The Police Force has still not set up an internal audit and investigations unit despite a recommendation made by the Auditor General four years ago.
An exercise conducted earlier this year to establish whether the force had made any progress following an audit on police emoluments in 2013 discovered that, although certain minor changes were introduced, the most crucial control aspect, the appointment of an internal auditor, did not happen.
It could not be ascertained that such authority was obtained before the work was actually performed
The National Audit Office flagged other shortcomings, including lack of proper-trained staff to handle the payroll of about 2,000 members of the force and the absence of checks and balances over the payment of a raft of allowances to officers and civilian staff.
When verifying the payroll process of a sample of employees as part of the original audit, the NAO found that internal controls in various areas were lacking, indicating that little or no monitoring was in place to reduce the possibility of errors.
It was discovered that the calculation of overtime and allowances was made without any checks being made. It was also established that shift allowances were calculated on rates that were higher than those established at the time.
In one instance, the Audit Office had calculated that Sunday allowance paid in 2013 resulted in an overpayment of almost €144,000. It was also found that no authorisation was sought for overtime payments, no budgets were approved and no checks were made to ensure the allowances claimed were correct.
The Auditor General said there was slow progress with regard to his main recommendation on the urgent need of an internal auditor.
“Although an internal auditor was not yet appointed, last April, a new Police Act was enacted. One of the major changes the new legislation will bring about is the setting up of an internal audit and investigations unit. This will be entrusted with the internal supervision of the workings of the force to ensure its accountability,” the NAO said.
Some progress was noted in other areas, however.
A system of more formal requests for overtime was introduced although this also needed to be improved in certain instances. As an example, the NAO said overtime covering the period March 7 to May 11, 2016 was endorsed by the director of finance and administration on March 22, 2016.
“The approval by the permanent secretary was undated, thus it could not be ascertained that such authority was obtained before the work was actually performed,” the NAO said.