What chance has the Finance Minister of reducing the amount of arrears due to the government if a number of ministries and departments do not even bother to send in to the Auditor General their annual returns of revenue arrears? The Auditor General complains about this practically every time he presents his report to Parliament, as he is required to do so by law, but there would seem to have been little improvement in the financial propriety followed in certain government quarters.

This time, though, the matter assumes greater importance in view of the fact that in his Budget for the next financial year the Finance Minister makes a proposal that could help raise much needed extra revenue to the government if it is followed to the letter. The proposal, one of a number meant, in the Finance Minister’s own words, to strengthen the national financial and budgetary framework, is aimed at reducing 10 per cent in government arrears. Every department and entity is required to draw up, by the end of this month, “a strategy for this purpose”. The country will soon learn if these have done so or not, that is, if the minister decides to make the information public.

Whatever the outcome of such an exercise, what counts most is the action that would be taken by each and every ministry and department to follow the recommendations made in the programme to cut the amount due in arrears to the government. It is a shame on the Administration, or the offending part of it, at least, that the Auditor General has to raise the issue over the delay in the filing of the returns year after year.

Once again, he complains in his report for 2009, just published, that a number of ministries, departments and entities had failed to send in their revenue returns for 2009 to the Treasury Department for onward transmission to his office. Some did not give a detailed breakdown of figures “hindering audit testing”. According to the Auditor General, the timely collection of revenue and control over arrears of revenue is the responsibility of accounting officers. He regularly points out: “Since the collection of monies due to the government is a fundamental need for the execution of the government’s fiscal programme, accounting officers will be held accountable for any shortfalls.”

The question is: Are they? Why should such a situation be allowed to happen year after year? Ought not the ministries concerned keep an eye on what is happening in the areas that fall under their responsibility? Who are the defaulters? The list, as published by the Treasury and carried in the Auditor General’s report, includes, for example, the Education Department; the Ministry of Social Policy (including the Department of Social Security, social security benefits and the Social Housing Department) and the Inland Revenue Division – Social Security Contributions, with effect from 1998.

At a time when the country has to make a special effort to reduce the deficit, the government would have to be extra careful not to spend money on anything that is deemed unnecessary, such as, for example, the inauguration of projects. Certain shortcomings highlighted by the Auditor General raise the matter of accountability even more forcefully. He refers, for instance, to travel allowances that were granted unnecessarily and, even, to shortcomings in the approval of hospitality expenditure.

Cutting unnecessary spending and greater financial control and accountability will make a difference to the government’s balance sheet.