A similar and heated debate broke out in the Senate on Wednesday over an extension of this very same issue. You'll remember the back and forth over the Briceno Government's 3rd Supplementary Appropriation Bill for this fiscal year.
UDP Senator Michael Peyrefitte was challenging the different quoted figures in that 3rd Supplementary Bill. Well, he brought up a line item for 167 thousand dollars. That amount of money is being budgeted for an honorarium to the legal officers of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Chris Coye, the Finance Minister of State, explained to his colleagues that this was to correct that same issue where the legal officers didn't get their salary increase from 2014 to 2017. Still, an argument ensued. Here's that back and forth from Wednesday's meeting:
Hon. Michael Peyrefitte - Lead UDP Senator
"General Administration, personal emoluments for the DPP's Office, 167 thousand dollars, for what? You didn't know that? You didn't know that in December? Personal emoluments - you can't give people their 10%. You can't give people their pay, but you can hire more people."
Hon. Chris Coye - Minister of State/Finance
"The reference to the DPP honoraria: that relates to an increase in benefits that were granted under the past administration to the AG's Ministry's legal officer, and it was determined, after legal advice, that it had to be expanded to the DPP's legal officers as well. So, this is to address that issue."
Hon. Elena Smith - Labour Senator
"We heard about, for example, [the] Director of Public Prosecutions. We're hearing about honorarium, but yet, Madam President, a year ago, the same people who are coming to say that these people need to get their honorarium said to me and my colleagues that we must sacrifice because all of us must share in the pain. So, how is it that all of us were supposed to share in the pain, but not all of us can now share in honoraria? It cannot be. You can't tell me that I must sacrifice, while others are gaining, and we're all working. My colleague earlier made a comment. As a responsible father, you ensure your children - I believe, I'm not sure if it was children or family - their needs are met. Well, I'm a part of that family too. I am a child of this 'responsible father', and my needs are not being met, Madam President. Our public officers' needs are not being met either. We are suffering. We are punishing. Some of our colleagues can barely meet their bills, [can] barely provide for families."
This evening, we contacted DDP Cheryl-Lynn Vidal for comment.
She told that she had absolutely nothing to do with the Government's decision to pay an honorarium to any person at the Office of the DPP. She added that any questions that need to be asked should be directed to the persons responsible for making that decision. She added that she did not, in any form or fashion, benefit from any such honorarium.
