IF there was ever a point to a robust and active Public Accounts Committee in the House of Assembly, and if ever there was a time for their meetings to be open to the public, that time is now, Mr. Editor. Let me see if I can connect the dots for you.

Here we are at the start of a gathering economic storm, replete with grave warnings of the dire consequences if we do not recognise what's coming and take appropriate action. Recession or not.

Our Minister of Finance has already burst out-front and told us that she has asked her Cabinet colleagues to embark on a cost-cutting exercise to trim as much as ten and a half percent from their departmental budgets or $6-mllion in total. The Premier has said the Cabinet will do its bit by starting to cut back on non-essential travel. Non-essential travel? We didn't know there was any: I thought they told us all travel was essential as we've seen expenditure literally take off in the millions and millions of dollars in recent years and, in turn, they've criticised us for pointing it out time and time again.

You will pardon the expression, or not Mr. Editor, but the talk is cheap.

I see too, how we are being lined up on the need for deficit spending. There is a view that when times are tough Governments should look to borrow to assist those who will find themselves in need, whether it be a job or simply funds to survive, or both. The goal is to spend your way out of the problem - Deficit chic for short.

Well, excuse me, but if you look at the record I think the PLP Government has already spent its way into a problem for us. The other half to this equation is that when times are good - and the tax revenue rolls in, as it has done around here in recent years - Governments are supposed to save money for when the people they serve will really need it. This too, is the essence of good government. Call that Surplus chic, if you will, except that it hasn't been very chic around here in a long while. Our cupboard is bare.

Now the average man and woman knows what I am talking about. It's called saving for a rainy day (which we all know eventually comes) or cutting your cloth according to your means.

So what's this got to do with a Public Accounts Committee (PAC)? Quite a lot.

One of the critical roles which PAC plays is to ensure that Government lives within its means (like everyone else has to) and that the people get full value for their money.

This can hardly happen when you have a committee that rarely meets (for lack of a quorum on some occasions, I am told) and when it does meet, it meets in private, and then subsequently reports to the House (read the public) many months after the fact, up to a year even after the Auditor General has reported on Government accounts.

This is unsatisfactory and unacceptable by modern parliamentary standards.

We recently enjoyed a breakthrough when it was decided to hold public meetings for the Joint Select Committee on Education. There's been a couple of meetings already and attendance has been pretty good. The press have been there, as they should be. More importantly it has given stakeholders in education an opportunity to speak openly and freely and thereby letting the rest of us in on the issues and problems which they are facing. It also helps - and this is key to my mind - to bring about accountability. Whether those in power like it or not, they are either directly or indirectly called upon to account for their decisions or lack of them.

The Westminster system begins to work in ways which we have not experienced - because we have not fully tried the experience.

Chalk it up to the usual, Mr. Editor: thanks to absurdly partisan politics in Bermuda we in the House never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. The most recent was probably the Government's announcement of a $300,000 special study to examine the pros and cons to gambling ( read casinos) in Bermuda. They will meet in private and initially report in private. How very nice and cosy. But this is a much bigger issue than that, in my view.

We should have joint select committee to obtain the views of all stakeholders - openly and honestly. Let the people of the country in on the discussion. Who knows Mr. Editor we could even give them the final vote on the issue.

This is the added value of a committee system and a strong PAC is key when it comes to finances.

It is comprised of backbench members from both parties. They currently number five: two from the Opposition, three from Government. The committee itself a year or so ago recommended the number be increased to seven to avoid the quorum problem. But still no change.

It is chaired by the Opposition spokesperson for finance. Always has been. The understanding here is that the Opposition will be motivated to lead the charge because they are, well, frankly, in opposition.

Under the chairmanship of the opposition shadow finance minister, PAC will be expected to sharpen its pencil, focus in on Government expenditures and call on civil servants and their Ministers to account publicly for how and on what funds are spent.

In some cases, where thought appropriate, it could be done under oath.

PAC then effectively becomes a means by which actual and apparent accountability becomes a part of a culture of good (better) governance. As we all know by now, I hope, this is standard operating procedure in other modern parliamentary jurisdictions - and I promise not go on, again, Mr. Editor, about the strong recommendations of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the U.K.'s Foreign Affairs Committee to name but a few.

But I will touch on some of the areas an active PAC should be bearing down on in these our times of economic uncertainty:

l Ministerial travel, per diems and credit cards may be worth some exposure, but they are practically small potatoes compared with the sums spent on consultants. Just how much is spent is buried under a number of headings in the Budget Statement, but at last glance, one of them, "professional services" stood at just over $79-million, up 21 percent or $14-million more than the year before. That's a hefty chunk of change, by anyone's standards. There's the list of consultants who were working for Government as of April 1st this year, obtained by the Opposition by way of parliamentary questions. We should know more about what they are doing and whether we are getting value for money. PAC would ask the tough questions.

l There are also the million dollar contracts for major construction projects. PAC could be on top of them, making sure they are on time and on budget through transparency.

l Then there's late financial reporting in Government which the Auditor General has gone about for some time now in his annual reports. "It creates an environment where fraud can thrive and remain undetected", he wrote in his last report to the Legislature. "In a well-run organization it would not be tolerated". At last report those entities behind in their reporting held about $500-million in investments or other public assets. An active PAC would bring pressure to bear.

l If that wasn't enough motivation, there's the whopping amounts Government is still owed on pensions contributions, payroll and land taxes. This has seriously deteriorated over the years to the point where they totaled about $50-million in 2007, almost double from what was owed in the year 2000. Government has promised a special tax court and beefed-up collections, and a policy of not doing business with companies in arrears. The Auditor General expressed some concern in his last report that despite the promises, Government was still falling short. Need I repeat what an active PAC could do to help move this along?

As I say Mr. Editor, there can be a very good point and purpose to a strong PAC.