FFR bill makes floor of LA

(CNS): A year after he signed the Framework for Fiscal Responsibility and with a potential crisis with the UK looming, Premier McKeeva Bush finally brought an amended version of the Public Management and Finance Law (PMFL) to the Legislative Assembly on Wednesday to incorporate the agreement. Although Bush had made no changes to this second version, the amendments relating to the procurement process that were required by the UK have been placed in the regulations rather than the substantive law. This raised concern among opposition members because, not only had no one seen them, but it meant that government could amend those procedures in Cabinet without scrutiny from legislators or the public.

Although the new version of the bill, which had been stripped of the premier’s additions and changes, was being rushed through the Legislative Assembly in order to avert a serious crisis in Cayman with the UK, the regulations were not ready. The opposition leader and the independent members all wanted to know if the UK had agreed to the changes to government procurement being placed in the supporting regulations rather than the main law.

Although this was the case with the previous PMFL, the legislators were concerned that, yet again, Bush was attempting to circumvent the crux of the problem with the UK.

PPM leader Alden McLaughlin said that, contrary to Bush’s claims, given all the circumstances, the timing and the original secrecy surrounding the premier signing the FFR, the agreement was not directly about the budget but about procurement.

McLaughlin stated that the deal Bush signed under duress was a result of the premier’s actions since coming to office relating to procurement. From the Cohen loan to the emergence of CHEC in the port talks, he said, the government had failed to follow proper procedure and it was this, not, as the premier claimed, the previous administration’s borrowing that had resulted in the UK’s insistence that the premier incorporate the FFR into local law.

Given the importance of procurement in the deal, the opposition benches all asked for Acting Deputy Governor Dax Basdeo, who was making his first appearance in the official seat in the LA, to contact London and reassure the chamber that the UK was satisfied with the procurement details being laid out in the regulations.

Following the catalogue of issues surrounding the incorporation of the FFR into the PMFL, McLaughlin said, MLAs and the public needed to see these regulations before they voted on the bill. It was bad enough, he said,  that they had only just received the new version of the PMFL amendment and that it had failed to meet the constitutional requirement of 21 days notice, but at the very least legislators had to know if this had the UK’s backing or whether passing it could incur further problems.

“We can forgive him the breach of the constitution as it needs to get done,” the opposition leader said. “The country has been on the brink of … a crisis because the premier was determined to get into a battle with the FCO. We know someone has had a 'come to Jesus' moment with the premier and he is finally doing the right thing and I am thankful, but if we are asked to vote on this and ensure he honours his commitment to the UK government, how are we to know whether or not the bill does that if we don’t have before us a copy of the regulations?”

His sentiments were echoed by the members for North Side and EastEnd. Ezzard Miller (NS) made the point that changes could be made to the regulations behind closed doors and both the public and the UK might only find out after the fact.

“I understand the PMFL does provide for procurement in the regulation at present but in my view that does not prevent the parts of this agreement that relate to procurement being placed in law as the FFR agreement asks … I am not a member of Cabinet and, as an MLA, I won’t have knowledge or input of changes made by government, never mind control. I can’t vote for this bill as it is.”

Arden McLean (EE) agreed and warned again that the premier had to stop playing Russian roulette with the UK. Eventually, the loaded chamber would rise to the top, he said, as he asked to see the regulations that would accompany the law, given the importance procurement was playing in the UK’s concerns.

As the chamber was adjourned, Bush produced the regulations, which are not yet in the public domain.

Prior to the debate, which is expected to continue Thursday morning, Bush said that the law was "as dictated by the UK" and that he was “obligated to ask all members to vote for it”.

The FFR has for the last year been at the heart of political controversy. Bush signed the deal behind closed doors last November in London and did not release the details.

Some time later, a draft version of the agreement, which he said he had signed under duress, was leaked into the public domain. Although the then FCO minister Henry Bellingham had requested that Bush incorporate the deal into law by 1 July this year, the premier missed that deadline. Following the approval of the exceptionally late budget this year, Bush was given until 30 September to incorporate the FFR into the public finance law, but once again Bush missed the deadline.

In the face of increasing pressure to pass the bill in this session, Bush then declared that he intended to add clauses, giving the UK liability if Cayman suffered any reputational damage or loss of money because of the FCO’s advice under the agreement andto increase the value of projects that would require the tight procedures laid down by London. When he produced the bill for this meeting, it was revealed that he had inserted the clauses, which caused a firestorm between Bush and the new OT minister, Mark Simmonds.

Simmonds made it clear in a letter on Friday that if Bush did not honour his commitment to transpose the agreement into law, the UK was going to do it for him and may even take greater steps to interfere in local finances.

However, in the face of the UK threats regarding not just the FFR but the procurement issues surrounding the cruise berthing facilities in George Town and the continued failure of the premier to bring it in line with international best procurement practice and in line with the FFR, Bush remained defiant.

Following Simmonds' threats in his 2 November letter, Bush released a letter of his own, which he claimed he had sent to the UK minister on 30 October, in which he told the UK he could be led but not pushed. The premier made it clear he would be doing things his way when it comes to the FFR and the cruise port, despite the UK warnings.

He continued with the belligerent tone on Monday, when he made another statement in the LA and later on television stating that once Simmonds had all the facts he would agree to Bush’s pressing ahead with the CHEC talks and if the UK minister was reasonable he would agree that the FCO had to take liability for the FFR.

However, that was not the case and it is understood that in a phone call on Tuesday between Simmonds and Bush the UK minister said something that finally made the premier back down from the brink. Whether he was threatened with direct rule from London or more specific issue relating to his own position is not clear. But by Tuesday evening, Bush was forced to make a major U-turn and not only drop his clauses and changes to the FFR but to stop the CHEC talks.

In a contrite statement on Tuesday evening, Bush cited a desire to avoid political turmoil as a reason for his sudden about face, as well as not wanting the situation to impact his family .

See the two contrasting statements below.

See revised PMFL here