RULING – POINT OF ORDER – BUDGET DEBATES ADJOURNMENT

Yes, hon. Members, I will now give my ruling. Hon. Members, I have considered the point of order raised by the hon. Leader of the Opposition this morning, who submits that following the Government's announcement that the pension reform measure, contained in the Budget, has been suspended or frozen, further debate on the Appropriation Bill should be adjourned until such time as revised Estimates are tabled before the House. The point of order is founded, principally, on Standing Order 73(2), which provides that the debate on the second reading of the Appropriation Bill shall be confined to the general principles of Government policy and administration as indicated by the Bill and the Estimates. The question before the Chair, however, is not whether the Government has altered one of its announced policies, but whether such alteration empowers the Speaker to suspend or defer the legislative proceedings on the Appropriation Bill. Standing order 73(2) regulates the scope of the debate. It does not confer upon the Speaker a discretion to adjourn or defer consideration of the Appropriation Bill because of a subsequent change in Government policy, nor does it require that every policy announced in the Budget Speech remain unchanged throughout the legislative process. Whether Government should amend its proposals, revise the Estimates, introduce supplementary measures, or explain its change of policy is a matter for the Executive, subject to the scrutiny and control of this House through the parliamentary procedures available to Members. The Chair cannot compel the Government to amend its budget proposals unless the Standing Orders or another law expressly so provides, which is not the case. If the suspension of the pension policy has legal or financial consequences affecting the Appropriation Bill or the Estimates, it is open to the Government, if it deems necessary, to introduce the appropriate amendments. In that regard, I thank the hon. Attorney General because his interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Standing Orders and the Constitution is quite correct. Accordingly, the Chair finds no procedural basis under Standing Order 73(2) or any other Standing Order for directing that the debate on the Appropriation Bill be deferred. I thank you. Yes, hon. Prime Minister! (6.08 p.m.)

Madam Speaker, as we conclude this debate, let me, first of all, thank all the hon. Members who have contributed to this important national exercise. I have listened to what they said, and I will try to respond to some of the main points raised. This budget was never intended to be an exercise in political convenience. It was designed as an exercise of national responsibility, Madam Speaker. Ce budget repose sur une conviction simple : un gouvernement responsable ne peut pas bâtir l'avenir sur du sable mouvant et des illusions. Il doit d'abord regarder la réalité en face. Madam Speaker, when this Government assumed office, we were confronted with an economy, I could say, in intensive care. As hon. Minister Shakeel Mohamed said at the very beginning of his speech, very often, people do not do that. You must always look at things in its context, even historical things. It is in the context of the time that you must look at it. As I said, we were in a terrible mess – • growing fiscal pressures; • rising debt obligations; • broken down engines of growth, and • galloping inflation. Inflation reached even 11.37% when they were in office. When we talk about debt, as you said, in the context, who remembers what are the interests we are paying on debt 2025-2026? What was the interest? Do you know how much it was? Rs26.9 billion, just on interest! Nearly Rs27 billion just on interest, because of the mess they did. We have to pay the interest on that debt, which we are trying to correct gradually. Faced with these challenges, we had no choice. We could also continue to postpone difficult decisions, risk a downgrade and leave the burden to the future generations, or we could, as we did, act with courage and honesty. And this is what we did! Malheureusement, Madame la présidente, nous avons subi les affres d'une stratégie de déni chez certains qui ne veulent pas voir la vérité en face et de démagogies chez d'autres. Ils ne veulent pas voir les données objectives, les finances, la situation du fonds de pension et le risque de faillite à court, moyen et long terme. C'est pourquoi nous avons placé ce budget sous le signe du devoir de la vérité. Le devoir de vérité sur – • l'état de nos finances publiques ; • sur les défis auxquels notre économie est confrontée, et • sur les décisions qu'il nous appartient de prendre aujourd'hui pour protéger les générations de demain. Car gouverner, c'est avant tout avoir le courage de dire ce qui est avant de promettre ce qui sera. Gouverner, Madame la présidente, c'est renforcer les institutions ; c'est promouvoir la confiance et la transparence, assurer la crédibilité du pays, et créer les conditions pour plus d'investissement et de développement économique. La vérité aujourd'hui est le prix de la prospérité de demain. We refuse to mortgage the future of our children and grandchildren. Nous aurions pu, Madame la présidente, choisir la facilité. Très facile ! J'aurais pu aussi imprimer des billets par milliards. Mais ce n'est pas notre conception de la responsabilité publique ni même de la responsabilité tout court. Madam Speaker, last year's budget marked the beginning of a necessary reconstructive drive – a first step to stabilise the economy, strengthen the social fabric and rebuild our public finances. Budget 2026-2027 sets out the next chapter. A chapter defined by reconstruction, by reform and social justice. But let me be candid about the inheritance we faced. When this Government assumed office, as the House is aware, the Ministry of Finance, under the leadership of the then Acting Finance Secretary – now he is the Financial Secretary – undertook a comprehensive assessment of the economic and fiscal situation, the findings of which were published in the State of the Economy Report. With regard to the state of the economy in November 2024, I need to remind the House that no one described the unprecedented state of precariousness left by the previous Government better than the former Deputy Prime Minister. And I quote – « Il y a un désordre budgétaire total ! En vérité, il n'y a plus de budget. Il y a des fonds spéciaux partout, une banque centrale qui n'était plus une banque centrale, mais une planche à billets (…) Crimes commis par Pravind Jugnauth et son complice Padayachy (…) Le ‘mess’ qu'ils ont laissé ne va pas prendre un mois pour redresser. Cela demande un an, deux ans, trois ans, quatre ans, cinq ans ! It is going to be difficult. » And he was right. Totally right! That is why I said once that it will take more than a mandate to bring this country back. This is what I said. The official report was clear: fiscal space was severely constrained. The budget deficit was higher than published and it was rising, jeopardising the long-term sustainability of our economy. And public debt was even much higher. The public investment pipeline had become fragmented and inefficient. There were gaps in social protection that left some of our citizens exposed, precisely at the moment when they most needed support. That diagnosis is not partisan politics. These are hard economic facts. In the face of these multiple challenges, last year's Budget set the direction – (1) Keep the economy and businesses afloat; (2) Protect the most vulnerable, and (3) Stabilise public finances and macroeconomic economic fundamentals. I heard, earlier, the former Deputy Prime Minister say: « La marge de manœuvre du gouvernement est plus grande. » Oui, c'était vrai. C'est parce que nous avons pris les mesures qu'il fallait dans le premier budget. We have improved the situation. Mais the trend, the trajectory of the debt, the public deficit was going down. They were on a downward trend. However, two factors came into play afterwards. The Chagos deal – we did not get; we have not got it yet – the Rs10 billion that we were expecting and that we budgeted for. That is a gap of Rs10 billion. Plus, the war in the Middle East. When the former Deputy Prime Minister said about the fuel, that we could have brought down; we did bring down the fuel at the beginning. Not by as much as we said, but we did, as much as we could. Because nobody knew exactly what was the position. Madam Speaker, the debt for the STC, when we came in November 2024, was Rs3.4 billion. We tried to bring it down. Even though we brought the price of fuel down, the debt came down to Rs2.4 billion – from 3.4 to 2.4! In February 2026, Madam Speaker, we brought that deficit to Rs1.5 billion. However, with the war in the Middle East, prices went up again. And again, the debt increased here because we had already brought the fuel down a little bit. The debt now is Rs3.32 billion. So, how can we responsibly say we will bring down the cost of fuel and Mogas and Gas Oil and all that? Even for gas, there is a disruption in the market. When they bombed Qatar, they bombed actually the factory that was producing gas. There is a lack of supply for gas. So, inevitably, Madam Speaker… And I must say – perhaps many people do not realise – even though I am saying all this, the price of Mogas and Gas Oil in Mauritius is lower, comparing in terms of rupees, than the UK, France, Comoros, South Africa, Seychelles, and La Réunion. It is not comparable. In spite of the difficulties, we have been able to do that. In spite of the geopolitical headwind, the economic indicators are moving, are still moving in the right direction. Employment has begun to recover in critical sectors. Inflationary pressures have been brought down and are under better control. But as the former Deputy Prime Minister indicated, it is bound to go up again because we import everything in dollars – not everything, but nearly everything. Economic diplomacy is now an important component of our development strategy. As I said last Friday, Madam Speaker, we have returned our country to its rightful place on the international arena. From New Delhi to Paris, from Tokyo to Addis, from Nairobi to Mahé. And I heard the Opposition Whip say that we could have done otherwise. He said you do not need to travel; you can do it by e-mails and video conferences. You missed the point completely. If people like you are at the helm of this country, we will go down again in economic diplomacy. Mauritius is backed with meaningful relationships and economic benefits for the nation. For economic diplomacy, it is the personal contact that is important. You meet these leaders, you talk to them, you see what can be done between us. That is what is important; that is what makes us punch above our weight, Madam Speaker, and not by e- mail or by video conferences. This will never work, never. And let me tell the Opposition Whip, we are a small country. Compared to other countries, we are small. International volatility persists, daunting challenges remain, and this is what we are trying to respond to, Madam Speaker. The 2026-2027 Budget is not a break from the strategy that was established last year, but we have to take corrective measures automatically because of the two reasons I have just given you. It is, in fact, a logical continuation and an unflinching commitment to further progress. At the heart of this, lies three interrelated priorities – (1) diversify and shape a future ready economy; (2) a strengthened commitment to social justice, and (3) fiscal consolidation to create space for priority investment. And let me speak – I want to tackle this problem as well and to come to that – directly to our elderly citizens. I know that the pension is not just a line in the Budget. We all know. It is not just a monthly payment. It is security. It is dignity. It is recognition. It is the result of a lifetime of work, sacrifice and contribution to our country. I understand the anxiety that was expressed, that many elderly citizens were worried. There were a lot of misinformation as well – lots of misinformation. Families were asking questions. People wanted clarity, fairness and reassurance. And in a democracy, Madam Speaker, when people speak, they are worried, they want clarifications; a responsible Government must listen. Again, as hon. Shakeel Mohamed said, the previous Government, the MSM, never responded. They could not care; they could not give a damn – could I say that word? I do not know. They did not respond to public outcry. But we listened, we heard the concerns. We took the concerns seriously and we decided to discard the means test because of that. But listening does not mean abandoning the truth. Listening does not mean pretending that the problem has actually disappeared. It has not; the problem remains. The demographic pressure remains. The fiscal pressure remains. The need for reform remains. What has to change is the method. This is our responsibility. The real choice before the country is not between reform and comfort. That choice does not exist. The real choice is between a controlled reform today or a brutal crisis tomorrow. The choice is between reform today or a collapse tomorrow. Ce qui m’amène à aborder, Madame la présidente, cette mesure qui a suscité plus de débats depuis vendredi c’est à dire la réforme de la pension dont je parle. Let me remind the House that in its bid to win the 2019 General Elections, the former Government announced on 01 October – look at the dates, just prior to the elections, October 2019 – that they would increase the monthly Basic Retirement Pension from Rs9,000 to Rs13,500 without any consideration whatsoever on the sustainability of such a decision. They knew, they had reports upon reports. I will quote Pravind Jugnauth in a minute. They knew that the pension system was already unsustainable. ‘Unsustainable’ for many people who do not understand English, means ‘insoutenable’ because some people do not understand what ‘unsustainable’ means. They knew this but to win the elections, they put the country at risk, they put the elderly at risk, they could not give a damn, they needed to win the elections. As hon. Bhagwan said, they were desperate to keep on to stay in power, so that they can continue with their state capture as they did before all the time. And in its 2020 Budget, they discontinued the contributory pension under the National Pension Fund and introduced the CSG, which is a tax, hon. Dr. Boolell has said that many times. It is a tax just to finance their electoral promise. This is how they fooled the people. Sometimes people do not realise, they get money, they think that is it, whether the money is devalued, as long as they got the money. In so doing, the MSM-led Government simply destroyed the pension system by abolishing contributions to the National Pension Fund, established, I remind the House, since 1976 by the Father of the Nation, Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam. They destroyed it because this was the cornerstone for our retirement system at the time. And worst, Madam Speaker, most of the funds raised under the CSG have, in fact, been syphoned off and diverted to finance expenditure but not pensions. This is what they did with the money; the money of workers, of people who have worked all their lives. These people are giving us lessons now. They destroyed the system. In a Parliamentary Question on 24 October 2023, look at what the then Minister of Finance, Dr. Padayachy conceded. I quote – “Il ne reste donc rien par rapport aux contributions de la CSG.” I think hon. Aadil Ameer Meea also mentioned it. Finished! All the money is gone. Whose money, is it? Pensions for the elderly, pensions for the workers – gone overnight. Je comprends donc, Madame la présidente, les préoccupations exprimées par nos concitoyens. La pension de vieillesse n'est pas un simple transfert financier. Elle représente un contrat social et c'est précisément parce que nous souhaitons préserver ce contrat social que nous avons été contraints d'agir. Les projections démographiques sont sans équivoque. Notre population vieillit rapidement, it is a fact. Le nombre de bénéficiaires de la pension augmente chaque année alors que la population active, qui finance ce système – it is the taxpayer who is financing the system, that means everybody – mais, les actifs progressent beaucoup plus lentement. Maintenir indéfiniment le modèle actuel nous aurait conduit, à terme, à une situation où l'État ne serait plus en mesure d'assumer durablement ses engagements sans compromettre le financement de la santé, de l'éducation, des infrastructures, housing projects. We said the other day, I said it, the cost for the pension system as it is, because of their irresponsibility, is costing more than the budget for health, the budget for education and the budget for social housing. More! Can you imagine what that means? For health itself, it is nearly Rs18 billion and it is costing more, this pension. Let me remind the House that the concern about the sustainability of the Old Age Pension is not something new. This has been talked on for decades. More than two decades! But no one had the courage to bell the cat. No one! As far back as in the Budget Speech, presented in 2003, by our friend, hon. Paul Bérenger, this is what he stated – and he is right. That is why I am quoting – “The BRP in its present form exerts severe pressure on the budget. The fast ageing of the population will render the BRP unsustainable in the longer term. According to projections, the proportion of those over 60 will double in 20 years’ time and triple in the next 50 years. Reform of the BRP has thus become urgent.” And he goes on to say – “Equally urgent…” Because sometimes people do not look at this – “Equally urgent is the need to reform the other pillars of the Mauritian pension system, namely the national pension scheme, civil service pensions and private pensions.” Permettez-moi, Madame la présidente, aussi de citer ce qu’a dit l’ancien Premier ministre, Pravind Jugnauth, lors d’une cérémonie manquant les 40 ans de la Old Age Pensioners Association, en juin 2016. C’est en créole, mais je pense que je peux citer. Je cite – « Par rapport ek Basic Retirement Pension, ena ti pe gagne Rs 100,000, Rs 200,000 par mois, zot aussi pe touche sa Rs 5,000 pension vieillesse la. » Including his dad ! « Est-ce qui li ene système bon, est-ce qui li ene système juste ? » He is asking the question so, he knows. This is what they did. Totally irresponsible what they did! And we are paying the price today! Notre responsabilité n'est pas seulement envers les retraités d'aujourd'hui. Elle l’est également envers les retraités de demain et envers les générations qui auront à financer ce système. Gouverner, Madame la présidente, c'est avoir le courage de prendre des décisions difficiles afin d'éviter des conséquences encore plus douloureuses dans l'avenir. Gouverner, c'est aussi savoir entendre et comprendre les préoccupations de nos concitoyens. Not everybody is an economist. Even economists do not understand! Comme l’a si bien dit un éditorialiste – « Dans une démocratie, il est sain qu’un exécutif entende les inquiétudes de ceux qu’il gouverne ». Depuis la semaine dernière, de nombreuses voix se sont exprimées sur la question de la pension. Nous avons pris pleinement en considération les attentes et les inquiétudes de la population. C'est dans cet esprit d'écoute que le gouvernement a décidé d’abandonner la mise en œuvre du Means Testing. Comme je l’ai dit dans ma réponse au Private Notice Question du leader de l’oppositidon, the Means Testing is out. Il n’y aura pas de Means Testing ! Pourquoi ? Des gens nous ont dit – ‘Changez la somme, mettez à R 500 000 ou R 200 000.’ Bonne suggestion, mais impraticable ! Parce que qu’est-ce qui se passe ? If we do this, it touches a very small percentage of people. The difference is zero. That is why the IMF, the World Bank and all these people are saying our pension system is unsustainable. It would have been better if we could have done this, but with what results? It means, in fact, that you do not reform. It is touching very few people. And you know, Madam Speaker, without disparaging to others, people who have a lot of money, they know how to duck the system. They have ways and means. Look at what our friend Kugan said, the other day, about dividends. I am the one who introduced dividends against advice. Everybody was against, but I said we will have to tax dividends. The argument was: ‘Dividends are already taxed. So, why are you taxing again?’ But I said no, they can afford less tax. I must tell you, I am practical. You have to be pragmatic. When we look at the results, they found ways and means of evading the system. We got very little. So, the offshore is complaining, and we are getting very little. That is why we removed it, not because we are not socialists, but because we saw that we are annoying a lot of people with little result. Madam Speaker, following the elimination of the means testing for the State Age Pension, Government has immediately, since day one, initiated a number of measures to cover for the now higher expected expenditure so that we can bring down the budget deficit and public sector debt. These include – (i) A Committee has already been established, under the Chairmanship of the Secretary to Cabinet. We must reprioritise the implementation of the capital projects. We must find the money one way or the other, while also ensuring that economic growth is not adversely affected. (ii) A Committee at the level of the Ministry of Finance will examine the expenditure of each Ministry. Every year, we see the Director of Audit saying the same things: overspending there, wastage there, etc. Then, the year after, we hear the same thing. Now, we have put a Deputy Financial Secretary to chair that Committee. He will look at every detail of spending and ask questions before it comes to the end when the Director of Audit will make his report. (iii) Madam Speaker, as already mentioned, a High-Level Committee has been set up for a fundamental review of our tax system because we want to enhance its fairness, its efficiency and also, international competitiveness. Today, people move money out. You press a button on the internet, and you move money out. This Committee, including tax experts, will be supported by the IMF and other international experts. I believe, they will start work in the coming days. (iv) The Ministry of Finance is exploring the disposal of selected non-strategic assets as well as the potential listing of certain State-owned enterprises on the stock exchange, again, with a view to unlocking value and monetising its shareholdings. (v) With regard to CSG contributions, I must say, Madam Speaker – we have to be absolutely candid – it was envisaged, in this Budget, that, as from 01 July 2027, these contributions would be transferred to individual accounts of all workers in the new National Pensions and Provident Fund (NPPF) that we are proposing. Now, with what we have done, we will have to reconsider, and it will have to be done in a phased way, not directly on 01 July. It will have to be phased out. Furthermore, Madam Speaker, I will myself chair a Steering Committee on Public Sector Efficiency to identify areas of duplication, inefficiency and wastage. Every Ministry and Department will now have to submit to that Committee a concrete plan on how they intend to improve efficiency without, naturally, compromising service delivery. That will also include all parastatal bodies under the aegis of different Ministries. Madam Speaker, this budget is not only about balancing accounts. It is about balancing responsibility with ambition – prudence with opportunity – reform with compassion. It is a budget that asks us to look beyond immediate political considerations and to focus, instead, on the long-term interests of our nation. Despite the headwinds, Madam Speaker, we have put our economy firmly on the path of recovery. We have embarked on a journey of growth anchored on the six pillars that I mentioned in my speech last week. I do not want to repeat them. One Member of the Opposition has claimed – I think it was, again, the Opposition Whip – that AI is just a tool. I think the former DPM also mentioned it.

(Interruptions)

Oh, it was Leader of the Opposition. I am sorry. I am sorry. The Leader of the Opposition! There are so many Leaders of the Opposition now! Everybody! Even my friend Baboolall wants to become Leader of the Opposition. He claimed that AI is just a tool and he does not understand why we have put so much emphasis on it in this Budget. Laissez-moi, Madame la présidente, citer l'ancien Premier ministre français, Gabriel Attal. Récemment, sur sa page internet, il a écrit, je cite – « Si on rate la révolution de l'IA, nos enfants auront le choix entre servir du café aux Américains ou du thé aux Chinois. » This is what they will have to do because there will be nothing else.

Il est candidat aux élections.

Il est candidat aussi.

Présidentielle.

Je ne sais pas si ça va l'aider ou non. Je ne sais pas. For Mauritius integrating AI, there is legitimacy in people asking questions. Very legitimate because there are dangers with AI. That is why we put the safeguards and we are learning from other countries as well, I must say. But integrating AI decisively into our reconstruction agenda is not optional for us, it is strategic. Our purpose is to use AI to amplify on our human capital, accelerate productivity and it will accelerate productivity and attract quality investment. And at the same time to make our governance and social provisions smarter, more efficient and more inclusive. By next year, Madam Speaker, I mentioned it in my speech, we will have enabled 50,000 Mauritians in practical AI use. This budget, Madam Speaker, unleashes the potential of the blue economy through ocean research, fisheries, aquaculture and seaweed farming. Oceanic research is a growing sector in its own right and will drive marine innovation and jobs. Local fish production should increase. We are expecting it from 5,000 tons to 15,000 tons over the next three years. Madam Speaker, we firmly believe that the SMEs are the backbone of our economy; it is the backbone of all economies in fact. That is why we have provided direct specific support to strengthen their capacity through new legislation schemes and a more conducive environment for all businesses by addressing investment constraints, streamlining licensing, and permits delivery. We have put this silent agreement back. It was there when we were in Government. These people from the MSM, I do not know why, I cannot tell you why they have removed it. We have put it back. There are too many people who complain that they have to queue here, to queue there, to get one permit. Even the artists have been saying this to me. It should be a one-stop shop and it should be clear. Now we are putting this silent agreement. If you do not get it in time, assume you have got it. That is what we are doing. At the same time, we have created the conditions to attract foreign talents, skills and capital. This includes a start-up revolution, supported by access to affordable finance, digital tools and targeted schemes which will give a boost to that sector. We have already started work at the Special Economic Zone at Cote d'Or. It will be a major game changer in our economic architecture. This will open vast opportunities for our entrepreneurs and other businesses to embrace technology. At the same time, importantly, it will attract billions of rupees of new FDI, create thousands of highly paid jobs, raise productivity and reboot the manufacturing and export sectors, and improve, therefore, our external balance. When I went to the AI summit, I mentioned it last time, I had seen just before that Google is doing a submarine cable, connecting America to India and then to the Far East. I spoke to Prime Minister Modi. I said since they are doing it together we have all the infrastructure here; make it pass through Mauritius. He spoke to the CEO of Google in India straight away and they are working on it, I think it will be done, but I do not want to say more because they need to see whether we have all the infrastructure here or not. We have set ourselves the objective to double export of goods to the United States, USD 3 billion over the next three years. Ambitious, I agree, but achievable if we work hand in hand together. At the same time, we are modernising our banking and financial services sector as well as adapting our tourism sector to new trends. I mentioned this and the tourism sector is doing very well with the war. The Seychelles had a dip in the tourist arrivals. The Maldives had a dip. We know Dubai had a dip but Mauritius was very slightly affected. Beside the Special Economic Zone, this Budget paves the way to a game-changing economic infrastructure programme with a total value of more than Rs70 billion so that the country improves its connectivity and develop the high-quality physical infrastructure required to support its economic ambitions at the port, at the airport, on the road. You know, we get some very high-placed tourists, CEOs and all this. One of the complaints when using the internet, there is no connection. You say you are a modern country, but you do not get connection. Worse, the previous government cut the connections. At the same time, Madam Speaker, we have embarked on four flagship projects that I set up last week, already set up. This budget advances renewable energy and the energy transition in line with our target of 60% energy mix by 2035. And I said I am restarting the Maurice Île Durable project, which was under hon. Minister Osman Mahomed at the time with Professor Joël de Rosnay and they did a fantastic job. We got a lot of praise for that. Madam Speaker, believe it or not, we had achieved 23.4% in renewable energy under Maurice Île Durable. What did the MSM government do? I do not know, maybe because we set it up, because they have this obsession with me, especially. Even when I was not in Parliament, they were talking about me – keeping me alive. They had cancelled Maurice Île Durable Okay, you do not want hon. Osman Mahomed, you throw him out. You do not want professor Joël de Rosnay, you throw him out. But continue with the project. They just cancelled the project. With the result, from 23.4% that we had achieved in renewable energy, it came down to 17% only. So, 10 wasted years. 10 wasted years! Now, we have to restart. It also strengthens food production capacity so that more value is created locally and more opportunities are open for Mauritians. We have earmarked, Rs6.4 billion over the next three years to improve water access and the work has already started. It costs a lot of money. We are getting help from India. We have to change these leaking pipes. Madam Speaker, development policies centred around macroeconomic indicators are meaningless if they do not focus on families, which is the bedrock of a prosperous society. It is therefore, first and foremost, about families who must eat, who must live healthy lives, parents who must educate their children, and a population that must feel secure. This is why we have placed the strengthening of the social compact at the centre of our reconstruction efforts. Mettre l'humain au centre du développement – that is what we are doing. That is why we have increased the combined budget of the two Ministries looking after education by Rs2.6 billion. We want to ensure that each child lives up to his or her full potential through literacy and numeracy programme foundation courses, provision of textbooks. We have heard before, exams are starting and children do not have the textbooks yet, and exams are starting. And then they cut the internet, they cannot even look at the programmes on internet. This is the criminal negligence that the previous Government did. We are also upgrading learning environment by providing Rs824 million for improvement and expansion of infrastructure and amenities. At the same time, we are reintroducing the NICE (National Initiative for Civic Education) project so that our youth… I had started it. Again, I suppose because I started it, they cancelled it. I had brought – not anyone – a military man from Singapore. Why did I bring a stranger? Because you know how it is here, this one will go and say this: ‘Mr, you know, my child is not well. He cannot follow that course.’ No, everybody has to follow that course, unless you are really not well, you cannot. To instil discipline in our youth, show them how living in a multicultural society is supposed to be, respect for each other, respect for other religions, about the need to know how to save water and energy, in fact, about the needs of the true values of life. This is what we want our youth to know. It is very important. Otherwise, the mentality has to change. Madam Speaker, a prosperous nation is a healthy nation. This is why we will continue to prioritise the provision of free, but high quality and accessible healthcare through recruitment, training and investment in our healthcare infrastructure. That is why hon. Bachoo, the Minister for healthcare, we have agreed… One of the complaints, the other day, I was telling him that I met a consultant from India – first time in Mauritius. He gave a lecture the other day and he tells me that he cannot understand why you are spending so many millions to send people to India for treatment when these consultants can come here and do these very operations for a much lesser cost. Hon. Bachoo knows, in that also, there is a mafia operating. This is the mentality that we have to change. We are talking about health of people, very ill people. That is why they have to go abroad. Now, these consultants will be able to come here. We are signing an MoU; I will mention it to Prime Minister Modi when I meet him in the weekend so that this can be moved forward. And for a more efficient health service, the administration of hospitals will be carried out by Managers who are trained in Human Resource Management. I always say that to my friend, Anil Bachoo. I think you have a son who is a doctor as well who works in America. In America, doctors do not run hospitals. Doctors are supposed to look after patients. Why are they running hospitals? This is not their job. You have to run hospitals by modern management and this is what we are going to do here. You have seen the wastage – ordering medicine by huge stocks, then they become outdated, throw them away and order new medicine. We have seen what has happened during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ventilators that were ordered, they paid millions to Pack & Blister. They paid the money and the equipment does not work? So, somebody has taken some money somewhere. That is why this was done. We are not born yesterday! And we are going to find out. It is taking time because we need evidence, but we are getting evidence. We also want to reverse the downward trend we saw in life expectancy and healthy life expectancy, which is even more important. It is no point somebody lives up to 90, but the quality of life is poor. This is what our citizens endured up to 2024, Madam Speaker. This is why gender remains the focus of our endeavours because women’s entrepreneurship, empowerment, protection and improved childcare services and protection, ensures that growth reaches the wider society. Increasing maternity leave – we know there have been some criticisms on that – and paternity leave to 12 months and 6 weeks, respectively. But it is an undertaking we took in our manifesto. It is in our manifesto. I know there have been some criticisms, but we are looking at it. This is what it should be. This is why, Madam Speaker, the Budget provides for infrastructure for 8,000 social housing projects to start with, mixed-income housing projects on privately owned land, and 1,000 housing units for middle-income families. And hon. Shakeel Mohamed spoke to me about this problem that you see; I have also seen it during the elections – houses that are built, again, anguille sous roche! And see who got the contracts? People who are close to them. That, nobody talked about, I mean, on the side of the Opposition. Not, behind this Opposition.

There are many Oppositions!

Only two of them! Because a decent home is the foundation of dignity, we have to make it a reality for every low and middle-income household. Our commitment to address the law and order situation, Madam Speaker, is unwavering. We know when we came – I was saying it myself – there was no law and order. There were areas where the Police could not go. Drugs were being sold everywhere. I do not say it has stopped. It has not stopped yet. It is not worse, but I am the first to admit there are certain sanctions, but we have a limited Police Force. They are doing what they can. Another thing I want to stress: the Police Force must be respected. They deserve respect. We will not tolerate people attacking the policemen or policewomen. This cannot be tolerated! They represent the State, the security for our citizens. They need to be protected. This Budget provides for tightening border controls as well. It equips our enforcement agencies with the tools, the technology and the training they need. The setting up of a new National Crime Agency, in the very near future, will allow an integrated, intelligence-led, and multi-agency response to serious and organised crime, including financial crimes, cybercrime, money-laundering, drug trafficking and corruption. Madam Speaker, I know there will be criticisms. I know! But we need to have people who know how to tackle the problem. Today, you know what is happening? Before you arrest somebody, somebody knows. Already knows! We know what happened under the previous regime. Planting occurred, not once, not twice. You speak against the government; they plant something in your house. Even if there is nothing in your house, they will plant it. Madam Speaker, this National Crime Agency will revolutionise policing in Mauritius. At the end of the day, you have seen what has happened with the Kistnen case, the cover up. Look at the judgement of the magistrate! Very courageous! And we now have evidence that there was cover up. It was murder! We have that much. They have destroyed lot of evidence. That is why it is taking a longer time. Much of evidence is destroyed, but I hope we will come to the bottom of this. This Budget supports a whole-of-society response to the drug problem, bringing together the police, customs, coast guards, social workers, educators, health professionals, and civil society. We want everybody to be on-board. It cannot just be a problem for Government or for the Opposition. It should not be partisan. Everybody should be on-board. Government, Madam Speaker, is also investing to improve early detection in schools, we know what is happening, in workplaces, expand awareness campaigns, and ensure that rehabilitation is an integral part of national security. We need to combat the scourge of drugs. It has to be relentless. Madam Speaker, climate risk is costly. We need to mitigate climate risk and protect the assets that sustain livelihood. That is why we have scaled up investments in renewable energy, in coastal protection, and climate-resilient infrastructure. My good friend, Minister Bhagwan, mentioned – we know this, I have seen it with my eyes – the erosion of the coastline. This is why we put money in that. We have to fight this. We have to prevent it. This Budget also gives a place of high prominence to adapting to climate change and mitigating its impact. We scaled up, as I said, investments in renewable energy, coastal protection, but also climate-resilient infrastructure. We are also investing with an aim to reducing future disaster costs and protecting the assets that sustain livelihoods. Madam Speaker, as regards our policies on fiscal consolidation and good governance on the revenue side, as I have stated in the Budget Speech and I have just stated it, a High- Level Committee will be set up under the aegis of the Ministry of Finance to review our tax system to improve its fairness and efficiency. On the expenditure side, Government continues to prioritise public investment in projects that catalyse private-sector activity, create jobs, and build resilience. At the same time, we will introduce stronger performance frameworks to ensure that every rupee spent delivers value for the citizens. As I said, Madam Speaker, when the market fails, Government has to intervene and lead. That is precisely why we have established the Purchasing Power Shield to bring about a reduction in the prices of major basic consumer products. The Budget has provided for the State Trading Corporation to bulk-purchase and sell essential consumer goods with capped profit margins. Now, I must say, Madam Speaker, I am always a bit worried about price control. It does not really work very often, but we are talking about big economies. This is a small economy. Many times, you see collaborations between different sectors to keep the prices up. You have seen it with the… He was involved in that. This is why we are providing a budget for the State Trading Corporation. We have also provided a further Rs2 billion, this year, for the Price Stabilisation Fund, and a series of subsidies on strategic consumer products. The intention is to lower living costs of consumers, especially, again for the low-and middle-income families. They are the ones who get squeezed. It is not enough for a nation to grow. The question is whether everyone, in the middle class, the lower income group, the women, the young, and the vulnerable can share in that growth. It is no point growing and you leave behind half of the population. This Budget answers that question with a commitment to compassion, equity, and practical support. Madam Speaker, allow me, now, to say a few words about implementation. I think a couple of people mentioned it, and rightly so. The best policy is only as good as its implementation. I am, therefore, making three commitments that will guide our actions in the coming year – (1) Transparency and accountability We will publish quarterly performance reports on the Budget’s key indicators – it is not easy for us, but we will do it – and open major programme evaluations to independent review. (2) Participation and inclusion We will expand consultations with stakeholders to fine-tune implementation and to ensure that programmes reflect local realities. (3) Adaptability and prudence We will adhere to a disciplined fiscal path while preserving its flexibility to protect the vulnerable and to ensure public sector investments are with high economic returns. Madam Speaker, this Budget speaks to the future generations. The choices we make today become the conditions our children and grandchildren will inherit. This is why fiscal policy must be responsible, forward-looking, and sustainable. A people-centred budget cannot be short-sighted. It must invest in resilience, human capital, infrastructure, environmental sustainability, and strong institutions. It must ensure that today’s progress does not become tomorrow’s burden. It must protect the future from waste, neglect, and unsustainable choices. We will be judged by future generations, Madam Speaker, not only by what we have built but also with what we have preserved – • Did we leave them a stronger economy, a fairer society, a cleaner environment, and better opportunities? • Did we act with foresight and discipline? • Did we choose long-term national interest over short-term convenience? This Budget, Madam Speaker, answers those questions by seeking to balance immediate needs, but with a long-term vision with lasting responsibility. It is a reminder that public finance is not only about the present. It is about the inheritance we leave behind. We must also give hope. We must ensure that we give hope. Allow me now to highlight how we have put people first in that Budget. For students, this Budget is a message of confidence. It says that their education is not an expense to be managed, but an investment to be protected. It says that the country believes in their potential and is willing to support their journey from learning to leadership. For women, the Budget is about fairness and empowerment. The hon. Deputy Prime Minister mentioned in detail what we are doing. Too often, women carry a heavier burden than their fair share, balancing work and care, ambition and responsibility, opportunity and constraint. For families and consumers, the central question is simple: does this Budget actually make your life more manageable? For every measure of adjustment, there is a measure of investment. For every reform, Madam Speaker, there is a vision. For every challenge, there is an opportunity. History will not judge us by the ease of our decisions. It will judge us by whether we had the courage to make the right decisions when the circumstances demanded it. The Mauritius we seek to build is one that is more innovative, more productive, more inclusive and more resilient. A Mauritius where – - young people can find opportunities at home. They will not want to stay abroad. I am happy to say that, for the first time, people of the diaspora are coming here to work. That is a very good sign; - where businesses – big, medium, small, even micro businesses – must be able to thrive and create jobs; - where public institutions are stronger, independent and more efficient. Without public institutions, there can be no State. It is chaos, and this is what has happened; - where economic progress goes hand in hand with social justice. It must go hand in hand with social justice, and - A Mauritius which is open to the world and which attracts further investment. What I have just mentioned is the best way that we can create conditions to be able to support those at the lower rung of the ladder. Madame la présidente, permettez-moi, à ce stade, de répondre à quelques points soulevés par quelques membres, enfin, j'ai déjà répondu sur la pension. Mais malheureusement, l’Opposition a choisi de se focaliser sur le thème de la pension pour des buts purement politiques. Le Leader de l’Opposition reconnait lui-même que le Budget comprend des mesures positives, mais you know of the saying – « Chasser le naturel, il revient au galop ! » Il s’est cantonné, comme tant d’autres, d’ailleurs, au sein de l’Opposition, dans une litanie de propos démagogiques et dépourvue de bon sens et de sérieux. It would seem that he is a great fan of Gabbar Singh. He chose to quote what Gabbar Singh said in Sholay. Gabbar Singh is back with him! Well, Madam Speaker, I do not believe in “Gabbar Singh”, I prefer Lord Krishna, and I quote from the Mahabharata – “Karm kiye ja” (Do your duty). Is it a coincidence that the first comment the Leader of the Opposition made relates to the renovation of Clarisse House? He said, ‘You do not have money, and you are renovating it.’

(Interruptions)

Clarisse House is a national heritage, a building built in the 19th century, if I am not mistaken. The MSM Government allowed it to go down and decay. Go and see the work, actually the MBC showed it. Probably you did not see, it was happy hour.

He has…

(Interruptions)

It is him. I agree with you there. I agree with you, it is him, his government. We cannot allow a national heritage to just crumble. It is already going to cost us money. By the way, what is put in the Budget, for the first year, it is not going to be 400 million now. If we do not renovate it now, it will be extensive work. It will cost more. Madam Speaker, certains ont parlé d'incertitude et d'anxiété des ménages dans ce budget. Mais ils ne se rendent pas compte que la vraie incertitude, la vraie anxiété, c'est la viabilité du système de pension, d'une faillite annoncée du fonds de pension par leur irresponsabilité. Si rien n'est fait aujourd'hui, on se dirige directement vers la disparition de toute forme de pension. In 10 years’ time, in 15 years’ time, nobody will get a pension if we do not do what we are doing now.

Avant même !

Avant même. Tu as raison. C'est éloquent, Madam Speaker, qu’en réponse aux vœux du chef du MSM, parce qu'il a un vœu de retourner, le peuple lui a posé des questions. Allez voir sur Facebook. Je vais citer – « Koumen pou fer li kompren? Li pa kompren ki lepep pa le li retourne! » It is there! Some people said – « Kot ou pe ale, bhai? Met ou enkor? »

Do not quote, please.

Do not quote, okay.

Because there are so many of them.

Yes, yes. I just want...

Negative, positive. Yes.

You are right. You are right.

It will be too long.

Yes.

No, do not!

Madam Speaker, ce budget ne réduit pas notre ambition nationale. Il lui donne des fondations solides. Il protège les plus vulnérables. Il soutient les travailleurs. Il accompagne les entrepreneurs. Il le fait avec discipline, avec responsabilité, avec une vision de long terme. Certains ont parlé de reculade alors qu'ils sont eux-mêmes coupables d'avoir acté la démagogie pour entraîner une reculade. Ils ont voulu instaurer un climat de doute et de confiance, de nous faire perdre le sens de notre responsabilité financière sans considération aucune pour ce que peut devenir l'avenir du pays. Nous avons fait preuve d'écoute, comme dans tous les pays démocratiques. Comme un gouvernement responsable, nous avons un devoir de responsabilité financière. Nous avons l'obligation de protéger ce pays, car c’est en fin de compte, protéger le peuple d'une faillite morale et de protéger l'avenir. Madam Speaker, nous refusons, nous condamnons la légèreté d'analyse et de réflexion de ces individus qui connaissent bien la situation mais par démagogie… Ils sont bien au courant des dangers. Ils connaissent les indicateurs et surtout ils connaissent les conséquences d'une politique économique débridée basée sur un populisme mensonger. Nous refusons ce repli sur le clientélisme électoral alors que l'avenir du pays est en jeu. Le risque est grand. Il peut nous faire subir des conséquences désastreuses aux générations à venir si rien n'est fait au niveau des finances de l'État. Je le répète : Une croissance durable ne peut exister sans stabilité économique. Une justice sociale durable ne peut pas exister sans des finances publiques saines. Un État fort est d'abord un État crédible. Notre pays, Madame la présidente, a toujours su se relever lorsque les circonstances l'exigeaient. À plusieurs reprises dans notre histoire, les Mauriciens ont démontré leur capacité à faire preuve de résilience, d'unité et de courage. Depuis l'indépendance, notre histoire démontre que la population de Maurice a toujours été à la hauteur de ses responsabilités durant des moments les plus difficiles. Aujourd'hui, encore, nous devons faire ce choix – • Le choix de la responsabilité plutôt que celui du déni ; • Le choix des réformes plutôt que celui de l'immobilisme, et • Le choix de l'avenir plutôt que celui de la facilité. Je suis convaincu, Madame la présidente, que Maurice possède tous les atouts nécessaires pour réussir cette nouvelle étape de son développement. Nous avons, aujourd'hui, des institutions solides. Notre diaspora, comme je l'ai mentionné, a des talents remarquables. Ce budget, Madame la présidente, ce n'est pas un ensemble de mesures financières. C'est un engagement vers le futur, vers l'avenir. Un engagement vers notre jeunesse, envers les travailleurs, envers les familles mauriciennes et surtout envers les générations qui nous succéderont. Nous leur devons des finances publiques assainies, une économie plus compétitive, un peu plus forte, plus juste et plus prospère. C'est dans cet esprit que le gouvernement sollicite, aujourd'hui, l'approbation de cette honorable Assemblée avec confiance dans notre pays, avec confiance dans notre peuple, et avec la certitude que les choix responsables que nous faisons aujourd'hui permettront à Maurice de bâtir un avenir plus solide demain. This Budget, Madam Speaker, is not about doing nothing and allowing our country to continue to drift into the abyss. This Budget is about reversing the downhill spiral that we have been in. It is about securing the future. It is about building the Bridge to the Future. With these words, I commend the Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to. Bill read a second time and committed.

I will make an announcement first. Before going down, I will make an announcement.