Armour: Bill does not change Parliament's oversight under Procurement Act

ATTORNEY General Reginald Armour, SC, said on Wednesday that Parliament would retain oversight of aspects of procurement regulation set out in the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Property 2015 despite a new bill under consideration.

He spoke in the House of Representatives during the debate on the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Property (Amendment and Validation) Bill, 2023.

This bill changes the 2015 act so that a ministerial order to approve an item of procurement and the act's regulations would become subject to Parliament's negative resolution rather than affirmative resolution.

Negative resolution meant a minister's order would stand unless specifically opposed by Parliament, while an affirmative resolution required Parliament's nod.

Armour said the use of the negative resolution would allow business to be expedited while also retaining Parliament's oversight of it.

"We need to do the necessary adjustment to allow this country to continue to function as opposed to being brought to the standstill which we have been witnessing over the past several months."

He said there was no fear, no cloud and no doubt that the process of negative resolution would allow parliamentary oversight, which all MPs were anxious to ensure.

The AG said negative resolution "allows for expedition, subject to annulment, but not for the convoluted passage of having to come to the House of Representatives and be debated and having to go to the Senate and be debated before we can take any expeditious action."

Armour said MPs could proceed confidently to approve the negative resolution towards an ease of doing business.

"We have so many precedents. We have any number of pieces of legislation in this country that employ the device of the negative resolution.

"We have the Insurance Act; the TT Revenue Authority Act; the Gambling, Gaming and Betting Control Act; the TT Special Economic Zones Act."

Armour supported the clause to exempt procurements under $1 million, as he recalled worldwide examples earlier cited by Finance Minister Colm Imbert piloting the bill. The AG reiterated this measure was subject to Parliament's negative resolution. "What is wrong with that? We must stop scaremongering for cheap political gain."

Armour said unlike the suggestion made in a recent newspaper editorial this measure did not repeal the entire act.

"This is to carve out a limited operational window of opportunity so that business can continue, subject to the oversight of Parliament, in order that the business of the country can continue and people can continue to get work. That is something we are overlooking."

He again noted the change from affirmative to negative resolution.

"What is wrong with that? It remains subject to the oversight of Parliament."

The AG said that in starting to operationalise the act, it now needed to be tweaked.

"Nothing in this bill before the House today is in the least bit irregular or sinister."

He said the legal notices 206 and 164 of 2023 had been made under a section, which the House was now being asked to correct.

The AG said there was good reason to validate these two legal notices for the visits of foreign dignitaries and the services of the judiciary.

Armour said the Opposition was wrong to say the law courts would soon shut at the end of July for recess in order to oppose the legal notice for judicial spending.

"The vacation court continues to sit. Emergency services continue to be afforded by the courts.

"It is unacceptable we should come to this House, speak to the citizens who expect better of us, and use such cheap politicking to score points. I deplore it!

"As a member of the inner bar, I deplore it by those of us who should know better."