Budget Debate 2013

Hits: 3587 | Published Date: 04 Apr, 2013

| Speech delivered at: 43rd Sitting- Tenth Parliament

| Speech Delivered by : Mr Dr. Nanda K. Gopaul, MP

Minister of Labour [Dr. Gopaul]: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The year 2012 has been an extraordinary one for progress, development and improvement of the well-being of the Guyanese people. As the Hon. Minister of Finance indicated, 2012 witnessed an enormous growth of 4.8 per cent and that is like several years before.
The year 2013 is projected to achieve 5.4 per cent increase. This Budget that has been presented by the Hon. Minister, at this point in time, is seen as the most complete budget ever presented in this House for a long time.
The Budget caters for pensioners, for the workers, for improvement in the living standards of our people, for the continued development of infrastructure and social services, and for improvement of our healthcare and education. As a consequence, I believe that it is because of that and the tax measures which have been taken in this budget that saw the enormous endorsements among social partners in this country and we are indeed happy that it has received these ratings by stakeholders in this country.
Mr. Speaker, if you were to traverse this country, you will witness real development and progress in the areas of infrastructure, health facilities, water, education, social services and housing. Our people live better and they live healthier.
At the cultural level, our diversity is so rich that Guyanese celebrate, happily together, the many national events. Just look at the way we celebrate Christmas, Phagwah, Easter, Eid-ul-Fitr, Youman Nabi and Diwali, among others. See the happy faces as we interface with each other to celebrate Emancipation Day and Arrival Day.
As we look forward to a healthy debate on these issues, I would come back to some of the criticisms which had been made earlier in this debate. Before I do so, I would like to give a brief review on the work which has been conducted by my Ministry over the preceding year. In fact, the Labour, Occupation and Safety Department, in 2012, reviewed and drafted new legislations and amendments to existing legislations and recommended some of these changes to the Government. We reviewed, in conjunction with the Tripartite Committee, rates of wages, hours of work and other conditions of service for various categories of workers and delivered new rates for certain categories of workers in the private sector last year.
We examined workplace accidents and inspected workplaces to ensure compliances with labour and occupational health and safety laws. We conducted seminars to educate employers and employees on labour, occupational health and safety regulations, HIV/AIDS at workplaces and the policies with respect to industrial relations practices and principles. We also conciliated in disputes between employers and Trade Unions and we set up arbitration tribunals based on requests by Trade Unions and employers, as well as based on the Ministry’s intervention. We conducted member surveys of polls and determined Trade Union recognition and we vetted and signed collective labour agreements between employers and employees. Several industrial establishments have been registered as well as inspection conducted to boilers and inspection certificates issued. We promoted the establishment of safety committees and joint work place committees in the areas of health and safety and we facilitated collective bargaining as well as the promotion of programmes to enhance productivity and increase production.
During the year, we conducted 25 conciliation meetings between parties with disputes and we have received 1,263 complaints from workers at various entities in the country. As a result of those complaints, we were able to retrieve in excess of $32 million for workers who lodged their complaints and had their complaints investigated. The intervention of our staff resulted in those benefits being retrieved to those workers.
We also conducted in excess of 1,200 inspections at workplaces and prosecuted 34 employers for various violations. We also countersigned 16 collective agreements over the preceding years and we had been able to, as a result of these training programmes, train over 858 employees from various private sector workplaces, during the year, in several aspects of our labour laws and health and safety regulations.
With respect to the Central Manpower and Recruitment Agency, we are happy to report that while we have been able to place workers whom we received requests for from employers for vacancies to the tune of 3,800 persons, we were able to place 2,945 workers in the private sector during the last year.
We have been able to increase our activities in a number of areas. The Central Manpower and Recruitment Agency has officers in Regions 2, 4, 5 and 6. Regions 3 and 4 are being served by our Camp Street offices. We are hoping to reactivate a Recruitment and Placement Agency in Region 10.
There has been, at the commencement of this year, much more requests from employers and we have been unable to attract persons to come forward to take up these opportunities.
At the public service level, we have been able to create 208 new positions while these positions attracted 796 new employees. At the same time, we were able to fill 573 vacancies in the public service, bringing a total of nearly 1,500. This has been at an unprecedented level in the public service when public services around the world have been declining.
The Board of Industrial Training also played a pivotal role for last year in the training of personnel. We have been able to train 64 apprentices. These are those who participated in the long-term skill programmes. For the last five years, we were able to train, under this programme, 249 apprentices. The National Training Project for Youth Empowerment also trained 1,302 persons for last year while the total number trained for the last 5 years amounted to 7,058 persons. The Single Parenting Training Programme yielded, for 2012, 408 persons while the number trained between 2009 and 2012 amounted to 1,274, a vast number of which are single-parent mothers who have utilised this programme.
In addition to the programme, we were able to give a number of those persons coming out of the training programme their own tools and working kit to put them in the world of work. More importantly, the programme saw training in heavy duty equipment operators, among others. Over the last three years, by the time the training programme had been concluded, all these persons were absorbed in many industries in this country. The heavy duty equipment operators earn as much as $500,000 per month now. We are going to put emphasis on this training programme because there is a heavy need for operators in industries like the sugar industry. The gold and diamond mining sectors were able to recruit these persons. In fact, they poached them long before they concluded their training, many of whom conducted their programmes in the sugar industry.
The year has been a successful one in terms of training, placement of persons and the conduct of industrial relations and maintenance of industrial peace and harmony at the workplaces. We can say that the workers have performed. We recognise the need for workers to pay more attention to the workplaces in the light of the new rates of pay which we have announced and inspections which are necessary. As a result, we have been able to secure the approval from the Ministry of Public Service and the Public Service Commission to recruit additional labour officers, eight in all, and additional cooperative officers within the Ministry. With the additional staff, we will be able to monitor these agencies to ensure compliance and to ensure that workers are not taken advantage of.
I now turn to some of the comments which have been made during this debate presentation, particularly one which addresses the issue of the Russian Aluminium Inc. (RUSAL) arbitration and the RUSAL dispute. The Hon. Member, Mr. Basil Williams, indicated that he was disappointed that action has not been taken over the last year to deal with the RUSAL arbitration. The fact of the matter is that the RUSAL dispute dates back to 2008/2009. It is not a simple matter. Arbitration can be dealt with, by and large, in three manners. Firstly, it can be dealt with by compulsory arbitration being set up in accordance with the law, based on the Essential Services Act. Secondly, it can be dealt with by arbitration by mutual consent and, finally, arbitration by the request of either party based on collective agreements.
The Ministry of Labour is not an enforcer, but a mediator. We only enforce the law so long as we see the violation as being critical and in breach of certain laws. RUSAL is not like the essential services of GPL. I was terribly disappointed when Mr. Williams, the Hon. Member, made that evaluation and said that we intervened promptly within a week at GPL but were unable to do so with RUSAL. GPL falls under the Essential Services Act, and, as a consequence, we acted within those confines. It has nothing to do with the National Association of Agricultural, Commercial and Industrial Employees (NAACIE), but it had to do with the Act.
With respect to RUSAL, it is at a complicated state, a very delicate state. RUSAL issues developed as a result of a strike. The strike was called and workers were dismissed. The employers also terminated the agreement because they said that the agreement was breached as a result of the strike and the manner in which the dispute started. Those dismissals and termination which occurred should have been dealt with differently. It is my contention that the trade union representing those workers should have moved to the court instantly to seek redress on those matters, both the violation of the agreement… It is not for the Ministry of Labour to intervene in that matter. It should have been the instance of the union.
When Mohamed Azzarudin was dismissed from the Guyana Sugar Corporation (GuySuCo) in 1977 because he refused to be a scab, because he refused to break the strike, he was dismissed and NAACIE instantly challenged that matter in court. It is strike law. Azzarudin got compensation and he got damages. Although he was not a NAACIE member – he was a senior staff – we saw that a violation had taken place.
I would have been happier if the trade union had filed a writ challenging those decisions and had given the court an opportunity to adjudicate on this matter.
Notwithstanding that, I tried to intervene. I believe that, in the intervention, we acted in a way in which we could have found a way out. The employers challenged that intervention; we sought to impose arbitration and, quite rightly, the union intervened. However, the union withdrew its intervention and, technically, withdrew the case with the view, as Mr. Williams indicated, that I should have signed the document and not the Chief Labour Officer (CLO). There has been precedence. Had that case not been withdrawn, I would have found grounds to continue to argue it. But having had it at this stage, continued interventions saw the company taking a very tough position, a position on which it expressed disappointment at our intervention in that an agreement ceased to exist, a relationship did not exist and, as a consequence, we ought not to have intervened.
That new development has caused us to sit back and examine a way forward. We believe that we can find some solution to this dispute but it has to be through dialogue. It cannot be through any other means.
The Hon. Prime Minister intervened and has been speaking with the Trades Union Congress (TUC) on this matter as recent as last month, two weeks ago, and we are trying to work out an arrangement where we might be able to bring this matter to a close. But, as I said, the Ministry of Labour cannot and should not compel an employer. It cannot be done under the law, except if it is under Essential Services. The only way we could have, also, invoked arbitration compulsorily in this matter was if the national interest was threatened. We could not do otherwise.
While I empathise with the workers who have suffered in this dispute, I believe...   [Mr. B. Williams: Inaudible]   The Hon. Member, as the lawyer representing the Guyana Bauxite and Workers’ Union (GBWU), should have taken this matter to court. I can tell you that there was a case in which negligence occurred. The workers sued the union and the lawyers and got money. It was the case of Silos Bollers against the Guyana Labour Union (GLU).
Again, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member - I consider him my friend - made a veiled threat about a no confidence motion but he should know…
Mr. Speaker: Then you know that the threat has no potency.
Dr. Gopaul: Pardon me?
Mr. Speaker: If he is your friend, then you know that the threat has no potency.
Dr. Gopaul: I am going to tell him that “canoe don’t bore punt”. He knows that I am not afraid. I was not born a Minister, Mr. Speaker. Some of my colleagues understand. I have said many times that we have had very good relationships, although we disagreed bitterly on issues.
I want to say that with the intervention of the Hon. Prime Minister, the Union being at the meeting, along with me...we are working to see what we can do to resolve this matter. We are aggrieved, like the union. It is a delicate issue.
We would not want to see companies close their doors as a result of intervention and so we hope that we will be able to get the matter resolved.
With respect to the Marriott Hotel issue in which, quite justifiably, some concerns have been raised, we have investigated this matter. We are moving there. Far from what is portrayed that there are only Chinese labourers there, there might be only Chinese labourers at the plant, per se, at times, but we have examined what is taking place there and we have been told – and we are satisfied that this has occurred – that there are 82 workers being employed by a private company, since the project started, directly everyday. They have been supplying 60,000 blocks per month. They have been supplying 5,000 to 1,000 cubic yards of mixed concrete per week. There have been local suppliers of sand and a local contractor is supplying security guards to the company.
Indirectly, there has been a tremendous local input but we do agree with the sentiments expressed with respect to making sure that there exists in contracts...to protect Guyanese workers. We understand the complaints that have been made and the concerns which have been raised about Guyanese workers being prioritised in these contracts.
Again, the Prime Minister has intervened and in those discussions with the labour movement, we have been able to come up with a formula which will see an end to any doubts, when contracts are being executed, that Guyanese workers will be prioritised in these areas. We agree with the concerns.
The trade unions from the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Guyana (FITUG) and TUC have expressed their concerns. We believe that a case has been made out. It has happened in countries like Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago in the past and they have also regularised it with these contracts, taking care of these eventualities.
I must also caution that there are times when it is difficult to have workers in certain sections working to complete tasks within a certain timeframe. If one examines what has happened with some of the big projects which we have had in Guyana, one would see that many have had shortages of skilled labour workers to the extent that they have had to go over a year beyond the scheduled period of completion. These include the Linden Hospital Complex, the Georgetown Public Hospital, and several schools in this country and several other large development projects. The banks – almost all of the commercial banks, the new buildings which have gone up in this city and even in the country areas, have had many aspects of shortage of labour and they have had delays as a result. We must be concerned about that.
I should mention, also, that in visiting the workplace, the site engineer also expressed a desire to train some of our local engineering students as well as engineers who may want to go and work on the project and witness what is happening so that there can be a transfer of skills. We have taken up that offer and we are trying to get employers to send their engineers there on periods of assignment.
It is not that we are not concerned about what is happening in those sectors. We are working and we understand the concerns expressed.
While I said that, and while I am reviewing what some of my colleagues said – and we tried to find resolution to the matter – I must express a little bit of disappointment with the type of generalisation which has been made with respect to the Budget. They talk about issues of unemployment without having specific data at hand.   [Members (Opposition): You have to give us the data.]    They are talking about a number of issues, Mr. Speaker. I want to say that we have had requests from employers for workers. We have the opportunity to provide jobs in many, many entities but we are not finding the workers; we are not finding people coming forward to take up these offers. I want to throw out the offer here. If Members know of people who need jobs, send them to the agencies. The agencies can absorb them. I am serious, Mr. Speaker. GuySuCo alone has hundreds of vacancies.   [Members (Opposition): Where should we send them? Should we send them to you?]    Send them to the Central Recruitment and Manpower Agency.
The problem, Mr. Speaker, is that these days a worker comes and says, “I just came out of the University and I cannot find a job,” but he wants to land an engineering job if he graduated in engineering, not wanting to start at a certain level.
We have the case here where graduates working as managers leave these shores and go to other countries such as the United States of America and they end up being security guards.
Mr. Speaker: Minister, certainly, if a person goes to the University to train as an engineer, he or she expects to find employment as an engineer. If not, a person would not study to be a teacher or an engineer.
Dr. Gopaul: A person can go into the discipline. A person cannot be appointed engineer immediately. The person has to go into the discipline. That is the point that I am making. The person has to go into the discipline before he or she moves up the ladder. A person cannot come into the public service and say, “I have a Degree and I want to reach certain levels.”
I am saying that there are opportunities but we want the people to come forward and we want a committed workforce.
Mr. Speaker, I also believe that statements which have been made during the course of the debate about slashing the Budget, cutting the Budget and rejecting the Budget will not do us any good. We believe that the time is right for us to discuss with all of the vigour and with all of the passion, expressing our views, but, at the same time, we should be objective.
We want to ensure that all of Guyana move forward. I do not think, in my lifetime, I have ever seen Guyana at this level of development. We do not want to take Guyana back.
I was saying that some of the issues raised by the Hon. Members of the Opposition can be discussed. They are worthy of discussion. We believe that as persons who have this country’s interest at heart, we should work together to ensure development and progress. We should not move back. Our country is at a stage where it is being looked at. When we were looked at with scorn by people in the Caribbean, our people have been harassed... Today, persons are coming to Guyana to do shopping. They are coming to Guyana to see what we are doing.
If we were to adopt an approach where we can dialogue and air our differences, rather than a confrontational one, we can achieve much more. I believe that that time is now. I am urging my colleagues not to take the path which they have threatened, but to work towards having this Budget passed, to highlight areas of concerns and let us work together to ensure that the next budget has a significant input from the Opposition. The input has to start from day one.
Mr. Speaker, I can tell you this: over the last few days that we have had holidays in this country, I have seen our President and our Leader of the Opposition meet publicly at events. The cordiality that was splashed in the newspapers brings joy to people. I want to believe that if we were to emulate a position where we can talk conscientiously and trust each other, we can get somewhere.
The position of fighting down the Budget, irrationally seeking to knock down the Budget, and trying to point to weaknesses where there are not any, would not solve the problem. I am not saying that there is not room. Always, there is room for improvement on issues.
I will end on this note, while appealing and ensuring that we end our differences: when the Hon. Ashni Singh was reading the Budget, I am told by a friend who was in Mahaica, an old pensioner said, “Ow, a young boy can do wonders for us. Ah hope APNU and AFC vote PPP.”
I want to appeal to Mr. Ramjattan and Mr. Nagamootoo to come back home, to recognise that there are more values in us working together. [An Hon. Member: What about Mr. Basil Williams? Mr. Williams is ready to come home.]   Mr. Williams, Dr. Roopnarine and I were in the same camp with Mr. Scott.
I want to urge my colleagues to let us try to discuss issues and analyse before we take any rash decisions. This is a crucial Budget for this country. Where we go from here can be uncertain if this Budget is not passed. All of us can be affected. The fact that there is a composition where a major voice is on the other side, a voice which cannot and should not be ignored, I believe that if we were to work together, the future of this country and the development of this country will be assured.
Thank you very much. [Applause]