10
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1994
SECONDLY, IN THE FACE OF ALL THE EVIDENCE, A FEW MEMBERS ALLEGED THAT WE HAD DRAMATICALLY INCREASED GOVERNMENTPUBLIC EXPENDITURE THUS CREATING A FINANCIAL BURDEN FOR THE SAR. IT IS DEPRESSING THAT THIS MYTH CAN GO ON BEING TROTTED OUT DESPITE THE FACTS WHICH SHOW THE CONTRARY, BUT LET ME TRY TO CONVERT THOSE LONELY SCEPTICS. THE GENERAL REASSURANCE IS OF COURSE THE FACT I MENTIONED EARLIER
BOTH FOR THE BUDGET YEAR, AND FOR THE YEARS BEYOND THAT WHICH ARE COVERED BY THE MEDIUM RANGE FORECAST, WE APPLY THE PRINCIPLE THAT EXPENDITURE MUST INCREASE NO FASTER THAN ECONOMIC GROWTH. THIS FACT, COUPLED WITH OUR BUOYANT REVENUE, ENSURES WE LIVE WITHIN OUR IN FACT, AS MEMBERS WELL KNOW FROM OUR PUBLISHED FORECASTS, THE SAR GOVERNMENT WILL INHERIT VERY HEALTHY FINANCES.
MEANS
-
BUT LET US LOOK ALSO AT SPECIFIC EXAMPLES. TAKE SEWAGE. HAVE WE ARRANGED THE HIGH PRIORITY PROGRAMME OF THE SEWAGE STRATEGY IN SUCH A WAY AS TO PUT AN ADDED BURDEN ON THE SAR GOVERNMENT? NO, QUITE THE CONTRARY. IT WILL BE BUILT AND PAID FOR IN THE PERIOD UP ΤΟ 1997. AND THE RECURRENT EXPENDITURE IT IS PROPOSED TO RECOVER THROUGH CHARGES TO THE USER.
THE NOT
OR TAKE THE OLD AGE PENSION SCHEME. AGAIN, WHETHER YOU LIKE PROPOSAL OR NOT, YOU SURELY HAVE TO ADMIT THAT THE PACKAGE DOES PRODUCE A BURDEN FOR THE SAR. THE OUTGOINGS ARE BALANCED BY THE CONTRIBUTIONS. IF INSTEAD, AS SOME HAVE SUGGESTED, WE HAD GONE FOR INCREASING OLD AGE ALLOWANCES PAID FOR OUT OF PUBLIC REVENUE
I.E. FROM TAXATION THEN INDEED IT COULD BE ARGUED WE WERE PUTTING A LARGE NEW RECURRENT COMMITMENT ON THE SAR. BUT THIS IS NOT WHAT WE HAVE DONE. PLEASE LOOK AT THE FACTS, NOT AT PRECONCEPTIONS.
-
ANOTHER VERSION OF THIS CRITICISM MADE BY ONE MEMBER WAS THAT DELAYS CAUSED BY THE SINO-BRITISH DISAGREEMENT, SUCH AS THAT TO CT9, COULD COST THE SAR GOVERNMENT BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN EXTRA EXPENDITURE LOST REVENUE, PERHAPS EVEN LEAVING IT PENNILESS, WITH THE FISCAL RESERVES TOTALLY SPOKEN FOR. THIS IS INDEED A FERTILE AND PESSIMISTIC MIND. BUT LET ME REASSURE THE HONOURABLE MEMBER THAT HIS EXTRAPOLATIONS ARE NOT WELL FOUNDED BASICALLY, THEY SEEM TO REST ON A CONFUSION BETWEEN ECONOMIC COSTS TO THE COMMUNITY AND COSTS TO PUBLIC FINANCES BUT THESE ARE TWO QUITE DIFFERENT THINGS.
-
THE THIRD SURPRISING POINT MADE BY A MEMBER
P
-
THE
SAY
OF
I
SAY
I'M GLAD TO ONLY ONE WAS TO EXPRESS DOUBT ABOUT THE WISDOM OF LINKING GROWTH GOVERNMENTPUBLIC EXPENDITURE TO ECONOMIC GROWTH, AND ABOUT OUR TAXATION POLICY, AND TO ASK FOR A REVIEW OF THE TAXATION SYSTEM. COMMEND THIS MEMBER FOR CONSISTENCY AND PERSISTENCE, BUT HAVE TO VERY FRANKLY THAT I AM NOT PERSUADED BY ANY OF THESE POINTS. SPECIFICALLY I DON'T THINK NOW IS THE TIME TO REVIEW OUR SIMPLE AND LOW TAX SYSTEM; TO SOW ANY DOUBTS ABOUT OUR COMMITMENT TO THAT SYSTEM, ONE OF OUR GREAT ATTRACTIONS TO INVESTORS AND RESIDENTS ALIKE, WOULD NOT BE HELPFUL.
AND
/NOR CAN