SPEAKER OF the House of Representatives, Marisa Dalrymple Philibert, has taken action to reverse “parliamentary practice” by holding three reports from Auditor General Pamela Monroe Ellis for two months before tabling the documents.
In an unprecedented development in Gordon House yesterday, Dalrymple Philibert stridently defended her decision not to table the reports, noting that she was guided by Section 30 of the Financial Administration and Audit (FAA) Act.
She argued that the parliamentary practice of tabling reports from the Auditor General’s Department (AuGD) relating to public bodies was not in keeping with the FAA Act.
However, she told parliamentarians that she has written to the attorney general for an interpretation of the law.
According to the Speaker, Section 30 of the law provides for “the auditor general’s report on a public body to be tabled where the minister with responsibility for that public body fails to report to this Parliament within a two-month period”.
Quizzed on the reports that have been sent by the Auditor General’s Department, Dalrymple Philibert named the Passport, Immigration and Citizenship Agency (PICA) and a report dealing with main roads of which the National Works Agency (NWA) has responsibility to carry out repairs. The third report was not named.
However, the Speaker made specific reference to Section 30 of the FAA Act, which speaks to public bodies.
A Ministry of Finance document designated “The Government of Jamaica Policy on the Categorisation and Rationalisation of Public Bodies” defines a public body as a “statutory body or authority or any government company, but does not include an executive agency designated under the Executive Agencies Act”.
This definition is found in Section 2 (c) of the Public Bodies Management and Accountability Act (PBMA).
The NWA was accorded executive agency status on April 1, 2001 while PICA became an executive agency on June 1, 2007.
Based on the definition of public bodies by both the finance ministry and the PBMA Act, an executive agency does not fall in that category.
It is left to be seen if the Speaker’s decision regarding the withholding of the PICA and NWA reports were in accordance with the law.
When asked by Member of Parliament for St Andrew South East, Julian Robinson, if she received a legal opinion on the issue from the legislative counsel, the Speaker said she had discussions with Parliament’s attorney and clerk to the houses but did not get a written opinion from them.
In a Gleaner interview, Robinson said it was important for lawmakers to hear the legal opinion from Parliament’s legal counsel.
“I said on a number of occasions that there is independence between the legislature and the executive.”
Robinson, who also chairs the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament that reviews reports from the AuGD, argued that reports from the auditor general are sent to particular agencies or public bodies and they have an opportunity to respond to the reports.
“In fact, the responses from the agencies are included in the reports that are tabled in Parliament, so the agency always has an opportunity to respond. This thing about the minister getting two months to respond is not something I was aware of, but I will await the opinion of the solicitor general’s office on this matter,” Robinson said.
He said this matter goes to the heart of the independence of the auditor general, who is a creature of the constitution and reports to Parliament.
“It would have grave implications, from my perspective, for the independence of the Auditor General’s Department and the role of the Parliament in how it treats with reports from commissions,” he said.
Meanwhile, the Integrity Commission’s fifth annual report sent to Parliament on June 29 was not tabled in the Lower House yesterday or in the Senate last Friday.
And while the Senate tabled six reports of investigation on five medical doctors who breached the Integrity Commission Act for failing to submit information of their statutory declarations as well as former parliamentarian Leslie Campbell who was cited for a similar offence, the Lower House did not table those reports yesterday.
Three annual reports from three public bodies were tabled yesterday.
Financial Administration and Audit Act
Section 30 – Audit of accounts of public body by Auditor-General
(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other enactment, the Auditor-General may if he thinks fit, audit the accounts of any public body and shall do so if the House of Representatives by resolution so directs.
(2) The Auditor-General’s report on his examination and audit of any accounts audited pursuant to subsection (1) shall be transmitted to the appropriate Minister for presentation to the House of Representatives:
Provided that-
(a) the appropriate Minister shall obtain the observations of the public body concerned on any matter to which attention has been called by the Auditor General in his report and such observations shall be presented to the House of Representatives with the report;
(b) if the appropriate Minister fails within two months after receipt of the report to present it to the House of Representatives the Auditor-General shall transmit a copy of the report to the Speaker of the House to be presented by him to the House.
(3) The Auditor-General shall, if so required by the Minister, examine and report to the Minister the results of his examination of the accounts of any person or organization who has received moneys by way of grant or loan out of funds appropriated by Parliament or in respect of whom financial aid from the Government is sought.