'They smoke: they deserve it' is the response of many

‘They smoke, they deserve it’, will be the response of many. And, on the one hand it is true, smokers choose to partake in this dangerous habit and it is difficult to feel sorry for them as a result.

This is one of the main reasons it is they who are hit by tax hikes every year (this year they will pick up the tab for motorists, who will be spared an increase in petrol, for example). They are an easy target who probably feel bad enough about smoking in the first place and are unlikely to complain too loudly, given the social stigma attached to the title of smoker.

But, the issue raised by Treasury Minister Philip Ozouf last week isn’t primarily about taxes. And it isn’t about smokers. It is about the principle of goods possibly being sold to Islanders under false pretences.

I say ‘possibly’ because we must remember that the Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority has been brought in to look into the matter and until they report back we don’t know exactly what has been going on, if anything untoward has been at all.

But, what we do know is that each year for as long as many can remember increases in duty on tobacco, perhaps even alcohol, too, have been imposed by the majority of retailers on 1 January. Many of us just thought that was the norm and just the way it worked.

However, what most didn’t realise is that duty is actually paid when goods are imported to the Island, not when they are sold to customers.

As a result this means that any stock bought by retailers in 2012 was only subject to that year’s duty (13.2 per cent lower than it is now) but is now possibly being sold to Islanders at 2013 prices. Who knows how much may have been stockpiled in this way – one, two, three months’ worth?

It works out at about 50 pence per packet of 20 cigarettes – not big bucks to people who are paying more than £6 a pack already. But, imagine how many cigarettes are sold each day, each week and each month and the extra ‘profits’ soon stack up.

Ignore the fact that it is smokers who are (possibly) being ripped off and imagine instead that it was chocolate, or cake, or crisps or some other nonessential item without the social taboo of tobacco.

Now imagine that each time you bought that chocolate bar you believed you were paying a certain amount of tax, imposed by the States to help pay for everyday services like health, education and roads.

But, what you were actually doing was paying a smaller amount of tax and lining the pockets of retailers with the rest without even realising it.

It’s not right, is it? It is one thing to pay for something – chocolate, cigarettes or whatever – in full knowledge of the taxes you are paying but it is quite another to be duped into thinking that the figure is higher than in reality.

I say duped, but is that really what has – possibly – been going on here? Well, yes and no. If it has been going on it has continued for so long simply because it has been allowed to.

Wholesalers and retailers keep their mouths shut about it, there is no law or even policy to stop them doing it and an ill-informed public have been allowed to continue thinking that duty has to rise each year on 1 January.

Senator Ozouf is unlikely to make any friends over this issue. But, he isn’t that kind of politician anyway so it doesn’t really matter. In a way it is his Treasury that has allowed this practice – if it is happening – to continue and it is they who have perhaps missed out on hundreds of thousands of pounds of tax.

The wider public, too – smokers and non-smokers alike – have missed out in this regard, given that tax revenues go towards running our Island.

But, the most important thing is that the matter has been raised now, the public are now more aware about the practicalities about duty rises and retailers have said they will cooperate with the JCRA in their review.

For the time being at least smokers will have to put up with – possibly – being ripped off or quit, not a bad result in itself.

But, this whole issue does beg the question ‘what other unethical practices have been allowed to continue in this way simply because we let them?’

IF 2012 was the year to plan, plan, plan for the States, then 2013 must surely be the year to do, do, do.

Last year we had the Strategic Plan, which set government priorities for the next three years, then we had the first ever Medium Term Financial Plan to set out the details and where the money was going to be spent.

There was the big debate on the future of healthcare in Jersey, the hearings, research and consultations of the Electoral Commission and countless other strategic planning events, papers, statements and debates about everything from housing and education to the public sector and benefits.

Put most simply, there was a lot of talk and a lot of planning. Let’s hope, therefore, that in 2013 those words are followed up with action. And, action in the grand scale kind of way that they kept telling us about in 2012.