State Minister Joseph Harmon yesterday insisted that the Clerk of the National Assembly Sherlock Isaacs has given a full explanation for the $500,000 per month cap on housing rentals for ministers from out of town, while maintaining that it is the Parliament Office and not the executive that must deal with the issue.
Controversy erupted earlier this week after it was confirmed by Isaacs that houses were being rented for Minister within the Ministry of Natural Resources Simona Broomes and Minister within the Ministry of Communities Valerie Patterson at a maximum of $500,000 per month each. Broomes is originally from Bartica, while Patterson is originally from Linden. It has already been revealed that the rental costs for these out-of-town ministers are being paid by the Parliament Office but it remain unclear who made the decision to set $500,000 as the upper limit.
At the weekly post-Cabinet press briefing yesterday, Harmon was asked who made the decision to set the $500,000 cap and why the two ministers were not accommodated in the government’s housing complex, Echilibar Villas, located at Stone Avenue, Campbellville.
“I think that the Clerk of the National Assembly has given a wholesome answer to that question and I believe that the answer is all embracing,” Harmon said in response to the first part of the question.
He went on to state that Isaacs did say that the rentals were as a result of an administrative decision, which was part of the benefits given to ministers. While Isaacs had said that the rentals were an administrative decision, he did not reveal who made this decision and has since said that he will no longer be commenting publicly on the matter.
“So the question of how much or how high or low it never engaged Cabinet at our last meeting,” Harmon said, while adding that since it is a matter of public interest, it is being referred to Parliament because “such funds come from that budget and so that really is a matter for the National Assembly and for the Clerk of the National Assembly.”
When approached on the issue on Thursday, Finance Minister Winston Jordan refused to explain who approved the expenditure.
Harmon did not provide as explanation as to what was meant by an administrative decision and whether this refers to the Cabinet or Minister Jordan.
Speaking on the occupation of Echilibar Villas, Harmon said that when government took office in 2015, these flats were in “a rundown state” and therefore availability was an issue. He added that government has been spending huge amounts of money to rehabilitate these homes and once one is finished, a chosen government official is allowed to occupy it. “We have a huge amount of persons in government service who require government housing but we cannot provide it… even after all of those residences in Echilibar Villas would have been completed, we will still have a deficit for government officers to be accommodated based on their conditions of service and the contract of employment which they enjoy,” he said.
Stabroek News visited the location on Thursday and observed that at least four of the nearly 30 villas are unoccupied. Among those living there are the Minister of Indigenous Peoples’ Affairs and Vice President, Sydney Allicock; Minister within the Ministry of Public Infrastructure Annette Ferguson and Minister within the Ministry of Communities Dawn Hastings-Williams.
Isaacs, in a response to a letter from former Attorney General Anil Nandlall on Tuesday on the authority for the rental for Broomes and related matters, said that the rentals pertain only to ministers from out of town. Nandlall did not inquire about the arrangement in place for Patterson even though Isaacs had publicly said that she too is benefitting.
“I wish to refer to your letter in connection with rented living accommodation for Ms. Simona Broomes, M.P…It should be noted that Chapter 1:7 of the Laws of Guyana does not treat the rental of houses for use by ministers of Government. The rental of living accommodation for a minister is done by way of an administrative decision,” Isaacs wrote in response on Wednesday to Nandlall.
Isaacs further explained that the law only treats with the payment of salaries and allowances of ministers, members of the National Assembly and the holders of certain offices. Since the rental is not an allowance, it was dealt with administratively. He said that depending on the cost of the rent, approval of the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB) is also obtained.
“The rental of [a] house for a minister is not an allowance. Therefore, there is no statutory/constitutional provision or order authorizing same,” Isaacs stated.
Nandlall subsequently responded to Isaacs’ letter on Wednesday, seeking additional answers on the decision maker on the $500,000 rental and asked Isaacs to state why Broomes, who is not a senior minister, was afforded this level of accommodation. “You contend that the rental of living accommodation for a Minister is done by way of an ‘administrative decision.’ …please indicate who made the ‘administrative decision’ to rent at a rate of $500,000 GYD per month? What factors were taken into account in determining such a rate of rental of living accommodation for a Junior Minister, having regard to the fact that the law provides only $25,000 GYD as a housing allowance for the Prime Minister, the Attorney General and senior Ministers of the Government?” Nandlall asked.
Noting that Isaacs pointed to approval from the NPTAB, he also questioned where were the documents to support the explanation. “What process of competitive procurement was embarked upon, if any, in respect of this transaction? …In your letter, you indicated that depending upon the cost of the rent, the approval of the NPTAB is obtained. In this regard, I would be grateful if you can provide me with a copy of the rental contracts, if any, which the NPTAB approved,” Nandlall wrote.
His letter has received no response beyond an acknowledgment of receipt.
