Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 3 Mar 1994

Vol. 439 No. 7

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Alterations of Forms by Customs.

Pat Cox

Question:

7 Mr. Cox asked the Minister for Finance in relation to paragraph 2.57 of the 1992 report of the European Court of Auditors regarding manual alterations by customs officials of export forms, that in a post-audit letter the Court of Auditors indicated that such alterations were found to be quite common; that the Irish authorities did not contest the accuracy of the court's findings and hence the court acted in good faith in paragraph 2.57; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Mr. B. Ahern

I can of course accept that the court acted in good faith in this matter.

The statement made in the relevant paragraphs of the post-audit letter referred to by the Deputy, in so far as it refers to manual alterations of forms by Customs, was not challenged specifically at the time. The emphasis in the reply by the Irish authorities was on the arrangements for authentication of forms by Customs and their scrutiny by the paying agency prior to payment of export refunds.

However, the position in regard to the alteration of forms by traders, and their authentication by Customs, has since been fully elaborated in correspondence with the court.

Mr. Cox

This matter refers to a reply I received from the Minister to a question I tabled on 23 November last arising from a matter referred to in the 1992 report of the European Court of Auditors. The report suggested that Customs officials frequently altered forms manually. In his reply the Minister said that the Revenue Commissioners stated contrary to what was contained in the auditor's report, that none of the alternations was made by Customs. In the light of the Minister's response today and his acceptance that there was a post-audit letter that, effectively, ticked Ireland off and to which we did not respond formally, was the court correct to note the alterations and to report on them? If there was a failure, was it a failure by the Irish authorities to correct a misapprehension by the European Court of Auditors or an implicit admission, which is what the auditors understood it to be, that forms are frequently manually altered here? That is what the report of the Court of Auditors implied.

Mr. B. Ahern

We had a considerable debate on this issue on the last occasion the Deputy raised the matter and I undertook to follow up the matter. The Deputy is correct in saying that the reply by the Irish authorities to the post-audit letter concentrated on assuring the court that payments would not be made to traders on foot of any amended documents until the paying agency, the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry in this case, was satisfied that any amendments were authenticated by Customs. The courts primary concern was that the payments were made correctly and that Customs were not altering forms in that regard. The Deputy is also correct in saying Customs did not answer the question about whether its officials were involved in making changes. I have clarified the matter with them and received correspondence from our auditor, Mr. Richie Ryan, on the matter. I am sure the alterations were not made by Customs officials but by the trader representing a number of companies who appears to have made numerous alterations. The auditors would prefer to receive documents without any alterations. I accept that the auditors were undertaking to deal with the matter as they saw fit.

Mr. Cox

Will the Minister assure the House that such practice, either by traders or Customs officials, has ceased? Is it still possible for someone, for example, a person working in customs or a trader, to manually alter forms which may be the subject of subsequent disputes about money payments?

Mr. B. Ahern

The Deputy will appreciate that I must accept the information I have been given. I have inquired who makes such changes on many occasions, not just in this case. This is an important matter and substantial money is paid out on the basis of such documentation. I am assured that customs staff are not involved. However, at the point of export there is a practice in some cases where the trader is allowed check forms. In some cases, one trader may represent a number of companies and that trader is allowed check that the total amount is represented on the various forms. I understand it is normal practice for traders to act in this way especially in cases where there is a change in a consignment. In this case there were 167 parts to the consignment and I can understand the trader's difficulty. The form should be withdrawn and replaced by a new unambiguous form. That would be my preferred choice and I have indicated that to the individuals concerned.