Boom led to ‘looseness’ in spending, Dáil hears

THE boom years led to a “looseness of procedures” in spending by public bodies when Fás was not the only body splurging taxpayers’ money, according to the chairman of the Dáil Public Accounts Committee, Bernard Allen.

The committee has written to the Minister for Finance, Brian Lenihan, demanding it is given a role in overlooking the work of the National Assets Management Agency when legislation to set up the agency is published in July.

The spending watchdog yesterday launched its report on the use of taxpayers’ money in 2006, highlighting cost overruns and missed deadlines. “When money was flúirseach (plentiful) I believe a looseness of procedures evolved over a period of time,” said Mr Allen.

Referring to excessive spending by Fás officials on foreign travel and procurement, he said: “I think Fás was an example of everything that was wrong in that whole area and it wasn’t alone in Fás.”

Mr Allen said the controversy surrounding this might have brought about a turning point in spending by public bodies. “I know that circulars have gone out to departments instructing them to tighten up, be more accountable for their actions,” he said.

The report highlighted a number of issues that have already come to light during its committee hearings, including:

* The amount spent on rental accommodation by schools has more than doubled from €25m in 2005 to €52m in 2008

* Despite this rise, the Department of Education does not have a detailed inventory of the number, or age, of prefabs used by both primary and secondary schools

* The cost of introducing an integrated ticketing system for transport services is almost €50m – this is €20m more than the price indicated in 2002

* It is 15 years since integrated ticketing was announced for Dublin, but the plan has not been delivered

The committee also pointed out that it raised concerns as far back as 2006 on the role of the Financial Regulator in supervising the provision of 100% mortgages and the work of financial advisers in encouraging risky practices.

Members expressed frustration that they could not name individuals in the report because of a court judgement in the aftermath of the Abbeylara case.