There is no gainsaying the wisdom of the house lots programme instituted by the 1992 government of Dr Cheddi Jagan. It is one of the inestimable successes of his administration and the succeeding ones. It was at the same time both a common sense decision and one that was visionary. With the vast land space of the country and prime unused lands why indeed shouldn’t the state sell at a subsidized cost or bestow lands on its needier citizens for the construction of homes and the settlement of new areas? In its simplicity it exposed the moribund nature of the last years of PNC rule where aside from the radical Hoyte-led economic reforms to lay the basis for heady growth there were few plans for improving the day-to-day existence of ordinary people. As matter of fact, by 1992 there was no longer a Ministry of Housing, the slogan of Feed, Clothe and House and the goal of an ambitious housing drive having long died away.
As of this point upwards of 80,000 house lots have been distributed, according to the Government Information Agency (GINA), in Sophia, the East Coast, the West Demerara and all across the country. Thousands of young Guyanese have no doubt been helped to establish themselves with a roof over their heads as they contribute to growing the economy. There are also plans for further large distributions of land – by the end of next year, another 17,000 house lots are to be handed out – and a new energetic one-stop shop has been launched by the Minister of Housing Mr Irfaan Ali in several regions of the country to expedite the process. At the same time, no doubt inspired by the government’s housing drive, the New Building Society has lowered rates on mortgages so that the small man/woman can live the dream of owning his own home.
As heart-warming as all of this is, it is now time that the housing programme become more transparent so that all stakeholders can be aware of how it functions and the extent of its efficiency. Ideally, the Ministry or the Central Housing and Planning Authority (CH&PA) should issue an annual report card for the programme in much the same way a company might report on its financial performance. After all, the state is investing on behalf of its citizens, highly valuable land and associated development and infrastructural costs for which it must be accountable. Aside from the occasional GINA release in which Minister Ali or President Jagdeo might be quoted on the success of the distribution of the house lots there is little else in terms of hard facts, the cost to the people of the country and benchmarks for determining how successful the programme has been. Presumably some of this would be contained in the annual report of the ministry which is available much too late for any useful contemporaneous dissection to take place and rather disappointingly it doesn’t seem as if the Office of the Auditor General takes this particular issue very seriously. Considering what must be the enormous expenditure on the housing programme, the Ministry should have warranted more coverage than the three-quarters of a page that was reserved for it and the water sector in the Auditor General’s report on the 2007 public accounts of Guyana. And as if to emphasise the point of the need for greater transparency in the ministry and its associated agencies, the Auditor General’s report points out that the CH&PA was granted a subvention of $200M for 2007 but audit reporting for it was last done in 2003. It is currently being audited for 2004 to 2006. This is certainly not the kind of slippage in accounting that should prevail for a critical agency. The Auditor’s General’s report was left with no choice but to say that “Because of the current status of financial reporting for the CH&PA it could not be determined whether its subvention was properly expended. This was compounded by a failure on the part of the Ministry to have the financial statements of both entities laid in the National Assembly within the statutory period.”
Clearly there is a great need for detailed information on this programme. We can’t continue to subsist alone on the brilliance of the idea and the assurance of the goodwill that underpins it. Going back to the earliest days of its existence there have been question marks and those could only have multiplied over the period.
It would be helpful if the public could be supplied with the following information which the ministry should be in possession of.
● Who are the persons responsible for the awarding of house lots? Is there regional and community input in this process? Are there records of deliberations at these meetings?
● How many house lots have been distributed since 1992 and in which parts of the country?
● How many of these lots fell into the low, medium and high-income categories and how much money has been collected since 1992? How has this money been accounted for and has it been reinvested in the housing programme?
● How many of these lots were utilized by the original awardees to build houses? How many of these plots of land are still with their original owners?
● How many of the original holders have title to their lands?
● How many plots of land were repossessed because the holders were unable to build or did not qualify for them? In which areas did these repossessions occur and was there any means of appeal?
● How much money has been invested by the state in providing infrastructure for the various housing schemes where house lots were awarded and on what basis are decisions made on which schemes are supplied with such infrastructure?
● What is the minimum infrastructure to be installed in schemes?
● What are the current criteria for the distribution of house lots and how have these changed since 1992?
● How does the ministry notify the public that house lots are available in a particular area and that applications can be made?
● Do applicants who have been refused house lots have an avenue of appeal open to them?
These and many more questions should be answered by the Ministry to provide the populace with the sense that 17 years after the launch of this programme it has functioned in an evenhanded manner and has produced the intended results.
To obtain answers to these questions, Stabroek News has sought diligently over the last two months to nail down an interview with Minister Ali. Sadly, not only has he found a range of excuses not to grant the interview but he has provided interviews to other newspapers and media in the same period. That is not acceptable. If he isn’t interested in being interviewed by Stabroek News he should nevertheless supply the answers to the listed questions and any others which we may have.
