Spending on last year’s EuroPride event exceeded the original €2.5 million budget by 86 per cent, an audit has revealed.

A report by the auditor general detailed how spending on the 10-day event dedicated to the LGBTIQ+ community “significantly” exceeded its original budget, with a total spend of €4.6 million.

When questioned about the discrepancy, the Office of the Prime Minister blamed it on “unexpected adverse weather conditions”, as well as the omission and undervaluation of certain expenses like security.

This explanation, however, did not appear to hold water with the auditor general, who noted that bad weather only impacted the event’s opening ceremony, which had to be shifted to Ta’ Qali’s MFCC, and security accounted for just nine per cent of the total spend.

“…these reasons cited by management could not have been the sole cause of this variance,” the report notes.

“Major” shortcomings in procurement procedures were found during the audit.

“Given that the bid to host the event in Malta was won in 2020, and the EuroPride Parade 2023 agreement was finalised in October 2022, it was presumed that management had sufficient time to plan the event and procure the required goods and services in compliance with standing regulations,” the auditor general said.

The report says that despite these time frames, none of the goods and services purchased for the event were acquired via a tender.

Furthermore, no quotes were obtained for a considerable number of other purchases, which were procured directly from the open market, and for which no direct order approvals from the respective permanent secretary or finance ministry were found.

The service provider had been selected directly beforehand (without obtaining direct order approval), also implying that the quotations were very likely obtained merely to conceal the bypassing of procurement regulations- Auditor General report

The report says the piecemeal approach used for the procurement of certain services was likely split to circumvent the need for a tender.

“Under no circumstances would it have made sense from a logistical perspective to have different service providers setting up a stage and roof structure during the two consecutive weeks of the event,” the auditor general said.

The auditor general noted at least eight instances whereby quotations for lighting, video and stage set-up, were provided not more than two days before the required service was to be delivered.

From an operational standpoint, as well as considering the nature of these expenses, the auditor general said it is difficult to envisage how service providers were willing to provide these services at such short notice.

Additionally, no reference was made to the required layout, design, desired appearance and availability of equipment, which would have been discussed at some stage.

“This suggests that the service provider had been selected directly beforehand (without obtaining direct order approval), also implying that the quotations were very likely obtained merely to conceal the bypassing of procurement regulations,” the report says.

In response to the findings, the Office of the Prime Minister said certain goods and services procured for the event were acquired under “time-sensitive circumstances”.

In cases where direct orders were used, the Office of the Prime Minister said it was due to the immediate nature, which precluded the standard timeline for obtaining departmental tenders or multiple quotations.

Who was responsible?

Auditors found significant difficulty in identifying the key government personnel responsible for the event’s organisation and management, with the situation complicated by a shift in ministerial portfolios and the event being organised in tandem with an NGO.

The auditor general said clear ownership and accountability should be established when projects transition from one ministerial portfolio to another.

All financial transactions, decisions and key project milestones must be consistently recorded to maintain a complete audit trail.

The report struck a frustrated tone in this regard.

“Unless roles and responsibilities are clearly recognised and defined, ownership cannot be established," the auditor general said.

"Consequently, identifying who should be held accountable for any shortcomings in the organisation of the event, particularly those relating to the procurement of goods and services, and the fact that the budget allocation was substantially exceeded, can become an arduous task."

When organising similar events, the roles and responsibilities are to be clearly defined, the auditor general insisted.

The audit was able to identify one key officer in the event’s organisation, namely the head of secretariat of Parliamentary Secretary for Equality Rebecca Buttigieg. This, however, appears to have gone against established procedures, as the head of the secretariat is a position of trust appointment and, therefore, the person should not exercise executive powers.

Despite this, the auditor general found that the head of secretariat monitored calls for quotations, certified invoices, forwarded purchase orders, corresponded directly with artists who participated in the event and took receipts of EuroPride merchandise.

All this goes against the guiding principle outlined in a manual on resourcing policies and procedures, which states that people engaged on a position of trust basis should not enjoy executive powers on government matters, the auditor general said.

The auditor general urged those responsible to delve into the matter to establish how the head of secretariat took on responsibilities beyond those expected of the position held.