Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1983 > Committee of Public Accounts > Interim and Final Report - Appropriation Accounts 1978 - 1979

APPENDIX 18

RECEIPTING ARRANGEMENTS FOR FURNITURE DELIVERIES

20th January, 1983

Mr. L. P. Browne,

Clerk to the Committee of Public Accounts,

Leinster House,

Dublin 2.

Dear Mr. Browne,

In the course of my evidence before the Committee of Public Accounts on 4th November, 1982 (Vote 9-1979 Account) I undertook to furnish a note to the Committee on the question of the receipting arrangements for furniture deliveries (Subhead F2).

In February last year, a circular letter was issued to all Government Departments and Offices enlisting their co-operation in ensuring that (a) formal requisitions signed by duly authorised officers would be submitted for all their furniture and furnishing requirements and (b) that a receipt signed by a duly authorised officer would be furnished to our Chargehand or to a contractor’s representative for each delivery received. I am satisfied with the co-operation we are receiving from Departments in these matters.

Under our present arrangements, a receipt is required for every delivery of furniture made to Departments/Offices. Where the items have been issued from Stores and for any reason a signed delivery note is not returned, the Storekeeper is required to advise the Furniture Division Administration section who will seek formal confirmation from the consignee that the goods were received. In the case of deliveries direct to Departments by suppliers, where the invoice for the goods is not accompanied by a signed receipt, it is not processed until formal confirmation of delivery has been sought and obtained from the receiving Department by the Administration Section.

Operation of the kind of system envisaged by the Comptroller and Auditor General, whereby the Departments/Offices would nominate officers authorised to recieve furniture, would present significant operational difficulties. Since most Departments are located in several premises, both in Dublin and throughout the country, a panel of several officers would have to be nominated in each premises to try to safeguard against having deliveries frustrated through absence at delivery time of an authorised receiving officer. The lists of receiving officers would be cumbersome and would be subject to constant revision because of frequent turnover of staff. These factors would give rise to delay and expense in the preparation of orders and of issue documentation in the Stores. The need to check signatures against the approved list of specimen signatures would also involve undue expenditure of staff time and could delay the processing of contractors’ accounts.

While the results of my enquiries indicate that the arrangements in operation at present for the requisitioning and delivery of furniture provide reasonable safeguards against any irregularities or abuse, the position will be kept under close review to ensure their continued satisfactory operation and to close off any loopholes that may be identified in the system.

Yours sincerely,

P. SCANLAN

Accounting Officer

Office of Public Works.