THE ACCESS to Information Act ought to be the main channel through which the government promotes its frequent emphasis on transparency about public matters. As one of only three Caribbean territories with such legislation, it is important that its provisions will be used for public benefit even where sensitive matters are involved.
Thus, the revelation about the attendance record of Cabinet ministers is on the face of it interesting but hardly earth-shaking. Many public figures in government are also professionals having private interests to pursue; a seat in Parliament is never a lifelong occupation.
As far as transparency goes, of greater moment is the effect of the Integrity legislation through which may be disclosed the delinquency of parliamentarians, past and present, who fail to file their mandatory annual statutory declarations. The records from such declarations can raise questions about financial matters that warrant appropriate action by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). Hence the formal reports that have been forwarded to that office in recent weeks.
While the internal workings of the Integrity Commission are not available to public scrutiny, the mere disclosure of the names of delinquents will raise eyebrows particularly in the cases of repeat offenders. True enough, the DPP is insulated by the Constitution from any directive in the performance of his duties, but it is instructive that he has been persuaded to provide a report to Parliament following recent controversy about the functioning of the office.
In reality, the matter of transparency about public affairs has been better served by the opening of the parliamentary committees to press and public scrutiny. This has been amply demonstrated in the past week by the open sittings of the standing finance commitee comprised of the whole membership of the House of Representatives.
The committee study of the budget estimates of expenditure is particularly revealing. It takes place in the context of rival arguments about the financial allocations to the various ministries of government.
Not surprisingly, what seems to have one of the main contentions was the distribution of SESP funds per constituency, funds which have a measure of control by individual MPs.
Even through the focus on national objectives each MP will fight for turf presumably for the benefit of constituents. These often vociferous confrontations in the Gordon House chamber is the stuff of vibrant parliamentary debate. Hopefully, the public will benefit from this transparent view of birpartisan democracy.
THE OPINIONS ON THIS PAGE, EXCEPT FOR THE ABOVE, DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE GLEANER.
