Refining the approach on Petrotrin

THE BACK and forth over the Pointe-a-Pierre refinery assets between the government and trade unions shows why the disposal of state property should fall to an independent agency and not the executive of the day.

It seems curious that, two years after an initial bid round in which trade union entities were announced as the preferred bidder, things would unravel as they have this week notwithstanding haggling over terms, conditions and criteria. No wrong-doing is suggested, but the outcome alone is good reason to question whether all of the parties were acting in good faith.

All sorts of complications and divergent positions and conflicting opinions have peppered the factual matrix of this issue. That is why all of it should have been in the hands of an agency capable of acting judiciously.

It is a matter of deep regret that legislation setting up a procurement regulator remains only partly proclaimed, and worse yet that the government of the day has removed the ostensible responsibility for handling the disposal of state assets from the regulator’s ambit.

If anything, the current circumstances show why the regulator should play an even greater role, and not be merely facilitative of the wishes of an executive which is under no obligation to abide by regulatory guidelines, however well set out.

Meanwhile, the backdrop to all of this is also the sending home of thousands of workers, the shuttering of economic activity, and the knock-on effects not only of the refinery being closed but the conditions on the global market.

This issue being protracted has only served to distract from the need to address economic restructuring, to get the pandemic under control, and to address the needs of communities, particularly those in south Trinidad affected by the Petrotrin closure. What is the status of promised jobs from Phoenix Park Industrial Estate and the La Brea dry dock project?

It is also notable that the talks were subject, at various stages, to secrecy, a fact that seemed inappropriate given the significance of these assets, even as the parties may have had their eyes on maintaining the status quo in relation to outside commercial interests and potential international bidders.

That lack of secrecy compounds the perception of state assets being dangled at interest groups as a possible form of patronage, particularly given a timeline that straddled a general election.

It is equally a source of disquiet that this matter, handled ostensibly by Cabinet members and committees, has often leapfrogged between political actors – as though no real chain of command really applied in what should be the orderly transfer of billion-dollar assets.

In the coming weeks, there are likely to be claims and counter-claims, a drip-feed of information, appeals for all sides to reconsider. None of it will clarify the bigger policy questions now looming, no matter the assets’ fate.

What role will fossil fuel energy play in our economy in the decades to come? What role should it play? That is the elephant looming in the room.