[UPDATED] House approves Senate procurement amendments

THE House of Representatives took only 30 minutes to pass a motion to approve Senate amendments to the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Property (Amendment and Validation) Bill, 2023.

The motion was passed by a vote of 19-8. Opposition MPs, who were in in the chamber, voted against the amendment's made in the Senate.

The process happened quickly compared to the lengthy extraordinary sittings held by the House and Senate last week to deal with amendments to the bill.

In concluding debate on the motion, Attorney General Reginald Armour, SC, disagreed with Barataria/San Juan MP Saddam Hosein's claims that the amendments made public procurement more bureaucratic and did not give the Office of Procurement Regulator (OPR) sufficient oversight in procurement matters.

Armour said he had one word to describe the Opposition's "inability" to understand the importance of the Senate's amendments to the bill.

"Sophistry."

While initially preferring to say this word and allow the House to vote on the motion, Armour said he felt a brief explanation was needed since Opposition Leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar highly regarded Hosein's legal acumen.

The Prime Minister, Finance Minister Colm Imbert and Persad-Bissessar were amongst the MPs who missed the sitting.

On an amendment to clause 3 of the bill, which sees the finance minister acting in agreement with the OPR instead of after consulting with that office, Armour said, "In our jurisprudence, there is a significant difference in the meaning of words, 'consultation' as opposed to 'agreement'."

In the case of consultation, he continued, sufficient reasons for a proposal must be given for intelligent consideration and response to be given to it.

"The short point there being that consultation is something to be undertaken conscientiously with due regard and adequate time, for that which forms the subject for consultation."

Armour said, "I make that point to emphasise the balance with which this government approaches its constitutional mandate of governance."

While Government could have held fast in the Senate to the position that consultation was sufficient enough to allow the OPR to play a role in public procurement matters, Armour said it did not do so because of the legitimate concerns raised by independent senators.

"The Government accepted in maintaining balance in government, to relinquish its right to rely on the term 'consultation', according to the common law jurisprudence."

He said holding this position would have meant "a meaningful interchange between the OPR and the government."

Armour added that Government has instead accepted a proposal that exemption orders sought by the finance minister under the act will be made "by the minister, in agreement with the OPR."

"What does that mean? It means that the Government respects the role and function of the OPR which is endowed with considerable powers (under the act)."

Armour said those powers recognise "the legitimate oversight role of the OPR."

He said this ensures the pursuance of principles of accountability, integrity, transparency, value for money, local industry development and sustainable development in public procurement, as outlined in the act.

Armour said, "I cannot for the life of me, with the greatest of respect, imagine what could be wrong with that."

On an amendment to clause five of the bill, which allows regulations for the award of contracts up to $1 million, Armour said, "That's about transparency."

He added, "The point there being, that contracts are going to be made under the amendment, which has already been accepted within both houses (of parliament), within that $1 million threshold."

Armour said, "All contracts will simply be reported to the OPR to allow for the oversight and transparency that office brings to ensure that the act is being complied with."

Again, he continued, "I can see nothing objectionable about that. Nothing to protest against."

Before Armour sat down, he said, "Sophistry."

In his earlier contribution, Hosein asked if having the OPR's agreement on procurement matters added more bureaucracy to the procurement process.

He said the process was already too bureaucratic.

"Our (opposition) view on this matter remains consistent, that the minister should have just come to the Parliament and sought the approval (for exemptions) right here."

Hosein asked, "If the OPR says no to the minister and he does not agree (with the OPR) will it then grind government services to a halt?"

He said this was why the Parliament held three extraordinary sittings (two House and one Senate) during its annual fixed recess.

"Why don't we just leave it to affirmative resolution?"

Hosein said this exercise could be similar to what the House does when it approves notifications from the President on recommendations from the Police Service Commission for to appoint a police commissioner.

He asked whether situations where the government and OPR disagree would require the court to resolve them.

On regulations for contracts up to $1 million, Hosein said the amended bill does not give any details about what these regulations should include or timelines for the submission of these regulations.

He asked what happens if Government decides to exercise this power as soon as the bill becomes law.

Hosein asked if it takes a decade before such regulations are submitted to the OPR.

He added that under the interpretation act, "if the law does not provide a timeline (for completion of an exercise), it means as soon as reasonably practical."

Hosein said, "All of those things are subject to judicial scrutiny" where no time frame is expressly provided for in law, it suggests that regulations be provided to the OPR.

The bill now goes to President Christine Kangaloo for assent and subsequent proclamation into law.

As the House adjourned to a date to be fixed Speaker, Bridgid Annisette-George, reminded MPs that the Parliament was still on its fixed annual recess.

That recess runs from the first week in July to the first week in September.

This story has been adjusted to include additional details. See original post below.

THE House of Representatives took 30 minutes to approve amendments made by the Senate to the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Property (Amendment and Validation) Bill, 2023.

The House passed a motion to approve the amendments by a vote of 19-8.

The latter figure represents all opposition MPs who were present in the Parliament, who rejected the Senate's amendments.

Those amendments granted greater scrutiny of the Office of Procurement Regulator (OPR) in procurement matters and allowed for regulations to be made for the approval of contracts up to a sum of $1 million.

In concluding debate on the motion Attorney General Reginald Armour, SC, disagreed with claims by Barataria/San Juan MP Saddam Hosein that the amendments added additional bureaucracy to the procurement exercise and did not give the OPR the oversight it needed on procurement matters.

The Parliament, which is currently on its annual fixed recess, was recalled to pass this bill after flaws were identified in the procurement act.

The House sat on July 19 and passed the bill with amendments, by a vote of 22-16.

The Senate met on July 20 and the bill was passed with further amendments on July 21 around 2.38 am.

Now that the House approved the Senate's amendments to the bill, it will go to President Christine Kangaloo for asset and will subsequently be proclaimed into law.