The Vote to Keep A Tampon Tax in Jersey

Jersey remains the only place in the British Islands to retain a tampon tax. A quarter of the entire world now has tax free menstrual products, but Jersey has voted against that.

Other countries that have made menstrual products tax-free include Kenya, Australia, Canada, India, Jamaica, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Tanzania, Lebanon, Malaysia, Colombia, South Africa, Namibia, and Rwanda. 

The realisation is long overdue: feminine hygiene is not a choice.

"For people who don’t menstruate, this may not seem like a big deal. Still, for those who do, it is huge. Particularly for menstruators who are living in poverty or experiencing homelessness, the tampon tax contributes to a phenomenon called period poverty." (Gabrielle Rocha Rios)

"An ITV News investigation has revealed that of the 32 locations where Jersey's government advertised free period products, only 11 had any available."

Confirming that, feedback I myself have received from a number of correspondents is that (a) the range of products is restrictive and (b) it is scarce (if it has not run out). How many people who voted for rescindment actually did some checking for themselves?

I wouldn't mind free period products as an alternative if it was done properly. The current scheme is a very restrictive "free", it is "free" on the cheap. It reminds me of when someone emails round in our office, saying there is "free cake" in the kitchen, help yourself - first come, first served. It's the same kind of mentality in "bargain sales" where people at the front of the queue get the bargains, and those further down get nothing. 

 How often are sites checked and replenished? Is there any way of reporting when they have run out? Who do you contact? I suggest you email your Deputy or Constable.

The recent ITV report shows that providing "free" is basically a token sop to the population, and quite honestly any politicians who believed the spin have, in my opinion, been taken in by a paper exercise which just doesn't work in practice. 

Free products can be helpful, but there are too few, too restricted locations (some closed out of hours), and this should, in my view, complement removal of GST from products. Putting a zero rate by retailers on products - as the Co-Op CEO has mentioned - is not complicated. Electronic stock systems are designed for use with the UK where there are a range of goods at different VAT rates, and also zero rated items. Most Jersey systems adapt UK software and use it for GST in place of VAT, so that really is a doddle.

Unless there is some mechanism - maybe via LoveJersey - for reporting when supplies run out of locations, and if there are locations readily available at weekends, bank holidays, and not just 9-5 (bearing in mind that some public toilets, if used, are often locked in the evenings, and others are regularly vandalised), then I really think it the "free products" will be a cosmetic plaster over a gaping wound, something that looks good on paper but is in practice not nearly as effective as it suggests. It is, to use your own expression, a blunt method of helping people.

An alternative, of course, would be a voucher system, whereby vouchers can be redeemed in shops, and individuals can have an allocation per month. Something like that was done in the past with gluten free products.

In the meantime, here is how the politicians voted.

The Minister for Treasury and Resources, Deputy Ian Gorst, proposed to rescind the States decision to exempt GST from menstrual sanitary products & continue to implement a scheme by the Council of Ministers to provide free products to those who need them.

The States Assembly voted to APPROVE Deputy Gorst's proposition, with 25 votes for, 21 votes against and 0 abstentions.

For, i.e, retaining a tampon tax. (including 14 women)

Deputy Steve Ahier For (Pour)
Deputy Rose Binet For (Pour)
Deputy Tom Binet For (Pour)
Deputy Alex Curtis For (Pour)
Deputy Louise Doublet For (Pour)
Deputy Malcolm Ferey For (Pour)
Deputy Inna Gardiner For (Pour)
Deputy Ian Gorst For (Pour)
Deputy Andy Howell For (Pour)
Connétable Mike Jackson For (Pour)
Connétable Andy Jehan For (Pour)
Deputy Hilary Jeune For (Pour)
Deputy Carolyn Labey For (Pour)
Connétable Philip Le Sueur For (Pour)
Connétable Deidre Mezbourian For (Pour)
Deputy Helen Miles For (Pour)
Deputy Elaine Millar For (Pour)
Deputy Kristina Moore For (Pour)
Deputy Kirsten Morel For (Pour)
Deputy Jonathan Renouf For (Pour)
Deputy Moz Scott For (Pour)
Deputy Lucy Stephenson For (Pour)
Deputy Barbara Ward For (Pour)
Deputy David Warr For (Pour)
Deputy Karen Wilson For (Pour)


And against rescinding the proposition to remove GST - i.e. to go ahead with scrapping the "tampon tax" (including 7 women):


Deputy Carina Alves Against (Contre)
Deputy Max Andrews Against (Contre)
Deputy Tom Coles Against (Contre)
Connétable Simon Crowcroft Against (Contre)
Deputy Catherine Curtis Against (Contre)
Deputy Lyndon Farnham Against (Contre)
Deputy Lyndsay Feltham Against (Contre)
Connétable Richard Honeycombe Against (Contre)
Connétable David Johnson Against (Contre)
Deputy Raluca Kovacs Against (Contre)
Connétable Mark Labey Against (Contre)
Deputy Mary Le Hegarat Against (Contre)
Connétable Kevin Lewis Against (Contre)
Deputy Stephen Luce Against (Contre)
Deputy Sam Mézec Against (Contre)
Deputy Beatriz Porée Against (Contre)
Connétable Karen Shenton-Stone Against (Contre)
Deputy Geoffrey Southern Against (Contre)
Deputy Montfort Tadier Against (Contre)
Connétable Marcus Troy Against (Contre)
Deputy Robert Ward Against (Contre)

Deputy Sir Philip Bailhache Ill
Deputy Philip Ozouf Ill
Connétable Richard Vibert En défaut

Addendum:

One of my correspondence says:

Like you I am cross and disappointed; the ‘free’ period products aren’t really addressing the need and I’m not sure it has been thought through .

What is the level of provision? Is it expected that someone will only use what they need for a change at that time or is there provision for them to take enough for the duration of their period?

Surely there is no expectation that they will visit public toilets etc daily to obtain supplies? That just isn’t practicable and is demeaning.

The issue of quality and choice must also be addressed as a matter of urgency.

Finally, I believe that the basis for rescinding this proposition was that U.K. research indication that the reduced cost of tax exemption was often not passed on by retailers who simply increased their profit margins. It’s somewhat disturbing that the Government seems to be implying that they would prefer to pocket the tax than give local retailers the benefit of the doubt.

Either way, those experiencing period poverty are being badly let down. I’m appalled.