Wednesday, September 21, 2011

OPPOSERS HAVE BEEN VINDICATED ON ZERO-TEN POLICY

Letter to  Jersey Evening Post  19th September

YOUR EDITORIAL  'Vindication for zero-ten tax policy' (14 September) is remarkable for the extraordinary amount of misinformation contained in it.

You simply failed to explain that the zero-ten policy just approved by the European Union is not the zero-ten policy which they declared was against their Code of Conduct.

It was the original zero-ten plan that I and others claimed over the years would not be accepted by Europe. And we were right.

Back in 2002, Europe told Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man that the zero-ten proposal presented to them did comply with their Corporate Taxation Code of Conduct.

When Europe later declared that it was not happy with the original zero-ten proposals, Jersey authorities made the excuse that 'Europe changed its mind, having first approved it and then disapproved it'. That line was also peddled by the then Bailiff of Jersey, Sir Philip Bailhache, in one of his many forays into the political arena.

Senator Le Sueur later let the cat out of the bag when he admitted that only the bare bones of the proposal was put forward to Europe, it did not include the 'deemed dividend section' and it was only an 'in-principle agreement awaiting further detail'.

When Europe saw the 'deemed dividend section' it considered this and declared that it breached their Code of Conduct and was unfair and discriminatory.

Which is what 1 and others had been saying for several years and been condemned for doing so by the Le Sueur/Ozouf group of politicians who claimed that we did not know what we were talking about.

Having put Jersey's finance industry into a position of great uncertainty for over a year with the subsequent loss of business, the politicians responsible for this fiasco realised that the only way out of their difficulty was to alter the deemed distribution section so that shareholders in Jersey companies would be treated in the same way as foreign-based companies trading in Jersey where shareholders pay no tax on their profIts until they were distributed.

Therefore, to suggest that those who supported zero-ten have been vindicated and that those who opposed it now have 'egg on their face' is totally wrong. We are the ones who were vindicated by the first European decision.

What your editorial also failed to recognise is that this change to zero-ten is now going to create enormous opportunities for tax evasion by local shareholders.

It now means that if an individual in a Jersey company builds up a substantial sum of profits over a number of years and then decides that he no longer wishes to run his business and sells it he gets all his profits tax free because there is no capital gains tax in Jersey.

The Chief Minister has already announced that this new version for zero-ten will lead to a loss of at least £10 million in revenue to add to our fiscal problems. How is this to be recovered? Another rise in GST?

To suggest that anyone involved in this fiasco that has cost Jersey over £10 million in lost revenue deserves any praise or credit is an absolute travesty and another excursion into Cloud Cuckoo-Land.

Monday, September 12, 2011

THE JERSEY FINANCE INDUSTRY IS sooooooOOOOOOOOOOH TRANSPARENT!!!!

The total myth of the Jersey Finance Industry being a highly respected and transparent industry has been well and truly blown apart by the actions of the Nigerian Government pursuing 20 million pounds of embezzled funds hidden in Jersey bank accounts.

These funds were the proceeds of corrupt deals with motor vehicles carried out by Nigeria’ s late dictator Sani Abacha. In his six year reign Sacha is estimated to have embezzled £2.2 billion of which £200 million is rumoured to still be in Jersey.

The location of this cash was only discovered when a Nigerian bag-man called Raj Bhojwani was jailed for six years for his part in laundering US$43million through his Jersey bank accounts.

Quite obviously the Nigerian Government is very grateful to the Jersey authorities and our Attorney General has stated that it was a pleasure to help a country that had suffered so much through corruption and underlined his department’s commitment to seizing the proceeds of crime and returning them to their rightful country.

All of this, of course, beggars the question: how on earth can the spin masters at Jersey Finance and their acolytes like John Boothman and Geoffrey Grime tell the Jersey people that their largest industry is squeaky clean and totally transparent. If that is so, how come we are accepting money from dodgy businessman acting on behalf of corrupt dictators from poverty- stricken countries? It is shameful , disgusting and totally immoral and besmirches any pride we can have in our island.

We will no doubt be told by those deceitful spin-masters at Jersey Finance that this is a one-off situation and cannot happen again and nothing like that is goes on today.

If you believe that, you must believe in the tooth fairy.

How can we believe that Jersey has a transparent tax regime when what the States does is create legislation written by the finance industry for the benefit of people who don’t live on this island and lets those people who live elsewhere in the world avoid their obligations to the societies where they really live and work.

They are able to do this because Jersey- like all tax havens- have developed a deliberate veil of secrecy which deliberately prevents the tax authorities in the places where they really live and lead their lives from finding out where they have hidden their money.

Of course, these local tax manipulators hide all this behind cleverly worded instruments with names like “tax information exchange agreements” which they sign with various countries to show how co-operative we are when tax authorities from other countries come calling to find out if any of their citizens are using Jersey to hide away their money.

There are two problems with these agreements. First, our authorities do not ask or record the one crucial question that matters—where do you pay tax on your income? The second problem is that we have no experience of operating tax information agreements, as the OECD has pointed out.

As I have said before- and won’t apologise for repeating it- how can Jersey be regarded as being in any way transparent when at least 50% of all personal banks accounts in St. Helier do not disclose the information on income received to their home tax authorities.

How can we say that we have stopped money from sources like the Nigerian money when Jersey totally refuses automatic information exchange under the European Union Savings Directive-the only sure way to stop tax evasion on personal accounts that there is.

How do we know that these illicit funds won’t still be finding their way into Jersey bank accounts when we still cannot find out who owns a Jersey company, who the nominee directors of those companies are really representing and can never see the accounts of a Jersey based company.
It’s about as transparent as a bowl of mud.

The leaders of the Jersey Finance Industry lie through their back teeth to the people of Jersey about how transparent it all is and that they don’t want tax evader’s money. Yet the behaviour of banks does not match this story at all. Remember that BBC flagship programme Panorama last year, when a reporter with a hidden microphone in a briefcase came to Jersey and pretended to be an investor with £4 million to bank. The bank official spent most of the time telling him how he could avoid tax in the UK. Of course, the bank concerned said that this was a “one off” and not the general practice of the bank and the manager had been “reprimanded”. Oh yeah- a one off and a reprimand! The Tooth Fairy again.

How long will it be before we discover that Libya’s dictator Gadaffi hasn’t salted away billions that are deposited in Jersey bank accounts.

Is this all the rantings of a Grosnez bumpkin? May be. But when the head of the UK’s Revenue and Customs tells a Parliamentary C committee that Jersey‘s finance industry is opaque and how difficult it is to break it down, you can rest assured that this Grosnez boy is right.
Of course, that can’t happen because our banking industry is sooooooOOOOOOH transparent.

Sunday, September 4, 2011

THIS IS ANOTHER FINE MESS YOU’VE GOT US INTO SENATOR OZOUF

The trouble with Senator Ozouf is that he thinks he is a clever businessman. The fact is that he has never run a business of his own in his life that hasn’t been a flop - and he lives off the inheritance left to him by of his family.

But because he has such a high opinion of himself, he is a positive danger in the important role he has as the man in charge of our public spending. This high opinion would be bad enough on its own but it is allied to a personality trait called “control freak”.  He has to have his finger in every pie because he believes that he is cleverer than anyone else and is the only person who can negotiate a deal.

We have two totally different versions of the police administration cock up for the Lime Grove building in Green Street.

In the blue corner, we have Home Affairs Minister former Magistrate Senator Ian Le Marquand who blames Ozouf for the mess.

In the red corner, we have Ozouf protesting that it wasn’t his fault and that Home Affairs had not briefed the Treasury with the details of the deal until a few weeks before they were due to sign the deal.

So who do we believe? Ozouf is a consistent liar (remember “I give you a categorical assurance that I will not increase GST in the event of a recession”) and “our black hole in our revenue has been caused by the recession (when we all know it was due to the decision to introduce “zero ten”). On the other hand Senator Le Marquand has never been exposed as not telling the truth (not to say that he has always made good decisions, but that’s another matter).

However, consider this. On July 1st this year the JEP carried this story “Jersey could soon have a £20 million new police station. After months of speculation, Treasury Minister Philip Ozouf has announced that he wants to buy a landmark office block that has stood empty for years and turn it into the police’s new administration headquarters. The expected £20 million cost would include the purchase of the site, its complete refurbishment and the move”.

Oh dear Philip - so you weren’t briefed about it. Did you ask any questions about how the negotiations were going back in July?

And then there was an entry on the JEP blog site from “Ali” which read:
“These comments from the Treasury Minister are outrageous and wholly inaccurate. As someone who worked at the Treasury at the time I can say that Property Holdings did brief the Treasury, chief executive and Minister and his assistant throughout the process. The offer that was made to the owners of the building was always subject to the Ministers approval and contract. Mr. Ozouf was completely aware of this and what the offer was as were the Treasury”

This posting ended with this judgement: “Be a man for a change, not a boy, and take responsibility for your cock-up. It only went pear shaped when you and Mr. Izatt decided that you knew best. Look what happened when you get involved beyond your expertise—the public loses out”.

I accept that postings on blogs can easily be manipulated. But when you put all the evidence together and when you have had as many dealings with him as I have had, I have no doubt that the blame for the shambles rest fairly on the shoulders of Senator Ozouf.

Friday, September 2, 2011

WATCH OUT – THE OZOUF POLITICAL PARTY IS WORKING OVERTIME

SO YOU THOUGHT that here were no political parties in Jersey.   Well think again. The Jersey establishment has always derided party politics and says that party politics are not acceptable to the people in Jersey.  However, behind the scenes at election time, Philip Ozouf and his cohorts are all working overtime, nominating candidates and giving them moral and financial support, to bolster their numbers in the States. 

Make no mistake -  if any of the following are successful, Senator Philip Ozouf will be Jersey’s next Chief Minister.

All of the following are Ozouf supporters:

Kristina Moore (St. Peter) - Philip Ozouf is godfather to their children.

Mary O’ Keefe Burger (St. Helier no 1) is being proposed by former Senator Pierre Horsefall, a great fan and mentor of Philip Ozouf.

Ray Shead (no 3 St. Helier) recent former chairman of the  Chamber of Commerce and a big fan of Ozouf’s,  who  fully supported huge cuts in public services when he supported a group of businessmen called the Small Society (he didn’t feel that the cuts went far enough).   Supported the increase in GST to 5%% and felt that taking GST off food would cost businesses money and would inconvenience them. The Small Society were reprimanded by the Advertising Standards Authority for misleading advertising.

James Baker (St. Helier no 1) son of former Constable of St. Helier, Peter Baker and his brother owned Noel and Porter and Frederick Baker.  They sold Noel and :Porter to BHS who demolished the historic shop and replaced it with the present monument to ugliness.  Lives in St. Martin. 

Heidi Green (St. Saviour no 1).  Close friend of James Baker, member of the Institute of Directors and also a clear establishment nomination.

Andrew Lewis (St. John), a great supporter of Ozouf.  As Home Affairs Minister in the previous States, he was responsible for the sacking of police chief Graham Power, in a manner that was totally unsatisfactory, which is likely to cost the island dearly because of these irregularities.  He owns a public relations company and has spent the last three years spinning for various banks and government departments.  Is known to be writing speeches for many of Ozouf’ candidates and training them in speech-making.  No prize for guessing who he would like to see as Chief Minister!!

And finally we have that lout Terry Le Main claiming that he wants to go back to his roots, and become a deputy in St. Helier number 2.   If ever a man betrayed his supporters it has been Terry Le Main.  His list of wrong doings goes on and on, from breaches of Data Protection laws to allegations, still not yet resolved, of corruption in conjunction with a land developer His ignorance and lack of intellect are a constant embarrassment to States members. He is he only States member to be recorded in Hansard for snoring during a debate. He was dismissed as Housing Minister for attempting to interfere with a prosecution of the man who printed all his electoral material and a close personal friend. He believes that Ozouf is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

The Jones boy in Grouville.  A lawyer and manager of a hedge fund which didn't do very well by all accounts.  One of the Jones family which owns the Jersey Pottery and who recently sold their site at Gorey to Dandara which should be the kiss of death to his chances.  I can't believe that Grouville would prefer him to Carolyn Labey who has done so much for the parish and supported the ordinary people of Jersey over such issues as taking GST off food and against GST altogether as well as her work in protecting the island's heritage sites and her work on education.  This should be no contest as the Jones boy is a strong Ozouf man and has been promised the education portfolio by our arrogant Treasurer whereas Carolyn has always opposed his form of closed and secret government.

So be warned  when deciding who to vote for think this thought - will this candidate help to put Senator Ozouf in as our Chief Minister
Then make your judgement.

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

NO MORAL CASE FOR TAX HAVENS

A BBC economics expert remarked only last week that "the world is closing down for tax evaders.   Soon there will be no place for them to hide their secret wealth"

He was commenting on the recent decision of the Swiss authorities that will allow UK tax inspectors access to secret bank accounts held in Switzerland and will enable them to recoup up to £6 billion a year

I have been warning about how vulnerable the Jersey economy is for some years now.  I have argued that our whole economy is built on a foundation of sand which is shifting and eroding and we are very vulnerable to any change in tax laws in various countries who find themselves adversely affected by our activities

Countries are now no longer prepared to stand by and watch their tax laws evaded and slowly but surely the noose is tightening around tax havens like Jersey.   Nicholas Shaxson, the author, has written a devastating book "Treasure Island" in which he lays bare the whole disgraceful industry of tax evasion and tax avoidance which has become an international best seller

It has also opened the eyes of serious financial journalists and politicians and more and more newspaper articles are appearing in the international media about dubious and dodgy practices of "international finance centres"   The latest appeared in yesterday's Sunday Independent which I am happy to reprint in full

Headed "THERE IS NO MORAL CASE FOR TAX HAVENS and a sub-heading of "They are the epitome of unfairness and injustice, leaving ordinary citizens to foot the bill for multi-national corporations". .

Independent Sunday, 28 August 2011

There is a building in the Cayman Islands that is home to 12,000 corporations. It must be a very big building. Or a very big tax scam. Tax havens are in the spotlight since the Chancellor, George Osborne, did a deal the other day with the Swiss authorities to slap a levy on secret bank accounts held there by British citizens. Opinions are divided on the move, which could net the Treasury £5bn, but which tacitly legitimises bank accounts kept secret from the Inland Revenue. It is a de facto amnesty for those guilty of tax evasion crimes. And they will pay less than they would if they declared their income to the British taxman.
Are there any legitimate reasons why anyone would want to have a secret bank account – and pay a premium to maintain their anonymity – or move their money to one of the pink dots on the map which are the final remnants of the British empire: the Caymans, Bermuda, the Turks and Caicos and the British Virgin Islands?
The moral case against is clear enough. Tax havens epitomise unfairness, cheating and injustice. They replace the old morality embodied in the Golden Rule of reciprocity – that we should do as we would be done by – with a new version that insists that those who have the gold make the rules.
The old view, the neocon American Christopher Caldwell wrote recently, subscribes to a religious understanding of money that was universal in the Christian world before the rise of Protestantism, which acknowledges that people are alive but money is not, making it wrong for the latter to take precedence over the former – a notion as outdated as usury, he suggested tartly.
But what is the moral case for tax havens? We can dispense with the argument advanced by their administrators that if they didn't take the money it would simply move to more distant locations; that is the self-serving logic of a man who sells torture equipment to an oppressive regime. Apologists insist that tax havens protect individual liberty. They promote the accumulation of capital, fair competition between nations and better tax law elsewhere in the world. They also foster economic growth. So much so, the Institute of Directors has said, that Britain should not curb tax havens but emulate them, promoting the growth of more hedge funds in the UK.
Yet even if all that were true – and it is not – does it outweigh the ethical harm they do? The numbered bank accounts of tax havens are notoriously sanctuaries for the spoils of theft, fraud, bribery, terrorism, drug-dealing, illegal betting, money-laundering and plunder by Arab despots such as Gaddafi, Mubarak and Ben Ali, all of whom had Swiss accounts frozen.
The corruption spreads contagion, as the financial writer Nicholas Shaxson showed in Treasure Islands, his book about offshore finance which exposed secrecy, corruption and intimidation in places as seemingly innocent as that land of milk and money, such as Jersey in the Channel Islands.
But the moral bankruptcy of the tax haven runs deeper. Indeed it is intrinsic to its purpose. The British Virgin Islands is the global capital for the incorporation of offshore companies. Though it has a population of just 22,000, it has 823,502 registered companies which make vast amounts of money through the wonder of transfer pricing. It works like this. Suppose I manufacture a product in Africa and sell it in the UK. If I am a canny businessman I set up an intermediate company in a tax haven. It need do nothing except exist on paper. But through it I can buy all the products I make in Africa, dirt cheap, and then sell them, at a much higher cost, to my UK subsidiary. The African and British companies do not, thus, make much profit, so I have little or no tax to pay. All the money stays offshore, where taxes are low or non-existent. This is perfectly legal. But it distorts the world economy and means I pay no tax. I can also borrow where rates are lowest and keep my costs where they are most tax deductible.
That is why General Electric paid no taxes in 2010, despite $14.2bn profits. It's why Barclays, with 181 subsidiaries registered in the Caymans, paid relatively little UK tax on its worldwide profits. Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, with 152 subsidiaries in tax havens according to the US government, paid no net UK corporation tax between 1988 and 1999.
Half the world's trade flows through tax havens. Every multinational uses them routinely. So do banks. Almost 70 per cent of international trade now happens within, rather than between, multinationals. Christian Aid reckons that tax dodging costs developing countries at least $160bn a year – far more than they receive in aid. The US research centre Integrity estimated that more than $1.2trn drained out of poor countries illicitly in 2008 alone.
Tax injustice is systemic to the tax haven. Barack Obama once understood that. During his election campaign he promised to crack down on corporate loopholes and tax havens. But he and other world leaders have not delivered on bursting open the seedy secret underworld of tax havens that nurtured the hedge funds, derivative trading and off-balance sheet lending that fuelled the 2008 global financial crash.
Their malign influence continues, with hedge funds accounting for at least 30 per cent, and perhaps as much as 60 per cent, of current trading on the London and New York exchanges. There, they have quintupled short-selling. They have turned credit default swaps, designed as a protective insurance, into a way of betting on the failure of a company. The Caymans (population 50,000) is home to 70 per cent of hedge-fund registrations worldwide.
And, as rich people waive their taxes, poor people wave goodbye to their jobs. "The rich are different from you and me," Scott Fitzgerald famously said. "Yes," wisecracked Ernest Hemingway in response, "they have more money." Today the difference is that they pay less in taxes.
The real shame of Osborne's half-baked deal with Switzerland is that it has undermined the revised EU savings tax directive. That would have required an automatic exchange of information on income in bank accounts throughout the EU and in Switzerland, Lichtenstein and Britain's tax havens. All the EU member states, but two, had approved it. It would have dealt not just with individuals but also with companies, trusts, foundations and other complex structures.
Some say an attack on tax havens is an attack on wealth creation. It is no such thing. It is a demand for the good functioning of capitalism, balancing the demands of efficiency and of justice, and placing a value on social harmony.
The billionaire investor Warren Buffett recognised that in The New York Times when he scathingly asserted the US Congress is in thrall to the super-rich. Thanks to his clever investment managers he pays only 17.4 per cent in tax – half what his office workers pay. That does not just boost inequality. It undermines faith in the fairness and integrity of the international financial system. And that is a political time bomb.

Thursday, August 25, 2011

As has been reported in the media, I have decided not to stand in the Senatorial elections but I will be contesting a seat in the Deputy election in number 3 district in St. Helier, where I now live. I have explained fully my reasons for this below.

I have pulled out of the Senatorial election because I believe it will descend into a “personality circus” and the real issues facing the people of Jersey "will be by-passed and get submerged in a welter of personal vendettas.”

I am also conflicted by the fact that I have consistently campaigned for the Clothier proposals to be instituted and his proposals should be put to a referendum so that the public can have their say. In support of this, I have always argued that the island- wide mandate actually counts for nothing. A Senator elected with 14,000 votes has no more influence or power than a Deputy with 270 votes or a Constable with no votes.

This is shown clearly by the fact that of the ten ministers, who make up the Council of Ministers, four are deputies and 2 are constables. They are responsible for housing, health, social security, planning and environment, transport and technical services and education. Senators are responsible for the chief minister, treasury, home affairs and economic development. That means that there are 8 Senators with no ministerial responsibilities. So why be a Senator?

I agree with the public’s analysis carried out by the JEP that the October elections should be about the performance of States members over the last three years and whether or not they had failed to tackle immigration, fairer taxation levels, public service salaries, the use of consultants, government secrecy, human rights legislation covering discrimination in all its forms, accountability, freedom of information, transparency, control of public expenditure, unemployment and diversification of the economy

I believe I can serve my constituents in number 3/4 and around the island more effectively from the deputy benches.

I have been asked what my election manifesto is and I can only answer that it is what I have been talking about, making speeches about, getting petitions signed on. That is what I pledge to do.

Unlike Ozouf, I keep my election promises. I am simply asking people if they are happy with the things that have happened in the last six years, they should vote the “old guard “back in. But if the public want change they need to choose people who are pushing for change—not the Ozouf “plants” about which I will be writing later.

So I ask the following question

ARE YOU HAPPY WITH THESE RESULTS?
  • Failing to hedge the euro value of a massive contract for the Incinerator (the biggest in the island’s history) which has cost the island over 4 million pounds.Failing to take action over the massive increase in population, when all the warnings were given by concerned people and organisations that this was taking place.
  • Wasting the opportunity to provide the island with a magnificent waterfront development and, instead, given us a conglomeration of monstrous ugliness.
  • Allowing the top public servants to increase their salaries to astronomical proportions, engage consultants at enormous cost - instead of doing the job themselves - and to continue with their gold plated pension schemes.
  • Failing to diversify the economy thereby allowing the island to become hostage to the finance industry, which is built on the shifting and dodgy sands of tax avoidance?
  • Ignoring advice that the zero-ten tax regime would fall foul of the European Code of Conduct and would have to be scrapped.
  • Causing the tax burden to shift savagely from the corporate sector on to the shoulders of the public (as a result of introducing zero ten, corporate tax has dropped from 52% to 12% in ten years and personal tax - that’s you and me - has risen from 42% to 84%.)
  • Allowing a consultant for the Hospital to be engaged at a ludicrous cost.
  • Despoiling our coastline with developments like Portelet and protecting Jersey’s ugliest building, the Odeon, and blocking a £40 million development that would have rejuvenated an ugly part of St. Helier.
  • Threatening to remove grants from private schools and dismantle what is an excellent education system.
  • Allowing our road system to deteriorate to such a degree that will cost £100million to put right.
  •  Letting our housing stock deteriorate so much that £84million has to be spent.
  • Failing to tackle the Housing problem and provide decent homes for young people at a reasonable cost.
  • Allowing the tax burden to shift from business to the people- in 2000 business contributed 52% of our tax revenue and now it's leapt from 42 to 84%.
  • Building an incinerator of total ugliness on a beautiful Ramsar foreshore and ignored all expert advice about the site being inappropriate.
  • Leaving the island without a reciprocal health agreement with the UK for nearly two years.
  • Closing the Fort Regent swimming pool and totally neglecting the development of Fort Regent as a sporting and health centre (as well as paying a subsidy to a Waterfront pool that costs over £500,000 a year)

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

WHY IS THE JERSEY MEDIA SO GUSHING WHEN IT COMES TO DEALING WITH OBSCURE BRITISH MPS?

THE JERSEY MEDIA - both the JEP and BBC Radio - have given a huge amount of space to a recent visit to Jersey by a Shrewsbury MP and his views about what a wonderful place Jersey is and how he is going to try and persuade Mr. Cameron, the British Prime Minister to visit the island and see his concept of The Big Society in action. Don’t hold your breath!

Let’s get this straight. The fawning Jersey media gave the impression to the Jersey people that this British politician was someone of significance in British political life. The JEP said that he was a junior minister of agriculture and “chaired two committees on relationships with the Arab world.”.

Sounds impressive - until you do a bit of research into the man. This research shows that he is a political lightweight. He is not a junior Minister of Agriculture. He is merely a parliamentary private secretary to a junior Minister of Agriculture which is as far removed from the power base of politics in the UK as a milk monitor is from the headmaster.

How come he was in Jersey? Well, there’s an election coming up isn’t there. And although Ozouf and McClean are not up for election, they are backing a number of candidates to bolster their influence within the States..

So enter Ozouf’s great admirer, Freddie Cohen - the MP was brought here by the amiable Senator Freddie Cohen as a sort of trophy. His gaggle of political friends led by Philip Ozouf are desperately worried about the forthcoming elections and the likely election of some serious opposition to them and the possible foiling of Ozouf’s Chief Ministerial ambitions.

They need someone to say how good Jersey is so they bring political non-entities to Jersey, give them a good time, wine him and dine him, let him be brainwashed by the spin masters at Jersey Finance, take him to meet officials of the Jersey Financial Commission and send him home with a pot of black butter, a bottle of la Mare wine and a silver Jersey milk can singing the praises of Jersey.

He was impressed by everything about the island. He told the JEP that “this is an extremely tidy and safe place. It has all the attributes of the sort of community that we all want to live in and I think that the UK can learn from that”.

This is the one thing he said that I agree with. It is a lovely place to live if you have money. And it is an argument I have been putting as to why our wealthy workers (lawyers, accountants, finance workers at high levels and top level public servants who would never leave Jersey if we were to put their tax up slightly to help pay for what less well-off residents require to make their lives more tolerable.

Of course, what Jersey Finance and Freddie Cohen want him to say is that Jersey makes a huge contribution to the UK by pumping money - most of it gained through tax avoidance schemes - into the City of London. He is reported in the JEP as saying: “I am staggered by the amount of support that the City of London has had from Jersey, the massive liquidity that is pumped into London as a result of Jersey’s offshore status and the work that you do here.  Not enough is known in the UK about the hugely important financial benefits that we get from Jersey”

If he starts peddling this kind of nonsense around Westminster, he is likely to get very short shrift from colleagues. They will point out to him that much of the money coming into Jersey comes from tax avoidance schemes from around the world, some of it from their own country. They will also point out that if the British taxpayer hadn’t bailed out HBOS-Lloyds, Royal Bank of Scotland, Northern Rock and others, the Jersey finance industry would have collapsed.

Some of them will also point out that the head of Revenue and Customs told a recent House of Lords Select Committee that Jersey tax information exchange agreements were not transparent and that they found it impossible to get information from Jersey authorities. Others will tell him that moves are afoot to curb the Jersey fulfilment industry which is damaging British High Street shops.

We are also in conflict with the UK Treasury over our Zero Ten tax regime which has been declared non-compliant by the European Union.

If Freddie Cohen is keen on visiting political lightweights coming to Jersey to see what we are all about he should make sure that anyone like this insignificant MP knows that we have1400 people unemployed (40% of them under 21), house prices as expensive as in London, making it impossible for young people to ever own their own home, no anti-discrimination legislation, a government system where the chief judge (Bailiff) is also the president of the States, where legal fees are the most expensive in Britain. Visiting politicians should be allowed to visit Age Concern and talk to Mrs. Minihane about how the elderly are struggling to make ends meet with food prices 30% higher than in the UK with GST on food pushing the cost even higher.

These visitors need to be told that the cost of paying rent, feeding a family, and transporting them is 60% higher her than in the UK.

This will soon turn their rose-tinted spectacles a dark shade of grey.