However expensive drinks in Dubai are, a €756 bill for alcoholic drinks racked up by a ministerial delegation in just three days last September appears quite high, more so when considering that of the amount €318 were spent on drinks from a mini-bar.

Quite justifiably, the story, as told in the audit report for last year, raised eyebrows, but there are other accounts that should equally raise concern over the degree of lack accountability in the public service, a matter that appears to be surfacing more frequently under this administration than at any other in recent times. Or maybe the cases of unaccountability being brought up under this administration appear stand out more in view of the number of scandals that are emerging almost at regular intervals.

Practically every annual report by the auditor general brings out stories that make the headlines. The first one that stole the show, as it were, in the latest report was that over the tampering of attendance records at childcare centres to siphon off more public money paid out under the free childcare scheme.  No fewer than 60 centres were paid more than €90,000 for booked hours for which children failed to attend. No wonder the story provoked so much discussion.

Almost invariably, the auditor reveals cases showing lack of internal control and of adherence to public procurement regulations. He also expresses concern over failure to collect arrears, unreliable attendance records, and over quite a number of other matters that show either sheer disinterest in following rules and regulations or shortcomings that could easily be rectified in time if those in charge of ministries and departments show greater regard to efficiency and the need for accountability.

Taking the case of what by all accounts appears to be an extraordinary amount spent on alcoholic beverages by a delegation from the Ministry of the Economy, Investment and Small Business in Dubai, the explanation given by a spokeswoman for the ministry does not seem convincing enough. She found it pertinent to point out that “the minister is in communication with the permanent secretary so as that expenditure that can be interpreted as not being in line with regulations by any officer, including the minister himself, is refunded”. It is the least the taxpayer expects.

Besides this, there were other purchases that, in the opinion of the auditor, were not considered as relating to official business claimed as travel expenditure. For example, in the documentation for expenditure claimed as “other receipts”, a travelling officer on a government trip to the Ukraine included a receipt for the purchase of personal items. In this case, the spokeswoman said the personal expenditure had been “erroneously placed with other bills”.

Examination of documentation about 10 trips selected for audit also showed errors. It is not enough to recoup expenses in cases where money is not spent on official business. What is important is that greater attention is paid to detail in the planning and execution of trips abroad by ministerial delegations. The impression given is that in several cases the work is done haphazardly.

A matter that also ought to worry the administration is the substantial excess of expenditure over budgeted figures. There may well be a good reason for this in some cases, but not in others. It is difficult, if not impossible, to eliminate shortcomings in such a large organisation as the public service, but it would seem there is a strong case for the strengthening of disciplinary measures to check the kind of abuses in travel, control, attendance, and procurement.