Controversy continues to envelop the Sussex Street Drug Bond, as the Ministry of Public Health has budgeted $150M for the full year’s rent for 2017 when it was expected that the government would negotiate a lower rental and eventually exit the much criticised arrangement.
Questions were lobbed at Minister of Public Health, Dr George Norton on Tuesday night in the Supply Committee of the National Assembly on the drug bond after PPP/C Member of Parliament Dr Frank Anthony pointed out that rental of buildings in 2016 was budgeted at $18.2M as compared to the figure of $180M in 2017.
Anthony inquired as to what buildings were being rented for the “exorbitant” figure, to which Norton replied, “Mr. Chairman, one of the buildings would be that which is being used to house the Chief Medical Officer (CMO), the other is for another building in Queenstown and the third building for the drug storage bond.”
After Norton listed the buildings that were budgeted under the sum, Anthony inquired about the specific costs. Norton then pointed out that the building being rented for the CMO carries a monthly cost of $25,000, the building being rented in Queenstown carries a monthly cost of $1.5M and the third building, which was confirmed to be the drug bond in Sussex Street, carries a monthly cost of $12.5M.
PPP/C Member of Parliament, Anil Nandlall, who has been pressing the issue surrounding the bond, questioned whether the tenancy agreement for the Sussex Street bond had been shortened since this had been recommended by a cabinet subcommittee in August. In response, Norton pointed out that the rent that was budgeted is for the entire year of 2017, which comes up to a sum of $150M.
On a follow up, Anthony asked whether there are drugs or medical supplies being stored at the facility, to which Norton said, “I can give the honourable member a list of all that is stored in that bond that is not necessarily tablets but medical supplies.” Norton then pointed out that along with injections, 21,996 bottles of Cholorophan Expectorant were being stored in the bond. Because of the size of the list, he was not able to provide all of the information to the House.
Anthony also asked Norton what percentage of drugs and medical supplies are being stored at the Sussex Street Bond, to which he said he could not answer since the “percentage varies.” Norton’s answer prompted Anthony to ask whether any medical supplies are still being stored at the New GPC Bond to which Norton confirmed that drugs from the Georgetown Public Hospital are being stored at that bond.
Tablet
During Nandlall’s budget debate speech on December 8th he had charged that “not a single tablet” was being stored at the Sussex Street drug bond. Subsequently, the Minister of Public Health had called on Nandlall to withdraw his statement while claiming it was not true. The Speaker then asked Norton if medication was being stored at the bond, to which he had responded, “Yes, Mr Speaker.”
After exchanges from both sides of the House as to whether Norton’s claims were true, the Speaker made a decision to send one person from each side along with parliamentary staff to ascertain same.
Upon exploring the bond, boxes of condoms, lubricants, umbilical cord clamps and other equipment were found on the shelves.
However, PPP/C MP Irfaan Ali, who was selected by his side to go to the bond, had stated that his colleague, Nandlall had stated that “not even a tablet” was being stored in the bond and asked to see “at least one tablet”. Norton was unable to show any.
When the MPs returned to Parliament after the bond visit, another row began as the opposition claimed that they went to see whether drugs were being stored and the government side claimed that they went to see whether the bond was being used.
As the argument continued, the Speaker listened to the recording several times. He deferred a decision on the matter so that a transcript of the exchange could be obtained. The Speaker has not pronounced on the matter as yet.
Nandlall had explained that the fundamental issue surrounds public accountability and whether renting the bond was the best use of taxpayers’ money. “Is it prudent to spend ($12.5) million per month to rent a facility which we are now told will never store drugs and medication, since it is a secondary bond? Any building anywhere could’ve been rented to store equipment and the materials which are being stored there,” he asked.
Nandlall had also pointed out that the Cabinet Subcommittee, which was established to investigate the issue surrounding the bond, had recommended that the contract be terminated early. “…Obviously the contract has not yet been terminated and over $90 million would have already been paid in rent,” he pointed out.
That subcommittee had been convened after Norton had been found lying to Parliament in relation to the drug bond.
According to the subcommittee’s report, the lease should be revisited and strengthened and if there is a refusal by Linden Holding Inc, the landlord, government should give a year’s notice of a termination of the lease and build its own facilities in the intervening period. There has been no word on a lowering of the rental or whether notice of termination has been served.
“With respect to the rental sum of $12,500,000 it is the subcommittee’s considered opinion that the value should be re-assessed as it is likely that a similar facility could be obtained at a lower rate,” the report said.
It adds that the general terms of the lease “are not altogether unfavourable” to the Ministry of Public Health as the lessor is obligated under the agreement to maintain the facility at a standard that will meet national and international specifications for the storage of drugs and pharmaceuticals.
However, the subcommittee added that the agreement could be strengthened with more specific terms that address insurance and maintenance.
Linden Holding Inc is headed by PNCR supporter Larry Singh and questions were raised about what made him a suitable provider of the bond – he had not been in this business before – and how he came to know that government needed a bond.
The discovery of an almost empty bond on August 8th has cemented concerns that the rental of the bond was not necessary and was done to merely favour Singh.
The August 8th discovery has also deepened concerns about Norton’s credibility as a MP.
