FINANCE Minister, Dr. Ashni Singh yesterday decried what he termed “hysteria” over the use of the Statement of Excess, the most recent of which was tabled in the National Assembly at the last sitting of the House on June 19.

“The legitimacy of the expenditure is unquestioned,” he said.
Citing Section 218 (3) of the Constitution, he made it pellucid that the resort to a Statement of Excess was done within clearly set out legal parameters.
The Section states that: “If in respect of any financial year it is found: (a) that the amount appropriated by the Appropriation Act for any purpose is insufficient or that a need has arisen for expenditure for a purpose for which no amount has been appropriated by that Act;
“Or (b) that any moneys have been expended for any purpose in excess of the amount appropriated for that purpose by the Appropriation Act or for a purpose for which no amount has been appropriated by that Act, a supplementary estimate or, as the case may be, a statement of excess showing the sums required or spent shall be laid before the Assembly by the Prime Minister or any other Minister designated by the President.”

‘I don’t know if they are now confessing that they were sleeping; I don’t know if they are Rip Van Winkle, but this very Parliament is familiar with the concept of a Statement of Excess’
– Finance Minister, Dr. Ashni Singh

He also referenced the Parliamentary Standing Order 78 (1), which deals with supplementary estimates of expenditure and statements of excess.
The Order states that: “If in respect of any financial year it is found:- [a] that the amount appropriated by the Appropriation Act for any purpose is in sufficient or that a need has arisen for Expenditure for a purpose for which amount has been appropriated by that Act;
“Or [b] that any moneys have been expended for any purpose in excess of the amount appropriated for that purpose by the Appropriation Act or for a purpose for which no amount has been appropriated by that Act;
“Or [c] that advances have been made from the Contingencies Fund for Expenditure for which no other provision exists, a Minister may present a Paper with the Supplementary Estimate or, as the case may be, the Statement of Excess showing the sums required or spent and that Paper shall be ordered to be printed and shall stand referred to the Committee of Supply without question put and shall be appointed to be considered on a day to be named by the Minister presenting the Paper but not earlier than one (1) day after that on which the Paper was presented.”

NOT NOVEL

Dr Singh further stated that the use of Statements of Excess is not a novel move in the National Assembly, particularly since the House approved three other such statements without the “hullabaloo” being peddled in some quarters.
“The Statement of Excess is not a new instrument; it has been exercised before. This is not a new road; it is well trodden; it is tested and tried,” he said.
Dr. Singh questioned the motives behind the sensational statements seen in sections of the media over the last few weeks, with ‘screaming’ headlines that conveyed all manner of misconceptions, including that he should be made to face criminal charges for some kind of wrongdoing.
“It is this same Opposition that is talking about wanting to make a report to the police, that same Opposition is not saying that they themselves, in the Parliament controlled by them, have approved Statements of Excess before,” the Minister said.

‘It is this same Opposition that is talking about wanting to make a report to the police, that same Opposition is not saying that they themselves, in the Parliament controlled by them, have approved Statements of Excess before’ – Finance Minister, Dr. Ashni Singh

He stated that in the 10th Parliament, three Statements of Excess that were tabled saw approval of $3B in spending, three years without a “whimper” about its use.
According to him, the approvals included a lengthy list of areas where public funds were used to advance national interests.
“I don’t know if they are now confessing that they were sleeping; I don’t know if they are Rip Van Winkle, but this very Parliament is familiar with the concept of a Statement of Excess,” he said.
He rejected the notion made public in sections of the media that any approvals given were done with a heavy heart.
The Finance Minister, in responding to questions that a majority of the allocations in the previous Statements of Excess were subventions for the Guyana Power and Light (GPL) company, made it clear that regardless if it was one or many areas of spending, the fact of the matter is that the use of the Statement of Excess is not something new, which is not the picture being painted with the prevailing uproar over the issue.
“Even if it is only one item, my argument is that the Parliament endorsed Article 218 (3), and endorsed the validity of the use of the instrument of the Statement of Excess,” Dr. Singh stressed.
He threw out also the assertion that the laws addressing the use of a Statement of Excess constitute a legal “loophole” that could be used to access public funds.

VALUE IN SCRUTINY
Dr. Singh also dismissed the notion that his use of the Statement of Excess invalidates the role of the Opposition, since items included on the fourth Statement of Excess includes allocations in the 2014 Budget that were disapproved by the combined Opposition.
“The role and power of the Parliament are clearly defined in the Constitution…the Parliament is not a rubber stamp,” the Minster stressed.
He highlighted that it was the Opposition itself that justified its disapproval of budgetary allocations by calling for the return of said items to the National Assembly.
“The Opposition has said the items (budgetary allocations) were bunched even though we did not change it (the format of the listing of allocations). It is the same Opposition that said bring back the items and we will approve them. Well, let us put them to the test and hold them to their word,” Dr. Singh said.
The Finance Minister made it clear that scrutiny by the National Assembly is not only done during Budget debates, but at several other levels, including the standing sectoral committees.
He was firm in his positing that at all times the Government has subject itself to any level of scrutiny called for at the many levels of the National Assembly.
“We welcome scrutiny,” Dr. Singh said, adding that in the items included on the fourth Statement of Excess can withstand any level of scrutiny as the National Assembly so demands.
He reiterated too that each area of spending complied with the Constitution and the Parliamentary Standing Orders, as well as the January 2014 ruling by the Chief Justice (ag.) Ian Chang.
“The Chief Justice said, it is not for this court to substitute itself for the Minister of Finance. It is he, who must make the pre-requisite finding under Article 218 (3) and he who must be satisfied under the provisions of the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act…the Chief Justice was quite clear,” he said.
Asked if the “spirit of the laws” were violated, Dr. Singh posited that Guyana’s laws are “written in plain English” and there is no need for interpretation, particularly as it relates to public spending guidelines, as the law is clear.
“We can argue about the spirit of the Constitution…and one can only speak of the spirit of the Constitution, where there is a lack of clarity, but in this instance there is no deficiency in the language of the constitution. The Constitution is crystal clear…there is no lack of clarity,” he said.
The Finance Minister concluded that on the matter of Statement of Excesses being used, the Parliament has acted “deliberately” before in this regard and to “pretend” otherwise is nothing short of a move to mislead the Guyanese people for the sake of political advantage.

(By Vanessa Narine)