–Office of the President’s allocation approved, in part

THE Office of the President (OP)’s $6.1B allocation was partially approved last evening, with the $5.2B for capital and current expenditures under the OP’s Administrative Services heading being totally disapproved by the combined Opposition.

The disapproval was premised on contentions over the $139M subvention for the Government Information Agency (GINA) and the $81M for the National Communications Network (NCN), both agencies having been subject to hours-long scrutiny in the Parliamentary Committee of Supply.

Minister within the Finance Ministry, Juan Edghill, outlined the particulars of the areas of spending for 2014, and noted that GINA employs 39 persons, while NCN’s staff strength is 177, with 59 being temporary staff.
The Alliance for Change (AFC)’s Cathy Hughes questioned the verification of spending and the completion of audited reports.
Edghill made the point that while the financial statements up to the end of 2013 were presented to the Auditor-General’s office, the audited reports are only complete up to 2007, with the 2008 report being currently addressed.
Where the NCN was concerned, he said, the last audited report was done in 2012, while the 2013 report is presently engaging the attention of the Auditor General.
The AFC’s Moses Nagamootoo querried the “bundling” of the allocations for GINA and NCN, given that the Government is aware of the concerns of the combined Opposition, as it relates to the granting of subventions to the agencies at reference.
Edghill made it clear that Budget 2014 is presented in the same manner as previous budgets.
In 2012 and 2013, the Committee of Supply, which reviews in detail the allocation in the national Budget, cut the allocation to GINA and NCN to $1.

RESTORATION OF MONIES
A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) Member of Parliament (MP), Christopher Jones, questioned the 2013 spending for both entities, $135M for GINA and $81M for NCN, despite the cut made by the National Assembly, which has the “constitutional” power to do so.
Edghill explained that the funding was restored in 2013, following the ruling of Acting Chief Justice, Ian Chang. “We relied on the Chief Justice’s ruling,” he said.
Chang ruled that the National Assembly has no right to cut the national budget. The Chief Justice handed down his decision in the High Court on January 29. In the Preliminary Ruling given in June 2012, the CJ had ruled that the National Assembly had a role to either approve or disapprove of the National Estimate, not to cut them.

CONSTITUTIONAL RESTORATION
The Attorney-General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, also commented on the restoration of the allocations for GINA and NCN, and stressed that it was done constitutionally.
His comments followed questioning from APNU’s Shadow Finance Minister, Carl Greenidge, who maintained that monies should not be expended without the approval of the National Assembly.
According to Nandlall, the restoration of the monies was done via a Statement of Excess, which was presented to the House last December in accordance with Section 218 of the Constitution, which regards the Consolidated Fund.
He stated that the Section at reference deals with the financial situation after the Budget has been passed, something the House is long past, and its provisions are clear.
Greenidge had previously said, in the National Assembly, that the requirements for use from the Contingency Fund have to be “urgent, unavoidable and unforeseen,” which criteria, as stated in Section 222 of the Constitution, were not met.
However, the Attorney-General maintained his position when this concern was raised, which was that the Statement of Excess addresses spending from the Consolidated Fund, and not the Contingency Fund.
“This statement has been presented to the House, addressing restoration of cuts,” Nandlall said.

NO DEBATE
Sensing the mood of MPs of both sides of the House to descend into a debate on the subventions to GINA and NCN, Speaker of House, Raphael Trotman made it abundantly clear that he will not entertain a debate on the matter. “The Committee either approves or disapproves of the sums,” he said.
APNU MP, Basil Williams rose to stress that there is no provision in the Constitution that allows the Executive to breach a decision of the National Assembly. But though the Speaker conceded thatWilliams did have a point there, he held out that he will not countenance any debate on the matter.
Last Wednesday, the Speaker outlined several guidelines on procedures to be adopted by the National Assembly in proposing amendments to Budget 2014 in light of the CJ’s ruling, which he stressed must be respected.
“Every effort will be made always to respect the High Court’s opinions, provided that the independence of the National Assembly is not impinged,” Trotman said, adding:
“…it is critical to note that when the Committee of Supply considers the Estimates and ‘approves’ of them whether after making ‘amendments’, that is, through the process of proposing reductions of line items in accordance with Standing Order 76, or by the process of not-approvals of line items, or not, this function neither equates to, nor constitutes, the ‘approval’ function required by the Constitution in Article 218.”
The Speaker made it clear that the functions of the Committee of Supply and the National Assembly, as against those of the Minister of Finance, representing the Executive, are not mutually exclusive, though it must be conceded that at times, the lines of distinction have become blurred.
Additionally, a Notice of Appeal of Chang’s decision was since filed in February by lawyer and Leader of the Alliance for Change (AFC), Khemraj Ramjattan, on behalf of Speaker of the National Assembly, Raphael Trotman, who was listed as the Appellant in the court.