Finance Minister to re-submit sub-heads of Financial Paper 7 for consideration
The exclusion of the four sub–heads, that is the Agency Heads 01-012, 51-516, 42-474 and 01-011, of Financial Paper Number 7, on February 15, 2012, was duly and properly done by the National Assembly,  in keeping with the Standing Orders. “The manner in which the National Assembly dealt with Financial Paper No.7 seems to be in order. It is unusual for a notice to be given for voting against a question put. This is exactly why the question is put for adoption by the House, for members to exercise their constitutional function of supporting or voting against a proposal. A question is put to the Assembly for a decision and is determined by a majority, and that was the case here. Voting against the items was not wrong.”
Speaker of the National Assembly, Raphael Trotman made this ruling yesterday, as he spoke on the disallowance of the four heads from Financial Paper No. 7 at the last sitting of the National Assembly.
He continued, “It is my considered opinion that the Assembly, or a majority thereof, is within its right to leave out or exclude any item or sub head of a Supplementary Estimate of Statement of Excess. The manner in which the National Assembly dealt with Financial Paper No.7 seems to be in order.”
According to the Speaker, the Honourable Prime Minister and the leader of the Government’s business, by way of a letter dated March 6, 2012, challenged the propriety and legality of the removal of heads, and requested that the Speaker consider this challenge.
He further explained that the Prime Minister also made references to Standing Order 113, which refers to the usage in the British House of Commons  for matters not provided for in our Standing Orders. He maintained that the procedure followed in dealing with the Financial Paper No 7, is consistent with the our Standing Orders.
He explained too, that it is his view that the Prime Minister seemed to be advocating that Financial Papers must not be subject to an affirmative vote or negative  vote in the Assembly, rather they should be laid only for the information  of the house.
In closing, he emphasized that decision to vote for or against a Supplementary Estimate or a head or sub-head cannot be reversed by the speaker.
“I am of the opinion that the Hon. Minister of Finance, or his designate, may re-introduce them for consideration. Finally, as to the status of the four excluded items, the minister will have to find a way to have them reintroduced, or included elsewhere,” he continued.
He said, “Standing Order 76 (7), which deals with Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure, prohibits any amendment in the Committee of Supply to leave out a Head. On the other hand, Standing Order 78 (3), in dealing with Supplementary Estimates, specifically states that when the Minister moves that the National Assembly approve the proposal/s set out in the Financial Paper, amendments to that motion may be made to “add words, either leaving out or reducing the item or sub–head of any particular proposal, or if there be more that one proposal, leaving out any proposal.”
On February 15, during the consideration of Financial Paper No.7, the majority of the House voted to disapprove four Heads of the Financial Paper tabled by the Minister of Finance, Dr. Ashni Singh.
There was no proposed amendment of the Heads of Expenditure to either reduce or increase the sum allotted.
Subsequently, the Finance Minister, in his address to the Assembly, said that , given the result of the committee’s deliberations on  Financial Paper Number 7, in which case the majority of the items were  approved,  but the four  items  mentioned were not, and  in accordance  with the Speaker’s ruling,  it was his intention, on a subsequent occasion,  to re-submit those items for re-consideration.
“It is my intention to ask that the Assembly proceed with Supplementary Provision No 4 of 2011 and Bill No 1 for 2012, with the appropriate amendment inserted to accommodate the expunging of those four items, which will be the subject of a separate submission on a future occasion,” he said.
Meanwhile, the leader of the Alliance for Change (AFC), Khemraj Ramjattan, in his remarks, said   that now that the Supplementary was before the Assembly, that in accordance with Section 24 of the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act, the Finance Minister should state the reasons for the proposed variations as against the estimates of February,  and provide a supplementary document describing the impact that the approved variations will have on the financial plan of last year.
In response, Minister Singh emphasized that, as has always been the case, the relevant submission will be made in accordance with the law.