Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I would like to thank the Deputies for raising this issue. It is certainly a matter of concern to my senior Minister, but she cannot be in two places at the same time so I am answering this matter on her behalf.

In early 2012, a former employee of the University of Limerick informed a public representative, who in turn informed the Committee of Public Accounts, of alleged irregular practices in the finance department of the University, her attempts to rectify them and how she had been dealt with by the university. The issues were referred by the Committee of Public Accounts to the Secretary General of my Department and, at his request, the HEA sought the response of the university. The university informed the HEA that it was engaging with the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the issues and had provided all related correspondence to that office. The president of the university also wrote to the Committee of Public Accounts stating that the university was satisfied that it had dealt fully with the allegations made by its former employee as follows:

The University refutes in the strongest possible terms these allegations. The University has at all times paid expenses in accordance with its Travel and Subsistence Policy and is satisfied that the controls in place ensure that payments are reimbursed in accordance with Policy.

The letter goes on to say that the university was in correspondence with the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the matter, and continues:

The University is subject to rigorous auditing on an on-going basis. This includes external audit, internal audit and oversight by the Governing Authority's Audit and Risk Management Committee. The area of expenses is generally reviewed annually as part of the annual audit. A recent report to the Governing Authority Audit and Risk Management Committee by the University's external auditors confirmed that there were no weaknesses identified in relation to the controls in place regarding expenses.

In June this year, two employees of the university, who were employed in the finance department, requested of my Department to make a disclosure under the protected disclosures legislation. They were directed to the CEO of the Higher Education Authority, as that person is a prescribed recipient under the legislation. The CEO, Mr. Boland, met with the employees on 5 May 2015. An agreed minute of that meeting was provided to the president of the university for his observations. It is important to say that at the meeting no specific allegations were made of financial irregularities in the university. However, the employees outlined a series of events which they considered amounted to bullying and victimisation of them by management and colleagues in the university. They stated their view that this arose because of their questioning of what they saw as irregular practices in the finance department. The employees in question have not, to date, set out specific allegations, pleading a lack of confidence in the university to properly inquire into them. The university, in response to the HEA, refuted the claims made by its employees. It stated that the allegations of bullying and victimisation were not substantiated, and that the employees had refused to co-operate with various inquiries and had been found by one inquiry to have made malicious claims. Both employees are now subject to disciplinary proceedings.

More recently, the former employee has contacted the HEA repeating her initial allegations. At her request, Mr. Boland met with her last evening.

The Department has concerns on a number of levels. First, in the case of the employees and the former employee, they continue to feel victimised for having, as they see it, challenged irregular practices. Second, as the university is an important institution regionally and nationally and the current controversies are potentially damaging to its good reputation, as the Deputies have said, they need to be dealt with comprehensively and conclusively as soon as possible. Third, the demands of public accountability are such that the truth of any allegation of misconduct in a higher education institution needs to be established beyond reasonable doubt. Having regard to these considerations, the HEA, in consultation with my Department and the university, will now put in place a process of review. The precise terms of reference will be established within the next few days. However, I stress that the review will be independent of the university's processes and will cover how the initial inquiry into the allegations of irregular payments and the allegations of victimisation and bullying were dealt with by the university. A final report will be concluded by the end of November. If that is not possible, an interim report will be provided.

See this speech in context