The affairs of the National Assembly are governed by its Standing Orders, amended from time to time. The last amendments were made in July 2011. A significant portion of the Assembly’s work is undertaken by committees. Standing Order No. 80 identifies the various committees to be established at the beginning of each Assembly. One such committee is the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), responsible for monitoring and controlling public expenditure and more specifically for examining ‘the accounts showing the appropriation of the sums granted by the Assembly to meet Public Expenditure and such other accounts laid before the Assembly as the Assembly may refer to the Committee together with the Auditor General’s report thereon’. The Committee is to consist of not less than six or more than ten members.
It has been the tradition among Commonwealth countries for the composition of this committee to mirror that of the Assembly as a whole in terms of political representation. Accordingly, on 14 October 2020, following the convening of the 12th Parliament, nine members of the Assembly were selected to form the PAC: five from the Government side and four from the Opposition. The Government members are Gail Teixeira (Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance); Juan Edghill (Minister of Public Works); Dharamkumar Seeraj; Dr. Vishwa Mahadeo; and Sanjeev Datadin (Attorney-at-law). From the Opposition side, the four members are: David Patterson (former Minister of Public Infrastructure); Juretha Fernandes; Ganesh Mahipaul; and Jermaine Figueira.
Fundamental principles guiding the work of the PAC
The effective functioning of the PAC to a large extent depends on three fundamental principles. First, the Committee must at all times strive to undertake its work in an objective and non-partisan manner, setting aside narrow political and partisan interests, and embracing the public good and the public interest; and must be seen in the eyes of the public to be doing so. The late Sir Harold Wilson, former British Prime Minister and one-time Chair of the UK PAC, once stated that the Committee is not a ‘battleground for party faction’; its work is greatly enhanced by its unanimous character and objectivity of its report; and members of both sides of the House have in the past made great endeavours and sometimes sacrificed personal views to ensure that this was so.
Second, the selection of committee members is guided by the need have balanced representation in terms training and experience in governmental matters, especially in the area of public financial management. This is why it is necessary for political party leaders to ensure that their lists of candidates for the elections include as far a possible persons with the requisite professional and technical backgrounds to serve on the various committees in the Assembly. This is not to suggest that persons without the requisite training and experience in governmental affairs should be excluded but an appropriate blend will be most desirable.
The third principle is the need to avoid situations that have the potential of creating conflicts of interest. For example, while it is not inappropriate for members from the main political Opposition who are former Ministers to be included in the membership of the PAC, it is against the norm for a sitting Minister to part of the Committee. The main reason for this is that an integral part of the PAC examination of the public accounts would relate to accounts of the Ministry and its related agencies for which that member has direct ministerial or oversight responsibilities. Should this happen, will the concerned member recuse himself/herself from those deliberations in order to preserve this principle? And will he/she act in defence of a colleague Minister during the Committee’s deliberations? Staddon (2015) argues that ‘the political legitimacy and independence are assisted by [the Committee’s] balanced representation and the exclusion of government ministers’.
(https://westminsterresearch.westminster.ac.uk/download/4d514edb5e1634c223e14f0a6559473ef6ca0b0a40573387fe13f754e782ce10/210016/PAC%20British%20Isles%202014%20-%20for%20publication.pdf.)
Of course, the second and third principles assume that the work of the PAC must always be up to date. However, if there is a change in government and there are backlogged accounts to be examined, the Chair of the PAC, who must be from the main Opposition party, will find himself/herself in a position similar to that of a sitting Minister. In addition, from the most casual gleaning of the composition of the current members of the current PAC, it is evident that there is a significant lack of balance in terms of skills and experience between Government and Opposition members. Of the latter, only the Chairman, a quantity surveyor by profession, has some experience in government having served for five years as a Minister in the previous Government. In contrast, two government members not only have decades of experience in governmental matters having served as Ministers in the pre-2015 period but are also sitting Ministers.
Delay in convening the PAC
The responsibility for convening the first meeting of the PAC under a new Parliament is that of the Speaker of the Assembly. However, as of 23 December 2020, this all-important committee, charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the Government is accountable to the nation for its financial stewardship, had not yet been convened. Considering the significant backlog in the work of the Committee, as evident by the fact that its last report was in respect of 2012-2014, one would have thought that urgent action would be taken to activate this committee, to have it up and running, and for it to agree on an approach to address its backlogged examination with a view to bring it up to date within the shortest period of time.
In a previous column, we had suggested the PAC takes a two-pronged approach: the full committee examining the latest available audited public accounts to ensure that during the consideration of the National Budget, legislators have the benefit of the availability of the PAC report for the previous fiscal year; and at the same time a sub-committee deals with the backlogged accounts. We had also argued that based on past trends, if the PAC carries out its examination of backlogged public accounts in a sequential manner, as soon as one year is completed another year will be added to the backlogged accounts. In any event, what useful purpose will be served to examine a set of accounts that is more than five years old?
Concerned about the delay in activating the PAC, as especially in view of the fact the Order Paper for 23 December 2020 did not include this item on its agenda, Mr. Patterson, who was earmarked to chair the PAC, wrote to the Speaker expressing the Opposition’s disappointment with the state of affairs. He reminded the Speaker of the several letters he had written to him seeking his intervention to have the Committee activated but without success. Mr. Patterson asserted that:
It is unacceptable to have the Parliament convened at great expense to the citizens, and not use this opportunity to convene committee meetings. It is disrespectful to the members and a disservice to the country. As such, we do not see any benefit in attending a parliamentary session, which does not take the opportunity, to reestablish our assembly on a firm footing.
The Speaker acknowledged the delay in convening the committees. He, however, contended that there were some challenges, mainly in relation to ensuring members from far-flung areas are present at the meetings. Accordingly, he asked for patience. The explanation did not sit well with the Opposition, as many agencies of the Government have been using online platforms, such as Zoom, to conduct their meetings since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.
On the 28 December 2020 sitting of the Assembly, the PAC along with the other parliamentary committees were eventually activated.
Appointment of the Chair of the PAC
In accordance with Standing Order No. 82(2), the Chair of the PAC must be a Member of the main Opposition in the Assembly for reasons already mentioned. Accordingly, Mr. Patterson was elected to chair the Committee which met for the first time on 4 January 2021.
The actual examination of the public accounts commenced on 11 February 2021. Soon thereafter, allegations began to surface regarding the Chairman’s acceptance of expensive gifts from four agencies over which he had ministerial control while he was Minister of Public Infrastructure under the previous government. At first, Mr. Patterson denied the allegations but when confronted with the evidence, he acknowledged receiving the gifts. He, however, contended that he had done nothing wrong as other Ministers in the pre-2015 Government done the same.
We had stated in a previous article that using public funds to purchase expensive gifts for a Minister, or any public official for that matter, is inappropriate and the fact that this might have occurred in the past is no justification for its continuation. We had also stated that the matter should have been dealt with by the Integrity Commission which has the responsibility of monitoring compliance with the Code of Conduct for Ministers, other parliamentarians and senior public officials, as contained in Schedule II of the Integrity Commission Act. It is understood that a complaint has since been filed with the Commission but in view of the fact that no commissioners are in place, it is unclear when the investigation will commence.
Tabling of vote of no confidence in the Chair and the aftermath
In view of the allegations made against the Chairman and his eventual acknowledgement of the receipt of gifts, the Government members of the Committee called on the Chairman to resign. He, however, refused to do so, prompting those members to table a motion for a vote of no confidence in him. The Chairman then decided to recuse himself from the meeting at which the motion was to be discussed. This would have necessitated a temporary appointment of a Chair from among the other three Opposition members of the Committee. However, they all declined to chair the meeting.
The Clerk of the Assembly was then tasked with seeking an independent legal opinion as regards Standing Orders 82(2) and 95(4). The latter Order provides for the temporary election of another Chairperson of the PAC if the Chair is unable to be present at any meeting. The opinion given is that that Standing Order 95(4) does not override Standing Order 82(2). However, it can be used to continue the business of the PAC through the election of a chairperson on a day to day basis. As a result, a meeting was scheduled for 31 March 2021 to discuss the way forward but it will have to be pushed back to a later date due to the unavailability of the Chairman.
Concluding remarks
As of today, almost eight months have elapsed since there was a change in Administration, and little or no progress has been made in the PAC’s examination of and reporting on the public accounts of the country. The situation is exacerbated by the extent of the backlogged accounts to be examined. The failure of members of the PAC to resolve their differences to enable the Committee to return to a state of normalcy in terms of its functioning, will have an adverse effect on the effective functioning of two other areas of public administration.
The first relates to the Public Procurement Commission which has been without the services of three of its five commissioners since October 2019 while the tenure of office of the other two commissioners came to an end in October 2020. It is the responsibility of the PAC to initiate action to identify potential candidates to serve on the Commission and to make a recommendation to the Assembly. The other area relates to the supervision of the work of the Audit Office, especially as regards the approval of that Office’s annual work plans, consideration of its quarterly and annual reports, and the ratification of senior appointments.
It is most unfortunate that the contretemps currently existing at the PAC over attempts to remove the Chair has not yet been resolved and has been allowed to drag on. Its non-resolution is inimical to the public good and the public interest and should be brought to an immediate end.
