Letter of the Day | ‘I should have been more explicit’

THE EDITOR, Madam:

I am writing with reference to my response to member of parliament from South St Catherine, the Everald Warmington, during the October 15 meeting of the Standing Finance Committee.

I would like to highlight that the objective of the meeting was to consider the first supplementary estimates for fiscal year 2024/25. These were very challenging to prepare given the significant growth and fiscal shocks delivered by Hurricane Beryl and other exogenous events. I had to be prepared to explain all of the related detail. I was therefore focused and preoccupied by this objective.

Hence, in that context, I did not focus on providing a comprehensive response to Mr Warmington’s statement at that time, though I had earlier in the discourse indicated that the Integrity Commission (IC) is “audited by a private and independent auditor” (as opposed to the Auditor General’s Department). Many agencies and public bodies are similarly audited by private audit firms. What was reported in the media, was unfortunately, devoid of the context, and only my last sentence was quoted.

I could have been clearer, and I certainly could have been more explicit. I accept that. The fact that I wasn’t has led to an unfortunate misinterpretation of my remarks. I own that too.

Mr Warmington’s question came 50 minutes after I started my presentation and went against the flow. We were not yet halfway through dealing with the real purpose of the meeting and I was therefore very eager to move on.

Further, I formed the view that the issues relating to the IC’s audits were more relevant for the meeting of the Oversight Committee (which took place earlier that same day) and my first response to him communicated that. I was very hesitant to speak in definitive terms about what the IC had or had not procured as I felt that could have been overstepping.

My last sentence, which achieved my aim of ending the exchange with Mr Warmington, so the meeting could return to addressing substantive matters, has been a point of focus.

In an effort to move on I agreed with the general principle that the tabling/examination of audit reports (as have been done) is reasonable where taxpayer funds are expended. And so, I concluded “and that should not be a difficult proposition” in reference to the member’s stated expectation to have all of the audits by next year, assuming that they needed to be revisited following the initial tabling. In my mind, it was not a difficult proposition precisely because the audits existed.

This was a subtle and implicit response to the question where the relevant fact was suggested or implied from my remark rather than explicitly stated. My aim of de-escalation, that would allow the meeting to move on, came at the cost of a misunderstanding of meaning and intent.

I am taking the time to write because it is important for the finance and accounting staff at the IC and the auditors, who work hard to support the completion of financial audits on a timely basis, and who take pride in what they do, to know that Parliamentarians, including me, value their work.

With this clarification, and with my acknowledgement that I should have been more explicit in pointing out (again) that the audit reports had already been done, I do not intend to be seized any further by this issue, especially since I am trying to close out on a number of pressing matters before I demit office.

NIGEL CLARKE

Minister of Finance and the

Public Service