This part of the meeting involves the financial statements of the Higher Education Authority. I call Deputy Dowds.

I welcome everybody here. I am sorry that they are still here at 2.30 p.m. I will try to be as quick as I can. I would like to ask a general question about how the HSE-----

The HEA.

Sorry, the HEA. My apologies. We were talking about the HSE earlier on. My question relates to how the HEA disburses funds to the traditional universities, the institutes of technology and other institutions.

It is done on the basis of a funding model. The allocation is done on the basis of a combination of the number of students and the disciplines they are studying, with different disciplines weighted according to what the estimated cost of the course would be. A programme that does not involve a laboratory would get a weighting of one, and then there are varying gradations up to the maximum weighting, which I think is four and would apply to a course like medicine. It is done on a purely formulaic basis.

Do those funds go into a central pot in each university or institute of technology to be disbursed within the relevant institution?

Yes. I suppose a fairly high core element of the funding of the higher education institutions is that the institutions get a block grant. It is therefore a matter for each institution to decide how to allocate that grant internally.

Does that include staff wages as well?

It includes the entirety of the activities of the institution.

Okay. Does it include funding for research as well, or does that come from other sources? Perhaps it is a mixture of the two.

It is a mixture of the two. In the case of universities, in particular the block grant goes to pay the salaries of most, if not all in some cases, of the people who carry out the research. Universities, and to a lesser extent institutes of technology, draw down research funding from the likes of the Irish Research Council, the Health Research Board, Science Foundation Ireland and internationally from the EU funding mechanisms.

Would that relate to the point that non-State grant income increased by €3.8 million between 2013 and 2014? It increased from just over €19.5 million to almost €23.5 million. Does what Mr. Boland is talking about relate to that as well?

The non-State funding could come from a variety of sources, including European grants.

So it could be European.

The funding-----

Could it be from private companies as well?

It could.

Okay. Can I show Mr. Boland an article by Professor Ciarán Ó Catháin of Athlone Institute of Technology that has been presented to me? It suggests that the Government cares more about seagulls than students. I really think it is a rather frivolous way to describe it. The point of showing it is that I want to know whether there is a serious lack of funding, or underfunding, in third level institutions. Are third level institutions reasonably satisfied they are getting a fair crack of the whip?

There is a serious lack of funding in the higher education system. In part, it is an inevitable consequence of the financial crisis. The level of funding per student has decreased from approximately €11,000 to approximately €9,000 over recent years. I think the institutions are coping well with that situation, by and large. Given the difficulties that this drop in funding causes, in terms of the quality of provision, we need to bear in mind that it has been projected that the number of people entering higher education will grow by between 25% and 30% over the next 15 years or so. That in itself will place huge demands on the system. Of course, this issue is being dealt with by the group that has been established by the Minister under the chairmanship of Peter Cassells.

I was surprised to note that the income dropped a bit from 2013 to 2014. I would have thought it would have been at the stage where it might start increasing again.

I think we can have a small degree of optimism on that side. The capacity of the institutions - particularly the universities more than the institutes of technology, in fairness - to earn their own income through commercial activities or through foundations should improve as the economy improves.

Could I ask about the issue of compliance? At an earlier meeting of this committee, it was suggested that the HEA would establish a compliance unit to ensure all colleges were managing their affairs appropriately. Can Mr. Boland give me an update on that?

Yes. Maybe I will put it in context and I will come to that as well. I can let the committee have a copy of an outline of the changes the HEA has made to its governance arrangements since it was last here. I guess these changes were prompted to some considerable extent by some of the criticism from this committee and some of the lessons we learned from the Comptroller and Auditor General's reports. We have issued a revised template for the governance statements to the institutions. The governance statement is the key reporting instrument from institutions to the Higher Education Authority. We have added some additional items to that template. We have asked each institution for more explicit confirmation that it is compliant with procurement guidelines. We want a specific assurance on that. We have asked those institutions that are not compliant to set out the actions they have taken in this regard. We want to know how many governing body meetings are taking place. We want to know the level of attendance at those meetings. We want to know the outcomes of the reviews of effectiveness of governing bodies. We also want upfront information on any significant unexpected expenditure that each institution is incurring. This is relevant in the context of the presence of representatives of GMIT this morning.

We have also reminded governing bodies, and the chairs of governing bodies in particular, of their central role in the whole governance and accountability system and the need for them to interrogate the information that is given to them by the management team in the institution, and the responsibility of the management team to give full information to the governing body and the chair.

We have enhanced our arrangements with the Comptroller and Auditor General. We will now meet on a quarterly basis and that is very valuable because we can share lessons that are being learned from the sector. We can also get a sense of what is happening in respect of audits and the submission of financial statements. We will also share information then to identify any early difficulties that are happening in the sector. This arose in the context of the NCAD, the National College of Art and Design, where we simply were not informed - we did not know some of the issues that were happening there.

Is Mr. Boland satisfied that the National College of Art and Design is being sorted out because it seemed to be an unholy mess at the time its representatives appeared before the committee?

We would be satisfied that good progress is being made, and that there is a way to go. There is a new governing body in place. There is a new chair. We have very recently met the chair of the governing body and the chair of the audit committee. I would say that the HEA's assessment is that progress is being made but with a good deal of work still to be done.

So basically the HEA is standing behind to see that everything is-----

We are. We are getting monthly reports from NCAD. We have also agreed with the college to give it an independent adviser in relation to financial and governance matters.

I thank Mr. Boland.

That college is being monitored carefully in terms of the implementation of its agreed governance report with us.

How long will it be before it is fully straightened out?

I think there are two issues there. One is dealing with the technical issues of doing appropriate reports. There may well also then be an issue of culture in the organisation because culture takes a bit longer to change. Also, I think we need to work with the governing body on issues to do with capacity in the institution in relation to financial expertise and governance expertise.

Okay.

I might just interject there to bring the committee's attention to the situation in relation to the audit, which was one of the things that, if one likes, precipitated the previous report. We are still actually waiting for draft financial statements for 2012-13.

It sounds like there is a bit to go yet.

Yes, there is. There are lots of technical difficulties and it will be some time before they will be up to date. I do not think we can underestimate the difficulties on that technical side.

I would not like to give a rose-tinted view of this either. It is a difficult problem which will take a bit of time to work out, but we are staying close to the college on it.

Is the Comptroller and Auditor General satisfied that things are moving in the right direction? Is he sufficiently in touch with recent developments there to-----

I suppose in a way we do not get involved in fixing the problem-----

Yes.

-----but we are sort of sitting outside waiting for financial statements to audit and, if one likes, to keep the process moving and to bring it up to date as quickly as possible. However, it requires the college to be in a position to produce a set of financial statements for us to audit and to be able to substantiate what is in those financial statements. That is the process of audit.

Obviously, we then look at propriety issues and so on. The longer distance it is to the year of account, the more opaque the thing becomes, the more difficult it is to get explanations, and the more difficult it is to do the audit. Also, the findings may be irrelevant by the time they come to the committee. It is a matter of ongoing concern for us, but I appreciate that the HEA is engaged with the college and the pressure needs to be kept up.

How soon was the HEA aware of its difficulties or did the college hide them from the authority for some time as well?

I think, rather than probably hiding them from us, we simply were not aware when we should have been. We were not made aware when we should have been.

Was that because the HEA did not have sufficient checks and balances in place?

No. I think it had to do with the fact that we were getting misinformation from the college for a period of time in relation to its governance statements.

Does that partly explain why there is a new board and so on there?

I think the board was going out of office in the normal course so it is not connected.

Could I just move on to a more general-----

Could I ask the advice of the Chair? There were some other issues in relation to how we strengthen governance, but perhaps I can just write to the committee on that rather than taking up the time of the committee.

That is okay.

We would be interested to see that report.

I have a more general question about the financial standing of institutes of technology. Is any of them in financial trouble? If so, which ones and what can be done to assist them? In particular, I ask Mr. Boland to comment on one the Comptroller and Auditor General flagged earlier, namely, Dundalk Institute of Technology, which Mr. Boland mentioned earlier.

A number of institutions are in what we would describe as a vulnerable position from a financial point of view. They would be Dundalk, Waterford, which has already been mentioned, and Letterkenny. NCAD is another institution and there are also Tralee and a sixth one, GMIT. They are to varying degrees having difficulties in terms of returning deficits to the HEA.

I would not want to give the impression that any of these are in danger of immediate collapse or anything like that. The HEA works very closely with any institution that is in that position. In the first instance, we require them to present to us and agree with us a three-year plan for how they are going to recover from their financial position. Also, in respect of two institutions, Dundalk and Letterkenny, we have sought independent accountancy financial advice on the strength of those plans. Given the vulnerability of the institution, we want to be satisfied that the plans are good. In the case of Dundalk, we are quite satisfied that its plan is a strong one. In the case of Letterkenny IT, there is an ongoing issue to do with the funding of a facility at Killybegs, which continues to be under discussion, particularly to see how its future might be secured through funding from other sources rather than the education Vote.

More generally, we are in a position to say that we have plans from all of the other institutions in terms of how they are dealing with their deficit situation. Those plans look good and they will be monitored carefully by the HEA to ensure they are implemented and that the institutions are brought back into a positive position.

Has the HEA identified reasons the institutions Mr. Boland listed have got into difficulty whereas others he did not mention obviously have not got into difficulty?

That is a difficult enough question because I do not think there is any one or even five reasons. It is a combination of issues. In fairness to them also, it is to some extent a reflection of the overall funding situation of the sector that some institutes are less able to manage in that kind of situation than others for reasons perhaps of their organisation, their demographics around where they are located in terms of their attractiveness to students and a range of issues like that. There is no one thing that one could go in and say, "If we fix that, they'll be fine".

In any case Mr. Boland is satisfied that none of them is in danger of collapse or anything like that.

I am satisfied of that, but I would say that the HEA, both at executive and indeed strongly at board level, keeps this situation under very careful review. There is a very high level of concern at board level for the viability of some of these institutions.

I am sure some of them tie in considerably with some local economic and industrial development and so on.

They are extraordinarily important institutions in their regions - all of them - which is all the more reason to get them into a healthy financial position so that they can do the job they are meant to do.

My last question is on the pension situation.

In simplistic terms it seems there are two different pension schemes, one of which is primarily attached to older people and the other for younger people and one of them is in some difficulty and the other is in surplus. Can Mr. Boland explain how pensions are paid? It strikes me that it is different here from some other areas of education, for example, primary education where the pensions come directly from the State.

To assist the committee I will call in the aid of Mr. Stewart Roche, who is an accountant.

The background is that the five older universities had their own pension schemes, not including the University of Limerick, UL, and Dublin City University, DCU, and, as with many pension schemes and for a variety of reasons, they were in deficit. The HEA some time ago set up a working group involving the Department of Education and Skills, HEA, the universities and the Department of Finance. That concluded that the pension schemes were not viable in the long term, should be wound up and their assets transferred to the State. The pension schemes closed. Something over €1.2 billion was transferred to the State. Is that right?

Yes, €1.4 billion.

The State then takes over the liability for paying pensions. For a variety of technical and accounting reasons, that pension scheme was closed and a new one was opened and all new staff entered into the new scheme, so there are two schemes running at the same time. Since the closed scheme has older staff members who are retiring there is a draw-down on that and because staff in the new scheme are younger there is no draw down on that. The two schemes to a very great extent cancel each other out. There is no sense of a pot of money sitting in a bank account someplace and a huge deficit sitting some place else. It is more of an accounting issue.

Is the intention that the whole thing goes back to the State in the same way as primary and secondary teachers are paid when they take their pensions?

Yes. We are in discussions with the Department of Education and Skills and, most importantly, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform as to how pensions should be accounted for in this situation. It is not very satisfactory from our point of view to have what gives the impression of a huge deficit and a huge surplus. It is an accounting exercise to a great extent and we would like to see it resolved. Ultimately, as matters now stand the State has responsibility for pensions in the universities in the same way as it has across various parts of the public sector. Would Mr. Roche like to comment on how pensions are paid?

Yes. Could I correct the record? I mistakenly said that LIT made a tax settlement, instead of DKIT.

With regard to the pensions, those in payment are paid out of the closed pension scheme, which is the older one, and lump sum payments on retirement are paid out of that particular scheme whereas the model scheme is a pay-as-you-go scheme. The difficulty, as Mr. Boland has outlined, is that the excess of the payments over the income has meant that there is a cash outflow but it is all coming out of the same accounts. There is general cash. In the model scheme there is a surplus because of the newer members and that is a pay-as-you-go scheme. The funding of the pensions that are creating the major deficit would be in the closed scheme.

Would the Comptroller and Auditor General remind the committee of what he said this morning in respect of the TRBDI and the transfer of personnel to LIT? I think he referred to them as “supernumerary positions”.

Yes. I drew attention in the audit certificate on its financial statements to several supernumerary staff, surplus staff in the institute, following on from the amalgamation and said that since that amalgamation, the total amount of salaries paid to those supernumerary staff was €627,000. In the year 2013-14 the amount paid to those staff, which is included in the overall figure, was €216,000.

How many staff did that equate to?

I said I do not have the detail of it with me but my recollection is that it is three or four, certainly a small number.

What is Mr. Boland’s reaction to the fact that for a number of years supernumerary positions continued to operate in an institute of technology funded through his agency at a cost of €627,000 and it appears that very little or nothing was done to try to address the issue?

I will answer that question, if that is all right. In the closure of TRBDI, the issue of redeploying the members of staff arose and that is organised by the Public Appointments Service, in the main. A wide range of successful redeployments was successfully entered into and there were three remaining staff. It was actually a great success in terms of moving the institution along. Those members of staff remained in the payment of LIT and remained working for LIT. They were supernumerary and could not be redeployed.

What do they actually do on a day-to-day basis?

They undertake appropriate work associated with their role. They are supernumerary. I do not have a piece of paper because I got information by e-mail during lunch when I asked for an update having heard what the Deputy said this morning. Two of the three are now engaged in the general manner as lecturers in LIT so there is only one supernumerary remaining. This is what happens with redeployment. Under the public sector arrangements a person can be redeployed up to 45 km. If it is not possible to redeploy the person, he or she remains on a supernumerary basis but the people are working.

For three years?

Yes, but people are working. It is about the opportunity for a specific skill set to be redeployed. They are working. We have saved money by reducing the numbers but we have not saved as much as we wanted to. That is the position.

Is this a widespread practice in the Department? How many supernumeraries do we have today?

I can check that for the Deputy but I am not aware that it is widespread. We have not closed down many institutions. In fact, the position is the opposite, as the Deputy knows. We were operating within employment control frameworks, ECFs. We are only returning to recruitment now generally and we are now moving to having a bit more freedom on employment but within particular budgets. It is not that we have supernumeraries sitting around the place. These were engaged in work but they were above the numbers allocated to the institution.

We do not know how widespread the practice is.

I do not have the information with me here. I understand that it is not a practice that is widespread. We were closing an institution and amalgamating it into LIT. They were above the numbers needed and we had to redeploy. We successfully redeployed a wide range of people but we were not able to redeploy everyone.

On another issue I raised this morning with the Chairman, which is of huge concern, UL is funded through the HEA and recently there was a huge amount of media reporting about an allegation that staff of the university were offered over €60,000 to keep their concerns under wraps or move along. Is the HEA aware of those allegations?

Yes.

Are they being investigated?

I will try to be as helpful as possible on this one. This matter was referred to me by the Department of Education and Skills because two people wished to make a protected disclosure. I met with them in June or July. I do not have the precise date. They set out a range of concerns, particularly to do with what they saw as a bullying treatment of them in the university. They attributed that bullying treatment to the fact that they were not co-operating with what they saw as inappropriate practices in the finance department. The three of us agreed a minute of the meeting which I sent to the president of the university and asked for a reply which he duly did. Out of that, it is clear that there is a mix of disciplinary issues in relation to the two people concerned.

I have been trying to find out the details of the allegations because the HEA is very anxious that any allegations are fully and completely investigated. In fairness to the university, that is its wish as well and it has put the internal auditors in touch with me to establish what the allegations are. The two people concerned do not feel in a position at the moment to set out what the allegations are. However, in my most recent e-mail with them I have agreed to their request to meet again. A date was arranged but unfortunately I had to change it to next week. I am very happy to meet with them again to see how their concerns can be met because I would like to see the matter put beyond doubt, one way or another, as quickly as possible. Any allegation of improper conduct in the university should be investigated and this is a view which I strongly believe is shared by the university. A great deal of damage can be done to the university by allegations not being fully dealt with as soon as possible. That is the latest position.

When do you expect to have an update on this? Apart from anything else, there is the potential for reputational damage to an institution which is of huge regional importance and that is something I am sure they are as anxious as anybody to clear. This has been left hanging out in the media for the past six weeks or two months. When will we have a full and final result on this? It is of concern across the region, across the mid-west and across the country because, if it is true, it could not possibly be condoned.

Absolutely. I could not agree more with that. My hope is that, when next I meet with the people concerned, I will be able to agree some kind of a process whereby they can feel comfortable in setting out what their allegations are. I would expect the university to respond very quickly with a thorough and objective assessment of the allegations.

Is it Mr. Boland's belief that there is a role for the Garda in the investigation?

I do not think fraud or anything of a criminal nature has been alleged in relation to the university. There is a related issue to do with the concern people have that they were threatened by a colleague, which is a separate issue to the allegations of malpractice in the finance department.

During the summer another story arose affecting the HEA. You referred in your answers to Deputy Dowds to how university and third level institutions are funded. A very disturbing report came out during the summer when there was, to paraphrase, an attempt to "cook the books" to ensure points were inflated in some of our third level institutions to keep them in the attractive zone for students. Some students are being deprived of college places because universities and third level institutions, which we are funding, are inflating points to keep them attractive and give them a reputation they do not necessarily deserve.

The practice has ended but I will talk about the practice a bit. There are two aspects to this. Some institutions were excessively fragmenting their courses so, rather than a common entry to science, they would have biology and French and a range of different programmes like that. There was a huge increase in the number of programmes that the institutions were putting on and apparently that can elevate the points that are needed for entry to a particular course.

Surely the HEA knew that all along.

No, actually, we did not. Sorry, I beg your pardon, we did know that and indeed-----

The HEA would have known how many students take on biology and French, for argument's sake, in whatever institute. It would know the number of places because it funds the places. Surely at some stage somebody should have asked how many students were in a place.

A group was set up by the then Minister for Education which sat for three years to look at the issue of transition from second level to higher education and that was one of the issues that has been dealt with. It has now been dealt with by agreement across all the institutions.

Why was there a need for agreement? You are funding these institutions to provide education to third level students but they are inflating points, which is leaving some people out.

That is a strong way of putting it. Anyway, as a matter of law, the-----

Were the institutions leaving places unfilled to keep points at a certain threshold?

I do not know if there is any strong evidence of that.

Did you investigate it?

Can I go back to the other point? The point is that in law, under the Universities Act it is the universities which decide on access requirements, not the HEA.

But it is you that funds the universities and funds the courses.

Agreed.

So if a course is left unfilled there could be a student with their heart set on a course but who will miss out by five points because university X decides it needs to be in the 450-500 points range because its competitors are. It does not want to come below the threshold so it forgoes five or ten places but the HEA is still funding it.

That is a separate issue which arose precisely as you describe it, namely, that where there are places available on a course, a university would not take students on the basis that their points were not high enough. That practice is there so one could have a situation where there are places available but the places would not be filled.

Paid for by the taxpayer.

No. The places are only paid for in so far as they are taken up. The money follows the student in all situations. There is no circumstance where a university would get payment for non-existent students.

Apart from the money element, did you not feel at any stage that there was something wrong with the practice of universities and colleges doing that under the noses of the HEA and that it stank a bit?

It was very much a minority practice.

How do we know that? Was it investigated?

No.

Is it the HEA's intention to look at it?

No, I do not think so.

Why not?

Because I believe it was very much a minority practice and I also believe it has now ceased.

We do not know that it has ceased and we do not know it was a minority practice if it has not been investigated. Are there any plans to look at this? I think it is an absolute scandal.

As I sit here today there are no plans to further look at it.

I think there should be plans and I think there is an onus on the Department of Education and Skills to check.

I chair the transitions group which is looking at improving the transition from second level to third level and we have, with agreement, made a range of changes to the leaving certificate, the points system and the broadening of entry into courses, especially in the universities. We will be monitoring and evaluating whether there are peaks in points levels. Where one would expect a curve and there are peaks where institutions fix on certain transition points this will be monitored. If peaks emerge we will seek to address that with the universities. However, the universities, other than in the health care sciences, are not funded on the basis of the number of places per course. They have choices about the number of courses they have and the number of cases on each course. It is only in a small number of courses, such as medicine, that there is a number of funded cases but yes, we will be evaluating the information.

Do you accept that by inflating points to a certain level it makes universities more attractive? If a person is out there flogging a university to get money into a trust fund, which can be kept at arm's length from the university, is it not in the university's best interest not to have points at a depressed level, even if it actually fits the course? Is it not in the college's or the university's best interest to inflate them to make it look better and leave the student outside the gate?

I do not think it is in its best interest, no.

I am surprised that the Department of Education and Skills and the HEA take the attitude that we will just move on from here. I think the practice of colleges knowingly making sure that somebody who may be very capable of doing an assigned course is left out-----

We have exactly the same-----

-----because the college wants to inflate them.

We have the same-----

That is not their role.

No, sorry, we have the exact-----

Their role is as an educator.

Deputy, we have the exact same concern as you. That is one of the reasons we put the group in place.

Do you accept then that the HEA has no intention of investigating it?

I indicated to the Deputy the research that will be done to ensure that the implementation works-----

Because-----

-----and it will include looking at whether there are peaks on levels of points which are artificially created-----

The one thing that is-----

-----which is-----

-----missed from this is that the college's role is as an educator. It is to provide education. It is not there to be some sort of self-gratification, going around with inflated points and egos.

There is no disagreement on our side.

I am surprised that the Department of Education and Skills has taken this kind of arm's length attitude-----

We have not.

-----to-----

We have not taken an arm's length attitude.

You have heard the-----

I am chair of a group-----

You have heard the head of the HEA just say it.

-----to change the system and we will monitor the changes.

With respect, Chairman, Mr. Ó Foghlú heard the head of the HEA tell me he has no intention of investigating this or doing anything with it.

No, I clarified that-----

That is not acceptable.

The implementation will be evaluated.

I will move on to another issue which comes up perennially here, which is trusts within universities and colleges, and money winding up funding academic and administrative staff and research outside of the ambit of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Where does the HEA stand on this?

Foundations or trusts are extraordinarily important, as I think the Deputy will appreciate, in order to raise private funding for the institutions. We have had an ongoing issue with the consolidation of the foundations into the accounts of the universities so there is full transparency. This matter is now at an end because we have directed the universities that all foundations must be consolidated into the accounts. One university was already doing this in any case.

Will this be done across the board?

It will be done from the next accounts.

So all of the financial statements from now on-----

They will be required to consolidate.

To go back to a previous point on the financial statements, the last time the witnesses were here we had a big argy-bargy on audit committees. Do all of our third level institutions now have functioning audit committees? The last time we were here and we went down this road we did not know whether they were meeting, we did not know who was on them and we had no records of them. They might or might not meet. Does every institute funded through the taxpayer by the HEA have an audit committee which is meeting?

Yes, I can say with confidence.

Can we get details on all of the third level institutes with regard to who is on their audit committees, when they met last and how many times they have met?

Fine.

How many people are employed in the HEA?

I think our number is 62, but there are probably only 58 at the moment.

What you mean by that?

There are some vacancies.

What is the number?

It is 62.

It is 62 but you have how many vacancies?

I think it is about four. I can provide the precise figure for the Chairman, but it is certainly of that order.

Do you employ consultants?

Yes. Do you mean on a regular basis or permanently?

Well, how often? What do you call regular?

We engage consultants on a needs basis.

For what purpose?

For instance, at the moment we are conducting strategic dialogue with institutions to look at the performance of institutions vis-à-vis their compacts with us, so we would engage-----

When did that start?

We would engage outside expertise for that. A good example would be several years ago we did a significant review of initial teacher education and we engaged consultants for it. It is that kind of work.

When did your review of the institutions and your dialogue with them start?

Do you mean the-----

The one you mentioned.

The process started two years ago but the actual current work started about two weeks ago.

What is the cost of that?

I do not have a precise cost. I can get it for the Chairman-----

Yes.

-----but I do not have the precise costs of the top of my head, but it is modest.

Did that go out to procurement?

Yes. It went through the normal procurement rules.

Who is conducting that process?

We are, in the HEA.

No, after the procurement process what consultant was appointed?

I beg your pardon. We have engaged a former Provost of Trinity College, someone with expertise of the Hong Kong system of higher education and a former senior person in the European University Association.

I see. How much would you spend on consultants in any one year?

The Chairman is looking at our accounts I assume.

That is what you are here for today.

I understand that. I will ask Mr. Roche to comment on this.

The figures the Chairman is looking at in the accounts encompass quite a number of different areas. It is not just consultants.

What are those figures?

The figure for 2014 was just under €760,000 and-----

Sorry, this is the figure for consultants.

This is the overall figure for research and survey, which includes consultants.

Okay, so was this broken down into consultants?

Of the total of €759,000, we outsourced our internal audit and we also did quite extensive checking under the European Regional Development Fund, ERDF, and the European Social Fund, ESF, and this was procured through Mazars. That programme has recovered just under €100 million for the State for 2012, 2013 and 2014. This cost was just under €110,000. We also contribute €80,000 to the Marie Curie postgraduate award. We did an alumni destination report for the Irish Research Council, IRC, and that came to just under €40,000. We have our own legal costs, which came to just about €35,000. We did an employers survey through the ESRI and that came to approximately €20,000. As Mr. Boland mentioned, we had panel fees and various reviews and previous strategic dialogue which came to approximately €80,000. We have used the ESRI on occasion for statistical research on eurostudent surveys and socio-economic coding, which came to approximately €77,000. The strategic dialogue process and consultancy in this regard came to approximately €230,000, of which a major element was a procured consultant. That accounts for most of it and there are miscellaneous other bits and pieces.

What about 2013? That was significantly higher.

With regard to the ERDF and ESF, 2013 was a particularly high period of article 13 checks. We are part of a cascade to claim money back from Europe under the ERDF and ESF and, as I mentioned, the recoverable amount for the Exchequer is just under €100 million. This came to just under €200,000 in 2013 and was payable to Mazars. It is not all with regard to article 13 checks as Mazars is also our outsourced internal auditor. We also have the Marie Curie award which I mentioned, which was also €80,000 in 2013. Our legal costs were just under €40,000. We did other surveys which came to approximately €25,000. We had other panel members which amounted to approximately €50,000. We sponsored undergraduate awards, which amounted to just under €70,000. We had further statistical research, eurostudent surveys and socio-economic coding which amounted to just under €110,000. We also had a strategic dialogue process, which amounted to just under €90,000. We had the UCC medicine study which amounted to approximately €20,000 or €25,000. We had the access programme which cost €31,000. There was the ESF programme which cost €20,000. There were other various amounts, which came to quite a substantial amount of money.

Will the HEA provide us with a list of the various consultants used for 2013 and 2014, for what purpose and how much?

We will do that.

It is a significant sum of money to pay on the basis of consultants' fees.

It is not all consultants.

The Chairman is referring specifically to the consultants.

Is it just the consultants?

Mr. Roche might give us the details of the list he read out. It is basically the two figures in the accounts. I ask him to give us a complete breakdown of them with regard to who was used and for what purpose so that at least we can understand what is going on.

Travel and subsistence expenses were significant.

Again, Chairman, many of the same issues arise in the travel and subsistence area, in particular to do with travel and subsistence around the engagement of international people to assist us with the strategic dialogue process, which was a major reform of the higher education system. Again, we can provide the committee with a full breakdown.

Yes. We will come back to it again if necessary. Some other issues arise. There are 62 staff and four vacancies in the HEA.

I would have to check that precisely, but the vacancies are of that order. There may be more.

Deputy Dowds referred to the National College of Art and Design and the fact that the last set of accounts was from 2011 and 2012. Before it becomes an issue, I am anxious to determine if there is a progress report. Arising from the meeting we had with the National College of Art and Design, could Mr. Boland indicate what progress has been made to date on the issues that were raised and how they have been dealt with? A transcript of the meeting might help. We will see what progress has been made and measure what is going on in terms of the work to be undertaken.

Part of the duties of the 62 staff is to oversee the various universities and third level institutions. Because today's meeting is the first one of the session, a significant number of accounts are available that have been put before the Comptroller and Auditor General. Dublin City University was dealt with in terms of the trust and the accumulated reserves of €15.4 million. The other issue of putting money off-balance-sheet has been dealt with previously. I understand from Mr. Boland's reply that the HEA has instructed the institutes and universities that that is not to happen and the HEA will oversee it.

That is correct, Chairman.

The next matter relates to Waterford Institute of Technology. Is Mr. Nevin the president?

No, it is Dr. Donnelly. Willie Donnelly.

Where is Mr. Nevin?

Mr. Nevin, having left Waterford Institute of Technology, was engaged by the Department of Education and Skills and assigned to the HEA to do work jointly with us on a range of issues to do with-----

So Mr. Nevin is now working with the HEA.

Yes, he is.

And he is paid for by the Department of Education and Skills.

That is correct.

What is the wide range of issues he is dealing with?

There are a number of them. First, as a former president of an institute of technology, Dr. Nevin advises us generally on the development of the IOT sector, but he has a particularly significant role in our enterprise engagement function in the HEA. We have a new enterprise engagement strategy and Dr. Nevin is playing a very important part in rolling out that strategy.

He is heading up that strategy.

He is not heading it up. There is a principal officer in charge of enterprise engagement, although the position is vacant at the moment. He acts more in an advisory role and he has taken on some specific tasks. In addition, he is very valuable to us in terms of advising on skills needs in the economy and he is working with the Department on the development of a skills strategy for the country. What we are doing is engaging him in the areas of his expertise in the past. Another significant area where his advice and support and expertise is very valuable is in the rolling out of the new apprenticeship programmes-----

Is that as a consultant or is he employed by the Department?

To be clear, he is currently working on our behalf in the HEA, but he remains on the WIT payroll, and that is one of the issues WIT is seeking to change with us. We have agreed that we will pay him but we have not made that arrangement with WIT yet.

So Mr. Nevin is being paid by Waterford IT but is working for the HEA, and the Department at some stage will pick up the tab-----

We will.

-----for his payments dating back to the time that he left the college.

We have to work that out with WIT, but we will certainly-----

But why would the Department not work it out if he left the college and went into the employment of the HEA?

We have to agree that yet with WIT. We have not done that yet.

What agreement is to be made? If he left the college and went to work for the HEA-----

He is still legally in the employ of the college.

So he has not left the college.

No, he is legally employed by the college. He is seconded to us.

I see. That is interesting. I wish to return to a matter that was raised earlier by Deputy Deasy about Dr. Byrne, the previous president. The HEA received a report back in 2011 in relation to the expenditure at the college. Is that correct?

I am not sure.

I am trying to explore-----

I cannot say absolutely, but let us say yes. I do not know. I cannot recall precisely.

I think the Chairman may be referring to the Deloitte investigation of expenses.

Right. That is fine. Yes, I do recall that.

WIT did a report to the HEA on 3 June 2011, and in that report it set out to address various matters at that time, particularly to do with what was described then as the cost centre for Dr. Byrne. Reading the report that the HEA was given, it would appear that much of what we were talking about back then did not relate to Dr. Byrne at all. It was a cost centre that was used generally and was not necessarily spent by him. Mr. Costello is nodding.

I can recall the report. There would have been issues where, let us say, the institute would have had a subscription to IBEC, or to Institutes of Technology Ireland, that would have gone through that cost centre. That is just from memory.

I will not speak for him, but Deputy Deasy was trying to redress the balance in terms of that issue at the time and the fact that it was perhaps not appropriate to refer to it as Dr. Byrne's expenditure, which I think is fair, because it was said at the meeting.

Dr. Byrne-----

One moment. I will allow Mr. Ó Foghlú to comment in a moment. The HEA had that report.

Could I just clarify something? The HEA had the report and the Comptroller and Auditor General did a review of it, which was considered by the committee a number of years ago. As Mr. Costello has shown, the review showed there was a range of expenditures that were not necessarily personal. Notwithstanding that, there is a range of other expenditures which WIT is seeking to have repaid by Professor Byrne at the moment.

Yes, but I am not going into that. I am just trying to work out our understanding of what happened, because a lot was said at the public hearing. We did not go back to specifically address the issues, and it is only fair that I refer to this particular report, which is in existence and went to the HEA.

One of the other clarifications I am anxious to get relates to the sports centre. That was terminated, or the completion of the construction of the centre was stopped. Someone made a decision on that, knowing that it would cost €4 million.

Who made that decision?

This was also covered in the Quigley report. Arising from the Quigley report, the Minister agreed to a Department contribution of €2.9 million towards that. We have not paid over that €2.9 million yet but we are in discussions with WIT and WIT would like that funding to be increased somewhat. We are in discussions with WIT about that at the moment. No decision has been made that the project will not advance. WIT has not made that decision. Those issues were covered in the Quigley report.

I understand that. Mr. Ó Foghlú refers to the Quigley report as if I am asking questions that I should know the answer to. All I know from the Quigley report is it said €2.9 million. I know that when the decision was being made that people were told it would cost €4 million to terminate the contract at that time. I am asking whether that is true or false and, on the €2.9 million, what will it now cost to complete that in the way that it was planned originally? I am asking for clarification on the current status.

WIT has not decided to advance with it but it is in discussions with us about advancing it. I am not aware of what the cost will be but WIT is of the view that it will be more than €2.9 million.

Mr. Ó Foghlú does not know what the cost is.

I do not know-----

What is happening down there with it at the moment?

WIT is in discussions with us about having some extra funding for that.

Are the buildings empty? It is used or not used?

My understanding is that perhaps part of it may be used but a lot of it is empty. It is not useable.

How long has it been empty?

As far as I recall, two years or so.

Two years. Does the Department find that acceptable?

WIT-----

How much has the taxpayer spent on that up to now? Then the Department closed it; at least it did not do what the Department of Justice did and tear it down.

No.

At least there is a building there.

I have referred to the Quigley report. This is covered in the Quigley report. They over committed about this and they needed additional funding for it and that is one of the reasons why we had to have the investigation. The Minister made a call that she was willing to fund additional funding for it. That additional funding is available but now WIT is seeking an extra element to it and that is available as a loan.