Mr. Tom Boland:

My statement will cover the following areas as set out in the agenda: the investigation of plagiarism in Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology, the engagement and consultation process for a technological university for the south east, the HEA 2014 financial statements, and the governance and accountability developments in the higher education sector.

On the investigation of plagiarism in Galway, the committee will recall that I wrote to it in May of this year regarding the investigation of plagiarism in GMIT setting out the background and issues arising, particularly on costs. The committee has also been provided with a detailed note setting out the HEA’s interaction with GMIT in the case as well as with Quality and Qualifications Ireland.

On the specific incident of plagiarism I wish to emphasise at the outset that the management of academic affairs, including course curricula, the marking of students and the handling of allegations of plagiarism is first a matter for individual higher education institutions. The report prepared by Professor Bairbre Redmond found that the plagiarism detection, investigation and penalty procedures in place in GMIT at the time, in the main, were fit for purpose. The HEA notes that since then the institute has made improvements in the policies in question. The HEA’s main area of concern relates to the costs incurred in the investigation carried out into the manner in which GMIT responded to and dealt with complaints of plagiarism. Higher education institutions, like all public bodies, have a duty of care in the expenditure of Exchequer funding, especially as it relates to administrative processes. Notwithstanding the importance of an independent investigation that was thorough and comprehensive in its remit, it is clear that there was failure on the part of GMIT in managing the costs and timelines of the investigation. As we have emphasised to GMIT, it is especially unacceptable that such high costs were incurred in the context of a challenging financial situation in the higher education sector.

To avoid such incidents in the future, the HEA expects GMIT and other higher education institutions to inform us, the HEA, of major unexpected expenditure in a much more prompt manner. Clearly the experience from this case in GMIT is salutary for the rest of the higher education sector. Earlier this year the HEA wrote to all institutions under its remit on the subject of independent investigations and in particular the need to protect the independence of such investigations while at the same time having appropriate systems for cost control within the institution. As part of revised governance reporting requirements introduced by the HEA in 2014, institutions are required to report on significant expenditure incurred from such investigations.

On the issue of a technological university for the south east, the HEA welcomes the publication of Mr. Michael Kelly’s report to the Minister for Education and Skills on the engagement and consultation process on a technological university for the south east. I will give the committee some background. The National Strategy for Higher Education to 2030, published in January 2011, recommended the consolidation of the institutes of technology sector and the creation of a small number of multi-campus technological universities. The process for designation as a technological university consists of four stages and requires the merger of two or more institutes of technology prior to application for designation as a TU. The technological university for the south east project was initiated in 2011. It made good progress initially and submitted a stage 1 expression of interest in 2012. However, following this initial promising start, the consortium encountered a series of difficulties and did not succeed in finalising a stage 2 plan prior to the decision by Waterford Institute of Technology to suspend merger activities in October 2014.

In early November 2014, the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Jan O’Sullivan, announced the establishment of a process of engagement and consultation with the governing bodies, staff and students of both institutes together with the wider community in the south east. Mr. Michael Kelly was appointed to lead the process of consultation. Mr. Kelly carried out a thorough consultation process in the region. His reports set out the results of this consultation and of particular note are his observations that there is very significant convergence of thinking and approach by both institutions to many aspects of the design of a TU; if sufficient resolve exists within both institutions, the remaining issues should be capable of resolution; external stakeholders emphasised that any TU should support the economic and social development of the south east; and it is likely that the consortium of Waterford and Carlow institutes of technology would meet the quantitative TU designation criteria within a period of three years. Mr Kelly also set out a number of options for the future, including the recommendation that a re-invigorated process to found a TU for the south east be established at the earliest feasible date, as well as the development of a facilitation process. The HEA will continue to assist the two institutions to the greatest extent practicable.

On the matter of our financial statements, I am pleased to note that in his audit certificate accompanying the HEA’s 2014 financial statements, the Comptroller and Auditor General records that the HEA has kept proper books of accounts and that the financial statements are in agreement with the books of accounts. However, I draw attention to one issue. Over recent years the Comptroller and Auditor General has referred to the issue of pension funding to the universities in the HEA’s financial statements. As our briefing paper sets out, the accumulated funds of approximately €159 million referred to in the Comptroller and Auditor General’s notes relate to the model pension schemes in the five older universities. The model scheme membership has a much younger age profile compared with the closed funded schemes in the universities. This means that the amount of employer and employee pension contributions going into the model scheme is much higher than pension and lump sum payments coming from it, resulting in a surplus. The accumulated funds of €159 million in the model scheme must be seen in tandem with a shortfall of approximately €156.5 million that exists in respect of the closed funded schemes in the five older universities. This shortfall has arisen due to an existing and increasing cohort of retirees in receipt of pensions and lump sums coupled with the fact that membership of the scheme itself has been closed to new entrants for some years now. This means that the level of pension payments and lump sums greatly exceed any pension contributions from employer or employee, hence a shortfall in 2013-2014 of €156.5 million. Therefore, the accumulated funds of €159 million in the model scheme must be offset against the accumulated shortfall of €156.5 million in the closed funded schemes. Although these figures represent an almost break-even position, it is anticipated that the accumulated shortfall in the closed funded schemes will continue to grow and will ultimately surpass any surplus on the model scheme.End of Take

The HEA remains in discussions with the Department of Education and Skills and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform with regard to future funding requirements for the universities.

In addition, I will be happy to update the committee on recent developments in governance and accountability in the higher education sector which includes strengthened and more rigorous requirements expected from institutions in terms of reporting on governance matters to the HEA as well as enhanced engagement and information sharing with the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General with regard to the audits of financial statements in the higher education sector. I am happy to take any questions from committee members.