The government on Thursday faced scrutiny over its disclosures in requests for funds as the opposition used its majority to delay approval for some supplementary expenditure.
Although Finance Minister Dr Ashni Singh argued that the requests were in order, after some seven hours of debate, APNU and AFC used their combined majority to vote against four items in Financial Paper 7/2011 and caused Financial Paper 8/2011 to be deferred until March 15 for consideration.
Among the items, opposition speakers baulked at expenditure that exceeded budgeted funds for last year’s National Awards, while saying that enough time should have been available for the government to have had included the items in the 2011 National Budget.
APNU shadow finance minister Carl Greenidge accused the government of breaching Section 41 (3) of the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act (FMAA) by not providing sufficient details about the nature of the items for which requests for financing were made. On this basis, he asked that consideration of Financial Paper 8/2011 be deferred, amended and returned to the House for consideration and subsequent approval.
With the leave of Deputy Speaker Debra Backer, who presided over the sitting, Singh, however, said that there was no relevance in Greenidge’s argument. “Section 41 of the FMAA speaks of the Contingencies Fund and its replenishment. It does not address supplementary estimates dealing with specific inflows. The section cited is not relevant,” Dr. Singh said. “We have asked merely for approval of a specific allocation. There is no basis for requesting the resubmission [of Financial Paper 8, 2011],” he added.
He explained that there are usually two types of financial papers brought to the Parliament—one type dealing with withdrawals from the Contingencies Fund and its replenishment; and the other with inflows from overseas sources, which were not part of the Contingencies Fund. He described the latter as straight supplementaries.
Singh explained that when a donor has disbursed in excess of what is anticipated for a particular project, the government has to come to the National Assembly with a financial paper. Dr. Singh explained that this is the reason that financial papers are presented in pairs. “This is the norm,” he said.
Greenidge, however, referred the Minister to Section 21 of the FMAA, saying it stipulates that more information is needed on the financial paper as regards the amounts sought. For the four items listed the remarks column only had “provision of additional inflows.” He said, “The section to which I referred is the section that covers the format [for the presentation of financial papers].”
AFC MPs Khemraj Ramjattan and Moses Nagamootoo both focused their attention on the issue of transparency. Ramjattan, in commenting on the Motion to defer the consideration of the financial paper, said statute must govern and not convention. “We are asking to let us have that which is transparent,” he said. Nagamootoo, meanwhile, called the financial paper an attempt to hoodwink the people of Guyana.
In response to the opposition speakers, Singh said that the sections that they referred to were irrelevant. Singling out Greenidge, he added that he should not be speaking about transparency since for the years that he was the Minister of Finance under the PNC Government no Auditor General reports were submitted. On hearing this, Greenidge rose on a point of order to say that he had a list before him, which said that from 1983 to 1991, the reports of the Auditor General were submitted. He requested that Singh withdraw the offending statement. On hearing this, the Deputy Speaker then asked the Minister whether he would reconsider his statement. The Minister then amended his accusation to Greenidge to say that during the years he was Finance Minister, the Auditor General’s reports were not submitted on a timely basis.
Singh accused the opposition of taking an “obstructive stance” in what he called a simple matter, adding that it smacked of political posturing and grandstanding to score cheap political points.
Explanations
Earlier, the Committee of Supply, considering Financial Paper 7/2011, heard various explanations from the government to the questions about a number of the items.
Keith Scott of APNU wanted to know what the justification was for 125 percent increase in the allocation for the investiture ceremony and other events hosted by the state. The original voted provision in the 2011 budget was $8.6 million and the amount sought in the financial paper was $25.5 million. Minister within the Ministry of Finance Juan Edghill said that National Awards had not been given out for the past five years. He said that for last year, there were 131 awardees.
Amna Ally of APNU wanted to know the details of the expenditure associated with the hosting of the National Awards. To this, Edghill said that the expenditure was just over $10 million.
Ramjattan wanted to know at what point during the year it was decided that the holding of the awards was urgent. To this, Edghill said that the planning of the event commenced since 2010.
Ramjattan also wanted to know to whom were the amounts paid.
Greenidge noted that in September 2011, the Minister submitted a request from the Contingencies Fund for the item. Greenidge said if the Minister knew that this sum would not have been sufficient then he had a duty to inform the House. At this point, Edghill disclosed that in addition to the investiture ceremony barely exceeding $10 million, the swearing in of the new President and Cabinet $5 million, costs associated with cricket and football $1.8 million and donations to a number of organizations came up to $8 million.
Greenidge, however, maintained that the Minister’s answers were not satisfactory, since the issue of concern is whether the events could not have been foreseen.
This amount of $25.5 million was not passed as part of Financial Paper 7/2011 as the opposition voted against it.
An amount of $6.5 million to provide for the payment of overtime to workers of the General Register Office of the Ministry of Home Affairs was also voted against by the opposition. Speaking on the item in addressing concerns of the opposition, Minister of Home Affairs Clement Rohee said that the persons had to work overtime during the second Claims and Objections period of the 2011 elections to ensure that there were source documents processed so that persons could be eligible to vote.
Asked when during the year the decision was made to pay the overtime for the additional work, Finance Minister Singh said that this decision was made upon the computation of the monies needed and a request by the Minister of Home Affairs.
A request for $18.4 million for the provision of security equipment under the Office of the President never saw the light of day. Speaking on the acquisition of the equipment, Edghill said that it would not be used for spying but would be placed in strategic and sensitive areas.
Pressed as to which agency the equipment was bought from, the Minister disclosed that this company was MMC. However, although he hinted that the procurement could have been a single souring, he said that the standard process was followed in procuring the equipment.
The opposition also voted against a sum of $29.1 million for a specialty hospital, for which the sum of $150 million had already been allocated in the 2011 budget.
During the deliberations of the Committee of Supply, Singh said that the $150 million that had been originally voted had not been spent. He explained that at the time of the preparation of the 2011 budget it was not clear how much funding the Government of Guyana would have been getting from the Government of India to finance the project.
“At the time that the budget came to Parliament the project was at an early stage. So we could not know what it would cost. We were assured that the approval would be forthcoming by the end of the year [2011],” he said. “What we did not have were the details…the design had not been concluded,” Singh said. He made it clear that while the Indian government was providing the finances for the project, this did not include site preparation.
Greenidge of APNU asked whether it was not normal for a project design to be considered before allocating monies for it in the budget. “The issue is why we are asking for additional expenditure that was not a part of the project?” he asked.
