This morning, we will engage with the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science to examine its appropriation accounts for 2024.

On behalf of the committee, I welcome officials from the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science: Dr. Colm O'Reardon, Secretary General; Ms Fiona O'Byrne, assistant secretary general, further education, training, apprenticeships and skills division; Mr. Keith Moynes, assistant secretary general, higher education policy division; Mr. William Beausang, assistant secretary general, corporate services and capital division; and Ms Valerie Considine, principal officer, finance unit. We are also joined by officials who are attending in a representative capacity from Skillnet Ireland: Mr. Mark Jordan, chief executive officer, and Mr. Shane O'Keeffe, chief operating officer. From the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation, we have Ms Georgina Hughes-Elders, principal officer, and Mr. Jaime Marín. Finally, we are joined by officials from the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General including Mr. Seamus McCarthy, Comptroller and Auditor General, who is a permanent witness to the committee, and Ms Paula O'Connor, deputy director of audit. They are all very welcome here this morning.

Before we begin, I wish to explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses as regards references witnesses may make to other persons in their evidence. The evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected pursuant to both the Constitution and statute by absolute privilege.

This means they have an absolute defence against any defamation action for anything they say at the meeting. However, they are expected not to abuse this privilege, and it is my duty as Cathaoirleach to ensure this privilege is not abused. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Witnesses are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity.

I now call on the Comptroller and Auditor General to deliver his opening statement.

The appropriation account for Vote 45 – Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science – records total expenditure of €3.59 billion in 2024. This was up 8% from the €3.3 billion spent in 2023.

Expenditure under the Vote is accounted for under three programmes: skills development; higher education; and research, innovation and science. Expenditure under the higher education programme amounted to €2.69 billion, including grant funding to higher education institutions transferred via the Higher Education Authority, HEA. Issues from the Vote included €1.6 billion in recurrent grant support for higher education institutions; €195 million provided for third level infrastructure projects; and €255 million to fund pension costs relating to former staff of third level institutions. Just under €364 million was spent on student support grants and related expenses. The majority of this was provided through the Student Universal Support Ireland, SUSI, scheme. The scheme is operated on behalf of the Department by Dublin City Education and Training Board. Members may recall that when the financial statements of the education and training board were presented, I drew attention to a number of matters affecting SUSI operations, including delays and project cost overruns on an IT system upgrade project.

The Vote programme for skills development involved expenditure of just over €617 million, including grant support to SOLAS, which funds further education and training activities, including apprenticeships.

A total of just under €282 million was spent under the research, innovation and science programme. The bulk of this was transferred to Science Foundation Ireland, which has since been amalgamated into Taighde Éireann.

On the receipts side, appropriations-in-aid of the Vote amounted to just under €108 million in 2024. The majority of these receipts, just over €93 million, relate to additional superannuation contributions deducted from the salaries of staff in higher education institutions, and in the Department's aegis bodies.

For 2024, the net surplus on the Vote remaining at the year's end was €16.25 million, which was liable for surrender to the Exchequer.

I issued a clear audit opinion in relation to the appropriation account and drew attention to one disclosure in the statement on internal financial control related to non-compliance with procurement rules in respect of contracts to the value of €729,000.

The National Training Fund, NTF, is a statutory departmental fund set up to support employment-focused training. The fund's resources are ring-fenced for specific statutory purposes, and unlike the Vote, any unspent balances at the end of the year are not liable for surrender to the Central Fund.

Receipts into the training fund comprise mainly the proceeds of a levy on certain employers collected through employer pay-related social insurance. The income of the fund in 2024 amounted to €1.2 billion, while payments amounted to just under €978 million. The result was a surplus for the year of €229 million, which brought the accumulated surplus in the fund to a total of €1.77 billion at the end of 2024. I reported in my 2023 annual report on how the fund surplus has grown steadily over recent years.

The fund's expenditure is divided mainly between programmes focused on those currently in employment, including apprentices, and on skills development for those looking to take up employment or to re-enter the workforce. Substantial resources flow from the fund to SOLAS and the HEA, and onwards to their respective client agencies.

Separately, the Department also provides substantial recurrent funding from the Training Fund to Skillnet Ireland, which in turn distributes grant-funding to support sectoral training networks. Skillnet Ireland, a company limited by guarantee, received public funding totalling €51 million in 2024 and €61 million in 2023.

I issued a clear audit opinion in relation to the 2024 NTF financial statements but drew attention to a disclosure in the statement on internal financial control concerning Skillnet Ireland funding.

Skillnet Ireland received a protected disclosure in September 2023 that raised concerns in relation to the operation of one of the sectoral training networks it funds. Around the same time, similar disclosures were made to the Department and to my own office. I am not the auditor of Skillnet Ireland's financial statements, but we have kept developments in relation to the protected disclosure under review in the audits of the 2023 and 2024 financial statements of the training fund.

Skillnet Ireland commissioned an independent investigation of the concerns raised in the disclosure. The investigation concluded in June 2025. By December 2025, when I was reporting on the fund's 2024 financial statements, the Department had not yet received the investigation report and had been unable to identify if any changes were required in the system of controls in place in respect of the application of NTF resources, arising from the investigation findings.

Since the financial statements were presented, the Accounting Officer has provided updates to the committee about this matter. My office will examine further the systemic control implications of the investigation findings in the context of the audit of the 2025 financial statements of the fund.

I now ask the Secretary General, Dr. O'Reardon, to deliver the opening statement on behalf of the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science. As set out in the letter of invitation, he has five minutes in which to do so.

I am pleased be here this morning to assist the committee in its examination of the 2024 appropriation account for Vote 45 and the 2024 financial statements of the NTF. To assist me in answering members' questions, I am joined today by my colleagues Mr. William Beausang, assistant secretary, research and innovation, EU and international; Mr. Keith Moynes, assistant secretary, higher education policy; Ms Fiona O'Byrne, assistant secretary, skills policy and further education and training; Mr. Paul Lemass, assistant secretary, capital development; and Ms Valerie Considine, finance officer.

The Vote group of the Department comprises both the Vote and the NTF. While separate sets of annual accounts are prepared for each, they are treated as a single Vote group for budgetary purposes. Combined gross expenditure in 2024 amounted to €4.57 billion, comprising €3.6 billion under the Vote and €978 million under the NTF. This was €6 million, or 0.2%, below the revised gross budgetary allocation, which included a €40 million capital carryover from the previous year.

In October 2024, the Department received a Supplementary Estimate of €252 million to support cost-of-living measures, public sector pay and pension costs, and increased demand for further education and training provision.

The Department's Vote is structured across three programmes, each one representing a key policy priority. Programme A focuses on skills development, with expenditure of €617 million in 2024. Most of this funding is allocated to SOLAS to support the delivery of further education and training through 16 education and training boards. Programme B covers higher education, with expenditure of €2.7 billion. This includes grant funding to universities through the HEA, student supports via SUSI and investment in capital infrastructure. Programme C focuses on research, innovation and science, with expenditure of €282 million supporting science and technology programmes as well as research activity in third level institutions.

The NTF has played an important role in Ireland's skills system for over 25 years.

It was established under the National Training Fund Act 2000 and it is a dedicated fund to support training that is closely linked to employment. It is funded through a levy of 1% on certain employee earnings. The NTF funds a number of schemes delivered by Government Departments and agencies as well as business and community organisations. Its purpose is to help people to gain employment, remain in work and develop new skills as needs change. It aims to strengthen workforce capability and support economic growth by ensuring a well-skilled labour force. It achieves this through three programme areas that support skills development and training across the country. These include programmes to upskill those in employment, including apprenticeships; the provision of training to support entry and re-entry into the workforce; and the development of information systems to identify current and future needs within the economy.

Investment from the fund has grown steadily in recent years. NTF expenditure in 2026 is expected to be 94% higher than it was in 2021, demonstrating a sustained and substantial increase in funding over a short period. Income to the fund has also grown strongly, reflecting wider economic growth. While this is positive, it has resulted in an accumulated surplus. A package of €1.5 billion over six years was agreed as part of budget 2025 including €885 million in current spending and €650 million in capital investment. Earlier this year, the National Training Fund (Amendment) Act 2025 was commenced which allows for capital expenditure from the fund. In practical terms, the surplus package will support continued investment in further and higher education, apprenticeships, research and improved facilities and equipment. It is important to note that while the changes allow for capital spending, all expenditure must align with the purposes set out in the Act. It must also remain within overall Government expenditure ceilings. All expenditure from the NTF is considered in the context of the overall fiscal and budgetary framework agreed by the Government. Any increase in NTF spending without corresponding adjustments elsewhere within the Vote would have direct implications for my Department’s expenditure ceiling and for overall Government spending parameters.

Overall, the fund will continue to support steady, balanced development across the education and training system. One of the Department’s aegis bodies supported by the NTF is Skillnet Ireland. Its core role is to support the competitiveness, productivity and innovation of businesses in Ireland through enterprise-led workforce development. Skillnet Ireland operates through a networked model whereby funding is provided to contracting organisations to operate business networks. These networks bring together groups of companies on a sectoral or regional basis to identify and address their skills needs. The model is designed to be responsive to industry and operates on a cost-sharing basis combining State funding with contributions from participating enterprises. In his audit of the 2024 NTF financial statements, the Comptroller and Auditor General drew attention to a protected disclosure received by Skillnet in late 2023 which raised concerns regarding the operation of one such contracting organisation. Reviews of this entity were carried out by Skillnet Ireland including through the engagement of an independent external reviewer. The overall process was complex and protracted. These investigations ultimately identified two amounts to be returned to Skillnet Ireland - ineligible expenditure of €18,942 and an unused grant amount of €47,639. These amounts have since been repaid in full to Skillnet Ireland. Skillnet Ireland has also informed me that it has made referrals to the Garda, the Revenue Commissioners and the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement on these matters. We look forward to engaging with the committee and answering any questions members may have.

I thank Dr. O'Reardon. Please note we will suspend the meeting at about 12.30 p.m. for a 15-minute break and resume afterwards. I will now open the floor to members. The lead speaker is Deputy Bennett who has 15 minutes. All other speakers have ten minutes. If time permits, on conclusion I will allow members back in for a short supplementary round of questions. I call Deputy Bennett.

I welcome everybody here today. On the investigation, were there any sanctions on Skillnet for not providing the documentation straight away when the audit was carried out?

This was a particularly complex protected disclosure. My understanding is Skillnet routinely audits the networks it works with. It had some concerns about this particular one.

Did it bring that to Dr. O'Reardon's attention?

It would not have brought it to my attention at that stage. I received a protected disclosure which was rather complicated. As the Deputy is aware, protected disclosures have to treated with a fair degree of sensitivity and confidentiality. We were made aware in an early warning report that it had some concerns but it took some time for this protected disclosure to be investigated and for the investigation to be finalised. We sought updates from Skillnet but on the other hand we have to be very careful-----

Does the Department not have terms of reference with all the organisations it gives State money to?

We do have that with Skillnet.

If the terms of reference were not abided by, what were the sanctions?

We reviewed our terms of reference with Skillnet and amended the text to make sure in the future we ask it to give us a sense of whether there are issues in a protected disclosure that it can update us on. When we are talking about protected disclosure we have to be very careful about protecting a whistleblower, if one is involved, or a protected person. There are limitations on what you can ask. This was a complex one. The entity involved did not co-operate with the investigation and the discloser at a certain point stopped co-operating with the investigation which would in some sense explain the lengthy period it took to conclude. I would say it took too long. There are lessons to be learned about how quickly these things can be addressed but it was a complex case and it took some time to reach a conclusion.

Does Dr. O'Reardon believe all of the issues have now been addressed?

I am confident insofar as I can be that any moneys due to Skillnet have been returned. The matter has been referred to the Garda and Revenue. They are the competent authorities to take it from here.

Why was the unredacted version of the report not provided to the committee?

I do not have an unredacted version of the report. I have a redacted version which I have seen. I have been given-----

Should Skillnet not be-----

I would very much prefer to share it with the committee but my legal advice is I am precluded from doing so.

The Department still has not seen an unredacted version of the report.

I have seen a version of the report which I am satisfied gives me enough information to be happy that the relevant actions that needed to be taken have been taken. There is an element of redaction in the report to protect the identity of the discloser and various other elements. There is enough in the report for me to be satisfied that the right actions have been taken. The matter has been referred to the Garda, Revenue and the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement.

I find it deeply concerning, with the investigation completed nearly a year ago, that the Department still has not had sight of a full report. That is serious.

It is very serious. What changes has the Department implemented in relation to Skillnet and other organisations and the Department's oversight of funding? It does not read very well that there is great oversight of funding when it does not even have the unredacted version of that report.

We have a performance delivery agreement with Skillnet. We have reviewed that and altered the text to make sure any aspect of protected disclosure which might identify any financial wrongdoing or misuse of funds is identified to us. We have provided the text of that. Skillnet has also strengthened its own internal controls and the funding agreements it reaches with the various networks it co-operates with. It is in the process of reviewing them and it has taken various actions. We have a system of performance delivery agreements with our agencies on oversight. We comply with the code for oversight of aegis bodies.

There is a particular case in respect of which we are precluded from receiving that information - it is around the protection of the discloser - and where we do not want to compromise any investigation that the Garda might be involved with.

Again, we feel the Department is not telling us everything about the investigation. In such circumstances, how can we have full confidence in anyone getting Government funding from the Department? How can we be sure that the funding is being spent and that there is governance and oversight?

We have been through the protected disclosures process with Skillnet. As I said, it took a long time. We are satisfied that any money that might be due to it has been repaid and that, as a result, neither Skillnet nor the State is at a loss in this circumstance. To the extent that there are issues that need to be addressed as to how Skillnet operates, it is addressing them. In terms of the report, we operate in an environment where there is legislation that protects people who make protected disclosures. We have to respect that. We have to operate within the law.

Does the Department have protected disclosures from any other companies that it gave money to?

I have a list. From time to time, we would expect protected disclosures to occur. If the Deputy thinks about our system, there are 12 universities and 16 ETBs, so we would expect protected disclosures to happen within those organisations, depending on what might take place at any particular time.

Going forward, the Department will ensure that any disclosures are reported to the Comptroller and Auditor General. This was not reported immediately. Is that correct?

We have a system of early warning reports that operates with our aegis bodies. We have agreed that we will provide those to the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General on an ongoing basis in order that it can be aware of whatever may come up. To come back to the point, this is a particularly complex case, and one that merits referral to further authorities.

I have a question for Skillnet. Why were there such delays in producing the documents? Skillnet is still not producing the full documents.

It is worth pointing out that this was the first protected disclosure the organisation had ever received, and also that it is in relation to an organisation that is completely separate from and independent of ourselves but which we fund. We sought legal advice on how to manage the process.

Did Skillnet bring the matter to the Department's attention?

As soon as it was assigned to us in the context of our role as an “other suitable person”, we notified the Department that we had received and been assigned the protected disclosure. We spent some time with the reporter defining the scope and the terms of reference. We also engaged with Raiseaconcern. During that period, we realised that this required an independent investigation. As a result, there was a tendering process. The investigation was undertaken after that process concluded. The investigators were met with resistance such that the reporter was unable to co-operate with the investigation. The company that had been reported against worked through its legal advisers, who advised it not to participate in the investigation. Therefore, the investigators only really had information from Skillnet Ireland to work on. Once that had concluded and they were able to investigate to the best of their abilities, we worked across our legal teams to identify the process for recovering and having funds repaid that were due and held up as allegations. We then finalised the report and provided the Department with a briefing.

Does Skillnet Ireland have a board?

We do.

Who authorises appointments to or places people on the board?

We have recently revised the constitution.

How many people are on the board?

There are 13 people.

How are they nominated?

The Minister appoints all of the-----

The Minister appoints everybody to Skillnet. Does the board not report back to the Minister?

To clarify, the Minister appoints five members of the board. The other eight members are nominated through industry bodies that sit within our board.

The board members are delegated to the board by the Minister.

That is correct.

Did the board report to the Minister on what was happening in Skillnet?

Not to my knowledge. The executive was working with the Department.

I am going to move on from Skillnet, because I have spent quite a bit of time on that. I would like to discuss training for senior officials within the Department. Will Dr. O’Reardon give an estimation of how much that costs yearly?

For senior officials, it varies. If we describe that as the management board, assistant secretary and above, that depends on-----

How much is it for the Secretary General?

Over the past two years, I have done one programme that cost about €8,000 over two years, plus the expenses involved in attending the programme.

Who was the Secretary General in the period 2022 to 2023?

That was Mr. Jim Breslin.

I have a report here that he spent €65,000 on a course. Is that correct?

Yes.

What did that course relate to?

It was a course at Stanford. I believe it was some sort of leadership development course-----

Sixty-five thousand euro.

-----with an emphasis on sustainable development and-----

What value did the taxpayer get from that? For a start, he does not work in the Department any more.

I am limited in the information I have on this. I joined the Department as Secretary General to replace him, so I am not across the detail of what the conversation might have been had between him and-----

Who would have sanctioned the €65,000 to be spent on a “Be a Leader Who Matters” programme at Stanford University in the USA in 2022?

The way this would have worked is that he would have a conversation with the performance review group that reviews the performance of Secretaries General. My understanding is that he then engaged with the senior public service, which is the unit that previously existed in the Department of public expenditure and which now sits with the IPA. He agreed the course with that unit. It made a contribution to paying for it and we funded the difference, that is, an invoice came in to the Department.

What was the difference?

The €65,000 is what the Department paid.

That is what the Department paid. The course actually cost more than that.

I think the senior public service made a contribution of €10,000.

So it was €75,000 for the course. How long was the course?

I understand it was about six weeks.

I will move on. I have a question about an IT system that the Department has in place. In fact, the SUSI IT system is not actually in place because it is still not operational. Is that correct?

There are two projects. There was a project that started in 2015, before this Department was set up. It was intended to upgrade the software that supports the SUSI application system. When this Department was established, we reviewed that project and looked at the possibility of success. In 2021, the Department took the decision that the project should be concluded or brought to an end.

How much did the Department spend on that project?

My understanding is that the expenditure on the project was about €3.8 million-----

That is completely gone now. That project is null and void.

-----of which approximately €1.15 million has no enduring value. Some of the work would have a value that can be brought into subsequent development. About 115,000 people apply to SUSI every year within a very condensed period, so it is important that we have the best possible system through which people can apply.

Still and all, the €3.8 million is gone. That system is no good.

Of the €3.8 million, the view is that approximately €1.15 million-----

The €3.8 million has been spent. It is gone.

No, Deputy.

That system is no good.

My understanding is that of the €3.8 million, €1.15 million has no enduring value.

The balance is something that can be built on.

Did anybody seek assistance from any wing of government in relation to support to get an IT system that actually worked instead of wasting €3.8 million? Was there anybody from any Department?

I will ask my colleague Mr. Moynes who is more familiar with the history of this.

We seem to be running into this issue quite a bit, where IT systems are being purchased within Departments and then they do not work. How does this work?

From the files, it was clear there were a number of interventions made over the course of the programme. It was clear, when we took over the programme, that those interventions had limited likelihood of success. The project was terminated on the basis that an independent review would be done to identify what had gone wrong and what needed to be done. There were interventions made and in the current project, there has been significant improvements made, including-----

Before we spend that money on the current project as well, is there a computer programmer or software developer or anybody coming from that wing of government to ensure that these projects actually work and they work for what they are designed to do? Every time a Department comes in, there seems to be an issue with IT. We are spending vast amounts like €3.8 million on a system and we are now starting another system. This seems to be an ongoing issue. Is there a computer programmer of software developer who goes to these meetings when these IT systems are being discussed and requested?

We have assigned a project manager at principal officer level from the Government's ICT leaders panel. There is a programme manager put in and there is also an assistant principal put in. It is also being routed through the peer review.

Why are the systems not working then if there is an ICT manager there? Why are none of these systems working in any of the Departments and vast amounts of money being wasted?

I cannot speak to the other Departments, but for this project, the work that is being done now reflects what the independent review said. What the independent review said was you need to scope it out properly, you need to resource it properly and you need to do that upfront. One of the learnings from the last project that did not yield success was that it was not set up for success.

Was there a computer programmer or software developer -----

We are way over time.

----- in that meeting when that project was being discussed at the start?

For the last one, there would have been-----

Mr. Moynes feels they are doing their job-----

Sorry, Deputy, but you may have a chance to come back in. Mr. Moynes may make a concluding comment if he wishes.

A huge amount of work has been done to learn from what went wrong.

A huge amount of work-----

I am sorry, Deputy, let Mr. Moynes finish and we have to move on then.

There was an independent review done and we are absolutely rigorously implementing what was learned. The key part was to get it right before going to procurement and to get all the resourcing and all the scoping done before going to procurement. If there are lessons to be learned, it is there rather than embarking on a project. That is the best likelihood of success.

I know I took a little bit of Deputy Bennett's time but I was more than lenient. Deputy McGrath is next.

I thank everyone for being here. I am going to start with the Skillnet Ireland issue again to get a full understanding of that. The National Training Fund funds Skillnet Ireland to the tune of over €50 million per annum. I want to tease out the business networks that operate around the country. How many of these business networks are there in total?

We have what we would regard as 68 business networks and then we have five national schemes so we have 73 in total.

Can Mr. Jordan help me understand in terms of the contracting organisations versus the business networks? Does that mean there are that number of contracting organisations?

No. That is a good question. We have 57 industry bodies promoting these Skillnet networks and national initiatives.

Does that mean some contracting organisations are across a number of networks?

That is right, yes.

In terms of the one that is in focus here in the context of the allegations, was it across a number of networks or just one?

Part of my goal here is to try my best not to make them identifiable.

I understand. The question is: were they involved in one network or multiple networks?

It was more than one.

It was more than one. I know Mr. Jordan is being cautious in terms of identification but how long were they working with Skillnet?

They were working with Skillnet since around 2015.

In terms of the large number of networks and contracting organisations, this particular one highlights a complete lack of control in the operation of the overall system. Serious allegations were made and no referrals were made to An Garda Síochána, Revenue or the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement. How confident is Mr. Jordan that there are no other contracting organisations where similar issues could be arising on a daily basis?

We have a very robust and comprehensive governance process within the organisation. In this situation, some of the challenges existed around demand from industry and particularly the sector. It was a little bit akin to there being a gap in the market, but was there a market in the gap? We found that the traction with industry was not where it needed to be. We also uncovered, as the organisation looked to scale, that there were some operational challenges as well.

Mr. Jordan said there was strong governance and so on but the proof in the pudding shows there was not strong governance. There were serious allegations made, some of which have been upheld. Now referrals have been made to enforcement agencies such as An Garda Síochána. There was a serious breakdown of governance in this particular case.

Our governance process did identify issues with the organisation and we were working through those. The matters that have been referred-----

But a protected disclosure was made.

There was indeed.

Was it Skillnet Ireland or was it the protected disclosure that highlighted these issues?

In the first instance, we had identified challenges with the organisation subsequent to any protected disclosure we received.

Just to clarify, if there was never a disclosure, would these issues have come to light?

Yes, they would have come to light through our governance process.

Did Skillnet have a spotlight on these issues?

Yes. Just to clarify, the matters that have been referred onward are not necessarily related to Skillnet Ireland funding. They are more about themes around data protection and VAT.

How confident can we be that these issues are not replicated across the network base? We are at a stage where this particular contracting organisation effectively refused to engage. It sounds as if the relationship there was quite poor, to say the least. What does that say in terms of the other organisations? How confident can we be that there are not further issues?

I am very confident in our governance process, our ability to identify any challenges and the strengthening initiative we put in place. We have also been in operation for 27 years very successfully. This is really an anomaly for the organisation.

Does Mr. Jordan see potential criminal proceedings taking place?

That is a matter for the authorities to determine.

Were the matters referred of a serious nature?

They were of a nature that Skillnet Ireland was unable to investigate.

Effectively, they required law enforcement.

They required powers beyond what we have to investigate.

I thank Mr. Jordan for his answers and I know he is being careful in terms of the ongoing investigations.

Turning to the Department, two IT projects were mentioned. Can the Department briefly clarify the two projects?

We have over 116,000 people who apply for these grants so it is very important we have a functioning, operating grant application system that people can navigate so the maximum number of people can qualify for grants as possible. There was a project. It did not succeed. Mr. Moynes has explained some of the reasons it has not succeeded but we have to have a system, so we have had to go back and look at taking the lessons learned. We have a project which we call My SUSI which is to develop the grant application system to a modern standard, to make sure it is robust and to make sure-----

What stage is that system at?

We are going to tender for somebody to develop the system.

This is the system overseen by the City of Dublin Education and Training Board, CDETB?

It will again be the body involved. The CDETB is essentially our agent. It operates SUSI.

Am I correct in saying that project was initiated in 2015?

No. I am sorry if I am not being clear, but there are two projects. One was initiated in 2015 and has been cancelled. We are now in the process of initiating a subsequent project, learning the lessons from the previous one and taking it forward because we have-----

I want to clarify something Deputy Bennett focused on. What was the amount of money lost on the initial project?

In terms of the initial project, €3.8 million was spent. Of that, €1.15 million was deemed not to have enduring value. Some of the work done on the previous project has enduring value which can be transferred to the subsequent project, but €1.15 million is deemed not to be of any value.

Who determined the €1.15 million figure?

As far as I know, it was the CDETB.

It was in the CDETB accounts. The CDETB made an assessment of what had enduring value and what did not.

Was there any interrogation by the Department of the CDETB in respect of that matter? Was it just accepted at face value that it was €1.15 million as opposed to €2.5 million that was effectively wasted on the project?

We have to take at face value what it discloses in the accounts. We certainly have been pushing to ensure that the maximum utility was gained from the project. The piece that is deemed of no enduring value was the specific codebase and the coding that was done.

That part of it.

The other pieces were the organisational development and transformation elements. They were regarded as being of enduring value.

Are we now at an overall cost of €6.4 million on this?

If you take the two projects cumulatively, yes.

Where does Mr. Moynes see the overall cost landing ultimately before this system becomes operational?

I have to be very careful here. We are about to go to procurement, and I do not want to give a figure. When that phase is done, I am happy for us to come back to the committee but-----

What is budgeted for this project? Do we have a ballpark figure for the overall cost? I understand the point about the tender process, but I am asking for a ballpark figure.

There is a draft business case that contains a draft assessment budget. When that is finalised after the current phase of discovery, it will be what we go to procurement with. There is a budget. I would prefer to wait until the procurement is done to disclose more about that in order that we secure maximum value. There is a budget-----

We are €6.4 million in and Mr. Moynes is not prepared to give a figure, to the nearest €5 million, as to how much this will cost.

I need to be very careful, because we need to secure maximum value. I do not want the figure to be used as a target by suppliers.

When do we hope to have the system fully operational?

Subject to the discovery phase, which is what we are in at the moment, being completed successfully, we will go to procurement. We hope to have the system operational in 2029. Because of the academic year, you have to hit-----

In effect, this project started in 2015, albeit under a different guise. It will be operational in 2029. That is 14 years for the development of an IT system.

The first project did not yield a successful result so it had to be terminated. The alternative was to keep going with that. I do not think that would have been the right thing to do. By terminating-----

Is it not staggering that it will take 14 years to develop an IT system?

Yes, it is very frustrating.

With respect, we are not sending people to the moon here. We are developing an IT system.

There is a great deal of complexity to it. That is what was found. The complexity was underestimated. What is taking the time in this phase is making sure that complexity is not underestimated and it has resourcing, scope and governance. The Deputy is absolutely right. I will not sit here and say that the Secretary General and I are happy about that. We are not, of course, but there is a reality to the current project that we have to get it right. That takes time.

I have a final question about student fees, which were reduced to €2,500 in budget 2026. Is the Department pushing for a further permanent reduction in student contribution fees in budget 2027?

That is a political question. There is a commitment in the programme for Government, of which I am sure the Deputy is aware. I cannot really comment beyond that. The Minister has to weigh a number of matters in the Estimates process. It depends on the availability of resources. That is a policy problem which the Minister will have to address.

I thank the witnesses.

I thank all of the witnesses for being here. Deputy McGrath mentioned sending people to the moon. While the Department has a fairly wide remit, I do not think it includes sending people to the moon, but it probably has some research or science element for it in there.

We recently sent up a satellite.

I acknowledge the huge breadth of work that is done by the Department. I want to raise two issues which might be called matters arising from the committee's work. If these matters are not on the witnesses' immediate radar, they might come back to us in respect of them. The committee dealt with a discussion about the Dublin and Dún Laoghaire ETB on a mindfulness trip to Aruba in the Caribbean that cost nearly €28,000. Are the witnesses familiar with that? I am sure they are. Do they have any response?

We read the newspaper report.

I would say it provided the witnesses with very little mindfulness.

My understanding is that this is a European-funded programme with European rules. Part of that is there is a provision within those rules for an audit of that programme. That audit has not happened yet and it is still possible for that audit to take place and some of that funding to be withheld. The best thing is to allow that process to play out and then see what might happen on the foot of that audit.

I do not think anybody on this committee expects people within the Department to even have line of sight on some of those matters. What often comes up at this committee is the idea of sanctions. If I move away from the specific and into the more general, how can the Department impose sanctions on organisations that operate under its remit in areas where it feels effective public spending or good value for money is not being achieved? These sort of stories undermine the confidence people have in the overall system.

In that particular case, there is a provision for funding to be withheld. There is obviously a body for whom these people work which may have to consider what the outcome of that audit process is. On that one, that is where we will await developments. More generally speaking, we operate in a system where we have codes of governance. There is a code of practice for governance of State agencies. We apply that code. We operate on a basis that things occasionally go wrong. When they go wrong, we try to fix them or make sure they are fixed. When something is identified that requires an amendment of process, we amend that process.

If the Department has any written policies in this area, Dr. O'Reardon might provide them.

Yes, but that is something you have to work on continuously.

Of course. It is important that when there is a system in place, it catches those things that are unexpected. My second point comes from a conversation we had at one of our meetings regarding the Office of Public Works, the national children's science museum and the former UCD building in Earlsfort Terrace. I have a simple question. Has the Office of Public Works contacted Dr. O'Reardon's Department to seek for it to become the parent Department of that project?

I met the chairman on foot of what was discussed at the committee's meeting on the matter. It had a public session with the chairman of the OPW and discussed the Comptroller and Auditor General's report into this issue. The chairman asked to meet me. Subsequent to that, he wrote to me and I have written back to him. That is simply to confirm that this is not a file that transferred to us when the Department was established and we do not have a budget for it. I think the committee knows that because it has discussed the matter at great length. My role here was to confirm that this was not something that transferred to us when we were established, nor do we have a budget for it.

It has been suggested that any Department that might want to see this completed would be pleased to be able do it by means of someone else's budget. As well as the construction and fit-out costs, there are also potential running costs. Can I clarify there is no area in the Department's budget for any element of that?

The Deputy absolutely can do so. There is not.

I will move on to the My SUSI project.

Deputy McGrath asked some very interesting questions. It was stated that the alternative was to go ahead with a project that was not going to be completed. You might like to think that the alternative was to have planned it better in the beginning. Does Mr. Moynes believe there was expertise in the initial design and procurement? This is something we have seen across a range of Government Departments. There is not sufficient in-house expertise, or often when it is procured, it is not sufficient to identify what is actually needed and what a contract of this nature is. The idea of spending €1 million or €2 million on a project and not really knowing what you want or how you can get there is a significant issue and it is proving to be the case. Does Mr. Moynes believe it was the case in this situation that there was not sufficient knowledge?

We did an independent review and that is what it found. I do not want to speak to the knowledge but what it certainly found was that the project was not conceived correctly. The first project was conceived, in the words of the independent review, as a technical upgrade. There was an underestimation of the complexity of the challenge. It was a transformation challenge that was seen as a technical upgrade. From that flowed, in particular, resourcing and all the rest. There is an adage - I think this is what the Deputy is getting at - that projects do not go wrong; they start wrong. When we look at the current project, that is where we are particularly focused, that before we go to procurement, to make sure we have everything.

When was the first date that the Department was aware there was an issue with the My SUSI system?

The previous project was called the integrated grants processing system, IGPS. We were established in the middle of 2020 and, in the handover, it was said there was a project that was ongoing and had not been going great. What we were told at the time was that there were a lot of good-faith efforts made to remediate and a lot of interventions made.

The Department was informed by the City of Dublin Education and Training Board.

Yes. We took over responsibility for it.

Mr. Moynes says the Department took over responsibility for it. My understanding was the separation of the Department into two Departments was a carve-up of what was already there. Are we talking about the same people who previously-----

No. At my level, I did not have responsibility for that in the Department of education. It was handed over to me. I took over in 2020.

There was effectively a predecessor in the Department of education who was dealing with this project.

Yes, and a huge effort had gone into remediating the project. What the independent review found was that you were trying to fix a problem where the problem had been in the scoping way back in the day. Good efforts were made to remediate. It is a hard decision to terminate. It is not something you would want to do, so I would not be critical of anyone not terminating before that because they were working the problem. It was clear from the independent review, when it was done, that the problem was in the conception. That is really difficult. When the problem was in the conception, you can throw all the interventions because that meant it was not resourced and thought about properly. Then the supplier would have struggled to implement the complexities.

To the wider point, I would agree around thinking about the conception of these projects and doing a lot of thought. My old man always says measure twice and cut once, and I think that is true for big projects like this. You have to get the concept and the planning right.

Was there a chief technology officer, chief information officer or someone in CDETB who had direct responsibility for this?

I do not know the exact configuration. I know the Department of education assigned someone to help remediate the project.

Within the ETB, what department - I will not make it personal - or section was responsible for this project?

I do not know the case for the previous project. I do know it for the current project. We put in, on foot of advice from the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer, OGCIO, a specific programme manager to hold-----

The programme manager is responsible to the Department.

No, we took them off a panel and seconded them in. They are there to drive it and make sure that all the consultants who have that expertise are working for the benefit of the project.

I will move on. There was a data breach in SUSI and it resulted in a fine of €125,000. Is Mr. Moynes confident that there are sufficient checks in place to ensure that another fine of that nature is not levied?

Yes, it was significant. This is my recollection of this. I do not have a note on it in my file but my recollection is that this was at a time of significant disruption for SUSI but very significant efforts were put in to remediate. I can get the Deputy a note. I remember that, at the time, we got assurances about the work that had been done to strengthen data security and all that. I do not have it off the top of my head.

Given the time, Mr. Moynes might provide us with a note on that. I appreciate that.

Absolutely.

I thank the witnesses for coming before us. I want to focus in on what is happening in regard to Carlow College, which I assume the witnesses are aware of. There is a letter in The Irish Times today, which is quite impactful, by someone whose leaving certificate - in his own words - did not go the way he had hoped. He said:

What struck me most about the college was how personal it was. Students were not simply numbers on a register. Lecturers knew us, challenged us and took a genuine interest in how we were getting on. It was only later, when I moved on to postgraduate study elsewhere, that I realised how rare that experience had become.

Carlow College was, I think, first opened in the late 18th century. It is one of the oldest educational institutions in Ireland and now it is effectively closing down. Eighty-seven staff members are facing redundancy. There will not be any new students in Carlow College, as I understand it. Some existing students will be affected because they expected to do four-year degrees and come out with level 8 qualifications. They are now being told they will come out with level 7 and do one year less, effectively because of the wind-down of Carlow College. The assets, as I understand it, are going to be transferred to the South East Technological University, SETU. From what I can tell, effectively what has happened here is that there was a process towards a merger between Carlow College and the South East Technological University but that is not going ahead for some reason. Instead, Carlow College is being wound down, with the impacts on staff, students, the local community and so on. As a first question, is there anything I have wrong there in regard to the assessment I have got? We will start there.

The first thing to say is that Carlow College is a private college. It is not part of the State system but there are students in there who are funded under the free fees scheme. Starting where the Deputy started, our first concern has to be around students who are undertaking courses and that they are looked after, allowed to finish their studies and so on. There is obviously a staff cohort and it also comprises a building that is quite significant in the town of Carlow in terms of the way that town operates. For that building to, for example, be left empty would be a concern.

The concern has been to find a solution for Carlow College but it is a private entity. The one thing I would say, and I do not think we were ever clear on this, is that we were looking for a solution but I do not think that solution was necessarily going to be a merger, particularly because this was an entity that was experiencing significant financial difficulties. We have to try to protect the students. We would be concerned about the staff and we have to protect the taxpayer. A solution has been found that is being described as the "teach out" solution, which means that of those who are currently in Carlow, the students can continue their courses. There will be a transfer of the property and assets into SETU, and then there will be a process of trying to work through how many of the staff can be transferred into SETU. The aim here is to try to, as far as possible, protect the learners and see what can be done as far as possible for the staff. I do not think the word "merger" is one that was necessarily the only way. There was a number of different ways this could be characterised, and that is the aim.

Was it accurate at one stage? Dr. O'Reardon is saying it is not accurate that there was a merger ever really on the table here.

I would not say that. I think there were a number of options being looked at. It has been a looked at for a considerable period of time.

Let me put it this way. When did the Department become aware that a merger was not going to happen?

I would like Mr. Moynes to take the Deputy through the detail there.

As far back as 2022, the Department advised Carlow College - which is a private, church-run entity - that its continuing deficit position would make it very challenging for an integration into SETU to take place.

Okay.

We advised it that if that was its preferred option, then steps should be taken to address that situation.

There has been a lot of engagement over the period. In the most recent set of intensive engagement, we were advised by Carlow College that it did not have the money to operate as a going concern and so the Department sought to engage all the stakeholders to broker a solution that would protect the students. The Department did the best deal possible for staff in the circumstances, which also had the buildings of Carlow College as an enduring asset to be used for Carlow. It was a very challenging position but we were very clear all along that the State could not nationalise the deficits of a private entity.

Am I right that in the planned process of winding down Carlow College, extra public money will be provided?

There is an asset, which is the buildings. That has a valuation attached to it. The State is essentially acquiring that asset on the basis that those funds can be used in particular to look after the staff in terms of redundancy.

The State has taken an active interest in this, as it should. Why have the State and the Department accepted a situation where 87 workers will be made redundant as opposed to seeing them integrated or given the choice of being integrated into SETU?

It is not necessarily the case that 87 people will be made redundant. There is potential for some of those staff to move into SETU and Mr. Moynes will talk about how will work.

By virtue of growth in SETU there will be opportunities for open competitions. We were challenged in terms of managing public finances in that there was an asset that had a value attached to it. Going beyond that, especially in a situation where we advised that private entity that it was operating unsustainably and if it did not bring its operations into a sustainable basis then it would be very challenging to operate any sort of merger. I think we would be at this committee, on the contrary, being asking why did we spend more than the valuation of the asset.

Has the Department conducted an assessment of the relative cost of the closure and funding of redundancies versus a TUPE transfer to SETU of the workers?

My understanding is that SETU did do that. Understandably, it would have resulted in enduring current costs that are not in scope of our Department. We do not have the budget for the enduring costs of taking on staff from the private sector and putting them on the State's books. The Minister and the Department were both exercised to ensure that students, staff and the building were looked after. If there was another solution that could have had those staff transferred then that would have been our preferred option.

In other circumstances, times and places where there has been transfers, such as St. Angela's College in Sligo, the financial operating position of the private entity was a much stronger proposition and so it was able to effectively wash its face. In this case, Carlow College has operated in a deficit position for a very substantial period and we did not see a basis for us to essentially nationalise the deficit and take on those staff.

There is a memorandum of understanding between SETU and Carlow College. Does it involve the Department?

It does not. The Department is not a party to it but we are funding the purchase, which underpins the memorandum.

Can the memorandum be provided to the committee?

I do not know but I will check.

Does the Department has it?

We have it. I do not have a problem sharing it, Deputy. Since we are not a party to it, however, I will check. I cannot see why it could not be shared but I will check. There might be a timing issue in its sharing but, in principle, I do not see a reason why it could not be shared.

I would be grateful if that could be done. It would be great.

In terms of the Department's assessment of this and the relationship between Carlow College and SETU, was there any point at which the Department thought that this would be a TUPE-type transfer of workers with existing rights, etc?

We certainly contemplated that. We were not taking a principled position against this. In any circumstances like that we must be mindful of the public finances and Exchequer resources. If there was a scenario where that could have been done, where the college had been in a surplus position and there was assurance that this would continue, then we would not have had an objection to a TUPE-type scenario.

When did the Department decide that this would not happen?

When it became clear, notwithstanding that the Department had on a very significant number of occasions advised Carlow College that if it did not get its finances in order and it became gradually more obvious. We were still open to looking at all options. It is really only in the past number of months where it became very evident that the finances were such that it was not an option, that we engaged in a process to secure the best possible deal. In fairness to Carlow College and SETU, the interests of those workers were very much to the fore. That is why the State is underpinning this with a property purchase that would allow more favourable conditions. The alternative to the intervention between the memorandum of understanding and the purchase of the site would be a disorderly wind-down now with staff losing their jobs, probably this week.

Earlier the committee discussed the children's science museum. Has the Department responded to the OPW's letter that asked if it was interested in being the sponsoring Department?

Yes. I wrote back to Mr. Conlon, I think earlier this week. I am happy to give my letter to the Cathaoirleach if that is of any use. I simply said a couple of things. This is not a file or an issue that came to us when the Department was set up. We have no knowledge of the history of it. We have no budget for a capital expenditure or, indeed, as Deputy McAuliffe said, we have no budget for a current expenditure. That is as much as we really know about it.

The answer is "No".

The answer is "No". The answer to Mr. Conlon's letter is we have no money and it is not something that is in our plans.

I have some questions for Skillnet. Is Skillnet still contracting with the organisation that refused to provide the documentation around the issues or did Skillnet terminate the contract?

We ceased all funding at the end of 2024.

I am glad to hear that. I assume that the contract with those contracting authorities or bodies now compels them to provide information to Skillnet in terms of investigations, etc?

Yes, indeed. Our funding agreement has recently been strengthened. One of the learnings we have had from this is to make sure that we can compel co-operation going forward.

Can I assume that the Secretary General can confirm that the only element redacted in this report is to conceal the identity of the whistleblower?

Yes, and the entity, Deputy. Yes.

Chair, we must respect that because we do need to protect whistleblowers. Can the Secretary General confirm that is the only redacted element?

Yes, Deputy.

That is the only thing and the committee needs to respect that or seek our own legal advice on it.

In terms of IT, the My SUSI project was a disaster. We, as a committee, repeatedly hear from people that they did not understand the complexity, etc. I appreciate that the witnesses are coming to us new but we hear this excuse every week. I understand that there is an ongoing IT project between EduCampus and HEAnet and a roll-out of IT services in universities. Will we see repeated issues or other IT issues with the deployment of that project or any other IT project?

EduCampus and HEAnet are now an entity that rejoices in the name of Asiera. Asiera is a company that assists third level institutions with the procurement of IT projects. At present, it is something that is under the governance of the Department of Education and Youth but we anticipate taking over that governance.

As the Deputy has referred to, I do not think there is a manner in which you can guarantee you will never encounter difficulties with these things. The integrated grants processing system, IGPS, project, is the first project. We see IGPS and My SUSI as two separate things. The net point here is that, when the Department was established, it looked at the project and took the difficult decision to shut it down. The alternative was to allow the thing to get worse. The core lesson here is that, when you reach a point where you can see that something is not going to work, you have to decide whether to protect the taxpayer by shutting it down. In this circumstance, the answer was to do so.

I suppose I am asking whether lessons have been learned or whether we are going to be here next year hearing that the Department did not appreciate the complexity or the scope and had to do X, Y and Z. It is becoming repetitive. Lessons are learned but nobody is ever held accountable and there are never any consequences. We are repeatedly told lessons have been learned but we do not see it.

Within the time available at this meeting, fairly detailed information has been provided about what this was, what happened and what lessons were learned. There is a report on the lessons learned. There is a whole series of documentation on ensuring those lessons feed into the next project. We may have supplied this to the committee already but I am very happy to supply a further note on the background. It is a complicated enough story but the net point is that a decision was made to end something that was failing, which I believe was the right decision, and an exercise was done to bring the lessons learned forward into the next piece. A series of changes have been made to the way in which the governance of My SUSI, the ongoing project, will operate. This includes the Department essentially becoming the co-sponsor of that project whereas previously it rested with the-----

I assume that every paper on lessons learned goes back to the Office of Government Procurement and the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer.

That is a good question.

Projects valued at more than €5 million have to go through that peer review process. On the wider point, the Deputy is absolutely right about how you embed lessons learned. As the Secretary General has said, we now co-chair this steering group. As a matter of course, we go back to the lessons learned report every couple of meetings and see whether we are doing what is set down in it.

I have three more things I want to get through and three minutes. With regard to Skillnet, are there any plans to make the Comptroller and Auditor General the auditor, considering that it is given €50 million in funds?

I will be brief because the Deputy is under time pressure. The amount of money that goes through Skillnet has increased very substantially in the last few years, partly on foot of the Covid pandemic. I have taken the view that we need to review the corporate form of Skillnet in its entirety to address that question. My preference is for it to be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General, but obviously that is a matter he would have to consider.

Perhaps it should be put on a statutory footing.

We have asked a former Secretary General of the Department of Social Protection to review the whole corporate form and to come up with a set of proposals. We will have to take these to the Minister. I am conscious of the Deputy's time.

I will move on but I think we would be positively disposed towards the Comptroller and Auditor General auditing an entity that receives such sizeable funds. I will be parochial for a second. There is an issue in relation to where SOLAS is housed in Balbriggan. The building where it has been housed is now going to house a special school. My understanding is that SOLAS is going to have to move out. Does the Department have a plan for this? Will it prioritise finding a home for SOLAS?

On the National Training Fund, we really need to prioritise critical skills to produce engineers, construction workers and medical professionals, including doctors, nurses and therapists. There is a hell of a lot of money in the NTF but we are not seeing priority being given to the skilled workers we badly need if we are to meet our goals across many sectors.

On the NTF, as I have said, expenditure under the NTF comes under our expenditure ceiling, so this is essentially something we have to argue for in the Estimates, which we do. In 2025, we reached agreement on a €1.5 billion package. This will slow the rate of increase in the surplus. We have to go to Government on this as part of the Estimates process every year. We see significant demand for skills provision across the economy under practically every heading, including the area of industrial training and workplace training. It is a big policy area. The advent of AI will make it more and more salient. We are clear that there is strong demand for training in the workforce and for people preparing for the workforce. There are very wide-ranging demands. We have to make that case to Government in the Estimates process. We do that and will continue to do so. We are not short of ambition for expenditure under the NTF but the Department of public expenditure has a difficult job to do in maintaining fiscal discipline as well. Does Mr. Lemass have any update on the situation in Balbriggan?

The situation in Balbriggan is that the Department approved the ETB to enter into negotiations with the vendor in July 2025. Those negotiations went on for almost a year. In May 2026, SOLAS notified us that the vendor had sold a part of the site to another interested party. We have asked SOLAS and the ETB to engage with the vendor to establish precisely what part of the site is being sold and what part remains. Critically-----

Is Mr. Lemass not thinking about the college in Swords?

I am sorry. I had assumed that was the one the Deputy was asking about.

No, I am asking about the SOLAS adult education facility at Castlelands in Balbriggan.

I am sorry. I am not familiar with that one.

The Secretary General might come back to me. This is a priority for me. We need the special school but we also need SOLAS adult education courses to continue to run in a suitable environment.

I absolutely accept that. We are conscious that the special school situation relates to a particularly critical need. Where we can, we try to facilitate our colleagues in the Department of education because we see this as a particularly sensitive issue. I will absolutely come back to the Deputy on the Balbriggan issue.

I will come back to the My SUSI IT project. I am sitting here listening to statements about lessons that have been learned and so on. This is not directly a reflection on the Department, although it is a contributor to the issue. Week in and week out, we hear about massive wastes of public money. We are 11 years on and have spent €6.4 million. We are at the business case stage rather than the procurement stage. It is hoped to have it operational by 2029. There has already been an independent review, although we do not know how much that cost. Despite all this, the Secretary General still cannot tell us today what the overall cost of this project might be. Has the Minister sanctioned a bottomless pit for this project? Have we learned nothing about governance? The Secretary General is sitting here in front of the Committee of Public Accounts and has admitted that €1.5 million of the €6.4 million spent has no enduring value but he cannot give us any definitive sight of what this might cost and when it will be implemented.

Reflecting on some of the comments that Deputies have made, these are inherently risky and difficult projects. To be frank, if I was simply thinking about my own best interests, I would steer clear of all of these kinds of things because they are very risky and difficult and present these kinds of issues. However, we have to provide a system for people to apply for these grants. It is a very sensitive period in people's lives when they are applying for third level. They are wondering whether they are going to be able to get a grant, whether they will be able to navigate the system and whether they are going to be able to get all of the information needed. We have worked very hard to make it as easy as we can but we need a system that will work for students who are applying for grants. I do not see us as having any other option.

I accept that. What I am asking is how we can learn from this going forward. Dr. O'Reardon's contribution on this is probably invaluable to the work of the committee. As I have said, we see a common trend across all Government Departments in here week in and week out. The Secretary General himself has said it is an exceptionally risky avenue to go down.

Has that been relayed back to the Government directly? Is it listening and does it hear when that is said?