The healthier our ecosystems are, the healthier the planet – and its people. Restoring our damaged ecosystems will help to end poverty, combat climate change and prevent mass extinction. But we will only succeed if everyone plays a part…. We have been seeing a spurt of climate events over the last decade or more that have affected millions of people, from extreme heat to wildfires and floods. The Covid-19 pandemic is also linked to the health of our ecosystem.
United Nations
Last Friday marks the 52nd anniversary of Earth Day. It was on this day in 1970 that some 20 million Americans, representing ten percent of population of the United States at the time and led by Senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin, took to the streets to protest against the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill. As a result of the protest, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was established in 1979, and several environmental laws, including the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, were enacted. In 1990, Earth Day went global when Senator Nelson mobilised 200 million people across 141 countries, an event that helped to pave the way for the 1992 United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. In 2009, the United Nations designated 22 April as ‘International Mother Earth Day’. The 2016 Paris Agreement on Climate Change was also signed by some 196 countries on this day.
Do we know which country is the greatest emitter of greenhouse gases per capita? While China is the largest emitter, in view of the size of its population it is not the largest emitter on a per capita basis. Rather, Guyana tops the list with emissions of 39.3 tonnes, followed by Qatar (31.11 tonnes), Niue (30.0 tonnes) Botswana (23.43 tonnes), Kuwait (23.26 tonnes), Paraguay (21.91 tonnes), United Arab Emirates (21.26 tonnes), Zambia (21.12 tonnes), Bahrain (21.12 tonnes) and Saudi Arabia (17.14 tonnes). The global average is 4.82 tonnes. (See https://ca.yahoo.com/style/which-countries-emit-most-greenhouse-gases-104411049.html.)
In last week’s article, we commented on the amendment to the Standing Orders of the National Assembly to allow for an increase in the size of the quorum for meetings of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) from three to five to accommodate the presence of at least two members each from both sides of the House. According to the Government’s spokesperson who is also a PAC member, a larger quorum with representation from both sides will enable the Committee to function more impartially; and the amendment was supported by the Commonwealth Association of Public Accounts Committee (CAPAC). On the other hand, the PAC Chairman argued that the real purpose of the amendment is to stymie the work of the Committee in its attempt to bring its examination of the public accounts up-to-date and to delay the scrutiny of the accounts from 2020 onwards until after the next elections due in 2025.
Size and composition of the PAC
The first PAC, comprising five Members of Parliament (MPs), was established in 1957. Standing Order 82(1) now provides for not less than six and not more than 10 members. Currently, there are nine members in proportion to representation in the Assembly from the Government side and the main Opposition party – five from the Government and four from the Opposition. Section 82(2) provides for the chairperson of the Committee to be appointed from members from the Opposition, the obvious reason being to minimise possible bias since the PAC is expected to scrutinize the financial stewardship of the government in office. Standing Order 82(2) does not, however, deal with situations where there are backlogged accounts still to be examined, especially when there is a change in Administration.
According to the 2009 PAC report, ‘…by convention no Minister is eligible to be a Member of the Committee. In so doing, no Minister can be nominated for such a Committee’. This requirement was, however, removed in the last amendments to the Standings Orders made in June 2011. However, there is no specific requirement for a Minister to be part of the PAC. The CAPAC Handbook made it clear that it is uncommon for a Minister to be an active member of the Committee as this may present a conflict of interest when the PAC scrutinizes the expenditure of the Executive of which he/she is a member. Accordingly, it recommends that this practice be avoided:
In order to perform its oversight activity, the Public Accounts Committee has to be free to conduct its business without government interference. It is therefore recommended that Ministers are not PAC members. In jurisdictions where a Minister is allowed to be a member of the PAC, Ministers should be substituted in cases where a conflict of interest clearly exists.
While there may be some merit in having the majority of members of the PAC constituting a quorum, the requirement to have two members each from both sides of the House serves only to politicise the work of the Committee at a time when members need to join hands, set aside narrow political interests, and perform their duties to the best of their abilities in furtherance of national interest. The words of the late Sir Harold Wilson, former British Prime Minister and Chair of the UK PAC during the period 1959-1963 remain a timely reminder and are worth repeating for yet another time:
The essential fact is that this Committee is a Committee of the House responsible to the House as a whole, and is not a battleground for party faction…. I believe it is true to say that the authority of the Committee is greatly enhanced by its unanimous character and I hope the complete objectivity of its report. It is fair to say that many Honourable Members of both parties have made great endeavours and have sometimes sacrificed personal views to ensure that this shall be so.
Status of the PAC’s examination of the public accounts
The last PAC report was issued some five years ago in July 2017 in respect of the years 2012 – 2014. The Committee is currently examining the accounts for the combined years 2015-2018. Under normal circumstances, the PAC should have already completed its scrutiny of and reporting on the 2020 public accounts since those accounts were tabled in the Assembly some six months ago. This would have enabled the Administration to respond to the Committee’s findings and recommendations via a Treasury Memorandum that sets out what actions it has taken or proposes to take to remedy the deficiencies identified, including the imposition of appropriate sanctions against those officials found guilty of mismanagement, fraud and waste of public resources. Additionally, the timely presentation of the PAC report to the Assembly on the latest audited public accounts will assist legislators in the consideration of the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure for the next fiscal year. At the moment, the Estimates are approved in isolation of any knowledge of how the previous year’s budgetary allocations have been utilised with due regard to economy, efficiency and effectiveness, and whether good value was received for sums expended.
Current tensions within the PAC
The tensions that currently exist within the PAC are not new, especially when there was a change in Administration. They occurred in 1992 and 2015 and are currently taking place following the 2020 elections. During the examination of the 1992 accounts, the PAC took an extremely defensive position on the various issues raised in my report and even challenged the basis of the report, considering the gap in financial reporting for the years 1982-1991. Instead of Accounting Officers being called to provide explanations as regards the deficiencies identified in the report, they were encouraged, indeed prodded, to challenge the findings so much so that I declined to attend further meetings of the PAC. However, for the 1993 public accounts the PAC’s attitude changed dramatically since my report on the Government’s financial stewardship for that year was as critical as that of 1992. After the 1993 PAC report was tabled in the Assembly, the chairperson resigned and was replaced by the late Winston Murray under whose tenure the PAC was able to set aside narrow political interest and was genuinely seen to be functioning in the broader national interest. Mr. Murray’s tenure ended in 2006.
The last PAC report at the time of change in Administration in 2015 was in respect of 2009 and was issued in December 2012; while the examination of the 2010-2011 was completed under the chairpersonship of Mr. Carl Greenidge but the related report was not issued until November 2016. The Committee’s examination took place over a 27-month period from March 2012 to June 2014 at which 50 hearings were held, an average of 25 hearings per fiscal year. In contrast, the PAC examination for the years 2012-2014 took place over an eight-month period from November 2015 to June 2016 and involved 12 hearings, an average four sittings per fiscal year. In our article of 9 April 2018, we applauded the PAC for its attempts to bring the examination of the public accounts up-to-date. We, however, expressed the hope that the Committee’s examination did not lack the desired level of comprehensiveness, considering that the Chairman was a key Cabinet Minister of the then Administration, and the accounts that were examined relate to the stewardship and accountability responsibilities of that Administration. On the same day, the then Minister of Public Health was reported to have challenged an Opposition member of the PAC to contradict her claim that there was never in recent times a similar partisan approach to the work of the PAC. She asserted that:
I have been the Chair of this [PAC] and there was never a time when the [PAC] has done its work without full collaboration with both sides of this House, and I say it without fear of contradiction. Because we focused on the issues, we saw it as a national issue, and we had to address it so that we can make the accountability within every agency in this country done in accordance with the rules and regulations.
We do not believe that the current tensions within the PAC are as a result of the size of the quorum for its meetings. Rather, it is about the Committee’s inability to bring its examination of the public accounts up-to-date. This is especially so when there is a change in Government. As an advisor to the PAC during the period 1991 to 2004, I cannot recall any instance where the question of a quorum arose.
Allegations of breaches in financial regulations
The Government spokesperson referred to above reportedly stated that the current chairperson of the PAC was attempting to rush the Committee’s examination of the accounts for the years that the APNU+AFC was in office in order to avoid detailed scrutiny of those accounts. She also contended that for the years 2015-2018 the Auditor General reported more than 500 breaches in Fiscal Management and Accountability Act, the Public Procurement Act and the Stores Regulations. She was referring to the section in the Auditor General’s report that deals with the status of implementation of recommendations. It should, however, be pointed out that the number of recommendations made do not necessarily equate to the number of breaches to the financial rules and regulations since a particular breach may result in several recommendations being made. Additionally, all unimplemented recommendations made in prior years are brought forward to the year under review.
The figure of 500 therefore represents the accumulation of all unimplemented recommendations for previous years as well as new recommendations made for the period under review, except for those that have been overtaken by events and hence no longer relevant. In 2014, a total of 397 recommendations were made, of which 226 or 57 percent remained unimplemented at the time of reporting in September 2015. Six years later in 2019, a total of 645 recommendations were made, of which 241 or 37 percent remained unimplemented as of September 2021. This represents a significant improvement compared with 2014. In order to distinguish new recommendations from those that have been brought forward, it is normal for the latter to be preceded with the words “We reiterate our previously stated recommendation that…”.
This is what the Auditor General said in his 2018 report:
Each year, my Office issues recommendations to Ministries, Departments and Regions that are designed at improving systems and practices at these entities and improving the Government’s governance and accountability mechanisms. Four hundred and fifty-four recommendations were made in my 2017 Audit Report. We reviewed each recommendation to determine what action, if any, was taken by the respective Accounting Officers. At the time of reporting in September 2019, 110 or 24% were fully implemented, 116 or 26% were partially implemented, while 228 or 50% were not implemented.
Overall, I am concerned with the lack of action towards the implementation of these recommendations; since, 76% of the recommendations have not yet been fully implemented. In addition, in many instances, recommendations are repeated each year without appropriate action and as a result, weaknesses and issues that impacted negatively on Government’s governance and accountability mechanisms continue to occur.
