Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS díospóireacht -
Thursday, 16 Dec 2010

Chapter 37 - SKILL Programme (Resumed)

Mr. Michael Scanlan (Secretary General, Department of Health and Children) and Mr. Cathal Magee (Chief Executive Officer, Health Service Executive) called and examined.

I welcome everyone to the meeting. Today, we are considering chapter 37, SKILL programme (resumed).

Before commencing, I advise witnesses that they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give this committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence regarding a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise nor make charges against a Member of either House, a person outside the Houses, nor an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Members are reminded of the provisions within Standing Order 158 that the committee shall refrain from inquiring into the merits of a policy or policies of the Government or a Minister of the Government or the merits of the objectives of such policies.

I welcome Mr. Michael Scanlan, Secretary General of the Department of Health and Children, and ask him to introduce his officials.

Mr. Michael Scanlan

I thank the Chairman. I am accompanied by my finance officer, Mr. David Smith, and my personnel officer, Mr. Barry Murphy.

I welcome Mr. Cathal Magee, chief executive of the Health Service Executive, and ask him to introduce his officials.

Mr. Cathal Magee

I thank the Chairman. I am accompanied by Dr. Geraldine Smith, internal audit division, Mr. Seán McGrath, national director for human resources, and Mr. Liam Woods, national director for finance.

I welcome Mr. William Attley, former chairman of the SKILL project steering group. I also welcome the officials from the Department of Finance and ask them to introduce themselves.

Mr. David Moloney

My name is David Moloney and I am accompanied by Mr. Tom Heffernan and Ms Oonagh Buckley, as well as by Ms Louise McGirr and Mr. Rory O'Rua from the Department's internal audit unit.

I wish to raise an issue arising from a meeting of the committee on 18 November, at which an accusation was made against the banks by Mr. McDonagh of the National Asset Management Agency who stated that misleading information was given to that agency by the banking system. Initially, this matter was taken up by my colleague and my annoyance regarding this issue arises because he has misled my committee colleagues. Moreover, one colleague has been greatly shown up in taking up the issue. I make the point that the making of allegations of this nature to this committee by public or Civil Service officials is extremely serious. This is an extremely important committee that was established in the early years of the State. I seek to have the aforementioned official brought before the committee to explain himself. He should be disciplined for misleading members because there is too much of this going on in society at present and members, as politicians, suffer a lot of this. However, there must be an even playing field and there must be much greater transparency and accountability.

NAMA is a newly established organisation and I note this committee has encountered difficulties when seeking other information from it from the outset. While I understand progress may have been made in this regard, the aforementioned official must be brought before the committee at the earliest opportunity to apologise. If an apology is not forthcoming he should be disciplined.

There were two issues related to his evidence. The committee discussed it in private session a few moments ago and agreed to recall Mr. McDonagh on 30 January for two reasons. First, he is reported - I use the word "reported" - to be backtracking on his evidence given to this committee some weeks ago in response to Deputy Michael McGrath. The second reason is his failure to provide to this committee information we sought regarding salary scales within NAMA. We wrote to him last Friday as a result of a decision made by this committee. We received no response but I asked the secretariat to contact him again this morning to inform him that unless the committee received a response regarding information pertaining to salary scales, he would be recalled before it. We now have an indication from him that information will be supplied to the committee over the next number of days. That said, the committee has agreed that it should give him an opportunity to clarify the evidence he gave to it in recent weeks regarding the banks misleading NAMA.

I think the Chairman is going soft on him and that this is very serious.

We will find out what the man has to say.

It is very serious that this kind of thing is happening in our society at present. A Sunday newspaper has reported that NAMA has told the fraud squad there is no evidence that banks misled it.

This official, who holds a senior position in a new agency, can make those statements before the committee and mislead this organisation. I sympathise with my colleague, Deputy Michael McGrath, a decent first-time Member of the Dáil, for being set up.

While we cannot be led by what appears in newspapers, that said, clarification is needed. The man will be given that opportunity to clarify the position.

The Chairman is being simplistic.

I am not. I am giving the man his opportunity to appear before the committee in January to clarify his position.

I invite Mr. Buckley to introduce the day's business. The full text of chapter 37 can be found in the annual report of the Comptroller and Auditor General or on the website of the Comptroller and Auditor General at www.audgen.gov.ie.

Mr. John Buckley

I will be brief because this is a resumed session. Chapter 37 outlined concerns pertaining to the administration of the SKILL programme. It also outlined the fact that further payments had been made into the SIPTU national health and local authority levy fund account under the action plan for people management. The latter payments were made by the Health Services National Partnership Forum. This forum is a non-statutory consultative group comprised of representatives of management and unions, as well as being a steering committee for workplace partnership. Since the last meeting, the HSE's internal audit function has finalised reports on the payments from the Health Services National Partnership Forum, as well as reports on procurement and backfilling grants related to the SKILL programme. The Department of Finance has finalised an internal audit on travel and related matters and the report commissioned by the Accounting Officer of the HSE on the circumstances surrounding travel by HSE staff related to SKILL also now is available. I have nothing further to add to my report or to my opening remarks at the session of 7 October 2010.

Thank you, Mr. Buckley.

Mr. Michael Scanlan

I wish to update the committee regarding a number of issues that arose at the meeting of 7 October 2010. I first wish to deal with the issue of the appropriateness of foreign travel. The report, which was prepared by my personnel officer and provided to the committee, showed that officials of the Department participated in ten overseas study visits and that the total cost of subsistence paid by the Department in respect of these visits was €6,290. I explained at the meeting of 7 October that the officials who participated in the study visits did so with the prior approval of their line managers, that the visits were relevant to the problems being addressed within the Irish health service at the time and that the joint management-union composition of the delegations reflected the policy at the time of developing and supporting a partnership approach to organisational change.

I recently have received a copy of the report prepared for the HSE by Mr. Turlough O'Sullivan and while the Department has not had an opportunity to consider the report fully, I note that Mr. O'Sullivan interviewed various HSE staff who participated in the study visits and concluded, from the evidence provided to him by those individuals, that "the study visits seem to have been comprehensive and worthwhile". I also stated at the meeting of 7 October that the conference rate of subsistence was paid in respect of these trips. The Department of Finance has since confirmed that while the general instructions to Departments do not specifically provide for a situation in which a third party pays accommodation costs, the conference rate was the only realistic alternative in this instance. This confirms the view expressed by the Department's personnel officer in his report that payment of the conference race was reasonable and justified in the circumstances.

On the issue of the funding of the foreign travel, which arose at a meeting of 7 October, one question put to me was how these visits, no matter how worthwhile they were, could have been funded from moneys provided for front line supervisor training or SKILL or both. According to the first HSE internal audit report of SKILL, it was internal audit's view that the annual grant paid into the national health and local authority levy fund account had been used to fund these foreign trips. However, the Comptroller and Auditor General's report stated that, while the visits to the UK had been funded from the SKILL programme, other foreign visits were not SKILL programme visits but were partnership visits and were funded from partnership moneys.

My best understanding of the factual situation is that the trips were organised by a SIPTU official and certain costs, generally flights and accommodation, were met from the national health and local authority levy fund account; that a number of different payments were being made into this account over the years, including the annual grant sanctioned by the Department, payments from the Health Services National Partnership Forum, HSNPF, and payments from the Local Authority National Partnership Advisory Group, LANPAG; and that one of the stated purposes from 2005 onwards of the annual grant sanctioned by the Department was the development of management-union partnerships of best practice. Accordingly, while it seems clear that the visits were ultimately funded by the Exchequer, I am unable at this stage in advance of the report which SIPTU is preparing to say how much of the annual grant sanctioned by the Department was used to fund these study visits.

Regarding the annual grant, this week I provided the committee at its request with a formal report on the background to the decision to sanction the relevant funding along with statements from individual members of staff who sanctioned the payments. As indicated in that report, it appears that payments dating back as far as 1998 may potentially be relevant. Two payments of £50,000 and £25,000 were sanctioned that year for a partnership project relating to non-nursing staff and a training and partnership initiative relating to the new hospital at Tallaght. The latter payment of £25,000 was allocated on a one-off basis to the Midland Health Board, MHB, to be made available to SIPTU and channelled through the Office for Health Management. The same sum of £25,000 was provided again in 1999 and I have previously provided the committee with copies of various sanctions from 2000 onwards.

It has not been possible to establish for certain the precise origin, nature and purpose of the payments or why they were paid into the national health and local authority levy fund account. However, the annual grant seems to have increased and evolved over time and the stated purpose of the annual payment of €250,000 sanctioned in December 2004 was to maintain support for SIPTU's human resource-personnel development schemes and the development of management-union partnerships of best practice.

Over the years, there appear to have been two common themes, namely, to support the development of a partnership approach to change and to support the provision of appropriate training for support staff. These goals are entirely understandable and appropriate, especially when viewed against the background of the highly adversarial industrial relations climate that existed within the health service and the considerable investment made in the training and career progression of nurses, allied health professionals and non-consultant hospital doctors. The overall aim of all these initiatives was to improve services to patients by enhancing the skills of the health service workforce and building a less adversarial and more collaborative approach to change.

In sanctioning the successive payments over the years, officials would have been familiar with this overall background context and aware that similar funding had been sanctioned previously. They would also have been cognisant of the Minister's ongoing support for these partnership and training programmes and the Government's overall policy objectives in respect of national, sectoral and workplace partnership. From 2005 onwards, the annual grants were noted in the HSE's published annual financial statements.

I have recently received a copy of the HSE's internal audit report on the HSNPF, but the Department has not had an opportunity to consider it properly. The report raises a number of different issues. On the issue of payments into the national health and local authority levy fund account, I note the findings that a total of nearly €925,000 was paid into the account under the Action Plan for People Management, APPM, initiative and that the bulk of this - three payments totalling €700,000 - was paid in 2007 and 2008 following an unexplained change to the process governing the funding. The Department was no longer involved in the APPM assessment process at that stage. I also note that some of the funding was disbursed to other unions and that in excess of €250,000 has been refunded to the HSE by other unions to date.

The development of a partnership approach to managing change within the health service and the investment in training initiatives for support staff both had a clear policy rationale and the full support of the Department. The purpose and nature of the overseas study visits were appropriate and worthwhile. There was no breach of official travel policy and the subsistence expenses paid were reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances. I am satisfied there was no impropriety or irregularity involved on the part of individual officials of the Department in respect of the sanctions that issued from the Department or the study visits. However, the manner in which the funding was sanctioned and administered resulted in, first, the absence of appropriate governance and financial accountability for Exchequer funding and, second, the study visits by Department officials being organised primarily by a SIPTU official and the costs of those visits being funded in part from the national health and local authority levy fund account and in part by the Department. I thank members for their attention.

I thank Mr. Scanlan. May we publish his statement?

Mr. Michael Scanlan

Yes.

Mr. Cathal Magee

I thank the Chairman and members of the committee for their invitation to attend this meeting. At our last meeting on 7 October, I committed to revert to the committee on a number of follow-up audit reports on SKILL and the HSNPF. The four reports are the report by Mr. Turlough O'Sullivan into overseas travel by HSE staff, the audit of the procurement processes as they pertain to the SKILL programme, the audit of the SKILL programme in terms of the backfill funding, contributions and activity data and the audit of the HSNPF. I will comment briefly on each report.

In July 2010, the HSE commissioned Mr. Turlough O'Sullivan to investigate all foreign travel undertaken by HSE staff and paid for out of the SIPTU national health and local authority levy fund. As part of his investigation, Mr. O'Sullivan conducted a series of face-to-face interviews with 11 of the 12 HSE officials who partook of foreign travel. One official, Mr. Alan Smith, the former general manager of SKILL who retired in May 2009, declined requests to attend an interview with Mr. O'Sullivan. The HSE sent two registered letters and made numerous telephone calls to Mr. Smith. His lack of co-operation with the investigation is not acceptable for a former public servant who was centrally involved in the management of the SKILL programme. We are advised that Mr. Smith is not a compellable witness in any non-statutory HSE investigation. However, we will continue to press him to secure his assistance with this investigation.

We note Mr. O'Sullivan's report and, at this stage, it is difficult to draw conclusions or arrive at a complete assessment of the actions of HSE personnel until we have full access to all relevant records and information. SIPTU is currently completing its own internal investigation into the SIPTU national health and local authority levy fund and we have been advised that its investigation will not be complete until the new year. I have met the SIPTU trustees sub-committee, its head of finance and administration, the financial adviser to the investigation and the general secretary. They re-emphasised to us that SIPTU had no knowledge of the bank account and that it was not an authorised bank account of the union and was outside the union's financial structure.

The audit report on procurement reports that there was a lack of adherence to HSE procurement policy, which is based on national and EU procurement rules, and that there was evidence of confusion in carrying out the procurement and contracting process. The audit found inadequate documentary evidence was available to the auditors in respect of various stages of the procurement process. The recommendations of this audit report will be implemented in full.

On backfill funding and activity data, the third audit report deals with the core activity of the programme, namely, the expenditure on backfilling and activity data. This report raises audit issues regarding the cost and volume of training versus the original targets for up-skilling. It also raises issues in respect of the use of training facilities. This model will require further review. The recommendations of this audit report will be implemented in full.

The audit of the SKILL programme has raised a number of concerns. Regarding governance and accountability, the HSE has taken the steps required to ensure comprehensive compliance with its regulations on payments, travel and procurement arising out of our internal audits and the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General. In this regard, the SKILL programme accounts have been closed and all of the SKILL accounting functions have been centralised and amalgamated into the main financial systems within the HSE. The operation of the SKILL programme has been relocated to the corporate head office and the staff has been mainstreamed into the HR directorate function.

We are currently implementing a full value for money review in line with the recommendations of the SKILL audit. The results will inform our decision making with regard to the future of the SKILL programme when the current phase is completed at the end of April. We are awaiting the outcome of the SIPTU investigation in order to complete our own investigations.

The Health Services National Partnership Forum, HSNPF, was established on foot of the national agreement on social partnership in 2000. It was funded by the Department of Health and Children until 2005 and thereafter through the HSE Vote. The HSE internal audit report identified significant failures in governance arrangements in the operation of the HSNPF. The HSE internal audit report charts the evolution of the HSNPF since 2000, the role and function of the trustees, the activity of the forum and, significantly, the standing of the forum. The audit report highlights the lack of clarity and confusion regarding the status of the HSNPF going back to at least 2003 and indicates that the HSNPF sought to create an organisational form and operating entity that was an artificial construct with no statutory basis.

Many of the governance issues and control weaknesses that emerged in the audit report arise from the nature of the operating model existing as it did as a satellite entity outside the mainstream management control system. Breaches of governance noted in the report include the executive role discharged by the joint chairs; the payment authorisation procedures; and the provisions in place to control the signing of cheques.

The action plan for people management, APPM, is a programme run by the HSNPF and whose purpose is to facilitate the improvement of human resource management in the health service. According to the audit report, the HSNPF was provided with funding amounting to €1.355 million under the heading APPM in the period from 2003 to 2008 of which trade unions received €1,080,000. According to the report, the HSNPF developed guidelines to manage this fund. The internal audit report noted that changes were made to how this fund was controlled and governed. This resulted in three lump sum payments totalling €700,000 being made to the SIPTU national health and local authority levy fund in 2007 and 2008. These undocumented changes in governance represent a breakdown in financial control and a lack of compliance with its own arrangements that were deemed to be in place.

In a review of payments to the SIPTU national health and local authority levy fund from the HSNPF, our internal audit report identified that in total, the SIPTU national health and local authority levy fund received €924,963 from the APPM fund. These payments were paid to one account and SIPTU corporate has re-emphasised to us that it had no knowledge of this bank account and it was not an authorised bank account of the union.

A portion of the €700,000 lump sum payments made to the SIPTU national health and local authority levy fund was paid to other unions. Following contact from the HSE internal auditors, four unions confirmed they had received moneys from the SIPTU national health and local authority levy fund but had not yet spent these funds. These four unions further agreed to repay to the HSE moneys received. A total of €275,283 has now been refunded by these four unions. In addition to the APPM fund, the HSE internal audit ascertained that a further €26,201 in cost reimbursements was paid by the HSNPF to the SIPTU national health and local authority levy fund.

The HSE internal audit examined payments made using the HSNPF credit card issued to the forum director in the period from 2003 to 2009. The total expenditure during this period was €84,516. Much of this expenditure related to payments for travel, hotels and restaurants. Of concern to the auditors is the fact that the credit card statements were self-certified and were not authorised by either a joint chair or a trustee. The audit report provides a detailed explanation in a letter from the director of the HSNPF on this issue. The absence of proper authorisation and control highlights the overall lack of clarity on governance.

There were 21 foreign trips undertaken by forum members, staff and other persons as indicated by documentation on file at the HSNPF. Five of these trips were previously identified in the HSE's internal audit report on the SKILL programme. The internal audit identified that in some instances a large number of people went on these trips. The total costs identified in the accounts of the HSNPF, which include payments made by the corporate credit card and subsistence claims, amount to €146,680. Unlike the SKILL foreign trips, the 16 trips in this instance were all arranged by the HSNPF and were properly reflected in its administrative records.

Arising from this internal audit the HSE has closed down the separate bank accounts of the HSNPF and subsumed all accounts payable functions into the mainstream HSE financial control systems. This report was completed last week, and based on its findings we now intend to further investigate all matters arising from the audit and the SIPTU investigation into the national health and local authority levy fund.

It is clear from all of the audit reports before the committee that there was a systemic failure to adhere to the financial, travel and procurement regulations of the HSE relating to the operation of both the SKILL programme and the HSE national partnership programme. The HSE has now subsumed both programmes within the HR directorate of the HSE, ensuring that appropriate HSE governance and accountability oversight is now in place. The HSE has also taken the appropriate steps required to ensure comprehensive compliance with its regulations on payments, travel and procurement and to address in full the recommendations of the internal audit reports and the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General to ensure these failures do not recur.

May we publish Mr. Magee's statement?

Mr. Cathal Magee

Yes.

Before I invite Deputy Shortall to pose questions I wish to make some comments. Today, we are examining this issue with the backdrop of chapter 37 of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General. For the record, we also have document No. 3.8 received on 8 December from Geraldine Tallon at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and which we dealt with previously. Ms Tallon is not present today but we expect to recall her because a number of issues arise from her report which we need to clarify. The report, which we received on 9 December, suggested that while €789,000 was paid into the SIPTU national health and local authority levy fund account, invoices are available to cover only €589,919. Along with this report we have document No. 3.1, a report from Ray Mitchell to which Mr. Magee referred; document No. 3.2, a report by Turlough O'Sullivan; document No. 3.3., a review of the involvement in the HSE SKILL project of the Department of Finance; and a document from the Department of Health and Children.

I want to refer to two other issues, one of which was mentioned earlier and concerns the role, or the lack of co-operation, of Mr. Alan Smith. There is on record a letter from him to the committee dated 9 December which, quite honestly, the committee classified as meaningless. However, if Mr. Smith wishes to exercise his right to come before the committee he can do so, or we may consider compelling him to appear before the committee.

Up to last evening, we were still awaiting the report from SIPTU and we have a bit of a vacuum today. We were expecting a report from SIPTU and until last evening we had heard nothing whatsoever from it on the long-awaited and promised report. In response to a telephone call from Mr. McHenry to SIPTU, a letter arrived from the general secretary outlining the position in which the union found itself. The letter has been published and is available for public scrutiny.

I find it impossible to understand how SIPTU's own investigation could be held up by an exercise undertaken by two individuals, one of whom is a paid official of SIPTU and the other a volunteer. These individuals commissioned a report by Grant Thornton but that report is not yet available to SIPTU, which for its own reasons feels unable to provide the committee with a report. Is this a stalling exercise and who is paying for the Grant Thornton report given that it was not authorised by SIPTU? One would think at this stage that SIPTU would have exercised its rights over the individuals concerned. We are in an unacceptable situation in that we do not have a report from SIPTU with the result that we will not be able to complete our deliberations today and will have to revisit the issue in January.

As I noted earlier, we are examining a number of reports and the committee has had to deal with reports which we only received in the past week. I find it very unsatisfactory that, even though the reports were available to the Department of Health and Children, Mr. Scanlan noted in his opening address that he had no time to consider them in detail. We expected him to have prepared for this meeting by giving the reports his priority consideration so that he could comment on them in detail if requested to do so.

The findings of the internal audit reports from the HSE and the Department of Finance, which are to be considered today, show our public and certain trade union officials in a poor light. They also cast a shadow over partnership. I am of the view that major changes will have to be introduced to the way we manage our affairs. The position of senior officials, especially in the HSE, have been compromised at a time when they will have to manage the difficult industrial relations environment that arises from the cutbacks to funding.

I take issue with much of Mr. Scanlan's opening statement. The Department of Health and Children was instrumental in agreeing a system of payments to a trade union official which was seen by his officials and staff in the HSE as a fund to facilitate overseas travel. The Department failed to put oversight in place in respect of these funds. We have to determine the exact circumstances which resulted in just over €4 million being paid into an unofficial account. I know of no other established democracy in the world where this could happen. Some of what we have read in respect of the partnership forum reminds me of what went on in FÁS in terms of overseas trips, credit card bills for pubs and restaurants, poor procurement practices and, above all, poor corporate governance. We also received two further reports on the SKILL programme which questioned its efficiency and effectiveness. Again, we see poor procurement and outsourcing of services that should have been provided in-house. The State deserves better from the senior officials who were involved in SKILL and the partnership forum.

In regard to the report by Mr. O'Sullivan, I welcome the insight he has provided on issues such as foreign travel but his investigation should have gone deeper into the issue of travel. I contrast his findings on the benefits of travel to places like Savannah with the document by the Department of Finance which made a nonsense of the idea that people were required to travel to Florida and elsewhere to partake in a programme which is extensively available in Ireland. What I find most disquieting is the failure of senior public officials to co-operate with the investigation. I mentioned Mr. Smith. The Department of Finance is entitled to feel let down by the actions of one of its officials. I would go as far as to say that a number of senior public servants have done the State a disservice by their actions. Alas, a number of them have retired, including some on enhanced pensions.

The internal audit function of the HSE uncovered many issues that must now be addressed. These issues present a huge challenge to Mr. Magee as he begins his tenure as chief executive. How did State funds end up in an unofficial account? How did senior officials not know that it was wrong to go on foreign trips and junkets paid for by a trade union with which they would have to negotiate in the future? We cannot let our examination of today's affairs go by without addressing the SIPTU report, when we get it, and the report from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, which we received recently.

I have outlined my view of what we have read and heard thus far. It is now up to us to get to grips with the contents of the reports we have before us. Deputy Shortall will start the proceedings.

I welcome the witnesses. What started out as a consideration of chapter 37 of last year's report from the Comptroller and Auditor General is developing into a much bigger investigation. Having spent several hours over recent days trying to follow the various reports and voluminous correspondence and paperwork, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that we are looking into a quagmire. Several different entities, including the health sector national partnership forum, the action plan for people management fund, the SIPTU national health and local authority levy fund, the SKILL programme and LANPAG, are involved in one way or another. All these entities are interrelated and huge amounts of public moneys were sloshing around between them. I have come to the conclusion that significant issues of accountability arise for the Departments of Finance and Health and Children and the HSE. The lack of public accountability for vast amounts of public money, involving at least €100 million and possibly much more, is shocking.

Issues clearly arise in respect of certain individuals, including two union officials, possibly one or more unions and those involved in the steering group for the SKILL programme. We will have to consider how we can address the issues that arise in respect of the individuals in question but I am concerned about what we are learning in regard to the lack of oversight by the two Departments and the HSE. Serious questions arise in regard to accountability and the audit function for large amounts of public money.

What has Mr. Scanlan learned since our last meeting? He will recall that when I asked him about moneys provided for various partnership related activities, he had difficulty in determining the origin of the decisions and allocations. In spite of the fact that the witness spoke to a number of people within the Department who had signed the cheques and so on with regard to those allocations, it is strange that nobody within the Department seemed to know why these significant sums of money were being paid into very strange entities. Has anything been discovered since the meeting of 7 October about why those allocations were made?

Mr. Michael Scanlan

To clarify, when I said the Department had not had the opportunity to study the reports fully, I meant that the Department and I had received a series of these reports recently and not everybody has had a chance to go through them and the records. I have read all of the reports and I am happy to speak today about each of them to the best of my knowledge. I have come prepared to do this but I make the point that in many cases these are internal audit reports and as I understand it they may or may not have gone through whatever the normal process is within the HSE.

With regard to Deputy Shortall's question, what I have found since is reflected in the report I sent to the committee. I accept the point made that if we consider the totality of funding, it is what the Deputy mentioned in €100 million, consisting of approximately €60 million on SKILL and €39 million or €40 million on partnership. I am not trying to belittle the amounts but the figure for the annual grant is only a part of that. I need to say that in fairness to the people concerned.

The best I could find is set out in the report. It is impossible to find a single common thread running through this but I found payments dating to 1998. The point I am trying to make is that there was a failure of governance, which I indicated the last day. If asked about the Department's role in this I accepted the Comptroller and Auditor General's finding that the manner in which the Department sanctioned this annual payment was partly if not largely to blame for the failure of governance around that payment. On the other hand I have tried in the report to explain that this was happening against a background of two factors; one was the policy of trying to develop partnership, which was only in its infancy in 1998 and 1999, and the other was the policy of trying to provide training and upskilling for a variety-----

With all due respect, I asked Mr. Scanlan about the specific allocations made into a fund controlled by two union officials. I asked if he discovered anything further on why those payments were made or how they were initiated.

Mr. Michael Scanlan

What I am trying to say is that to the best of my knowledge-----

Nobody is arguing about the other moneys. We are concerned about the €4 million.

The witness does not need to tell us about the background.

Mr. Michael Scanlan

That is what I am talking about too.

No, I am not asking about the background. I know the industrial relations background that existed. I am asking if Mr. Scanlan has established how those payments came to be made from the Department.

Mr. Michael Scanlan

What I am discussing only concerns the fund. It is not about the €100 million. The general background had two threads, one of which was partnership and one which was upskilling. Considering the descriptions used in the letters of sanction, both threads appear. Like the committee, in the absence of the SIPTU report I am not in a position to say how much of that money was spent on foreign visits. The committee asked about that point the last day.

All I am saying is that if, for argument's sake, 10% was spent on foreign travel, the issue is put in one context; if 90% was spent on foreign travel it may be put in another context. I do not know how much was spent on travel. To be fair to the Deputy, I cannot find any indication about why it was decided to make the payment into a SIPTU account as opposed to putting it into some other structure. All I can say is that I have managed as best I can to find a rationale for the payment but I have not found a reason for why the money was paid into the account. I should not say it was a SIPTU account, but a health and local authority levy account fund.

Irrespective of how it was spent, there are clear issues regarding the decision to allocate money into a fund controlled by two individuals.

Mr. Michael Scanlan

I agree.

No satisfactory explanation has been provided to us for that. In Turlough O'Sullivan's report, commissioned by the HSE, he indicates that it was clear there was political support for these allocations. We know this from a letter issued by the Minister for Health and Children in 2004, Deputy Micheál Martin, who wrote to a Mr. Matt Merrigan, assuring him funding would be continuing. We know at that stage the Minister was aware of the allocation and supportive of it continuing. These allocations were made going back to 1998 so there must have been political support. Various officials have been involved in signing off those allocations but officials would not have been in a position to make them unless there was ministerial support. Does the witness agree?

Mr. Michael Scanlan

I saw what Mr. O'Sullivan stated in his report. What I have done throughout this process is make available to the committee all the documents I could find. After the last meeting here and in advance of my report I sent copies of various documents to the committee, which included the letter to which the Deputy refers. There was also an e-mail in 2003. They are the only documents I have found which identify that the Minister was aware of something.

Does the witness accept it would have been highly unlikely that any official in the Department would have initiated an unorthodox allocation like this without ministerial approval, or that in subsequent years further officials would have made allocations? That would not have happened unless political support existed.

Mr. Michael Scanlan

I am trying to be fair and honest. I am inclined to say "Yes", to a point. As the Deputy has indicated, officials would have felt or wanted to feel that ministerial support existed for what went on. In fairness, I can find nothing on file to say that specific ministerial approval or authority was sought for particular payments. At the same time, the relevant Ministers over the years would have been very much involved in the development of the partnership and the action plan for people management in the health service by the Minister at the time. I am sure, for example, the first payment I have been able to find relates to the Tallaght hospital. Ministers would have been involved in the industrial relations in that respect but I can find nothing more on file.

Mr. O'Sullivan's report also referenced the fact that it was widely known within the health system that funding from the Department was available through SIPTU to fund foreign travel by officials as well as union officials and others. Would Mr. Scanlan concur with that view?

Mr. Michael Scanlan

I believe I would. In one of the statements which the committee asked me to provide from officers who sanctioned the payments, I was struck by reading that one of the officers correctly made the point that there was nothing hidden about the payments. They were known and issued in formal letters of determination. They were mentioned in some of the annual accounts published each year.

So it was known generally with the Department of Health and Children, the HSE and the Department of Finance, to a certain extent, that public money was available for foreign travel.

Mr. Michael Scanlan

I would broadly concur with what Mr. O'Sullivan has stated. I do not know any more details about that.

It is now established that several officials from the Department of Health and Children participated in junkets and questionable trips abroad funded by union officials. What is Mr. Scanlan's view of that practice and its appropriateness?

Mr. Michael Scanlan

Somebody recently told me that a junket is a trip in which one does not participate. The Deputy has indicated that these are questionable trips abroad but all I can do is repeat what I said in my opening statement. Mr. Turlough O'Sullivan seems to concur with the idea that the purpose of the trips - their joint management-union nature - does not seem to be untoward. Mr. O'Sullivan uses the word "unusual." However, what is untoward is the way in which they were funded, which is what I was trying to explain in my opening statement - the fact that they were being funded by Exchequer money that was essentially in the account to which Deputy Shortall refers - and that the trips were organised by a number of officials who, as I understand it, selected or invited the people to go on them. They were being part-funded from that account and part-funded, in the case of the Department officials, by the Department itself, and in the case of health board or HSE officials, by the HSE. That was unusual and untoward, and that is where there is a lack of accountability and transparency.

What is Mr. Scanlan's view on the appropriateness of officials from his Department going on foreign trips which are funded by an account controlled by union officials?

Mr. Michael Scanlan

I do not think it is appropriate.

Why was it allowed to continue?

Mr. Michael Scanlan

I do not know, other than that the individual trips were seen as worthwhile at the time.

Sorry; I am not asking for Mr. Scanlan's view on the worthiness or otherwise of the trips. I am asking his view on the appropriateness of officials from a Department going on foreign trips organised and funded by two union officials. Mr. Scanlan said he did not believe that was appropriate, and I am asking him why it was allowed to continue over so many years.

Mr. Michael Scanlan

I do not know.

For how many of those years was Mr. Scanlan Secretary General of the Department?

Mr. Michael Scanlan

From 2005 up to and including 2009. I signed off and approved some of those trips.

Did it ever occur to Mr. Scanlan that this may not have been appropriate - that there were conflicts involved?

Mr. Michael Scanlan

To be honest, the answer is "No." This goes back to the Deputy's earlier question as to whether I generally concurred with what Mr. O'Sullivan said about the state of knowledge in the system. I was not aware at that point of precisely how the health and local authority fund was set up, existed or was funded. What is questionable or inappropriate is how the fund was set up and funded, not the fact that there was a conflict because management and union people were going on trips together.

With all due respect, it is extraordinary that Mr. Scanlan's Department made an annual - sometimes more than annual - allocation to a fund without knowing why those allocations were being made, although he was aware that moneys from that fund, which was controlled by two union officials, were then used to pay for trips abroad for officials from his Department. Did no alarm bells ring throughout that period?

Mr. Michael Scanlan

To be clear about the facts, from 2005 onwards the Department did not make annual allocations, as I explained the last day. We issued the sanction in 2004. One of the questions the Deputy asked me was why it did not come to my notice in 2005, 2006, 2007 or 2008.

Was Mr. Scanlan not aware that the money had been routed through the HSE since 2005?

Mr. Michael Scanlan

No. The Deputy asked me this before. I accept the Department has, at a corporate level, responsibility for what happened before, but that would not have come to my personal attention because, by the time I arrived, the funding stream was in place in the HSE. The Deputy asked me whether I had a general awareness of the fact that such visits had taken place - yes, I had signed off on some of them - and was I aware that they were being organised by a SIPTU official - yes - but I was not familiar with the details of how the visits were being funded or how the account was being financed.

Did Mr. Scanlan never ask any questions about that?

Mr. Michael Scanlan

No.

That is not correct. The Department did know, because in 2004, when the HSE was not even there, it made arrangements to put it on a firmer footing. Is that correct?

Mr. Michael Scanlan

Yes.

Through what agency?

Mr. Michael Scanlan

Through the HSE.

The HSE from 2005.

From 2005 it was the HSE. What about 2004?

Mr. Michael Scanlan

The sanction that issued at the end of 2004 referred to the payments that would start to flow from 2005.

Was Mr. Scanlan aware of it?

Mr. Michael Scanlan

The Deputy asked me about when I arrived at the Department of Health and Children. I have said before that the Department was, in a corporate way, aware of it; the sanctions had issued. I am just making the point that from 2005 onwards the payments did not go through the Department - they were not being sanctioned annually by the Department. That was the only point I was making.

Was Mr. Scanlan aware of the continuation of the fund?

Mr. Michael Scanlan

As a Department, yes.

The allocations had been made for seven years by his Department, and the Minister for Health and Children had given an undertaking that they would continue-----

Mr. Michael Scanlan

Yes. As a Department-----

-----albeit through the HSE. Over an extended period of 12 or 13 years, these allocations were being made, and various officials in the Department were enjoying the foreign trips. Did it not occur to Mr. Scanlan at any stage to say that this was not really appropriate?

Mr. Michael Scanlan

As a Department we were aware of this, yes. And no, it did not occur to me.

All right, but as an individual senior official, was Mr. Scanlan aware of this practice?

Mr. Michael Scanlan

No.

I asked Mr. Scanlan that earlier. Mr. O'Sullivan said there was a general awareness of the existence of the fund, which was receiving public money and was controlled by two SIPTU officials for the purpose of funding foreign travel, and it was being used on a regular basis by officials from various Departments and State agencies.

Mr. Michael Scanlan

I need to distinguish whether the Deputy is asking me personally or corporately. At a personal level, I was not familiar with the fact that a sanction issued at the end of 2004 which covered the period from 2005 onwards. That is at a personal level, not a corporate level. Thereafter, this would not have featured within the Department's Vote. At a personal level, I signed off and approved the trips. I had a level of awareness that these trips were being organised by SIPTU, as I understood it - not by a SIPTU official - and that they were being part-funded by some SIPTU fund. I had a general awareness that the fund was in some way part of a partnership initiative. I was not familiar with all the details that we are now starting to uncover.

I understand that is what Mr. Scanlan is saying. He is stating here today that it was not appropriate for officials to go on such trips, and I am asking him whether it occurred to him at any stage to ask questions about this. Twelve or 13 years later he is saying it is not appropriate, but throughout those years did it occur to him to ask what was going on or think that it may not have been right?

Mr. Michael Scanlan

What I am saying is based on having taken out all the files and looked at all the papers. If the Deputy was to ask me - as she is, in a sense - whether it would be appropriate, by today's standards, to set up a system under which Exchequer funding went into a union account which was run in the way it was, and was, in turn, used to fund trips, I would say "No." That was not my state of knowledge at the time when I signed off three, four or five - I cannot quite remember - applications for foreign study visits.

Most people would think that by any standards, not just today's standards, it was not appropriate. It is extraordinary that it was allowed to continue for so many years. I want to direct that question to Mr. Moloney, with regard to Mr. Dowling from his Department.

Mr. David Moloney

There was an official of our Department who was involved in many of these study trips.

It was Mr. Dowling?

Mr. David Moloney

Yes.

How many of the trips did he go on?

Mr. David Moloney

The total number of trips, we now understand, is 16.

Mr. David Moloney

When we were before the committee the last day, the number given was slightly different, but more information has become available since then. The internal audit report that we have given to the committee sets out in more detail information from other sources. It still does not, as has been mentioned several times, include information on the SIPTU investigation, and therefore the information on trips is still incomplete.

Mr. Dowling went on at least 16 trips?

Mr. David Moloney

We have identified 16 that we believe he was on.

I ask Mr. Moloney the same question I asked Mr. Scanlan. What is his view on the appropriateness of a senior official from his Department participating in foreign trips funded through a strange route - an account controlled by two SIPTU officials?

Mr. David Moloney

In those terms, we would think, as the Secretary General of the Department of Health and Children said, that it was not appropriate. What we are trying to determine in our internal report is to what extent we knew that was the means of funding for those trips. As to a point of clarification on the comment by Turlough O'Sullivan about the general state of knowledge, I cannot speak for the state of knowledge of the person who was on the trips but my understanding is that at no stage did the supervisors know, or were of the view, that this money was coming from SIPTU and/or SIPTU officials. The assumption was different, namely, that it was a HSE-funded trip. Therefore, I am not aware-----

Who made that assumption?

Mr. David Moloney

My understanding is that the supervisors of the official on the trips were not aware the funding related to SIPTU and/or SIPTU officials. In terms of the internal audit and what we know from supervisors, we have no information that suggests management in the Department knew it was being funded by SIPTU or by SIPTU officials.

Not even an official from FÁS went on 16 trips during such a period. It is extraordinary that a senior official from Mr. Moloney's Department went abroad at least 16 times. Surely that drew some attention within the Department.

Mr. David Moloney

Yes, Deputy, that is correct. Information gathered in terms of the internal audit points out that in 2008, which would have been after eight trips, if memory serves me, a question was raised by the supervisor about the appropriateness and value for money of the trips. The table within the internal audit report points out that travel claims had been made to the Department of Finance in respect of those eight trips and subsequently travel claims were not made against the Department of Finance. We understand from the internal audit report that the subsequent trips were paid for or reimbursed by SIPTU. We do not have information on that.

Did nobody ask the reason this person was going on so many trips and who was paying for them?

Mr. David Moloney

It would appear from the internal audit report that subsequent trips were not necessarily taken on work time but at a time when the officer would not necessarily have been-----

However, it was still known he was going on the trips.

Mr. David Moloney

In terms of the internal audit report in respect of four of the trips, we do not have even now, any records on file to show he was on those trips.

Nonetheless it was known within the Department that he was going on trips.

Mr. David Moloney

Of the eight trips for which there was a travel claim and which were authorised by supervisors-----

I am talking about the other trips.

Mr. David Moloney

In terms of the following eight trips-----

Did he claim subsistence from the Department for the first eight trips?

Mr. David Moloney

Yes, for those trips.

Who paid for the flight tickets and the hotels?

Mr. David Moloney

They were not claimed for and my understanding is there was an assumption the HSE paid.

This is crazy. Did no alarm bells ring when an official went off on eight trips and claimed travel and subsistence from the Department yet nobody knew who was paying for the flights and the hotels? He went on a further eight trips for which he made no claim. Did nobody ask questions about why this was going on and whether it was appropriate?

Mr. David Moloney

Questions were asked about the eight trips we knew about and for which claims were made, which were authorised in 2008 by his supervisors.

Did anybody ask who paid for the hotels and flights?

Mr. David Moloney

I am not aware of any specific questions of that nature.

Ms Oonagh Buckley

Perhaps I can help. From my memory of the files, on at least two occasions the official advised the supervisors the cost would be met from within health funds but did not specify the routing of those funds. There was no knowledge by supervisors within the Department of Finance of the involvement of SIPTU in any element of paying for that. He indicated the cost of the flights and hotels were being met from within health funds and it was on that basis that his supervisors approved the additional costs of subsistence and the other minor claims involved.

When somebody goes on 16 trips in that space of time - for goodness sake-----

Mr. David Moloney

I absolutely accept there is a weakness-----

What did the delegates think was going on?

Mr. David Moloney

We did not know about all the trips but I accept there is a weakness in the control environment, in particular around the rules in place in regard to trips that are paid for by third parties. The travel guidelines in the Department did not directly address situations where no claim was being made against the Department. The internal audit report points out that weakness. The report has been accepted by the Accounting Officer and will be implemented and we will move to correct that control weakness.

There are issues about the inappropriateness of union officials organising trips for senior civil servants. Another issue is the overall question of whether it is appropriate for public money to be used to treat people, senior civil servants or anybody else, to trips. This was the case with FÁS where the Minister, a number of politicians and different hangers on were treated to trips abroad with public money. What are the guidelines now in regard to that practice?

Mr. David Moloney

The internal audit report has pointed out the weakness in that the travel guidelines do not incorporate-----

I am not asking about the internal audit report but about what the Department of Finance is doing, having as it does responsibility for ensuring proper procedures are followed in these matters.

Mr. David Moloney

On foot of the internal audit report we want to roll out new procedures in regard to travel paid for by third parties.

Only now is this being done.

Mr. David Moloney

On foot of the evidence that has been brought forward.

What about the evidence that came out in regard to FÁS?

Mr. David Moloney

As I recall, some amendments to the travel policy were initiated on foot of the FÁS recommendations from the committee.

Can Mr. Moloney tell us what changes took place?

Mr. David Moloney

I can find that out for the Deputy. I am not directly responsible for the travel policy but my recollection is that there were some changes.

I would have thought that coming here today, delegates would have been aware of the travel policy and what changes, if any, have taken place, given that the issue under discussion was well-flagged.

On the SKILL programme, I believe Mr. Attley was chairman of the steering group which oversaw the SKILL programme.

Mr. William Attley

Yes, that is correct.

How long was he in that position?

Mr. William Attley

From about 2005 until 2009.

Mr. Attley was not at our last meeting when we discussed the findings of the Comptroller and Auditor General in regard to the poor oversight of that programme. Many questions were raised in respect of poor corporate governance in regard to the allocation of money, procurement, the oversight of staff, the allocations made to the SIPTU fund, and so on. Does Mr. Attley wish to make a statement at the outset in response to the findings of the Comptroller and Auditor General?

Mr. William Attley

I already submitted a letter to the committee setting out my response to the report by the Comptroller and Auditor General. I draw the attention of the Deputy to the Comptroller and Auditor General's conclusion at the end of the report which made the point very strongly that we had carried out our role and function diligently. I make that point at the beginning. The role of the steering group was not one of an executive authority and it was clearly set out in our terms of reference that it was not so. We had a specific role and function which we fulfilled and which did not include any question of corporate governance in respect of the management of staff or the financial allocations made by those staff. That was absolutely clear-----

What was the role of the steering group?

Mr. William Attley

It is set out very clearly. It was to develop the programmes, roll them out and ensure that they met FETAC accreditation. That was the basic role of the steering group. It had no other role or function and it fulfilled this role in an exemplary fashion. It was the first time in the history of the Irish health service that a systematic training programme had been put in place for 30,000 people. It was a blank sheet. The job the steering group had was to fill out that blank sheet, make sure the training programmes put in place met FETAC accreditation and were rolled out and implemented in the health services. The job of the steering group was to fill out that blank sheet, ensure the training programmes put in place met FETAC accreditation and that they were rolled out and implemented in the health services. As the Deputy will see from our terms of reference, which I submitted to the committee, we were specifically excluded from having any executive function. We had no control over the staff or the finances; that was a matter to be put in place by the HSE. I am not privy to all the information, some of which I am hearing for the first time today in these reports, but I understand from reading newspapers and the reports of the committee that the HSE has indicated this is the case and that it had total responsibility for this area.

During the period between 2004 and 2009 some €47 million was allocated to the SKILL programme. Did Mr. Attley have any concerns about the governance at SKILL?

Mr. William Attley

No, we did not have any concerns. We had a project team based in the old employers' organisation and there was a reporting line for staff through it. We were informed continually that all the things we were doing and all the financial transactions carried out were being done through the HSE internal financial operation and that these were subject to the Comptroller and Auditor General. I inquired about this matter as recently as 2008. There is a minute, which I could not find in my papers, to this effect. It indicates that the general manager, who was at assistant director level, indicated to us that the bimonthly report of all financial matters was sent continually to HSE corporate and was subject to the Comptroller and Auditor General. I asked whether the Comptroller and Auditor General raised any questions about this and I was told "No". To answer the Deputy's question, we raised questions occasionally about whether what was supposed to be done was done. Other than that, we did not have a role.

Can Mr. Attley explain to us how he raised the questions about whether the things that were supposed to be done were done?

Mr. William Attley

We received a monthly report of the spend - the money spent on training. On several occasions when we reached that section of the agenda I asked whether the procedure was in place, namely, the bimonthly report of HSE corporate. I was told "Yes". When the audit was under way I would ask questions such as, "Has there been any feedback from the Comptroller and Auditor General about these reports?" and I was told "No".

To whom did Mr. Attley ask these questions?

Mr. William Attley

The general manager.

Was that Mr. Smith?

Mr. William Attley

Yes.

I refer to the overall programme. Mr. Attley had responsibility for ensuring that the programme delivered what it was supposed to deliver. Some €47 million was allocated during those years to provide upskilling for 32,000 staff in the health services. How many of those staff were trained?

Mr. William Attley

Yesterday, I rang to find out because I anticipated the question was likely to be asked. I was informed that when the cohort in the programme at the moment comes out in the middle or towards the end of next year, some 9,000 staff will be trained. These staff are being trained to the highest level. Let us remember that 30,000 people are in place, one third of whom are early school leavers. The remainder would probably have little-----

One third of the staff in the health services are early school leavers?

Mr. William Attley

Yes, because of the historical nature of recruitment. Many of these people have remained with the service all their lives. They came from school or were early school leavers and entered the health services 20, 30 or 40 years ago. They were asked to return to an education system from which they had been absent for 20 or 30 years. The remaining two thirds would have reasonable levels of education but never up to the leaving certificate. Of the 9,000 that will come out of this programme, the majority will have a FETAC level 5 award, the equivalent of an honours leaving certificate award. That is the nature of the achievement.

As part of the process, I insisted that we should go to the hospitals to hold the meetings. We heard from these people and their management about the effect of the training on a regular basis. In every case, the staff and the management of the hospitals believed it was a fantastic programme and that it had made a significant difference to people's attitude and absenteeism. More important, of the 30,000 who entered the programme, some spent up to two years of their lives working in the health service and doing this programme. Then they went back to take on extra work and responsibility. In the six years I was involved in the programme I met hundreds of these people. I attended their graduations where they had come with their families and were dressed in gowns and caps. It was a day of pride for them. Not once during the entire time did anyone raise the question of seeking extra remuneration for this. These are the best people in the public service and they perform in the best interests and traditions of the public service, not the kind of public service in the media daily.

The theory is fine.

Mr. William Attley

It is not a theory, it is a practice.

I am saying the theory is fine. Is there data to support it? What evaluation has been done?

Mr. William Attley

There was continual evaluation of the programmes. Outside consultants carried out an evaluation. Pearn Kandola was in. I am not saying it was an absolutely superb programme or that it was adopted overall in the health service. There was resistance to the programme by certain management and hospitals within the HSE and there was a lack of leadership in small areas with regard to ensuring the people who were trained and who went back were allowed to take on the fold and functions. That is the situation and reports exist to show it. The real issue is that in each instance where we spoke to management apostles, we asked whether the programme had an impact on the care of the patient in the hospital. On every occasion we got a positive result. In addition, programmes were audited and a range of consultancies were brought in to examine these programmes.

The theory is fine, but we are unsure whether that happened in practice. It would be interesting to see data to support those claims. One audit finding from the Comptroller and Auditor General's report with regard to external training costs related to a sample of 25 module delivery sheets which were cross-checked against the related database. Some 72% of the sample did not reconcile with the attendance figures on the database. The finding further suggests that this raises concerns regarding the accuracy of the database and the output figures reported. That was one of several concerns raised by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Mr. William Attley

I see.

That is why I am saying that the theory is fine with regard to funding to upskill people with low skill levels and qualifications but there is no doubt there were serious problems with the manner in which the programme operated. There were serious deficiencies in the level of oversight. Does Mr. Attley accept this was the case?

Mr. William Attley

I do not know what the Deputy means by oversight. The people overseeing the programme were SKILLVEC. It oversaw the programme. The project group consisted of three people. That is all the project group had in addition to the steering group.

Mr. William Attley

Every one of the outside or outsourced training projects went to State companies. The VEC carried out the training. If there was a deficiency, as the Comptroller and Auditor General has suggested, it should have been picked up by the SKILLVEC people. They were supplying-----

Mr. William Attley

Let me answer the question.

You were the steering group overseeing the spending of €47 million on training. There was a clear responsibility on the steering group to ensure the money was being spent properly.

Mr. William Attley

Yes, on the face of it. The information that comes back to us from the VECs is the information we get and we never got that information.

The implication, then, is that you are taking the word of other outside organisations that everything is all right.

Mr. William Attley

No, consultants went in and looked at it. It may have come from a consultancy report many years ago. When that was brought to our attention we made efforts to correct it. I am not 100% sure but from memory I think it came out of a report by one of our own consultants looking directly at the activity of the VEC.

We could spend the whole meeting on the SKILL programme and the difficulties that have been identified with it by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

An allocation was made from the SKILL programme to the SIPTU levy fund. Why was that made?

Mr. William Attley

The Deputy asked that question of Mr. Scanlan. Why is she asking me?

I am asking about an allocation that was made of €1.5 million by the programme to the SIPTU fund. Why was that allocation made?

Mr. William Attley

On no occasion in the six years I was chairman, and I only missed one meeting, was any report made to the SKILL programme steering group that there was any allocation of the funds made available to SKILL sent to anyone other than those contracted: the VEC, UCD and the Centre for Nursing Training. We never had a report or discussion on that.

Mr. William Attley

No.

You were aware people on the steering group, as well as officials employed by the SKILL programme, were participating in regular trips abroad.

Mr. William Attley

No.

You were not aware?

Mr. William Attley

I am retired for 13 years in April. I would come in to a meeting and meet the general manager before it. I would ask what issues would arise and would deal with the issues on the agenda.

Are you saying to me that you were not aware that members of the steering group and employees of the SKILL programme were going on foreign trips on a regular basis?

Mr. William Attley

The first time I was aware of the fact they were going on foreign trips, and I am talking about the SKILL programme, not the SIPTU fund, specifically HSE SKILL training - the only area of which I have knowledge, I want to be very clear about that - was when I read it in the papers.

Correct me if I am wrong, was an allocation made from the SKILL programme to the fund?

It was paid by HSE.

Mr. William Attley

It was paid by the HSE, not by us.

But you were not aware of that money going into the fund?

Mr. William Attley

I said at the outset we were specifically excluded under our terms of reference from the financial operation. It would be put in place by the HSE, controlled by it and we were continually told that if we had a minor discussion about finance, it was the job of the HSE. The position within the HSE is that it does not have the right to delegate to anyone control for its vote. We were told that on a number of occasions.

Just on that, my reading of it is that it was "top sliced", where the money was taken by the Department of Health and Children before your allocation was made.

Mr. Michael Scanlan

Yes, Chairman, that is absolutely correct.

How many of the steering group went on foreign trips?

Mr. William Attley

I only know from what I hear this morning and from what I read in the newspapers how many went.

You were not involved in any of the trips yourself?

Mr. William Attley

Not with the HSE, no. I only had control of the steering group under the terms of reference we were given. We operated fully within them and each time we sought to go outside of them, we were told we had to step back in. I missed one meeting and at it two people from the staff wanted to do a course. The steering group approved their application and when it went into the HSE, we were told bluntly that we did not have the authority to spend money like that, that we had no authority to spend money on anything other than the training programme as specified within our terms of reference.

I welcome our guests here this morning. From reading the files and listening to the testimony given in response to Deputy Shortall's questions, what went on is mind-boggling. Having read the files, the only conclusion I can draw is that part of the price of industrial peace was that funding would be provided by the taxpayer for jollies for many of those involved in the partnership process, particularly in the health sector.

Looking at the concluding remarks by both Mr. Scanlan and Mr. Magee, Mr. Scanlan referred to the absence of appropriate governance and financial accountability for Exchequer funding and Mr. Magee refers to a systemic failure to adhere to the financial, travel and procurement regulations of the HSE relating to both the operation of the SKILL programme and the HSE national partnership programme. Those are fairly devastating conclusions. Have there been consequences for individuals involved in all of this?

Mr. Michael Scanlan

In the case of the Department, the failure at the first hearing was not to define and explain the purpose and expected outputs of the annual grant. After that, and it was acknowledged at the first meeting here, it was entirely normal practice for those grants to be allocated to individual health boards or health agencies and for them to put in place arrangements around the detailed administrative financial governance. It was acknowledged here that the inquiries the committee is conducting demonstrate there was failure there also.

We are well aware there were failures but I asked about individuals involved who clearly failed in their public duty. Have there been disciplinary consequences for those involved?

Mr. Michael Scanlan

I also made it clear in my opening statement that while there was a failure to clarify the purpose and outputs of the grants, I did not believe there was any impropriety or irregularity on the part of the individual officials who, over successive years, had sanctioned these one-off payments.

Is that the limit of a person's responsibility, that there would not be any impropriety? Surely responsibility extends far beyond that to ensure there is proper governance and proper procedures are used in the disbursement of public money. Clearly that was not the case in this situation. You are speaking in generalities. We refer to systemic failure and failure of governance, but behind governance and systems are people and there appear to be no consequences. Many of the front line workers in the health service will despair when they hear this evidence and look at the reports in the media about foreign travel and it appears there are no consequences for anyone.

Mr. Michael Scanlan

There are two important issues here. In terms of the individuals who issued the sanctions, I do not believe what they did would warrant disciplinary action. That is why I used the phrase "impropriety or irregularity", I do not think the issue arises. Was it best practice in terms of issuing sanctions? No it was not. As I also explained in the report I sent to the committee, in any given year this was only one of a myriad of such sanctions that went out. The second question, which is the most important, is what damage this is doing to the SKILL programme itself? Several Deputies asked this question on the last occasion. To protect the integrity of that programme it is important to distinguish between the two parts, as Mr. Attley has done. Out of the total sum of money, the annual payment from 2005 to 2009 was €1.25 million, an unknown proportion of that was spent on foreign travel, whereas the vast bulk of it was spent on training and upskilling the staff. It is important that be recognised - that is not to understate the failures about the annual grant. It would be a shame for it to undermine the success or the value of the SKILL programme. The Chairman correctly said it was top-----

Much of the money was spent on back-filling posts - we do not really know what happened.

Mr. Michael Scanlan

That is an entirely different issue. My understanding on that - the Chairman may want to ask the HSE - is that because these were front line staff who were being sent off on training courses they had to be replaced and Mr. Attley may know this better than me. I am merely saying that the foreign travel element was a proportion of a total of €1.25 million from the period 2005 onwards out of a much larger sum of money that was spent essentially on buying training courses and covering the cost of staff who went on those courses.

Deputy McGrath asked a question about consequences. Did any of the people who sanctioned those trips go on the trips?

Mr. Michael Scanlan

The last time I appeared before the committee I gave the names of all those who issued the sanctions and all those who were on the trips.

Did some of the people who sanctioned the money go on the trips?

Mr. Michael Scanlan

Yes, to my knowledge.

Will the Secretary General name them, please?

Mr. Michael Scanlan

I will have to do the collation here.

While the Secretary General does that I ask Mr. Attley to continue.

Mr. William Attley

I will reply to Deputy Shortall in a moment but on the issue of back-filling. As the Secretary General of the Department said, that was a matter of great contention for us. Once the money went away from the actual training into back-filling it reduced our ability to put the numbers through. It was quite clear, particularly in the health care area, that these were essential services provided by these people. It was made clear to us by the various hospitals and all those participating that they could not be released without people being taken on. Therefore they needed to do back-filling. There was a long discussion over many months as to the level of back funding. At the end of the day, the employers and the unions discussed with the hospitals an appropriate back-filling allowance. The allowance that came to us was an appropriate allowance which would allow them fill the positions vacated by those who went out.

On the question of foreign trips, I said that on no occasion in the six years did the steering group approve a trip. I did not go on it. The staff may have gone, as I said. So that there is no confusion-----

Is is true that members of the steering group went as well?

Mr. William Attley

Members of the steering group went to where?

Did they participate in some of the trips?

Mr. William Attley

Yes. This is the point I want to clarify for the Deputy. The steering group comprised a representative of the Department of Finance, a representative of the HSE, and a representative of the unions. It was their programme and they were the driving force behind it. Obviously they were in day to day discussions with the HSE and the steering group. I suspect the trip arose out of those discussions. Any proposal suggesting trips to the United Kingdom or anywhere else in respect of SKILLS was never brought to the attention of the steering group.

Mr. Attley was obviously aware of the fund.

Mr. William Attley

Which fund?

The SIPTU national health and local authority levy fund.

Mr. William Attley

No. I said to the Deputy before-----

Was Mr. Attley not aware of the fund?

Mr. William Attley

I do not know how many times I have say this to the Deputy.

I did not ask Mr. Attley that question before.

Mr. William Attley

The Deputy did.

I did not ask whether Mr. Attley was aware of the existence of the fund.

Mr. William Attley

I said in the course of my reply, how could I be aware of the fund because-----

Everybody else seemed to be aware of it.

Mr. William Attley

Everybody else on a day to day basis is dealing with the health services. That is their job. This is not my job.

Was Mr. Attley not aware that two SIPTU officials controlled this secret fund?

Mr. William Attley

No, until such time as it became available in the media through the internal audit.

Did Mr. Attley not know it existed before then?

Mr. William Attley

No.

Mr. William Attley

It is not strange.

It is strange that everybody else knew that.

The witness is saying he was not aware of it so we have to-----

Mr. William Attley

The second issue was on foreign travel. I was approached in, I think, 1997 by Mr. Merrigan who said that a Department of Health and Children delegation was going to Boston for a conference. It had a request from those organising it asking if it could find somebody involved in the social partnership process to come and talk about the social partnership aspect. He asked if I would participate. I inquired how it was being funded and he told me it was being funded by the Department as Department officials were going, it would be a three day event and an economy class ticket would pay for the hotel, but one had to pay for one's own food and such like. I participated in that conference. That was a Department of Health and Children approved trip and I was asked as an appendage to go and speak about social partnership. I did not want to have any confusion about that.

I reiterate that never in the six years did the steering group approve foreign travel, or have an application before it for foreign travel or was it aware of the foreign travel.

Getting back to Deputy McGrath. Perhaps Mr. Scanlan would respond to the question I put to him.

Mr. Michael Scanlan

Yes, Chairman. As far as I can establish there were four officials who at various times over the period issued sanctions and at various differing times had been on trips. Mr. Tony Morris who was on a visit in 2004 was involved in sanctioning the payment I found most recently in 1998. He issued a sanction in 1998 and would have been on a visit in 2004. Mr. Frank Ahern, whose name came up before, signed a sanction in 2002, and according to the Department's records was on a visit in 2005, and Mr. Denis O'Sullivan issued a-----

Say that again. He went on a number of trips subsequently after retiring.

Mr. Michael Scanlan

Yes. I agree with the Chairman. In terms of the ten visits made while he was in the Department's employment-----

The point I am making is that he made more than one visit.

Mr. Michael Scanlan

Yes, the Chairman is right. Mr. Denis O'Sullivan who signed a sanction letter in 2004, to the best of my knowledge, was on two visits - one to Indianapolis in 2004 and one to New York in 2006. Mr. Bernard Carey, who signed the sanction in November 2004 - which we talked about before and which that related to 2005 onwards - was on five of the visits.

The essential point - this is a theme we revisit week after week - is the lack of any consequences of failure. We have an accepted failure of appropriate governance, a failure of financial accountability, a failure to comply with financial travel and procurement regulations. If that were to happen in the private sector I do not need to tell Mr. Scanlan what would happen - heads would roll. It seems - and this has been acknowledged - there have been no consequences for any individuals involved because essentially they did not break any law. There was no impropriety involved but that is not good enough. This was public money which was involved. My question will extend to the issue of the €4 million that went into the unofficial SIPTU account. The front line workers who work very hard for reasonable pay will despair when they hear that. If there are no consequences of failure, what is the incentive for people in the public service and in the health service to do their job properly?

Mr. Michael Scanlan

I have answered the question the Deputy asked me about consequences.

Yes. Both Mr. Magee, whom I have sympathy for because he is new to the job, and Mr. Scanlan have accepted a failure of governance, a failure of financial accountability and a failure to adhere to the financial travel and procurement regulations. What happens as a result of that?

Mr. Michael Scanlan

To be clear, I did not say there was a failure to adhere to the travel regulations.

Mr. Michael Scanlan

I am just saying from the Department's point of view and in terms of the procurement, that would not have been an issue for the Department. What I said, and I said it at the first hearing, was that I accepted the Comptroller and Auditor General's finding that the manner in which the annual grant was sanctioned was not sufficiently clear and that, combined with other things, led to a failure in governance.

Does Mr. Magee wish to comment?

Mr. Cathal Magee

In response to the Deputy, this investigation is work in progress. It is not complete.

Regarding the SKILL programme, we have the audit report. We have the report by Mr. Turlough O'Sullivan commissioned by the Health Service Executive, HSE, but a very important piece to complete this is the outcome of the SIPTU internal investigation to ensure we have full transparency around the use to which the moneys that went into the SIPTU local authority levy fund were put. Therefore, in terms of HSE staff we are not in a position to conclude a definitive position.

Regarding the partnership forum, in the interest of the work of the committee that report was completed last week. We will conduct our own investigation into the outcome of that report but I am also cautious and conscious that until we have transparency and access to the administration records of the SIPTU fund we have an incomplete picture. I reserve judgment on all of these issues from an audit point of view until that complete picture is available, and we will then make decisions, following due process, about what should follow.

I share with the Deputy the view that these are damaging issues for the reputation of the HSE and for the service. It is regrettable because there is no argument that the intent and the value of investing in the training and development of the support staff in the health system is critical and needs to continue, and there must be confidence around the way we execute and discharge that.

Moving on to the issue of foreign travel, which appears to be a common theme running through the various reports, there was extensive foreign travel involved and various study visits. The United States of America appears to be a favoured destination. I note the director of the Health Services National Partnership Forum, HSNPF, Mr. Walsh, was involved in various trips including a trip to New York around St. Patrick's Day 2004 and 2005 and that a total of 33 people went on a study trip to New York. Was that appropriate or necessary? Looking through the foreign travel reports and itinerary, much of it reads like the RTE series, "No Frontiers". Was it necessary for this many people to go on these trips?

Mr. Seán McGrath

On that issue, the internal audit report, as the CO said, was finished just last week and therefore we need to investigate that trip about which the Deputy is talking. That relates to the Health Service National Partnership Forum.

Mr. Seán McGrath

We have outlined several trips in the past sitting around SKILL, which is 16 in total, but that one we have identified in the internal audit. One of them is the one to which the Deputy refers. That is work in progress from our end.

To refer back to the unofficial SIPTU accounts into which in excess of €4 million was paid, will Mr. Scanlan indicate if we are any clearer at this stage as to the rationale for the original decision or who made the original decision to begin the process of approving funding being released into this account? Are we any clearer on the origin of that at this stage?

Mr. Michael Scanlan

Other than what I have already said to the committee and provided in the report, that is the best clarity I can bring to it. If one looks at it in terms of order of magnitude of how much money went in, probably the most important sanction was the November 2004 sanction the Chairman has referenced because from then on we were talking about €0.25 million, or five years. The vast bulk of it, therefore, went in from then on, although the account, as we now know, goes back many years. As we are starting to discover, and I explained this on the last day, if one looks at the sanctions, if memory serves me only one or two refer even to SIPTU, never mind the account. The vast bulk of it went in from then and the letter of sanction I mentioned in my opening statement said there were two purposes: joint management-union partnership and, I believe, training and development.

How did that work its way into Mr. Scanlan's budget in 1998 when this started? I appreciate Mr. Scanlan was not in his current position at that time but how did it come about that money would be released into an unofficial SIPTU account as far back as then? From the extent of the evidence and the information available to Mr. Scanlan, how was that position arrived at?

Mr. Michael Scanlan

It would not have been known at that stage that it was getting into an unofficial SIPTU account but that being said, pre the HSE, all of the funding for the health services came in from the Dáil into the Department of Health Vote. The vast bulk of it was allocated at the start of the year to the individual health boards, the Eastern Regional Health Authority and the other voluntary hospitals who got separate letters of determination pre the Eastern Regional Health Authority.

There tended to be, as I understand it, what was called held-back funding for a variety of sources and over the course of the year that money would be allocated by different divisions in the Department. I am subject to correction because this is just my best knowledge of it but money might be held for disability services, for example, and during the course of the year the unit dealing with disability would then tell the finance unit how to distribute that among the different health boards.

In the space we are operating in here, my understanding is that this money would have been held back in what would be called the external HR-IR part of the Department. In any given year, quite significant sums of money could be distributed during the course of the year on foot of pay awards made during the year. That would have been a very regular occurrence in the way the system was funded. One would not fund the system in advance of getting details of the calculation of the pay costs.

I was trying to give the committee a sense of the amount of money in one year, as mentioned in our report, and the number of agencies to which it went. I have given the committee the very detailed letters of determination. One then finds this appears perhaps once in every year and as I said, I am not 100% certain but I found two of those in 1998, one in 1999 and I had previously given the committee details of one in 2000 and one in 2001. They are individual sanctions in the middle of all of that funding.

On the reference in the Turlough O'Sullivan report to the fact that it was widely known within the health system that funding from the Department was available through SIPTU to fund foreign travel by officials, as well as union officials and others, was that the general view within the Department? Was there acceptance that it was known within the Department that funding was available and was being expended in this way to facilitate travel?

Mr. Michael Scanlan

I do not know. Sitting here I cannot describe the general sense of knowledge within the Department. Turlough O'Sullivan has said it. As I said earlier, I would have signed off on the individual claims to travel and I would have known that what was being sought from the Department was subsistence. I would not have known the exact nature of the funding into this account. I certainly would not have known that it was an unofficial SIPTU account.

Deputy Jim O'Keeffe took the Chair.

What work is outstanding on this area? As Mr. Magee said, the SIPTU report is awaited. What further work needs to be done by the Department, the HSE or the Department of Finance for Mr. Scanlan to conclude his consideration of the issues involved?

Mr. Michael Scanlan

I probably should have said to the committee that I, too, met SIPTU at its request and I got a letter late yesterday evening indicating that it is proceeding with its investigation. That is my main interest. I am concerned at the way in which the perception prevails - at least until the SIPTU material comes out - that the vast majority of the annual grant, never mind the SKILL programme, was spent on foreign visits. I would like to see that material. There was a series of recommendations in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, one of which, the recommendation on travel guidelines, was mentioned earlier. It seems there are other recommendations in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report that we need to examine in terms of learning lessons from this and applying them elsewhere.

Mr. Cathal Magee

There are three key areas and, having received the partnership report, one of those areas is to conduct an investigation into the outcome of that report. We also have to complete our investigation into the SKILL programme. Both those areas depend on the input of the conclusion of the SIPTU investigation. The third area is a value for money review of the SKILL training programme, the current phase of which runs up to the end of April. Therefore, a value for money process is under way to determine how we move forward the skill and development of the support staff in the health system into the future and what structures we need to put in place to underpin that. That is the work.

From the point of view of the Department of Finance, what are the lessons learned and what work needs to be completed?

Mr. David Moloney

As other witnesses have said, we need to finish our fact-finding elements in regard to the SIPTU report but the internal audit report, which we have received, has a number of recommendations and the Accounting Officer intends to proceed with implementing those immediately. The recommendations of the Comptroller and Auditor General and of the Committee of Public Accounts will inform the future response to the issues raised. I will conclude on that note.

I have a few questions. Do all the witnesses understand the perception we on the committee have that in regard to these matters there is something rotten in the state of Denmark? There is unexplained expenditure of public moneys. Do they accept that is where we are at still in regard to these transactions?

Mr. Cathal Magee

Yes.

Does Mr. Scanlan accept that?

Mr. Michael Scanlan

Absolutely. The absence of the rest of the information is perhaps understandably causing that perception.

A vital piece of the jigsaw, that of the SIPTU report, is outstanding. Have we any idea when that report will be available to enable us to get a comprehensive picture of the position?

Mr. Cathal Magee

I recently met the trustee subcommittee, the head of finance administration, the financial adviser and the general secretary of SIPTU who are working on this. They have a number of investigation elements under way. I understand it will be the new year before they expect to complete their report. They may want to interface with our internal audit staff to have access to the insight from our internal audit function as to how this fund operated and we understand that process will be set up. I understand the report will be completed in the new year but we do not have a date for that.

Now that the witnesses are aware of the multitude of questions arising on these matters, is it possible to get from the Department or the HSE a comprehensive analysis of what happened, from where the money came, what was done with it and whether the taxpayer got a reasonable return on that expenditure? Would such a report highlight who was responsible for incurring expenditure or its authorisation where it was inappropriately authorised? Will this committee get such a comprehensive analysis and, if so, from whom?

Mr. Cathal Magee

At the first meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts on this matter on 7 October, the HSE and I, as Accounting Officer, committed to come back to the committee today on the four investigations we have reported on and which were submitted to the committee last Friday. When we see the complete picture arising on completion of the SIPTU investigation, we will try to piece together the totality of this issue from point of view of the SKILL programme and that of a partnership forum and bring forward a synthesis of that based on the various individual reports that have emerged.

Mr. Michael Scanlan

In terms of SIPTU, I reiterate that I also met SIPTU at its request on 10 November. The individuals I met were as anxious as I believe this committee is to get to the bottom of what was going on and to finish their investigation. They were very conscious of the damage to reputation in this respect. I met them at their request. I provided whatever documentation I could to them and said I would be happy to do anything more that I could to help them bring that to a conclusion.

On the Acting Chairman's second question, I would be happy to commit with Mr. Magee, as per his suggestion, that when we have all the facts we would bring forward a single joint assessment of the totality of the position.

Does Mr. Scanlan understand the continuing public disquiet about this? We are merely representing the public here. That disquiet has not been assuaged or allayed to any great degree during the course of the proceedings to date or up to today?

Mr. Michael Scanlan

Mr. Magee may have a view on this but my short answer is that I do. This vacuum of the lack of completeness of information is very unfortunate and certainly it does not help. It may not be popular to say this but that continuing disquiet is also damaging the reputation of some individual civil servants in the Department who have put in very long days and very hard work. Because of the lack of the total picture, which the Acting Chairman has sought, the Department, the HSE and the SKILL programme are being damaged. The total picture is needed. There are obviously flaws but I agree with the Acting Chairman's point that there is disquiet about this.

Does Mr. Magee want to add a further comment before I call Deputy Rabbitte?

Deputy Bernard Allen resumed the Chair.

What is Mr. Scanlan's perception at the end of 2010 of the impact of these programmes on the industrial relations climate? Pretty much everybody has said that the fundamental purpose of these programmes was to improve the industrial relations climate and so on. Has that been achieved?

Mr. Michael Scanlan

That is a big and a difficult question. When I was in the Department of Finance, I was involved in industrial relations in the health services at the time of the nurses' dispute at the end of negotiations on the PCW. In putting all this together, I cannot help but remember endless nights spent down in the LRC where my first encounter was an actual strike by paramedics, followed by a threatened strike by radiographers, laboratory technicians, a threatened strike by non-nursing staff and craft workers. On and on it went. There is a public view on this and I want to be careful not to get into policy issues but, having been involved in the discussions in Croke Park and the preceding ones in Government Buildings, there was, at a personal or relationship level, an attitude that we would not necessarily agree but we could work together. In the case of the health sector, I believe the programme of change that we got from the Croke Park agreement was not something we would have achieved previously. However, that is, in all honesty, probably as much a function of the times as the relationships.

In terms of trying to measure the value of the investment of public money and our current position with regard to the need for change, flexibility, the end of demarcation and plant lying idle for a large part of the week, although some of the caricatures are unfair it is the case that one cannot get a blood test after 3.30 p.m. or the consultants will not come in or if one is not operated on by noon on Thursday the operation will not take place until Monday morning. Investment would be very desirable if it helped change that. What prospect of significant change is on the horizon in that area?

Mr. Michael Scanlan

I will give a couple of examples of actual change at a much smaller level and then return to the Deputy's question. Mr. Attley mentioned this previously with regard to upskilling the support staff, but that was part of upskilling nurses and so forth. Consider what has happened with nursing. Nurses can now issue prescriptions, order X-rays and they are starting to do IV cannulations. One is seeing change. What one is also seeing, and Mr. Attley is better able to describe this than me, is the health care assistants stepping up to do work which nurses did previously. This is part of the answer to the Deputy's question. Despite having trained up some health care assistants to do that work, we still had an industrial relations issue about them being allowed to do it. It went all the way to the National Implementation Body as recently as 2005, so the partnership is not a panacea.

In terms of moving forward, I keep returning to the fact that the issue of partnership, industrial relations and change is a very big question. It is a personal view but it I believe it will work best where there is, in a sense, an absolute need to do it or a crisis, where there is no other option. At the same time, one has developed relationships that might help one get over to that stage.

Does Mr. Magee have a view on it?

Mr. Cathal Magee

It is a difficult question. The HSE is completing its service plan for 2011 and will submit it to the Minister tomorrow. That plan is obviously funded on the basis of a significant funding reduction over 2010 of 6.6% net. It is higher at a gross level. Our success in protecting and continuing to provide the same level of services across the system as we did in 2010 with significantly less funding will be predicated on significant co-operation and engagement from our staff and from the representative staff associations. I would be hopeful that it is possible. All the soundings I have indicate that people recognise the challenges in our economy and in our system, and I am optimistic that there will be good engagement on the process of change from the representative unions across both the clinical and non-clinical areas. It is a very tough challenge. However, I am not aware of what the consequences of this will be within SIPTU, for example, and within the relationships between SIPTU and the HSE. We will have to work through the completion of this process to ensure we emerge from it with a stronger industrial relations process.

The governance issues that come to the fore here raise issues about linking accountability and governance, and confusing stakeholder involvement with governance and accountability. We must have greater clarity for all parties to ensure we do not confuse stakeholder engagement with governance and accountability within a public system. That is something we are already debating with the unions in the context of the partnership process and how it functions. If there is a huge learning from it, that is one that has emerged.

Before I call Deputy O'Brien, I have a question about the procurement issues in the IA report on SKILL procurement. With regard to the findings, a contract with a value of €60 million was not formally signed until February 2007. It was stated to the internal audit by SKILL management that negotiation on the contract contents was sought by the contractor's legal advisers and the HSE's legal advisers. Could somebody outline how the contracts were signed by unauthorised persons?

Dr. Geraldine Smith

I will take that question. The contracts were approved by the HSE's board, as is appropriate. Under the HSE's national financial regulations we have set thresholds. Those thresholds state that contracts for in excess of €10 million must be approved by the HSE's board and signed by an appropriate officer. The main contract was with the City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee, known as the SKILLVEC. That contract has ultimately cost the HSE €15.7 million. When it was initially tendered, it was said that it was going to be €60 million. The contract was properly approved in December 2005 by the HSE board. It was then signed by Alan Smith who was general manager, who did not have the limit of authority to sign that contract. It was also signed by Mr. Attley as chairman of the steering group. As the audit report identifies, Mr. Attley was not an executive of the HSE. Therefore, the contract was properly approved by the board but it was incorrectly signed by unauthorised officials and Mr. Attley.

What are your views about the procedures leading to the award of the contract?

Dr. Geraldine Smith

The audit looked at the award of the contract in detail. We found that there was significant confusion within the SKILL team in terms of the procurement issue. There are different processes in procurement which one can adopt - open procedure, restricted procedure and so forth. We found that there was confusion and the tender specifications were very vague and broad. When internal audit sought all the documentation relating to the tenders it was not there, which is quite inappropriate from a control perspective. As internal auditors we certainly were not satisfied with that.

We found that the SKILL people could not give us a definite number as to how many people might have tendered and tender valuation reports were not there at the time of audit. The Chairman will have noted from the report that on finalisation of the audit it was brought to our attention that the documentation had been located in storage in a voluntary hospital. Again, from an audit perspective, we were quite unhappy with that in terms of record retention. The HSE has a record retention policy and it is up to officials to identify where records are held at various stages. Overall, we found the control environment surrounding the procurement was not as strong as we would have liked or as the HSE's procurement regulations require.

Mr. Magee, what actions were taken by the HSE when these deficiencies were brought to the attention of senior management?

Mr. Cathal Magee

As I said in my statement, we have carried out a comprehensive review of compliance with, and adherence to, both travel procurement and payment arrangements across our system. We have also centralised control, from within SKILL and within partnership, of the accounting and administrative and executive functions.

We are confident that these breaches will not recur because of what we have put in place.

I apologise for the slight delay in getting here, but I have been watching the contributions on the monitor. I will not try to go back over old ground because a number of my colleagues have covered that. It is not just a question of perception, but also of control and the lack thereof. Since the establishment of the Health Services National Partnership Forum, how many internal audits have been carried out by the HSE's internal audit?

Dr. Geraldine Smith

I will answer that question. The Health Services National Partnership Forum had its own internal audit function. It procured an internal auditor and several internal audit reports would have been completed, I believe on a quarterly basis, by that internal auditor.

Was that an outside body?

Dr. Geraldine Smith

Yes, absolutely. This person was procured externally by the HSNPF.

When one looks back at the details, particularly since 2004, procedures seem to have changed with regard to the fact that receipts were not required, and various things like that. How was the internal auditor procured by the HSNPF? Was there a proper competition for that? Were they directly appointed?

Dr. Geraldine Smith

The Comptroller and Auditor General raised that point in one of the management letters going back over the years. There were issues around the procurement, as raised in the Comptroller and Auditor General's management letter. The person was procured on a one-year basis, which was subsequently extended by another year.

When was the original appointment?

Dr. Geraldine Smith

I can find that out for the Deputy now.

Who was the internal auditor?

Dr. Geraldine Smith

It was a company. I believe it was a sole trader called Accountancy and Business Solutions. The internal auditor's name was Hugh Quigley.

What was the name of the company?

Dr. Geraldine Smith

I think it was Accountancy and Business Solutions.

Dr. Geraldine Smith

The Comptroller and Auditor General's management letter on the 2004 annual financial statements flagged that particular issue, which was that it did not comply with the procurement rules. Two tenders were received, one before the closing date, and opened at different times. The last tender was awarded the contract, so issues were flagged by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

That was flagged by the Comptroller and Auditor General in 2004. When were these internal auditors appointed by the HSNPF?

Dr. Geraldine Smith

I believe that was in 2004. The tender was for one year.

So the Comptroller and Auditor General flagged the issue in 2004, which was within the time of the contract. Therefore, he flagged the issue at the time that the contract was not properly put out for procurement or through a proper competition process, is that right?

Dr. Geraldine Smith

Yes, I believe so.

For how long, since then, has that auditor operated within this organisation?

Dr. Geraldine Smith

I believe he is still there, until the HSE internal audit comes in.

We must recall that the Accounting Officer for this body is the chief executive of the agency as well. The HSE is responsible. In 2004, the Comptroller and Auditor General clearly flagged the issue that an internal auditor - I am not making any inference with regard to this man or his company, or anything like that - was not properly procured, without any competition. We are now at the end of 2010. When did the HSE's internal audit start?

Dr. Geraldine Smith

Earlier on this year.

Up until the start of 2010, the HSE - and I would hold the HSE accountable for this because it is responsible - has done nothing about that.

Dr. Geraldine Smith

As identified in the internal audit report, there was significant confusion in the HSNPF.

I am confused as well. I am trying to get to the bottom of it because I do not understand it.

Dr. Geraldine Smith

It is clearly seen from the minutes that the HSNPF was unclear as to what its legal entity was and how it was set up. There was also some debate in the HSNPF as to the relationship with the HSE. We have identified that that is completely unacceptable. Essentially, it-----

I do not mean to cut across Dr. Smith, but I do not want to lose the point. Effectively, the HSNPF was not sure what its relationship was with the HSE, and what the roles within both bodies were. Was that confusion ever fed up the line so that someone would simply clarify that point?

Mr. Seán McGrath

No, it was not fed up the line. That is why we are here today as part of the partnership audit itself. There was ambiguity around it. Trade union officials and HSE officials were sitting on this partnership forum. By and large, they were an organisational forum in their own right, but the legitimacy of their being there and taking this quasi-legal status was obviously wrong.

While they were confused about it-----

Mr. Seán McGrath

That is from the minutes, yes.

-----they did not see fit to ask any questions that might have clarified the situation for them. How do we know that there was that element of uncertainty? Is it flagged in the minutes of their board meetings?

Mr. Seán McGrath

Some of the minutes of board meetings going back as far as 2006 highlight this.

So no questions were asked of the HSE then as to what its proper status was?

Mr. Seán McGrath

Correct.

It is incredible and simply beggars belief. Getting back to the point therefore, the appointment of the internal auditor is crucially important. Just last week, this committee published a report on procurement in the public sector, because it is an issue we see across all bodies. To be fair, there are areas where it works well and others where it does not, so we are not inclined to be overly critical of it. I really do not understand it, however. Can somebody explain how, in the first year that this person was appointed, the Comptroller and Auditor General flagged this matter in 2004? Do we have a copy of the management note which the comptroller sent to the HSE? I presume the Comptroller and Auditor General sent that to the HSE.

Dr. Geraldine Smith

No.

Dr. Geraldine Smith

It was sent to the HSNPF.

And the HSE did not know about it?

Mr. Seán McGrath

Not until 2005. Obviously, the HSE did not come into being until 2005.

I understand that but did the HSE know about it in 2005?

Mr. Seán McGrath

Not that we are aware of at this stage.

Who is the responsible person, or liaison person, in the HSE for oversight of the HSNPF?

Mr. Seán McGrath

The creation of the HSNPF had a quorum of employers on it. Obviously, it had the HSE, and other sections 38 and 39 disability employers on it. The person responsible for the HSNPF, or the link into the HSE, was the HR director or HR team at that stage.

The HR director of the HSE?

Mr. Seán McGrath

Yes, at that stage.

Did the HR director of the HSE sit on the board of the HSNPF?

Mr. Seán McGrath

Yes.

The HSE was established in 2005, so it knew about it in 2005. The HSE's HR director knew that there was a major issue there - that the internal auditor was appointed without procedures being followed. That was clearly stated by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Do we have a copy of that management note anywhere?

Mr. John Buckley

I can read the reply which we got on 7 December 2005 from Mr. Larry Walsh, director. He said that at the time of appointment of the internal auditor, a formal procurement policy was not in place. On the advice of the Comptroller and Auditor General a tendering process was initiated. Three firms were asked to submit tenders to the outline specification, so clearly he specified what he wanted. Two firms responded to the tender, while the third advised that they would not tender for the position. In order to have a broader choice of options, a further three firms were asked to tender, of which one responded, while the others did not make any contact. In all, six firms were invited to tender and three responded. Copies of the three tenders are held on file. Two tenderers responded by email, with one following up with a hard copy. The criteria used were quality of service being offered, compliance with the request for proposals and costs. Of the two firms which were competitive on cost, the selected firm was deemed to offer the best value. He finished by stating that a formal policy has now been adopted which is compliant with the Health Service Executive procurement policy, and he attached a copy. There was this broad rectification of the position.

Was that rectified in 2005? Is Mr. Buckley happy that it was properly put out to competition in 2005?

Mr. John Buckley

Yes.

Was the contract for the internal audit given a time line? Could it be reviewed?

Mr. John Buckley

I will have to check that and get back to the Deputy.

Does Dr. Smith know?

Dr. Geraldine Smith

I believe the contract was for one year and then it was subsequently renewed for another year. To the best of my knowledge, one of the issues was that it had continued to roll on.

I do not mean to dwell on this point. I will move on in a minute, but it is an important point. It was put out to tender in 2005. The firm that held the role of internal auditor retained that position for a year, which would have brought it up to 2006. Were any contracts after that signed then or was the contract simply rolled over right the way through?

Dr. Geraldine Smith

I believe the contract has rolled over, but I would need to double-check that.

That is something we might check. What was the total cost of that contract to the HSNPF?

Dr. Geraldine Smith

The cost, from 2005 to 2009, was €85,734.

Is that for quarterly internal audits?

Dr. Geraldine Smith

Yes. From what I can gather, there appears to be a quarterly internal audit report.

On the HSE's internal audit report earlier this year, the HSE - even though the chief executive of the HSE is effectively the Accounting Officer for this body - internal auditor never carried out an audit up until when?

Dr. Geraldine Smith

Up until earlier on this year.

Dr. Geraldine Smith

As part of our audit planning process, we ask management to have input into the plan to identify various areas. Having carried out the audit - we have seen the element of confusion - there certainly was a belief within HSNPF that it was separate to the HSE. It is completely unacceptable, but that is exactly what we have identified in the audit.

Did the HSE understand that the HSNPF was separate to it? Was it understood within the HSE that the chief executive of the HSE is the Accounting Officer of this body?

Mr. Seán McGrath

I do not believe it was understood at the time, going back to 2005. It was an amalgamation of employers, trade unions and other bodies which came together under the HSNPF. It was created under a partnership agreement in 2000. It established its own office, its own constitution, its own rules, and its own bank accounts. Until we got the internal audit in to look at this, it was an organisation very much at a satellite away from the HSE but the bottom line is that we were accountable for it.

Does the HSE understand why I, and probably many others, find that completely unacceptable? It is the HSE and, ironically, we are talking about a partnership forum that could not partner with its own senior body, and where the HSE and the HSNPF were not sure where they stood. There were hundreds and thousands of people going on partnership training courses and yet the two organisations were not even talking to each other. Perhaps Mr. Magee can throw some light on this. I just do not understand this.

Mr. Cathal Magee

In my opening statement on 7 October and my statement on partnership, there is a common theme. Deputy O'Brien is correct. The HSE had accounting responsibility for the operation of the SKILL programme and the operation of the partnership programme from 2005 when it was set up. There is no ambiguity about that. Nonetheless, as I made the qualitative comment, confusion existed around governance because of the separateness and the engagement of stakeholders. That governance arrangement, which involved the staff side and the management side, was kind of physically separated in terms of office and administration, and separate bank accounts.

Mr. Cathal Magee

The partnership forum embraced employers outside of the HSE statutory hospital or operating entity group. It included voluntary organisations and, as the HR director stated, some voluntary organisations that are grant-aided by it. It was a broader group. Nonetheless, accounting responsibility resided with HSE, but it allowed a governance arrangement to take place which created an artificial construct that it was a separate organisation, had separate audit and had separate bank accounts. That is at the core of the problem.

It is. In fairness, that is a reasonable explanation for what happened. I am not disputing that. Neither do I want to take away from much good work which I am certain has been done in the organisation over the time.

Mr. Cathal Magee

Sure.

What Mr. McGrath has clarified for me is that the HR director of the HSE sat on the board of the HSNPF where confusion reigned on whether it was a separate body, whether it was accountable to the HSE and on its Accounting Officer. If that is covered in the minutes of board meetings dating back to 2005 or 2006,-----

Mr. Seán McGrath

2006.

-----I do not understand why it would take until earlier in 2010, when the HSE sent in its internal auditors, to figure out that the HSE was responsible for this. Was there no communication? Did no reports go to the HSE at a senior level on what this organisation did? Did the HSE know what it did?

Mr. Seán McGrath

The organisation of the HSE knew. There were service managers at a very senior level on the forum and there were previous HR directors, or service managers, as co-chair of this, and the funding came from the HSE into the HSNPF.

When Mr. McGrath is finished, I want to get to that piece.

Mr. Seán McGrath

Because it seemed to be a different organisational forum at a satellite away from the HSE, it continued on in this blissful ignorance that it was a separate organisation with separate bank accounts and operated at a tangent away.

The HSE also carried on in blissful ignorance that the HSNPF was separate to the HSE.

Mr. Seán McGrath

Correct.

I am not saying Mr. McGrath personally did, but the HSE as an organisation did. What is the total funding to date that the HSE has passed on to this organisation?

Dr. Geraldine Smith

The Department of Health and Children would have been responsible up until 2004 and funding would have come from the Department. From 2005 onwards, the HSE would have been responsible. From 1999 to 2009, in total, grants of €39 million, APPM funding of €1.355 million,-----

Dr. Geraldine Smith

Action Plan for People Management. Some miscellaneous income would have been earned, giving a total income of €41.155 million.

Including the period of the Department of Health and Children prior to the establishment of the HSE - to call a spade a spade - the parent body, be it the Department or the HSE, gave this organisation €41 million and did not send an internal auditor into this organisation, established since 1999, until the start of this year. The HSE was happy to give the money out, but without the understanding that the HSE was the Accounting Officer, and the HSE had the HR director of the HSE and senior HSE staff sitting on its board.

Tell us about the role of the trustees and their reservations about what was happening. First, who were they?

Dr. Geraldine Smith

We had various trustees over the years. I will give a little background as to the role the trustees played. In the rules and constitution of the HSNPF which the HSNPF itself set up, there is a provision for trustees. The role of the latter relates to cheque payments, etc. There are four trustees at all times, two from the management side and two from the union side. Again, over the years there have been various trustees. If it would be of assistance, I will provide a list of the current trustees. They are: Mr. David Hughes from the Irish Nursing and Midwifery Organisation, INMO, who has been a trustee from 2000 to the present and a signatory from 2003 to the present; Ms Nora Mason, a HSE assistant national director of HR, who has been a trustee from 2000 to the present; and Mr. Sé O'Connor, also a HSE assistant national director of HR, who has been a trustee from 2009 to the present. There is currently a vacancy for the fourth position. As already stated, there have been other trustees over the years but there are always two from the management side and two from the union side.

Did the trustees ever express reservations on matters of governance? If so, what happened?

Dr. Geraldine Smith

They did do so. The minutes indicate that the reservations about governance seemed to materialise in 2009, which was after the director's retirement. The director was the chief operating officer.

The director was-----

Were there co-chairmen?

Dr. Geraldine Smith

Yes.

So who retired in 2009?

Dr. Geraldine Smith

The director.

Was that Mr. Walsh?

Dr. Geraldine Smith

Yes, Mr. Larry Walsh. The latter retired on 3 March 2009. As already stated, the director was the chief operating officer and had responsibility for all the administration and activities of the HSNPF. The trustees expressed concern after Mr. Walsh's retirement, when there was no director in place, to the effect that they appeared to be taking on the role of executive responsibility. In one instance - this is apparent from reviewing the minutes - one of the trustees asked how he could stand over the cheque payments. He was not casting any doubts on the staff or anything of that nature but he was concerned, in light of the governance arrangements, with regard to how the trustees were to know that the information they were receiving was proper, etc. That concern was expressed after the director's retirement.

It would be fair to say that the HSNPF carried out quarterly internal audits. In that context, there did not appear to be any question of anything wrong being done. I will not mention it again but I cannot fathom how senior people in both organisations could not understand the relationship that one had with the other. That is the fundamental point. The HSE sent its internal auditors in earlier in the year. The executive is now clear with regard to who reports to it and Mr. Magee is aware of the areas in respect of which he is Accounting Officer. However, are there any autonomous or semi-autonomous bodies which come within the HSE's remit in respect of which any confusion exists?

Mr. Liam Woods

No, not that I am aware of. The SKILL programme and this particular organisation were the two that were-----

I have no desire to belabour the point, particularly as we have engaged in a great deal of discussion on this matter. However, one must consider the amount of money invested in the SKILL programme. How much money did the Department and the HSE put into this programme?

Mr. Michael Scanlan

In the core SKILL programme, some €48 million or €49 million was invested. However, that was not the grant.

So the Department and the HSE invested between €48 million and €49 million.

Mr. Michael Scanlan

No. Essentially, with the exception of €2.75 million, all of the money came from the HSE. The SKILL programme was established at the end of 2004 and only really took off in 2005.

How much did the Department of Health and Children invest in the SKILL programme?

Mr. Michael Scanlan

It is just a question of when the changeover-----

What was the approximate figure?

Mr. Michael Scanlan

Some €2.75 million was sanctioned by us in 2004. Thereafter, I think €13 million per year was spent on the programme.

So the Department invested €2.75 million in 2004. What has been the level of investment by the HSE since then?

Mr. Seán McGrath

Approximately €12 million per year.

So over €14.5 million has been spent on the programme each year. What drives me and others mad in respect of this matter is that the success of the programme was not properly evaluated. Deputy Shortall referred to this matter earlier. The committee has not yet disposed of chapter 40 of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, which relates to the Dublin ambulance service and in respect of which the HSE has responsibility. In excess of €14.5 million has been spent on the SKILL programme on an annual basis for a number of years. In the Swords area, which I represent, the HSE will not sanction expenditure of €600,000 and is seeking to remove one of the ambulances that operates there. Some 4,500 calls are dealt with by the ambulance service in the area each year. It is this type of issue which gives rise to concern among communities. I am not seeking to denigrate the work those in the HSE are doing. However, when matters such as that which we are discussing arise, it is front line services which suffer.

In trying to explain the value of the SKILL programme, our guests are fighting a losing battle. Some €14.5 million is being spent on this programme, whereas the ambulance service in Swords can be run for €600,000. In addition, if some of the money spent on the SKILL programme were diverted, the three ambulances that have been removed from service in County Offaly could be restored.

The overall amount is €40 million.

I apologise. That makes it even worse and that is what gives rise to people's frustration. I fully accept that the HSE has carried out its internal audit. We have had many meetings with the representatives from the Department of Health and Children and the HSE at which it has been stated that procedures will be changed going forward. I am confident that this will happen. However, we must consider the procurement issues that arise on a continual basis and the fact that the role of the chief executive of the HSE as its Accounting Officer was not understood from its establishment in 2005 up until this year. The latter is incredible.

I am not stating that all of the €41 million in question has been wasted. However, we must ask how many front-line services were adversely affected as a result of €14.5 million spent each year on the SKILL programme. The committee received correspondence this week in respect of the Dublin ambulance service. As already stated, it is not possible to obtain €600,000 to run an ambulance service which responds to 4,500 calls each year. How do our guests square the circle in that regard?

Mr. Cathal Magee

In respect of the SKILL programme, we have a value-for-money audit. Most of the resources apart from the €2.75 million to which the Secretary General referred was invested in training development, both through funding of backfilling and through the training development programmes. Those programmes have been very successful but we still need to evaluate whether we are obtaining the best value for our spend on training.

Did the HSE carry out spot checks in respect of the results relating to the training programmes? What sort of success rates have been achieved and have the programmes being properly evaluated?

Mr. Seán McGrath

Sporadic spot checks have been carried out since 2004. Mr. Attley referred to Pearn Kandola carrying out a value-for-money analysis in respect of one or two programmes which operated within hospital settings. Organisationally, a full value-for-money audit in respect of the entire SKILL programme since its inception in 2005 is under way. This analysis is being carried out on foot of one of the recommendations in the report. The work in this regard is ongoing.

Mr. Cathal Magee

Much of the funding went to partnership projects and developments across the entire health system. The real issue that arises relates to the moneys spent on foreign trips, the value-for-money dimension relating thereto, the process within which such trips were either approved or authorised and the controls that applied. That key issue has undermined both the SKILL programme and many partnership projects funded throughout the health system. The governance issues, the confusion around accountability and the fact that these entities operate as satellites separate from the mainstream HSE accounting control led to the difficulties that emerged in our audit.

Mr. Magee is correct but I would like him to square the circle. I have mentioned an example of the reduction in front-line services in my area. This was raised previously and we have not disposed of that chapter of the report yet. How does an Oireachtas Member or a Government, no matter its composition, explain that we can have such a spend on this programme but the HSE wants to take an ambulance out of Swords or, for example, three out of County Offaly to reduce front-line services?

Mr. Cathal Magee

We have taken a number of actions to close down the accounts and the separate funding of these programmes. I agree with the Deputy that we are looking at a challenging environment next year, given our funding situation. The obligation is on me, as Accounting Officer and chief executive officer, and my management team to ensure we use the scarce resources we have to best effect through the system.

We need to move on.

I appreciate the answers being given by the Department and the HSE but I am trying to get to the bottom of a number of issues. I hope serious lessons have been learned. I do not get to talk to Mr. Magee very often. The HSE's service plan will be submitted tomorrow. Priority must be given to front-line services and we must examine whether these programmes are valuable. Mr. Magee mentioned resources are scarcer than last year but this a fundamental issue. The reason I raise this is these issues make it difficult when the public looks in on what we are doing. We are trying to protect public services and people wonder why this the SKILL programme is important and an ambulance in Swords is not.

The governance of all bodies overseeing such programmes and not only this body where senior HSE directors sit on the board is an issue. I expected directors to have reported back to the executive. When the HR director of the executive is on a board, an annual statement, at the very least, should be submitted to outline what is happening. There is confusion. The body is not sure whether the HSE is controlling it or vice versa. One hopes that will be clarified now for all organisations connected to the executive.

Regarding the responses we received regarding procurement, how did Mr. Attley sign a contract he was unauthorised to sign? What is his explanation for that?

Mr. William Attley

This is the first time I have heard that I had not been authorised to sign it. I have just checked the minute. The procedure was the board approved it. The general manager went to the board and got approval for it. He came to the next SKILL meeting to say that the board had approved it and then he asked me to sign it. I asked him why me and he said he and I were the appropriate persons to sign after the board had approved it.

Was this Mr. Smith?

Mr. William Attley

Yes.

Which was totally wrong.

Mr. William Attley

I am finding out now it was totally wrong. Has Mr. Smith said anything?

Mr. Seán McGrath

No, we have not been able to discuss this with Mr. Smith.

I did not have an opportunity to address questions to the HSE earlier. I am beginning to think we need a map to direct us around the different bodies, funds and so on. I accept there has been a flurry of activity recently on the part of the HSE but this should not mask the fact that it was accountable for the SKILL programme, which was allocated €47 million, and for the partnership forum, which was allocated €41 million. It beggars belief that both organisations could have existed within the HSE for so long while spending so much money without anyone at senior management level doing anything to ensure there was adequate corporate governance or proper accountability. How could have that arisen? How could there have been that level of spend without accountability?

Mr. Cathal Magee

As I said in my two opening statements, a breakdown in governance and in the accountability processes within the HSE occurred. The only way it can be explained is there was confusion around governance in these joint management-union entities both within SKILL and within partnership. I do not think there should have been confusion. The accounting responsibility of the HSE was there from 2005. They were staff of the HSE and they were employed by the HSE. They were paid and the funds came through the HSE. The general point I made is the governance and accountability roles got confused with stakeholder engagement and involvement and that is at the heart of the problem.

That is fine for some organisations but with regard to the SKILL programme, this issue was fundamental to the skills and qualifications of HSE staff. Why is a value for money report only being done on that now?

Mr. Seán McGrath

It certainly came out of the internal audit report that we would do a full value for money audit on the whole SKILL programme.

Did no one from the HSE ask, going back to 2005, whether value for money was being achieved in spending the money on training?

Mr. Seán McGrath

Not within the HSE but we had HSE officials on the steering group of SKILL. Periodically, value for money audits were done within the programme itself but no one corporately within the senior management team, from what I can gather, looked for a value for money audit on the total spend on SKILL.

The position has changed somewhat from the previous meeting we had on this on 7 October where the impression was very much given by the HSE that this was predominantly a union problem. That was the impression that was sought to be given in regard to some of these issues. It now transpires, however, that there were fundamental branches of accountability within the executive in respect of both programmes going back many years. I accept fully that Mr. McGrath has only been around since 2008 and Mr. Magee was not around. I refer to the report produced by Mr. Turlough O'Sullivan on foreign travel. Did this travel relate only to the levy fund?

Mr. Seán McGrath

That foreign travel relates only to what we found from the SKILL programme and the partnership.

Has the Department examined foreign travel under the partnership forum?

Mr. Seán McGrath

No, that is a work in progress. As the Deputy will be aware, we got the internal audit report last week. We have to conduct our own investigations regarding that now.

Has the Department commissioned anyone to examine the larger spends over which there are many question marks relating to the SKILL programme and the partnership forum?

Mr. Seán McGrath

We have commissioned Ernst & Young to do a full value for money audit on the overall programme since its inception in 2005 and that was a recommendation in the internal audit report. We have started that process and they are currently doing their work.

The level of incompetence and lack of accountability in the HSE going back to its foundation in 2005 is mind boggling. These two programmes were running and nobody asked any questions about them.

Mr. Cathal Magee

On the point about accountability, in my opening statement at the committee meeting on 7 December, I said that even though there was a lack of clarity surrounding the governance of the SKILL programme, given its origins, nonetheless and notwithstanding that, the HSE had accounting responsibility for the disbursement of the funding grant for 2005 and that it should have sought clarity from the Department of Health and Children on the issue and satisfied itself about adequate controls, validation and value for money. There is no argument from me nor from the HSE about our accounting responsibility for the operation and we did not apportion that accounting responsibility to any other body.

I wish to explore two aspects, the first being foreign travel by HSE staff. We know from the O'Sullivan report on the foreign travel associated with the SKILL programme that 12 HSE staff participated in various trips at a cost of €26,000. I will put the same question to Mr. Magee as I put to the two Departments. Does he accept it was completely inappropriate that HSE staff should have been participating in foreign trips funded through an account controlled by two trade union officials?

Mr. Cathal Magee

Yes.

Is Mr. Magee taking any disciplinary action against those 12 staff?

Mr. Cathal Magee

The HSE has two reports, the audit report and the Turlough O'Sullivan report and we await the outcome of the conclusion of the SIPTU investigation before drawing conclusions with regard to the involvement of HSE personnel.

Has the HSE reissued guidelines to staff with regard to foreign travel?

Mr. Cathal Magee

Yes.

Are these new or existing guidelines?

Mr. Cathal Magee

In the original statement it was a case of adherence to guidelines rather than the inadequacy of our controls but we have reissued the approval arrangements for foreign travel in particular and for expenses. It was a breach of existing regulations in some cases, not the absence of those.

Again the question must be asked, given it was general knowledge that this carry-on was taking place, how come nobody in the HSE did anything about it. I presume Mr. McGrath was aware of it.

Mr. Seán McGrath

We did do something about it. When I came into office I asked internal audit to do an audit-----

Eventually. It took a bit of time. I do not know how long Dr. Smith has been in her position.

Dr. Geraldine Smith

I have been with the ERHA, Eastern Regional Health Authority, since 2000 and I certainly did not know about foreign travel being funded through an outside account.

Did Dr. Smith know many HSE officials were going off on trips?

Dr. Geraldine Smith

No, absolutely not.

Mr. O'Sullivan's report states it was general knowledge within the health sector that this was going on. It is difficult to accept there was not an awareness at senior management level. One would have to ask why nothing was done about it.

My other question is to do with this famous partnership forum. I ask Mr. McGrath to tell the committee the purpose of this forum and what it does.

Mr. Seán McGrath

The forum was set out as a result of a partnership agreement in 1999 or 2000. Its purpose was to foster partnership at local level among the trade unions affiliated to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the wider scope of employers and trade unions not affiliated to congress. It was composed of the HSE, the Department and other voluntary organisations and representatives of the employers and the wider staff. The purpose of the forum was to ensure ongoing collaboration when required on particular projects. One of these projects was referred to in the audit report as being the action plan for people management, a plan to implement a people management structure and programmes within the organisation.

That was a total of €1.3 million.

Mr. Seán McGrath

Yes, that is correct.

We are talking about a figure of €41 million spent by the partnership forum. What on earth did it spend that money on?

Dr. Geraldine Smith

I will answer that question. Reviewing the annual financial statements, €40.857 million approximately was spent in the period from 1999 to 2009. A significant amount of that sum was spent on grants to partnership committees and various grants to partnership projects.

What does that mean? I do not understand what is meant by partnership committees and partnership projects.

Mr. Seán McGrath

It was a national partnership forum but partnership facilitators were in place within each location such as a hospital or a primary care area or at regional level. These facilitators mirrored what was happening at national level and had a whole suite of different projects and activities at local level as well as national level.

I still fail to understand what Mr. McGrath means by the phrase, "a whole suite of activities".

Mr. Seán McGrath

They are listed in an appendix to the audit report. For example, the development and implementation of a health promotion strategy for St. James's Hospital staff. This would have been proposed by St. James's Hospital partnership committee and it would be regarded by the HSE as a very good project to undertake. A business case would have been submitted and funding sought from the partnership national committee through the local partnership facilitator. The funding would have been given to finance that project. We had a whole suite of different projects and over the course of the ten years the funding referred to by Dr. Smith was used in that way.

How many staff were involved in this organisation?

Mr. Seán McGrath

In total, just 22 or 23 staff. The majority are facilitators in the regions.

I believe this body no longer exists.

Mr. Seán McGrath

The individuals are still there. We have closed their bank account and we have mainstreamed all their financial records and they are now reporting into the human resources directorate, which means they are reporting to me.

So the 22 staff remain.

Mr. Seán McGrath

Yes, the staff remain. They are HSE staff on the HSE payroll. We will seek to deploy them into the areas in which they currently operate.

Were the 22 staff always HSE staff?

Mr. Seán McGrath

Since 2005, yes.

Therefore their pay does not come out of the €41 million.

Mr. Seán McGrath

I believe it does; it includes €10 million for salaries.

They are now back within the fold and working in the normal way.

Mr. Seán McGrath

Yes.

Who sanctioned the standing down of the forum? Was sanction required from the Department?

Mr. Seán McGrath

These individuals are HSE staff. We engaged with the forum regarding the bank accounts and the activities of the forum. This has been an ongoing engagement over several months. We have sought to make best use of the skills of these staff.

How much was in the account when the HSE closed it?

Mr. Seán McGrath

In total the deposit account held €1.3 million and the current account held €33,000 and a partnership account held €127,000. This is a total of just below €1.5 million and that account has been closed.

These are three different accounts which were in operation. There is a whole other day's examination in this about who had control of the accounts and how much of that money went on foreign travel. That is entirely separate to the other issues about foreign travel. What is known about the level of money diverted from this partnership fund to use for foreign travel?

Dr. Geraldine Smith

I will answer that question. The first point to emphasise is that the travel was reflected in the books of the partnership forum. The audit identified a total of 21 trips but of those trips we had previously identified five trips related to the SKILL programme which had been funded through the SIPTU national health and local authority level fund. Essentially, 16 trips were fully funded through the partnership forum. A list of those trips is included as an appendix to the audit report. I will read out details of some of those trips as an assistance to the committee. I can tell the Deputy, in response to her question, that the total cost of the 16 trips was €146,680. I have the analysis here. We have identified that between 2001 and 2009, there were three trips to London, two trips to Stockholm, one trip to Moscow, two trips to Belgium, one trip to Barcelona, one trip to Lyon, one trip to Paris, two trips to Scotland, one trip to Boston and two trips to New York. They are in addition to the trips we identified as having been funded through SIPTU's national health and local authority levy fund.

It is just endless.

It keeps going on and on. I was surprised that Mr. O'Sullivan was asked to compile this report. This is essentially about the excesses of partnership over the past decade. Mr. O'Sullivan was the public face of IBEC, which was one of the main partners. I thought it was a strange choice of person to look at this area. What was the reason for that choice?

Mr. Seán McGrath

We felt he was an appropriate person to investigate it because he was familiar with partnership.

Was that not the problem? The problem was the way partnership operated. I refer to the lack of accountability, the jollies and the taxis everywhere. That was the problem. They were the excesses of partnership. Mr. McGrath brought in one of the key players in partnership to examine the matter.

Mr. Seán McGrath

It was someone who was outside the public sector. A number of people could have been facilitated to do this role. It was decided that Mr. O'Sullivan was the person.

Did Mr. McGrath not think he was conflicted given that this was about partnership and how partnership operated in practice?

Mr. Seán McGrath

No, I did not.

I thought it was a strange choice. We need to take stock and decide where we are going with this.

We do. What has happened to the official from the Department of Finance that was involved? Is he still with the Department or has he retired?

Mr. David Moloney

He has retired.

What is he doing now?

Mr. David Moloney

I do not really know what he is doing now.

Does the Department have any guidelines on people who retire, for example to provide that they should not get involved in any work with Departments or Government-funded agencies?

Mr. David Moloney

There are limited guidelines for very senior people. I do not believe there are guidelines that would cover his situation. I can check that. I do not believe there were guidelines that would have prevented him from working in particular areas. The only qualification is that he may have retired under the incentivised scheme for early retirement, to which specific conditions about re-engagement with the public sector are attached. I can confirm the details of that and revert to the committee.

That would be appreciated. Unfortunately, we must finish now. I understand the SIPTU report was discussed when I was absent for a few moments. It was suggested that the absence of the report has created difficulties for the Comptroller and Auditor General. I find it frustrating and annoying that the business of the committee is being held up by the absence of the SIPTU report. Mr. Scanlan and Mr. Magee told us in their evidence that they cannot arrive at their conclusions in the absence of the report. To put it bluntly, two individuals who have questions to answer are holding up the SIPTU report. They commissioned a report of their own. I would like to know who is paying for it. They are holding up the finalisation of the SIPTU report. We were not given the courtesy of a telephone call from SIPTU to say the report was not coming to us until we made a call last evening to find out where it was.

The committee cannot tolerate its business undertaken on behalf of the taxpayer being held up by the absence of the SIPTU report. I ask the representatives of the HSE, which has direct responsibility in this regard, to demand that the report be furnished to the committee before the end of the year. We need to consider it and the HSE needs to consider it before we meet again at this forum in January. The lifespan of this committee is limited. We want to come to a conclusion on this whole area before an election is called and we go out of business. Maybe that is what some people are hoping for. We want to get the SIPTU report in time for our next meeting, which is scheduled for the second or third week of January. The games have to stop. I believe people are using a report that was commissioned by themselves, and perhaps is being paid for with taxpayers' money again, to hold up our proceedings. It has to stop. The HSE has direct responsibility. I am saying it. We have to get on with it.

Mr. John Buckley

As the committee intends to resume its consideration of this matter at a future stage, I will not make any comment at this stage.

I thank everybody for their attendance. We will resume our discussion on this area in January. As this is the committee's last meeting before Christmas, I wish everybody the season's greetings. I thank the members of the committee. I thank Mr. Buckley and his staff for their help during the year. I thank our own staff, of course.

The witnesses withdrew.

The committee adjourned at 1.35 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Thursday, 13 January 2011.
Barr
Roinn