The National Assembly last night took the decision to defer the second reading of the Procurement (Amendment) Bill for up to six months so as to give time for the parties to reach agreement on a number of points including the setting up of the Public Procurement Commission (PPC).
The Procurement (Amendment) Bill 2013 is meant to allow for Cabinet to retain its role in the procurement process by deleting a clause in the principal Act – the Procurement Act of 2003 which stipulates that Cabinet’s role in public procurement will fade away with the coming into existence of the PPC.
The National Assembly had on June 19, 2003 passed the Procurement Act and had included an amendment which sought to remove the role of Cabinet from the process. However of late the PPP/C said that there was no Cabinet approval for the insertion of the amendment which said that once the PPC came into being Cabinet’s role will fade away. That clause 54 (6) reads: “Cabinet’s involvement under this section shall cease upon the constitution of the Public Procurement Commis-sion.”
Government yesterday argued strongly that the current Bill will not take away the powers of the yet- to-be-established PPC, since the latter’s powers are enshrined in the Constitution. The opposition is bitterly opposed to the amendment. Yesterday’s debated lasted six hours before a decision was taken to suspend.
Speaking on the Bill he piloted to first reading last week, Minister of Finance Dr. Ashni Singh said that during the course of the debate on the principal Bill in 2003, a sub clause was proposed and this was accepted by the House and recorded as part of the Bill which was then passed.
He said that the two clauses in the Act of 2003 present a conflict. “By which are we to be guided? Both are subsections of a statute…The Procurement Act,” he said.
The Minister said that prior to 2003 the Cabinet had not a no objection for contracts over a prescribed amount but powers of outright approval of contracts.
The Minister said that in the days of the PNC administration there were no public advertisements inviting bids for contracts. He then challenged members of the Opposition to show a newspaper from that era with bid advertisements displayed.
The Minister insisted that the Procurement (Amendment) Bill does not hinder the functions of the PPC as envisaged by the Constitution. He said too that international financial institutions such as the IDB, the World Bank and the European Union all have no-objection provisions for the contracts that they finance.
“There can be no responsibility without participation,” he said. He stated that the Government cannot be asked to be responsible for a process for which they have no oversight and for which they will be held accountable.
“We all acted in error by inserting section 54 (6) and I urge we pass the Bill,” the Minister said.
Leading the charge for the Opposition, APNU Member of Parliament Carl Greenidge said that Government had never intended to establish the PPC.
He said that the establishment of the PPC would not guarantee against the manipulation that now takes place.
He said that the Minister of Finance was telling `Nancy’ stories when he spoke of contradictions in the current Act.
Greenidge said that senior members of the Cabinet at the time approved the measure during the 2003 debate. “The fact of the matter is that it is there and that is all that matters, “ said Greenidge.
He said that if Government wants to embrace the practices of the international financial institutions then they must embrace the criticisms of those very institutions. He said that presently the Minister could make appointments to the Tender Board without any oversight.
He said that the failure of the Tender Board to respect the rule for the award of contracts led to Guyana receiving poor rankings by international bodies.
“Procurement is at the heart of corruption and that is why Guyana ranks so poorly,” he said. “There is no merit in the case being made and I urge that this proposal be struck down,” said Greenidge.
Speaking on the Government’s side, Minister of Housing and Water Irfaan Ali said that the Government was not denying that the clause was in in the Act. “But we are saying that it flies in the face of the Constitution,” he said.
He said that the Government has a fiduciary responsibility to the people of the country and because of this it needed to retain its role. “It is something that all of us overlooked,” he said, speaking of the insertion of the clause 10 years ago. He went on to cite Belize, Jamaica and Singapore as countries that have similar Cabinet powers in the procurement process. He accused the Opposition of not wanting to adhere to international standards and best practices.
Jaipaul Sharma of the APNU said that taking the subsection away from the principal Act will not do anything since the PPC could cancel out cabinet by raising the threshold above which Cabinet’s no-objection will be applicable. Sharma said too that the World Bank and other donor agencies raised objections to the Procurement Act of 2002 over the issue of Cabinet’s no-objection.
Alliance for Change Member of Parliament Khemraj Ramjattan said that the Government’s interpretation of the Constitution with regards to the PPC is flawed. He urged them to listen when the Constitution speaks. He further urged Government not to be carried away by what they perceive as being the reality of countries such as Belize and Jamaica and institutions such as the World Bank and the IDB.
Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall chided the Opposition for impugning the character of the staff of the procurement bodies in the country by saying that those bodies are corrupt. “The impression that the public gets is that the procurement process is one shrouded in secrecy. It is a figment of people’s imagination,” he said.
He argued that contrary to what the Opposition was contending, the PPC is there to monitor procurement and it is not part of the procurement process per se. “It is not part of the process…it is at the apex of it,” he contended. “The PPC becomes involved at the end of the process,” he said.
Following Dr. Singh’s wrap up on the Bill, Government MP Gail Teixeira rose to propose a motion to have the Bill deferred for up to six months to give the parties time to arrive at agreement on a number of issues. Greenidge stood up to say that while the APNU had no difficulty in going along with the Minister’s proposal, he wanted the assurance that the discussions that have already commenced in the Public Accounts Committee will not be jeopardised. He also asked the Bill undergo some amendments before it comes back to the House.
Teixeira said that Government was not prepared to give the Opposition any guarantees but that the door was open for discussion.
