My last two blogs have been about the Minister of
the Economic Development Department (EDD) seeking an increase in liquor licence
fees but had intentionally failed to inform States Members that in 2007 the
States had approved my proposition P117/2007, This had requested the Minister
to review the fee structure and produce a more equable structure before seeking
further increases in Licensing fees.
Given the scant report it was obviously intended
that the proposition would be approved on the nod with no questions being asked as to why
no increase had been sought since 2007. The proposition, P94 was lodged last
month and soon after I published a Blog questioning its contents and more importantly
what had been omitted. I forwarded my Blog to
the Minister and Members of the Council of Ministers asking that the proposition
be withdrawn or at least that the full facts were made known to all States Members.
Regretfully my request was rejected so I circulated
my Blog, Hansard Report and proposition to all States Members in good time to read before the debate. The debate was just not whether the unjustified
request should be approved but whether States Members would act honourably and
respect the 2007 decision.
The debate commenced at 445pm on Tuesday and over a
dozen Members spoke before the 530pm adjournment. After Rapporteur Connetable
Pallett had outlined his case for the increase he was followed by a
well-informed speech by Deputy Judy Martin who found more holes in his speech
than one would find in a colander.
Thereafter it was pretty much downhill all the way
for the Ministers who pathetically tried to justify the increase on the grounds
that it was 8 years since the last increase, it would only cost pubs £2 a week,
the Minister was only “requested” to review the structure and he had assured
Members that the review had /would be conducted and the findings were imminent.
However when asked how imminent it was. It was like asking how long was a piece
of string?
Whilst the usual suspects played a vital role with
their speeches in opposition, it was the middle ground Members who really won
the day because their support which all too often is in favour of the Ministers
was not to be.
Many Members did not favour reneging on a previous decision;
some felt that by approving the proposition it would remove the incentive for
the Minister to come up with an equable fee structure. It was also rightly
claimed that the inequality had to be addressed and a structure that penalised
small sports clubs at the expense of the large supermarkets was
unsustainable.
The debate resumed yesterday morning with a strong speech from Geoff Southern
but the speech that finally put the nail in the Minister’s coffin was from
Connetable Julliete Gallichan of St Mary who had been far from impressed by
Senator Ozouf’s speech who repeatedly claimed that it was wrong to blame the
Ministers for failing to conduct the review. If it was not the Ministers, than whom
else was responsible for the 8 year failure? (It should be noted that Senator Ozouf had been Minister for EDD in 2007 and later Treasury Minister).
Mrs Gallichan like many of her fellow Connetables
form the bedrock of the Minister’s support and she, like her colleagues who had
spoken before her, was not persuaded by the excuses given for the failure to
conduct the review or convinced that it would ever be conducted. She was also
of the view that a promise made is a promise to be kept.
It became evident that the Ministers support had
ebbed so far that they were to suffer the ignominy of a defeat. It was then
that Connetable Pallett wisely sought consent to withdraw his proposition.
He rightly claimed that he found himself to be on a
sticky wicket. However he had prepared the wicket which clearly was not susceptible
to spin. He then threw in the towel to save his Ministers from further
punishment.
It is not every day or indeed every year that the
Council of Ministers is defeated. In my previous Blog I wrote “There is still some time to partly redeem themselves by withdrawing the
proposition and insisting that the Economic Development Department
conducts the much needed review before seeking an increase in fees."
Although it was an eleventh hour withdrawal it did
restore some credibility on Connetable Pallett and his fellow shell shocked
Ministers. However the withdrawal was a defeat and a bad day for the Ministers
whose creditability was stripped bare and left as naked as the Emperor in his new clothes.
