INDEPENDENT AUDITORS have raised significant concerns over the way taxpayers’ money was used in dozens of housing, water and waste projects worth up to €330 million.
An independent spot check of 143 capital projects funded by the Department of Environment found that most were not properly planned, ran over-budget,were delayed or were never properly sanctioned.
The Ernst & Young report states that the overall level of compliance with official spending guidelines was “insufficient”.
In most cases, the funding was provided by the department to local authorities.
Among its other main findings are that:
- Almost a third (31 per cent) of projects went over the original budget;
- Nearly a quarter (24 per cent) of projects were not delivered within the agreed time-frame;
- Most projects (65 per cent) suffered from a lack of basic appraisal and planning over the likely costs involved;
- Almost a third (31 per cent) of projects did not have any project progress report, despite significant sums of money involved.
In general, auditors found that while there was a strong focus on securing funds for schemes, there was not sufficient focus on managing them.
The report suggests a number of steps which the department and local authorities should take to address the findings. These include some form of sanction on local authorities who fail to comply with official guidelines.
It also says the department should improve its monitoring of projects and ensure there is greater awareness among local authorities regarding their obligations to comply with spending guidelines.
The schemes subjected to spot checks last year are not identified individually in the report. It only states that cases were under construction during 2006 and 2007.
Most of the funding – €173 million – was spent as social housing projects and providing funding to voluntary agencies involved in providing housing for people with disabilities, older people or homeless.
Almost a third of these schemes ended up over-budget. A number of these over-runs related to inaccurate planning and design at the outset. Other factors included work outside the original scope of the project, as well as some “unavoidable” issues such as weather and site drainage, soil problems.
For a large number of social housing projects, there were no formal reports prepared to track the progress of a development against costs, quality or time-scales.
Water capital projects also accounted for a large portion of funding, €125 million, under scrutiny in the report.
In some cases auditors found cost appraisals were either incomplete or did not take place at all. For example, while the cost of a waste water treatment plant may have been established at the outset, it may not have included the day-to-day costs.
There were similar problems too with group water schemes in rural areas. Project management was too informal, with no apparent oversight by local authorities over how money given to various group schemes was used.
In its response to the report, the department accepts many of the findings and insists it has already taken steps to improve the way it monitors value for money on the projects it funds.
In the case of overspending, the department says this is less likely to occur because fixed-price contracts are in place in most cases.
The department says it will tackle delays and slippages in schemes through an increased focus on “proper planning and good project management from the start”.