THE Public Accounts Committee (PAC) was established in British Guiana in 1957 by Standing Order No. 70 (2) and is now provided for by Standing Order 82 (1) of the National Assembly. The Standing Committee is established at the commencement of the life of each Parliament and continues for the duration of the National Assembly, unless the National Assembly determines otherwise. The Chairman of the Committee resides in a member of the main opposition.
The Public Accounts Committee is therefore an important accountability arm of the State as each budget agency is required to answer to the committee for their stewardship of monies allocated to them by maintaining proper and detailed records which are audited by the Office of the Auditor General on an annual basis and which then is forwarded to the Speaker of the National Assembly for examination and scrutiny by Parliament through the Public Accounts Committee. In so doing, the PAC is responsible for ensuring that public money was spent for the purpose authorised by Parliament.
No one can deny that the PAC is an important body in terms of its mandate and in ensuring full accountability and transparency of public funds. Indeed, it is at sittings of the PAC that accounting officers from government agencies are made to answer for any apparent discrepancies in the use of public funds as highlighted in the Auditor General’s Report.
This is why it is so important for the committee to meet as statutorily required and in a manner that will not interfere with the day-to-day operations of the Executive. Based on recent media reports, it would appear that the Chairman of the PAC, Jermaine Figueira, is insisting, with the support of his APNU+AFC colleagues in the committee, to depart from the established practices of having one meeting per week to that of twice per week, purportedly to deal with a backlog of cases. Interestingly, the PAC was unable to meet during a scheduled session last week after clerks of committees expressed their unwillingness to work with the PAC due allegedly to the unprofessional conduct of some members.
This does not auger well for the work of the committee and certainly not on the Chairman of the PAC whose responsibility is to ensure that the meetings are conducted in an atmosphere of respect and cordiality. In fact, the Clerk of the National Assembly, Mr. Sherlock Isaacs, had cause to write to the PAC Chair indicating the grievances of the parliamentary staff who have complained that the PAC is not conducive to a healthy work environment. The matter had reached a point where the former PAC clerk had to seek medical attention due to high stress levels emanating from the manner in which the work of the PAC was being conducted.
At a superficial level, the argument in favour of more regular meetings of the committee may appear helpful to the work of the committee but, as pointed out by Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance, Gail Teixeira; it does come with a cost in terms of the disruption of the work of the Executive and, ironically, the Parliament itself.
The Clerk of the National Assembly has already spoken to high stress levels by those required to be at the meetings due to overwork. And, as if that were not enough, there were allegations of disrespect displayed by opposition members who appeared insensitive to the concerns of staff who are required to attend such sessions.
One wonders what is behind this sudden and heightened interest in the work of the PAC by opposition members, especially when seen against the background of past attempts by the APNU+AFC and its political predecessor the PNC to stifle the work of the PAC. It is an established fact that both the Office of the Auditor General and the PAC were treated with scant regard by the PNC when in office and for several consecutive years no Auditor General Report was presented to the Speaker of the National Assembly.
The PAC did not meet for several years in a row and it was not until the PPP/C assumed office on October 1992 that the Office of the Auditor General was strengthened and audited reports submitted on an annual basis. Further, the Office of the Auditor General was de-linked from the Ministry of Finance and was made an independent budget agency with reporting relationship only to Parliament. These were indeed significant measures taken by the PPP/C administration to enhance the integrity and accountability of public funds.
Not so long ago the government side of the House had cause to seek the removal the former Chairman of the PAC, Mr. David Patterson, after allegations of financial improprieties surfaced which could have raised serious questions on issues of confidence and integrity as it relates to the PAC Chair.
Meanwhile, a new parliamentary clerk has been identified to work along with the Public Accounts Committee which is expected to be reconvened on Monday. The Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance, Gail Teixeira, had already indicated her displeasure over the high-handed manner in which the PAC Chair is conducting the business of the Committee and has, in fact, moved a motion for the committee to revert to having meetings once per week. One hopes that good sense will prevail and the work of the PAC will not be sacrificed on the alter of political expediency on the part of the political opposition.
