Hon. (Dr.) Anil Jayantha - Minister of Labour and Deputy Minister of Finance and Planning

Hon. Presiding Member, thank you for the opportunity. This adjournment motion alleges irregularities and corruption in the coal procurement for 2025–2026. From the outset, the figures and claims are flawed—for instance, even the total tonnage is misreported. Four main allegations are raised. All four are wrong. 1) That the procurement process recommended by the Auditor General was violated. There is not a single specific instance where the process was breached. The steps and permissible adjustments are defined by the National Procurement Commission; they were followed. Ten bidders submitted tenders; we evaluated responsive bids and awarded to the lowest responsive bidder. Under previous governments, Cabinet approvals often overrode procurement; under your administrations, the process was not properly followed. 2) That we acted contrary to the 2022 guidance of the Committee on Public Finance (COPF). Not so. The COPF/Auditor General guidance in 2022 included relaxing certain specifications to enhance competition, provided supplier capacity, experience, quality of supply, and ethical standing were considered. Those adjustments were made in 2023. We did not change that framework thereafter. 3) That only a “trusted” supplier who can “guarantee quality” should be chosen. Trust is not established by private, informal dealings. In public financial management, we do not “assess trust” via backroom chats; we enforce specifications and contractual safeguards. The tender was conducted and the agreement signed on the published specifications. 4) That the supplier failed to deliver on time. Not correct. The prior tenderer, Potencia LLC-FZ, had unfinished cargo. A time window was needed to clear that balance. This tender specified delivery by the end of December; the supplier requested, and we agreed, that with port arrangements delivery would be made by the 30th and unloading would commence on the 3rd. We acted on that understanding. There was no breach as alleged. Some argue we should cancel the agreement. Why? Cancellation requires a qualifying breach under the contract. Coal procurement is not like buying generic goods. Parameters can change between loading and discharge ports—moisture, volatile matter, etc.—which is why we require both load port and discharge port reports. If, within the agreed tolerances, the Net Calorific Value at discharge is below 5,900 kcal/kg, we impose liquidated damages; below the reject limit, we reject. We do not have an accredited local lab; therefore, by open tender, an independent accredited inspector—Cotecna—takes samples transparently at discharge alongside our engineers. Based on those reports, the first shipment triggered a penalty, which we imposed. Others did not. If someone is waving around some other “report” to demand cancellation, that is irresponsible. Premature cancellation would misuse public finances and expose us to heavy damages claims, as was seen in notorious aircraft leasing matters in the past. The Opposition’s broader tactic is to claim “they were corrupt; you are corrupt; everyone is corrupt,” to normalize and equalize wrongdoing. But our Government’s 159 Members are acting collectively and consistently. We will not be undermined by such tactics. On the technical point: the Opposition keeps saying “substandard coal.” This tender has no “substandard product” issue. There are off-spec variations within the agreed band, addressed by pre-set penalties. If NCV is even 0.1 below 5,900 kcal/kg, we levy damages; those have been applied. The supplier can also request an umpire sample test under the contract. This is not the same as importing “bad goods.” By contrast, under past administrations we saw truly substandard medicines and fertilizer because specifications were violated. On logistics: we do not have a breakwater; during monsoon windows, unloading must be sequenced. A vessel takes around five days to discharge; multiple vessels arrive in succession; laboratory results take time—roughly 17 days to receive the discharge-port certificate after the load-port report arrives. Only when both concur outside tolerance do cancellation and higher penalties arise. Historically, penalties have been imposed—e.g., in 2014 penalties were levied on seven vessels—though not always recovered in full under previous regimes. Plant outages at Norochcholai occurred for various reasons over the years; to attribute every stoppage to coal quality is not evidence-based. This motion attempts to paint our Government as corrupt and thus justify cancellation to create supply risk. Cancelling would cause one-sided losses and threaten generation. Reliable electricity supply is a national security and economic imperative. We make decisions lawfully, on accurate information, and with technical due diligence. Under our administration there has been no misuse of public funds; we have maintained fiscal discipline and stability, and we will continue to do so. Thank you.