Skip to main content

-Norton apologises but still to name point of contact between ministry, bond owner

A visibly-shaken Public Health Minister Dr. George Norton yesterday appealed for a chance “to do better” in wake of his ministry’s controversial leasing of the Sussex Street drug bond, even as he maintained that he still could not say who approached the owner about the deal.

Public Health Minister Dr George Norton (at left) with Director of Public Information Imran Khan as he faces the press

“I want an opportunity to do better,” Norton told a news conference yesterday at the Public Buildings, where he issued an apology for inaccurate statements he made in the National Assembly’s Committee of Supply during questioning on the bond.

“I have come to the firm position that the answer given two responses were not accurate and wish to express sincere and profound regret,” Norton said, while offering his apologies to President David Granger, Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo and Speaker of the National Assembly Dr. Barton Scotland along with his parliamentary colleagues from both sides and others who were present in the Committee of Supply at the time the false answers were given.

“I take full responsibility for this unfortunate episode…,” the minister said, while committing that it would “not happen again.”

In response to questions posed by PPP/C MPs Juan Edghill and Dharamkumar Seeraj, Norton had inaccurately stated that government solesourced the rental of the bond from Larry Singh—owner of Linden Holding Inc— for $12.5M monthly because it had been paying the New GPC $19M a month in rental fees for its Ruimveldt warehouse, and also that pharmaceuticals and medical supplies were already being stored at the location. However, it was later revealed that the government had not yet paid New GPC and that the bond was still undergoing renovation.

And while an invitation was sent to the media to cover the handing over of a letter of apology to the Speaker yesterday, Norton told reporters that it had not yet been handed over. He said while he met with the Speaker, he was informed that the correct procedure had not been followed. “I have been advised to put it in an envelope,” he said, when asked about the procedure and informed that the letter would be with the Speaker by the end of yesterday.

‘Lost face’

But while the minister was willing to accept his responsibility for misleading the Committee of Supply and accepted that he “has personally lost face” in light of the allegations of corruption from citizens, he refused to address several questions which have been raised in relation to the contract itself.

Asked how the government identified Linden Holding Inc. as a supplier of bond space, Norton responded, “I cannot say.”

Asked to confirm whether its principal was a member of his political party, Norton responded, “I cannot confirm that.”

He had previously provided a copy of the contract to the National Assembly with its last page missing, prompting objections by Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo. Norton said it was an oversight.

“Originally we had provided a copy of a copy of a copy and the signatures had faded. Additionally the last page came loose at some point. I was informed about it yesterday [Thursday] and that the page is now with the Clerk of the National Assembly,” Norton said. He said that the contract was signed by Permanent Secretary Trevor Thomas as chief accounting officer of the ministry and by Singh on behalf of Linden Holding Inc. The minister also committed to providing the signatories of the contract to the National Assembly.

Another oversight, according to Norton, is the stipulation of contract that the ministry was leasing “office space” rather than bond space.

Questioned extensively about whether the Cabinet would be willing, in light of immense public criticism, to re-tender for bond space, Norton explained that at the Cabinet level decisions are made collectively an as of now the Cabinet has recommended that the contract be renegotiated, not re-tendered.

He maintained that while he is uncomfortable with the situation that has developed, he is comfortable with the space provided and is convinced that it is suitable for the needs of the ministry.

Asked to respond to the opinion that he is being served up as the “fall guy” for someone else, Norton responded, “I don’t know anything about that.”

‘I take responsibility’

Although Norton maintains that the information he provided to the Committee was based on advice he received, he has refused to identify who advised him.

“I responded based in some instances on my personal knowledge and ability and in others based on information and advice given to me,” he said.

Asked if any member of his staff has been or will be reprimanded for providing him with misinformation, Norton stressed that his staff are dedicated professionals with whom he is proud to work.

“I will speak proudly of their services. As minister, I take responsibility,” he said before adding that this experience has taught him to “trust no one.”

“One has got to do due diligence, take every possible effort to evaluate contracts and whatever you are getting into. You’ve got to be extra careful. What I will ensure to see done in the future is that I would personally go into details in all these kinds of arrangements, much more than I have done before in all areas, even if I might be guilty of micromanaging,” he further said.

Asked why the Guyanese public should accept his apology and not ask for his resignation, Norton maintained that as someone who has dedicated almost three decades to the healthcare sector, he is committed to continue doing so.

“I have been a healthcare giver for all of my professional life… even in my recently acquired position as Minister of Public Health, I continue to do so. I have admitted that I made a mistake, for which I take full responsibility. Every effort will be made for this not to reoccur and I renew my commitment to offer health care to the nation,” Norton said.

He has offered similar explanations to the delegates of his party, the PNCR, who will this weekend decide whether he should be returned as a party ViceChairman.

“I’ve been there over the years. I’ve worked for the party. My track record will show my comrades that my intention is noble. I’ve been in the trenches,” he said.

In the wake of controversy over the rental of the bond, President Granger had appointed a Cabinet Sub-Committee to do a review. It has since recommended that government should try to negotiate a reduction of the agreed monthly rental fee and that if there is a refusal by Linden Holding Inc., government should give a year’s notice of a termination of the lease and build its own facilities in the intervening period.

However, the Sub-Committee review has been criticised since it was Cabinet that ultimately approved the rental of the bond in the first place.

Replies sorted oldest to newest

So while Norton asked yesterday for the opportunity to do better, he wasn't willing to start yesterday when he appeared in the National Assembly before the President, Prime Minister, National Assembly Speaker, Parliamentary colleagues and Opposition Members of the Assembly.

Looks like he was barely seeking a pass without past, present or future responsibilities.

FM

Someone must be fired over this mess. No matter how they spin it, it is still a mess. Larry Singh was a member of the PNC, has close relationship with the AFC lately and helped to fund the coalition campaign. Let us hear them deny that.

Not a cabinet of angels, Ramjattan said. Well, we can expect more corruption and lies. I wonder how he will explain the broken promise to substantially increase the wages of public servants.

i noticed how mute the AFC was on the parking meter scandal anf finally said that the deputy mayor spoke for them on the issue after repeated condemnation of their silence.

Z

Norton defends multimillion-dollar ‘drug bond’ agreement

Pharmagate

…offers apology but skirts direct questions

Public Health Minister Dr George Norton on Friday, apologised for telling the National Assembly that New Guyana Pharmaceutical Corporation (NEW GPC) had been paid in excess of $19 million for the rental of its drug bond, and that drugs had already been stored at the controversial Sussex Street property, since this was inaccurate.
Dr Norton met with the media at Parliament Buildings shortly after he supposedly handed over a written apology to Speaker of the

Public Health Minister, Dr George Norton

Public Health Minister,
Dr George Norton

National Assembly Dr Barton Scotland.
Reading a prepared statement, Minister Norton said the answers he had given on August 8, 2016 in the National Assembly were in part a result of personal knowledge, in addition to the advice he received at the time.
He added further that ever since August 8, 2016, “I have come to the firm position that the answer given to the questions related to NEW GPC and the storage of drugs at the bond at 29 Sussex Street, were not accurate and these were based on information provided to me. In the circumstances, I wish to express my sincere and profound regret to his Excellency, Brigadier David Granger, President of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana, Honourable Dr Barton Scotland, Speaker of the National Assembly, Prime Minister Mr Moses Nagamootoo and my Parliamentary colleagues of the APNU/AFC, members of the Parliamentary Opposition and all others who were present or were able to observe the process of the consideration of the estimates.”
According to Dr Norton, “as Minister of Public Health I know that high standard of duty and care is expected of me and the staff of the Ministry of Public Health, so I take full responsibility for this unfortunate episode and give my full commitment that it will not re-occur.”

Resignation
Responding to mounting calls for his resignation, the minister told the media: “I have admitted that I made a mistake of which I take full responsibility for, assuring you that this will not re-occur and I am still committed.”
The Public Health Minister’s subsequent pronouncements however, has left more questions than answers in addition to what the final cost of renting the bond will be, in addition to the $12.5 million rental fee; whether the new facility is in fact a savings to government, and further, whether the rented space is compliant with international standards for the storage of drugs and medical supplies.
Appearing at the press engagement with Dr Norton was Director of Public Information Imran Khan−who at times attempted to provide answers for the Minister.

PS signed
Dr Norton was relentlessly grilled by the media and said that it was the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry, Trevor Thomas, along with Larry Singh−the majority owner of Linden Holdings Inc, the controversial company in question−who were the signatories to the agreement, thus he was unable to say at the time who witnessed the signing of the agreement.
As was the case with whether an apology was in fact delivered to the Speaker, Dr Norton gave varying answers with regards why an unsigned agreement had been released to the public on Friday−void of the signatories or witnesses.
He suggested that what had been handed to the Speaker was in fact a copy of a copy of the contract and that the signatories were inadvertently left out.
This he said would be rectified but up to press time, the complete agreement had not been released inclusive of the signatories for the Sussex Street property.
Commenting on the fact that the inked agreement speaks to the rental of the premises for the purpose of a professional office and not a drug storage bond, Dr Norton said he could not at the moment provide an answer on the ‘technicality.’
DPI khan at this point attempted to intervene and reminded that the Cabinet Sub-Committee had found that the Building did in fact meet PAHO/WHO standards for the storage of drugs and medical supplies but Dr Norton could not substantiate this claim with any form of verification.

Too much space
Speaking about the cost savings in light of the discrepancies that have since been pointed out over the different proposals in terms of rental fee, Dr Norton said that Government found itself in a position where it needed space to store its drugs and medical supplies.
He could not say however, what is the specific size of the Sussex Street bond, only that the storage space being offered by NEW GPC was too much and that government did not need that much storage area.
Dr Norton said government was looking at how much money it could save in the shortest possible period, since there had been an emergency (unexplained) where government required storage space.
He conceded that the problem of storage space only obtained when government decided to end its pre-qualification arrangement with NEW GPC−which in turn asked for rent to be paid for a service it had been providing free of cost for over a decade.

Larry Singh
Asked directly how Larry Singh of Linden Holdings Inc came to know of the need of government to secure a bond in an emergency situation, it was DPI Khan who attempted to explain but the media were adamant that Minister Norton needs to provide the answers.
Khan attempted to suggest that the minister could not be expected to answer the question as to how the Ministry and Linden Holdings Inc initiated their arrangement. Minister Norton eventually told the media: “I would not be able to say that.”
He was also unable to say whether Larry Singh was in fact a member of the People’s National Congress Reform, saying “I can’t confirm that.”
Dr Norton was also unable to provide an answer as to how Larry Singh, ‘coincidentally’ paid $25 million to purchase the property−the same amount fronted by government in it security deposit for the facility−during the same time government began searching for an alternative storage bond.
Questioned as to whether government was prepared to re-tender the contract given the brouhaha that has erupted, Dr Norton defended the merits of the actual contract, insiting that it was the better deal. He said: “There is a collective responsibility on the part of the Cabinet and um…every decision will be have to make at the level of cabinet.”
Asked frontally if Cabinet−of which he is a member−is prepared to re-tender the contract, Dr Norton replied that it is not a decision that has been taken.
DPI Khan at this point again interjected to remind of the Cabinet Sub-Committee’s recommendation that the contract be reviewed.

Fall Guy
Dr Norton was also asked to respond frontally to the claim that he was in fact being placed as the ‘fall guy’ for someone within Cabinet with a personal interest in the contract.According to Dr Norton he was unaware of such a thing.
Pressed again on how the ministry became aware of the Sussex Street property, Dr Norton said he could not recall when this happened but assured, “yes I did visit the bond and I was convinced that it was suitable.”
Pressed again on whether he had suggested to Cabinet that the entire contract be revisited given the public’s reaction, Dr Norton said he did not, because he did not see it to be necessary
According to Dr Norton, notwithstanding the public flack, his public apology and the numerous questions surrounding the entire affair, he did not believe that the contract needed to be re-tendered. Dr Norton conceded that he was not comfortable with the way the entire affair played out, hence his apology but glowingly stated: “I am comfortable with the bond…I think it has what it takes to store the medication in a proper way”

FM

quote “I have come to the firm position that the answer given to the questions related to NEW GPC and the storage of drugs at the bond at 29 Sussex Street, were not accurate and these were based on information provided to me. In the circumstances, I wish to express my sincere and profound regret to his Excellency, Brigadier David Granger, President of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana, Honourable Dr Barton Scotland, Speaker of the National Assembly, Prime Minister Mr Moses Nagamootoo and my Parliamentary colleagues of the APNU/AFC, members of the Parliamentary Opposition and all others who were present or were able to observe the process of the consideration of the estimates.”
According to Dr Norton, “as Minister of Public Health I know that high standard of duty and care is expected of me and the staff of the Ministry of Public Health, so I take full responsibility for this unfortunate episode and give my full commitment that it will not re-occur.”

FM

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×