THE Opposition, while welcoming House Speaker Juliet Holness’s tabling of two outstanding reports on State agencies from the Auditor General’s Department (AGD) on Tuesday, is still pressing for clarification as to why the documents were withheld in the first place.

It also called for the withdrawal of a letter in which Holness chastised the Clerk to the Houses of Parliament Valrie Curtis for failing to comply with the ruling of the Speaker on the tabling of reports.

The House Speaker had ruled in November last year that reports from the AGD on public bodies would be tabled in keeping with Section 30 of the Financial Administration and Audit (FAA) Act.

The Speaker’s letter was in relation to the two special audit reports of the Financial Services Commission and Tax Administration Jamaica the AGD had sent to Parliament on December 28, 2023 and January 29 this year, which the Speaker said were received in breach of the ruling she made in the House of Representatives on November 7, 2023.

Section 30 of the FAAA says the auditor general’s report on examination and audit of any accounts audited pursuant to relevant provisions of the Act shall be submitted to the responsible minister for presentation.

According to the FAAA, the responsible minister, upon receipt of the report, shall obtain the observation of the public body concerned on any matter which has been drawn by the auditor general in the report, and cause such observations to be presented to the House of Representatives together with the report.

The Act also says if the responsible minister fails, within two months of receipt of the report, to present it to the House of Representatives, then the auditor general shall transmit a copy of the report to the Speaker to be presented to the House.

The two reports were returned to the AGD last week but Auditor General Pamela Monroe Ellis sent them back to Parliament on Monday.

The reports were reportedly sent back to the AGD because the parliamentary counsel advised the Speaker that the department did not comply with the section of the Act which mandates that the documents should be first sent to the responsible minister prior to being tabled in the House.

Parliament had told the AGD that as soon as the lawful process is observed, the reports would be tabled immediately.

At the start of Tuesday’s sitting Holness told the House that she had taken note of the many perspectives expressed in the public domain on her ruling regarding the tabling of reports from the auditor general, and that she had taken the decision to table the reports which are in question and additionally “seek to further resolve the issue as it relates to the appropriate mechanism to table said reports and will include, in addition to continued consultation, having a meeting with the Auditor General’s Office, hopefully later this week”.

Said the Speaker: “Having considered all of what has been said, I have taken note of the varying different legal perspectives and I continue to hold the view that in law there continues to be a dissonance in the interpretation of how the reports on public bodies should be tabled.

“Let me say categorically: Any action taken by me was and will always be done with the sole intention of upholding the laws of Jamaica, as I am sworn to do,” she added.

Leader of Opposition Business in the House Phillip Paulwell, though commending the move to table the reports, indicated that he was not satisfied with the matter surrounding how reports are now being tabled.

“You have indicated that you will proceed to table the reports that have been outstanding for three months today — and we believe that is a good and correct move to make on your part — however, we still would like to understand the original basis for withholding them.

“You did say that you had received a legal opinion from the Attorney General’s Chambers and I think, in light of everything and our various appeals, you should provide us at the earliest opportunity — and we believe that should be today — give us sight of the opinion. You did say that you would be having consultation with the auditor general, [and] we would like to be involved in that consultation as well,” Paulwell said.

Turning to the House Speaker’s letter to Curtis, which stated that the Clerk’s “failure to adhere to the said ruling and applicable procedures amount to a gross dereliction of duty and, as such, has brought the Parliament into disrepute”, Paulwell said the content of the letter has caused the Opposition tremendous distress.

“We know that the clerk is about to demit office, having served this Parliament for so long. [With] the tone of if, I don’t think that we as a Parliament could proceed today without having a discussion on this point and for you, Madam Speaker, to indicate really what motivated that action yesterday in disciplining the clerk in the way that it was done,” Paulwell said.

At that point, Leader of Government Business Edmund Bartlett rose on a point of order and tried to prevent the discussion from going any further, noting that the Speaker and the clerk were in discussion on the matter.

“I would urge that we respect that, and indeed an appropriate statement will be made at the end of those discussions,” Bartlett said.

But Paulwell insisted that the matter is now public, due to the letter which made it to the media.

“I know that there might be discussions taking place but I don’t think the public would feel satisfied of your coming today, going through the process, without saying something. We were really expecting that the letter would have been withdrawn today… I am really hoping that you will say something on the matter, especially in light of our call for the withdrawing of that letter,” he said.

Opposition member Fitz Jackson agreed, saying: “That’s the decent thing to do.”

Holness said she noted Paulwell’s request as it relates to further steps to be had with the Auditor General’s Office “and on the matter of the clerk, I advise you — both from myself and the clerk — that we are in dialogue and wish to say nothing else at this time”.

To this, Jackson uttered: “Disgraceful, unprecedented!”

Continuing, Holness said with the legal opinion from the Attorney General’s Chamber she remains in the same position as she did when the ruling was given, “in that, the opinion of the attorney general was circulated to the Parliament and the public”.

“The Speaker’s ruling is final in this regard; there is nothing to hide. It is the Speaker’s discretion to make a ruling, having taken into consideration all the opinions received, which was done. I remain of the view that the reports are not properly being tabled. However, with reports that have been back and forth from the Parliament to the auditor general, and back again, in the interest of ensuring that what is our ultimate aim — one of having the probe of our auditor general – and the findings of those reports are available to the public… I believe it is more important, particularly with another month to come until we come back to Parliament, to table the reports and then continue the dialogue with the auditor general, instead of holding same,” she said.