Finance Minister Fayval Williams closed the 2025/2026 Budget Debate on Tuesday by dissecting the Opposition’s financial plans, saying they would cost an additional $48.83 billion in government expenditure.

Williams compared the Government’s current 2025/2026 budget relative to the Opposition’s proposed plans if they were to form the next Government. Her analysis focused on examining the cost of the proposals mentioned by Opposition Leader Mark Golding during his contribution to the budget debate on Tuesday, March 18.

On the revenue side of her analysis, Williams deducted an expected $139.82 billion in non-tax revenue to be raised during the upcoming fiscal year and included the $9.18 billion of revenue that the Government is expected to forego based on recent announcements. This resulted in the Opposition’s budget for revenues and grants totalling $965.44 billion relative to the $1.10 trillion proposed by the incumbent Government.

However, Williams took it a step further and deducted $8.36 billion in asset taxes that the Government collected from regulated financial institutions for the 2024/2025 period and deducted $17.22 billion in other proposed measures mentioned by the Opposition. These measures included $11.35 billion in foregone revenue by not charging MSMEs (micro, small and medium-sized enterprises) income tax in the first year, $3.37 billion foregone by raising the employer tax credit from 30 to 40 per cent and $2.50 billion related to the food import taxes. That resulted in the Opposition’s proposed budget for revenues and grants totalling $939.86 billion.

The comments resulted in Golding rising on a point of order and accusing Williams of misleading the Parliament.

“We did not present an implied budget for the coming fiscal year. We presented our proposals, our policy commitments for the next PNP (People’s National Party) Government and we have never said that they would be implemented in the current fiscal year,” Golding said.

“As has been said, after today, the budget would have been passed for the fiscal year. Our proposals represent what we would be doing for the duration of our first term in office. That is what we were saying, and it will all operate within the current fiscal rules. Stop misleading the House,” Golding added.

Williams went on to dig further into the cost of several social measures proposed by the Opposition during their budget contributions. The proposed measure for one full scholarship for a university degree per family was estimated to cost $31.50 billion based on the finance minister’s assumptions that 35,000 students benefit from the initiative and university tuition costing $900,000 for the year. The daily lunch meal for primary and secondary school children who need that meal was estimated to cost $9 billion, with the proposal for the Government to match the cost for companies investing in their training was assumed to be $2.55 billion.

According to the finance minister, all of the Opposition’s proposed measures would cost $48.83 billion in additional expenditure to the Government if they were enacted.

Earlier during Tuesday’s debate, certain proposals mentioned during the 2024/2025 Budget Debate were discussed amongst the Government members present. The removal of GCT (General Consumption Tax) and SCT (Special Consumption Tax) related to the importing and armouring of courier vehicles faced no significant resistance by either side of the House.

Opposition Member of Parliament Fitz Jackson expressed hope that there would be some consideration by the banks to pass on any savings to their customers if the armoured courier companies pass on the savings to the banks. This measure is expected to cover the period for April 2024 to March 2026.

However, the removal of GCT on raw unprocessed foodstuff in Jamaica garnered numerous queries from Opposition members among them Julian Robinson, spokesperson on finance, and Golding. Their concerns came from the perspective of the shifting geopolitics and the impact that cheaper subsidised food could have on the domestic agriculture sector.

“I understand from our technical persons that all of this happened when Jamaica was doing the review of our trade policy, and this came up by the reviewer. Jamaica’s trade policy was being reviewed by the WTO (World Trade Organization), and it was noted. It was not a specific country, but by way of the process of review. The UK (United Kingdom) and EU (European Union) asked that we correct all measures inconsistent with our WTO obligations and this happened in 2024. It started with the WTO reviewer in November 2023 and UK and EU comments occurred in July and August 2024,” Williams explained, regarding the announcement by former Finance Minister Dr Nigel Clarke.

Based on the need to seek further clarity to answer additional questions, Williams requested a suspension of the debate related to this topic. This was one of the items voted on during the session held by the House of Representatives.

“I say to all Jamaicans: it is decision time. Whom do you trust with your future,” Williams declared.