Public money, private greed

Party manifestos offer no specific measures or timetable to prevent fraud, waste and corruption in government except the recurring promise to pass the Lok Pal Bill. No wonder India has a permanent place among the ten most corrupt countries in Transparency International’s annual Corruption Index. There is considerable activity among public-interest groups about growing corruption in government and much judicial intervention. But the focus has been on individual cases. Thirty years ago the ARC recommended annual financial disclosure by ministers which should be available to the Lok Pal. The government did not agree. Recent legislation in other countries on a code of conduct for ministers, statement of assets, independent verification and public examination has been ignored by Parliament and government.

India has borrowed extensively from Britain on parliamentary practice and government machinery. But Britain’s recent reforms on therecommendation of the Nolan Commission to regulate the MPs’ and ministers’ conduct have evoked no interest in India. In July 1997, the British Government published a 46-page Ministerial Code. In the foreword, Prime Minister Tony Blair says, “We should be absolutely clear about how ministers should account, and be held to account, by Parliament and the public”. The chapters on ministers’ travels and private interests should prove useful here if suitably adapted.

The extent to which government has consistently ignored suggestions to restrict the rapidly growing number of ministers in state governments and to regulate their conduct is not generally known. The ARC had urged that the council of ministers should be compact and homogeneous. It suggested that in the larger states the number of ministers could range between 20 and 25, in the medium-sized states from 14 to 18 and in the smaller states between eight and 12. The Commission also wanted government to ensure that ministers’ tours were planned in advanceand undertaken only for well-defined official purposes. It opposed avoidable ministerial participation in ceremonial functions. It recommended standards in the selection of ministers. All this was ignored and never revived. Absurdities like the recent sudden expansion of the UP Cabinet and the irrationally large cabinets all over the north-east could have been avoided and public money saved if the ARC had been heeded.

The constitution in some countries lays down the cabinet’s size. In Ireland under the 1922 constitution the cabinet was to consist of not less than five and not more than seven ministers. In the present constitution the maximum number was raised to 15 but it took a long time to reach it. Ireland’s population is about 5.5 million. Sikkim, with a population of less than half a million, has a larger cabinet. The degree to which cabinet size has been inflated in the smaller states is a scandal. Visitors to the VIP lounge at Calcutta airport, through which the ministers of the north-eastern statespass on their journeys to Delhi and elsewhere, can see ministers standing and sipping tea as there is no place to sit.

India has by far the largest number of ministers of any country. The Centre itself is setting a thoroughly bad example to the states. The estimated expenditure on the central cabinet in 1997-98 is Rs 128 crore. In 1990-91 it was Rs 100 crore less. Ministers’ tour expenses have jumped in this period from Rs 7 crore to Rs 40 crore.

A comparison of the budgets of the state governments would show an unofficial race to decide which state legislature can spend more money. In Kerala, a new Legislature Complex has been under construction for several years. The initial cost estimate was Rs 5 crore; over Rs 60 crore have already been spent. Subscription for journals on parliamentary procedures has been discontinued by the Assembly library for want of funds!

Most members of legislatures are politically so busy that they have little time to discuss the annual budget, which is voted in a hurry. Theexamination of the audit reports by the Public Accounts Committee is scandalously in arrear in almost every state, arrears of four or five years being the norm. The audit reports are still generally prepared only once a year by the Auditor General. In other countries audit reports are submitted to the legislature whenever a serious financial irregularity is noticed. Annual reporting is like the fire brigade going out to put out fires only once a week. An African country some years ago printed the audit report and kept all copies in a warehouse. Another African country prepared the budget after the financial year was over. We have not attained these standards yet but are fast approaching them. Believe it or not, the audit report on Bofors has not yet been disposed of by the Public Accounts Committee.

Constitutional provisions on control of public spending have broken down.Audit reports have to be submitted to the legislature whenever any serious financial irregularity is detected and the PAC has to give itsrecommendations within a specified time. The ARC’s sensible recommendations about all this were also ignored.

It is time to dust off the ARC reports. The central and state governments together spend about Rs 500,000 crore a year. You and I, who pay the government piper all this money, have some right to call the tune.

The writer, a retired accountant-general, is associated with Transparency International