Imbert calls for new Budget timeline

The minister did so as he stepped aside from duties in the Senate – where he had been marshalling legislation to reduce interest rates in relation to judgment debts – in order to continue work on the upcoming fiscal package which must be presented no later than October 5 if it is to be passed by October 30.

As he left the Parliament at the International Waterfront Centre, Port-of-Spain, Imbert told reporters the fixed recess created by new Parliament rules introduced in the Tenth Parliament had an unintended side-effect.

“The new Standing Orders now create for the first time this twomonth fixed recess from the end of the first week in July to the end of the first week in September and it says you cannot convene unless it’s an emergency,” the Finance Minister said. “So that we can’t really get into the Parliament between the end of July and the beginning of September for the Budget. So it now pushes Budget Day down to after the first week in September. That is one of the unintended consequences of the new recess.” He signalled an intent to have the rules reviewed.

“In fact, I will have to look at that. We may have to change it to say the end of June to the end of August or something like that,” Imbert said. “Because it now means you can’t deliver the Budget until about the 10th of 11th of September. So you are crowding yourself out.” Earlier, after piloting the Remedies of Creditors (Amendment) Bill 2016, Imbert asked to be excused from presiding over the rest of the debate, leaving the matter in the hand of Government Senate Whip Franklin Khan.

“I have extreme confidence in the Honourable Senator Khan to answer any issues that may arise from this one-clause amendment,” Imbert said.

“I apologise honourable members but I am deep in the middle of the Budget preparations. The Budget is imminent and I will ask your permission to allow my honourable colleague to complete this debate.” The legislation piloted proposed to give the minister the power to reduce the rate of interest on a judgment debt from 12 to five per cent by way of negative resolution.

It also sought to plug a gap in the law dating back to 2000 in relation to related pieces of legislation.