Debate on bills for GEC deal put back after queries raised
By Gitanjali Singh
Debate on two key bills to facilitate the privatisation of the power company had to be put off yesterday because Prime Minister Sam Hinds was not available to answer queries and allay concerns raised by parliamentary parties. Hinds, who is performing the duties of President, could not attend parliament and may not be able to do so next Thursday either, but he is expected to meet the parties before then to discuss their concerns. PNC Leader, Desmond Hoyte, in a letter to Leader of the House for Government's Business, Reepu Daman Persaud, said that a debate of the bills yesterday would not be meaningful or productive unless the subject minister, Hinds, participated. The letter, on behalf of the opposition, was read by Persaud to parliament. Hoyte described the Public Utilities Commission Bill of 1999 and the Electricity Sector Reform Bill (ESRB) of 1999 as complex and very important bills on which the opposition parties have many concerns. He suggested that the debate be put off until Hinds can be present in parliament and expressed displeasure at the manner in which a very important state entity was being privatised. Persaud informed the House that Hinds may not be available next Thursday but said the second readings of both bills would be proceeded with then and the opposition parties would be given an opportunity to meet Hinds and a team to discuss all of their concerns before that date. He contends that many of the criticisms are based on a lack of knowledge and said the dialogue will take place to ensure transparency in the interest of the nation. Hoyte told Stabroek News afterwards that the government has proceeded with the privatisation of the Guyana Electricity Corporation (GEC) as if the social partners did not matter. He said the government never took anyone into its confidence, certainly not the opposition political parties and contended there was much secrecy in the government's approach to this issue. And in the midst of all of this, Hoyte said, the government comes with two major pieces of legislation which are basically rewrites of the Electricity Sector Act and the Public Utilities Corporation Act, both of which are designed to accommodate the privatisation of GEC. "Then they come to us and say would you support this legislation? How can we support this legislation to facilitate a deal that we know nothing about?" Hoyte asked. He said the PNC's Chief Whip, Dunstan Barrow, asked for a copy of the agreement but was told that there was no agreement as none had been signed and what was available was the government's position paper. As to the summary sheet of the basic details of the transaction, Hoyte said the PNC only got a copy two days ago. The parties had copies of the bills for their comments since March. "How can you comment? You are presenting a Bill which is largely specific to an agreement. You can't really understand the Bill unless you see the agreement and understand the agreement. And that has been our problem," Hoyte stated. He said a summary was no substitute for an agreement, as there were many questions raised and clarifications which had to be sought. "Generally there are provisions there [in the bills] which disturb us profoundly," the PNC leader stated. He pointed to a certain clause of a provision which supersedes any law and contended that this was odd, undesirable and unacceptable. He also mentioned the many obligations of consumers in the ESRB, but said that there was no mention of any obligation by the company to customers. Noting the concerns of the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) on the legislative changes, Hoyte contended that the PUC will be left to do arithmetic; adding and subtracting as a formula guarantees the privatised entities increases in tariffs. He also mentioned the provision catering for all GEC employees' transferral to the privatised entity, which will be a new company, without workers being given an option out. "There are technical matters where we feel that the law is not in the best interest of the people of this country. And there are some things not in the Bill; like the financing arrangement, which we are not clear about. In the absence of the agreement, even a draft of it, we are unclear as to what is happening," Hoyte stated. And now that Hinds will be meeting the parties to answer their concerns, something which Hoyte felt should have been done at the beginning rather than at the end of the process, the PNC leader is not clear how far the process will go. Hoyte said all of this would not have happened if the government had levelled with the parties from day one, acknowledging that the opposition understood that some things about negotiations could not be made public. He said the PNC had no problem with the consortium negotiating to take over GEC's management and be an equity partner or with its track record. The concern is whether Guyanese are getting the best possible deal. Dr Rupert Roopnaraine of the Alliance for Guyana and Manzoor Nadir of The United Force shared Hoyte's sentiments. Dr Roopnaraine said he felt that the complexity of the Bill required the attention of a select committee, but added that he hoped the discussion with Hinds would clarify many of the issues. Nadir said that while Hinds did attempt to engage the opposition in amending the legislation in March, the Privatisation Unit was unwilling to engage in discussing the deal with the opposition. Nadir expressed concern over the PUC Bill in particular, contending that the PUC should regulate prices and set the parameters for any monopoly's operation given the difficulty in having more than one utility company in any area; power, telecommunications or roads. He has a problem with the ESRB having a formula for setting rates, which takes this out of the hands of the PUC. He also mentioned the radical increases in fines in that bill. "We have to deal with this situation very cautiously," Nadir stated. The government was hoping to privatise GEC before the end of this month. With this setback, the end of August would now seem a more realistic date; that is, if the bills are passed next Thursday.
|