Category: Public sector

Posted on

Supplementary or contingency: same abuse – Part 3

Introduction
To begin today’s column I conclude with two of the provisions relating to supplementary appropriations in the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act 2003 (FMAA). The first is that except in circumstances of grave national emergency, there can be no more than five supplementary appropriation bills in any one year. Second, every appropriation of public moneys authorised by Parliament for a fiscal year lapses and ceases to have effect as at the end of that fiscal year. And just in case any official, minister, or the Audit Office needs reminding, section 38 of the FMAA repeats what is stated in section 21, ie, that all public moneys raised or received by the government must be credited fully and promptly to the Consolidated Fund. “Public moneys” is defined to mean all moneys belonging to the state, including tax and non-tax revenue collections authorised by law; grants to the government; budget agency receipts; moneys borrowed by the state or received through the issuance and sale of securities; and moneys received or collected for and on behalf of the state.

The Contingencies Fund
I now turn to the constitutional provision governing the Contingencies Fund. The position is that if Parliament decides to establish a Contingencies Fund, Article 220 permits it to do so by paying into it a specific amount, the quantum of which is determined and, therefore, limited by law in respect of any year. The article goes on to authorise the minister responsible for finance to make advances from that fund, if he is satisfied that there is an urgent need for expenditure for which no other provision exists.

Advances from the Contingencies Fund must be cleared by a supplementary estimate laid before the National Assembly as soon as practicable (see 4) below), thus replacing the amount so advanced. Section 41 of the FMAA gives effect to Article 220 by providing that:

1) The Contingencies Fund is limited to two per cent of the estimated annual expenditure of the previous financial year or such greater sum as the National Assembly may approve. It is fixed for each year, either by way of the formula or an act and the minister cannot increase it without parliamentary authority.

2) Only the Minister of Finance can authorise the release of moneys from the Contingencies Fund and must do so personally. Legally, not even the President can instruct the Minister of Finance when it comes to this fund.

3) By way of a drawing right, the minister may make an advance from the Contingencies Fund. The circumstances under which he can do so are severely limited – the overriding test is threefold: urgent, unavoidable and unforeseen. Further, he can use this fund only where no or inadequate sums had previously been appropriated, or where reallocation under the FMAA is not possible, or finally, where delay would cause injury to the public interest. He cannot use the fund to meet a promise by the President to do something or the other, or because he failed to budget properly, or because some budget agency was careless.

4) The Minister must report at the next sitting of the National Assembly all advances made out of the Contingencies Fund, specifying (a) the amounts advanced; (b) to whom the amounts were paid; and (c) the purpose of the advances.

5) On approving such advance, the National Assembly must pass a supplementary appropriation act covering the advance.

I reject what appears to be the government’s implicit assumption that Article 220 establishing the Contingency Fund somehow overrides the provisions of Articles 216-219 establishing the sanctity and unity of the Consolidated Fund, and providing an elaborate regime for expenditure of public funds. All that Article 220 does is to authorise Parliament to establish, if it wishes, a Contingencies Fund. The FMAA sets the limit on the sum of money to be paid into this fund and sets out the procedures governing the use and operation of the fund. The purpose of Article 220 is to convert the demand for money to be available for unforeseeable expenditure, which could be treated as a demand for loose or floating money, into a demand for a determinable amount of money for a specific purpose approved by law made by Parliament and by the constitution.

The purpose and combined effect of the constitutional provisions and the FMAA is that all expenditure, whether from the Consolidated Fund or its sub-fund the Contingencies Fund, must be by way of an appropriation act. This allows the National Assembly to retain control of public moneys while allowing the executive branch sufficient latitude to conduct governmental business. The limitation on the number of supplementary appropriation bills would seem designed to impose a form of financial discipline and order on the Ministry of Finance and budget agencies, in contrast to haphazard, guesswork financial management.

Against this constitutional and statutory background we can now consider the six Financial Papers presented to the National Assembly for 2009 for a total sum of $15,703 million. As we see from the table below, the amounts provided to clear advances from the Contingency Fund were $3,936 million while supplementary provisions amounted to $11,767 million. These were approved by way of Supplementary Appropriations Acts passed on August 25 and December 14, 2009 and January 14, 2010.

Table of Supplementary Appropriations in respect of 2009

Source: Acts and Financial Papers

1. While nothing new can be said about the failure to deposit the lotto funds into the Consolidated Fund, equally dangerously and unconstitutionally, the lotto funds are being used by the President to make payments. I have tried to ascertain the identity of the officials complicit in this illegality by trying several sources to ascertain the signatories to “account 3119.” Everyone is afraid to speak. It is no wonder that the government would not bring Freedom of Information legislation, despite the President’s commitment announced to the international press.

2. In financial paper No. 6, $1.6 billion is included as additional inflows for the Low Income Housing Programme Revolving Fund. A revolving fund can only be established under an appropriation act which specifies the purposes and draw-down limit. There is no indication when such a fund was created or its limits. No such fund appears to have existed at the beginning of 2009 and there is some mystery about its origin and operations.

3. There is some apparent misunderstanding between inflows which should be paid into the Consolidated Fund and the related expenditure which should be the subject of the appropriation act. Any money received has first to go into the Consolidated Fund. Its expenditure is an entirely different matter.

4. The Finance Minister fails consistently to bring to the next sitting of the National Assembly advances out of the Contingency Fund. As a result we have in Financial Paper #1, Contingency Fund payments for a period of six months. During that period, the National Assembly had met on more than two dozen occasions. But this is the Minister’s artful but deceptive way to circumvent the limit on the number of supplementary appropriation bills he can introduce.

5. The annual Budget never states the amount in the Contingencies Fund. While the Audit Office annually refers to the abuse of this fund, that office seems not to understand what is meant by “advances” in the context of the fund. It is meant to be an amount paid in advance of appropriation at the next sitting, not some prepayment for future expenditure.

6. Arguably most of the Contingency Fund expenditure does not meet the strict test of “urgent, unavoidable and unforeseen” set out in section 41 of the FMAA. The case of the $400 million to the GRDB as Subsidies and Contributions to Local Organisations is instructive.

7. The Contingency Fund seems routinely used to make expenditure for subsequent financial years. The Minister of Health admitted as much in the case of purchases of drugs from the New GPC.

8. Act 3 of 2010 is interesting. It indicates that the government spends moneys contrary to law, not only in respect of the Contingencies Fund but for non-urgent expenditure. And just reflect on the first paragraph of this column: that every appropriation of public moneys authorised by Parliament for a fiscal year lapses and ceases to have effect as at the end of that fiscal year. Seems to suggest that the appropriation lapsed even before the National Assembly approved it.

9. In Financial Paper 5 there is, under the Office of the President, an amount of $353 million for the installation of fibre optic cables and termination, as a Contingency Fund provision. The explanation, or justification, by no less than the President, that this is to introduce “e-government,” ie, electronic government, is as absurd and misinformed as it is wasteful.

A criticism of this less than half-baked and non-technical description needs a separate column, but consider that the same week the announcement was made, the President was unveiling an advanced, multi-billion dollar, technically tested scheme by GT&T! Nor does the payment meet the test of “urgent, unavoidable and unforeseen,” and the Minister should be held accountable for this illegality since the law imposes on him exclusive responsibility over the Consolidated Fund.

Leading on from the issue of responsibility, next week’s concluding part will look at who is responsible and who can be penalised, and offer some of the recommendations to improve the financial management of the public finances of the country.

Posted on

Supplementary or contingency: same abuse – Part 2

Setting up of two funds
Occasioned by the walkout of the opposition from the National Assembly as it considered Supplementary Appropriation (No.3 of 2009) Bill 2010, for $8,245,758,278, some of which had already been spent (Contingencies) and to be spent (Supplementary Appropriations), I began an examination of the whole business of the constitution and the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act 2003 (FMAA). Together these provide the legal framework for the receipts and payments of public expenditure, and today I propose to examine the various provisions as a basis for consideration in the next part as to whether there is compliance with the constitution and the law in how the Minister of Finance treats with the Consolidated Fund and the Contingency Fund.

The constitution
The Consolidated Fund and the Contingency Fund are dealt with under Articles 216-219 and 220 respectively.

These five articles occur in Title 8 which is intituled simply ‘Finance.’ Together they deal with the establishment, funding and withdrawal of money from the Consolidated Fund or other public funds. For reminders, the Contingency Fund is not a separate fund but only a sub-fund of the Consolidated Fund.

The title of Article 220 is ‘Contingency Fund.’ It corresponds with the four articles on the Consolidated Fund and deals with the establishment of the Contingency Fund and its funding, which may be considered as one part, and withdrawing money out of it, which may be considered as the second and separate part of its provisions. One of the differences between the Consolidated Fund and the Contingency Fund is that while the constitution establishes the Consolidated Fund, Article 220 does not establish the Contingency Fund by its own provision, but leaves it to Parliament to decide whether or not it will establish the fund. “Parliament may by law establish” says the text of the article.

Because the Consolidated Fund is the repository of revenues or other moneys raised or received by Guyana and the source from which expenditure is made, the amount in this fund changes constantly. This is not the case with the Contingency Fund which has to be a specific amount, the quantum of which is determined, and therefore, limited by Parliament by law. We now look at those provisions in some detail.

Article 216 provides that “all revenues or other moneys raised or received by Guyana (not being revenues or other moneys that are payable, by or under an Act of Parliament, into some other fund established for any specific purpose or that may, by or under such an Act, be retained by the authority that received them for the purpose of defraying the expenses of that authority) shall be paid into and form one Consolidated Fund.”

This constitutional provision is systematically abused. It is now more than a decade since Auditor General Anand Goolsarran had cited the failure by the government to pay the government’s share of 24% of the proceeds of Guyana Lotteries to the Consolidated Fund, an assertion that has been repeated in every single annual report of the Audit Office. The 2007 report simply reminds Guyanese that no action was taken to pay over the amounts due to the Consolidated Fund but that such proceeds were paid into a special bank account No. 3119 and were used to meet public expenditure without parliamentary approval.

Watchdogs?
But instead of acting decisively on this matter the Audit Office accepts the inane response from the Ministry of Finance “that a policy decision is required on this matter, ” suggesting that the government or cabinet has some discretion on whether or not to comply with the constitution. Unfortunately, it is not only the Audit Office that bears responsibility for this sad state of affairs but so do the Public Accounts Committee and the National Assembly which are supposed to be our financial watchdogs. But so too does civil society, including those religious organisations which have accepted lotto funds for the construction of religious buildings.

While the lotto funds may be the most obvious and egregious case of violation when it comes to putting government revenues and receipts into the Consolidated Fund, it is not the only or obvious one. For example, the government with the cooperation of NICIL and the Privatisation Unit have been holding and spending public monies without the approval of the parliament and with no public oversight. That too runs into hundreds if not more than a billion dollars.

The Fiscal Management and Accountability Act 2003 which gives effect to the provisions of the constitution, provides that all budget agency receipts shall be credited to the Consolidated Fund. The agencies include the ministries, commissions, regions, the Guyana Defence Force and the Georgetown Public Hospital Corporation (GHPC). My understanding is that the money from the lottery company is paid to the Ministry of Finance making the decision not to place the lotto money into the Consolidated Fund both unconstitutional and unlawful. I particularly identify the GHPC because it too is guilty of such a breach which is done with the full knowledge of both the Ministers of Finance and Health. In an environment in which the rule of law prevailed, both these Ministers would be guilty of an indictable offence and liable on conviction to a fine of two million dollars and to imprisonment for three years. But Guyana has no such environment.

Now for expenditure
Article 217 restricts the withdrawal of moneys from the Consolidated Fund to one of three cases:

(a) to meet expenditure that is charged upon the fund by this constitution or by any Act of Parliament;
(b) where the issue of those moneys has been authorised by an Appropriation Act;
(c) where the issue of those moneys has been authorised under article 219.

Paragraph (3) of this article requires an Act of Parliament before any money can be withdrawn from any public fund other than the Consolidated Fund while paragraph (4) empowers Parliament to prescribe the manner in which withdrawals may be made from the Consolidated Fund or any other public fund.

Article 218 deals with the Appropriation Act to give effect to the National Budget as well as any supplementary estimates.

Article 219 which deals with the authorisation of expenditure before the annual Appropriation Act is passed, empowers parliament to make provision for the Finance Minister to authorise withdrawal from the Consolidated Fund of moneys to meet expenditure necessary to carry on the services of the Government of Guyana up to April 30 of the year, or until the Appropriation Act for that year.

The provisions governing such expenditure are contained in the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act 2003 to which for the moment I now turn.

Fiscal Management and Accountability Act 2003
If anyone has any problems with interpreting the relevant constitutional provisions, section 16 of the FMAA should remove any doubts. It provides very simply that there shall be no expenditure of public moneys except in accordance with Article 217 of the constitution. It does not stop there but goes on to set out detailed provisions in sections 17 (the statutory framework for the annual appropriation to authorise the expenditure set out in the budget); 18 (proscribing any expenditure of any budget agency receipt except by way of an appropriation); 22 (authority to vary annual appropriations); 23 (Appropriation Amendment Acts) and 24 (Supplementary Appropriation Acts).

We the ordinary citizens need not feel badly if this sounds a tad too complicated. Not only do we not bear the statutory responsibility for ensuring the act is complied with, but from all the evidence it seems that all the persons with responsibility for doing so are equally confused or simply do not care.

The Appropriation Bill presented under section 17 is required to conform to international standards, but what these are and whether they are applied in Guyana has never been addressed in any published document of which I am aware. With great respect to our ministers, accounting officers, staff of the National Audit Office and members of the Public Accounts Committee, I am not sure that they too are aware of what such standards are, let alone best practice.

Varying expenditure
Subject to laid down conditions, section 22 gives the minister the power to reallocate authorised spending among annual appropriations. The main conditions are that these be within the same budget agencies, that no capital allocation can be used for recurrent expenditure, a ten per cent limit and that no new appropriations can be created. Such changes are themselves subject to what is called an Appropriation Amendment Bill to be presented to the National Assembly no later than the end of the eleventh month of the current fiscal year.

Any variation other than the reallocation referred to in section 22 must be authorised by a Supplementary Appropriation Act prior to the incurring of any expenditure thereunder. As we noted last week, on the introduction of a Supplementary Appropriation Bill, the minister must present to the National Assembly the reasons for the proposed variations and provide a supplementary document describing the impact that the variations, if approved, will have on the financial plan outlined in the annual budget.

Neither the current Minister of Finance nor his predecessor has ever complied with the requirement to publish such a document. Again, one has to ask where is the National Assembly in all of this and whether the clerk and/or the speaker, the parliamentary opposition and the Public Accounts Committee ought not to do something about this persistent abuse. Dr. Ashni Singh gives the appearance of not being influenced by any law, professional or public opinion in terms of how, what and when he does anything. It is one of the failings of these types of legislation that they provide no automatic sanction for patent and systematic breaches. Nor do they lend themselves, without the availability of substantial private resources, to being responsive to legal sanctions.

Next week we will look at the Contingency Fund and close by examining the extent to which the cause of the walkout that sparked this series has any merit.

Posted on

Supplementary or contingency: Same abuse

Introduction
So often we hear time-worn sayings like ‘Chickens coming home to roost,’ ‘History repeating itself’ and ‘Forgetting the lessons of history,’ and we think they are just platitudes of no consequence. Yet the brouhaha in the National Assembly last Monday showed how some such things are not only more than idle talk, but rather powerful enough to have an after life.

The occasion for the war of words in the National Assembly was consideration of Supplementary Appropriation (No.3 of 2009) Bill 2010, for $8,245,758,278 as further and additional funding for various purposes, some of which had already been spent (Contingencies) and to be spent (Supplementary Appropriations).

On one side there were Prime Minister Sam Hinds, Housing Minister Irfan Ali and Health Minister Dr Leslie Ramsammy, three persons whose ministerial portfolios were significant would-be beneficiaries of the bulk of the supplementary funds. Over the other side were two attorneys-at-law, Opposition Members of Parliament Winston Murray (PNCR) and Khemraj Ramjattan (AFC), both of whom eventually left the arena in anger and frustration, threatening to take the fight elsewhere.

Déjà vu
To understand the exchanges one needs to delve a little bit into history, going back to the National Development Strategy which was adopted by the National Assembly a couple of years ago. Chapter 13 of that strategy dealing with Fiscal Policy and The Public Sector had this to say about the Contingency Fund which is so often confused – either by design or otherwise – with Supplementary Appropriations.

“Deficiencies in the Budget Process: Largely due to deficiencies in the budgetary process, the Contingencies Fund has been used to meet all kinds of expenditures, such as shortfalls in ministries’ provisions arising from basic miscalculations in estimates and unrealistic budget assumptions about exchange rate changes, inflation and spending patterns, and the introduction during the course of the year of new projects or programmes deemed ‘necessary’ or ‘relevant’ by a political or high-ranking technical functionary. Instead of being used for emergencies, such as a major breach in the sea defence system – the use intended by the National Assembly – the Contingency Fund now serves as a source of financing for unauthorised (by Parliament) and additional expenditures.”

More and more we have to admire, and owe a debt of gratitude to, the scores of persons who contributed to that document. Had we taken the NDS seriously we would long have been on an environmentally-conscious development trajectory rather than travelling to dictatorships like Iran to beg for money to sustain our economy.

The first walkout
The French have a wonderful way of expressing the English equivalent of “the more things change the more they remain the same.” And that introduces the second bit of history, this time in December 2003 when the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act 2003 came up for consideration in the National Assembly. The Stabroek News of December 16 of that year reported the PPP/C refusing a request from the Opposition PNCR to send the 87-clause bill to a select committee for detailed consideration. The Minister of Finance then was Mr Saisnarine Kowlessar and the reason he advanced for the government’s refusal of the request was that urgent passage was necessary to pave the way for debt relief of US$30 million from the World Bank and the IMF for the next twenty years. That explanation appears as strange as the request was sensible but then the National Assembly has never been the forum for the most sensible decisions or debate in Guyana.

Given no more than forty-eight hours to study and debate the bill, Mr Winston Murray, the PNC Shadow Finance Minister walked out in protest, allowing the overwhelming passage of the bill that may soon be at the centre of a legal action by the Alliance For Change. Ironically, the PPP/C may itself be a loser for not having read and understood what is clearly a complex and possibly badly worded piece of legislation. Indeed a statement given by Mr Robert Corbin, the PNCR leader on the recent exchange suggests that, at the very least, the act lends itself to continued misunderstanding in how billions of taxpayers’ funds are spent and accounted for. Over the next couple of weeks Business Page will examine some of the main provisions of the act, the principal objective of which is better transparency and accountability for the receipts and payments of the state in the Consolidated Fund which has as a sub-fund a Contingency Fund.

The Supplementary Appropriation
Section 24 of the FMAA requires that the variation of an appropriation other than reallocation of approved appropriations must be authorised by a supplementary appropriation act prior to the incurring of any expenditure. And that is where the experienced Prime Minister, the adventurous Health Minister and the green Housing Minister appear to have run into problems, confusing the supplementary funding with the kind of expenditure for which the Contingency Fund was specifically set up.

It seems too that the Finance Minister Dr Ashni Singh is also not sufficiently familiar with the act’s provisions on supplementary appropriations since he consistently fails to comply with the requirement that on the introduction of a supplementary appropriation bill, he is required to present to the National Assembly the reasons for the proposed variations and “a supplementary document describing the impact that the variations, if approved, will have on the financial plan outlined in the national budget.”

And before we go on perhaps it would be useful to note that Ram & McRae in Budget Focus 2008 had identified the absence of meaningful debate and real accounting for such additional funds.

Did it not strike our parliamentarians as odd that they should pass legislation that requires a request for $100 million in the budget to be subject to extensive scrutiny and debate but for an $8 billion supplementary request to be supported by only very limited information and subject only to questions and not a debate?

Cocking a snook at Parliament
Because of the supremacy of the constitution which empowers and regulates the raising of revenues and the incurring of expenditure by the government, we will also be looking at how the FMAA gives effect to and is circumscribed by the constitution. In researching for this column I found an interesting article by Indian Professor P.K. Tripathi and titled Lawless withdrawals from public funds: Cocking a snook at Parliament. It is apparent from that article that the application of responsible public accounting begins with the appreciation of a fundamental point about democracy and the rule of law.

As Tripathi points out, in a democracy the government must function both in respect of determination of its policies and the administration of those policies strictly under the control of the representatives of the people. The democratic process requires that no public monies can be spent without a grant made by the Parliament following a request by the government in the form of an Appropriation Bill or a Supplementary Appropriation Bill presented to the National Assembly specifying the purposes for which it plans to spend and the amounts of money it plans to spend on each of those purposes.

One exception for the prior approval of the National Assembly is in respect of monies out of the Contingencies Fund. I will look at the governing constitutional and statutory procedures next week, but for now it is not at all clear that those on the government side of the House, including the Prime Minister and Leader of the House Samuel Hinds and the Finance Minister Dr Ashni Singh, Dr Leslie Ramsammy and Mr Irfan Ali are familiar with those provisions. The two financial papers which were embodied in Supplementary Appropriation Bill #3 were in respect of both advances from the Contingency Fund and Supplementary Provisions for the year 2009. If we accept the position in the law that supplementary provision must be approved prior to expenditure it would seem beyond logic that one can be asking for supplementary provision for 2009 in 2010!

The New GPC again
Included in Financial Paper No. 5/2009 for $1.449 billion were amounts totalling $473 million for purchases of drugs mainly from the New Guyana Pharmaceutical Corporation towards which this government had earlier found itself acting illegally. Is history now repeating itself with breaches of the Contingency Fund being involved in payments made to the company between December 28 and 31 to procure drugs to last up to April 2010? What neither Dr Ramsammy nor Dr Ashni Singh told the National Assembly is when the drawing rights for these were requested, and issued in accordance with section 41 of the FMAA.

It may well turn out to be entirely ironic that one of the few amendments proposed by Mr Winston Murray and accepted by the government when the FMAA Bill was debated in 2003 may come back to haunt the government. And that is in relation to penalties for breaches.

The act makes it an indictable offence punishable on conviction to a fine of two million dollars and to imprisonment for three years for any official to knowingly permit any other person to contravene any provision of the act.

Maybe the Prime Minister sensed the rising temperature and not so implicit threats during the exchange in the National Assembly, taking refuge in the need to consult legally.

Those who have honed their political skills and owe their allegiance to the architects of the more permissive recent financial arrangements do not appear so compelled.

To be continued

Posted on

Brightening prospects – The Ram & McRae Business Outlook Survey 2010

Introduction
Today’s column draws heavily on the Business Outlook Survey 2010, an annual survey which Ram & McRae has been carrying out for sixteen years. While the overall coverage of the press conference announcing the results of the survey was, as usual, good, I was surprised at the number of media who offered the mild criticism that the event clashed with a sitting of the National Assembly. One of them even suggested that the firm should shift the time of the press conference! I hope this is not an indication that parts of our media do not have the barest of resources to cover more than one event simultaneously.

In its introductory comments on the survey, the firm noted that the survey was taking place in a year that began with the world confronted by real fear of another Great Depression, the possibility of a return to protectionism and the collapse of the world’s increasingly globalised financial system. Armageddon was averted, and according to the publication, World Economic Situation and Prospects (WESP), a joint product of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and the five United Nations regional commissions, the global economy began to recover from the second quarter of 2009, aided by massive fiscal stimuli and intervention by governments that seem suddenly to resurrect Lord Keynes. WESP noted, however, that the recovery, which is still taking place, has been uneven and that conditions for sustained growth remain fragile.

Unsatisfactory
Here at home, despite the huge sums from our donors specifically to rebuild the statistical and financial capacity of the relevant agencies, national financial and economic statistics remain unsatisfactory. This column over the past few weeks has been at pains to point out the considerable confusion caused by conflicting statistics published by the Bank of Guyana and the Ministry of Finance. The Bank of Guyana has now quietly amended its own figures on its website by way of a footnote in its half-year report, but which now introduces an inconsistency with its conclusion. It is ironic that even as the Bank does this, it received from the survey respondents the highest number of ‘excellent’ ratings among public sector entities.

The agreement on a decline in the economy’s performance in the half year seems to suggest that the decline continued into the second quarter of the year, unlike the rest of the WESP recovery countries. Let us hope it will not take several more years before Guyana joins the rest of the modern world in offering quarterly economic statistics including labour data and regional activities.

Copenhagen fails
As the 2010 survey was being carried out, the world’s – and Guyana’s – attention was focused on Copenhagen, Denmark where the world’s leaders were haggling over a solution to a phenomenon with potentially devastating consequences for the environment. The report noted that signs coming out from that conference were not good, a view that has been confirmed by the failure of the more than one hundred leaders to arrive at meaningful and necessary action to protect the environment and secure the future of planet earth. No amount of diplomatic acrobatics or linguistics by Ban Ki-Moon, the UN Secretary General, could mask the huge failure that Copenhagen has turned out to be. Ram & McRae had noted that no amount of fiscal stimulus could substitute for the tough economic and political decisions which a solution demands, decisions which China and to a lesser extent the USA were unwilling to make. Having said that, Copenhagen represented a failure of leadership, preparation and execution all around.

The good, the bad and the…
The survey’s introductory remarks included a reminder that Guyana was spared a repeat of the Bartica-Lusignan type murderous attacks of the previous year. Businesses were not prepared, however, to give the security forces much credit for this and indeed, the Guyana Police Force and its supervising Ministry of Home Affairs were rated poorly in terms of effectiveness among public sector entities. The government however was far more generous to the security forces, not only in terms of huge budgetary increases but also in the payment of bounties, a dangerous policy if ever there was one.

Not surprisingly, the Low Carbon Development Strategy as a concept received a highly favourable rating, as did the new prevention of money laundering legislation and the repeat of the proposal for a credit bureau. Not only Guyana but the world agrees with some form of LCDS – which essentially calls for simultaneous development of the economy and the protection of the environment. It is not hard to understand too why the respondents supported anti-money laundering legislation. Those engaged in tax evasion, money laundering, corruption and who dominate the criminalised sector have a huge advantage over those who run reasonably honest businesses. Previous money laundering legislation did not work, and I do not think it is too early to fear that, as presently organised, the new arrangements are going to be any more successful.

Confidence levels
The survey report noted that confidence levels in the business sector had fallen significantly in recent years, and in the 2009 survey, none of the respondents was confident that the economy would improve and sixty per cent were positively not confident about the country’s economic prospects. The percentage of respondents who are now less pessimistic than the year before has fallen by 9% to 51%, the same level as in 2008 but still far from the levels of confidence reflected in the 2006 and 2007 surveys. After the re-election of President Jagdeo in 2006, only 17% of the private sector had expressed pessimism about the economy. That percentage has increased two-fold, in contradiction to what the leaders of the private sector have been singing to the government over the past couple of years.

A summary of the responses is as follows:

2009.12.20_Table1

One feature of the annual surveys has been that whatever their outlook of the economy might be, respondents always were more confident about their own operations, management and prospects. None of them plans any contraction of their business and they expect – in percentages unprecedented in recent years – increases in turnover and profitability. In its comment on these expectations, Ram & McRae expressed the hope that the increasingly confident business community, including the cash-rich financial sector, would provide the investment the country badly needs to generate employment, foreign exchange and taxes, to help in the development of the country.

Self-confidence

2009.12.20_Table2

Public/Private Sector performances
For the first time since the firm initiated a Business Outlook Survey sixteen years ago, it asked respondents to rate twenty-one public sector entities with which businesses interact and to rank them from poor (ineffective) to excellent (very effective). Respondents were given the option of not providing a rating for any of the entities, an option taken up by an average of eleven respondents – either opting out of the question or not having done business with the body.

Getting high ratings in order were the Ministry of Agriculture, the Bank of Guyana and the Ministry of Labour, with GPL rated the poorest. Of concern is the NIS which was rated eleventh in a group that includes the Guyana Police Force, the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance and, of course, GPL. The Commercial Court was rated higher in terms effectiveness than the High Court.

Of the ten NGOs, the two trade union umbrella bodies were rated lowest in terms of effectiveness, with the Trades Union Congress slightly ahead of the Federation of Independent Trade Unions with thirty-seven respondents (80%) and thirty-six respondents (84%) rating them as ineffective or marginally effective, respectively. Neither received an ‘excellent’ rating from any respondent.

At the other end of the scale, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Guyana and the Guyana Manufacturing and Services Association were rated highest with fourteen (33%) and ten (22%) rating them as effective or very effective respectively. Interestingly the private sector organisations the Guyana Manufacturers Association and the Georgetown Chamber of Commerce received considerably higher ratings than the Private Sector Commission, which more often than not claims to speak on behalf of the private sector.

Conclusion
All the indicators and informed projections point to a retreat from the free-fall in world trade, industrial production, asset prices and global credit availability which had threatened to push the global economy into another great depression in 2009. Since the second quarter of 2009, economies across continents have been improving at varying rates of growth. International trade and global industrial production have also been recovering noticeably, with an increasing number of countries registering positive quarterly growth of gross domestic product (GDP). That revival has been driven in no small part by the effects of the massive policy stimuli injected worldwide since late 2008, and by strong cyclical inventory adjustment. But as the UN World Economic Situation and Prospects (WESP) 2010 notes, the recovery is uneven and conditions for sustained growth remain fragile. Credit conditions are still tight in major developed economies, unemployment is still high and businesses are still wary of expanding the productive capacity until more certainty and stability appear.

At home, despite serious warning signs in agriculture, bauxite and manufacturing, the Minister of Finance predicted a significant turn around in the second half of 2009 while the President seems over-enthused about the economy’s prospects with some US$30 million coming to the country next year under the Guyana-Norway LCDS Memorandum of Understanding.

In the report’s conclusion, the firm expressed its continued conviction in the usefulness of the survey despite the apparent disregard by the government of the wider views of the private sector expressed in confidential, independent and professionally compiled reports. I am convinced that the government’s failure to treat with meaningful tax reform has contributed to the continuing, widespread and massive tax evasion. It has failed to incorporate into the formal economy the huge parallel economy and it has demonstrated neither the will nor the capacity to deal with the criminalised segment of the economy, corruption, and white collar crime. Unemployment and under-employment are officially non-issues, even as the country laments the loss of professional and other skills to migration.

Noting that the short-term political advantages gained by allowing these issues to be driven by electoral considerations are far outweighed by the long-term economic costs, the firm was not hopeful that these issues would be addressed in a year preceding important general elections.

Posted on

Economy firewall malfunctions – Conclusion

Conclusion
This is the fourth and final part of a review of the Mid-year Report 2009 presented by the Minister of Finance to the National Assembly under the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act, 2003. As I promised last week, the purpose of this closing part is to pull the strands of the three preceding segments together and to look for any causes of optimism in the economy and its management.

Despite its title, the Act requires of the mid-year report more than the year-to-date execution of the annual budget. It requires the report to set out the prospects for the remainder of the year. It also mandates the inclusion of a revised economic outlook for the rest of the year, a statement of the projected impact of the trends on the remainder of the year, and very importantly, a list of major fiscal risks for the second half of the year with likely policy responses that the government proposes to take to meet the expected circumstances. In my view the report presented by the Minister falls very short of the requirements of the Act, and he spent no more than a few sentences on the revised economic outlook, fiscal risks and proposed government responses for the rest of the year. If proof be needed, then the Minister himself provided it this past week when he brought before the National Assembly requests for $5 billion, mainly for spending in the second half of the year, which must have qualified for – but did not receive – inclusion under projected trends and major fiscal risks. It is also a case of how bad and weak the Ministry of Finance is when it comes to budgeting and planning.

Before proceeding, I digress to repeat what I consider a major concern about the report, and that is its lack of timeliness and therefore its limited practical value. The report is by law due no later that August 30 of the year. It is now normal not only for the report to be issued months later, but also for it to bear a date that is very misleading, sending a signal to others that it is okay to do so. For 2009 it was presented on November 12, but bearing the date September 25. The Minister must be aware not only that the National Assembly has a registry to receive reports when it is in recess, but that it is wrong to send signals to subordinates that such conduct is acceptable.

Disdain
In part 2 of this short series I drew attention to an item in the Bank of Guyana Half-year Report submitted to the Minister of Finance, in which the performance of the economy in the first half of the year was addressed in considerable detail. I noted an obvious conflict between the numbers presented by the Minister and those presented by the Bank of Guyana; while one was reporting growth, the other was reporting a decline. Clearly they both could not be right, and the public would have expected, both out of duty and professional self-respect, either or both of these entities to have addressed the issue. Neither has done so, further evidence of the Minister’s disdain for the public, recalling his response to a Kaieteur News article on grossly excessive payment by the government for the purchase and supply of equipment, when he suggested that the newspaper should start bidding for contracts!

LCDS and accountability
The Minister must be aware that the President’s attempt to raise money internationally for Guyana’s proposed low carbon development strategy is also drawing attention to the country and its management. Everyone, including the General Secretary of the ruling party, now admits that corruption is taking place in the country – any difference being only the matter of degree, with most independent opinions leaning towards corruption on a massive scale. That view is reflected in Guyana’s ranking in the Corruption Perception Index by the internationally respected, German-based Transparency International, where Guyana is rated at 126 of 183 countries, the worst in the region.

This series on the mid-year report pointed to one of the most celebrated cases of flagrant breaches of financial procedures – that involving the purchase of drugs by the government, largely from an entity with which the President admitted to having close ties, and which had earlier been singled out for unlawful tax concessions. But that is only one case among many that are surfacing daily with contractors, whose low expertise in construction is only matched by high level connections, and who receive multi-million dollar contracts that cost as much in rework in some cases, almost as soon as the work is signed off and payment made. Corruption is one C-word that is alien to any half-year or full-year review done by the Minister.

Unlike the Minister of Finance and the President, Norway, the government’s LCDS benefactor, is not oblivious to or unaware of the endemic problems of corruption in Guyana, neither does it seem willing to sweep them under the carpet. That country’s Environment and International Development Minister Erik Solheim has made its position on corruption clear by prescribing robust anti-corruption measures before Guyana can draw down on the six-year US$250 million promise made by Norway. That understanding is still only at the MOU stage and may therefore be subject to further refinements and a formal and binding agreement.

Transparency
It is almost a joke to speak of a transparent financial mechanism while simultaneously and strongly refusing to put into effect constitutional provisions regarding the procurement of goods and services or an Audit Office headed and staffed by persons with appropriate qualifications. That the current head of the Audit Office is merely acting has as much to do with the fact that he has no professional accounting or audit qualification as that it serves the government well to have someone hold a key constitutional, accountability position purely at its whim and for its convenience. Those in acting positions know that if they rock the boat they risk sinking with it, a chance that out of self-interest, they will not take.

If the Norwegians are any more careful with their taxpayers’ funds than say the multilateral IDB or the World Bank, the chances of Guyana drawing down the entire sum must be low. If US$250M buys the Norwegians sufficient carbon credits to embellish their questionable record as an environment polluter, they may feel they have obtained a basement bargain. On the other hand, Guyana gives up major rights and opportunities, raising the question whether the country should not have had an indigenous low carbon development strategy rather than one dictated by the Norwegians, acting in their interest.

Contract employees
Another issue highlighted by this series was the increasing prevalence of the use of contract employees to get around the rules of employment in the public service. I had drawn attention to the more than $3 billion paid in salaries to this group of hand-picked persons, with another huge amount paid in benefits to them, including a 22% gratuity every six months. The really lucky ones get cars, drivers and duty concessions on top. This means that even the non-contract employees are really a benefit to the contract employees. Who these lucky ones are is intended to be a secret, but the Office of the President is a wonderful case of abuse. Of 201 employees in the Office of the President, ninety-five are contract employees and fifty-four are temporary. Among the contract employees are former ministers, all of whom are reported to be employed at the pleasure of the President on the same salaries and with the same benefits that they received as ministers. The Ministry of Local Government has two former ministers who must still be financed by the taxpayers.

Ironically, both the Public Service Commission and the Public Service Ministry which are expected to protect the integrity of the public service are themselves serial cases of the contract employee syndrome, while the culture also seems embedded in the Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sport.

Implications
The implications of this are huge and costly. It gets around the constitutional provisions for employment in the public service, creating a huge army of often highly paid loyalists but more importantly, it destroys the public service and its structures. What institutional memory will remain if on a change of government, the holders of all major key positions are not retained? Are we again going to turn to the British government which in the late eighties paid huge sums on financing a study that led to sweeping changes in the public sector and a dramatic reduction in the number of ministries? But that was before we had VAT that provides an annual windfall in revenues for the government to (mis)spend as it pleases, even as the half-year report discloses increasing borrowings without any indication of the actual amount of funds in the Treasury. That simply cannot be responsible financial management.

We noted in paragraph one that the Minister had approached the National Assembly for close to $5B to pay for unbudgeted expenditure on the army, Office of the President, LCDS, GuySuCo and other agencies and ministries. But we had also noted from the first-half report the low level of spending in that half year. The country’s financial rules provide for the reallocation of funds from one budget area to another. There is no indication that this sensible practice is ever employed instead of the simplistic approach for the National Assembly to rubber stamp excess and excessive spending. Simplistic too is its approach to sugar into which it continues to pump billions while its relationship with its major stakeholder – the workers – deteriorates rapidly. It is easy to forget that the government defied the World Bank and informed the public concerned about the Skeldon Project, the largest single public investment ever undertaken in this country. The results so far have been more than merely disappointing.

Where next?
Ram & McRae will this Thursday publish its report on its annual Business Outlook Survey which would give a good indication of the private sector’s take on the economy. From the empirical evidence only a few sectors are doing well but none of these is in manufacturing or production. Our financial sector continues to do well, as does distribution, but important as these are, they provide an intermediary function. The state-owned power company, whose costs feed into the rest of the economy, continues to struggle to reduce inefficiencies and costs. The public sector wage bill keeps mounting while services remain stagnant. The bureaucracy and its sibling, corruption, impose a huge cost on the highly-taxed economy, in which equity and fairness hardly exist.

It would not be right to argue that there have not been improvements in infrastructure, health and education, which were tied to the huge debt reliefs enjoyed over the past two decades. We have, however, failed in diversifying and strengthening our productive capabilities. Until we do that we cannot declare that we have accomplished the mission set by the PPP/C when it assumed control of this country, including making the country a place where rights, responsibilities and rewards were borne and shared equitably.