Procurement Bill debate: Colm, Kamla call each other hypocrites over amendments

FINANCE Minister Colm Imbert said the UNC’s disapproval of amendments to the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Property (Amendment) Bill is “hypocrisy, absurd” and “nonsense.”

He made the statements during his contribution in Parliament on Friday when the bill was being debated.

One proposed amendment (section 7 (2)) the Opposition disagrees with is to remove the Office of Procurement Regulation (OPR) from overseeing government-to-government arrangements.

Imbert said the current government, as well as that which was led by Opposition Leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar benefited from such arrangement many times.

He said the Persad-Bissesar-led government entered into such arrangements with China for additional work on the National Academy for the Performing Arts (NAPA), the Couva Children’s Hospital, several sporting facilities, a Chinese long-ridge patrol vessel and an arrangement with Austria for the construction of the Point Fortin Hospital.

He said, “There’s a long history of government-to-government arrangements. It goes back to many, many years.

“It is political hypocrisy to now come and scream that the amendment to the law to continue the arrangements that have been in place for more than ten years, including the five years they were in government, should now be taken out and it will gut the Procurement Act by doing that. Absolute nonsense, Madam Speaker.

“What we are saying and what we on this side have been saying for years, and we have not diverted from our position, if it is beneficial to the citizens of TT as it is alleged it was for the construction and financing of the Couva Hospital…If that is considered beneficial to the citizens of TT, the government of TT should have the flexibility to negotiate that contract with the government of China or any other sovereign government in the best interest of the people.”

He said it is the government that is held accountable to the Parliament, not the OPR.

He also argued the Opposition’s stance that if the government requires legal and services, it must be “put out to tender,” and the lowest bid will be selected.

“Clearly, it is a long-established practice in the Republic of TT that in terms of legal services, it must be left up to the Attorney General and the government to select counsel that they feel will serve their best interest. You can’t tender legal services. That is an absurdity.”

He continued, “If, heaven forbid, a member here became ill and needed emergency surgery, are we expected to go and get a quote from St Clair Medical? And a quote from Mt Hope? And a quote from Southern Medical? And a quote from St Augustine Private Hospital? And then when you get the quotes, you evaluate them and award it to the lowest bidder?

“By the time that happen we dead, Madam Speaker.”

He said over the last six months, there has been “intense debate, meetings, consultation and dialogue between the government, through the legislative review committee and the Attorney General, with the procurement regulator.”

But in the same manner, Persad-Bissessar said it was Imbert who was being hypocritical as procurement law was introduced when she was prime minister.

“The other side, then in opposition, tried to do everything they could to frustrate that process.”

She said it was a “disgraceful and shameful day in this Parliament,” saying the government is trying to create a “parallel procurement system.

She said although Imbert said discussions have been ongoing for the past six months, “It is six years this has been awaiting proclamation and full implementation.

“So one is not surprised they intend to delay. They delayed it and the delay is deliberate.”

She said Imbert is “very disingenuous,” and just because her government benefited from government-to-government arrangements doesn’t mean it should continue.

“It does not mean because you’ve done something the same way for decades, for eons, means it’s the right thing to do.

“Matters arose in several countries where they have brought in their procurement legislation. We looked at the Finland model, we looked at the Singapore model, we looked at Jamaica, Canada, the UK…All of these models were looked at to arrive at that one act of 2015. So it is nonsense to say because this has been done all the time – great.”

She said it is “political hypocrisy” and the government is removing substance from the act, rendering it “toothless.

“You’re taking out those things that would make a fair procurement and disposal process.”