Cathy Bennett presses on redacted Skillnet report and IT waste

And I'd like to welcome everybody here today as well to the meeting. So I'll just start off straight away in relation to a column, the investigation that was ongoing in relation to Skillnet. Maybe you can just give me a bit of an enlightenment in relation to it. Was there any sanctions for Skillnet for not providing the documentation straight away when the audit was carried out? So I would say, Deputy, that this was a particularly complex protected disclosure. So my understanding of this is that Skillnet were involved in routine audit of... They routinely audit the entities, their networks that they work with. They had some concerns about this particular one. Did they bring that to your attention? They wouldn't have brought that to my attention at that stage. They received a protected disclosure, which was a rather complicated protected disclosure. As you are aware, protected disclosures have to be treated with a fair degree of sensitivity and confidentiality. So we would have been made aware in an early warning report that they had some concerns but it took some time for this PD to be investigated and for the investigation to be finalised. So we would have been seeking updates from them, but on the other hand, we have to be very careful. And do you now have a terms of reference with the organisation, with all the organisations that you give money to, state funded? We do have that with Skillnet. So if the terms of reference were not being abided by, what was the sanctions there? So we reviewed our terms of reference with Skillnet and we've amended the text to make sure that in the future we would look at asking them to give us a sense of whether there are issues in a protected disclosure that they can update us on. But just to go back to the point, when we talk about protected disclosures, we have to be very careful about protecting a whistleblower if there's a whistleblower involved or a protected person. So there are limitations on what you can ask. This was a complex one. The entity that was involved essentially didn't cooperate with the investigation and the discloser at a certain point stopped cooperating with the investigation, which would in some sense explain the lengthy period that it took to conclude this. I would say it took too long and I think there would be lessons to be learned there about how quickly these things can be addressed, but it was a complex case and it took some time to reach a conclusion on it. And do you believe that all the issues have been addressed now? Well, I'm confident insofar as I can be that any monies due to Skillnet have been returned to Skillnet, but the matter has been referred to the guards and to the revenue. So they're the competent authority to take it from here. And can you tell me why we could not receive the unredacted version of the report that was not provided to the committee here? So I don't have an unredacted version of the report, Deputy, I have a redacted version which I've seen, but I've been given... And should Skillnet not be... Sorry, Deputy, I would very much prefer to share it with the committee, but my legal advice is I'm precluded from doing so. The department still hasn't seen an unredacted version of the report? I have seen a version of the report which I'm satisfied gives me enough information to be happy that the relevant actions that need to be taken have been taken, but there's an element of redaction in the report which is there to protect the identity of the discloser and various other elements, but there's enough in the report for me to be satisfied that the right actions have been taken and the matter has been referred on to the Gardaí and the Revenue and Director of Customs and Forestry. I personally find that deeply concerning that here we are a number of months after the completed a year ago, essentially, the investigation and the department still hasn't had sight of a full report. I think that's serious. It's very serious, and just in relation to that, so what changes have the department, what changes have you implemented in relation to Skillnet, in relation to, I suppose, other organisations, and your oversight of funding? Because to me it's not reading very well that there's a great oversight of funding here when you don't even have that unredacted version of that report either. We have a performance delivery agreement with Skillnet and we've reviewed that and we've altered the text to make sure that any aspect of protected disclosure which might identify any financial wrongdoing or misuse of funds is identified to us. So we've revised the text of that and Skillnet have also strengthened their own internal controls and the funding agreements that they reach with various networks that they cooperate with and they're in the process of continuously reviewing those, but they have also taken various actions. We have a system of performance delivery agreements with our agencies and oversight. We meet regularly with, we comply with the code for oversight of ageist bodies. There's a particular case here, Deputy, where we're precluded from sharing, or from receiving that information which is around the protection of the disclosure and also to, you know, not to compromise any investigation that the guards might be involved with. So I suppose, again, like the investigation here, we feel like you're not telling us everything, so how can we have full confidence, you know, in anyone, you know, that's getting government funding, you know, from this department, how can we be sure that the funding is being spent, that there is governance and oversight? So we've been through the process with Skillnet, so they've gone through their protected disclosure process. As I say, it took a long time. We're satisfied that any monies that might be due to them have been repaid in this case, so, you know, Skillnet or the state has not had a loss in this circumstance. To the extent that there are issues that need to be addressed in how Skillnet operates, they're addressing them. And in terms of the report itself, you know, we operate in an environment where there is legislation which protects people who make protected disclosures. We have to respect that, we have to operate within the law. Have you any other protected disclosures from any other companies that you've given money to? I have a list of, I think from time to time you will expect protected disclosures to occur. If you think about our system, so 12 universities, 16 ETBs and so on, you would expect protected disclosures to take place within those organisations, depending on what might happen at any particular time. But going forward, you're going to ensure that any disclosures are reported to the CNAG? I think this wasn't reported immediately, is that correct? What we've agreed with CNAG is to the extent that we have a system of early warning reports that operate with our ageist bodies. And we've agreed that we will provide those to CNAG on an ongoing basis so that they can be aware of whatever may come up. I think I'd come back to the point here, this is a particularly complex one, and one which merits referral to the further authorities. So maybe I'll just ask Ilanet as well, why was there such delays in producing the documents and still not producing full documents? Thank you for the question, Deputy. Mark, thank you. It's worth just pointing out that this was the first protected disclosure that the organisation had ever received, and also pointing out that it's in relation to a completely separate and independent organisation to ourselves, to whom we fund. We sought advice legally on how to manage the process. And did you bring it to the department's attention? As soon as it was assigned to us in relation to our role as other suitable person, yes, we notified the department that we'd received it and been assigned the protected disclosure. We spent some time with the reporter in terms of defining the scope and the terms of reference. We also engaged with raise of concern, and during that period we realised that this required an independent investigation, so there was a tendering process and the investigation was undertaken after the tendering process had concluded. The investigators were met with resistance in terms of the reporter was unable to cooperate with the investigation, and the company reported against worked through their legal advisers who advised them not to participate in the investigation as well. So the investigators only really had information from Skeona Island to work on. So once that had concluded and they were able to investigate to the best of their abilities, we worked across our legal teams in terms of identifying the process for recovering and having funds repaid that were due and held up as allegations, and then we finalised the report and then provided the department with a briefing. And do you have a board? We do. And who, I suppose, authorises or who places the people on your board? So we've recently revised the constitution this year. How many people are on your board? Thirteen people. Thirteen people. How are they nominated? The Minister appoints all of the board. The Minister appoints everybody on to Skilnet, and does the board not report back to the Minister? Just to clarify that, the Minister will appoint five members of the board. The other eight members are appointed, nominated through industry bodies that sit within our board. So the board members there as well are delegated to that board by the Minister? Correct, yes. Okay, but they don't report back to the Minister? So did they report to the Minister on what was happening in Skilnet? Not to my knowledge, no. I'm going to move on from Skilnet, I just feel I've spent quite a bit of time. I'd maybe just like to discuss the senior officials, training within the department for senior officials. Could you give me an estimation of how much that costs on a yearly basis? Colm, sorry. Yeah, thanks, Deputy. I mean, for senior officials, that varies depending on, so if you'd describe that as management board, sort of assistant secretary and above, that just depends on... Well, maybe the secretary general yourself, how much, yeah. What I've done in the last year, say over the last two years, I've done one program which costs around, I think it's 8,000 over two years, plus the expenses involved in attending the program. Okay, and who was the secretary general in 22 to 23? That would have been Mr Jim Breslin. Okay, because I have a report here that he spent 65,000 on an expenditure on a course. Would I be correct in saying that? Yes, Deputy. Okay, and what was that course in relation to? It was a course in Stanford around, I believe it was some form of leadership development course. 65,000? Yeah, with an emphasis on sustainable development. And what value did the taxpayer get from that? Well, for a start, he doesn't work here anymore either now in the department. So I'm limited in the information I have on this, Deputy, because I joined the department as secretary general to replace him. So I'm not across the detail of what the conversation might have been between him and... And who would have sanctioned the 65,000 to be spent on a course on being a leader who matters program in Stanford in the USA in 2022? So the way this would have worked is that he would have a conversation with the performance review group who reviewed the performance of secretaries general. My understanding is that he then engaged with the senior public service, which is a unit that previously existed within Deeper, now sits in the IPA. He agreed the course with them. They paid for it and made a contribution to it and we funded the difference as in an invoice came into the department. What was the difference? So the 65,000 is what the department paid. Oh, that's what the department paid. So the course actually cost more than that. So the course would have been... I think the senior public service made a contribution of about 10,000. 10,000, 75,000 per course. And how long was the course, did you say? I understand it was about six weeks. Six weeks. Okay, I'll move on. I have just another question in relation to the IT system that you have in place at the moment. The SUSE IT system that is not actually in place is still not operational. Am I correct in saying that? Yeah, so there are two programs, sorry, there are two projects. By SUSE, is it? So we have two projects. There was a project which was started in 2015 before this department was set up. It was intended to upgrade the software which supports the SUSE application system. When this department was established, we reviewed that project, looked at the possibility of success, and in 2021, the department took the decision that that project should be concluded or brought to an end. Okay, how much did you spend on that project? So my understanding is that the expenditure on that project was about 3.8 million. 3.8 million. Of which... And that's completely gone now. That project is null and void. Of which approximately 1.15 million has no enduring value. So some of the work would have a value which can be brought into subsequent development. So we've about 115,000 people who apply for SUSE every year within a fairly condensed period of time, so it's important that we have the best possible system for people to apply. But still in all, the 3.8 million, it's gone. That system's no good. Of the 3.8, the view is that approximately 1.15... But the 3.8 has been spent, that's gone. No, definitely. That system's no good. So my understanding is that of the 3.8, 1.5 million has no enduring value. Okay. The balance is something that can be built on. I just want to ask, 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 might ask my colleague Keith Moines, who's more familiar with the history of this. It's just we're running into this, seem to be running into this issue quite a bit, where IT systems are being purchased within departments and then they don't work. So I'm just wondering, Keith, yourself, how does this work? So, Deputy, from the files it was clear that 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. So 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. So there were interventions made, and in the current project, there's been significant improvements made, including... So just in the current project, before we get to, I suppose, that we spend that money on the current project as well, is there a computer programmer or software developer or anybody coming from the government, from that wing of government, I suppose, to ensure that these projects are actually... They work for what they're designed to do? Because to me, every time any department comes in, there seems to be an issue with IT here that we're spending vast amounts, like 3.8 million on a system and now we're starting another system. This seems to be an ongoing issue that keeps happening right across. So maybe Keith, just tell me, is there a computer programmer or a developer, who ensures, goes to these meetings when these IT systems are being discussed and requested? So there's a few things on that, Deputy. So we've assigned a project manager at principal officer level from the government's ICT leaders panel. So there is a programme manager put in and there's also an assistant principal put in. It's also being routed through the peer review. Well, why are the systems not working then if there's an ICT manager there? Why are none of these systems working in any of the departments? There's a huge, vast amount of money being wasted. So can I speak to the other departments? But for this project, the work that's being done now reflects what the independent review said and 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 up front. So one of the learnings of the last project that didn't yield success was that it wasn't set up for success. Was there a computer programmer or software developer in that meeting when that project was being discussed at the start? So there would have been, they would have relied on... So you think they're doing their job, though? I'm sorry. Just a conclusion, a comment if you wish. A huge amount of work has been done to learn from what went wrong. So there was an independent review done and we're absolutely rigorously implementing what was learned and the key part was to get it right before you go to procurement, to get all the resourcing, get all the scoping done before you go to procurement. So if there's lessons to be learned, it's there rather than embarking on a project. That's the best likelihood of success. I'm sorry, Deputy, sorry, Chair. Oh, thanks for that. I know it took a little bit of your time, but it was more than lenient there, in fairness. So Deputy McGrath.