Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee Darren Carabott told The Malta Independent on Sunday that the Nationalist Party, of which he is an MP, is drafting proposals to strengthen the committee’s role.

The Public Accounts Committee, or PAC for short, is one of the more well-known Parliamentary committees, and is also the only one chaired by a member of the Opposition. This helps ensure that whoever is in government is kept in check.

As the name states, the committee’s role is to inquire into matters relating to public  accounts. Currently, it is investigating the Electrogas contracts.

While Carabott says that the system has its advantages, he believes that the system can be improved.

During the interview, he mentioned a few of the proposals that the PN is currently considering putting forward. One of the issues he believes needs tackling is members of Cabinet sitting on the committee itself. He said that during the first meeting he attended of the Commonwealth Association of Public Accounts Committees, he had a question in mind about this. "Funnily enough, it was only the representatives from Guyana and if I'm not mistaken Ghana, who have a system exactly like ours (...) To other countries in the Commonwealth, it was not understandable how we have ministers investigating ministers. They were ridiculing our system, saying 'how can you have the Executive checking on the Executive, it doesn't work that way'."

This is a valid point. The Public Accounts Committee investigates contracts, use of public funds and the like by the government, thus it does not make any sense having members of cabinet investigating agreements or use of funds which were spearheaded by other members of cabinet or entities which fall under their responsibility – especially since for major projects Cabinet discussions would likely have taken place.

It should only be backbench MPs from the government side, and MPs from the opposition, who should sit on this committee.

Two other proposals the PN is considering making, Carabott had said, are the introduction of legal obligations for the PAC to draft reports with recommendations, and for the minister or authority responsible to report back to the committee after a period of time.

It makes sense for the conclusion of the PAC investigations to be followed up by a report, and that the entities or ministries responsible then follow up with information as to how they are implementing any recommendations.

Surely there could be other ways in which the PAC could be strengthened, and more discussions and proposals to achieve such an aim should be made. This should not be a partisan debate, as whoever is in government one legislature might not be later down the line, and so the discussion surrounding such changes should be made with only one goal in mind, improving the committee’s ability to scrutinise.

Similairly, there should be discussions about other Parliamentary Committees. This newsroom has spoken about the Standards Committee before, and the Standard Committee’s biggest problem is that, effectively, MPs are acting as watchdogs over themselves. The behaviour of MPs, or rather their misbehaviour, should be regulated by a body that is as independent as possible and which is not made up of their own peers.