Poppycock?

This article was published in the TT Sunday Guardian on 2020 12 13

 According to the last Sunday’s Express the PM used the term “absolute poppycock” to describe the objections of critics to the government’s amendments to the Procurement Act. He rebuked the opposition as having no moral authority given their profligate spending whilst in office. He argued that professionals (legal, financial, auditing, and medical services) should be procured based on criteria other than lowest price. Since then, the Law association, the Chambers of Commerce, TTMA JCC have voiced their opposition to the amendments. This week, ignoring the voices of concern the Administration soldiered on to render the Act toothless.

Dr. Rowley, as a back-bencher in 2009 and then as opposition leader between 2010-15, highlighted these same concerns when he noted that politicians and state enterprises have used procurement mechanisms to favour friends. There are three areas of potential abuse. First by directing a disproportionate number of legal briefs or service contracts to favorites. Second, using subcontracting as a means of avoiding the tender process and public scrutiny. Third, the use of government-to-government arrangements. Ultimately, the taxpayer bears the cost.

Dr. Rowley noted pointedly that such nefarious activities are facilitated by willing accomplices in the relevant institutions as politicians neither signed contracts, nor wrote cheques. He is on record as being extremely critical of government-to-government arrangements especially those undertaken during the Manning administration echoing the sentiments of his construction sector friends. Hansard is witness to these claims.

Expenditure on so called government-to-government contracts and Public Private Partnerships are subject to the same level of manipulation and the amounts involved are huge. What most people fail to understand is that governments do not enter commercial contracts with other countries. Typically, the foreign country nominates companies and it up to the host country to negotiate the commercial arrangements and contract with the entity nominated. The same applies to PPP arrangements. There are no built-in safeguards or governance in these contracts. The foreign government is primarily interested in promoting trade and exports in the form of goods or service contracts.

Government-to government arrangements have long viewed as providing the opportunity for “unjust” reward offered by “big contracts. This device was first used by the PNM in the effort to make use of the surplus generated by the 1974 oil boom and circumvent the tendering procedure. That was the methodology for the Hall of Justice, the Twin Towers, and the Mt. Hope Medical complex. NAPA, SAPA, and the Couva hospital were also constructed using this device.

Two international examples come immediately to mind. First, in the 1990’s, the UK Defence firm BAE was accused of making illegal payments to Saudi officials to secure a ￡43bn arms deal. The matter went to court and in 2008 High Court ruled that the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) acted unlawfully by dropping a corruption inquiry into the transaction. Second, in 2019 the Canadian SNC Lavalin Group Inc was convicted of corruption related to work done by its construction arm in Libya in a long-standing scandal that tarnished its reputation and ensnared the highest office of the Canadian government.

This administration has identified PPP’s and similar arrangements to advance its agenda. It is also in the process disposing of the considerable assets of CLF and Petrotrin including land, a process which involves the hiring professional services. How did the state select CLF’s liquidator and to whom does the liquidator answer?

All governments make “errors”, sometimes labeled administrative errors. Such as awarding a contract to build 5000 houses to a company (CGGC) which has never operated in TT on terms which were described as “generous”. Memories of the missteps in the procurement of the two new ferries from Australia will recede when the new ships arrive.

After amending the Procurement Act, key questions remain. What legislative and operational safeguards are proposed to replace the oversight of the procurement regulator? To whom can interested parties complain? The Cabinet? How is one judge whether this Cabinet is more trustworthy than its predecessor? And what happens when administrations change as inevitably, they must? What are the robust evaluation mechanisms use to choose between contracting alternatives? And who reviews the process?

Cabinet is neither disinterested nor cloaked with wisdom. Sitting in the Cabinet does not mean that politicians have cast aside their either their political or pecuniary interests.

Politicians are elected to make decisions to improve the lives of citizens and must be held accountable for these decisions. It is naive to expect that there will be no corruption if a particular party is in office. In the Udecott matter, Dr. Rowley eventually said that he had no evidence of corruption but was trying to close the avenue for corruption. The provisions which were amended by the government were designed to achieve that goal.

Corruption has been a perpetual complaint and reform a constant theme in every TT political campaign. Given the amendments, this trend will undoubtedly continue. The tragedy is that the strength of a robust procurement and oversight mechanism based on a legal approach has been replaced by Cabinet oversight and the personality of its existing members in areas most prone to abuse. Who will guard the guards now that we have returned to the status quo? A toothless Integrity Commission?