Teagasc management criticised over expenses scam

THE Comptroller and Auditor General, John Purcell, has criticised management at Teagasc after it emerged an employee had claimed bogus travel expenses worth almost €80,000.

The Dáil Public Accounts Committee heard yesterday that the State’s food and agriculture development authority had received information on three occasions between 2001 and 2003 that staff members had been making false claims for travel expenses.

In 2003, an internal audit investigation revealed one employee at an unnamed Teagasc research centre had been submitting spurious travel claims since 1988.

The committee was told disciplinary action had been taken against the official by demoting him and ordering him to repay €130,056. The sum consisted of €77,636 in bogus expenses plus €52,420 in interest.

Mr Purcell described the reaction of Teagasc’s management to the problem as “unsatisfactory, to say the least”. The CAG also said the organisation’s system for monitoring and controlling travel expenditure was “less than thorough”.

Fianna Fáil TD Seán Ardagh said Teagasc did not seem to operate the standards of good governance that one would expect from a State body when it came to internal controls.

Teagasc director Jim Flanagan acknowledged that the authority in the past may not have been as conscious of good governance as it is now. However, he maintained that the problem had been confined to specific areas within the organisation.

Teagasc was also criticised by the CAG for its “passive attitude” to a conflict of interest which arose in relation to another employee.

The Dáil committee was told that Teagasc had given business to a supplier to provide computer data services which was 50% owned by one of its own employees.

Mr Purcell said the contract, which has been worth a total of €336,000 since 1995, was awarded without a tender. Mr Flanagan described the controversy as “an isolated incident”. He told the committee that Teagasc stopped using the company’s services last June.

The CAG said he was concerned about Teagasc’s “laissez-faire approach” to ethical standards which the conflict of interest had raised.