PAC meet calls for closer scrutiny of public spending, quicker action on audit findings

Why in the News

Government replies to audit findings follow no common deadline and often come late, incomplete or not at all; legislatures’ Public Accounts Committees (PACs) have now resolved to work towards standardised timelines and shared digital tracking. Chairpersons of the PACs of Parliament and 25 State legislatures adopted an eight point resolution at a two day conference in Thiruvananthapuram on “Audit, accountability and good governance: the evolving role of PAC”.

What is the PAC, and why do audit findings go unanswered?

1. Public Accounts Committee: A legislative committee that scrutinises government spending and examines reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), the constitutional auditor. It works like a company’s audit committee questioning management.
2. Late audit reports: CAG reports often reach PACs years after the money was spent. By then officers have moved on and the trail has become untraceable.
3. Delay in tabling: A few governments delay placing CAG reports before the House, so scrutiny starts later still.
4. The takeaway: An audit matters only when someone answers for what it finds, so accountability cannot end with a CAG report sitting on a shelf.

What did the eight point resolution decide?

1. Purpose of spending: PACs committed to ensuring public funds are spent only for their sanctioned purposes, guarding the public exchequer, the government’s treasury, through rigorous monitoring.
2. Peer learning platform: A digital platform will let PACs across the country continuously share best practices and procedural innovations.
3. Action Taken Notes: The conference resolved to work towards standard timelines for governments to submit Action Taken Notes, their written account of what they did on audit observations and PAC recommendations.
4. Audit Para Monitoring System (APMS): Participants called for digital oversight systems like Parliament’s APMS, an online tracker of government responses to individual audit observations, in all State and Union Territory legislatures.
5. Forensic audit with the CAG: PACs will work more closely with the CAG, using advanced forensic tools, which examine transactions in detail, to find high risk areas needing legislative oversight.

Why must PAC reports reach the floor of the House?

1. Debate on reports: For all the chairpersons, the chairman of Parliament’s PAC asked the Lok Sabha Speaker to ensure PAC reports are debated in Parliament and the Assemblies. Debate would fix accountability on the government.
2. Public awareness: Debate would also let the public know of the PACs’ work, which otherwise stays inside committee reports.
3. Time bound mechanism: The chairman sought a robust mechanism so that tabling, replies and follow up happen in a time bound manner.
4. Speaker’s response: The Lok Sabha Speaker said the recommendations give a clear pathway to improve PACs’ functioning and ensure public money is used for the right purpose.

Challenges

1. Advisory recommendations: PAC recommendations do not bind the government, so follow up depends on the executive’s willingness to act.
2. Scrutiny after spending: PACs examine accounts after money is spent, so they detect losses rather than prevent them.
3. Uneven adoption: Each State and Union Territory legislature must build and run its own digital tracking system, so adoption can vary widely.

Way Forward

1. Tabling deadline: Each legislature should fix a period within which the government must place a CAG report before the House.
2. Timelines in House rules: Legislatures should write the standard Action Taken Note timeline into their rules of procedure, making it enforceable.
3. Shared risk analysis: The CAG should share its forensic risk analysis with State PACs to guide which audit observations they take up first.

Conclusion

Legislative audit now has an agreed reform agenda, but its force still depends on governments that control when reports are tabled and when replies are sent. The marker to watch is whether presiding officers allot House time to debate PAC reports in the coming sessions.

Back2Basics: Public Accounts Committee of Parliament

1. Origin: It was set up in 1921 under the Government of India Act, 1919.
2. Membership: It has 15 members from the Lok Sabha, elected by proportional representation through the single transferable vote, and 7 members from the Rajya Sabha.
3. Term and eligibility: Members serve a one year term, and Ministers cannot be members.
4. Chairperson: By convention, the chairperson comes from the Opposition in the Lok Sabha.

Matching Previous Year Question

“[2013] Consider the following statements : The Parliamentary Committe on Public Accounts 1. Consists of not more than 25 members of the Lok Sabha 2. Scrutinizes appropriation and finance accounts of the Government 3. examines the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 only (b) 2 and 3 only (c) 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3 ANSWER: (b)”