The affairs of the National Assembly are governed by its Standing Orders, as amended from time to time. The last amendments were made in July 2011. Committees that undertake a significant proportion of the Assembly’s work. Standing Order No. 80 sets out the various committees to be established at the beginning of each Assembly. One such committee is the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), which is responsible for monitoring and controlling public expenditure and more specifically for examining the accounts that show the appropriation of amounts given by the Assembly to meet Public Expenditure and other accounts laid before the Assembly so that the Assembly may refer to the Committee together with the Auditor General’s report thereon ‘. The Committee shall consist of not less than six or more than ten members.
There has been a tradition among Commonwealth countries that the constitution of this committee reflected the Assembly’s tradition as a whole in terms of political representation. Accordingly, on 14 October 2020, following the convening of the 12th Parliament, nine Assembly members were selected to form the CAP: five from the Government side and four from the Opposition. The members of the Government are Gail Teixeira (Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance); Juan Edghill (Minister of Public Works); Dharamkumar Seeraj; Vishwa Mahadeo; and Sanjeev Datadin (Attorney-in-law). From the Opposition side, the four members are: David Patterson (former Minister of Public Infrastructure); Juretha Fernandes; Ganesh Mahipaul; and Jermaine Figueira.
Basic principles that guide the work of the CAP
Effective operation of the CAP depends largely on three fundamental principles. Firstly, the Committee must always strive to carry out its work in an objective and impartial manner, assigning narrow political and party interests, and embracing public interest and public interest; and they must be seen in the eyes of the public to be doing so. The late Sir Harold Wilson, former British Prime Minister and former Chairman of the UK PAC, stated that the Committee is not ‘a battleground for a party faction’; his work is greatly enhanced by his unanimous character and objectivity in his report; and in the past members of both sides of the House have made great efforts and sometimes sacrificed personal opinions to make this so.
Secondly, the choice of committee members is driven by the need for balanced representation of training and experience in government affairs, particularly 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 as possible individuals with the required professional and technical backgrounds to serve on the various committees in the Assembly. This is not to suggest that people without the necessary training and experience in government affairs should be excluded but an appropriate combination will be highly desirable.
The third principle is the need to avoid situations that have the potential to create a conflict of interest. For example, while it is not inappropriate for former Prime Ministerial Opposition members to be included in the membership of the CAP, it is against the norm for a sitting Minister to be part of the Committee. The main reason for this is that an integral part of an LLP’s audit of the public accounts would relate to the accounts of the Ministry and its related agencies for which that member has ministerial or direct oversight responsibilities. Should this be the case, will the member concerned excuse himself from those discussions in order to protect this principle? And will he / she act to protect a colleague’s Minister during the Committee’s deliberations? Staddon (2015) argues that ‘political legitimacy and independence are aided by [the Committee’s] balanced representation except government ministers’.
(https://westminsterresearch.westminster.ac.uk/download/4d514edb5e1634c223e14f0a6559473ef6ca0b0a40573387fe13f754e782ce10/210016/PAC%20British%20Isles%202014%20-%20for%20publication.20p).
Of course, the second and third principles assume that the work of the LLP must always be current. However, if there is a change in government and accounts backlog are audited, the Chairman of the LLP, who must be from the main Opposition party, will find himself in a similar position to a post A sitting Minister. In addition, from the most casual concentration in the composition of current members of the current CAP, there is clearly a significant imbalance of skills and experience between members of the Government and the Opposition. 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. By contrast, two members of government have not only decades of experience in governmental affairs having served as Ministers in the run-up to 2015 but are also sitting Ministers.
Delay in assembling the LLP
Responsibility for convening the first meeting of the PAC under a new Parliament rests with the Assembly Speaker. However, on 23 December 2020, this all-important committee, responsible for holding the Government accountable to the nation for its financial stewardship, had not yet been convened. Given the significant backlog in the Committee’s work, as evidenced by the fact that its last report related to 2012-2014, one would have thought that urgent action would be taken to activate this committee, to get it at work. and that it agreed an approach to address its backlog audit with a view to updating it within the shortest period of time.
In a previous column, we suggested that the CAP take 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 benefit from the availability of the report LLP for the previous financial year; and at the same time a sub-committee deals with the backlogged accounts. We also argued that, based on past trends, if the LLP sequentially examines backlogged public accounts, as soon as a year is complete, another year will be add to the backlogged accounts. In any event, what useful purpose will be served to examine a set of accounts that are more than five years old?
Concerned at the delay in CAP activation, especially given the fact that the Order Paper for 23 December 2020 did not include this item on his agenda, Mr. Patterson, who had been assigned to chair the PAC, addressed the Speaker expressing the opposition’s disappointment with the situation. He reminded the Speaker of the many letters he had written to him asking for his intervention to get the Committee up and running but without success. Mr Patterson claimed:
It is unacceptable for Parliament to convene at great expense to the citizens, and not use this opportunity to convene committee meetings. It is disrespectful to the members and out of touch with the country. As such, we see no benefit in attending a parliamentary session, which does not take the opportunity, to re-establish our assembly on a sound basis.
The Speaker acknowledged the delay in convening the committees. He argued, however, that there were some challenges, mainly in relation to the attendance of members from outlying areas. Accordingly, he asked for patience. The explanation did not fit well with the Opposition, as many Government agencies have been using online platforms, such as Zoom, to hold their meetings since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.
At the sitting of the Assembly on 28 December 2020, the CAP was eventually implemented along with the other parliamentary committees.
Appointment of Chair of LLP
In accordance with Standing Order No. 82 (2), the Chair of the LLP must be a Member of the main Opposition in the Assembly for the reasons already mentioned. Accordingly, Mr Patterson was elected to chair the Committee which met for the first time on 4 January 2021.
The actual audit of the public accounts began on 11 February 2021. Shortly thereafter, allegations began to emerge about 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, acknowledged that he had accepted the gifts. He argued, however, that he had done nothing wrong as other Government Ministers before 2015 had done the same.
We had stated in a previous article that using public funds to buy expensive gifts for a Minister, or any public official for that matter, is not inappropriate and the fact that this may have happened in the past does not justify its continuation. We also noted that the Integrity Commission should have dealt with the issue of responsibility for monitoring compliance with the Code of Conduct for Ministers, other parliamentarians and senior public officials, as contained in Schedule II of the Act the Integrity Commission. It is understood that a complaint has since been filed with the Commission but given the absence of commissioners, it is unclear when the investigation will begin.
Vote tables of no confidence in the Chair and the outcome
In view of the allegations made against the Chairman and his eventual recognition of the receipt of donations, members of the Government on the Committee called on the Chairman to resign. He refused to do so, however, urging those members to put forward a motion for a vote of no confidence in him. The Chair then resolved to excuse himself from the meeting at which the motion was to be discussed. This would have required the appointment of a temporary Chair from the other three members of the Opposition to the Committee. However, they all declined to chair the meeting.
The Clerk of the Assembly was then tasked with seeking an independent legal opinion on Standing Orders 82 (2) and 95 (4). The final Order provides for the election of the other Chair of the LLP on a temporary basis if the Chairman is unable to attend any meeting. The view is that Standing Order 95 (4) does not override Standing Order 82 (2). However, it can be used to continue the LLP’s business by electing a day-to-day chairman. As a result, a meeting was scheduled for 31 March 2021 to discuss the way forward but will have to be pushed back to a later date due to the unavailability of the Chair.
Concluding remarks
To this day, almost eight months have passed since there has been a change in the Ministry, and little or no progress has been made in the CAP’s examination of and reporting on the country’s public accounts. The situation is exacerbated by the size of the accounts backlog for audit. The failure of CAP members to resolve their differences to enable the Committee to return to a state of normalcy in its operation, will adversely affect 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 ended in October 2020. It is the responsibility of the PAC to begin. take action to identify potential candidates to serve on the Commission and make a recommendation to the Assembly. The other area is concerned with overseeing the work of the Audit Office, particularly in approving that Office’s annual work plans, considering its quarterly and annual reports, and confirming senior appointments.
It is very unfortunate that the contretemps that currently exist in the CAP over attempts to move the Chair have not yet been resolved and have been dragged on. Its lack of resolution is unworkable in the public interest and the public interest and should be brought to an end immediately.