Roles, Responsibilities of PAC Clerks: Follow-up from Inquiries A NTHONY S TADDON SADCOPAC/EAAPAC C LERK T RAINING K AMPALA, U GANDA M AY 9-10, 2013

Follow-up Across the Commonwealth PAC recommendations are normally accepted by the government. The crucial issue, however, is that of implementation. Follow-up is an essential part of the PAC’s work as it enables the accountability loop to be completed. If neglected, the reputation of the PAC and SAI will decline and public servants will not appreciate the importance and consequences of PAC hearings. Implementation of PAC recommendations is one measure of the committee's usefulness and effectiveness. Many PACs will issue media releases at the time a report is tabled. This can be effective to pressurise governments to implement recommendations.

Following up on Inquiry Recommendations

Reporting to Parliament – British Islands

Monitoring Implementation: British Isles Experience Virtually every PAC reported that processes were in place to monitor and follow-up the implementation of government responses (mix of formal and informal mechanisms). Some issues in the UK are considered annually (tax credits, defence procurement) and departmental annual reports now have a section listing progress on recommendations. Scotland has departed from previous Westminster practice by scrutinizing performance both at a given point of time and over many years. PACs are also increasingly exploring recurring themes, arising from previous inquiries, through “thematic” reports as well as the cost implications and implementation of legislation.

Follow-up: wider experience In Australia and New Zealand, only two (of 10) jurisdictions report that governments are not formally required to respond to PAC recommendations. In Canada only 3 of the 14 PACs have developed formal mechanisms to monitor recommendations above and beyond the follow-up done by the AG. – However, follow-up hearings with departments are not uncommon. In many jurisdictions it is the job of the PAC Clerk to establish and maintain a follow-up schedule. Another tactic is for the PAC to send a follow-up letter at the end of the year to those departments and entities which have been audited asking for a progress report. In some jurisdictions (e.g. Nepal and Jersey) the PAC sub- committees normally monitor the government’s actions taken.

Monitoring Implementation: Good Practice In the Australian Capital Territory government agencies are required to disclose the status of government accepted PAC recommendations in their annual reports. In the Federal Canadian Parliament, research staff from the Library of Parliament monitors written govt responses and the implementation of PAC recommendations through periodic monitoring reports. The Ghanaian Parliament has established Audit Implementation Committees in all its Ministries/agencies and this is supported by the Audit Implementation Act.

Monitoring Implementation: British Columbia (Canada) About 12 months after an audited organisation’s appearance before the PAC, the AG’s office will request a progress report (usually 1 month timeframe). The AG reviews the information and issues a report to the PAC giving his/her opinion on the status of implementation. The PAC may request that representatives of the audited organization appear before the committee to provide further information or that further information be provided to the committee in written form.