In a historic first, the National Assembly yesterday approved budget proposals of some constitutional agencies outside of the main budget presentation but the process was held up for hours as the two sides squabbled over who was responsible for answering questions on the Audit Office and Finance Minister Winston Jordan also faced heat for “cutting” figures for several agencies.
On a number of occasions, government used its majority to approve the sums recommended by Jordan which were less than the sums proposed by the agencies. The budget estimates for the 16 constitutional agencies, following their approval in the House’s Committee of Supply, will be included in the national budget when it is presented and will be made law with the passage of the Appropriations Act.
The approval of the agencies’ budget prior to their inclusion in the Appropriations Act is made possible under the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act (FMAA).
The FMAA is meant to give effect to Article 222 A of the Constitution with regard to the annual budget appropriation for constitutional agencies with a view to giving them financial autonomy. It establishes the financial independence of the constitutional entities to specifically allow for lump sum payments to be made to them and to free them from the automatic obligations of budgetary agencies and the attendant discretionary powers exercised by the Minister of Finance.
The agencies considered yesterday were the Audit Office of Guyana, the Chamber of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Constitutional Office of the Leader of the Opposition, the Ethnic Relations Commission, the Guyana Elections Commission, the Human Rights Commission, the Indigenous Peoples Commission, the Judicial Service Commission, the Office of the Ombudsman, the Rights of the Child Commission, the Public/Police Service Commission, the Public Service Appellate Tribunal, the Supreme Court of Judicature, the Teaching Service Commission and the Women and Gender Equality Commission. Up to press time early this morning, the considerations were ongoing.
Parliament Office
An amendment to the FMAA passed yesterday, also saw Parliament Office being listed among the Constitutional agencies. Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo moved for the suspension of the Standing Orders to allow the bill to pass through all its stages at yesterday’s sitting. While there was no debate on that bill, PPP/C Chief Whip Gail Teixeira criticised the government for the number of times it has suspended the Standing Orders. She said it was the eighth time that the Standing Orders were suspended by the government.
The budget proposals for GECOM, the Judicial Service Commission, and the Office of the Ombudsman in the sums of $3.5 billion, $10 million and $44.7 million respectively, were approved without amendment.
Jordan proposed reductions for the other agencies and the government used its majority to approve the reduced sums. It was noted, however, that the sums are increases over those approved last year.
The DPP Chambers’ proposed budget of $234.9 million was reduced to $160 million. House Speaker Barton Scotland proposed that the budgets for the Office of the Leader of the Opposition and Parliament Office be considered together and this was agreed. The sum budgeted for the Office of the Leader of the Opposition was $20 million while for Parliament Office it was $1.3 billion for an overall total of $1.4 billion. Jordan reduced the sum to $1.3 billion.
The proposed budget for the Audit Office was $790 million but this was reduced to $714 million by Jordan and government used its majority to approve the sum.
The consideration of the proposed budgets for the agencies was held up for hours as the both sides clashed over who should answer any questions which may arise in the consideration of the agency.
Chairman of parliament’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC) Irfaan Ali argued that it was he who should be answering any questions in relation to the Audit Office with the government side and even House Speaker Barton Scotland appearing unsure of how to proceed and acknowledged they were in “uncharted” waters.
Scotland said that the Act enjoins that the public officer responsible for managing the affairs of an agency or such other person designated shall submit budget proposals to the Clerk of the National Assembly copied to the Speaker and the Minister of Finance who should ensure that those proposals are submitted as presented. He said it also says that in the case of the Audit Office, the budget shall be submitted to parliament through the chairperson of the PAC.
“In the Speaker’s estimation, it does not follow inevitably from this that the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee has the remit or the obligation to answer questions relating to the Audit Office. I would think that the relevant minister who in this case, I’m advised may be the Minister (of State Joseph) Harmon may be the person to answer questions which may arise,” Scotland said.
However, Ali argued that the Audit Office is an independent office under the purview of the PAC and its budget is presented to the National Assembly by the Chairperson of the PAC. It follows that the chair should have some responsibility in defending the budget of the Audit Office, he said.
“The recommendation for the audit office budget does not go through the Minister of Finance or any other minister sir, it comes through the chairman of the PAC who should have the opportunity to defend it,” Ali declared. He was supported by other speakers from the opposition.
The government advanced several arguments otherwise.
Minister of Natural Resources Raphael Trotman argued that it is a time-honoured precept that in the Westminster parliamentary system, “any bill that creates a charge on the Consolidated Fund can only come from the Executive.” He said even if it is introduced through the chair of the PAC, only a minister representing the Executive may introduce for passage, an appropriations bill.
“It is…a money bill and can only come through the executive,” he argued.
However, PPP/C parliamentarian Juan Edghill argued that they were not passing an Appropriation bill but were approving proposals which will be incorporated into the Appropriations bill subsequently.
Both Minister of Public Security Khemraj Ramjattan and Attorney-General Basil Williams argued that since it was a “money bill,” it can only come from the government side.
Trotman subsequently cited Articles 217 and 218 of the Constitution then argued that in other jurisdictions where there is the exact constitutional provisions such as in India and the UK “there is no debate.”
Filtering
“The practice is that the estimates are laid and presented for review…but no questions are asked because Sir, the filtering process would have already taken place within the Public Accounts Committee. That is the practice around the world,” he said.
“So Sir we don’t have to invent any new procedures. The Constitution is clear and must be followed and the practice within the Westminster system is that there is no debate because Sir these matters are dealt with in the Public Accounts Committee so when it comes here yes there is the formality of a review presentation but no questions are asked,” he reiterated.
Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo while acknowledging that “we are here in uncharted waters,” denied that the government side was trying to impose a procedure. He said government is not trying to tinker with a procedure as there is no procedure that exists that clearly guides the House “and since there is no procedure that guides the House one cannot interject that there is a motive if the Minister of State essays to give explanation as guided by the Auditor General on matters concerning the estimate that had reached this House.”
“These submissions ought not to be subjected to debate and they should be put to the Assembly for the Assembly’s approval because the mere question and interrogation…that they had gone through the Public Accounts Committee and had been submitted here in accordance with some procedure articulated by the Constitution, we ought to be guided by what procedures were articulated by the Constitution that they placed before the parliament and that they be approved as a lump sum,” the Prime Minister declared.
With the exchanges in the House growing louder which even saw Leader of the Opposition Bharrat Jagdeo referring to Nagamootoo’s statements as “drivel,” the House was suspended for the break.
It took a two hours long closed-door meeting between both sides and the Speaker to resolve the matter. “The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee is the appropriate officer to answer any questions which may arise” in relation to the Audit Office, Scotland announced upon the resumption of the sitting.
He emphasised that the members are trying to create structures to accommodate the constitutional agencies so there may be some halting or bold steps and the process may not go smoothly all the time.
The budget of the Audit Office was then considered. In moving to slash the $790 million proposed budget to $714 million, Jordan said that his recommendation is based on government’s preliminary estimates of revenue and expenditure for 2016. He advanced similar reasons for the cutting of some of the other budget proposals even as government members said the sums recommended and approved were increases over last year’s budget provisions.
