looking glass'' quality; everything is done in reverse, which in practical terms makes no sense at all.

A classic example of this is the apparently common practice of Government departments spending any remaining funds as quickly as they can as the end of the financial year looms.

Under current rules, any unspent funds are returned to the Consolidated Fund and the careful department is not allowed to carry any surplus over.

Therefore, rather than lose the funds, departments spend them.

Secondly, the careful department, which efficiently spends its money and uses prudence and care with overtime and other spending issues, is "punished''. In the next financial year, it gets less additional spending power than the spendthrift department which allows costs to rise out of control.

In the world of budgets, this makes perfect sense. And it has to be said that this practice is just as common in private enterprise.

But in the real world, where taxpayers live, it makes no sense at all.

This money, after all, has been provided by the taxpayer to the Government. It is incumbent on the different Civil Service departments to spend it as carefully as possible. If the departments do not need the money, then that could mean the money could be used for new and important projects, or that Government needs less revenue next year -- meaning no tax increases, or lower taxes.

The challenge comes when human nature collides with taxpayer needs. The existing system punishes the civil servant who looks after the taxpayer's money over the civil servant who "squanders it'' and the "good civil servant'' quickly catches on; appealing to the greater good of the community is not that compelling in the circumstances.

But the recommendations in the Civil Service Review reported in yesterday's Royal Gazette for ways to solve the problem make some sense. Allowing departments to carry over some of their surpluses from one year to the next would make sense, as would allowing Ministries more flexibility to use up to five percent of their budgets where it is most needed. This would prevent departments from wasting money where it was not needed (to keep the budget) and would allow needy causes to get the money they need rather than wait for the next budget year.

The report also echoes the long-standing recommendation that the Auditor be placed under the supervision of the Legislature instead of the Finance Ministry. This would ensure the Auditor's independence and should be acted upon.

Similarly, the commitment of this Government to bring supplementary estimates to the House for approval in the same year that the spending takes place, rightly receives credit, even if it comes with some short-term political pain.

The answer to that problem is to better manage estimates and to better control "surprise'' expenditures.