The Government yesterday used its parliamentary majority to pass the Procurement Bill 2003 despite the opposition’s concerns about the tender process still being in the hands of the executive and their calls for it to be referred to a select committee.
The rejection of the proposal for the bill to go before a select committee caused the PNCR MPs and the GAP/WPA parliamentarian Sheila Holder, who had also called for the bill to be referred to a select committee, to walk out of the chamber before the third reading. ROAR’s Ravi Dev and GAP/WPA’s Shirley Melville remained through the six-hour debate even though they both had called for it to be referred to a select committee when they spoke.
At the committee stage a number of amendments proposed by the government were passed including an amendment to clause 16(3) to allow the seven-member board of the National Procurement and Tender Administration to be comprised of not more than five persons from the Public Service and not more than three persons from the private sector, after consultations with their representative organisations, all of whom are to be appointed by the Minister of Finance. The substituted clause had provided for the Minister to appoint five members from the Public Service and two from the private sector and did not provide for consultation with their representative organisations.
Another amendment provided for the Cabinet’s involvement under section 54 to cease upon the constitution of the Public Procurement Commission except in relation to those matters referred to in subsection (1), which are pending. Subsection (1) provides for the Cabinet to have the right to review all procurements valued over $15M.
Finance Minister, Saisnarine Kowlessar, who piloted the bill through its Second and Third Readings, said the bill sought to advance the procurement process which had come a far away from the inception of the present administration, arguing when there was no tendering process to one where there was now competition among 20-25 contractors and that this had led to a lowering of prices.
He said schools, which prior to 1992 cost about US$2M under the PEIP programme, were reduced to about US$60,000 under the present administration. He added that in 1992 there had also been no transparent process for the disposal of assets contending that these were never advertised as was done today.
And addressing concerns about what is seen as the usurpation of the role of the Public Procurement Commis-sion (PPC) created by recent amendments to the constitution, Kowlessar assured the parliamentary opposition that there was no intention to subvert the establishment of the PPC as there were provisions for the Board of the National Procurement and Tender Administration to cease to exercise those functions that they exercised on the PPC’s behalf before its constitution.
But PNCR front-bencher Winston Murray, asserted that there was a widespread perception that the public procurement system was riddled with corruption at very high levels and that subjective preferences were exercised in many if not most of the awards made under the present system.
Asserting that the public procurement system was under serious question, Murray quoted from a 1999 World Bank report, which alleged that the Central Tender Board was organisationally weak and inefficient and its functions ill-defined and that its structure did not allow for its effective functioning. He also referred to another report from the same organisation which said that the government could not be relied on to act predictably or equitably in following its own rules thus making it difficult to do business in Guyana.
Turning to the provisions of the bill, Murray said that it did not support fully and give effect to the constitutional foundations underpinning the procurement system.
Referring to the hierarchy of boards starting at the national level and going down to the regional and district levels, Murray said that these institutions already existed but unfortunately were part of the problems the country faced.
He criticised the powers being vested in the minister, which in the previous bill being repealed were vested in the President, to appoint members at the national level; and the role of the national board appointed by him having the authority to appoint the majority of the members of the five-member boards at the regional and district levels.
Murray criticised too provisions of the bill that vested authority in the Board of the National Procurement and Tender Administration functions, which the constitution provided that the PPC should exercise. He said that the government’s attitude could lead to the appointment of the PPC members going nowhere.
In addition he said there was the role of the Cabinet, which like an overarching shadow darkened the potential transparency, and diminished the bright lights of impartiality and independence.
And calling for the bill to be referred to a select committee, he said that this was in accord with his understanding that the parliamentary management committee of the National Assembly had already agreed that all major bills would be referred to such a committee.
Holder in her presentation referred to the system for moving bills through their various stages and charged that the bill did not meet the gazetting requirements. Like Murray she said that several provisions including clauses 16, 17, 19, and 53 usurped the authority given to the PPC and set up a parallel arrangement which would act as a disincentive to the speedy establishment of the PPC. She contended that if the international financial institutions fall for the enactment of this bill they would be judged to be in collusion with the corruption that flowed from it. Recommending that the bill be sent to a select committee, Holder asserted that the government should seize the opportunity to base the procurement system on high standards as if it did not it would exacerbate the feelings of alienation of sections of contractors and erode public confidence in the system.
Dev urged the need for a review of its provisions by a selection committee since the system went to the heart of the racial division in the society - the distribution of the national patrimony.
He contended that the present bill changed nothing that was in the bill being repealed as the ministerial control was still there and that this did not contribute to fairness and transparency of the process.
Dev said that the unwillingness of the government to allow for more participation in the process was its adherence to the concept of democratic centralism, which was deeply embedded in its psyche.
Trade Minister Nadir in supporting the bill called it a fine piece of legislation, a description Kowlessar agreed with even though he conceded that it was not the most perfect. Nadir said that the bill removed the politician and the Cabinet from the process and disagreed with Murray that the appointment process for the members of the PPC was being stalled. Shaik Baksh, the Housing Minister challenged Murray as the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee to push the appointment of the members of the PPC.
He contended that the May 6 communiqué signed by President Bharrat Jagdeo and Opposition Leader Robert Corbin addressed the need for a speedy consideration of an amended bill, a remark which forced Corbin to join the debate. He pointed out that the communiqué spoke to the need for a properly amended bill not a clone of the legislation being repealed. He added that the communiqué anticipated the speedy establishment of the PPC based on the criteria set out in the constitution.
Nadir rejected Murray’s contention that so much authority should not be vested in the Minister, asking if not the Minister who it should be and asserting that the government had the right to exercise executive power as a consequence of winning a majority at the elections.
He rejected Murray’s contention about the lack of confidence in the system asserting that there was more than US$400M being provided by the international financial institutions for projects, which he said was being well spent and accounted for.
He said that this contrasted with the 1992 budget statement by then PNC Finance Minister, Carl Greenidge who had said that the international institutions were starving Guyana of funds.
PNCR back-bencher, Jerome Khan contended that the provisions of the bill were unconstitutional and would institutionalise corruption and the lack of transparency as they vested enormous powers in a Cabinet minister and under the doctrine of collective responsibility for decision-making, it could be inferred that the power of appointment was vested in the Cabinet.
He described the government’s haste to pass the bill as indecent, asserting that if the government was committed to collaboration, co-operation and good governance it should refer the bill to a select committee.
Khan too rejected Nadir’s contention about the equity of the system and accused him of hypocrisy quoting from a letter to the Stabroek News protesting the award of a contract to Ballast Needam International to build the Berbice River Bridge.
Tony Xavier, Minister of Transport and Hydraulics asserted that the bill was the most comprehensive in the Caribbean and would improve the procurement process as the government was providing a level playing field.
Winding up the debate after supporting speeches from PPP/C back-bencher, Khemraj Ramjattan and Baksh, and an opposing presentation from PNCR back-bencher, James McAllister who related his experiences as a civil engineer under the present system, Kowlessar urged the Assembly to give the process being proposed in the bill a chance to work. He also contended that increasing the margin of preference from 10 per cent as Murray suggested in his presentation would impose a more onerous burden on contractors outside the preferential system as many local contractors already had an advantage. He asserted too that there was nothing wrong in setting up a parallel arrangement at this time when the PPC was not in existence as it would cease after it was constituted.