AUDITOR General Adrian Strachan says he hopes that the new Parliament, which sits after the August 27 general election, will pay more attention to his annual reports.

“I would certainly hope so. I would like the full accountability to be observed,” Strachan told the Observer last week.

Strachan cannot be faulted in terms of fulfilling his mission as auditor general which, concisely, involves promoting transparency, accountability and best practices in government operations.

In fulfilling this requirement, he conducts independent audits and makes reports to Parliament to improve the use of public resources. The Auditor General also seeks to ensure that public sector financial transactions comply with the wishes of Parliament, relevant laws and regulations and are conducted with due regard to the avoidance of fraud, waste and extravagance.

His annual reports have constantly raised public concerns about corruption, abuse and waste of government resources. These instances are usually widely reported in the media, as are the deliberations which follow when the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of the House of Representatives reviews the report and calls in the public servants to answer questions.

But there is a serious breakdown in the process once the PAC report on the audits reach the House of Representatives. The fact is that nothing has been done about these reports since 2002.

Strachan explained that the finalisation of the process in the House should include a memorandum from the Ministry of Finance indicating which of the recommendations it accepts, those which it has not, and why.

“That is what tradition requires,” an obviously concerned Strachan commented.

“The report should go to the House. They are supposed to sign off on it and it is automatically referred to the Ministry of Finance for implementation. The loop is supposed to be closed by the Minister of Finance sending back a memorandum to the committee indicating what action has been taken on those recommendations,” he added.

But for years, the House of Representatives has failed to observe these rules, the Auditor General admitted.

In fact, Strachan believes that the only real effect of his report nowadays comes from the public concerns raised when his findings and recommendations are carried by the media.

“Over the years, there have only been very few occasions on which the Public Accounts Committee’s reports have been debated. In fact, what has happened in practice is that the reporting of events by the media has sought of overtaken that aspect of the accountability cycle,” he said.

“It is very rarely that Parliament has seen fit to debate the report. It is usually just tabled, referred to by the Leader and then that’s that. More important now is the attention that the media gives to the actual deliberations within the Public Accounts Committee,” Strachan added.

However, he said that government ministries and departments are expected to take up the recommendations that the PAC makes and to seek to implement them, even though they might not have had the formal endorsement of the Parliament.

But, this is not a situation which Strachan is comfortable with, although he said he is satisfied that he fulfills his obligations.

“I am not satisfied, per se, but that is not part of my remit. Once I have tabled my report, and once I have given the committee my best advice, in terms of their deliberations… To be quite honest, what the Parliament does thereafter is sort of out of my hands,” he told the Observer.

The just-dissolved Parliament has one of the worse records when it comes to handling PAC reports according to the book.

The committee was unable to even look at the 2005/2006 Auditor General’s Report last year, the latest one tabled by Strachan. This was primarily due to the fact that they spent nine months deliberating the controversial Sandals Whitehouse Hotel US$43- million overspending.

But, the problems affecting the Auditor General’s Report goes way beyond the 2005/2006 report. In fact, the House was dissolved with reports going as far back as 2001/2002 still to be debated.

At the time of dissolution, the Order Paper had motions to debate PAC reports on the AG’s findings for the following periods; October 2001 – February 2002; January 2003 – May 2003; October 2003 – February 2004; October 2004 – March 2005.

The 2001-2002 report was tabled on February 25, 2003; the January-May 2003 report was tabled on December 2, 2003; the 2003-2004 report was tabled on December 14, 2004; and the 2004-2005 report was tabled on November 22, 2005. None of these reports were debated.