Speeches in the National Assembly

LIMIT ON AMOUNT OUTSTANDING UNDER GUARANTEES GIVEN UNDER THE GUARANTEE OF LOANS (PUBLIC CORPORATIONS AND COMPANIES) ACT
Mr. Greenidge: Let me take the opportunity to say a couple of things by way of response. I am glad that my Colleague, in the end, showed that his sense of humour can break through the barrier which he sometimes exhibits in terms of, notwithstanding his formidable use of language, getting the needle in at times.  [Dr. Singh: I will take that as a compliment.]   There is a compliment there, but there is also a comment to a friend.
Let me just say, also, that the fact that there have been discussions between the Government and the Opposition  cannot be taken as a sign that a discussion has to necessarily end in agreement. One has in one’s life many discussions sometimes with the same individual, sometimes with the same company, sometimes with the same bank. It does not follow that at the end of it one would have agreed on everything and that applies here. I do not think it should be suggested to the Members of this House that somehow the Opposition was being either stupid or unhelpful by arriving at a point after these exchanges of not finding unanimous positions. We have spoken to the Government many times on other things and, at the end of those exercises, I did not see them change anything whatsoever. I want that to be made clear. Although discussions may have taken place over a year, certainly my own involvement in those exchanges, which was for most of the exchanges, was to the extent of three meetings. Do not make it sound as though there were 5,000 meetings.
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that when one would normally look at a motion like this, which would involve the movement of a guaranteed ceiling, one would normally say that this is, perhaps, the least of the problems in terms of the Bills or motions before us.
In this case, let me say to you that I think there are some questions which have not been satisfactorily answered and, therefore, I can assure you from the very beginning that we will not lend our support to this.
I have a few specific comments. First of all, it cannot be a private sector project and be a project in which there is equity of $US100 million in it. Furthermore, as regards the Private Sector Commission, we have had many discussions with the Private Sector Commission. We are not satisfied. I can assure you that in terms of our own reactions and I daresay the reactions of the AFC, which has reacted to the Private Sector Commission’s comments, it should be clear that the Private Sector Commission’s approach to issues needs to be improved in many ways.
In any case, let me say this: as far as this project is concerned, regarding the $150 million, which the Government is searching for from the Inter-American Development Bank, if the private sector is so convinced of the wisdom of the investment, allow me to paraphrase an expression that Chief Justice Woolford is reputed to have said when he assisted a young man on several occasions in relation to a particular complaint the young man brought to his attention. In the end, the fellow simply said to him, ‘I thank you very much. I cannot really indicate to you how appreciative I am of it.’ He turned to him and said, ‘Since the Phoenicians invented coin, there has been no more effective a way of showing your confidence in actions other than by putting your money where your mouth is.’ Let the private sector do that. Let the Commission itself do that if it feels that this is such a water-tight project. If it is so iron-clad, let them put their money in it. We should not have to go to the IDB for that money if they are that confident. One hundred and fifty million dollars is not an insurmountable amount, given the size of the businesses that we have in this country. Let them put their money where their mouth is. The Hon. Minister can, perhaps, use his energy to persuade them to do that rather than treating us as though we have to amend our ways in any manner.  [An Hon. Member: [inaudible] put money on the Berbice Bridge.]    Do not bother go to the Berbice Bridge. That has its own problems. You have forgotten.   [An Hon. Member: [inaudible] money is there.]    It is you who managed it with all of the consequences.
Mr. Speaker, let us look more closely at what is before us by way of the motion. Let me remind my Colleague that on the last occasion and until now, the discussion on this particular matter was entirely one that was around me. You will remember that you yourself had cause to intervene in a manner that I was very unhappy with. The presentation had nothing to do with the numbers in the Bill. I notice on this occasion that only one reference was made to it. What I know from looking at the legislation is this: the guarantee of loans that we are asked to look at, the movement of 130-fold increase. At that time, we did not know how it was arrived at. If one looks at the legislation, which I have before me, Laws of Guyana, Guarantee of Loans (Public Corporations and Companies Act), I can see a couple of things. One of the things we are unaware of right now is exactly where the sum total of loan guarantee is. Section 4 (2) (1) of this Act states:
“The Minister shall, as soon as may be after the expiration of each quarter of each year during which guarantees or undertakings may be given under Section 3, lay before the National Assembly a statement of the guarantees or undertakings given under that section during that quarter, together with particulars of the purposes to which the loans guaranteed were to be applied, and shall, so long as such guarantees or undertakings are in force lay before the National Assembly as soon as may be after the end of each financial year an account up to that date of the total amount of such guarantees or undertakings...”
I have had a look at the documents laid in the National Assembly over the past three years and I see no reference to that particular submission. I just want to draw your attention to the obligations under the very Act that the Minister is citing and for which the ceiling needs to be increased. Maybe I am wrong. If that is the case, he can tell us what the amount in question is and which was the last quarter for which the report was laid.
May I also say that on looking further at the motion, as I said, I was quite sympathetic, initially, when I read the intent of the Government to use the Act.
But in looking further at the Act I can refer the House’s attention to section 2 of the Act. It seems to pose me a difficulty to understand what is happening here. I am trying to save myself from reading the entire paragraph in the interest of time. We are speaking here to a passage which after defining corporations then goes on to say that affected corporations are any company incorporated in Guyana in which the Government or the Guyana State Corporation holds at least 51% of the ordinary share capital thereof. As regards this I understand it is not GPL that is doing the borrowing. The question is whether this guarantee can cover the company. That is the question that arises from an examination of the legislation cited by the Minister. In the event that one feels this is an unnecessary concern let me say that in making the presentation the last time the Minister was quite sure we had no reason to worry about problems with indebtedness and so on.
I will just refer the House to the World Bank IMF Report which I think was produced in 2009. That report drew the Government’s attention - should have drawn all our attention - to the need to manage this area in a prudent manner. There are two points in the report in which this issue is raised. The ceiling is itself an important one. The legislation that the Minister cites does have some obligations which appear not to have been met; or at least I cannot see how they have been met. In addition the overall issue...  [Dr. Singh: You find the Auditor General’s Reports yet?]    I am not looking for Auditor General’s Reports. I am looking for the meeting of your obligations as well as you presented. [Interruption]Mr. Speaker, this is the issue, when we come to discuss an issue we devote our energies to personalising these issues. In the light of what I have said I am not in position to support the request of the Minister.
Thank you very much. [Applause]