Opposition boycott of National Stakeholders Motion ill-timed
- Minister Rohee
-Gov’t has no power to change outcomes of consensus
THE refusal of the Parliamentary Opposition parties yesterday in the National Assembly to engage in discussion on government’s Motion on the National Stakeholders Meeting has been described as ‘most unfortunate’.

The boycott by the Opposition was done on the basis that the Motion was intended mainly for political grandstanding by the government and refusal to make certain amendments to the Motion.

On the other hand, the administration maintained that the amendments which the Opposition was seeking were out of the administration’s control since it was not agreed to by the stakeholders involved.

Advisor on Governance at the Office of the President and People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) Member of Parliament Ms. Gail Teixeira, outside of the House, explained that it would be an act of bad faith if the government had gone in that direction.

“We were told yesterday that they had a combined Opposition amendment. We looked at it and we advised them that they were adding in things that we had not reached a national consensus on at the national stakeholders and therefore, we should take a principled decision that if the stakeholders agreed to these six things we should replicate those faithfully.”

She further explained that, “We (government) have no authority to add on to the Clauses, issues that we had not reached consensus on, nor were they the primary thrust of the discussions of national stakeholders.”

The Opposition was seeking for amendments to be made to include Article 13 of the Constitution which deals with inclusiveness and they also wanted to include the need for equitable access by Parliamentary parties to the state media.

“…the AFC and Mr. Corbin raised the issue of access to the state media. However, in the five meetings this was not the number one issue nor when we drafted the agreement.  Therefore, the government took a principled position that we could not do a disservice to the stakeholders and we had no authority to speak on behalf of all 40 of them to change what were the issues or add to what were the issues agreed to by the 40 organisations,” Teixeira argued.

The ‘be it resolved clause’ of the government motion which was put forward by Prime Minister Samuel Hinds, was sought for the National Assembly to take note of the engagements of the National Stakeholders meeting and accept the output as reflecting national consensus on the agreed upon actions.

The ‘further resolved’ clause sought for the House to accept the national consensus arrived at during those meetings with the President and what the stakeholders undertook to provide its (Parliament) fullest support and to assign its highest priority in implementing those commitments that called for action by Parliamentary bodies.

The Opposition parties were in receipt of the Motion since March 17.

Meanwhile, Minister of Home Affairs Clement Rohee, during his presentation, made the point that the Opposition parties were trying to achieve what they could not have during the National Stakeholders meeting, through the Parliament. This, he said, is “sad” since matters on security should not be used for political gains.

“I do not want to speculate the reason for it (boycott) but it is most unfortunate that the opposition benches would seek to use three factors, one of which is that what they did not achieve in the negotiations they try to bring it here to achieve it…These are flimsy grounds,” Minister Rohee said.

The Home Affairs Minister further stated that the document does not belong to the Parliamentarians so it would be unfair for them to make whatever decisions they choose.

“The document does not belong to us only in this Parliament. Those decisions that were taken belong to others who do not sit in this Honourable House and therefore, if that process belongs to a much larger grouping of people, one will obviously have to consult with those people.”

The administration, through President Bharrat Jagdeo, began discussions with Parliamentary Political Parties and civil society following two shocking massacres at Lusignan on the East Coast Demerara and Bartica in Region Seven, which are believed to have been perpetrated by criminal gangs.

The outcome of the meetings which involved a number of recommendations by the stakeholders included the establishment of a new Parliamentary Standing Sectoral Committee on national security, with Ministerial representation and the appointments of the six (6) Constitutional Commissions within 90 days.

Gov’t position on the debt forgiveness motion
FINANCE Minister Dr. Ashni Singh was, on Wednesday night, prevented by the Speaker of the National Assembly Mr. Ralph Ramkarran from delivering the following presentation in the National Assembly.

The motion outlines Government’s position on debt forgiveness.
Statement by the Minister of Finance
on the Motion published in Notice Paper No. 213 (M 58 Opp 16) on 18 January 2008

under the subject of a Limit on the Aggregate Amount of Debt Obligations

1. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer the following observations on the Motion moved by the Honourable Member, Mr. Winston Murray, on the subject of a limit on the aggregate amount of debt obligations that may be forgiven, postponed, or reduced by the Minister of Finance without the approval of the National Assembly. The limit proposed by the motion is $10 million in any fiscal year.

2. By way of background, the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act 2003 was passed by this Honourable House on 15 December 2003 and was assented to by His Excellency the President on 16 December 2003, less than five years ago. Section 81 of that Act provides for the forgiveness of debts owing to the State and, specifically, authorises the Minister of Finance to forgive debts owing to the State, subject to certain safeguards that are outlined in the several subsections of the same section 81.

3. The current Motion is inspired by subsection 3 of section 81, which states that “the National Assembly may set a limit on the aggregate amount of debt obligations that may be forgiven, postponed or reduced by the Minister without the approval of the National Assembly in any fiscal year”. In this regard, I feel compelled to observe as follows:

(i) Firstly, at the time that this Act was debated in this Honourable House, the House in its wisdom clearly chose not to stipulate a limit but, instead, established an option that may be exercised at some future time. In other words, there is no compulsion for the National Assembly to set a limit. There is merely an option that the National Assembly may or may not choose to exercise;

(ii) Secondly, as indicated earlier, in granting the Minister authority to forgive debts, section 81 simultaneously establishes safeguards to ensure that this authority is exercised responsibly and transparently. Specifically:

i. Subsection 2 states explicitly that “where any forgiveness, postponement or reduction of a debt obligation … is likely to significantly affect the financial assets and liabilities of the State, such action shall only be taken by the Minister with the approval of the National Assembly”; and

ii. Subsection 5 requires that “all indebtedness owing to the State that has been forgiven, postponed, reduced or written off pursuant to this Act or any other law during a fiscal year shall be reported in the consolidated financial statements for that fiscal year” which are subject to audit by the Auditor General, are submitted to the Honourable House, and are the subject of intense scrutiny by the Public Accounts Committee of this Honourable House.

4. In other words, there already exist strong safeguards to ensure that the authority to forgive debts is only exercised responsibly and in accordance with strict standards of accountability and transparency. Notwithstanding this, it is not my intention to argue the merits or demerits of the Motion at length.

5. Instead, it is my intention to submit to this Honourable House that the submission of this Motion by the Honourable Member, Mr. Murray, violates a cardinal principle enshrined in the provisions of Article 171 of the Constitution of Guyana and Standing Order 25 of the Standing Orders that govern the operations of this Honourable House, and reflected in the time honoured tradition of this Honourable House.

6. The cardinal principle to which I refer is one that dictates that financial matters can only be introduced into the legislature by, and with the consent of, the Government.

7. Article 171(2) of the Constitution provides that “except on the recommendation or with the consent of the Cabinet signified by a Minister, the (National) Assembly shall not proceed upon any motion (including any amendment to a motion) the effect of which, in the opinion of the person presiding, would be to make provision for (certain specified) purposes”. Among the purposes specified are “imposing or increasing any tax”, “imposing any charge upon the Consolidated Fund or any other public fund or Guyana or for altering any such charge otherwise than by reducing it”, “the payment, issue or withdrawal from the Consolidated Fund or any other public fund of Guyana of any moneys not charged thereon or any increase in the amount of such a payment, issue or withdrawal”, and “compounding or remitting any debt due to Guyana”.

8. To illustrate one of the more familiar applications of this Article, whenever the motion to approve the budget estimates is introduced in the National Assembly, before the Assembly proceeds to consider the motion, the recommendation or consent of Cabinet must be and is signified. In this example, the budget estimates motion (accompanied by the associated Appropriation Bill) prescribes the ceiling on the amount of moneys that can be issued or paid from the Consolidated Fund in the fiscal year concerned, for purposes specified. In like manner, the current motion seeks to prescribe a ceiling on the amount of debts that may be forgiven in any fiscal year and should therefore only be submitted to this Honourable House by a Minister with the consent, or on the recommendation, of the Cabinet. The Constitution requires no less.

9. Interestingly, our domestic situation in this regard is not dissimilar to that which obtains in the House of Commons. As if to emphasise the special and peculiar nature of financial matters, Erkine May’s Parliamentary Practice (22nd Edition) (hereinafter referred to as May’s) devotes five chapters to financial procedure. I will merely quote a few selected extracts to illustrate the position outlined in May’s.

10. At page 732, it is stated that “the role of Parliament in respect of State expenditure and taxation has never been one of initiation: it was for the Sovereign to demand money and for the Commons to respond to the demand. The development of responsible government and the assumption by the Government of the day of the traditional role and powers of the Crown in relation to public finance have not altered this basic constitutional principle: the Crown demands money, the Commons grant it, and the Lords assent to the grant. In more modern terms, the Government presents to the House of Commons its detailed requirements for the financing of the public services; it is for the Commons, acting on the sole initiative of Ministers of the Crown, first to authorise the relevant expenditure (or Supply) and, second, to provide through taxes and other sources of public revenue the ‘Ways and Means’ deemed necessary to meet the Supply so granted”. At page 734, May’s describes this as Rule 3 of the general rules of financial procedure of the Commons. May’s describes this rule as the Financial Initiative of the Crown and it stipulates that a financial charge cannot be taken into consideration unless it is demanded by the Crown or recommended from the Crown.

11. In relation to the matter currently before us, the following extracts from May’s are particularly instructive:

(i) Firstly, in relation to the scope of financial charges, footnote 2 on page 733 indicates that, pursuant to Standing Order 48 of the House of Commons, “the releasing or compounding of any sum of money owing to the Crown (i.e., the writing off of any portion of a debt owed to the Consolidated Fund) is also treated as a charge upon public funds”;

(ii) Secondly, footnote 1 on page 738 elaborates that “it was accepted without question by the House of Commons that the rule (i.e.., the rule of the Financial Initiative of the Crown) applied to both of the new clearly distinguished functions of Supply (or expenditure) and Ways and Means (or revenue), as well as to any business which belonged to either of these classes”; and

(iii) Thirdly, in relation to the preservation of the financial initiative of the Crown, page 740 states that “the Crown’s recommendation lays down the maximum amount of a charge on public funds or on the people, as well as its objects and purposes. An amendment infringes the financial initiative of the Crown not only if it increases the amount, but also if it extends the objects and purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications expressed in the communication by which the Crown has recommended a charge. Similarly, no amendment to a motion relating to Supply is in order except a simple reduction in the amount demanded”.

12. May’s also provides an abundance of illustrative examples of circumstances where what is described in the House of Commons Standing Orders as Money resolutions, and the mandatory accompanying recommendation from the Crown, are required. In this regard, the following extracts are instructive:

(i) On page 763, May’s states that “if there is any doubt on the matter and in appears that the new proposal may entail an extension of previously enacted purposes of expenditure or an increase in the expenditure potentially liable to be incurred in pursuit of such a purpose, a Money resolution will be required”;

(ii) Page 767 provides that “if a provision of a bill increases a defined period for which a service, function or purpose of expenditure has previously been authorised or removes a previous restriction so as to give rise to a similar consequence, then the provision requires authorisation by a Money resolution”.

(iii) The same page also states “when a bill contains provision varying a formula for grant so that an increased payment would result, or raising or removing a previously stipulated limit on expenditure, a Money resolution is required”;

(iv) Importantly, page 766 provides that in addition to the more obvious cases in relation to remission or compounding of a debt, a number of other types of provision have been regarded as falling within the category of matters requiring a Money resolution and a recommendation from the Crown, including extension of period within which sums issued to the Contingencies Fund are required to be repaid to the Exchequer, and reduction of repayments due to the Consolidated Fund;

(v) Finally, at page 774 or May’s, it is stated that “although a Money resolution is now almost invariably the form of proceeding employed to initiate expenditure for new purposes, certain other proceedings in the House may have implications for the approval of public expenditure, and may therefore require prior recommendation from the Crown in accordance with the principle embodied in Standing Order No. 48”. May’s goes on to describe examples of such circumstances, and includes in these a motion for the adoption of certain Standing Orders, which motion was held to require recommendation from the Crown because the Standing Orders being considered for adoption would have had the effect of altering certain procedures for considering specified financial matters in the House of Commons.

13. Mr. Speaker, I have only quoted from May’s and the practice of the House of Commons. There is, however, a much more extensive literature originating from several other jurisdictions similar to ours on the matter of the Financial Initiative of the Crown, or what I would describe in our circumstances as the Financial Initiative and Prerogative of the Government.

14. Mr. Speaker, I am aware that this motion was first submitted several months ago by the Honourable member who is the mover. I am also aware of the substantial time that you have expended yourself in researching and consulting on this matter, and I would like to place on record Government’s appreciation of your extraordinary efforts in this regard.

15. However and, I emphasise, with unwavering respect for your authority to rule in this matter, I would like to suggest that you were incorrectly advised on the issue of the distinction between remission of a debt and the setting of a ceiling for debt remission. A perusal of May’s and the several explanations and illustrations offered therein, an examination of the extensive literature on the subject elsewhere, and close scrutiny of the analogy of the budget estimates motion in our own domestic practice, all confirm that the distinction between the incurrence of a specific charge and the setting of a ceiling for such charges is not an appropriate one for the purposes of determining applicability of the principle of Financial Initiative and Prerogative of Government.

16. Perhaps a few illustrative questions would aid an appreciation of how simple this matter is:

(i) Question 1: “Can the remission of debt be regarded as similar in character and substance to the incurrence of expenditure to be paid from the Consolidated Fund?” Answer: “Yes”. Standard financial practice tells us that the cancellation or write-off of a receivable debt constitutes effectively the incurrence of expenditure. May’s confirms this by saying that “the releasing or compounding of an sum of money owing to the Crown (i.e., the writing off of any portion of a debt owed to the Consolidated Fund) is also treated as a charge upon public funds”

(ii) Question 2: “How does the National Assembly set the ceiling on expenditure that can be incurred in any fiscal year?” Answer: “By considering a motion for the approval of the Budget Estimates (and an accompanying Appropriation Bill)”.

(iii) Question 3: “Does the motion for the approval of the budget estimates, which sets the ceiling on expenditure in any fiscal year, require the recommendation or consent of the Cabinet before it can be proceeded upon?” Answer: “Yes.”

(iv) Question 4: “Logically, therefore, given the established similarities between debt cancellation and expenditure incurrence, should a motion to set a ceiling on the amount of debt that can be cancelled in any fiscal year not require the recommendation or consent of Cabinet before it is proceeded upon?” Answer: “Yes, it should, most resoundingly.” The Constitution of Guyana requires it. Our Standing Orders require it. The illustrious Parliamentary tradition that we have inherited requires it.

17. This is the legal advice obtained by Government from the Chambers of our Attorney General, i.e., that a matter such as that contemplated by the Motion currently before us cannot be proceeded upon by this Honourable House without the recommendation or consent of the Cabinet.

18. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I wish to express regret that the extensive consultation in which you engaged arrived at a conclusion that did not give what I would consider to be due recognition to the time honoured principle that respects the initiative and prerogative of Government in financial matters.

19. It is my humble submission, Mr. Speaker, that were we to allow this Motion, we would commit a very grave departure from our Parliamentary tradition and from the principles that govern our deliberations.

20. For the reasons I have outlined, Members on my side of this Honourable House will therefore play no further part in any debate on the current Motion, we would urge that it be ruled out of order by Your Honour if this can still be done at this stage but, should it be ruled that the question still be put to the House despite the arguments I have just presented, we will vote accordingly.

U.K. Birdwatching tour in Guyana greeted by Harpy Eagle
IN what appears to be a healthy trend for the local tourism industry, international birdwatchers continue to flock to Guyana. The third birdwatching tour in as many months recently took place when U.K. tour operator, Ornitholidays, brought their first – and completely sold-out – birdwatching group to Guyana from March 1-14.

In February 2007, Witherick visited Guyana as part of a familiarization trip that was sponsored by the Guyana Tourism Authority (GTA) and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) / Guyana Trade and Investment Support (GTIS) project Birding Tourism Program.

The trip included birdwatching stops at Georgetown Botanical Gardens, Mahaica River, Shanklands Rainforest Resort, Kaieteur Falls, Karanambu Ranch, Iwokrama Field Station and Canopy Walkway, Rock View Lodge and Wowetta Village. For the entire trip, head local guide and President of the Guyana Amazon Tropical Birds Society (GATBS) Andy Narine, assisted Mr.Witherick in guiding duties.

And while Witherick said the group did not see the desirable jaguar, all were pleased with the number of monkeys they spotted.

When asked to compare Guyana’s birdwatching experience to other countries in the region, Witherick said, “My experience [in the region] is limited to Costa Rica, Jamaica, Cuba and Trinidad and Tobago. [Guyana] is the equal of any of these.” On the local guides that provided assistance throughout, Witherick said that, “Andy proved to be first class,” and the others that joined them at each destination, “were friendly and well informed about the birds in their areas.”

Ornitholidays did not originally consider selling a birdwatching trip to Guyana until Mr. Witherick met Judy Karwacki – the tourism specialist working on Guyana’s Birding Tourism Program – at the 2006 British Birdwatching Fair. She convinced him that Guyana was a little-known birding paradise that his company should consider selling and invited him to come experience it himself.

The Birding Tourism Program is receiving support from GTIS, a joint project of the Government of Guyana and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
(For more information, please visit www.guyanabirding.com)

THE ADVENTURE OF A LIFETIME
Sixth Pakaraimas safari underway
By Neil Marks
THE sixth safari to the exotic Pakaraimas is currently underway, in a major push to boost tourism to the interior regions.

The safari, which was scheduled to leave Georgetown early this morning, comprises of 17 vehicles, five All Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) and four motorcycles.

The official safari leg begins from Karasabai in Region Nine, and will then cross over to Region Eight for the final destination at Orinduik Falls.

Prime Minister Samuel Hinds and Minister of Tourism, Industry and Commerce Mr. Manniram Prashad are heading the safari team this year.

The event is organized by private tour operator - Rainforest Tours, in collaboration with the Ministry of Tourism, the Ministry of Local Government and with major sponsorship from the Guyana Oil Company (GUYOIL) and the Guyana Telephone and Telegraph Company (GT&T).

The safari was put off last month because of bad weather.

It takes participants across Regions Eight and Nine, more particularly the Pakaraima Mountain ranges which are inhabited by the prolific mountain people – the Patamunas.

It’s a chance to soak up their culture: sip mango juice, perhaps from a calabash; indulge in tales of the Kanaima at bonfires while camping out at the riverside with the peace of the sprawling heavens; marvel in their Patamuna tongue; or see first hand how western influences have led to a deterioration of some of their ancient practices.

The thrills and spills of the ride to get to Orinduik are wrapped up in close sneaks across mountains, across rivers, and across novel bridges. The terrain was mostly cut out by hands, those of the Patamuna people as they created a link between Regions Eight and Nine.

Roads linking the villages of Region Eight from Maikwak to Monkey Mountain never existed.

Similarly, there were no access roads from Karasabai to Yurong Paru in Region Nine. The villages of the Pakaraimas were landlocked and the easy way to commute was by air.

The Patamunas and the Makushis (who inhabit but three of the villages in the Pakaraimas) traverse these mountains, rivers and plains for days and sometimes weeks to possible market places.

Men and women had no choice but to carry their belongings in traditional warishees slung across their backs and tied to their foreheads.

It is said that these people, who primarily engage in farming, hunting and fishing, suffered social and economic stagnation due to a lack of market for their produce.

Recognising the need for an access road linking the villages of Regions Eight and Nine, the Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development developed the project to cut a road through the Regions.

First, it was a rough pathway traversed only by two tractors and trailers. In December 2000, monies were made available to complete the last portion from Morabaiko Creek in Region Nine, to its last village - Young Paru.

As a result, the safari is now able to travel right on Orinduik Falls.

Licence for importation of flour/wheat temporarily suspended
--measure intended to reduce the price of flour
MINISTER of Tourism, Industry and Commerce, Mr. Manniram Prashad yesterday announced that the Ministry has decided to temporarily suspend the licensing process for the importation of flour.

The minister said with immediate effect anyone can bring in flour and/or wheat without going through this administrative process at the Commerce Ministry.

“This measure was taken by the government after careful deliberation…people feel this licence process system is a hassle and a long drawn out process and not coming forward and we got to make this easy as possible for persons,” he explained.

He said this step was taken by the government to ease the administrative process for persons who want to bring in flour and the rising cost of the commodity to benefit the customers.

Prashad noted that flour was zero-rated in the recent national budget which should have benefited the consumer immensely but the National Milling Company (NAMILCO) immediately fixed their price to what it was before the zero-rating of the flour.

He pointed out that even if the government loses revenue they are prepared to make that sacrifice in interest of the consumers.

The Ministry is going to continue to monitor the situation to make sure flour reach the consuming public at a reasonable cost, allowing market forces to determine the price of flour, he pointed out.

However, he said other requirement must be adhered to in order to ensure flour supplied to the public is of a high standard. (Priya Nauth)