To His Honour the Speaker and Members of the Honourable House of Assembly:

Mr. Speaker,

I am pleased to present to this Honourable House the United Bermuda Party reply to the 2005/2006 Budget Statement.

The community must feel a sense of d?j? vu after this year?s budget statement, because, with few exceptions, we have heard it all before.

Year after year for seven budgets, we have heard self-congratulatory remarks about stable macro-economic management and fiscal discipline. We have heard promises about new Bermudas and social agendas and improving the economic well being of all members of our community. And when did we see the last budget that pleased many and offended few? Just two years ago, before the 2003 election.

But we haven?t seen progress on issues that really matter to Bermudians. And it?s not for lack of government spending.

After nearly seven years and a grand spending spree of almost $4 billion, the social fabric of our community has significantly deteriorated. Nothing ? not even so-called watershed social agendas ? can hide the PLP government?s lack of substantial progress in providing affordable housing, reforming the healthcare system, improving life for seniors, transforming public education, tackling drugs, reducing gang violence, improving tourism and generating economic development and empowerment.

A few months ago, Premier Scott introduced his social agenda the code word for a public-relations-driven campaign designed to distract public attention from the mismanagement, sweetheart deals, secrecy, scandals and police investigations that have characterised the PLP government?s first six years in office.

The United Bermuda Party said then ? and we will say it again ?that the social agenda is nothing less than an admission that the projects, programmes and policies of the PLP government since 1998 have failed utterly and completely. It is nothing more than the invention of a government caught in a desperate political situation. They have let the country down-we know it, they know it and the people of Bermuda know it.

Our critics may say that the United Bermuda Party is too cynical, too sceptical, too negative. Let us respond to those charges with a simple calculation that comes straight from the budget statement. Let?s see if the PLP government puts its money where its mouth is.

The Finance Minister insists that people come first, yet in 2005 ? the year of the social agenda ? the PLP government could only find $3.9 million in new money to spend on social programmes. That?s $3.9 million out of $19 million in total new money and a total current account expenditure of $711 million. It?s not even as much as their travel budget.

No, Mr. Speaker, we?ve heard it all before. The PLP government may be shuffling the deck, but they?re still playing with the same cards.

The Finance Minister says this budget marks the record of their tenure. So we will remind Honourable Members, once again, about the promises the Progressive Labour Party government made in 1998 and compare those goals to their nearly seven-year record.

In 1998, the Progressive Labour Party claimed to have a vision of a New Bermuda. The current Finance Minister describes that vision as ?a land of equal opportunity for all based on principles of fairness, equity, accountability and full democratic participation.?

Mr. Speaker,

In two terms, the Progressive Labour Party government has created opportunity all right, but it?s there for a select, handpicked few. In just two terms, the PLP government has created an environment where Cabinet ministers can profit handsomely from government business. There is nothing fair about conflict of interest. There is nothing equitable about abuse of power.

And accountability? It doesn?t exist unless a government holds itself accountable. The Progressive Labour Party government turns a blind eye to unethical behaviour, and through scandal after scandal, not a single PLP politician has paid even a political price for poor judgement, mismanagement or questionable activity.

And what of full democratic participation? Since 1998, the PLP government has consistently tried to silence the voice of the people and suppress the release of public information. Shortly after taking office, they refused to allow Bermudians to ratify far-reaching changes to their own Constitution. Time and again they have withheld or delayed the release of information that belongs in the public domain. And now the government, led by Premier Scott, persists in its stubborn and increasingly desperate opposition to a referendum on independence. These are not the actions of a government committed to democracy. In fact, the PLP government?s record on ?full democratic participation? is so embarrassingly poor we wonder why they have the nerve to bring it up.

Mr. Speaker,

We know independence for Bermuda is very much on the minds of the PLP government, and it has not escaped our notice that for Minister Cox, submitting a budget-a plain budget-is apparently not good enough. No, this year it has become a ?National Budget,? in capital letters no less.

But the Minister?s mini-exercise in semantics cannot obscure the fact that polls indicate the majority of Bermudians do not believe independence is a priority at this time, and the majority of Bermudians want to decide the issue of independence through a referendum. In this regard, the PLP government is clearly out of step and out of touch with the people of Bermuda, who wish that their elected representatives would spend less time pressing for sovereignty and more time working to solve critical social issues.

The United Bermuda Party believes, however, that the budget is an appropriate vehicle for telling the people how much the ?public dialogue? about independence will cost. We note that members of the Bermuda Independence Commission have already travelled to North America to gather information, and we presume that more trips are planned. Yet the Finance Minister, no doubt in the interest of transparency, has apparently buried the cost of the Commission and its activities somewhere in the Cabinet Office budget.

Mr. Speaker,

While the financial implications of this budget may seem benign with no new taxes, individuals and businesses will feel its economic impact every day, and financial policy decisions made this year will affect Bermuda?s economic viability well into the future.

Excessive Taxation and Poor Forecasting

Mr. Speaker,

The PLP government has taken a consistently aggressive approach to overall taxation. After all, someone has to pay for all that government spending. In the financial year ahead, individuals and businesses will pay over $200 million more per year than they did in 1998/1999. The cumulative impact means that many people feel they are working longer hours for less take-home pay, and with good reason.

Land and payroll-tax increases imposed since 1998 have been so excessive that they have generated appreciably more revenue than the PLP government expected. In the 2002/2003 budget, for example, actual tax revenues exceeded the original forecast by $62 million. In 2003/04, final revenues exceeded the original forecast by $55 million. And in this budget, the Finance Minister informs us that her revised revenue estimate for 2004/05 will exceed her original forecast by over $44 million-and the fiscal year is not yet complete.

Add it up. That?s $161 million more than taxpayers needed to pay. This is excessive taxation, and the miscalculations of successive Finance Ministers have placed an unnecessary tax burden on the people and businesses of this country for several years. You can hear the consequences every day as people talk about the high cost of living and the stress that comes with it. With proper government estimating, that money should have stayed with the taxpayer and gone toward rents, mortgages, savings or college education.

Poor forecasting on payroll tax has been particularly flagrant, and with this budget, workers and employers will pay over $100 million more in payroll tax this year than in 1998. That works out to an average of $2,900 that each worker and his employer must pay. No wonder people are complaining. This practice of consistently underestimating revenues is neither good management nor a prudent strategy.

So what has the government done with the extra $161 million they didn?t need to take? Some of it has gone to pay for capital projects that the government expected to fund through borrowing. This government simply can?t find the right balance between taxation and borrowing, and as usual, the taxpayer suffers. The United Bermuda Party believes that Bermudians would rather keep and manage their own money rather than have government take it and spend it for them. Mr. Speaker,

In this budget statement, the Finance Minister tells us ?there is a perception that this [PLP Government has significantly increased the public debt since coming into office.? In fact, up to this point they have not significantly increased public debt, but it?s certainly not due to lack of trying.

Over the last four budgets, the PLP government intended to borrow $284 million. The fact that the revised estimate shows the total was only $32 million has little to do with financial discipline and more to do with two other factors. First, excessive taxation provided government with more money than they expected, some of which they used to pay for capital projects up front; and second, the PLP government has been unable to manage and move capital projects forward on schedule. You don?t need to borrow as much for work that isn?t finished or hasn?t even begun. The Berkeley senior secondary school project is a perfect example.

While the country has been spared an additional $250 million in debt, the fact that the PLP government miscalculated its borrowing by more than a quarter of a billion dollars is not something the Finance Minister should be boasting about. We?re sure the Minister was delighted with all that unexpected revenue, but the taxpayer was taking it on the chin in unnecessarily high taxes.

This year, the PLP government intends to borrow again. In fact, the projected borrowing in this budget of $85 million will effectively increase the country?s gross debt by more than 50 percent in just one year.

Mr. Speaker,

While we?re on the subject of debt, let?s make one thing perfectly clear: the United Bermuda Party understands that there is nothing wrong with borrowing per se. Former United Bermuda Party governments borrowed to fund necessary capital projects such as CedarBridge Academy and Westgate (which were, by the way, brought in on budget). They did this to spread the burden of these projects over time so the full impact would not be born by the taxpayer in one or two years-in the same way that mortgages are used to finance the purchase of a home.

But along with borrowing, United Bermuda Party governments established both the statutory debt limit and the required sinking-fund payments to help pay down the debt.

In fact, it is directly because of these sinking-fund payments that the Finance Minister can now technically claim that the net debt was reduced during the PLP?s first term as government. But PLP Finance Ministers only did what they were required to do by law. Had Minister Cox used some of the excessive tax revenue to significantly reduce the existing debt, then the Honourable Member would have something to boast about.

Minister Cox knows that the United Bermuda Party government did not raise the statutory borrowing limit from the level of $185 million set in 1991. But the PLP government has already raised the limit once to $250 million and now intends to raise it again to $375 million.

Empowerment and Opportunity

Mr. Speaker,

Employment statistics over the past year show that the PLP government has only created jobs for non-Bermudians, despite its policy regarding term limits for foreign workers. Last year, on a net basis, not a single new job was created for Bermudians, and there?s no other way to put it: Bermudians lost ground yet again under the PLP government.

In fact, Bermudians have been losers in the job market every year since 2000. Between 1999 and 2004, over 1,370 Bermudian jobs were lost. At the same time, 1,500 jobs were created for non-Bermudians. From 1998 to 2004, the percentage of non-Bermudians in the workforce rose from 23.4 percent to 28.5 percent. And last year alone, the PLP government processed 16,500 work permits compared to 12,875 the year before.

Despite these indisputable facts, the Finance Minister says: ?Stable levels of economic growth and expansion provide both the foundation and the framework for Bermudians to participate and share in the benefits of economic progress.? But no matter how you slice this pie, the PLP government has a dismal record for empowering Bermudians, black or white. They haven?t diversified the economy in any way that provides job opportunities for Bermudians; in fact, just the opposite has happened.

That?s just one of the reasons why the United Bermuda Party has tabled an Economic Empowerment Bill as part of a motion in the House of Assembly on empowerment and economic opportunity. Our plan commits the next UBP government to allocating at least 20 percent of its budget for goods and services for small business. This will not increase government spending overall, but it represents a significant increase in the amount of government money spent with small businesses. This will expand opportunity for those that have never had the chance to get business from government.. The next UBP government will establish a national policy on economic empowerment to promote equal opportunity and fair access to government contracts. It requires that businesses earning over $5 million from government contracts participate in a small-business mentoring program, and it commits the UBP government to providing training for small businesses in how to bid on government contracts.

Our empowerment plan creates openness and accountability. The Empowerment Bill commits the UBP government to reporting annually to Parliament and the people of Bermuda on the progress of economic empowerment. This will ensure that a promise made will be a promise kept. It will hold the UBP government accountable for our results in expanding economic opportunity.

The United Bermuda Party vision for broadening economic opportunity, expanding ownership of financial assets, creating new businesses and helping new generations of Bermudians participate in the Bermudian dream will move our country in a new, more positive direction.

The Shadow Minister for Race Relations and Economic Opportunity has met with many community groups, from church leaders to the Chamber of Commerce, to discuss the Empowerment Bill and get their feedback. Their response has been positive and encouraging. Later this spring, the United Bermuda Party will sponsor a small-business conference for networking and exchange of ideas.

Mr. Speaker,

We are pleased that the PLP government finally changed the payroll-tax structure for small business, adjustments that the United Bermuda Party called for two years ago. Previous United Bermuda Party governments adjusted the threshold level for small business every two to four years to allow for ?payroll creep? as a matter of policy. So we have to ask, what took them so long? Seven years is a long time in the life of a small business that is struggling to compete.

The current changes will also provide some relief to businesses that have suffered from the significant increases in payroll tax imposed by the PLP government. Based on the feedback we?ve been getting, the government should now take immediate steps to reduce the excessive paperwork and bureaucracy faced by small businesses.

Mr. Speaker,

Thirty percent of Bermuda?s population is under age 30. Certainly no discussion of empowerment can be complete without mentioning the young people in our community who are still in school, looking for jobs or working in entry-level positions. This rising generation must be given every opportunity for development now in order to lead productive and satisfying lives. The cohesiveness of our community depends on it.

As a leading international business jurisdiction, we place a great deal of emphasis on the regulation of financial services to ensure compliance with international standards. The United Bermuda Party believes we must place similar emphasis on ensuring that our public-school system also meets international standards for academic performance.

Since 1999, the PLP government has committed over $626 million to public education, and yet the system?s performance remains inconsistent. Terra Nova testing reveals that schools are clearly underperforming. The United Bermuda Party believes we must raise expectations for both children?s and teachers? performance. We shouldn?t be any less vigilant about setting standards for developing our young people than we are for regulating international business.

This budget does little to assist our youth through sporting organisations, especially as it relates to activities outside the classroom. Our sporting bodies lack funding and adequate, community-based facilities, yet they have received little attention in the PLP government?s budget. It?s a shame that we can?t better use sport to tap into the energy of young people and the community at large. The Bermuda Football Association?s World Cup matches held at the National Sports Centre are just one example of how sport can bring Bermudians much closer together and give young people pride in their accomplishments. That?s why the United Bermuda Party has called for the development of a National Agenda for Sport, to give both organised sport and our athletes the attention they deserve.

Tourism

Mr. Speaker,

Nothing brings on d?j? vu faster than a PLP government discussion of tourism. In 1999, we heard how a 100-day rescue mission would put the buzz back in tourism. In 2005, we?re told that sizzle and pop will do the trick. The first PLP Tourism Minister visited South Africa and Argentina to drum up visitors. In 2005, a different PLP Tourism Minister-the third in six years-has visited Africa and Italy and can?t wait to milk the South American and Chinese markets. If it weren?t so serious, it would be funny.

But it is serious. The Finance Minister notes that the ?tourism sector continues to be a vital component of Bermuda?s economy.? Well, yes, but these days it all depends on how you define ?vital.? Government statistics show that the hotel and hospitality sector has now dropped to ninth place in overall contribution to GDP.

And after Hurricane Fabian, a much weaker U.S. dollar and hurricane damage in competing Caribbean resorts meant that tourism was supposed to turn around in 2004. Expectations were that visitor numbers would climb by 20 percent. Instead, overall visitor arrivals declined 1.1 percent from 2003, visitor spending continued to drop and most other tourism-related statistics were disappointing.

In contrast, our neighbours to the south did well, in spite of problems with hurricane damage in certain islands. Overall tourist arrivals in the Caribbean grew by 7 percent in 2004, on top of a 7 percent increase recorded in 2003. Growth in many of our Caribbean competitors was in the double digits: Bahamas was up 15 percent, Barbados by 38 percent and Cayman by 28 percent through July. The World Tourism Organization reported that tourism worldwide grew by 12 percent in 2004, yet Bermuda recorded one of the worst performances of the 32 destinations measured by the Caribbean Tourism Organization.

Mr. Speaker,

As the 2002 Ettenberg Report pointed out, Bermuda spends three to five times more than our closest competitors to attract each visitor, and our results are much worse.

Perhaps most discouraging is the fact that the PLP government has created a crisis of confidence in tourism; the majority of Bermudians don?t believe that this government can revive tourism-which is viewed more and more as just a globe-trotting opportunity for tourism ministers-and sadly, many don?t care.

The United Bermuda Party believes that tourism must remain a vital component of Bermuda?s economy. Although jobs in the hotel sector have been cut nearly in half since 1998-from 4,028 to 2,191-tourism still employs thousands of Bermudians, including taxi drivers and restaurant workers, whose skills and qualifications may not be marketable in other business sectors. International business also depends on tourism?s infrastructure for air service, transportation, hotel, restaurant and other hospitality provisions.

The United Bermuda Party believes that government must get out of the way, take the politics out of tourism and let hospitality professionals run tourism. The United Bermuda Party fundamentally disagrees with the Progressive Labour Party that government always knows best.

That?s why we insist that a Tourism Authority, led by professionals, is essential to reviving Bermuda?s once-vibrant tourism sector. A United Bermuda Party government would create, fund and empower the Tourism Authority to manage short- and long-term growth strategies, product development, marketing and air-service strategy.

Mr. Speaker,

When it comes to housing, the sense of d?j? vu is so strong it makes your head spin. The PLP government talks about housing, but they haven?t made a dent in the housing crisis.

From 1999 until 2003, it is clear from budget statements that the PLP government expected the Bermuda Housing Corporation to handle the housing crisis, which they defined primarily as a problem for low-income families and homeless men. Even so, very little money-just under $1 million over four years-was allocated in budget statements for the BHC to help with new housing. The public was assured, however, that the BHC would provide for the island?s housing needs.

Then, of course, the country discovered that the BHC was providing for something else altogether, and the PLP government was left with an embarrassing scandal. They never had a comprehensive housing plan, and they never budgeted sufficient funds for housing.

Then last year, the Finance Minister said she had found some ?bridge money,? and she allocated $1.2 million of it for housing the homeless. Now here?s what she said this year: ?...the Works Ministry has plans for the construction and/or assembly of emergency housing units....? A year has passed, without results. No matter what kind of prefabricated housing this government has in mind to house the homeless, it?s not here yet. It?s not housing any homeless people.

And listen to the language in this year?s budget statement. ?...plans are already underway or at the launch phase...? and ?plans are at an advanced stage....?

Four housing ministers later, we?re still hearing about unfinished plans. But there is still no real, true comprehensive housing plan with measurable objectives and strategies, although the minister claims it?s holistic and in his head. The sorry truth is that the PLP government hasn?t come close to addressing the fundamental housing needs of our community.

Mr. Speaker,

Talk doesn?t house people. And unless the PLP government stops moving at the speed of molasses when it comes to housing, there will be a lot of people left out in the cold for a long, long time.

The United Bermuda Party set out a comprehensive plan for housing over two years ago that addressed the widespread problems of availability and affordability. We understood that the housing problem wasn?t just a homeless problem or a low-income problem but a problem that affects every socio-economic group in our community.

And the United Bermuda Party track record on housing is hard to deny. When Bermudians needed affordable houses in the past, we built them-Battery Park, Top Square, Ducks Puddle, Devon Springs, Midland Heights, Frog Lane, Mary Victoria, Alexander Road, Rockaway and Boaz Island, to name a few.

The impact of the UBP government?s programme shows up in the statistics for the annual additions to Bermuda?s housing stock. From 1986 to 1991, when the demand for affordable housing was high, an average of 504 units was added to Bermuda?s housing stock each year. During the period from 1992 to 1997, demand dropped due to the early-nineties recession and the subsequent base closures, so the number of additional units dropped accordingly. Then around 1998, demand began to skyrocket, and housing became an important election issue. However, from 1998 to 2004, under the PLP government, only an average of 221 units were added each year. Clearly, housing has never been a high priority for the PLP government.

Mr. Speaker,

The PLP government?s ad hoc approach to the housing crisis is perfectly illustrated by their recently announced policy prohibiting the sale of property owned by Bermudians to non-Bermudians. The stated intention was to reduce the number of properties available to non-Bermudians and to prevent fronting and the fraudulent use of trusts. However, the United Bermuda Party believes that this policy is as shortsighted as their term-limit policy and will have similar, unintended consequences.

In the past, raising the ARV threshold controlled the number of properties available to non-Bermudians. If the PLP government was truly concerned about the number of non-Bermudian properties, they could have followed past practice, which worked well.

If the PLP government was concerned about fronting and fraudulent use of trusts, why didn?t the Minister introduce amending legislation or, where appropriate, use his powers under the current Act to decline a license for such sales to proceed? And we have to ask why it has taken nearly seven years to address the problem. Fronting has been apparent since the late-1990s. Even so, the Minister has provided no data that indicates the extent of the problem.

What we are left with is an arbitrary and unilateral policy that disadvantages Bermudians; after all, non-Bermudians can still sell their properties to non-Bermudians. And this meddling has eroded investor confidence in the housing market.

But most important, Mr. Speaker, is that this policy does nothing, absolutely nothing, to increase the availability of affordable housing to Bermudians or to assist young Bermudians to purchase their first home. The new policy clearly shows that the PLP government?s priorities are more inclined toward political expediency and divisiveness than creating a comprehensive housing strategy that will benefit the entire community.

Mr. Speaker,

The plight of the senior population in Bermuda is still dismal. The Fordham study on ageing showed that of 6,722 seniors, 25 percent of the 65 to 79 age group and over 50 percent of those 80 and older have incomes under $12,000 per year. A majority of seniors have incomes under $30,000 per year. The study also indicated that the social-insurance pension is the primary source of income for seniors.

Increasing the social-insurance benefit by 3.5 percent in August does not get to the heart of the problem. In fact, it won?t even keep up with inflation, which hit a high of 3.9 percent in 2004 and is projected to reach four percent in 2005. Unlike last year?s increase of nine percent, which was funded by ?bridge money,? this year?s increase can only be described as better than nothing but woefully inadequate.

After nearly seven years, the PLP government has still not produced an overall pension policy. Current retirees and those nearing retirement will not benefit from the National Pension Scheme as much as those who remain in the workforce will. There is still no plan or actuarial analysis for how the social-insurance pension should be structured to work in conjunction with the National Pension Scheme to benefit both seniors and future retirees.

Nor has the PLP government reviewed the National Pension Scheme to examine whether it is meeting expectations and whether workers are properly protected by the Pension Commission. Unless this is done, we can?t be sure that current contribution rates will give Bermudians a comfortable retirement income. The Finance Ministry should proceed with this as soon as possible.

The National Pension Scheme was designed in the mid-1990s to provide today?s workers with a comfortable retirement income. It was designed to solve many of the same problems that U.S. legislators are now facing with the social-security system. So unless the Finance Minister has lost confidence for some unexplained reason in the National Pension Scheme, why would she propose a Bermuda Birthright Fund?

Frankly, we think the Bermuda Birthright Fund is a last-minute, politically inspired addition to the budget. It clearly has not been thought through. Just look at the numbers. If you have 800 births per year and you set aside $1,000,000 per year for 30 years, in 2035 each individual will receive somewhere between $8,000 to $10,000. How far will even $10,000 go in 2035? Given inflation, it won?t cover two months? rent. It certainly will not provide a comfortable retirement income.

Before we leave the subject of pensions, we look forward to the long-anticipated actuarial analysis of the Superannuation Fund, the pension fund for civil servants. Government can?t continue to write off amounts of $44 million without serious financial consequences, and without action, the deficit will continue to climb. The problem will not be solved until the Finance Minister brings contributions and benefits into balance so that the fund doesn?t operate with an annual deficit-a problem that has been recognised for some time.

Mr. Speaker,

Seniors need help with more than pensions. The cost of medical care and access to medical care are major issues that have never been properly addressed by the PLP government. A health summit will not do it. We all know what happens at a two-day conference: there?s a lot of talk, some interesting ideas are proposed and participants return to business as usual.

We note the $400,000 to establish the Health Council, but we remain deeply sceptical that this body will have either the authority or the expertise to address thorny healthcare issues. We believe the PLP government prefers to pass the buck to a Health Council rather than tackle the hard decisions themselves.

The monthly wellness clinics announced in this budget and the community-based home assessment indicate that the PLP government has finally recognised some of the problems that seniors face, but their solutions fall far short of the seniors? health clinics the United Bermuda Party proposed two years ago. Once-a-month wellness clinics are well intended, but they don?t solve the more serious problems faced by seniors without medical coverage or whose insurance limits doctors? visits. These seniors need a full-time healthcare clinic staffed by nurse practitioners and a geriatrician.

The poorest of our seniors in Bermuda Housing Trust properties have had their rents doubled and tripled in some cases. This appears to be a direct result of questionable management of the Bermuda Housing Trust assets. The shameful answer the PLP government has given these residents is to ask for financial assistance. This makes a mockery of the PLP?s so-called social agenda as well as the mission of the Bermuda Housing Trust, which is to provide low-cost housing for the needy elderly.

Everyone will welcome the long-overdue repairs to Lefroy House, especially the residents. But with this project, as with so many others, you have to ask why it takes so long for the PLP government to get things done. By the time Lefroy House is repaired, it will have been two years since Hurricane Fabian damaged the structure and residents were left without a roof. We are sure that no one in Cabinet had to wait so long for repairs to their properties.

This budget does not show any evidence of a long-term strategic plan to plug the gaps in seniors healthcare coverage, pursue insurance reform, provide safe, affordable housing for seniors or address the serious needs of family caregivers as highlighted in the Fordham study.

But since the PLP government seems receptive to adopting United Bermuda Party ideas for improving the lives of seniors-including eliminating the death tax on a primary residence-we will present our plan once again and urge the government to get on with it. They still have a long way to go.

Our proposals include:

A full-time healthcare clinic, possibly mobile, to provide free preventive and basic care to seniors without coverage or whose insurance limits doctors visits;

Free prescription drugs and eyeglasses for seniors who can?t afford them;

Automatic annual contributory pension increases, tied to the cost of living;

Fundamental healthcare and insurance reform;

Possible enhancements to healthcare coverage, including a medical pension plan, increased use of generic drugs and further benefits to HIP;

Affordable assisted-living facilities determined by need;

Implementing without delay the recommendations for higher standards of care in home healthcare, rehabilitation centres and rest homes;

Prohibiting age discrimination in Bermuda?s human-rights legislation;

Raising the mandatory age of retirement in the civil service to 70 from 65, with optional early retirement.

Good Government

Mr. Speaker,

The next United Bermuda Party government will implement its good-government plan. It includes two initiatives that the PLP government seems to have embraced-a freedom of information act and absentee balloting-although little progress has been reported on their implementation.

Other important initiatives include:

A Code of Conduct for all parliamentary members;

Opening Parliamentary committees to the public;

Changing Parliamentary procedures to make them fairer to all political parties;

Guaranteeing equal access to government contracts by requiring open tendering in every department;

Restoring a nonpolitical Attorney General;

Amending the directions for public broadcasting so taxpayers don?t pay for political broadcasts; and

Upholding the right of public servants to speak out without fear through a Whistleblower?s Act.

Mr. Speaker,

Nearly seven years have passed since the PLP government first started making promises to the people of Bermuda. Seven years is enough time in office to get things done, yet little has been accomplished.

It?s true that basic government services continue year after year, with small improvements here and there; we still use the post office and take public transportation and have our garbage picked up. But we have seen no fundamental change in areas that can dramatically improve the quality of life for Bermudians, such as housing, healthcare, pensions, education and new job opportunities.

That?s why this budget provokes such a sense of d?j? vu. We have heard the words and promises before, but after seven years, the words have lost their meaning and the promises are not believable. When the Finance Minister says that this budget lays ?the foundation for the final phase of the transformation to the New Bermuda,? we don?t know whether to laugh or cry.

The people of Bermuda are getting impatient. They try to understand why there?s been so little progress. Some believe it?s because the PLP government is more focused on helping themselves than serving others. Others think the government is wasting too much time on things like independence, which is not a priority for most Bermudians. Still others say that the PLP government?s record proves that they are neither efficient nor effective.

Mr. Speaker,

The United Bermuda Party looks at the PLP record of the past seven years and sees that the people of this country are not well served by their government. There is too much spending and not enough progress. There is too much self-dealing and not enough integrity. There is too much concealment and not enough transparency. There is too much nation building and not enough community building.

The United Bermuda Party knows we can and must do better. We want to restore people?s faith in the ability of government to solve problems and deliver a better Bermuda. We want to reaffirm and restore the basic values that have made Bermuda strong. We want to empower all Bermudians so everyone has an equal stake in Bermuda?s future. And we want to lead Bermuda with a shared sense of unity and purpose.

Mr. Speaker,

The next United Bermuda Party government is ready to stand and deliver.