The auditor general has flagged a number of irregularities in the financial assistance given to voluntary organisations, with approval for payments totalling €12,300 “not evident”.

In its annual report on the public finances audit for 2016, the National Audit Office said 15 groups received €59,300 in assistance. Eight payments totalling €12,300 were handed out with no trail showing they had been “duly approved”.

Approval for such funds is granted by the Ministry for Social Dialogue, Consumer Affairs and Civil Liberties.

The NAO pointed out that despite rules of procedure stating that a pre-financing of 80 per cent of the approved amount is to be granted, 14 of the 15 sampled entities received 100 per cent in one instalment.  The remaining group received 90 per cent of the approved amount.

The basis on which eligibility was approved cannot be understood

The auditors said that despite a requisite outlined in the Voluntary Organisations Project Scheme (VOPS), receipts were not submitted by 13 out of the 14 beneficiaries who received the 100 per cent funding.

“This weakens the necessary controls in confirming that funding was used for what it was ultimately requested,” the auditors stated in the report. Furthermore, in eight out of the nine instances where amounts approved exceeded €1,000, the required contract indicating the respective obligations was not drawn up, the NAO found. On whether the organisations had the financial resources to support the amount granted, the NAO said the evaluators used the audited accounts and/or the annual returns submitted by the organisations to assess the financial capacity.

“However, which financial information was taken by the evaluators as a basis for analysis was not established, suggesting that this was subject to interpretation,” the auditors said.

According to VOPS guidelines, unless annual returns, as submitted to the Commissioner for Voluntary Organisations, are forwarded with the application, the latter is considered ineligible. However the NAO found that one application from those sampled was processed and funding of €25,000 provided, despite the organisation not submitting its annual returns.

“In fact, the first two evaluators indicated that financial capacity to support implementation of the project was unsatisfactory, both giving three marks out of ten in their assessment.

“Incongruously, the third evaluator gave nine marks. In the circumstances, the basis on which such eligibility was approved cannot be understood,” the auditors said. On the irregularities flagged, those managing the scheme said that as of this year, new guidelines were drawn up to ensure consistency and adequate controls in such funding.