The National Assembly last evening approved over $8 billion in total budgetary allocations for 16 constitutional agencies even as the government’s failure to properly account for cuts to requested expenditure drew criticism.

“Capriciousness, nothing but capriciousness without framework or foundation,” was the refrain delivered to the National Assembly by Opposition Chief Whip Gail Teixeira during the consideration of the 2018 Annual Budget Proposals of 16 Constitutional Agencies and the recommendations and comments of the Minister of Finance thereon. This is the third year since an amendment to the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act granted these agencies financial autonomy. The amendment also necessitated that their lump sum allocations be considered separate from the regular budget.

During five hours of fervent debate, Teixeira and fellow opposition parliamentarians sought to extract from Minister of Finance Winston Jordan the rationale behind his decision to recommend that most constitutional agencies receive significantly less than their requested 2018 budget.

While the agencies had submitted budgets totalling more than $10 billion, the recommendations of the minister, which were eventually passed by the House, reduced their requests to just over $8 billion in total.

Throughout the mostly one-sided debate, Teixeira asked Jordan to explain the macro-economic outlook for 2018.

Jordan had accompanied each of his 16 recommendations with the comment that “the recommended allocation takes into account the macro-economic outlook for 2018 for revenue, expenditure and growth in the economy, challenges in implementation encountered in 2017 and annualisation of salaries.”

This proved a stumbling block for the opposition members, who noted that while the comment seems clear, they were yet to be apprised of the projections for revenue and expenditure.

“We must have a fiscal framework, within which the minister is deciding who gets what, otherwise it becomes capricious and when we begin to look at the constitutional bodies, there is definite indications of capriciousness,” Teixeira declared.

She further stated that the House might have to recognise that it made a mistake in allowing for these allocations to be debated before the presentation of the National Budget and suggested two remedies.

“Mr.  Speaker, I recommend that in future the presentation of the annual budget precede any discussion on any agency getting money for that year, inclusive of constitutional agencies but for now… could the minister indicate to this house what are the projections for revenue, what is the macro-economic outlook so that we can adjudicate? What is macroeconomic framework? What are the fiscal frameworks he is using to guide those cuts?” Teixeira asked.

Jordan, however, when directed to answer, reminded that the budget presentation was 10 days away and added that “all the mysteries will be settled then.”

He also directed Teixeira to the Section of the Act which states that his recommendation shall be limited to the overall requests, while stressing that he had “fulfilled the letter and spirit of the Act.” He would refer to this section several times throughout the evening.

Incensed, Teixeira once again declared that Jordan and accused him of bullying.

She then directed her ire at Vice President and Minister of Foreign Affairs Carl Greenidge. According to Teixeira, Greenidge was passionate in the 10th Parliament about the autonomy of the agencies and led the way into passing the amendment, while consistently declaring that the budgets of these agencies should not be cut. “You brought an amendment and now you have a minister here undermining the very tenets of the arguments you brought in the Tenth Parliament. You talking out two sides of the mouth all the time,” Teixeira declared. She received no response to this declaration.

At the time, the House was discussing a $200 million reduction in the request brought by the Parliament Office. For 2018 Parliament Office requested $1,739,832. The minister, however, recommended $1,578,100. Teixeira moved a motion to have the allocation remain as requested. This motion was defeated 33 to 25.

When it came time to address the allocation for the Office of the Auditor General, similar dissent was voiced.

The Audit Office had requested $844,422,000 but Jordan recommended an allocation of $783,876,000.

Jordan reminded that all budgets are circumscribed by the availability of revenues projected or otherwise or the borrowing that will be sustainable but would give no details on what revenues are actually available.

Opposition Member of Parliament Priya Manickchand, in responding to Jordan’s refusal to provide details, told the House that the Minister “would subject himself to questions about why these allocations are the sums they are.”

“We ask how you arrived at this lump sum and the only response we have gotten is a very opaque, very bullish no comment. That is not the answer of someone who subjects himself to scrutiny… Remember that this House is made up of the government and opposition.  It is not compromised of government, who will railroad through their cuts. We are asking questions… on behalf of the people of Guyana. We have questions based on the submission and we demand that they be answered so that we can be properly informed of how we must vote on this issue. If the minister refuses to answer, the nation will judge you. You are saying we have no role here this afternoon,” Manickchand stressed.

By 7.30 pm, all of the Finance Ministers recommendations had been passed. The Guyana Elections Commission, which requested a budget of $3.7 billion had been allocated $2.9 billion.

The newly constituted Public Procurement Com-mission has also seen its request reduced from $251 million to $177 million. Similar reductions in budgetary requests were made for all but three of the 15 agencies. The Minister recommended that the Teaching Service Commission, Judicial Service Commission and Human Rights Commission receive all $123 million, $10 million and $31 million they have requested, respectively. These were approved.

The Public Service Apellate Tribunal should, however, according to the Ministry receive less than half of the $105 million it has requested. Last year, that agency received $35 million and it has been recommended that it receive $51 million. This was approved by the House.

The Ministry explained that the increase from $35 million caters for full year operating expenses due to the appointment of a Chairman and two members in May, 2017.

Other allocations include $43 million for the Women and Gender Equality Commission, $42 million for the Rights of the Child Commission and $86 million for the Ethnic Relations Commission.

Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo yesterday said the PPP/C’s no-confidence motion against the government should be debated in the National Assembly before the presentation of the 2019 national budget.

“We are hoping that a decision would be made and the matter would be debated prior to the budget. The budget has not been presented as yet and the convention is that once a no-confidence motion is filed that it takes precedence over other issues. So, we are hoping that this will be done,” Jagdeo said during a press conference that was held at his Church Street office yesterday morning.

Hours later, Finance Minister Winston Jordan announced that the 2019 budget would be presented on Monday.

During his press conference, Jagdeo noted that the PPP/C has gotten word that the government wants the motion debated in December, after the budget is presented and passed. He reminded that it is the Speaker who is responsible for saying when the motion comes up for debate.

“We’re gonna be watching carefully to see how the Speaker acts in this matter because it is not the executive that makes that determination, it has to be the Speaker…check the democracies around the world, that if a no-confidence motion is filed [against] the government, you can’t proceed to a budget debate when that is hanging,” he said before questioning what will happen if the motion succeeds.

“There is that self-interest on this matter but having said that, we expected that once the Speaker was appointed that he has a duty to not only the executive… but to all parliamentarians and he would exercise that duty and responsibility fairly and impartially. We also expect the Speaker not to depart from what is international practice and norm in relation to [a] no-confidence vote and so we are hoping that the professionalism of the Speaker will prevail,” he said.

When asked what would be the opposition’s next move if there was no word from the Speaker during yesterday’s sitting, Jagdeo responded, “I don’t want to speculate at this point in time.” He reiterated that the Speaker does not have to look very far for precedence because similar motions were filed in the region.

Jagdeo could not say if there was any plan to raise the matter in the National Assembly. Up to late last evening, none of the opposition MPs raised the matter in the House.

“I don’t know how the day would evolve and I don’t want to preempt anything through speculation,” he said.

Last Thursday, Jagdeo announced the filing of the motion, while saying the coalition government is damaging the country’s future prospects and accusing it of corruption and mismanagement.

“Clearly people are unhappy with the direction of the country; [with the] policies and practice of government…. Government has no vision. We are drifting, they have absolutely no plan for Guyana. They are using up our money on frivolous things, such as celebrations, food and rentals [and] they are borrowing a lot. They are damaging our prospects for the future,” Jagdeo said, while noting that the worst that can happen is that government uses its one-seat majority to defeat the motion.

The passage of the motion, which would trigger the holding of new general elections within 90 days, would require the support of at least one government Member of Parliament (MP).

Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo, who is currently acting as president, subsequently dubbed the motion an act of “provocation” and he said it was insensitive while the sitting president is out of the country for medical attention. Jagdeo subsequently denied that the opposition was trying to capitalise on the president’s absence.

PNCR Chairman and Public Health Minister Volda Lawrence who was with Nagamootoo at a joint press conference held by A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and the Alliance For Change (AFC) added that no government MP would support the motion. “Let me say it loud and clear: We are not for sale,” she said.

A sitting of the National Assembly was postponed last Friday at government’s request to facilitate an urgent meeting with its MPs on the no-confidence motion.