister before me and so on, that we also said sugar is in trouble, textile is in serious trouble, the ICT must be developed, all sorts of hubs must be developed! But we said as Government is saying today – we have choice – that the main engine of economic growth, Mr Speaker, Sir, must be tourism. We said it, you are saying it. That is why we must be very lucide, and certain statements have not impressed me, nor certain ways of doing things recently. I listened to the hon. Minister responsible for tourism; there is cause for very, very serious concern. This chikungunya thing, we all thought that it would fly away faster than it is going to fly away. I think you cannot say, except for childish remarks by the Minister of Health and so on; otherwise, I don’t think one can blame the Opposition at all. In fact, we were in Government when chikungunya appeared, in certain areas of Port Louis. We took immediate action and got rid of it. It came back…
(Interruptions)
This is a statement of fact, again, Mr Speaker, Sir. But I must say, some people, on the other side, have repeated…
(Interruptions)
Mr Speaker: Order! Order!
Mr Bérenger: I must say, some people on the other side have repeated des faussetés, so often, that they have become prisoners of their own propaganda. What I am saying is that we should be very careful. I believe the impact on GDP growth also is going to show, Mr Speaker, Sir. We, as an Opposition, have collaborated all out on this chikungunya thing, and I am glad that this was acknowledged earlier on, but it is very, very serious. And, therefore, GDP g`roup, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance has projected a growth of 5% - when one looks at the difficulties in the tourism sector especially, Mr Speaker, Sir.
The Budget deficit, I don’t believe it. The Minister in one passing sentence says that the budget deficit will be brought down to 4% of GDP. No! I don’t think so. We’ll be here in six months’ time; we’ll be here in one year’s time. I don’t believe that the real budget deficit will be brought down to 4%. But what I find extraordinary, and it’s probably the first time in a budget since independence, that there is no attempt by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, at all, to make any provision on what the unemployment rate is going to be and the inflation rate. Now, this is really extraordinary. Again, Mr Gnany, in his latest publication….
(Interruptions)
No, no. For the forthcoming financial year, hon. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. Let’s come to unemployment first. In his latest publication, Mr Gnany projected, for his part, that we would break the 10% barrier of unemployment rate this year. Psychologically, if that indeed does happen, it is going to be very, very serious, especially when the hon. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance says that the main target is growth and employment creation. I find it very disturbing that there is no projection of what the unemployment rate can be expected as a result of the measures put forward by the Minister, what the unemployment rate is expected to be in the middle term and longer term. Same thing on the savings rate, on investment in general in the country, private sector investment, FDI - no projections at all, Mr Speaker, Sir.
Now, I should like to return on the savings rates especially, and here, again, I’ll quote Mr Gnany, when he commented on what he described as the subdued investment climate. This was produced, just before this latest document was produced, entitled “Fostering Fiscal Discipline amidst Structural Imbalances”. I’ll quote him –
“(…) Unless there is a boost in the level of foreign capital inflows, this situation – the situation of subdued investment climate – would persist in future periods, given the huge resurged gap, currently prevailing, as a result of a sharp drop in gross domestic savings. Indeed the latter is expected to decline further this year to reach 13.7% of GDP, which represents less than half of the targeted level.”
The investment deficiency is a huge cause for concern for growth, at a time when key export sectors, namely sugar and EPZ are facing heightened competition as a result of increased trade liberalisation. This savings rate problem, as the Minister knows is very, very serious. And, therefore, I am most keen to hear from the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance how he expects this saving rates to evolve in the months ahead. Same thing on investment in general, and especially, private sector investment.
Now, after the kind of budget that has been presented, I think we can all agree that the bottom line will be private sector investment. It is in the private sector that productive, sustainable employment is created. Therefore, I am very surprised that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance does not come forward with any projection of investment in general, of savings in general and investment in the private sector. And, there is no attempt by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance to project FDI either.
I know it is not easy, but it has always been done. There are always projections of what we can expect foreign direct investment to be. Therefore, Mr Speaker, I am very worried and disturbed.
Same thing concerning inflation. There is not a word in the Budget Speech concerning what we can expect the inflation rate to be in 2006-2007. And, again, it disturbs me, because Mr Gnany, again, in the same publication, projected…
I hope he is proved wrong, but he projected an inflation rate of nearly 7% in 2006. If he is proved right, this is going to be very, very, serious for Mauritius. Therefore, again, I am very keen to hear from the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister Finance what rate of inflation we can expect. I am a bit surprised also, at the same time, that he doesn’t project any inflation rate. And I repeat, if Mr Gnany is proved right, if the inflation rate climbs up to nearly 7% from the 5% where we are, if that is confirmed, we are even in more serious trouble than we already are in. And that is why…
(Interruptions)
This is very, very serious. We’ll look at, or rather I’ll look at what, not only the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance says, but the best Economists, the best financial people of the countries say. And therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am disturbed also by the absence
(Interruptions)
Mr Speaker: Order! Order! Order, please!
Mr Bérenger: I am disturbed also by the absence of any reference to interest rates.
(Interruptions)
because clearly whether this budget is going to succeed or not, whether the target of increased growth and employment creation is going to be achieved will depend a lot on interest rates.
Mr Speaker, Sir, we could interpret this total absence from any reference to interest rates as an acknowledgment and confirmation by this Government that the policy of the previous Government to have a completely independent, autonomous central bank and a central bank that fixes the interest rates. But that doesn't exclude the Minister of Finance from giving his point of view. And, Mr Speaker, Sir, right now these days the Minister of Finance knows better than me, as inflation is going up across the world, there are one after the other, central banks raising interest rates and close to us a lot of negative noise has been heard these last days when the Central Bank of South Africa raised the interest rates two weeks ago by a full half percent - from 7% to 7.5% if my memory serves me right. Mr Speaker, Sir, I leave it to the Bank of Mauritius, to their Monetary Policy Committee and so on. But it will be vital for the success or failure of this Budget, what happens to interest rates in the days to come; and I have full confidence that the Central Bank of Mauritius and its monetary policy will do what is necessary to meet this target of increased GDP growth and employment creation. And to conclude on this absence of projections of previsions, I am disturbed there also, by an absence of any protection on the balance commerciale, déficit de notre balance commerciale and how we can expect our foreign currency reserves to increase. So, if the Minister has figures, I invite him to give us those figures when he sums up. Will the budget meet its targets of increased GDP growth and employment creation? The former Minister of Finance, Mr Luchmeenaraidoo, with his experience, with his way of looking at things, he believes that the target will not be met above all because la confiance n'est pas là. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure Members…
(Interruptions)
Mr Speaker: Hon. Gowressoo, I am calling you to order and the next time you disturb this House, you know what will be the consequence.
Mr Bérenger: I hope he is wrong in his assessment, but I agree that of vital importance will be la confiance; and if it is not there, if it does not remain with us, we are going again to be in a very serious situation. And we'll see that. I'll be questioning the Minister of Finance in three months' time, in 6 months' time. We have figures on private sector investment; there are official figures. So, we'll travel the road together and if la confiance n'est pas là, we've had it, Mr Speaker, Sir. And I am sure that Government is aware that out there the mood is very bad. Apart from the private sector, everybody, or nearly everybody, feels cheated. Therefore, we are in a very serious situation.
For my part, Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to say bonne chance au pays. I hope that this Budget meets its target of increased GDP growth and employment creation. And I sincerely say bonne chance au pays. But I have very, very strong doubts. When we look at the trends today, I have very strong doubts whether the targets will be achieved, but anyway, as I said, as we travel along the figures will tell. In three months' time, in six months' time, next Budget in one year's time the figures will tell. La vérité sera la vérité des chiffres, M. le président. En tout cas, let me say one thing. Following what takes place across the world, I'll give a word of caution! Even if you succeed, hon. Minister, I advise you to look at what has just happened last Sunday in La Slovaquie, which is the poorer half of the former Tchécoslovaquie. Mr Speaker, Sir, in that country a centre right Government which has gone through 8 years of rupture à la FMI - praise and only praise from FMI - and which has been over those years one of the fastest growing economies in Europe, applying des budgets de rupture à la FMI year after year, last Sunday, that same Government was voted out of Government.
(Interruptions)
No, but eight years is too long! We have no intention of waiting eight years, but this is friendly advice. And do you know why, Mr Speaker, Sir? And this is the lesson in it! It is because il n'y avait pas de coeur in those budgets. There was GDP growth, but there was no social justice, there was no good sharing of that growth and that Government in Slovaquie, last Sunday lost elections because of that. That is the lesson which I advise Government to learn from such situations. I have doubts whether we will reach the figures of GDP growth employment creation that are not provided in the budget, Mr Speaker, Sir, but even if that does take place there must be proper humane sharing of that growth?
Let me move on, Mr Speaker, Sir, to a number of measures - and this is where I insist that some of those measures be amended. I appeal to the hon. Prime Minister and to the Minister of Finance that some of the measures proposed should be amended. Generally, you will have understood, Mr Speaker, Sir, that we are in disagreement with this budget de rupture à la FMI and I'll conclude on that later on.
Sectoriel! The doing away of the annual exercise of fixing a wage compensation for those at the lowest economic ladder. Mr Speaker, Sir, I offer my genuine opinion. I know Government is not going to review this, but I offer my genuine opinion. I believe that this is un faux pas très, très grave. For years the World Bank, the IMF and the private sector have been saying that this annual wage compensation exercise is outdated, it doesn't help productivity, growth and so on.
It has been my belief, and I am not convinced that I was wrong or that I am wrong that this Mauritian invention was le prix à payer sur le long terme pour la paix sociale. I don’t think Government is going to review, but I wish to put on record my opinion, as a sociologist also. I don’t think we should underestimate la peur des gens, deep inside. I believe that this Mauritian invention of the annual minimum wage compensation, deep inside, reassures and has reassured people over the years. It’s a kind of insurance, and when we remove that, I am very scared. I am afraid that it will create a deep-seated – maybe irrational – concern of the people; l’angoisse that when we meet with this or that problème de conjoncture, this thing is there - and has been there - and helps – if that is the word – for the bigger problems to blow up. It is my experience, but there are others who are of the same opinion, and I wanted it to be on record that this is a very serious faux pas. I don’t think Government is prepared to review that.
With regard to the bringing up of the age of retirement to 65, I would like, again, to read what experts have to say. I think we have to pay due respect to experts whenever we look at economics, social problems, etc. Of course, we all agree that there is a big problem, with the ageing population, pension funds generally and the non-contributory basic old age pension. We know that there has been a problem for a number of years. But, what I read – and I agree – is that two years préavis is too short. In the Budget, it is proposed that, as from August 2008, that is, in two years’ time, people aged 60 will no longer get their non-contributory basic pension. It will start receding in 2008, and in X years, it will be 65 years. I’ll now read a statement made by Mr Bernard Yen – I don’t know the gentleman – who is in the insurance sector.
L’Express dated 16 June puts the question –
“Deux ans ne suffisent pas?”
And he replies -
“Selon notre expérience, il faut prévoir au moins cinq ans pour permettre aux gens de s’ajuster. Retarder le début de la période de transition par trois ans de plus aurait un impact économique minimal. En revanche, cela aurait atténué le choc pour ceux qui seront immédiatement concernés par cette réforme. L’Angleterre, par exemple, s’est donnée quinze ans pour permettre aux anglais de se préparer à la retraite à 65 ans”. This is why, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would make an appeal to the hon. Prime Minister and to the hon. Minister of Finance on that issue. I think we should follow this piece of humane advice, and instead of giving deux ans de préavis in reference to the basic old age non-contributory pension, to give the minimum of five years préavis, to which that gentleman has referred, Mr Speaker, Sir.
I now come to the abolition of payment of half of the exam fees and doing away with the school feeding project. In the Budget Speech, there was nothing, but in the Estimates also there was nothing! There was no money provided at all and, therefore, we were entitled to believe that both schemes would be done away with. I see that this is not the case, or rather I congratulate the hon. Minister of Finance. I told some people that I don’t go along at all with this idea that when you come forward with a suggestion and Government agrees to it, everybody says ‘capitulation!’. This is not the spirit at all, Mr Speaker, Sir. I congratulate Government on the issue of exam fees and the school-feeding project, but we don’t know the details yet. We are told that Government has just reviewed things as far the payment of school fees are concerned.
(Interruptions)
As I said, I congratulate the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister on the change as far as payment of SC and HSC exam fees are concerned. I appeal to Government to keep the school-feeding project for those who are really in need thereof. But, we had a go at it also, Mr Speaker, Sir. It is easier said than done, but it must be done. If Government wants to set up a Select Committee, we are prepared to join and share our experience. But, my appeal is that it is important to feed the kids of very poor families. My point is that the self-esteem of these kids is also very important. We must be very careful, as we set up a school-feeding programme, that the self-esteem of the kids also is taken on board. Therefore, on that point, we have not heard anything about the details, but there must be a school-feeding project for the kids of the poorest families, Mr Speaker, Sir.
I would make an appeal to Government that the Finance Bill be circulated a long time before it comes to the House. On a number of measures proposed, the devil will be in the small print, in the details. Which measures am I talking about? Complete opening of the doors of Mauritius to foreigners. I think the Finance Bill should be out as soon as possible, and we will look very carefully at that. I must say that I don’t agree with what I have heard. This is a recipe for catastrophe, if we really open up Mauritius to foreign professionals. I think this is really a recipe for catastrophe. Therefore, the fine print, the wording should be in the Finance Bill, and it should be circulated as early as possible, for us and the country to examine.
It is the same thing as far as doing away with permits and so on is concerned; this idea of silent agreement, Mr Speaker, Sir, from my experience, is also a recipe for disaster. What I have heard is that this cannot be implemented in Mauritius. We all know Mauritius. People are going to be allowed to set up businesses, to start things. My God! We have all been Members of Parliament, we know what kind of trouble there is, what kind of problems we have, be it health, environmental, problème de voisinage, etc. When the Municipal Council or the District Council applies the law, we know how lawyers are good; they are paid for that to find all sorts of delaying tactics. They don’t go to the Privy Council; they go to the Queen herself if required, Mr Speaker, Sir. What I have heard in terms of allowing everybody to start business, to start doing anything and then have post-mortem compliance, this also, I believe is a recipe for disaster.
(Interruptions)
I say post-mortem on purpose. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope that the Finance Bill will be out as soon as possible. Same thing as far as the new tax is concerned, that is, the new National Residential Property Tax, which is to apply to everybody, Mr Speaker, Sir. I would wish that there is no misunderstanding on that, Mr Speaker, Sir.
(Interruptions)
Mr Speaker, Sir, can we have some order? It’s the same bla-bla-bla…
Mr Speaker: Order! Order! Order, please!
Mr Bérenger: This new National Residential Property Tax is to apply to everybody – by everybody I mean geographically - in the towns, as well as in the villages. With regard to the towns, the Minister, at paragraph 186, has said the following -
“The rate will be Rs10 per square metre of surface area of land for residential plots and Rs30 per square metre of floor space for flats and apartments, from which any amount of rates paid on these properties to local authorities will be deductible.”
So, we have looked at the figures, but again I wish to look at the fine print in the Finance Bill. It’s clear that this new property tax is going to be, deux fois, trois fois, higher than what people are paying to the municipalities.
(Interruptions)
Much more! This is massive and it will apply to the countryside also. In the towns, there is already a municipal rate and so on. People would be allowed to deduct the tax, but the new tax would be much higher than what is being paid. In rural areas, it is a new tax. We call it taxe rurale, call it by whatever name, it is a new tax, it does not exist in the rural areas; for the first time, there will be a tax on property in the rural areas. Therefore, this is a very important issue, where, again, we want to look at the fine print and we wish to have, therefore, the Finance Bill.
Concerning income tax, Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a lot of confusion around. But again, we have to look at the experts. There is a lot of confusion around and I see that there also the hon. Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance have changed their attitude. They have therefore agreed from what I have heard, that lump sum will not be taxable up to Rs1 m. There are a lot of other things in the income tax measures announced that are still ambigues and that we don’t agree with. But, bottom line, I read the analysis of an expert, Mr Neerunjun Seenat. We have known him at the Ministry of Finance, the present Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, and others have known him to be one of the best, most honest, most serious public officers in the Ministry of Finance. He has looked at what has been proposed, pending the Finance Bill and he says, bluntly, that ‘La réforme de l’impôt direct pénalisera les classes moyennes’. Therefore, it’s good. I, again, congratulate the Deputy Prime
Minister and Minister of Finance that he has changed his attitude on the lump sum. But there are lot of things in the income tax proposals that we don’t agree with, that are still ambigus and that, therefore, the need for the Finance Bill to be out as soon as possible, is urgent.
Concerning the first-time buyers, there also, I appeal to the hon. Prime Minister and to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance to review. For quite a number of years, Mauritius has been a country where first-time buyers of a house do not pay registration duty. Young couples are beginning life together, they buy a little house, and they start a new life and so on. It’s the Mauritian way of life. I appeal to the hon. Prime Minister, I appeal to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance that this should be reviewed.
(Interruptions)
If the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance will review everything at the next general election when they will be out…
(Interruptions)
That’s another matter. But, I must say to the hon. Prime Minister and the hon. Minister of Finance that I don’t think it’s difficult to agree to review on that point. And, I am prepared to be generous, if the Minister wants to interpret paragraph 201, which refers to that, as including first-time buyers are exempt from registration duty, I’ll pretend that this is what the paragraph says. Unfortunately, the paragraph does not say that. The paragraph says –
“To enhance transparency, the few duty concessions that will remain will be set in legislation, such as transfer between spouses, from ascendant to descendant and transfer without change in beneficial ownership as in the case of group restructuring or merger”.
But again, I appeal to the hon. Prime Minister, to keep this aspect of the Mauritian way of life. Let us be fair again to les jeunes couples, those who start life by owning for the first time a little house, Mr Speaker, Sir. So, I hope that Government reviews these four or five points and also I hope that the Finance Bill is out early so that everybody can really look at it.
Three points, before we break, Mr Speaker, Sir, and then I’ll end, and with permission, I’ll have another half an hour after lunch. Concerning the Empowerment Fund, let me say, Government has proposed, it’s there, it’s in the Budget and so on. Let me say honestly that I am not impressed at all. I cannot agree with this so-called Empowerment Fund which is, but a fourre-tout. We put a sum of money, otherwise it would be elsewhere and it is supposed to provide anything and everything; training, compulsory purchase of land, tourism development. If you want to have an Empowerment Fund for specific purposes, granted, but I think that for transparency purposes, it would have been much better to put what is being provided for, for skills in the Ministry concerned, spelt out for tourism, village tourism development elsewhere, compulsory purchase of land for building purposes elsewhere. I repeat I am not impressed at all, on the contrary, I think we are back-pedaling in terms of transparency. As I said, I think we should have kept the different sums under the different items in the different Ministries. We know in the Capital Estimates what the law provides for re-allocation, we know how things are done and so on. This is one case where nous reculons in terms of transparency.
I would appeal to Government pour un effort supplémentaire as far as Rodrigues and Local Government are concerned. I was not here when some Members spoke, I heard other Members from Rodrigues and this is the first time for a long time that the Budget provisions for both Rodrigues and the District and Municipal Councils are decreasing, especially the Capital Estimate is decreasing from last year to the Budget that is being presented. I think that this is very unfair. I am given to understand – if I am wrong, please tell me – that we share this idea that democracy is dencentralisation. A vital part of democracy is décentralisation, autonomie, giving powers to people who are directly concerned, that is, in the villages, the district councils, in the wards, in the municipalities. Therefore, the Budget of the local authorities and of Rodrigues should be increasing. There is wastage, of course, and I believe it is not fair that in that case it is decreasing.
Concening HIV/AIDS, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am disappointed. I looked at the figures in the Estimates, we are being provided with less funds for the different efforts, pains and so on. I am concerned mainly with the time that we are wasting. I repeat, Mr Speaker, Sir, this Government is going to be one year old in one week, it is a long time. I heard enough about this rubbish about the former Government and so on, Mr Speaker, Sir. As Prime Minister when I found out, we decided to move as fast as we could, we got the figures on HIV cases shortly before the last general elections. When the figures came in and we saw the situation has changed dramatically, that 90% of the new cases were needle injecting cases, that is, linked to drug usage. Therefore, I insisted as outgoing Prime Minister, that we must move urgently on that, but then it is easier said than done. It is one of the most difficult problem that we have, but we must tackle it. We have not experts in that sector, we decided to go to the World Health Organisation and UN AIDS and asked them urgently for a consultant to come, to look at the local situation, take inspiration from what has been done in terms of needle campaigns across the world and advise us. One year later, we have not moved an inch. I do not find that acceptable, Mr Prime Minister! I was re-reading the last Parliamentary Question put and I asked supplementary questions to the Minister who was replacing the Minister of Health. We are losing time dramatically, I do not think it is fair, I do not think it is humane. Everyday you have young kids catching HIV/AIDS because of drug injection. Every day and this is an urgent matter. I appeal to Government as in one week’s time this Government will be one year old. We wasted time on that issue, let us catch up on that issue, Mr Speaker, Sir. I sent a little note to the Minister because I hope that I would also hear something on children. Across the developing world, one major problem is that, at least, a lot of research, a lot of things has been done to decrease the price of treatment of HIV. There has been international pressure and the price of that treatment has gone down dramatically, but the cost of testing - whether a little new-born baby or after a few months - is still prohibitive. Therefore I wanted to know from the Minister whether we have looked at this issue and what is being proposed. I appeal to Government to expedite matters as far these young kids that inject drugs and that make up 90% of the new HIV cases are concerned. I am sure the hon. Prime Minister and the Minister will agree, I cannot find anything worse than a young new-born baby being caught with HIV/AIDS, an innocent little baby and we want to know how long across the developing world, 5% of the young babies what HIV treatment they are receiving. I do not know what the situation is here, I appeal to Government to look urgently at that.
I have two last points. One is education…
Mr Speaker: If the hon. Member wants to continue, he can do so after lunch.
Mr Bérenger: As I said, Sir, on education and the harbour, the Cargo Handling Corporation, I believe I have some more 20 minutes to go. If you allow me, I’ll try to be faster then.
Let me conclude by expressing, Budget apart, our total disagreement with Government on two points which we consider fundamental. One is education. We consider that the counter reform of the present Government as far as education is concerned is a real crime. Therefore, we wish to place on record our total disagreement on that issue.
But also, Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the first time since independence that the Recurrent Budget of the Ministry of Education has gone down, and we wish to put on record our total disagreement with that. The education budget, year after year, including when Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam was Prime Minister, has gone up. I am not talking about the Capital Estimates, the building of schools and so on. I am not entering into that debate. And not only that, the money provided for tertiary education sector development is going down. The money provided for pre-primary education is going down. We wish to put on record our total disagreement with that, Mr Speaker, Sir.
Secondly, let me put on record also our total disagreement with la politisation à outrance of certain sectors - I mentioned that to the hon. Prime Minister – is already doing a lot of harm. The hon. Minister concerned is not present. I told the Prime Minister that I would refer to the harbour, to the Cargo Handling Corporation, as un symbole, as an illustration of the damage, politisation à outrance is already doing, Mr Speaker, Sir. Now, we all agree that we have no choice, that we must develop as many economic sectors, activities as possible, as many hubs as possible. That is why the present Government has picked up, where we left, a lot of hubs, including the sea food hub and so on, Mr Speaker, Sir. One hub, which had taken off and which I believe - we can still say although it is very late - is the transhipment hub. We had picked up beautifully, we had taken off, Mr Speaker, Sir. Mauritius had, and still has, the potential to be the region’s transhipment hub. Of course, la concurrence est dure. We have Durban, but Durban is congested. There is Tamatave, but they still have their problems. In Reunion Island, they have very typical Reunion problems. It is already late, but we still have the possibility of being a regional transhipment hub. I’ll ask the hon. Prime Minister to look at the figures; we had taken off; we are crashing. If you look at the recent figures, the transhipment traffic is crashing, is going down. The Cargo Handling Corporation is going to make this year – I am quoting official figures – a loss of Rs40 m; and if you look at the transhipment figures, they are crashing and we are losing the opportunity of making of Mauritius a transhipment hub. It is very late already. I heard the Minister en passant make a reference to a decision that is being taken. There are two decisions that have to be taken. If the wrong decision is made on one of the two, the Cargo Handling Corporation is dead. The first decision is new equipment. If we choose the wrong moment to make other massive expenditure, that company, that is going to make Rs40 m loss this year, is going to crash. And the second decision that is to be made is what has been recommended by the World Bank for a number of years and we, the former Government, agreed with that, the choice of a strategic partner. If we choose the wrong strategic partner, if we choose a strategic partner who is judge and party, who is one of the competing, we are dead. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, I take this example of the harbour. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, I read his lips, was asking me why. There are different reasons, but one of the reasons is over politisation. You cannot do anything in that harbour now. You cannot do anything without the person concerned, who is breaking the law sometimes telling you: to pour conner Lundi un tel pour téléphoner là. This is what happens - lundi un tel téléphone. Political interference is killing that hub and it is not the only place. I’ll tell you there are récidivistes in that harbour. There are people, who have been convicted for drug trafficking, who have been provided with the required authority for political reasons. They come and go in that harbour. There are people who have been sentenced for drug trafficking. They have obtained permission for political reasons because they have been political agents and so on. That is why, I told the hon. Prime Minister that I would be raising the issue and it is already very late, but we can still save that hub, we cannot lose one of the vital hubs because this transhipment hub is vital not just as a hub, but for the development of the economy as a whole, Mr Speaker, Sir. But I repeat, I am referring to the harbour as a symbol. It is not the only area where this over politisation is doing a lot of harm, Mr Speaker, Sir, far from it. So, let me conclude, Mr Speaker, Sir, we are in disagreement with this budget de rupture à la FMI. We believe and we offer ourselves as an alternative. The Opposition represents l’alternance. We offer ourselves as the alternative. We are not good at zigzagging. We are not going to say in Opposition - we are de gauche; we are très à gauche. No, Mr Speaker, Sir. We are what we are and what we were. We are une opposition de centre gauche moderne et qui accorde beaucoup d’importance à la justice sociale, au combat contre la pauvreté. This is what we were. This is what we are. This is the alternative, l’alternance que nous représentons. I don’t think the hon. Prime Minister or Government can accuse us - over this one year that this Government has been in existence - of having been anything except une opposition constructive et responsable. We said where we disagree, but we make proposals, we make suggestions, Mr Speaker, Sir. We are l’alternative. We are l’alternance and, therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, we, the MMM together with my good friend, hon. Ashock Jugnauth and his newly created party, and anybody else who puts Mauritius first, we are l’alternance, we are l’alternative and the time will come, Mr Speaker, Sir, where we will put Mauritius back on the path of la réforme à visage humain et non sur la voie de la rupture à la FMI. In the meantime, Mr Speaker, Sir, I say bonne chance à la République de Maurice et bon courage à son peuple qui en aura grand besoin quand on examine le présent budget.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir.
At 1.20 p.m. the sitting was suspended.
|
