0806REP/PACW13 3 RD WESTMINSTER WORKSHOP, THE PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE 24 - 27 JUNE 2013 REPORT 1. BACKGROUND 2. AIM AND OBJECTIVES 3. EXPECTATIONS 4. PROGRAMME SUMMARY 4.1. PLENARY SESSIONS 4.2. WORKSHOP SESSION 4.3. SPLIT MEMBER/CLERK SESSIONS 4.4. CONSTITUENCY VISITS 4.5. SUPPORTING EVENTS 5. OUTCOMES 6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 7. CONTACT DETAILS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ANNEX A – PROGRAMME IN BRIEF ANNEX B – PROGRAMME IN FULL ANNEX C – WORKSHOP SESSION CASE STUDY ANNEX D – WORKSHOP SESSION CASE STUDY NOTES ANNEX E – DELEGATES ANNEX F – FEEDBACK REPORT ANNEX G – FEEDBACK DATA
Transcript
0806REP/PACW13
3RD WESTMINSTER WORKSHOP,
THE PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE
24 - 27 JUNE 2013
REPORT
1. BACKGROUND
2. AIM AND OBJECTIVES
3. EXPECTATIONS
4. PROGRAMME SUMMARY
4.1. PLENARY SESSIONS
4.2. WORKSHOP SESSION
4.3. SPLIT MEMBER/CLERK SESSIONS
4.4. CONSTITUENCY VISITS
4.5. SUPPORTING EVENTS
5. OUTCOMES
6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
7. CONTACT DETAILS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
ANNEX A – PROGRAMME IN BRIEF
ANNEX B – PROGRAMME IN FULL
ANNEX C – WORKSHOP SESSION CASE STUDY
ANNEX D – WORKSHOP SESSION CASE STUDY NOTES
ANNEX E – DELEGATES
ANNEX F – FEEDBACK REPORT
ANNEX G – FEEDBACK DATA
2
1. BACKGROUND
1.01. Holding the Executive to account for its use of public money is one of the key roles of
parliamentarians. Across the Commonwealth one of the principal vehicles for doing this is through
Committees of Public Accounts (PAC). In ideal best-practice environments, PACs scrutinise
expenditure by the Executive to assess whether funds have been used efficiently, effectively, and in
the intended fashion.
1.02. The mandate and practices of PACs can vary considerably between legislatures. Each PAC operates
within a different political context and faces issues unique to the legislature it serves. Large country
PACs often face very different challenges to those faced by PACs in small countries. That said,
many common principles exist across Commonwealth PACs, and much can be learnt through
sharing experiences and exploring examples of best and emerging practice in parliaments around the
world.
1.03. Effective PACs should be representative of all main Parties in Parliament and should be chaired by a
senior politician from the main Opposition / Minority Party. The PAC should be ably supported by
professional clerical staff. To avoid political wrangling, the major focus should be on the
administration of policy rather than policy itself; and a well-functioning PAC tends not to split along
party-political lines.
• Effective PACs will receive good quality audit reports from their independent Supreme Audit
Institution (SAI) / Audit Office within an agreed timeframe
• Will hold public hearings to discuss the results of these audits
• Senior civil servants from the audited Ministries will appear before PACs well briefed, able to
respond accurately to probing questions and will treat the hearings with respect
• Following a hearing, effective PACs will produce a short report highlighting areas where the audited
Ministry can reduce waste or improve performance
• The Executive will respond to these reports promptly indicating what changes it plans to introduce as
a result of the report
• In due course the PAC, or the SAI / Audit Office, will follow up to ensure that commitments by the
Executive have been implemented
1.04. This accountability mechanism will be well understood and supported by the Executive, civil
servants, parliamentarians, the media and the general public.
1.05. Unfortunately this benchmark model for what makes an effective PAC is far from wide-spread
across the Commonwealth and indeed around much of the world. By no means are all PACs
3
functioning as intended. The Public Expenditure and Financial Assessment reviews conducted by
the World Bank and other development partners consistently find that PACs are the weakest links in
the public financial management systems.
1.06. PACs often are faced with many different problems including:
• Skills of Members – in many legislatures, Members of PACs lack an understanding of the workings
of government and are ill-equipped to ask probing questions of those who appear before them. Some
also are unclear of their roles in holding the Executive to account on its spending, having the
misconception that criticism of the performance of their own government is a form of political
disloyalty.
• Oversight Specificity for Developing Countries – the skill deficit is further affected by the range
of oversight requirement that ranges across the width of PFM, from issues in revenue management,
expenditure management using Single Treasury Systems that are still not universal across the
1200 - 1230 View Prime Minister’s Question Time via video link
1230 - 1300 Session 13: The Association of Commonwealth PACs
1400 - 1515 Session 14: What makes an effective Supreme Audit Institution (SAI)?
1530 - 1615 Session 15: The relationship between the PAC and the SAI
1615 - 1645 Session 16: Evolution of Performance Audit in SAI India
1645 - 1800 Session 17: Interpreting and prioritising financial and audit information
1800 - 2000 Session 18: Working supper – accountability in development fund spending
THURSDAY 27 JUNE
0900 - 1030 Session 19: Curbing corruption and fraud
1100 - 1230 Session 20: Workshop session on corruption and fraud
1330 - 1430 Session 21: Public procurement
1430 - 1600 Session 22: Closing plenary – the future for PACs and the Commonwealth dimension
1600 - 1700 Session 23: Closing reception and presentation of certificates
11
ANNEX B – PROGRAMME IN FULL
SUNDAY 23 JUNE
All day Arrival Day MONDAY 24 JUNE
0830 Depart hotel 0845 Arrive Houses of Parliament, proceed to the Attlee Suite 0900 Workshop Welcome and Introductions
Mr Andrew Tuggey DL Director, CPA UK Mr David Goldsworthy International Operations Manager, National Audit Office, UK
1000 Session 1: The Public Financial Management Process (PFM) – Parliament’s role in financial oversight
Content: This session will give an overview of the public financial management landscape and the remit of Public Accounts Committees within financial oversight. To include:
• The Public Financial Management (PFM) process – from budget setting to audit trails
• the role of Parliament in budget and expenditure • the accountability cycle • post-expenditure scrutiny • scrutinising performance
Questions for discussion: What is the PFM process and what role does public financial accountability play within the wider process of public financial management? What do we mean by public financial accountability? What are the key features of an effective ‘Commonwealth’ PAC? Speakers: Mr Alan Edwards International Director, The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) Mr Raymond Pryce MP PAC member, Jamaica Mr Rupinder Singh Adviser, Governance and Institutional Development Division, Commonwealth Secretariat Chair: Mr Thomas Docherty MP (Labour)
1115 Coffee 1130 Session 2: What makes for an effective PAC?
Content: A discussion on conditions and success factors to include:
• a broad scope and mandate, the power to oversee all public expenditure • timely publication of the SAI’s reports • the power to focus its inquiries on subjects of its choice without government
intervention or advice • a clear focus on accountability rather than policy • effective analysis and reporting • impartial and expert support from the legislative auditor and Committee
support staff creating a unity of purpose
12
• effective opposition chairing • bipartisanship between Committee members • involvement of the public and encouragement of media coverage
Questions for discussion: What benchmarks can be used to measure PAC performance? Do these benchmarks vary between PACs? Speakers: Mr Richard Bacon MP (Conservative) , PAC member, UK Mr Carl Barrington Greenidge MP PAC Chair, Guyana Senator Ahmad Lawan MP PAC Chair, Nigerian Senate Chair: Hon. Claudio Grech MP PAC member, Malta
1300 Lunch 1400 Session 3: The Hearing process
Content: a. Choosing and launching a hearing
b. Collecting evidence and evidence sessions
• questioning Ministers or officials • questioning independent experts • requesting and reviewing written submissions from government or
independent witnesses • reviewing reports produced by the SAI
c. Producing reports
‐ Government reports and debates Questions for discussion: What makes a good brief? What make good questions? What makes a good report? What make good recommendations? Speakers: Ms Fiona Mactaggart MP (Labour) PAC member, UK Mr Philip Aylett, Senior Committee Clerk, House of Commons, UK Chair: Rt Hon. Anne McGuire MP (Labour)
1500 Tea 1515 Session 4: Observe a UK Public Accounts Committee meeting
Session format: Selection of delegates to view live proceedings; remainder to view proceedings via video link in the Attlee Suite Commentator: Mr Philip Aylett, Senior Committee Clerk, House of Commons, UK
1630 Depart Houses of Parliament for hotel
TUESDAY 25 JUNE
0715 Those attending the Working Breakfast depart hotel 0730 - 0845 Working Breakfast: The role of the PAC in ensuring
effective scrutiny of natural resource revenues
Content: This working breakfast will explore the role of the Public Accounts Committee in monitoring revenue from natural resource extraction and will discuss:
13
‐ Scrutinising contracts and licenses ‐ Scrutinising revenues and payments made to government agencies by
international companies, as well as government management of natural resource revenues
‐ Safeguarding against corruption in the sector and ensuring legitimate use of revenues
0830 Those not attending the Working Breakfast depart hotel for Parliament, proceed to the River Room, Committee Room G
Split day Member-only sessions River Room
Clerk-only sessions Committee Room G
0900 Session 5: Support and resource for PACs in small legislatures
Content: Oversight requires skills, knowledge and experience that many parliamentarians do not have when they first join a PAC. Moreover they often face an information deficit when questioning a senior official backed by the technical resources of a government. Where can PACs in small legislatures find support and resource?
• parliamentary scrutiny teams • research support • budget offices • audit offices • civil society organisations • the media
Questions for discussion: What is the role of parliamentary staff in improving the impact of financial scrutiny? How can staff support efforts to put limited public resources to optimal use? In what ways do external advisers and the scrutiny unit support Committee work? Speakers: Hon. Charles De Commarmond MP PAC Vice Chair, Seychelles Mr Zaqy Mohamad MP PAC Member, Singapore Chair: Mr Nick Smith MP (Labour)
Session 5: Improving financial oversight: the role of the Clerk
Content: To explore the skills and knowledge required by Committee Clerks to effectively support their Committees in interpreting audit reports produced by the Supreme Audit Institution and in carrying out the Committee’s programme of work.
• good knowledge of parliamentary and Committee procedure
• management of Committee staff • assisting the Committee in
planning and carrying out its programme of work
• drawing up the agenda • advanced planning • providing briefings and drafting
reports • identifying witnesses
Questions for discussion: How can Committee Clerks work to maximise a Committee’s inquiry sessions? How can detailed and often technical income and expenditure plans be simplified to make them ready for scrutiny by the Committee? Speakers: Mr Adrian Jenner PAC Clerk, UK Mr Joseph Manzi PAC Clerk, Malawi Chair: Rt Hon. Lord Touhig of Islwyn and of Glansychan (Labour/Cooperative)
14
1015 Coffee Coffee 1030 Session 6: Achieving impacts and
following up recommendations Content: Broadening access to information - making reports available to the public. Evaluating performance information. How should a PAC deal with a lack of government responsiveness? Impacts PACs can have:
• recommendations accepted • recommendations implemented • financial and quantitative
impacts • better information • disciplinary action • modification of legislation
Questions for discussion: How can a PAC monitor what happens to their recommendations? How should a PAC deal with a lack of government responsiveness? Speaker: Mr Ashley McDougall Director of Parliamentary Relations National Audit Office Chair: Senator Faris Al-Rawi Senate member, Trinidad and Tobago
Session 6: The role of parliamentary support staff in small legislature PACs
Content: How can Committee Clerks supervise and work with other Committee staff to:
• prepare written briefings for Committees
• prepare suggested questions • make the best use of evidence • make use of non-governmental
experts • improve recommendations and
impact • improve press coverage
Questions for discussion: What information should a good briefing note and minutes of proceedings include? What role should Committee staff play during inquiry sessions? Speakers: Mr Paul Raui Allsworth Head of the PAC Secretariat, Cook Islands Mrs Letta Barker PAC Clerk, Guyana Chair: Dr Joan Imhoff-Nwasike Head of Thematic Programmes Group, Governance and Institutional Development Division, Commonwealth Secretariat
1200 Session 7 – Common issues faced by PACs in small legislatures
Case study: A sharing of views and experiences, led by two delegates Content: Small legislature PACs operate in vastly different contexts, and often face very different challenges to those faced by PACs in large legislatures. Drawing on selected country experiences, this session will consider the variation between small legislatures in the mandate and practices of their PACs. Questions for discussion: What are the differences in practices between small legislatures? What are the common principles? How can we share lessons learned and encourage best practice
Session 7 – Forward planning Committee work
Case study: A sharing of views and experiences, led by two Clerks Content and questions for discussion: It can be a challenge to plan and prioritise Committee work when there is a back-log in audit reports awaiting PAC scrutiny. What is the role of the Clerk in helping PACs forward plan their programme of work? How can Clerks help Committee Chairs prioritise their Committee workload?
15
between PACs in small legislatures? Speakers: Hon. Tangariki Reete MP PAC Chair, Kiribati Hon. Stephenson King MP PAC Chair and Leader of the Opposition, St Lucia Chair: Dr John Pugh MP (Liberal Democrats)
Speakers: Mr Stephen Chiwota PAC Clerk, Zambia Shri Ashok Kumar Singh Finance Committee Clerk, India Chair: Dr Roger Koranteng Adviser, Governance & Institutional Development Division, Commonwealth Secretariat
1315 Lunch 1415 Group photograph in Westminster Hall 1430 CPA Room Jubilee Room 1430 Session 8 – Realising best value for
money Content and questions for discussion: With many countries making substantial cuts to public expenditure, ensuring good value for money has never been so important. Public expenditure that does not achieve maximum value damages the credibility of public services. How can PACs be effective in drawing attention to government waste? Speaker: Mr Keith Davis Director, National Audit Office Chair: Mr David Goldsworthy International Operations Manager, National Audit Office, UK
Session 8 – Engaging effectively with the media
Content and questions for discussion: What role do Committee staff have to play in improving press coverage and ensuring the Committee engages effectively with the media? How can more active mutual cooperation and communication between PACs and the media be encouraged? What is the role of a PAC media officer? Speakers: Mr David Hencke Freelance Journalist, Exaro; former Parliamentary Correspondent Mr Alex Paterson, UK PAC Media Officer Chair: Dr Roger Koranteng Adviser, Governance & Institutional Development Division, Commonwealth Secretariat
1530 Tea 1545 Session 9 – Tracking performance
Content and questions for discussion: In order to improve value for money performance of government departments, PACs need to look at that performance over time as well as at a particular point in time. How can PACs observe and monitor changes in departments over time? How can PACs better track performance? Speaker: Mr John Thorpe Director, National Audit Office Chair: Mr Max Everest-Phillips Director, Governance and Institutional
Session 9 – Retaining independence from government
Content and questions for discussion: Effective PACs possess the power to choose subjects for examination without government direction or intervention. What is the role of the clerk in helping Committees retain independence from government in parliaments where the executive plays a dominant role? Speakers: Ms Keiba Jacob PAC Clerk, Trinidad and Tobago Mr David Saffa, PAC Clerk, Sierra Leone
16
Development Division, Commonwealth Secretariat
Chair: Dr Joan Imhoff-Nwasike Head of Thematic Programmes Group, Governance and Institutional Development Division, Commonwealth Secretariat
1700 Depart Houses of Parliament for hotel WEDNESDAY 26 JUNE
0830 Depart hotel 0845 Arrive Houses of Parliament, proceed to the Attlee Suite 0900 Session 10: Chairing Public Accounts Committees
Content:
• the role of the Chair in encouraging and facilitating open debate • how to manage a meeting effectively • how to avoid a conflict of interest • keeping politics out of meetings • dealing with poor attendance • dealing with poor performance • agreeing agendas • keeping things moving and to time • briefing Committee colleagues
Questions for discussion: How can the Chair help to make the Committee more effective? What skills and knowledge does an effective Chair need? Speaker: Rt Hon. Margaret Hodge MBE MP (Labour) PAC Chair, UK Chair: Rt Hon. Sir Alan Haselhurst MP (Conservative) Chair, CPA UK and International Executive Committees
1000 Coffee 1015 Session 11: Workshop session
Content: Hypothetical case study exercise from a small legislature in small groups Facilitator: Mr David Goldsworthy International Operations Manager, National Audit Office
1115 Session 12: Report-back session
Content: Hypothetical small legislature PAC case study report-back session Facilitator: Mr David Goldsworthy International Operations Manager, National Audit Office
1155 View Prime Minister’s Question Time via video link Commentator: Mr Richard Ward Senior Clerk, Table Office
1230 Session 13: The Association of Commonwealth PACs
Facilitators: Dr Joan Imhoff-Nwasike Head of Thematic Programmes Group, Governance and Institutional Development Division, Commonwealth Secretariat
17
Mr Thomas Redmond, Online Networks - Commonwealth Connects, Communications and Public Affairs Division, Commonwealth Secretariat
1300 Lunch 1400 Session 14: What makes an effective Supreme Audit Institution (SAI)?
Content and questions for discussion: This session will examine audit and the role of Supreme Audit Institutions. What do Supreme Audit Institutions do? How can Supreme Audit Institutions retain their independence? Is there a role for private sector firms in public audit? What is the role of the International Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions (IntoSai) and what are Intosai’s plans for benchmarking SAIs? Speaker: Mr Martin Sinclair Assistant Auditor-General, National Audit Office Chair: Hon. John Mokoenga Henry MP PAC Chair, Cook Islands
1515 Tea 1530 Session 15: The relationship between the PAC and the SAI
Content: What relationship should the PAC and the SAI have? How do the two bodies work together to improve financial management and reporting? Questions for discussion: How does public audit help parliament hold the government to account on public service spending? What does a PAC need from its audit office? How can a PAC deal effectively with an increasing volume of audit output? What is the relationship between the Auditor General and the PAC? How can the Auditor General retain his or her independence? Speakers: Mr Michael Whitehouse Chief Operating Officer, National Audit Office Mr Ian Swales MP (Liberal Democrats) PAC member, UK Mr Steve Barclay MP (Conservative) PAC member, UK Chair: Mr David Goldsworthy International Operations Manager, National Audit Office
1615 Session 16: Evolution of Performance Audit in SAI India - a case study Content:
• Historical perspective of performance auditing in SAI India • Framework of performance auditing in SAI India • Adoption of performance auditing Guidelines • Scope - performance auditing does not question policy or suggest policy
alternatives • Formal endorsement by Government of India regarding mandate for
performance audit • Reporting process and recent reports
Speaker: Mr Rajesh Singh Minister (Audit), India Audit Office Chair: Mr David Goldsworthy International Operations Manager, National Audit Office
18
Session 17: Interpreting and prioritising financial and audit information
Content and questions for discussion: Committee members and staff need the skills to deal with the ever evolving and increasing nature of audit content. New types of audit can lead to a general increase in audit activity. As a result, PACs may not have the time to consider all accounts in-depth. How can PACs deal with and prioritise an increasing volume of audit output? How can PACs best examine accounts and other information of a financial nature presented by departments to Parliament? Speakers: Mrs Liz Rankin Financial Analyst, Scrutiny Unit, House of Commons Mr Constantinos Regas Financial Analyst, Scrutiny Unit, House of Commons Mr Ian Carruthers Policy and Technical Director, The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) Shri Bhartruhari Mahtab MP PAC member, India Lok Sabha Chair: Baroness Browning (Conservative)
1800 Session 18: Working Supper - Accountability in development fund spending
Content: What is the role of PACs in ensuring transparency and accountability in development fund spending? How can PACs work in partnership with donor organisations to ensure financial accountability? Speakers: Mr Hugh Bayley MP (Labour) Hon. Paul Mwiru MP PAC member, Uganda
2000 Depart Houses of Parliament for hotel 2015 Arrive hotel
THURSDAY 27 JUNE
0830 Depart hotel 0845 Arrive Houses of Parliament, proceed to the Attlee Suite 0900 Session 19: Curbing corruption and fraud
Content and questions for discussion: Commonwealth PACs are tasked with looking into a wide range of corruption and fraud issues relating to public procurement and expenditure. This session will explore factors associated with corruption in public financial management. What is a PAC’s role in curbing and preventing corruption? How can PACs fight corruption and strengthen accountability in countries which are executive dominated? What problems do different Commonwealth countries face? Speakers: Rt Hon. Lord Browne of Ladyton (Labour) Hon. Kenneth Leung MLC PAC member, Hong Kong Mr Phil Mason Head, Financial Accountability and Anti-Corruption Team, Department for International Development, UK Chair: Mr Andy Love MP (Labour)
1030 Coffee 1100 Session 20: Workshop session on corruption and fraud
Content and session format: An interactive workshop/discussion session examining a scenario regarding corruption in public financial management, and exploring powers
19
given to PACs in dealing with corruption. Facilitator: Rt Hon. Lord Browne of Ladyton (Labour) Chair: Mr David Goldsworthy International Operations Manager, National Audit Office
1230 Lunch 1330 Session 21: Public procurement
Content and questions for discussion: Effective PACs scrutinise whether government procurement practices and processes are effective, fair and achieve good value for money throughout the purchasing cycle. How can PACs help to ensure that public procurement is managed responsibly? Session format: A session exploring a UK-focused case study Speaker: Mr Tim Banfield Director, National Audit Office Chair: Miss Jackie Doyle-Price MP (Conservative), PAC member, UK
1430 Session 22: Closing Plenary – the future for PACs Content and questions for discussion: What further training and advice would be helpful to assist PACs in their work? Facilitators: Mr David Goldsworthy International Operations Manager, National Audit Office Mr Rupinder Singh Adviser, Governance and Institutional Development Division, Commonwealth Secretariat
1600 Session 23: Closing Reception and presentation of certificates
Rt Hon. Sir Alan Haselhurst MP (Conservative) Chair, CPA UK and International Executive Committees Mr Andrew Tuggey DL Director, CPA UK
1700 Depart Houses of Parliament 1715 Arrive hotel
20
ANNEX C – WORKSHOP SESSION CASE STUDY
Ecalpon is a small country, some 500,000 people. It has been badly affected by new EU regulations making
it more difficult to export its traditional cash crop. The economy is in the doldrums but a major cruise
company has indicated that it is about to develop a huge new tourism resort, yachting marina and deep water
harbour – creating substantial numbers of construction jobs in the short-term and hospitality industry jobs in
the next three to five years.
There have just been elections and a charismatic new Prime Minister has been elected with a strong majority.
He holds 30 of the 40 seats in the unicameral parliament and many of the new members have little or no
prior experience of government. During his campaign he made much of his desire to stamp out corruption -
Transparency International rates the country very low on its transparency indicator and most people believe
that corruption is high.
The Audit Office is a Department of the Ministry of Finance. It is nominally independent. It can carry out its
own audits and can report to the Parliament. However, the Auditor General is usually appointed by the Prime
Minister, staff are selected and given to the Auditor General by the Public Service Commission, and the
budget is determined by the Ministry of Finance. Its reports can only be issued when they have been
considered by the Public Accounts Committee and approved by the Parliament. The Audit Office does not do
value for money auditing but only a very simple form of financial audit - mostly checking vouchers.
Under the previous government, the Public Accounts Committee did not meet very regularly – twice a year –
and when the last parliamentary session ended it was still working on the 2009-10 accounts. By convention,
the Committee is chaired by the opposition and can call both Ministers and civil servants to appear before it.
It has always met in camera and few reports have ever been produced. In the past five years, only one report
has gone through the whole process, been considered by Parliament and placed in the public domain.
The Committee has access to support from two staff – one is the daughter of the previous chair of committee
and the other a bright young economist who has told people that she is planning to leave because her wages
are so low. The Committee look to the staff to arrange meetings, call witnesses and arrange visits but do not
use them to write reports.
The new Committee will have 9 members –only three of whom have a financial background.
The Audit Office has had some capacity building support in the past – providing training on financial audit.
It has 20 staff – 3 with a professional accounting qualification and four doing an accounting course by
correspondence.
By law the Audit Office is expected to audit all government accounts every year but this is difficult as they
need to audit all 15 central government Ministries, 20 state run enterprises and 10 local councils. Wages of
staff are low and experienced staff exit to the private sector or go abroad after a few years. The salaries are
determined by the Public Service Commission.
21
The Ministry of Finance are reform minded but they tend to not trust the Parliament or the Audit Office
wanting to control the process of reform themselves. Their Budget reports are getting much better but are
often released to Parliament only weeks before they need to be approved. The accounts of individual
Ministries, however, are often poorly prepared and/or late. They have recently made the 2009-10 accounts
available to the Audit Office – three years late. They are desperately trying to introduce three year budgets
and project based budgets but have only managed to roll this process out to five ministries.
Occasionally the media pick up some of the audit report findings but they are only interested in sensational
headlines and split on party political lines – turning every failure in the implementation of government policy
into a failure of politicians. The Parliament tend not to consult civil society on the budget but does from time
to time take note of the comments of influential trade unions (Education and Mine Workers), Health Wise (a
health care advocacy group) and Fair Ecalpon (a gender advocacy group) as they tend to organise protests
and have access to the media around the budget vote. The international donors are keen to support the
country – seeing better governance as a factor in the fight against poverty and drugs.
Task
In your groups, examine the case study. What are some of the key problems facing the PACs? Which ones
would you want to tackle first and how?
Look at your Group’s theme below:
• Say what you would do
• How you would do it
• What resources you would need
• Who would do it
• Over what timeframe
• How you would know if you were successful (indicators).
• Prepare a brief one page report back
MPs – suggested themes
Group 1
What are some of the things you could do to help open up the proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee
to greater public scrutiny? How might you go about making his happen?
Group 2
The Public Accounts Committee does not meet very often. What are some of the possible reasons for this?
How might the committee be persuaded to operate more efficiently?
Group 3
22
What other supports might the Committee be able to obtain from parliamentary staff? How might it go about
acquiring this support? What could the Committee do to ensure that key staff do not leave prematurely?
Group 4
Some MPs on the Committee see criticising the administration’s management of programmes as disloyalty.
How might they be persuaded that such criticism is not disloyalty but positive assistance to improving public
services?
Group 5
How can the committee work better with Media and Civil Society?
Parliamentary staff– suggested themes
Group 1
What services could the Parliamentary staff start to provide the Committee which would increase the
Committee’s effectiveness? How could the staff go about persuading the Committee of the benefits of these
services? What are some of the barriers which staff might face and how could they deal with these?
Group 2
How might the staff make better use of the Audit Office? What services could it provide? How would you
persuade it to do this? What are some of the objections the Audit Office would make? How might these be
overcome? Who else might oppose this move? How would their concerns be addressed?
23
ANNEX D – WORKSHOP SESSION CASE STUDY NOTES
Session 11: Wednesday 26 June, 10:15 – 11:15
GROUP 1.
Question: What are some of the things you could do to help open up the proceedings of the Public Accounts
Committee to greater public scrutiny? How might you go about making his happen?
What would you do:
Public Hearings
Media involvement
‐ advertise in the media upcoming hearings
‐ Radio phone-ins/talk shows
Hold more regular meetings
Weekly bulletins
How you would do it:
More robust procedures
What resources you would need:
More staff capacity
Over what timeframe:
3/6 months
How would you know you were successful:
Number of people attending hearings
Media coverage of proceedings
GROUP 2.
Question: The Public Accounts Committee does not meet very often. What are some of the possible reasons
for this? How might the committee be persuaded to operate more efficiently?
The PAC in this case is suffering from 5 distinct major problems.
⋅ The meetings are not regularly held and the PAC experiences much delay in its hearing and
reporting processes
⋅ The human resources are not sufficient within the PAC and not adequately qualified
⋅ The Members of the PAC do not have the necessary experience for auditing the public sector
effectively
24
⋅ The presence of the Opposition is weak within the PAC
⋅ There is a lack of political will within this country’s political system
Solution – Increased political and administrative capacity building of the PAC
The PAC is also suffering from 5 indirect problems.
⋅ The status and the capacity of the Audit Office is limited
⋅ The Audit Office is not independent and is a Department of the Ministry of Finance
⋅ The Audit Office is under-staffed
⋅ The Audit Office is not able to submit reports on time due to a lack of staff capacity
⋅ The media often reports the proceedings of the committee negatively, focussing on sensationalist
headlines
⋅ The Parliament does not engage with Civil Society Organisations and the Parliament is under
pressure from strong lobbying groups
Solutions
⋅ Enhancing the capacity and independence of the Audit Office
⋅ The Parliament should open up to Civil Society Organisations and consult them, specifically through
open days, AR Unit, thematic conference, TV programmes
⋅ Training the media and develop stronger relationships between the Committee and media outlets
Indicators
⋅ Short term
An increased number of Committee hearings
An increase number of reports
⋅ Long term
A decrease in the rate of corruption in Ecalpon
GROUP 3.
Question: Some MPs on the Committee see criticising the administration’s management of programmes as
disloyalty. How might they be persuaded that such criticism is not disloyalty but positive assistance to
improving public services?
1. Have a one to one counselling and interfacing between Members with differing opinion
a. How: follow up meeting with Members and Prime Minister by Chairman of PAC
b. Time: within 6-8 weeks of the committee appointment
2. Set a pre-established programme of work for the PAC
a. How:
i. a schedule set up by consensus of Members
ii. Arrange for a briefing to PAC by the auditors general
25
iii. The first item on the agenda should not be controversial
b. Who? The chairman of the PAC, auditor general and clerk of the committee should do this
in the first couple of months
3. The MPs need to have a structured approach on the audit work by PAC
a. Each agenda item need to be based on audit report
b. The auditor General to be present in PAC meetings
4. Unanimity and strive to reach a decision by consensus
a. How?
i. A pre-hearing briefing to PAC by AG
ii. Avoid calling political witnesses in so far as it’s possible
5. Capacity-building of PAC members through training and benchmarking
6. Items on the agenda should be on the current issues
Indicators:
1. Measure of harmony and synchronisation
2. Regularity and frequency of meetings
GROUP 4.
Question: What services could the Parliamentary staff start to provide the Committee which would increase
the Committee’s effectiveness? How could the staff go about persuading the Committee of the benefits of
these services? What are some of the barriers which staff might face and how could they deal with these?
Summary of the case study (positive and negative aspects)
PAC
Positive:
• Opposition Chair
Negative:
• Only met twice a year;
• Meet only in camera (Secret)
• Done few reports – only one in five years
• Only has two staff – previous Chair’s daughter (is that necessarily negative?); young
staff, low paid;
AUDIT OFFICE
Positive: N/A
Negative:
• Auditor General appointed by the PM (not independent)
• AG staff – appointed by PSC
26
• No VFM
• Only basic financial reports
• Back-log of audits
Barriers/Recommendations
1. Provide annual work plan (see also point 15);
2. Provide a clear agenda in consultation with the Chair and PAC members;
3. Provide briefing notes and background info on subject matters;
4. Prepare draft report for the PAC Committee;
5. To improve transparency – try to convince Chair/PAC to hold meetings in public
6. Try to introduce “Best Practice and Standards for PAC”
7. Assist in the PAC Media release;
8. Inadequate resources – need to be addressed;
9. Capacity development/training;
10. Need to review salaries;
11. Lack of career prospects;
12. Need to recruit senior and experienced staff – currently insufficient and incapable staff;
13. Implement a needs assessment for the increase in PAC work;
14. Possible secondment of Auditor General staff to PAC;
Provide or recommend for PAC to implement a Strategic Plan to address weaknesses
GROUP 5.
Question: How might the staff make better use of the Audit Office? What services could it provide? How
would you persuade it to do this? What are some of the objections the Audit Office would make? How might
these be overcome? Who else might oppose this move? How would their concerns be addressed?
PAC and Produce reports
• Meet regularly
• Open up the meetings to the public
• Enhance Capacity of Members and staff
• PAC to lobby for independent Audit Office
Staff
• Employ more technical staff and improve conditions of services
• Staff should be independent and impartial
• Lobby for the creating of PSC to employ and remunerate the staff
Audit Office
• Audit Office should be independent
o Financing
o Staffing
27
o Reporting
• Recruit more professional staff, improve their conditions of service
• Conduct more performance audits
General
• PAC reports are to be frequently debated in Parliament
• Auditor general’s office and PAC to organise sensitisation workshop for media and CSD
Session 20: Thursday 27 June, 11:00 – 12:30
Question posed to all groups: Based on what has been discussed during the workshop, what advice would
you give the PAC, Parliamentary staff and/or audit office in Ecalpon about what they can do to reduce
corruption in the country
GROUP 1.
PAC
1. Open and regular PAC meetings
2. Well published meetings with advance notice.
3. Synopsis of what was said at the meeting to be given/reported to the public.
4. Good subject selection.
5. Follow up on recommendations from PAC
6. PAC to expand its scope of hearing beyond Audit reports (for example “whistle blowing” civil servants
working in their departments)
7. Resources for specialist information (consultants).
Chairman to provide leadership by bringing in synergy between the Members, Parliamentary Staff and Audit
Office Officials, Anti corruption body etc...
Parliamentary staff
1. Well trained and dedicated staff, honest + independent.
2. Selection of staff by Parliamentary Service Commission. NB: Parliament can outsource if relevant.
3. Adequate training mechanism (regular).
4. Experience sharing / exchange with other countries.
5. Well paid staff to help recruit a high standard.
Audit Office
1. Audit Office to be independent.
2. Auditor General appointed by consensus of political parties.
3. It should be a constitutional authority with a fixed tenure.
28
4. It must do value for money Audit.
5. Audit Service to be supervised by PAC.
GROUP 2.
⋅ Presidential support of committee should be valued and publicised
⋅ Culture of improvement not criticism within committee and in recommendations
⋅ Department support should be sought and cultivated
⋅ More focussed Terms of Reference
⋅ Measures of success should be included in reports
⋅ Accountable to the people – should be basis of hearings and reports
⋅ Evidence based recommendations
⋅ Scope – refined
⋅ Quick wins for committee to gain publicity and respect in media and public perception
⋅ Size of committee may need review – smaller?
⋅ Public reporting essential
⋅ Length of meeting deters attendance
⋅ Cross functional committee make-up
⋅ Department advisory resource
⋅ Government/Department response required for committee recommendations with a prescribed
implementation time frame
⋅ Public/televised meetings
⋅ Clarity of outputs/outcomes for Committee and Health Department
⋅ Broader inputs from stakeholders/experts through wide range of media/means. Gathering better
evidence from more sources
GROUP 3.
PAC
⋅ Less Executive involvement in the appointment of Chairs
⋅ Opposition Chairs
⋅ Commitment and support from the Executive
⋅ Training and capacity building for members
⋅ Public engagement and meetings held in public
⋅ Public consultation
⋅ Media engagement
⋅ Clearer and more systematic reporting
Parliamentary Staff
29
⋅ Wage increase for staff and increase in numbers
⋅ Training and capacity building for staff
⋅ Improved Committee output should improve staff morale
⋅ Improved terms and conditions
⋅ Staff independence and neutrality
⋅ Clear targets and objectives
NAO
⋅ Independent from the Executive
⋅ Budget determined by parliament
⋅ Value for money auditing
⋅ Strong leadership
GROUP 4.
Targeted stakeholders:
15. National Audit Office
16. Parliamentary Staff
17. PAC
National Audit Office:
• INDEPENDENCE
o Additional staff
o Confidence enhancement/trust
o Budget approval – PAC
o Types of audit
• LATENESS of REPORTS
o Priorities (PAC) and set deadlines for completion
o Outsource backlog
o Training/ emoluments
o Budgeted cycle – MT, facilitates continuity and accountability
Parliamentary Staff:
• Emoluments
• Question of the range of staff
• Training
PAC:
• Media initiatives, including briefings to the media on the work of the Committee;
• CS engagement, briefings on the work of the C-tee.
30
• Hearings – minutes; hearings should be public, with CS groups;
• Inter-parliamentary links – info XD or Cos
• Questioning of ministers:
o use full mechanisms to interrogate accounting officers;
o Depends on the country system/need;
• Predictable – published timetable.
GROUP 5.
PAC
1. Meet regularly
• Open up the meetings to the public
2. Enhance the capacity of members and staff
3. PAC to lobby for independent audit office
Staff
1. Employ more technical staff and improve conditions of services
2. Staff should be independent and impartial
3. Lobby for the creation of PSC to employ and remunerate the staff
Audit
1. Total independence
• Appointment of Auditor General should change
• The Auditor General should recruit their own staff
• Treatment of Auditor General report should change
2. Increase/expand span of audits
3. Departments must produce reports on time
4. Professional development needed
Additional Notes:
1) Recommend integrity commission or anti corruption bureau to be established
GROUP 6.
• Enhance collaboration with the Audit Office
• Provide technical expertise to the PAC and background papers, briefs etc.
• Thorough discussions
• Resource Constraints e.g. time, human resource, finance
• Lobbying for more resources from Ministry of Finance , Development Partners etc
• Ministry of Finance
• Lobby the Prime Minister; who wants to stamp out corruption
GROUP 7.
31
Areas of Potential Corruption
• Audit Office falls within the Ministry of Finance
• The Auditor-General is appointed by the Prime Minister
o Independence
• Appointment of staff of the Audit Office
• The A-G’s budget comes from the Ministry of Finance
• Influence of Trades Union on Parliament
Advice to PAC
• Increase the number of PAC Meetings & reports
• It should conduct hearings in public
• Its Members should spearhead legislative reforms to:
o Make it a legal requirement to produce annual accounts
o And to audit accounts every year
• Push for further resources
• Make strong recommendations focussing on reduction of corruption and effective follow-up
Advice to the Audit Office
• Persuade the legislature to make the office independent
• Make Audit Reports public
o It should be tabled in Parliament before it is examined by the PAC
• Audit Office should carry out value for money audits
• The Office needs to have adequate resources
Advice to Parliamentary Staff
• Create annual work plans
• Set clear agendas for the meetings
• Recruitment and training of existing and additional staff
• Staff should be involved in the preparation of PAC reports, rather than just arranging meetings etc.
32
ANNEX E – DELEGATES
Country/CPA Branch Title First Name Last Name Parl. Abbr.
Bangladesh Hon. Muhammad Abdul Mannan MP Bangladesh Hon. Dhirendra Debnath Shambhu MP Bangladesh Mr A S M Mahbubul Alam Bermuda Mr David Burt MP Botswana Hon. Fidelis Macdonald Molao MP Botswana Mr Phillip Matsikidze Mutambarah Cook Islands Hon. John Mokoenga Henry MP Cook Islands Mr Paul Raui Steven Allsworth Ghana Hon. Kwaku Agyeman-Manu MP Ghana Hon. Ibrahim Dey Abubakari MP Ghana Miss Abigail Aba Anso Grenada Sen. Dr George Vincent Guyana Mr Manzoor Nadir MP Guyana Mr Carl Barrington Greenidge MP Guyana Ms Letta Barker Hong Kong Hon. Kenneth Leung MLC Hong Kong Dr Hon. Elizabeth Quat MLC Hong Kong Miss Hing-yee Odelia Leung India Mr Ashok Singh India Mr Bhartruhari Mahtab MP India Audit Office Mr Rajesh Singh India Audit Office Mr Amitabh Prasad Isle of Man Mr Howard Quayle MHK Jamaica Mrs Rosemarie Douglas-Beckford Jamaica Mr Raymond Pryce MP Jersey Miss Tracey Vallois MP Kenya Hon. John Ng'Ongo MP Kenya Sen. Billow Adan Kerrow Kenya Mr Daniel Mwaniki Mutunga Kenya Hon. Priscilla Nyokabi Kanyua MP Kenya Hon. Abu Mohamed Chiaba MP Kenya Mr George Otieno Onyango Kiribati Hon. Tangariki Reete MP Kiribati Hon. Kouraiti Beniato MP Kiribati Mr Airata Temeta Malawi Mr Joseph Joel Manzi Maldives Hon. Ahmed Nazim MP Maldives Hon. Abdulla Maseeh Mohamed MP Malta Hon. Claudio Grech MP Malta Ms Anna Brincat Morocco Mr Laaboudi Abdelaziz MP Morocco Mr Nemmaoui Abdelkrim MP Morocco Mr Arafat Atmoun MP
33
Morocco Mr Mouloud Bargayou MP Morocco Mr Hassan Benomar MP Morocco Mr Driss Boutahar MP Morocco Mr Abdelali Doumou MP Morocco Mr Mustapha Hanine MP Morocco Mr Abdelali Mohammed Hilali MP Morocco Mr Said Khairoun MP Morocco Mr Younes Sekkouri Oubbahessou MP Morocco Mr Mohammed Elrhazouani Morocco – WFD Ms Fatiha Ait Oulaid Namibia Hon. Agnes Tjongarero MP Namibia Hon. Hendrik Gaobaeb MP Namibia Ms Dorothea Fransman Nigeria Sen Ahmad Ibrahim Lawan Nigeria Mr Ahmadu Uchofu Abdullahi Seychelles Hon. Charles De Commarmond MP Seychelles Ms Angelic Appoo Sierra Leone Hon. Chernor Ramadan Maju Bah MP Sierra Leone Hon. Lahai Marrah MP Sierra Leone Mr David Saffa Singapore Mr Zaqy Mohamad MP Sri Lanka Hon. Chandima Weerakkody MP Sri Lanka Hon. Arjuna Sujeewa Senasinghe MP Sri Lanka Mr Lakshman Jayasinghe Sri Lanka Mr Dhammika Dasanayake St Lucia Hon. Stephenson King MP Tanzania Hon. Mendrad Lutengano Kigola MP Tanzania Hon. Lucy Fidelis Owenya MP Tanzania Mrs Grace Eustace Bidya Trinidad and Tobago Hon. Sen. Jamal Mohammed Trinidad and Tobago Sen. Faris Al-Rawi Trinidad and Tobago Ms Keiba Jacob Turks and Caicos Mrs Lydia Butterfield Turks and Caicos Hon. Sharlene Cartwright Robinson MHA Uganda Hon. Paul Mwiru MP Uganda Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo MP Uganda Mr James Mukaga Virgin Islands Ms Joann Vanterpool Virgin Islands Hon. Marlon Penn MHA Zambia Mr Vincent Mwale MP Zambia Mr Highwe Hambulo Hamududu MP Zambia Mr Stephen Chiwota
34
ANNEX F – FEEDBACK REPORT
1. 57 feedback forms were collected from delegates following 3rd Westminster Workshop. Please see
Annex F for the visualisation of quantitative feedback results.
2. This evaluation report covers three main areas:
The delegates’ quantitative and qualitative evaluation of how well the Workshop programme
has met its aims and objectives.
The delegates’ quantitative evaluation of how the Workshop experience will benefit their
future work in the PACs of their legislatures.
The delegates’ suggestions on how the Workshop programme could be improved.
3. Workshop aim: to enhance the capacity of delegates in their PAC work.
Of the 56 delegates who responded to the question ‘How well do you feel the Workshop programme
met its aim?’ 41% of respondents rated the meeting of the Workshop aim as ‘Outstanding’ and 55%
of respondents rated it as ‘Good’.
Overall the respondents were positive about the Workshop meeting its aim and said that the
experience did enhance their capacities to work effectively as a PAC member/clerk. It was noted that
the programme covered a diverse range of topics, which were relevant to the work of the delegates.
Several delegates noted the importance of having the opportunity to exchange experiences with
colleagues from across the Commonwealth: “[it was, ed.] extremely useful to understand how
different countries structure their PACs”, Miss Tracey Vallois MP, Jersey. Mr Howard Quayle
MHK from the Parliament of the Isle of Man noted, however, that the diverging levels of experience
of the delegates attending the Workshop, made it difficult to focus on the specific skills he was
aiming to improve on throughout the course of the programme.
4. Workshop objectives:
Overall the majority of the respondents said that the Workshop programme was either “outstanding”
(an average of 30% of respondents) or “good” (an average of 58% of respondents) in meeting its
objectives (Please see Annex A for full statistical data).
The delegates were most positive about meeting the objective of exploring the key features of an
effective PAC – 55% of the respondents said the meeting of this objective was “outstanding”, while
44% of respondents said it was “good, with the key points being clearly communicated throughout
the Workshop programme.
35
Another very well-rated workshop objective was the exploration of the relationship between PAC
and its Audit Office – 46% of the respondents said the meeting of this objective was “outstanding”,
while 42% said it was “good”.
It has been observed that the exploration of the skills and knowledge required to be an effective
PAC Chair and Member was an essential part of the programme. According to several
respondents, however, this aspect of the programme was not sufficiently covered during the
workshop or was not clear enough. One delegate suggested that the session should have been longer
and specifically aimed at the participating PAC Chairs. On a rather different note, Mrs Rosemarie
Douglas-Beckford, Clerk from the Houses of Parliament of Jamaica, said that while the
presentations covering this topical area were good, “it really brought out that the effectiveness [of a
PAC, ed.] depends on the individual Chair and PAC members”.
The objective of exploring the particular challenges and possible solutions to the common issues
faced by PACs in small legislatures received a somewhat more varied feedback, yet still positive
ratings: 19% of the respondents said that the meeting of this objective by the Workshop programme
was “outstanding”, 61% said it was “good”, 18% rated it as “average” and 2% rated it as “poor”. The
quantitative feedback from the delegates demonstrates that the inclusion of this specific topic into
the workshop programme was regarded very positively by the delegates. According to Hon. Sharlene
Cartwright Robinson MHA from Turks and Caicos, the challenges faced by the PACs in small
legislatures were “well captured and solutions to challenges were forth coming”. The feedback also
revealed that the delegates from small legislatures found it useful to hear about the experiences of
their colleagues in similar parliamentary set-ups: “I learned that some of the challenges which my
PAC faces are not unique”, Ms Letta Barker, Clerk from Guyana. However, the results of the
quantitative feedback suggest that some delegates felt that the topic could have been explored more
in depth.
5. Evaluation of how the Workshop experience will benefit the future work of the attendees:
5.1. Questions:
Do you feel that what you have learnt at the Workshop will enhance your capacity and
effectiveness as a PAC Member/Clerk? If so, how?
How will you put into practice what you have learnt from this Workshop in your PAC work?
5.2. Feedback:
All of the respondents said that the Workshop programme has provided them with the specific
knowledge and new ideas for strengthening the capacity and improving the efficiency of their Public
Accounts Committees. A large number of respondents stressed that they are now better informed
36
and therefore will feel more confident in their PAC roles. According to Mr Bhartruhari Mahtab MP
from India, the Workshop has enhanced his “capacity to understand the intricacy of audit
mechanism and PACs role in maintaining oversight”.
It was noted that the opportunity to learn about the different experiences and challenges faced by
PACs across the Commonwealth has added a great value to the overall learning experience.
According to Hon. Chernor Ramadan Maju Bah MP, the Deputy Speaker of the Parliament of Sierra
Leone, he has learnt substantive lessons from the experiences of different countries, and would aim
to introduce the best practices to the work of their PAC.
Many of the respondents noted that the Workshop experience has provided them with the capacity to
challenge the existing structures regulating the work of the PACs in their legislatures in order to
achieve greater effectiveness and transparency of their work:
“We have a very similar system to that of the UK, but on a much smaller scale. Understanding roles
of officers, the Audit Office and the skill set required, have provided clarity and will enable a more
robust change for a better PAC governance structure.”
Miss Tracey Vallois MP, Jersey
“It will help us amend, adjust and review the way our PAC was operating and improve on our
delivering process in order to become more effective.”
Hon. Charles De Commarmond MP, The Seychelles
“The dissemination of information, sharing of experiences and the workshop sessions were of
tremendous benefit. This will provide the necessary impetus to infect life /energy and will into the
Saint Lucia PAC.”
Hon. Stephenson King MP, Saint Lucia
The feedback received suggests that delegates found the Workshop programme to be particularly
successful in offering practical solutions to the challenges faced by PACs in the Commonwealth
countries. According to Senator Ahmad Ibrahim Lawan from the National Assembly of Nigeria,
“most of the sessions were supported by many practical examples and were tailored to address real
issues in PAC operations and even administration”.
5.3. The respondents identified the following main areas where they will attempt to improve their
Committee work after attending the Workshop:
Key aspects of the work of an effective PAC
Several delegates stressed that the Workshop experience has led them to appreciate the importance
of the PAC members being non-partisan in their work, as well as the importance of making sure
that the reports produced by the Public Accounts Committee are unanimous.
37
Several delegates have also changed their views on the need for openness in the work of a PAC.
Mrs Grace Eustace Bidya, Clerk from the Parliament of Tanzania indicated that she would aim to
convince the Chair and members of the PAC in Tanzania to make their meetings open to the public
or allow live television broadcast. This view was supported by Mr Ashok Singh, Clerk at the
Parliament of India, who said that he would initiate a discussion on this issue with his colleagues in
the Indian Parliament.
A large number of respondents appreciated the opportunity to advance their knowledge in regard to
the PAC holding hearings as part of their scrutiny process. The specific aspects of interviewing
witnesses and summoning civil servants (as opposed to parliamentarians) have been mentioned by
the respondents. According to Mr Vincent Mwale, Chair of the Public Accounts Committee at the
National Assembly of Zambia, the workshop experience has enabled him to “better chair and
oversee a PAC hearing”. Mr Mwale also noted that he intended to “move a motion to have standing
orders changed to allow for PSs (accounting officers) who have moved on to other jobs to be
recalled and be accountable to PAC as it is done in the UK”.
A need for improvement was also identified in the area of the relationship between a Public
Accounts Committee and other stakeholders relevant to its work. The respondents specifically
stressed the importance of strengthening the cooperation between the PAC and the National Audit
Office (NAO), as the Supreme Audit Institution (SAI), in order to increase the productiveness of the
PAC work and ensuring the efficiency of public spending.
Key administrative areas for improvement
The feedback received from the delegates suggests that the Workshop programme has been
exceptionally successful in communicating the importance of strengthening the administration of
the Public Accounts Committee. A large number of participating clerks said that as a result of the
Workshop, they would now put the case forward for the introduction of adequate planning / setting
of the yearly agenda and targets for the work of their PACs in order to ensure its effectiveness. The
need to reduce backlog of the audit reports that the Committee is taking on to examine has also been
noted. The respondents noted that the problem could be overcome by better programming of the
work of the Committee, including better prioritising when it comes to choosing which NAO reports
to scrutinise.
Most importantly, a number of delegates identified the need to introduce a system for the follow-up
on the progress on the Committee’s recommendations. Several delegates noted that they would
propose setting up a subcommittee for follow-up on the outcomes of the recommendations of the
PAC.
38
On the more technical support side, the respondents have taken note of the need to have sufficient
Secretariat staff supporting the work of the Public Accounts Committee, including the possibility of
having a researcher assigned and putting training in place for both Committee clerks and
members, the latter coming from very diverse professional backgrounds and usually lacking in
specific financial knowledge required in the work of the PAC.
The intention to improve the quality of PAC reports has also been expressed in the feedback.
According to Mr Daniel Mutunga, Clerk at the Parliament of Kenya, he would always aim to prepare
a good draft report with achievable/reasonable recommendations.
More generally, a number of clerks indicated that they now felt better equipped to perform their role
and ensure the effectiveness of the PAC work. According to Miss Abigail Aba Anso, Clerk at the
Parliament of Ghana, the Workshop experience has provided her with an opportunity to “learn about
the critical role of PAC clerks, challenges confronting the PAC secretariat and clerks, and measures
that can be adopted to mitigate against the challenges”.
The majority of delegates stressed that they would share the Workshop experiences with their
parliamentary colleagues and discuss possible improvements to the current structures in place.
Several delegates said that they would produce a full report on the outcomes of the workshop,
containing recommendations that emanated from various discussions, to be presented to their PAC
members. A few clerks also indicated that they would hold mini workshops for their colleagues. Paul
Allsworth, Clerk at the Parliament of the Cook Islands, said he would “hold a mini workshop to
train, educate and provide awareness of the issues discussed”.
Delegate feedback this year suggests that the Workshop programme has been successful in providing
practical solutions to common challenges faced by PACs in the Commonwealth countries, as well as
space for discussion between the delegates. The positive attitude of attendees in regard to sharing
their knowledge gained at the Workshop with colleagues at their legislatures raises hopes that the
outcomes of the Workshop will have a tangible impact on improving the procedures and practices of
Public Accounts Committees across the Commonwealth.
“The workshop has been extremely useful to aid the future changes needed for our PAC to meet
effective and robust challenge of the way taxpayers’ money is spent and realising the importance of
the support and skill set behind the PAC in order to allow it to function.”
Ms Tracey Vallois MP, Jersey
6. Suggested improvements to the Workshop programme
The most common suggestion for improvement of the programme was regarding the sharing of
experiences from different participating countries. Many respondents stressed the need to allow
39
more time and encourage the exchange of ideas through individual country presentations, discussing
the common problems, self assessment by country delegations of their own PAC performances and
identifying areas for intervention. It was also suggested that the programme should see more
involvement of speakers from outside of the UK (“use a wider range of Commonwealth states as
points of reference”, Mr Carl Barrington Greenidge MP, Guyana).
Comments on the specific aspects of the programme included the suggestion that more attention
should be devoted to discussing the challenges of PACs in small legislatures, including how to
ensure their independence and sufficient resources.
The session on the hearing process was appreciated by a number of delegates. Senator Ahmad
Ibrahim Lawan from the National Assembly of Nigeria suggested that standard best practice
recommendations on the procedure of holding a public hearing should be produced, setting out the
fundamentals for PACs across the Commonwealth.
In regard to discussing the role of clerks in improving financial oversight, Senator Faris Al-Rawi
from Trinidad and Tobago suggested that the workshop programme could allow time for exploring
the “initiatives of clerks in moving PAC’s forward”.
The feedback suggests that the majority of delegates specifically appreciated the workshop sessions
organised as part of the official programme. A number of respondents noted that the programme
would benefit from having more of similar practical/case study sessions, to better take in the key
lessons of the Workshop. Hon. Stephenson King MP from the Parliament of Saint Lucia suggested
that it would be useful to have smaller group sessions to analyse the plenary presentations. Mr
Kenneth Leung MP form Hong Kong suggested that “the workshop can be effectively run in three
days, with optional workshops to be conducted on the fourth day”.
Some specific suggestions regarding the workshops organised within this year’s programme
included having a more realistic case study, possibly focused on an actual report of any specific
country. Hon. Agnes Tjongarero, Member of Parliament of Namibia, suggested that the productivity
of the workshops would increase if the delegates were assigned into groups according to the level of
development of their PACs (possibly based on the data gathered through communication with the
delegates prior to the conference).
Several respondents expressed their wish that greater amount of time is devoted to observing the
work of UK PAC in action (allowing the delegates to watch a full Committee session).
40
Additional topical suggestions for future Workshop programmes included the evolving parameters
of a model report of PAC, the relationship between the PAC and the media and the PAC and the
civil society organisations, as well as allowing more time to address the issues of corruption, the
relations between the PAC and the Audit Office/Anti-Corruption Commission and more emphasis on
the Public Financial Management process.
With regard to the structuring of the workshop programme, a number of delegates noted that the
programme has been very intense and the timings of sessions were tight. It was suggested that the
workshop programme should span over five days (as opposed to four days) in order to shorten the
day programmes, as well as allowing more time for discussion.
On the more technical side, several respondents said they would have found it useful to have
handouts of the plenary sessions, as well as a summary of points discussed during the day and a
bibliography of suggested relevant resources distributed prior to the workshop in order to allow the
delegates to be better equipped for the discussions.
Regarding the follow-up on the outcomes of the workshop, Hon. Sharlene Cartwright Robinson
MHA from Turks and Caicos suggested that a resolution on the outcomes of the workshop should be
produced for the delegates “to take to home countries calling for governments to commit to support
PAC work”.
Finally, a number of delegates also stressed the importance of staying in contact with the delegates
met during the course of the workshop, specifically welcoming the creation of the Association of
the Commonwealth Public Accounts Committees (ACPAC) and its envisaged online
communication platform. It has been suggested that having some of the conference speakers
available for contact on the online platform would increase the effectiveness of the project in
offering advice to members of PACs from across the Commonwealth.
ANNEX G - FEEDBACK DATA Aims and objectives: How well do you believe the 3rd Westminster Workshop programme met its aims and objectives? a. Meeting the aims of the Workshop
41
41%
55%
4%
0%
How well do you feel the Workshop programme met its aim?
[AIM: To enhance the capacity of delegates in their PAC work?]
Outstanding Good Average Poor
35%
55%
30%
32%
30%
46%
19%
20%
15%
30%
23%
23%
61%
44%
59%
61%
52%
42%
61%
61%
69%
55%
63%
64%
4%
2%
11%
5%
16%
12%
18%
15%
17%
15%
12%
14%
0%
0%
0%
2%
2%
0%
2%
4%
0%
0%
2%
0%
Parliament's role in financial oversight.
The key features of an effective PAC.
The Hearing Process.
The skills and knowledge required to be an effective PAC chair and member.
The relationship between the PAC Chair, PAC members and the PAC Clerk.
The relationship between the PAC and its Audit Office.
Particular challenges and possible solutions to the common issues and challeneged faced by PACs in
small legislatures
The role of the PAC in curbing corruption and fraud.
Tracking performance and measuring committee effectiveness
The role of committee clerks in improving financial oversight.
The skills and knowledge required by clerks to support their committees effectively.
Supporting committees in forward planning and carrying out their work programme
How well do you feel the Workshop programme met its objectives? Using the Westminster PAC as the vehicle for discussions; to explore through
briefings, discussion sessions , practical observations and workshops:
