Restoration of the Annual Subvention/Grant to the Critchlow Labour College
4158 27 Feb, 2014
Dr. Gopaul: The motion, first of all, I would say has no utilitarian value. Its purpose perhaps is to highlight an issue and perhaps bring to fore and the public some concerns. Before dealing with some of the issues raised in the motion and the points raised by the Hon. Member I would first of all like to give a brief history, a background on the Critchlow Labour College.
This College was incorporated as a business entity, as a limited liability company on 12th June, 1968. It received its incorporation under the Companies Ordinance at that time on the 17th June, 1968. At the same time, in the years 1969 and 1970, the Members of the Board of Governors of the College then, or the Board of Management, secured two loans of $60,000 in 1968 and $40,000 in 1969 from the Guyana Credit Corporation. With that $100,000 on two mortgages along with contributions from the affiliated unions and workers the College was built. In the Article of Association, article 5 indicated under the heading Board of Management, and I am quoting from the article:
“That the Board of Management shall be deemed, for all purposes to be the governing body of the company and shall consist of thirteen members, eight of such members shall be representative of the Guyana Trades Union Council, two of such members shall be representatives of the Government of Guyana, one such member shall be representative of the University of Guyana, and one such member shall be representative of the public while the other such member shall be a person selected from an organisation to be determined by the Board of Management and appointed for a term of only one year and may be eligible for re-election.”
In its incorporation two members of the labour movement, to wit Joseph Pollydore and Anson Sancho, signed on the document along with two Government representatives, the two Permanent Secretaries then, and a University of Guyana person. The whole intention of that was to make the College a body representative of Government, labour and academia. That continued in all the years thereafter; returns have been filed under the Companies Act; changes have been made to the Board consistent with the Articles; and there has been accountability up to a certain time. Even when the trade union movement was divided, the split too place in 1988, and there was a return and then there was a breakaway.
The trade union movement did not lose sight of the fact that the College belonged to workers and that the Board must comprise of representatives of the workers. Even in the year 1998 when they were submitting the returns of the College and changes to the Directorate of the Board Gordon Todd from the Clerical and Commerical Workers Union (CCWU) was the Chairman of the College with Joseph Pollydore as Secretary of the College. At that time in 1998 the Board comprised of among other persons Lincoln Lewis, Patrick Yard and other leaders spread across the labour movement, with others from academia and public live.
I will read some of the names at the time of the incorporation of the College so that Members will understand the purpose of the College and what significance the movement wanted. Mr. Richard Alexander Ishmael was a member, T. Anson Sancho, Dr. Harold Lutchman, Joseph Pollydore, Winslow Carrington, Horace Felix, Neville Griffith, Cecil Cambridge, Ovid Orderson, Dr. Claude Denbow, J. Shotow Douglas and F.G. Taharally, the latter two being Permanent Secretaries of the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Labour, respectively.
By the time we would have turned to the year 2000, there had been no filing of returns under the Companies Act in the Registry as is a requirement. There would have been no audited statement submitted, there would have been no known information as to who comprised the Board and, therefore, Government as an agency giving subvention to this College was being kept in the dark, and no representative from the Government was sitting on the Board. In other words, the tenets of the rules when the College was formed were broken, were being violated.
Article 28 of the Article of Association under the heading Accounts, reads as follows:
“True accounts shall be kept of the sums of money received, expended by the company and the manner in respect of which such receipts and expenditure takes place and of the property credits and liability of the company and subject to any restrictions as to the time and manner of inspecting the same that may be imposed in accordance with the regulations of the company for the time being in force shall be open to the inspection of members. Once at least in every year the accounts of the company shall be open to the inspection of members. Once at least in every the accounts of the company shall be examined and the correctness of the balance sheet ascertained by one or more properly qualified auditor or auditors.”
There has been no accountability, public or otherwise, to members of this institution for at least a decade. The onus is not on the Government, as the Hon. Member suggested, to put mechanism and to ensure accountability, but it is the recipient’s responsibility, once public funds are given, to ensure accountability. We have been talking about good governance and accountability and I, on the side of the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C), will support the notion of good governance and accountability, but we have not seen it in that body. We have to recognise that the problems of the College have to do with the problems of the labour movement and that problem is acute. We cannot attract the type of programmes, and we cannot attract persons into the College as we once attracted if that rift, that cohesion, and the nomination coming from the labour movement does not comprise the core from the labour movement and leaders that can attract the respectability from members of the public and the Guyanese population at large.
Sir, it has to do also with what has happened at the governance level of the Trade Union Congress (TUC). And what has happened there will sicken the minds of decent people when they examine the modus operandi and the rules governing elections for officers at the council level; that will influence the election of Board members of the College. For large unions, first of all, there is not the issue of proportionality as has been clamoured for by major unions. The Guyana Agriculture Workers Union (GAWU) being in the TUC since 1975 has never had the privilege of serving at the presidency of that body despite having the largest block of delegates. NACCIE has never been given the opportunity to serve. Even when we work out elections in a mutual way, discussing with others, we have never been able to get and to secure critical positions of the labour movement despite these unions being credible. The manipulation is worse than that, four unions with less than 1,000 members were allocated and have been allocated under the rules of the TUC...
Mr. Speaker: One thousand each or one thousand combined?
Dr. Gopaul: One thousand in all, in totality, have been allocated more delegates than a large union like CCWU with 3,000 members then, and a large union like GAWU with 15,000 members. The AMM once in a legal document to the courts in seeking to have its seat in the TUC pleaded that it had 28 members, and with that 28 members were given three delegates as against a union like NACCIE with 1,700 members then and given six delegates. So the AMM and the Sawmill and Forest Workers Union that did not have membership or recognition anywhere, Papers and the Public Employers Union, paper unions created with no trade union recognition, were given delegate status at the TUC and were outvoted and out manoeuvred; respected, decent, principled and trade unions which have been operating for years in the country.
Following those manipulations of the election results, the labour movement became a divided movement and union leaders have emerged in the TUC that can be considered leaders who do not inspire anyone. As a result of that, we have the state of non-accountability at the CLC level and, even as I said earlier, Government representatives, University of Guyana representatives have been excluded.
There were attempts to correct this situation. Our patriot Hon. Dr. Rupert Roopnarine when he became the Principal tried. He consulted with me and I was not the Minister of Labour then. He consulted with National Association of Agricultural, Commercial and Industrial Employees (NAACIE) and he consulted with GAWU, and we were making some headway. He wanted to see reformation and wanted to bring these unions... he said whether you cannot get back as a cohesive body together in the labour movement for workers education let us work together. He was making headway. NACCIE had agreed; GAWU was considered it but by then had gone to establish its own workers college. It could not wait. So we have the GAWU Workers College, the Public Service Union Workers College with their training programmes. Both have had accredited programmes national and international. In the case of GAWU, they run a University of the West Indies (UWI) accredited programme, and the Public Service Union (PSU) a University accredited programme and an accredited programme for public servants and the public service. We have had these positions where these other Colleges were established and functioning.
Hon. Dr. Roopnarine, as Principal, tried and was making progress as I said, but shortly thereafter, vacated the office, unfortunately, and to the surprise of many. So the situation continued thereafter. There was no board based on the mix we envisaged. There was no board established consistent with the rules of the College, there was no board and accountability of sums of money given consistent with the Articles of Association and consistent with the request by the Government.
While we are in sympathy with the presentation of the Hon. Member Mr. Williams I want to say it is true that the College produced quality students, and it is true that many benefited from the College, and it has a role to play like all the other colleges. All three labour colleges that I mentioned can play a role in national development and in the development of education, and Government is in sympathy with that. Government will want to ensure that some form of funding be given to these institutions alike, consistent with the programmes, consistent with what we believe would can be worthwhile causes, but there must be accountability. There has not been accountability.
I know of late, because I have been engaging the labour movement - I have been talking with all sides - and I believe it is my responsibility to work with all sides to ensure fairness, to ensure the dispensation which is necessary, that everyone feels satisfied and secure, and the treatment meted out to everyone is equal. So in those discussions I am happy to say I believe steps are being taken by the representatives of the TUC to have a board in place and the type of accountability in place; that commitment was given to me. Until such time there can be no consideration; once we believe there is accountability and there is some recordkeeping and these things in place we cannot support funding to be given. Therefore the onus is on the Labour College to put its House in order and let us move on. At that time Government will then have to examine the issue because other, as I said, labour institutions have been established and we will have to look at the issue in a holistic manner.
What is happening at the central labour movement, at the TUC level if only we pause for a moment and engage in dialogue with each other we can perhaps see a united movement. But persons will have to give. That seems not to be forthcoming. I want to call a spade a spade in as much as some of the leaders are my brothers and we struggle together. However, a movement that has at its helm a General Secretary and a President coming from the same union, a union that has recognition perhaps at one location with less than 200 members cannot inspire other workers and cannot inspire the movement. That is what we have today, the General Secretary coming from the Guyana Bauxite Supervisors and General Workers Union and the President coming from that same body. When we have a union like the Guyana Teachers Union affiliated, a larger union than any other public union, outside of the Public Service Union being still unaffiliated with TUC and that Union cannot find a place of prominence on the labour body.
I believe there has to be an objective. And this is not to knock my brothers in the movement but to appeal to them to see that these types of compositions can create enormous difficulties for the movement. When we move back to the TUC in the days of FITUG/TUC in the 1990s it was as a result of consensus and dialogue, and it was a time when there was an agreement to make the representative of TUC a representative of FITUG the President of the TUC, that good will was shown, the consensus existed; and the consensus type of voting and management of the trade union movement is not new to the trade union movement, it happens at the Caribbean Congress of Labour, it happens at other international bodies where these things are worked out long before the elections, so people have a sense of belonging and play their part in these organisations and the organisations move forward. At this level that did not happen and it is not happening. Unless we can reach a stage where we can dialogue, where we can bring the leaders together and where the leaders from the respective union movement give leadership to the national body we would not be able to bring the College, put the College right.
Mr. Speaker, Government is not happy, we are not penalising a college. We would like to give some form of subvention to workers education but we would like to see labour put its house in order. So while I am in sympathy with some of the points raised by the Hon. Member I want to say I know of a current judge who is a product of the Critchlow Labour College; I myself attended the Critchlow Labour College and had my early upbringing in the labour movement from that College. A number of us would like to move to resolve this issue but it has to be resolved with initiative coming from the trade union movement itself.
Thank you very much, Sir. [Applause]
Dr. Gopaul: Mr. Speaker, I crave your indulgence to refer to article 39 (2) of the Standing Orders…
Mr. Speaker: Do you mean of this House?
Dr. Gopaul: Yes Sir… and to request that I be given the opportunity to conclude the debate on this issue.
Mr. Speaker: It states that it is if the motion is a negative one, but let us hear you. The Government Minister does have the right to reply to any motion and that is so, but it is couched in the context of a motion that is injurious to the Government but if you have an amendment that is consensual I am at pains to understand what it is that leads you to want to respond, but go ahead. In the sense that the motion is one that is negative…
Dr. Gopaul: It is not intended to be long, Sir. It is intended to clarify certain issues which arose…
Mr. Speaker: One second, before you go, Dr. Gopaul, Mr. Nadir indicated a desire. If you are going to have the last right I would ask that if you be prepared to yield to Mr. Nadir.
Mr. Nadir: It is just for tidiness. I want to make a comment on the original motion and the amendment because it states, if we go as is, “Be it resolved”, and there is that line under the first resolve. “And be it further resolved,” basically it is the same line.
Mr. Speaker: My sense is that the “Be it resolved” that we have now will be replaced. It is to delete it completely. I will address that at the appropriate time. It is all cosmetic right now.
Dr. Gopaul: I am indeed happy that the discussion obviously generated some interest and concerns for worker movement and a worker educational institution. It has never been the Government’s position to take up positions which are considered anti-worker, anti-working class or positions which are intended to damage any section of the labour movement. The core, which issue has been and remains with us today, is the issue of a governance of an institution. No one could say and expect from the National Treasury money to be poured into an organisation without any degree of accountability.
Even it is, I have not seen those reports. The reports should have been filed in the proper place. They are not in the Deeds Registry where the companies ought to submit their reports. In fact the last report at the Deeds Registry is for 1998. If indeed, I am not denying the Hon. Member, that audited statements have come out up to 2005 or 2007 the point on what I do know is that the public and members of the constituent organisations have not been afforded of the privilege consistent with the article of association to see the accounts of the Critchlow Labour College at any point in time over the last five years. Therefore I am happy that we are reaching a stage where avenues will be given for genuine representatives of labour to have a say in the expenditures and into the running of the affairs of the labour movement.
Critchlow Labour College, even without Government subvention, should have been able to run workers education. My colleague, from this side of the House, the Hon. Member Manzoor Nadir, indicated to us, a short while ago, that the GAWU, without Government funding, has run programmes over the last five years. When I was going to Critchlow Labour College we were not getting a Government subvention. The unions were contributing to the programmes; good leaders were flowing. We were sending our trade union leaders to overseas colleges and bringing them back as lectures. The trade unions were collectively organising the programmes, supporting the programmes financially and many good shop stewards and leaders were emanating from the labour movement, the Critchlow Labour College, during the course of the 1970s.
It is just to correct a misconception and some of the points made by Hon. Member Basil Williams. We have been close colleagues despite disagreements on fundamental issues of the college. Tonight, again, he wanted us to believe that the hurt has to do with NACCIE or GAWU not being able to gain the presidency of the TUC or key positions. The purpose of saying that we have never got it is because of the manipulation and that manipulation caused the division of the labour movement.
Mr. Speaker: Do you all not have an amendment on the floor? We are about to shatter that hope.
Dr. Gopaul: To correct two impressions he created, that the Comrade leader opened his door to give me a drop, Nanda Gopaul could have never ever been compromised. In fact, it was yours truly, Sir, as the General Secretary of NACCIE, who had my members challenging an Act of Parliament which was passed here in this House in 1984.
Mr. Speaker: The House wants to know, did you or did you not get a ride…?
Dr. Gopaul: I did not get a ride from the Prime Minister’s car, Sir, or the President and nor was I available for consultations with the ruling People’s National Congress at any point in time. I have been one of the strongest advocates for the defence of the workers’ rights in this country.
Comrade Basil Williams would want us to believe that it was all nice and rosy at the delegate conference but the fact is that genuine workers representatives were denied the right to be delegates and employees of Ministry of National Mobilisation and Development were substituted as delegates for trade unions. That is the type of manipulation that resulted in genuine workers leaders not being given position. I merely want to correct that Sir. If our colleagues would want to have a good read at it, Cheddi Jagan’s West On Trial and Nanda Gopaul’s Resistance and Change reflect what transpire at the GTUC.
Having corrected that position, Comrade Basil Williams and I continued as friends despite our disagreements at the trade union level and many of our colleagues at the trade union level who would have had serious disagreements have always stood in discussion or sat in discussions in the interest of the working class. I believe that has been absent over the last few years. If we were to go back to the position of leaders talking with each other, very soon, I believe, we would be able to find some compromise in the labour movement and arrangement where workers’ interest will be paramount.
I say I like the way the debate went and having correcting those areas for my friend Brother Basil Williams, I want to say that we will support the amendment which will see the inclusion of genuine workers union as a balance on the eight representatives of the labour component of the board with the others continuing.
Related Member of Parliament
Related Member of Parliament
Recent Speeches...
- 03 Dec, 2018 / 3845
Budget 2019 Speech
- 14 Dec, 2017 / 11366
Statement to the National Assembly on Thursday December 14th, 2017 by the Hon. Vice President and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Carl B. Greenidge on the Exxon “signing bonus”
- 27 Nov, 2017 / 5857
BUDGET SPEECH 2018 - Honourable Mr. Winston D. Jordan , M.P. Minister of Finance
