By John Barritt

Readers write, Mr Editor, and they are seldom wrong – as well you know. Much like voters, which most of them probably are. This week I share a few. Comments, that is.

Feedback was strong on recent columns on the need for stronger parliamentary oversight of Government spending whether it be the proposed new airport project, the recently completed acute care wing of the hospital or the Port Royal Golf Course “special” which, as specials go, was anything but.

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) should feature prominently. Not likely, wrote one reader, who thinks he has spotted a flaw in our system of governance.

“Whilst I agree that PAC is an absolute must, the present system is fundamentally flawed”, he emailed. “Its members are insiders and inevitably susceptible to party pressure and political ambition. It should be made up of non-partisans from outside parliament – appointed by the Governor.”

Fair comment.

He was joined by another reader who questioned whether the PAC chairman, the Opposition spokesman for finance, and his two colleagues on the committee, would have any appetite to pursue the Auditor General’s findings on Port Royal and hold people responsible to account. It happened under a PLP Government and one of their current colleagues, a former Cabinet Minister, looms large in the report and the project.

On the other hand: that may equally serve as incentive enough to get on with it, and smartly, to meet the charges that have been levelled and will continue to be levelled until answered.

Besides, the committee of seven is made up of four Government members who constitute a majority. They, too, can and should flex their muscles. Heck, you might even think it is in their party’s interests (and not just the country) to get on with this one, huh?

That gets us back to the point the other reader made earlier. Party considerations and party interests should not usurp the job the committee is meant to do. Members have also been known in the past to thwart meetings and hearings by being unavailable and thus preventing the quorum needed to proceed.

There’s a simple solution. The suggestion has been made before in this column by another reader: change the rules and put two independent senators on the committee and make one of them deputy chairman. This then will make it harder for either the Government or the Opposition tail to wag the dog.

All it requires is political will on the Hill. Everyone who is anyone have to agree that the work of PAC is crucial to good governance and much-needed oversight by the Legislature — and get on with it.

Mind you, you would think that both parties appreciate the point — most especially by those who have spent time in Opposition and are now Government and vice versa. There is value in being able to question, probe and monitor major Government contracts and Government expenditure. This is one of the important roles backbenchers are meant to fulfil for taxpayers, and this includes Government and Opposition MPs. The Executive must be held to account.

• We know what happens when it isn’t done. Exhibit A: Port Royal.

• We know we don’t really know what is happening. Exhibit B: the acute care wing.

• We know what could happen if there isn’t any independent oversight right from the start. Exhibit C: the proposed new airport project.

We now have an open Question Period in the House. Tick. We saw it swing into action last Friday over the airport deal. Some readers wonder about its effectiveness. Those who listen think it unruly, ham-fisted and ineffective. But folks, as blunt the instrument as it may be, it gets the job done: accountability.

An active, robust PAC could go further and after detail with more precision, and less haste, with public hearings. Key players can be summoned for questioning where it will be harder to deflect, dodge and defer under oath.

The view of another reader is that Government suffers a communications problem. In her view, they are not up to explaining themselves well, at all: it simply isn’t good enough to tell people the matter is so complicated that the average person wouldn’t be able to understand. “This is condescending and patronising”, she wrote, “If you can’t describe something in two or three sentences, then you don’t understand the essence of it, either.”

A bit harsh? Maybe not.

As yet another reader reminded me it isn’t always just a case of the message but the messenger as well. In the case of the airport, Government is bound to be measured by the standards the OBA set for themselves, not just in their criticism of the PLP administrations (they have not forgotten) but by the promises they made in their election platform: to be open, accountable and transparent. The irony is not lost on a lot of people that that OBA members are now arguing vigorously in favour of (and extolling the virtues of) a closed tendering process.

Which brings us nicely to the big news this week, the landing of the America’s Cup. Congrats and kudos to those who made it happen. They are well deserved. This is one time where all yachts may well lift a rising tide; and of course there is also the expectation in some quarters that this Cup will help wash away all sins – politically speaking of course, Mr Editor.

But it won’t be long before inquiring minds will also want to know exactly what promises have been made and what it will cost us. Why wait until they ask?

Write on, readers.

* Post on The Royal Gazette website or write to jbarritt@ibl.bm.