Cope report - ‘Time for action’
Text of speech of Prof Rajiva Wijesinha, MP
at the Parliamentary debate on the Report of the Committee on Public
Enterprises, May 8
Mr Speaker, it is an honour to speak in this debate on the report of
the Committee on Public Enterprises, given how much it has accomplished.
Thanks to the indefatigable efforts of its chairman, the simple but
brilliant idea of dividing into sub-committees given the amount of work,
and the dedicated commitment of the three chairs of sub-committees, COPE
last year was able to cover more ground than any previous Committee.
![](z_p08-Cope-01.jpg)
Prof Rajiva Wijesinha, MP |
I was reminded, given my idealistic view of Parliaments before 1977
when a sense of public responsibility was paramount, of the incisive
work of Bernard Soysa, the then Chair of the Public Accounts Committee,
which covered also public enterprises such as, have now been hived off
to COPE. Bernard Soysa was a Trotskyists, which taken in conjunction
with the performance of the current COPE Chair, suggests that the old
Marxist parties were strong proponents of Parliamentary responsibility
as well as financial probity, however unfortunate their vision of an
all-encompassing state was.
That vision, Mr Speaker, continued by President Jayewardene in spite
of his claims to have liberalized the economy, lies at the heart of the
problems we still face.
The combination of a statist vision with the authoritarian practices
entrenched by colonialism has led to a situation where the state still
provides services in a bureaucratic fashion which others can do better.
As a result, what should be its primary role, of regulation as well as
intervention on behalf of those who are disadvantaged and find
advancement difficult in a market economy, suffers. Rent seeking
replaces concentration on the essential services required to ensure a
level playing field. The provision of employment without matching it
with productivity destroys the more important goal of ensuring that
employment opportunities are generated more widely.
Marxist parties
We have pointed all this out in the Report. It has been produced
through close and cordial cooperation between government and Opposition,
and I should note here the input of Karu Jayasuriya who chaired one
sub-committee, of Eran Wickremaratne whose understanding of public
finance was so helpful, of Vinyagamoorthy who was more assiduous in
attendance than perhaps anyone else, and of Sunil Handunetti, whose
ideals of financial probity would have done credit to the old Marxist
parties despite the modern heresies to which he subscribes. I believe
all those in government, including the ministers who spared time for
COPE despite their executive as well as their representational
commitments, share the view that COPE this time was a model of the
Parliamentary Committee system, which sadly we do not see in many other
instances.
Criminal prosecution
But all this will be useless if no action is taken. The action we
have recommended falls into three categories, and in each of these there
is need for careful follow up.
![](z_p08-Cope-02.jpg)
Parliament, seat of democracy |
I should note in this regard that COPE for the first time in recent
years has actually instituted a mechanism for follow up in terms of
reporting, in that we now set deadlines and send reminders, and call
institutions back, whereas in the past those who ignored COPE directives
only had to face further questioning several years later, when the
issues were long forgotten.
Firstly, Mr Speaker, we have suggested that in some instances
disciplinary action must be taken. Some of this may involve criminal
prosecution, but I should note that more often than not it is the
system, of inadequate attention to accountability, that allows for
abuse, which it is then difficult to correct. So, secondly, we have
suggested system change in a number of areas. One of these has to do
with getting rid of archaic regulations, which inhibit action.
In particular, we must get rid of the practice of referring tiny
matters to the Treasury or its several departments. This may have been
effective in the days when the public service was small, but the
Treasury simply cannot cope - as endless delays in responses have made
clear - with the massive expansion of Ministries and Departments and
Institutions. Rather, we must develop a concept of Chief Executive
Officers with full responsibility, and discretion where now matters are
referred to the Treasury - but this must be accompanied by better
systems of accountability and transparency with regard to expenditure.
Public enterprises
A simple instance of what I mean can be seen in the university
sector. Many years ago when there were grave problems at Sabaragamuwa
University, with massive amounts being transferred from the Recurrent
Account to the Capital Expenditure Account, and then squandered, I
suggested that we should make the accounts available to the students.
The then UGC chairman said that financial transparency was ensured by
submitting accounts to Parliament. But as we know these come late, and
are scrutinized by people who have to also look at a thousand of other
things. Very simply then, my view is that we must make accounts
available to stakeholders, and in this case I believe the students would
be the best watchdog to ensure that money goes on education and not into
various pockets.
Other systemic changes that are desirable are ensuring that all
individuals have clear job descriptions and prepare work plans with
goals that are measurable and time-bound.
We need a much better assessment system in public enterprises, which
rewards initiative and ability, so that the culture of playing safe by
doing nothing is overcome. And we need to make sure that all
institutions that have received public funding provide information to
the public as to what they have done. In short, I believe we must
develop and implement a policy of Freedom of Information, which is
designed to make stakeholders aware of what is being done.
The principle should be that all information relevant to the public
should be available unless there is good reason to withhold it, not the
opposite which seems to be the current position, that information is the
prerogative of bureaucrats and not the people on behalf of whom that
information should be applied.
Government departments
Our third main suggestion was the rationalization of government
departments. Not only do we now have too many ministries, with no
provision for them to coordinate, within each ministry there are several
Departments that perform overlapping functions. This leads to a culture
of lethargy, since action is impossible without consultation, and
consultation is not regular or mandatory.
We have suggested therefore that public sector restructuring is
essential - and may I add, Mr Speaker, that in recent work in the North,
where I have concentrated on Divisional Secretariat level problems, I
find that coordination would be much easier if all government
departments had similar geographical areas of responsibility, instead
of, as now, education working to one set of divisions, the Police to
another, and so on.
I hope Mr Speaker that the COPE Report will be taken seriously and
action initiated to correct at least some of the problems that could be
dealt with so easily. But for this purpose it is also essential that we
in Parliament have a much better support system in the COPE office than
obtains at present.
Last weekend I spent much more time than I should have going through
hundreds of pages that Sri Lankan Cricket had submitted. I found many of
them were duplicates, while there were some blank pages that claimed to
be extracts of meetings or a true copy of a letter of a minister.
Disciplinary action
I do not know, Mr Speaker, if all this was sent by Sri Lanka Cricket
in an attempt to pile up so many pages that no one would be able to go
through them or want to.
I do not know if the COPE Office photocopied things indiscriminately
on the grounds that they had time enough and Parliament money enough to
waste. But surely Mr Speaker this type of material should be sifted, if
necessary with the help of the office of the Auditor General that is
housed here, and we should be sent only what is relevant.
There is no need for us to have duplicates and blank sheets and the
biographical details of the entire Wayamba Cricket Team. In short, we
need executive level support in Parliament, not mechanical copying and
collating.
Having requested better Parliamentary support then, Mr Speaker, I
would be failing in my duty if I did not pay tribute to the Auditor
General’s Department, which has produced reports of great
professionality and helpfulness.
Whilst they have to draw attention to all irregularities, they have
also been able to discriminate between those that are trivial - and
where the regulations should be changed - and those that are serious,
indicating that remedial or disciplinary action must be taken at once.
We also found the Treasury Representatives who attended meetings very
helpful and practical in their approach. I hope therefore that the
synergies generated in COPE over the past two years will not fade away,
but will be translated into action. |