Editorial

Way back in the 1960s and 1970s, the annual report by the Auditor General used to generate a lot of political controversy every time it was laid on the table of the House of Representatives. Politicians used to make political capital out of every shortcoming listed in their eagerness to put the administration in bad light. Today, the publication of the report has caused nary a ripple on the local political firmament and does not seem to have reached the man in the street yet, for had that been the case it would have certainly caused more than a ripple in terms of talk and sarcasm, particularly where the affairs of local councils are concerned.

The Auditor's report is generally so crammed with shortcomings that it is often difficult deciding what to bring first under the spotlight. What stands out in the latest report is the deteriorating situation in the councils' compliance rate with financial regulations. There is a great deal that the Auditor reveals about the councils that should worry the taxpayer. But, overall, what every Auditor General's report essentially brings out is the need for greater efficiency and accountability than that which the country is accustomed to seeing up to now. It is most disconcerting that so many shortcomings are repeated year after year.

Taking the situation in local councils, for example, what is most galling is that the shortcomings noticed and pointed out to local councils in the previous year had been repeated in 2004. Why should such a situation repeat itself? Should they not have been checked at the right time? If the councils simply choose to ignore the advice, how is the problem going to be tackled? By simply closing both eyes to what they are doing?

Some of the irregularities highlighted by the Auditor are truly amazing: for example, Lm2,600 worth of phone calls were reimbursed to Valletta councillors without appropriate claim forms, and the Vittoriosa local council accepted a change in contracted rates from Lm1,105 to Lm5,000 per annum by means of an e-mail.

The Auditor's remark that in various instances there was "excessive expenditure" on mobile phone calls, fuel allowances and social events, raises some pointed questions. What exactly do these defaulting councils think they are there for? Who is supposed to be monitoring the work of the councils? Why are they not supervised continuously? Of course, it is wrong to generalise but surely the irregularities raised by the Auditor justify a serious analysis of their operations so as to bring their house in order. How are the councils going to generate trust and confidence in their work when the Auditor reports, for example, that 61 (90 per cent) audit reports were qualified because of the omission of budget figures, incorrect accounting, incorrect recording of balance sheets and the joint committees' failure to provide timely audited accounts for the local enforcement system (which deals with fines by wardens)?

The Auditor says his office had been advising the Department of Local Councils to amend the Local Councils Act, Regulations and Procedures but - and here is the problem - though the department agreed to such a need, it was unable to go ahead "due to lack of resources". The country often loses itself in endless trivial controversies when there is quite a collection of serious problems that ought to be given priority in the island's reform programme.

This is one of them. In a service that is generally considered to be overstaffed, it should surely not be all that difficult to find the resources to ensure that the taxpayers' money is well spent.