Don't blame me for talking facts

Roger Clarke, Contributor

I take note of the Gleaner editorial of February 20, 2012 which seems to suggest that in my statement to Parliament (Tuesday, February 14, 2012) on the sugar divestment, and my subsequent press release (Thursday, February 16, 2012), I was obfuscating and attempting to give the impression that the $35-billion debt to be absolved by the Government of Jamaica was incurred mainly over the last four years of the Jamaica Labour Party administration.

The editorial also suggests that I was "crowing" about the former administration's failure to deliver the contracted amount of sugar with Tate & Lyle, as well as about the out-turn cost of producing that sugar. The editorial further intimated that rather than "crowing" about the divestment and the operations of SCJ Holdings, I should have articulated a vision for the sector.

Overall, the editorial portrayed me as bellyaching about the past, trying to score political points and lacking vision in how the sector should move forward. On top of that, there is also the intimation that I was being insincere in my declaration that my intent "was not to embarrass anybody or to look back", but to highlight the facts about the privatisation "in the interest of transparency".

Anyone taking an objective look on the statement and the subsequent release would have to conclude that the editorial was biased, one-sided and certainly calculated to embarrass me. I wish to respond to the above points as follows:

1 The statement I made in Parliament was against the background of the failure of the previous administration to answer pertinent questions I posed in Parliament from as far back as June 2011, in relation to the operations of SCJ Holdings Limited and the facts surrounding the divestment of Government's interest.

The sugar industry is by far the largest industry in the agricultural sector, impacting hundreds of thousands of Jamaicans (directly and indirectly). The divestment of the sugar industry is by far the biggest such exercise conducted in the agricultural sector to date. We are dealing with about nearly 40,000 hectares of land and assets valuing more than $14 billion. What is the difficulty, therefore, in outlining to the nation how these assets were divested and how those proceeds were utilised?

The Gleaner, I am sure, subscribes to the highest tenets of transparency and openness in government. If the former government fails to answer my questions legitimately posed in Parliament from as far back as June 2011, don't I have an obligation, as a new minister taking over the enterprise, to disclose to the country what is the state of affairs?

At no time did I intimate or suggest that the debt was all the doing of the previous administration. I simply stated the proceeds received from the privatisation ($1 billion), against a valuation of assets of $14 billion and against the fact that the Government would have to hug up some $35 billion in debts. In other words, we sold assets, not liabilities. However uncomfortable anyone feels, these are the bare facts, and the public can judge whether or not it was a fair deal.

I am, therefore, shocked that Aubyn Hill is suggesting that the figures are incorrect. Where in the statement did I attribute that debt solely to the previous administration?

2 When we were in the Opposition, I was hard-pressed to get a clear picture as to what it was costing the Government to operate the entities, while they were being prepared for privatisation, under the aegis of SCJ Holdings. Those questions were also asked from June 2011. They are relevant questions because during the two years that SCJ Holdings operated the factories, they were the recipient of transfers from the taxpayers of this country, even though it was stated repeatedly that this would not be the case.

Furthermore, under the pre-financing agreement, every cane farmer in Jamaica has a stake in terms of the cost at which SCJ Holdings produces sugar to be shipped to Eridania and Tate & Lyle, as that directly impact its payments under the sugar-pooling arrangements.

underperformance probs

In fact, under these arrangements, payments to farmers were seriously jeopardised by the failure of SCJ Holdings to produce the quantum of sugar contracted. The truth is, SCJ Holdings did not deliver its proportionate share under the pooling arrangement, and the farmers, who were party to this arrangement, had their payment jeopardised because of SCJ Holdings' underperformance.

When the former minister, Christopher Tufton, indicated to Parliament that taxpayers' money would no longer be required to operate the entities since 2009, and it turned out that more than $1.9 billion from the public purse was transferred to the entity, doesn't transparency and openness require that we speak to these issues?

When the former minister indicated that we would be producing sugar at US$0.13 per pound, with derelict factories, when Australia was producing at US$0.12 per pound and it turned out that our actual cost was closer to US$0.30 per pound, am I at fault to disclose that? Far from crowing, I was telling this country the facts.

In fact, I was honest, gracious and balanced enough to indicate that more than $600 million of the $2.5 billion transferred to SCJ Holdings related to social services provided to sugar workers such as school, clinic, electricity and water. Furthermore, I indicated that I was satisfied with the divestment and was encouraged at the results so far.

In relation to vision, I think the editorial is most unfortunate. My statement in Parliament was to deal specifically with the sugar divestment. I spent two whole pages articulating what this government will be doing for the industry in relation to reshaping the regulatory framework, implementing the recommendations of the Wint Commission of Enquiry, overhauling the cane payment system and undertaking social transformation in the sector through investments in social housing, community projects in sugar dependent areas and upgrading of sporting facilities.

I also indicated that billions will be spent over the next three years to support the expansion of cane production by small farmers through augmenting the Cane Expansion Fund. I also said we will be developing agro-parks in the sugar-dependent areas to promote employment and diversification of economic activities for those who were displaced by the privatisation.

If that is not articulating a vision, I don't know what is.

clear vision

In terms of a wider vision for the agricultural sector, the People's National Party manifesto provides a clear and succinct vision and framework for the development of the sector. For manifestos in opposition to be converted to policies in government, one needs to do a careful analysis of what obtains upon assuming government so as to determine what aspects of the manifesto is implementable and to determine a realistic time frame for implementation.

I accept suggestions and advice from every individual and sector of the society, and so I have no problem with the suggestion made by The Gleaner in respect to the School Feeding Programme. If The Gleaner reads our manifesto, it will be noted that the School Feeding Programme is a critical platform in our manifesto. It was under my stewardship in the previous PNP administration that we commenced putting milk in the School Feeding Programme (approximately two million litres in 1999). In fact, the government of the day, purchased and retrofitted, at a significant cost, the old Century Farm operation and handed it to the Jamaica Dairy Farmers Federation to provide milk, inter alia. Obviously this approach did not work.

We have learnt the lessons and this time round it is our intention to put back milk in the programme using the capacity already existing in processing plants islandwide. Also, we will also substitute liquid eggs for imported butter fat in nutri buns and bullas, as well as incorporate natural fruit juice into the programme. We will be doing so because we believe that we need to lift the nutritional levels of our children, as well as to create opportunities for farmers to expand production.

All of this will be underpinned by a new Food and Nutrition Policy, and legislation, if necessary.

I invite The Gleaner, and the public at large, to hold us accountable to these commitments.

Roger Clarke is minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.