MEMBERS of Parliament last night, deferred the second reading of the Procurement (Amendment) Bill to a date within the next six months, following a motion moved by Government Chief Whip, Gail Teixeira – a motion moved after six hours of debate.

The Bill is an act to amend the 2003 principal Procurement Act by making changes to section 54 by deleting subsection six.
Section 54 deals with Cabinet’s involvement in reviewing the award of procurement contracts and the phasing out of its functions with the establishment of a Public Procurement Commission (PPC), in the interest of decentralising the procurement process.
Subsection six states that: “Cabinet’s involvement shall cease upon the establishment of the Public Procurement Commission except in relation to those matters referred to in subsection one which are pending.”

Teixeira’s motion for a deferral was an amendment to an initial motion moved by Finance Minister Dr. Ashni Singh for the House to vote to have the Bill read a second time.
She told the media that the amended motion was intended to give Opposition MPs an opportunity to consider the options at hand.

CALL FOR NEGOTIATIONS
The debate on the Bill was largely a contentious one – a fact A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) front-bencher, Carl Greenidge, concurred with.

In stating his support for the deferral, he stated that the Opposition MPs have studied the bill and the views held are strong ones – arguments that were grounded in the basis that the PPC’s establishment negates the need for Cabinet’s role.
He called for amendments to be made to the Procurement (Amendment Bill), changes that should be the result of negotiations going forward.
The Speaker, Raphael Trotman, hailed the recommendations for amendment to the Bill and call for the deferral’s non-influence on the PPC as “reasonable” calls.
The AFC MP also noted that further amendments ought to be the subject of joint deliberations
Considering the calls for amendments to the Procurement (Amendment) Bill, the Finance Minister in his contribution to garner support for its passage, pointed out to the House that the Government’s position, grounded in legislative principles, was not “disputed, disagreed with, debunked or disproven” by the joint-Opposition.
He stressed that the crux of the Government’s argument is the fact that the Cabinet is “clothed” with the responsibility to be accountable to the National Assembly for public spending and to be held accountable the Cabinet must have a role in the procurement process.
Singh stated that the main arguments proffered extend from this principle, that the Bill, in maintaining Cabinet’s role in the process, makes no case for increased involvement, and does not diminish the functions of the PPC, as was argued, as well as the fact that similar jurisdictions have similar, in many cases greater powers vested in their Cabinets.
The minister called for the House to consider the scenario where the Cabinet is without its ‘no-objection’ role in the procurement process.
He explained that given that that the PPC requires a two-thirds majority support in the Parliament to appoint members, there can be a case when, with the passage of time, the House does not reach a consensus and the PPC is not constituted.
“Where does the nation find itself,” he questioned?
According to him, without any authority vested in the Cabinet, that body will not be responsible and the nation will be in a “worse” situation than it is in today.
He argued that the PPC cannot substitute the Cabinet, particularly considering that, according to the Constitution, it is to be an oversight body.
The minister underscored the fact that the PPC’s involvement in the procurement process is outlined in the Constitution as that of an oversight body and any further involvement will present a conflict of interest, as it cannot be expected to provide oversight for itself.
Singh stressed that the preservation of Cabinet’s ‘no-objection’, the status quo, which is sought through the legislative amendment, does not and will not in any way “reduce, diminish or restrict the functions” of the PPC.
“These remain constitutionally protected, enshrined in the comfort of the supreme law and remain intact…the Bill does no harm to these functions…the PPC will function and will discharge its mandates,” he said.
Government MP, Manzoor Nadir, echoed similar sentiments and noted that considerations have to be given to the fact that the PPC will need time to “get up and going.”
“The PPC will have a completely different role than that of the Executive,” he said.
The Finance Minister observed that it is a “sad day” when the arguments presented in the House of Assembly are not grounded in “conviction and principles, but arguments of political convenience.”
“Much has been disclosed, not only as it relates to procurement, but as it relates to the manner in which MPs chose and craft their arguments. I would say it is most unfortunate, the abandonment of principle in favour of political opportunity,” Singh said.
Minister Irfaan Ali, in adding his support to the Bill, made it clear that “blow hot or cold”, Cabinet has a “fiduciary responsibility” as given to the Government by the electorate.
Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, in arguing for the passage of the Procurement (Amendment) Bill, pointed out that the arguments being advanced by the Opposition largely reflect misinformation.
He maintained that the procurement process and procedures stand as the most “accountable and fair” in the entire English speaking Caribbean.
Nandlall argued that the misinformation that suggests Cabinet has more than a no-objection role is an indictment on public servants who work in the procurement area.
“The procurement structure stands out as one of the most elaborate and all of this is ignored because all we hearing that is puppet show….it is an indictment on public servants,” he said.
He added that it is clear that the 46-page Procurement Act and accompanying regulations have not been read and are not understood by the Opposition.
“We have, prepared by tender board, a preponderance of documents that explain the Procurement Act…all these are to inform on how public procurement is done in Guyana,” Nandlall said.

(By Vanessa Narine)