PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF THE FIRST SESSION (2015-2017) OF THE ELEVENTH PARLIAMENT OF GUYANA UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CO-OPERATIVE REPUBLIC OF GUYANA HELD IN THE PARLIAMENT CHAMBER, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, BRICKDAM, GEORGETOWN 59TH Sitting Friday, 6TH January, 2017 Assembly convened at 2.44 p.m. Prayers [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] PUBLIC BUSINESS GOVERNMENT BUSINESS BILLS – Second Readings INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSING (AMENDMENT) BILL 2016 – BILL No. 32/2016 A BILL intituled: “AN ACT to amend the Intoxicating Liquor Licensing Act.” [Minister of Finance] Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I must begin by acknowledging our late start and apologising for that. There are two matters which I would like to comment on. First of all, it is to say to Hon. Members, in relation to the information which is to be supplied to questions raised during the debate, that having looked at what is required of us in relation to dissemination of the questions, of the answers to the questions raised, we are proposing that the answers be disseminated by way of soft copy and that hard copy be provided to the questioner. It is proving financially laborious. It will prove that way if we were to supply hard copies of all the answers to all the questions to every Hon. Member in this House. I repeat, we will provide the questioner with the hard copy 1 and to all other Hon. Members we will supply soft copies of the answers. I hope that will prove satisfactory to Hon. Members. Secondly, Hon. Members, the two Chief Whips and I have had a conversation on the progress of our work. What we propose to do today is that we will not treat with the order in which the listing now exists, so that Income Tax (Amendment) Bill 2016 – Bill No. 31/2016 will not be treated now. We will, in fact, proceed directly to the next item which is the Intoxicating Liquor Licensing (Amendment) Bill 2016 – Bill No. 32/2016. The intention is to deal with all the Bills following Financial Administration and Audit (Amendment) Bill 2016 – Bill No. 36/2016 and then to return to the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill 2016 – Bill No. 31/2016. The intention is to enable us to complete our work today and the suggestion is that we will work until 12 o’ clock midnight and not beyond. I hope Hon. Members will find this change…, I would not say agreeable, but that they will agree to the change so that we can hopefully have all our work completed today. Minister of Finance [Mr. Jordan]: I rise to move that the Intoxicating Liquor Licensing (Amendment) Bill 2016 – Bill No. 32 of 2016 published on 2016-12-20 be now read a second time. Relative to what we did yesterday, these are more intoxicating matters and together with the Bill following this Bill, Bill No. 33, will complete a series of increases of various fees, fines and penalties that had been languishing for as long as 25 years. Indeed, in this case the last time increases in fees were done was in 1992. So, after 25 years, we are seeking to increase these fees - almost in all cases, by 100%. In the case of the fees for hotels, off-licence liquor restaurants, spirit shops and members clubs, I do not believe in the scheme of things that these fees should pose any great disturbance or consternation with the House and, indeed, with the larger population. Indeed, in the economic literature, we always profess to be able to tax ‘sin goods’ with some ease, and one of those goods is alcoholic beverages. Importantly, in passing, it always seems amazing that despite how much you increase the taxes on these types of beverages, the profit seems to soar. Only this morning, I think, a well-known beverage company was declaring record profits and it is about to hold its shareholders’ meeting shortly. I do not believe that we can spend the precious time that you just indicated we have 2 today poring over details of a Bill intoxicating as it is, whose increases are relatively small compared to the passage of 25 years within which they were last increased. I think, as the explanatory memorandum, indicates the Bill seeks to amend the Act to increase the fees and penalties and I commend it to the House for passage. [Applause] Bishop Edghill: I rise to speak to Bill No. 32 of 2016, a Bill that really, as the Hon. Minister just indicated, speaks to what I would call huge increases in fees on businesses that sell alcoholic beverages. The Hon. Minister just indicated that, in economic language, the ‘sin tax’ is a tax that you hardly get any outcry on. I will say to this House that this Bill and the increase in the penalties is not an increase on tax and alcohol, it is an increase on the businesses. This is an anti- business approach. No amount of vilification by any comments from anyone in this House will prevent me from making my point. I do not stand here as a supporter of the use of alcohol, but I am dealing with a principle. 2.59 p.m. When we come to this House to legislate, what is before us are not our opinions and moral values alone, but what are also there are the principles that are involved. This year, the Hon. Minister would be garnering $3.947 billion as revenue from the sale of alcohol. If he really wanted to get more revenue, he should have taxed the alcohol more because that is the problem and, in my presentation, you will see why I am going there. These 20 increases of which the nation is not aware, except that they have a copy of the Minister’s book and I do not think that some of the members of the media were able to get it… The penalty for selling malt, liquor or wine without a licence is 100% increase, from $3,000 to $6,000 and $15,000 to $30,000. The penalties for selling spirituous liquor without a licence are $5,000 to $10,000 and $50,000 to $100,000. [Interruption] Mr. Speaker, I ask for you protection. If Members continue to use that language, I would be forced to respond to them. I will not allow any form of disrespect to myself or my ecclesiastical office while I practise in this House. 3 Mr. Speaker: Hon. Member, it is enough if you bring it to the Speaker’s attention, but, if you are going to sound as if you are issuing threats, then I do not believe it is appropriate to address the Speaker in that way. Bishop Edghill: It is happening in full view of the House and there is no intervention; that is why I am bringing it to your attention. Mr. Speaker: It is not appropriate for you to address the Speaker by words which suggest threats. Bishop Edghill: Sir, I am asking for your protection on this matter. Mr. Speaker: You are entitled to that and you will have that but you will not issue threats when you speak to the Speaker. Bishop Edghill: I did not issue a threat. I am saying that I will be forced to respond because it cannot continue in this House in this manner. I am emphasising that. Mr. Speaker: Hon. Member, are you speaking? Bishop Edghill: Yes, Sir. Mr. Speaker: You have the floor. Bishop Edghill: Thank you. The issue here in these measures, the bottom line is, whether it is a liquor restaurant, a member’s club - and I am not a part of the users fraternity - whether it is an ordinary shop, the fact is that they have to pay more for licences. It would not only be passing on to the users of alcohol but on to the people who use the shop. If a shop that is at the corner of Middleton Street sells spirituous liquor and has to pay more for its licence to sell alcohol and that shop also sells aerated drinks, malt, confectionery and other things, the users of alcohol would not be the only people that would be affected by this. If you want to increase the sin tax, go for the sin tax but do not go with an anti-business measure that would affect the entire population. That is the point that we are making in all 20 sections – the increases. 4 We have to look at what is taking place here in a particular context. Every time the Hon. Minister rises to speak, he emphasises how many years this tax or this fee was not raised. The Hon. Minister must also say to this House that, even though we did not raise the tax on licences for businesses that sell alcohol and deal with alcohol, the economy was still booming. People’s lives were still better. Why is it that we have to keep raising taxes on every single thing that exists? Last year, we had a situation where fees and fines on a number of agencies and activities were increased. We are coming here now and this will directly affect businesses. I made it clear but let me emphasise it: I am not speaking to the righteousness or the rightness of the use of alcohol. We are speaking here about an anti-business approach. If the issue here was about safeguarding our society to deal with the issues of underage drinking, which is becoming a big issue in Guyana, or if we were dealing with the issue of the effects of the use of alcohol and its impact on our health care services… I think that there was a survey that was done.