Some 700 experts from universities and research bodies across the UK sent a letter to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak urging him to end approvals for all new oil and gas developments, as any such approval would undermine the UK’s position as a global climate leader. It would also make it more difficult for the world to limit global average temperatures to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. According to the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), emissions from existing fossil fuel infrastructure would push temperatures above this level while the International Energy Agency has previously said there must be no new investment in oil and gas if the world is to become net zero by 2050.
The IPCC scientists stated that the opportunity to ensure a safe and livable climate for the world’s population is rapidly closing and that current emissions reduction policies would leave us at 3℃ over pre-industrial levels by 2100. According to Professor Emily Shuckburgh of the University of Cambridge, ‘[c]ontinued use of fossil fuels is a threat to us, our children and their children. Instead, we should be leading the world in creating a sustainable society powered by green innovation. That must be the central aim of the revised net-zero strategy’. See article at https://uk.news.yahoo.com/academics-urge-sunak-end-approvals-230100941.html.
Our views on the contract for the production of electronic ID cards provoked quite a stir among government officials who insist that there has been no breach of the Procurement Act. Referring to calls for the matter to be discussed in the National Assembly, the Attorney General is reported to have stated that he believes that when the issue of funding comes before the Assembly, the matter will be ventilated there. This implies that the source of funding for the contract had not been identified at the time it was signed on 10 March 2023, and no advance payment was made to the supplier, which is rather unusual. The Fiscal Management and Accountability (FMA) Act specifically prohibits the award of contracts for goods/services and the execution of works unless there is adequate provision in the approved Estimates, or any annual budget proposal before the Assembly, for payments to be made in relation to such contracts. Section 30(1) reads as follows:
“No contract or other arrangement providing for the payment of public moneys with respect to any programme for which there is an appropriation or an item included in the annual budget proposal then before the National Assembly to which that payment is to be charged, shall be entered into unless there is a sufficient unencumbered balance available in the appropriation or the proposed budget item, as the case may be, to make that payment.”
A review of the Estimates for 2023 indicates that there is no budgetary allocation for the procurement of electronic ID cards nor was there any mention of this in the Minister of Finance’s budget speech. Additionally, there was no annual budgetary proposal before the Assembly at the time the contract was signed to provide for payments to be made under the said contract. In the circumstances, there has been a breach of Section 30(1) of the FMA Act and a lack to parliamentary approval to incur expenditure on the contract. Section 16 prohibits the incurrence of expenditure without an appropriation, except as provided for under Article 217 of the Constitution.
The National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB) had insisted that the Authorities had written to it seeking its approval for the application of the sole source method of procurement for the production of the electronic ID cards and that such approval was given. However, the Board has provided no evidence of this. That apart, NPTAB ought to have been aware of the requirements of the FMA Act before granting such approval and should therefore have declined the request.
We reiterate out our call for the suspension of the contract, or preferably recission of the contract, for the production of electronic ID cards until such time that wide public consultations are held to discuss, among others, issues of personal privacy; the apparent overlapping of responsibilities among State agencies; which agency has the legal authority for issuing such cards; and the status of the existing national ID cards. After the views of citizens are taken into account, the proposal should be reformulated, tabled in the Assembly and referred to a Special Select Committee for detailed consideration.
In last week’s article, we reported that the Monday’s statutory meeting of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) had to be aborted again because of absence of a quorum, with only one of the five members from the Government’s side offering an excuse for not attending. This was the second consecutive week that the Committee was unable to meet to scrutinize the country’s audited public accounts. It was also the eleventh cancellation since the amendment to the National Assembly’s Standing Orders some eleven months ago to increase the size of the quorum of the nine-member Committee.
So far we have discussed the situation prior the amendment, going back to 1957 when the Committee was first established; my firsthand experience dealing with the Committee during my tenure of office as Auditor General; the current state of examination of the public accounts; the actual amendment; and arguments for and against the amendment. In today’s article, we conclude our discussion on the topic.
Third consecutive week of cancellation
If the situation prior to last Monday was not bad enough, the Clerk of the National Assembly informed the Chairperson of the PAC that the Government members would not be available for last Monday’s statutory meeting and that the Speaker informed him (the Clerk) not to send out notices of the meeting. This means that for the third consecutive week the Committee was not able to meet for want of a quorum.
Contending that the latest development represents a ‘blatant disregard for the responsibilities they were elected to uphold on behalf of the people of Guyana’, the Chairperson stated:
The government’s consistent failure to show up and do the work they were elected to do is a microcosm of the unacceptable reality of many other committees of the National Assembly where committees just don’t meet. The Natural Resources Committee, for example, which should be meeting, given Guyana’s resource-rich status and the possibilities for transformation with our new oil-rich resource, has not met since the inception of this Parliament. The Assembly’s Committee, of which the Speaker of the Parliament is the Chairman, met only once in three years. There are other committees too numerous to mention where meeting to do the work leaves much to be desired.
The Chairperson went on to further state that it is evident that the Government is afraid of transparency and accountability, which are the twin cardinal principles that lend to good governance; and it must be held accountable for its actions and lack of commitment to the responsibilities it was elected to uphold. A scrutiny of the list of documents laid in the Assembly indicates that the last report of the PAC to be presented was in respect of 2015. However, according to media reports, the Committee’s report for the fiscal year 2016 was laid in the Assembly in June 2022. Taking the latter into account, the PAC is five years in arrears in terms of reporting on its scrutiny of the public accounts. The Committee is currently examining the accounts for 2019. It is unclear why the PAC, having completed its examination of the public accounts for the years 2017 and 2018, the related reports have not been issued to enable the Government to respond via the Treasury Memorandum what action it has taken or proposes to take in relation to the findings and recommendations of the Committee.
Undesirability of Ministers sitting on the PAC
On several occasions, we had stated that it is undesirable for sitting Ministers to be members of the PAC. The main reason for this is that their participation in the Committee’s deliberations is likely to pose a conflict of interest when it comes to the scrutiny of the public accounts for the years that they serve as Ministers. While there may be a tendency to adopt a defensive posture, the situation can be exacerbated when it comes to the scrutiny of the accounts of Ministries for which they have responsibility, unless they recuse themselves.
The current PAC comprises five Government members, two of whom are sitting senior Ministers, namely Mr. Juan Edghill (Minister of Public Works) and Ms. Gail Teixeira (Minister of Governance and Parliamentary Affairs). If their work engagements are such that they are unable to attend the PAC meetings, it would be entirely appropriate for them to resign to give other government Members of Parliament an opportunity to serve on the Committee. In the case of Minister Teixeira whose main responsibility is to monitor the effectiveness of the functioning of the various committees of the Assembly, it does not seem appropriate for her to step down from her policy-making role and participate in the deliberations of any such committee. Indeed, the evidence suggests that most of these committees are not functioning the way they should.
On the other hand, Minister Edghill is in charge of the largest Ministry and he is therefore unlikely to devote the desired amount of time to serve on a committee that is meeting every Monday. And what of the other government members, namely, Messrs. Dharamkumar Seeraj, Vishwa Mahadeo and Sanjeev Datadin? If the two government Ministers cannot attend a PAC meeting because of ministerial commitments, surely two of them could make themselves available so that the Committee can continue its deliberations on the public accounts.
Conclusion
Last Monday’s cancellation of the PAC meeting for a third consecutive week because of the absence of a quorum, does not augur well for the effective functioning of the Committee. Indeed, it stymies the PAC’s efforts to bring its backlogged examination of the public accounts up to date, and runs counter to the principles of good governance, including transparency and accountability in the use of public resources. It also raises the serious questions as to the extent of commitment from government members in relation to their responsibilities. Or, is it a deliberate attempt to stall the work of the Committee in the light of the upcoming local government elections? If so, are we also going see a continuation of this most undesirable state of affairs until national and regional elections are held in two years’ time?
