Government used its majority on Friday night to pass a Bill that it says is part of a move towards ensuring transparency in the granting of all concessions although some opposition members expressed bewilderment at what was being presented to the House.
Taking the Financial Administration and Audit (Amendment) Bill through its final stages, Finance Minister Winston Jordan said that a simple amendment was being proposed. “As simple as it is it has wider connotations in terms of what this side of the House has been speaking about, that is, transparency in transactions,” he said.
The amendment seeks to exempt diplomatic, consular, international, charitable and non-profit organisations, semi-autonomous agencies, government departments, and public corporations from the payment of want-of entry charges, stamp duty and environmental tax.
Jordan recalled that while giving the keynote address to the Guyana Manufacturing and Services Association dinner last year, he indicated very early that government doesn’t want people lining up to ask for various concessions. “We want to have a regime that is transparent… this is one in a series of measures that we will be proposing over time to enshrine in law as far as possible all fiscal concessions so that in making your decision to invest you will know upfront what you will get,” he told the House.
He later recalled that the former administration did make some attempts to execute a similar procedure and he pointed to the repeal, in 2003, of Section 12 of the Customs Act.
Jordan said government has commitments under various laws that have to be met. An example, he said, is that under the Vienna Convention all diplomats are exempt from various taxes. “That being said, our customs laws have to reflect that fact. With the repeal of the Section 12 of the Act we did not then go and make an adjustment to the Financial Administration and Audit Act to ensure that diplomats and international organisations can be exempt from all these taxes,” he added.
He said that a former Minister of Finance had given a commitment that the amendment that government was now seeking to pass would be enacted. “I don’t know for what reason that commitment was not honoured but I am happy today to say that we are not only honouring a commitment that was given at that time but we also making certain that we are making transparent exemptions that so far are being technically granted illegally,” he said.
Later, opposition MP Anil Nandlall said that when he listened to the minister he was “a bit confused. I was not sure that the Honourable Minister was speaking in relation to or on the same Bill because the Bill that is before the House… has a very narrow compass.”
After going through what the amendments are supposed to address, Nandlall said that when the minister speaks about a uniformed regime of concessions for investors, he is clueless as to what he is making reference to since the Bill has nothing to do with that.
“Maybe it is a different Bill or the minister mixed up his notes because, as I said, this Bill has a narrow application and it applies only to the organisations… and in relation to only three matters want of entry charges, stamp duty and environmental tax,” he said.
He added that the Act which the Bill seeks to amend is one that was repealed in 2003 and if one is to read the contents of the Laws of Guyana there is no principal Act that is called the Financial Administration and Audit Act.
Nandlall later asked the minister to clarify his earlier statements, after indicating that the House would not want to pass a Bill inflicted with “technical difficulties.” He said that the opposition has no difficulty supporting its passage but only if difficulties are ironed out and the “authentic beneficiaries of this exemption are clearly targeted, identified and properly defined.”
Jordan, in response, observed that sometimes members of the House try to infer things that were not said and he noted that from the get go the Bill was part of a wider attempt by government to enshrine concessions generally in law so as to make them transparent.
He acknowledged that the Act was repealed but quickly pointed out that one part was saved.
Opposition Chief Whip Gail Teixeira rose on a point of order, which eventually led to her making a statement. Despite the attempts by the Speaker to stop her, she continued hurriedly until she had completed saying what she wanted to say and took her seat.
The Speaker then noted that Teixeira’s conduct was unacceptable, especially since she is a senior member of the House and should, at all times, conduct herself in a way that the new members could emulate.
Subsequently, Jordan told the House that every Bill or order or regulation passes through the “competent hands of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel and his staff” before it gets to the House. He made it clear that the Bill in its current state was properly before the House.
Nandlall quickly rose to inquire whether the issues he raised were going to be addressed. The Speaker made it clear that he would only permit him to make a point of order and not give a speech. “So you are going to allow the House to fall into error?” Nandlall, a former Attorney General, questioned.
“Are you questioning me Honourable Member?” the Speaker asked. As Nandlall attempted to explain himself, he was instructed to take his seat.
Despite the uproar from the opposition benches, the Bill was later passed by the government.
