House votes for 5.5 % increase in Telecom Tax
Today’s meeting of the House concluded early in the afternoon. It was a full house except for two members from the opposition side. The debate was not extensive, perhaps because it is the last sitting for this year and most of the bills had already been ventilated in the media. In the case of the business tax, on Wednesday night’s newscast P.U.P. Area Representative Mark Espat revealed that his party would not be supporting the increase in tax for the telecommunications industry from nineteen to twenty-four point five percent or its decision to increase the tax on Public Investment Companies banks from eight to twelve percent. Espat is acting in lieu of Party Leader John Briceño who has chosen to refrain from the debate because of his family’s involvement in the telecom business. When the bill was brought up for its second reading in the House today, Espat posed several questions to Prime Minister Dean Barrow. As usual, the P.M. had no problem coming up with a response.
Mark Espat, Area Rep. Albert Division
“Can the government give us an assurance, can they give the Belize Communication Workers Union an assurance that this increase in tax will not result in the loss of jobs? Can the government give us an assurance? Can they give the two hundred thousand users of mobile services, the thirty odd thousand users of fixed lines, the fifteen or twenty thousand users of internet services—can the government, through the Public Utilities Commission or otherwise give an assurance that at the end of the day this increase in taxes will not mean an increase in rates? A third issue that arose at the House Committee, was the issue of the investments that both telecom providers have said that they are in the middle of making. Can the government give us an assurance of what is its plan if in fact, as they have threatened to do, these companies roll back or withhold those investments?”
Prime Minister Dean Barrow
“When the bill was first introduced, as is usual, it was sent to the relevant House Committee. He sits on that House Committee. I have looked at the minutes of the meeting of the House Committee and I didn’t see where he raised any of these issues. He ends by telling us now that he has no choice but to oppose the bill. I see that he seconded the reporting back the report of the bill to parliament as amended. Now listen, I noh di look fi quarrel wid yoh. If yoh want quarrel, I ready fi quarrel so please. I am telling you I looked at the records here and you did not raise any objections in terms of when the committee finished its exercise and agreed on the amendments, he did not suggest in any way, ANY WAY, that he was not satisfied with the amendments and that in fact, Mr. Speaker, he could not support the bill with the amendments.”
“While the member spoke about telecom companies, I will say that I have not heard Speednet threaten any kind of layoffs, I have not heard Speednet threaten any kind of dire consequences. Of course Speednet is not happy with the proposed increase but, dare I say it Mr Leader of the Opposition, Speednet your family’s company, is adopting I think a very responsible position and I commend them for that. The companies are able to pay and in the end they should pay without any repercussions for consumers. If, IF not withstanding that, there are attempts to blackmail, then we will simply open the markets.”
