~MP proposes 5% across-the-board travel cut to finance sports, $100 vehicle fee to tackle abandoned wrecks and tighter controls on scooters; warns unanswered budget questions will be returned in 2027.~
PHILIPSBURG:--- Member of Parliament Francisco Lacroes used the continuation of the 2026 National Budget debate Friday to put forward a sweeping package of proposals targeting Government travel spending, sports financing, abandoned vehicles, scooter regulation, business-license delays and violent crime, while warning ministers that questions left unanswered during this year's budget process will return in 2027.
Parliament resumed its handling of draft 2026 National Budget on August 21 after the Council of Ministers presented the individual ministry budgets the previous day. The budget legislation is Parliamentary Year 2025-2026-192, and the official Parliament record confirms that the draft establishes Sint Maarten's budget for fiscal year 2026.
Chairlady of Parliament Sarah Wescot-Williams recalled Friday that Parliament received the budget on June 11 and had already dealt with it during Central Committee meetings on June 26, June 29 and July 6. Government's answers to Parliament's final report were subsequently received on August 14.
Lacroes was the first MP to deliver a substantive contribution Friday morning, and immediately made clear that he was dissatisfied with the completeness of some of the answers received from Government.
Lacroes: Many of my Questions were not answered
Lacroes said a significant share of the approximately 2,500 questions submitted during the budget process came from him.
The transcript records him referring to “1,073 or 79” questions. Because that portion of the recording is unclear, the precise number should not be stated as fact without further confirmation.
What is clear is Lacroes' complaint: after reviewing Government's responses, he found that many of his questions had either not been answered or had not been answered sufficiently.
However, he did not demand that ministers attempt to answer all of them again Friday.
Instead, Lacroes announced that every minister will receive a letter containing his questions individually and warned that he intends to ask the same questions during the 2027 Budget process.
“If you didn't have the data then, please work on it, so we could do it for 2027.”
Lacroes said the questions cover ministry priorities, measurable results, oversight, revenue projections, economic assumptions, external shocks, fiscal risks, resilience, structural sustainability and lessons from previous budgets.
The warning puts ministries on notice that an inability to produce data in 2026 will not necessarily end the scrutiny.
5% Cut across Government Travel — Money would go to Sports
Lacroes' first major proposal is a direct attempt to move money already contained in the Budget.
He announced that he intends to introduce a budget amendment cutting travel expenditure by 5% across the board.
Lacroes rejected the argument that ministers and other Government officials should simply stop traveling, saying travel is necessary for officials to carry out certain aspects of their work.
But, he argued, Government can take a cut.
“Without travel, we can't do our jobs. But we could take a cut.”
The MP said his proposed amendment would impose a 5% reduction across travel allocations and redirect the resulting savings to ECYS, specifically sports.
The proposal would therefore force Parliament to make a clear budgetary choice: preserve all existing travel allocations or remove 5% and put that money into developing athletes and sporting organizations.
Lacroes also wants ECYS to organize a workshop to teach sports federations how to request Government funding, when to submit applications, and how to plan their funding needs.
His concern, he said, is that Sint Maarten should not again witness top athletes having to solicit donations from members of the public merely to travel abroad and represent the country.
“We do not want a situation again where one of our top athletes needs to go out on the road begging by supermarkets for donations to be able to go out there and represent our country.”
Lacroes said he hopes the amendment will receive full support from his parliamentary colleagues and the Council of Ministers.
$100 Vehicle Fee to Finance Removal of Abandoned Wrecks
Lacroes' second proposal tackles another highly visible problem: abandoned and wrecked vehicles scattered around Sint Maarten.
The MP said he has previously forwarded photographs of wrecks located in dangerous positions, including burned-out vehicles that can no longer move.
That led him to a basic question:
Who ultimately pays to remove them?
Lacroes acknowledged that a policy exists concerning vehicle wrecks but argued that the financial burden of removing abandoned vehicles nevertheless falls on the government.
His proposed solution is a $100 fee when a vehicle is purchased or transferred.
The reasoning is essentially to require vehicles to contribute in advance toward the cost of their eventual removal if they are later abandoned.
According to Lacroes, vehicles generally have a finite lifespan on the island. A fee collected during purchase or transfer could therefore provide money to pay for towing and disposal rather than repeatedly leaving Government to absorb the expense.
The proposal would amount to a new vehicle-related charge and would still require consideration of how the money would be collected, administered and protected for its intended purpose.
But Lacroes has now put a larger financing question before Parliament: if taxpayers are paying to remove privately owned vehicles abandoned on public roads and property, should vehicle owners be required to contribute directly to those costs?
Scooters should not leave port without insurance and plates
The third proposal announced by Lacroes focuses on scooters and road safety.
He linked the issue directly to the loss of young lives on Sint Maarten's roads.
“Our young men are dying. Our government is responsible. It is the responsibility of this Parliament to curb that.”
Lacroes wants tighter controls beginning before scooters enter circulation.
Under his proposal, a scooter entering through the port should only be released when it is insured, connected to a licensed driver, and has its number plate ready.
His argument is that the Government should prevent non-compliant scooters from entering traffic rather than attempting to correct the problem only after they are already on the road.
Lacroes also suggested holding discussions with the Collectivité on the French side, recognizing that traffic and vehicle movements cross the border.
Lacroes questions whether VROMI can execute ambitious plans with key vacancies
Lacroes then turned to VROMI Minister Patrice Gumbs Jr. and the ambitious programme presented by the ministry for 2026.
The MP said he had seen recruitment notices for positions including a finance project lead, landfill engineer consultant, senior waste manager and head of waste authority, waste and environmental management consultant, maintenance worker and legal adviser.
The number of key positions apparently still being recruited concerned him.
Lacroes said that after examining VROMI's budget and seeing the outstanding positions, he initially questioned how such an ambitious programme could be executed while important vacancies remained open.
He also noted that recruitment deadlines had apparently been extended, which he suggested could indicate insufficient applications.
However, Lacroes said he would give Gumbs the “benefit of the doubt” and expressed hope that the positions can be filled and the programme executed.
The concern goes directly to one of the central tests facing VROMI in 2026: announcing infrastructure projects is one thing; having the technical and administrative personnel to deliver them is another.
Praise for ECYS Budget Responses
Not all of Lacroes' remarks were critical.
He specifically praised Minister of ECYS Melissa Gumbs and her ministry for the quality of the answers provided to his questions.
Lacroes said that when he reviewed his budget questions, he was most satisfied with the responses from ECYS and publicly gave the department credit for taking the questions seriously and responding.
That praise was notable given that his opening remarks focused heavily on unanswered or inadequately answered questions elsewhere in the budget process.
Business-License Delays are Costing St. Maarten Money
Lacroes then shifted to one of his strongest economic arguments: Government bureaucracy surrounding business licenses may itself be costing the country revenue.
He gave the example of a license requested in February 2024 but not issued until 2026.
According to Lacroes, the government does not simply make an entrepreneur wait for two years in such circumstances.
During that period, Sint Maarten potentially loses business-license fees, managing-director fees, Turnover Tax, social premiums, pension contributions and other economic activity that could have been generated had the business been operating.
“Priority should be in getting business moving on this island.”
Lacroes called for greater coordination among ministries and specifically referenced the Receiver's Office, Tax Office and TEATT.
He argued that Government is wasting both time and resources because information is not sufficiently coordinated across departments.
The argument transforms business-license delays from merely an inconvenience for applicants into a broader fiscal issue.
If Government's own administrative delays prevent businesses from opening, then Government may simultaneously be delaying the very tax and premium revenues it needs to finance the Budget.
“I Want Guns Off the Road in St. Peters”
Lacroes' intervention became considerably more personal when he turned to conditions in St. Peters.
The MP told Parliament he wants his neighborhood cleaned up — both physically and in terms of crime.
“I want St. Peter's cleaned up. I want guns off the road in St. Peter's. I want young men in St. Peter's working. I don't want them on the block.”
Lacroes said he moved to St. Peters with pride but now finds it frustrating and embarrassing to drive through parts of the neighborhood.
He complained about dirty or sewage-filled water running in the streets and said he had previously asked residents to send him reports so he could forward them to the responsible authorities.
But the MP's concerns extended well beyond sanitation.
Lacroes told Justice Minister Nathalie Tackling that recent shootings had occurred in St. Peters and said he would accept an intensive police presence if that is what is required to restore safety.
“I don't care if police in St. Peter's every day, all day long.”
He said he does not want his sons growing up believing such conditions are normal or acceptable.
“We could do better. We want better,” Lacroes said.
Lacroes Blasts Handling of Violent Crime
The MP then delivered his sharpest criticism of the criminal-justice system.
Lacroes acknowledged that the Minister of Justice has limited authority over the Prosecutor's Office but said that would not stop him from speaking out.
“Whoever they are, ain't doing their job.”
He went even further, saying that if those responsible cannot perform their duties, outside assistance should be sought.
Lacroes was careful to distinguish the crimes he was talking about from what he described as “paper crimes.”
His focus, he said, was robberies and shootings.
He questioned a system in which persons involved in serious street crimes can return to the community while alternatives such as electronic monitoring or substantial community service might potentially be considered in other types of cases.
Lacroes argued that the perception among young men that someone can commit a shooting and be back on the streets within months creates a dangerous message.
“That don't make no sense,” he repeatedly told Parliament.
His remarks were a broad political criticism of the justice system. He did not identify individual criminal cases during this section of his speech, and his comments therefore should not be interpreted as establishing that any particular suspect or offender was improperly released.
VSA Asked to Continue Work on Food Additives
Lacroes also addressed newly appointed VSA Minister Claret Connor.
He said there were matters previously discussed with Connor's predecessor that he wants the new minister to continue pursuing, including concerns about food additives and chemicals permitted into Sint Maarten.
Lacroes linked his concerns to the number of people he believes are dying from cancer and said it was time for Government to pay attention to the issue.
He offered, together with MP Egbert Doran, to meet with Connor to explain the previous parliamentary discussions and stressed the importance of continuity between ministers.
No evidence was presented during Lacroes' remarks establishing that permitted food additives are responsible for cancer cases in Sint Maarten. His comments therefore amount to a call for further Government attention and investigation rather than an established medical conclusion.
“Are You Happy with the Direction the Country is Going?”
Near the end of his intervention, Lacroes stripped the debate down to one broad question for Government:
“Are you happy with the way and the direction the country is going? What is your plan to fix it?”
And if Government cannot fix the problems alone, he said, it should ask for help.
“There’s no shame in asking for help,” Lacroes said.
He then added:
“I won't even say the people are suffering. I will say we are suffering.”
Pension Contributions: Lacroes Demands Fairness
Lacroes closed by addressing another potentially contentious issue: pension contributions involving Members of Parliament.
He said he supports paying into a pension system and has no objection to the principle.
His objection concerns retroactivity.
“I love the idea concerning the pension, paying into the pension. I have no problem with that. But if we go retroactive, we will start from 10, 10, 10.”
Lacroes' reference was to October 10, 2010, the date Sint Maarten became a constituent country within the Kingdom.
His position is that if pension contribution changes are to be applied retroactively, they should be applied consistently rather than only to current officeholders.
He also pushed back against public perceptions about parliamentary compensation, saying he has never received US$10,000 and claiming a substantial portion of what MPs receive goes toward premiums.
Three Proposals Put Government on the Spot
Lacroes said his budget amendment and two motions would be formally presented during the second round after being circulated among his parliamentary colleagues and provided to the Council of Ministers for its opinion.
That means they remain proposals and should not be confused with measures Parliament has already approved.
Nevertheless, his intervention has placed three concrete initiatives into the heart of the 2026 Budget debate:
- a 5% across-the-board reduction in Government travel expenditure, with the savings redirected to sports;
- a $100 fee on the purchase or transfer of vehicles to help finance removal of abandoned wrecks; and
- tighter controls intended to prevent scooters from entering circulation without insurance, licensing and number plates.
Beyond those proposals, Lacroes' contribution exposed a broader theme now confronting the Council of Ministers as Parliament scrutinizes the draft Budget.
The debate is no longer simply about how much money each ministry has been allocated. MPs are beginning to ask whether ministries possess the staff to execute their plans, whether administrative delays are costing Government revenue, whether spending priorities can be shifted and whether the country's justice and enforcement systems are producing results residents can see.
Parliament's own records confirm that the 2026 Budget is being handled as National Ordinance Budget 2026, Parliamentary Year 2025-2026-192, following the Central Committee phase earlier this summer.
For Lacroes, there is also a clear warning extending beyond this year's debate.
Questions Government could not answer in 2026 are not going away.
He intends to ask them again in Budget 2027.
