“I’d like our people to see that things are maturing in Guyana step-by-step,” said Prime Minister Samuel Hinds. The oft-deferred Leader of the Opposition (Benefits and Other Facilities) Bill 2009 was passed with the full support of the House though current Opposition Leader Robert Corbin was absent. It is timely and also a requirement of the constitution that recognition be made of the post of leader of the opposition, said Hinds. “This should be seen as a step in the maturing of our governance and parliamentary arrangements in Guyana,” he added.
The Bill seeks to provide certain facilities and services to the leader of the opposition at the expense of the state. According to the Bill, the holder of the office shall be entitled at government expense to rent-free furnished office accommodation; medical attention, including medical treatment or reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by him for himself and the dependent members of his family; full-time security service at his official place of residence and at his office to be provided by the Guyana Police Force; the services of a research assistant, an executive assistant/secretary, a clerical/office assistant, a chauffeur, a personal security officer, a gardener and two domestic servants; and salary, vacation allowance and parliamentary benefits equivalent to those of a cabinet minister.
The Bill, which has been deferred several times since being laid in the House last year, was piloted through its final reading by Finance Minister Dr Ashni Singh, who said it had its origins in two strands of development; namely, the engagements between the President and the Opposition leader and more particularly, as it related to the establishment of the constitutional office of the Leader of the Opposition. There were extensive engagements by both leaders and their emissaries and certain understandings relating to the establishment of the office and its resourcing were reached, he said.
Singh recalled that when the Bill was brought before the Assembly, the opposition tabled some amendments that sought to add to the benefits provided for in the Bill. He tabled amendments yesterday which he said reflected the essence of what was being sought by the opposition. These include greater articulation of the staff to be provided.
PNCR MP Lance Carberry said the party only asked that the benefits in the Bill accurately reflect what is being received. “These are benefits being received by the Leader of the Opposition. These are not new benefits. The PNC has never on the basis of the tabled bill… asked for benefits to be extended,” he said. According to Carberry, there is a lot of misinformation around “which is not helpful.” He said the negotiations for these benefits were undertaken in good faith and agreed in good faith and it is a little surprising that it began to creep into the public domain that the opposition is seeking additional benefits. He emphasised that the benefits were agreed to in the very early stages of the negotiations between the Office of the President and the PNCR. He said they support the amendments tabled by Singh, but it must be made clear that these do not represent any new benefits but represent those already being received by the leader of the opposition.
Carberry also referred to an article in yesterday’s edition of the Kaieteur News and said following the publishing of a similar story in that newspaper last year, he had written the editor about it but his letter was not acknowledged or published.
Having spoken to a Kaieteur News reporter on Wednesday, Carberry said he was surprised that yesterday’s article again conveys the impression that the opposition is somehow using the opportunity to seek new benefits for the leader of the opposition. “That is totally untrue and I believe that they owe us an apology,” he told the Assembly. The party has always advocated that the benefits and facilities for all constitutional office holders be documented in law, Carberry continued.
Meanwhile, AFC leader Raphael Trotman pointed out that there were no caps on spending in the Bill. “We are concerned that there are no caps in the same way that we argued when the Bill that was brought in this house for the benefits of former presidents was hotly debated and we called on caps and ceilings to be placed on spending because, Mr Speaker, after all, ours is not an extravagant economy that can afford extravagant spending,” he said. Another concern is that with the office of the opposition leader being a constitutional one, it is meant to take care of all of the opposition, but in all the engagements, none of the other opposition parties were asked their opinion, he said.
He said the AFC believes that there should be transparency in terms of salaries, benefits, and emoluments regarding the holders of constitutional offices. “We are aware Mr Speaker and I’m subject to correction, that some payments are still being made out of the Office of the President to fulfil some of these requirements when they should be coming from the Parliament, and I hope that they are not another set of benefits which are paid from OP,” said Trotman.
He expressed hope that the Bill is a continuation of the process that leads to greater transparency and accountability, and that not too far from now, caps and ceilings on some of this spending is put in place. There should also be an affixed office of the leader of the opposition to which all opposition parties can have access from time to time, he added.
Wrapping up the debate, Singh said Carberry’s lamentation of the “additionality of benefits” struck a “particular note” recalling that in the debate on the Former Presidents Benefits Bill, the government side was “similarly at pains” to emphasise that former presidents were already in receipt of certain benefits by custom and practice. The move towards enshrining in statute the benefits provided to constitutional office holders, is a position embraced by the administration, he said. On the matter of the expenditure to be incurred in reference to caps, the provision for the office of the opposition leader is declared in the National Estimates and is a matter of public record, he said.
