Editorial

There appears to be no end to stories about lack of proper accountability in government departments. Despite all the warnings given over the years in annual audit reports on public accounts and the politicians' talk about their determination to check such lack of accountability, there does not seem to be any dramatic improvement in government operations insofar as propriety is concerned. Indeed, the range of shortcomings listed makes one think that few bother to follow instructions.

True, in such a big organisation as the government service it is difficult to close all loopholes or to check indifference to rules and regulations completely. However, as each auditor's report testifies, the number of cases involving lack of accountability is such that ought to make those responsible for the running of ministries, as well as, of course, the ministers concerned, more alert to their responsibilities.

The public's reaction to shortcomings is generally one of frustration but even this does not lead to any pressure that is strong enough for the government to take notice and correct its ways. Taking the last annual audit report, that for 2006, there are cases that ought to put the departments or ministries concerned to shame. They may not involve huge amounts of money if taken separately but any loss made through negligence or improper handling of situations represents a loss to the taxpayer.

In his executive summary of the report, the Auditor General raises a case that clearly shows non-observance of regulations. The Electoral Office has an automated attendance recording system to monitor overtime but this was not being used after office hours. Very convenient!

Another case: Employees and other third parties were being additionally compensated for work performed during office hours in connection with elections. Hopefully, these instances have now been tracked down and the extra payment made paid back.

A number of social assistance beneficiaries in a selected sample were receiving an incorrect rate of benefit and the automatic assessment for social assistance introduced in March 2005 was barely being used because of the very complex process of inputting data. Well, then, the department should either put more capable staff on the job or simplify the procedure.

Turning to the Foreign Ministry, the Auditor General reported that it lacked control on travel expenditure, resulting in an increase of 25 per cent over the original budget. The ministry has replied that the fact that there was an excess of expenditure in that particular year does not necessarily mean that the money used was spent without good cause or reason or in an unjustified manner. But the auditor had more to say on the department: "Lunches and dinners paid through the ministry's credit card were not deducted from the subsistence allowance" and documentation supporting travel abroad was at times incomplete and unclear. It is good to learn from the ministry that the various concerns and weaknesses pinpointed by the auditor have been rectified. For once, at least, the country has an immediate reaction from a ministry to the auditor's report, something that is extremely rare.

There is still a long way to go for the Administration to reach an acceptable level of accountability, propriety and best practices that successive auditors have been talking about for years.