PAC lacks capacity to investigate controversial financial matters

- A Budget Office would be of great assistance -Greenidge

By Kiana Wilburg      
When it comes to placing the details of controversial accounting matters of ministries and budgetary agencies under a microscope, there isn’t much that the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) can do.

Carl Greenidge, APNU Parliamentarian and PAC Chairman

This is simply because it’s current capacity to examine matters on its own calls for one thing-enhancement.
This, among other revelations, came to the fore during an interview with the PAC Chairman, Carl Greenidge.
The Parliamentarian was asked whether the Committee is currently strong enough to properly conduct its own investigations where abuses of power of taxpayers’ dollars have occurred.
The PAC Chairman asserted, “Of course, capacity needs to be enhanced.”
Greenidge said that if the relevant Ministers took action on the recommendations made in the previous Auditor General (AG) reports, many of the previous years’ matters would be dropped and attention could be devoted to more current issues.
Greenidge said that the reaction of the Government to findings regarding the arrangements for procurement of drugs for example, still needs much attention.
More significantly, Greenidge said that the PAC could most certainly be boosted by the establishment of a Budget Office. This is an innovation pioneered in the USA and taken up by a number of other countries including, most recently the United Kingdom, the PAC Chairman explained.
He said that the Budget Office would be of great assistance because appropriate accounting and economic skills could be mustered to prepare analysis and reports that would inform and aid the PAC.
Greenidge added that Guyana needs such an innovation, especially because the Committee members are part-time, from such varied backgrounds and sometimes are unaware even of the administrative procedures.
Asked whether the Committee focuses on government policies or just how they are implemented, the PAC Chairman explained that the primary intent of PACs in the variants of the Westminster system is the implementation of policies. How policies are implemented, he said, are for purview of other committees.
In its narrowest interpretation, Greenidge said that PACs have been charged with ensuring that monies have been spent for the purposes for which they were appropriated.
As the scope of the auditing profession broadens, he said that the need has arisen to look at whether the best use has been made of monies appropriated.
He added that that very challenge has widened the mandate and the approach to the work of PACs. He concluded however that examining overall policies is not the remit of the PAC. However, the PAC would examine financial policy and how it impacts on spending.
Further, Greenidge had explained that the PAC is at its wits’ end as there seems to be no immediate solution to some of the chronic factors affecting the execution of its work. Some committee members, along with Chairman, Carl Greenidge, have expressed that the Committee could be much more fruitful, if only some factors were eliminated.
Greenidge believes that primary among them is the inability or rather the unwillingness of the House to sanction ministers for failing to comply with the Committee’s recommendations and that of the Auditor General (AG) when it comes to abuses of the Consolidated and Contingencies Funds.
The PAC Chairman explained that the problems faced by the Committee can be categorized into five broad groups. The first he highlighted was the general weakness, if not failure, of the public accounting system and the weakness of the regulative scenario.
In this regard, the Parliamentarian explained that big and small accounting problems come to the PAC without any attempt at having it resolved at an administrative level, which is where they ought to be dealt with.
The second broad group he cited was the absence of supportive enforcement or oversight mechanisms, as in the case of procurement, where there is no Public Procurement Commission. He reminded of the abuses in the award of contracts for the main elements of the Specialty Hospital, drugs, roads and airport contracts among others.
The absence of pressure on Government agencies and Ministers to act on recommendations of the AG and those of the Committee was also referred to as a major obstacle.
The PAC Chairman said also on the list of worrying challenges, is the involvement of the Government in some of the biggest abuses which encompasses its failure to report on the use of state funds in some areas.
Lastly, he mentioned the lack of independent decision-making by entities appointed by the Executive branch.
Greenidge had also made the point that the lengthy reports of the AG reflect that Guyana’s accounting system is in a mess. He made reference to the United Kingdom, where the Auditor General’s report is no more than 20 to 30 pages. But Guyana’s is over 200 pages long. He said that this reflects that Guyana’s accounting system is not properly managed. And as such, the Committee is unable to look into other important matters.
Trevor Williams, the Alliance For Change’s member on the PAC also expressed that he is in total agreement with the Chairman’s position.
He said that the PAC is a small part of that total financial architecture responsible for monitoring public finance.
The issue of a Budget Office he said has been tested in other jurisdictions and as such, he agrees with the recommendation.