Debate No 23 of 2009
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
MAURITIUS FOURTH NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FIRST SESSION Debate No. 23 of 2009 Sitting of Tuesday 21 July 2009 The Assembly met in the Assembly House, Port Louis at 11.30 a.m. The National Anthem was played (Mr Speaker in the Chair) CONTENTS ANNOUNCEMENTS PAPERS LAID QUESTIONS (Oral) MOTION STATEMENT BY MINISTER BILLS (Public) ADJOURNMENT QUESTIONS (Written) MAURITIUS -------------- Fourth National Assembly --------------- First Session Debate No. 23 of 2009 Sitting of Tuesday 21 July 2009 ANNOUNCEMENTS CARDINAL JEAN MARGÉOT - DEATH Mr Speaker: Hon. Members, before we start with the business of the day, I will kindly invite you to stand up to observe one minute of silence in memory of the late Cardinal Jean Margéot who passed away on Friday 17 July 2009. Members observed a minute of silence. THE FINANCE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL – POINT OF ORDER - RULING Mr Speaker: Hon. Members, at the sitting of the House last Tuesday, the hon. Leader of the Opposition, following the introduction of the Finance (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill at First Reading raised a point of order. The point of order may be summarised as follows – (a) the Parliamentary Practice so far has been that the Minister of Finance presents the Bill, that is, the Finance (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill in the House and, after listening to him, the Leader of the Opposition stands up and replies in the light of what he has said; (b) in this Finance Bill, there are issues that have nothing to do with the Ministry of Finance; (c) he made specific reference to the proposed amendments to the Bail Act, the Certificate of Morality Act, the Law Reform Commission Act, Tourism and so on, and (d) the hon. Leader of the Opposition sought guidance from the Chair. Hence, his point of order and request for a ruling from the Chair. I should like to thank the hon. Leader of the Opposition for having drawn the attention of the Chair to this procedural aspect. Hon. Members, every Bill has a title succinctly describing the nature of the proposed measures. The title generally referred to as the long title is prefixed to the Bill and is retained in the Act. Care is taken to see that the long title is sufficiently wide enough to cover the provisions of the Bill. It is apposite here to mention that the long title of the Finance (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill is as follows, I quote - “To provide mainly for the implementation of measures announced in the Budget Speech for the strengthening, streamlining of certain provisions relating to revenue, public finance and financial services.” As far as I am aware, there has been no pronouncement made in the House in regard to the present point of order. I have, therefore, looked into our Standing Orders and I must say that there is no specific provision therein as regards the Finance Bill. I have turned to the practice that obtains in the House of Commons as provided for by Standing Order 1 of our Standing Orders and I have found the following - At page 913 of Erskine May - Parliamentary Practice, 23rd Edition, it is stipulated in paragraph 1 under the title ‘Scope of Finance Bills’ the following and I quote - "The long title of the Finance Bill normally describes it as a Bill “to grant certain duties, to alter other duties and to amend the law relating to the National Debt and Public Revenue and to make further provisions in connection with finance.” It is further stipulated in paragraph 3 - "The scope of the Finance Bill is not limited to the imposition and alteration of taxes for the purpose of adjusting the revenue of a particular year. It is not intended to be an annual Act in the same sense as the Appropriation Act but normally includes many provisions of a permanent character for the regulation of the fiscal machinery and other purposes." Hon. Members, at the same page 913 and at paragraph 5, this is what Erskine May further says - “Provisions not essentially connected with national finance or not incidental to the taxing or administrative provisions of a Finance Bill are outside the scope of a Finance Bill, and their inclusion might justify an accusation of “tacking”.” In the United Kingdom, however, if it is considered desirable to insert in the Finance Bill a matter outside its normal scope a resolution may be passed. In such a case, the matter covered by the resolution must not be so far removed from Central Finance as to make its inclusion indefensible and invite complaints from Members. In the light of the foregoing principles and practices, I rule that the Finance (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill should not contain provisions intended to make permanent changes in existing laws unless they are essentially connected with national finance, or, are consequential upon, or incidental to the taxation proposals and may also include provisions that are sufficiently closely related to those matters within the spirit and scope of the Bill as defined in the long title. Although it is not incumbent upon me nor it is the responsibility of the Chair to scrutinise the relevance of the provisions contained in Finance Bills, I have exceptionally looked into the four issues that have been expressly raised by the Leader of the Opposition. In regard to the Bail Act, the amendment proposed to be brought is a matter that has an implication for Government revenue, being given that it provides for the waiving of “any duty or charge”. Regarding the Certificate of Morality Act, it is clear that there is no relation whatsoever with the scope of the Bill. Concerning the Law Reform Commission Act, the proposed amendment is meant to provide for the appointment of the Director of Public Prosecutions or his representative on the Law Reform Commission as a consequence of the separation of the budget of the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to give the latter its financial autonomy, as announced in paragraph 223 of the Budget Speech. The amendment proposed to the Tourism Authority Act, relates to the better regulation of private club, tourist enterprise and for the licensing, regulation, and supervision of the activities of whale and dolphin watching as announced at paragraph 107 of the Budget Speech, and regularises the payment of any charge or fee paid under the Act or under any regulations made under the Act, to be paid into the Consolidated Fund. Finally, the proposed amendment to the Tourism Employees Welfare Fund Act has a bearing on public finance as the General Fund established under Section 15 of the Act includes contributions made by Government in the form of grants. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the provisions of the Finance (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill relating to the Bail Act, the Law Reform Commission Act, the Tourism Authority Act and the Tourism Employees Welfare Fund Act fall within the purview of the Bill. Insofar as the proposed amendment to the Certificate of Morality Act is concerned, I am further of the opinion that there is no connection whatsoever with the Finance (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, and therefore, it cannot stand as part of the Bill. I thank you for your attention. PAPERS LAID The Prime Minister: Sir, the Papers have been laid on the Table – A. Ministry of Housing and Lands - The Landlord and Tenant (Exemptions) (Amendment) Regulations 2009 (Government Notice No. 77 of 2009). B. Ministry of Agro Industry, Food Production and Security – The Annual Report of the Mauritius Sugar Industry Research Institute (MSIRI) for the year 2008. C. Ministry of Information and Communication Technology - (a) The Report of the Director of Audit on the Financial Statements of the Information and Communication Technologies Authority for the year ended 30 June 2008. (b) The Report of the Director of Audit on the Financial Statements of the Postal Authority for the year ended 30 June 2008. ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS MAURITIUS REVENUE AUTHORITY - RECRUITMENT EXERCISE – SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT The Leader of the Opposition (Mr P. Bérenger) (By Private Notice) asked the Vice- Prime Minister, Minister of Finance and Economic Empowerment whether he has taken cognizance of the judgment of the Supreme Court, dated 19 November 2009, to the effect that the committee, set up under Section 11 of the Mauritius Revenue Authority Act for the selection and recruitment exercise of officers, was not lawfully constituted and had acted illegally and, if so, will he, for the benefit of the House, obtain from the Mauritius Revenue Authority, information as to the – (a) remedial measures that have been taken, and (b) impact of the judgment, if any, on the Assessment Review Committee in the discharge of its functions and, if so, how. The Vice-Prime Minister, Minister of Finance and Economic Empowerment (Dr. R. Sithanen): Mr Speaker, Sir, the judgment of the Supreme Court, dated 19 November 2008, pertains to the judicial review filed by Mr M. Beekarry, former Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, against the Mauritius Revenue Authority (MRA) in the presence of Mrs V. Ramdin and others, contending that he should have been offered appointment as Section Head or otherwise offered employment by the Authority. During the hearing of the Judicial Review, it was contended that Messrs Mosafeer, Hannelas and Mrs Gunnoo who were appointed members of the Interview Committee in their capacity as Director-Designate, were not members of the management team of MRA as they ought to be Directors and not Directors-Designates. Although the Directors-Designates were made the members of the Interviewing Panel after seeking permission from the Public Service Commission as they were also performing duties of Commissioners of the Income Tax Department, the Supreme Court held that the Committee lacked jurisdiction inasmuch as the three members of the Committee, i.e.