HSE criticised oversight of staff scheme

BACKGROUND: Internal audit raised concerns about governance of the Skill training programme, writes MARTIN WALL

BACKGROUND:Internal audit raised concerns about governance of the Skill training programme, writes MARTIN WALL

THE SCHEME to upskill lower-paid staff in the health service as well as the payment of a €250,000 annual grant from the Department of Health to the trade union Siptu, which are at the heart of the controversy, stem from the era of social partnership.

The Skill training programme for staff such as porters, healthcare assistants, catering and housekeeping staff personnel came about in 2003 on foot of a Labour Court recommendation. It is generally perceived by unions and management to be a commendable initiative aimed at providing an opportunity to staff to return to learning.

The background to the Siptu money is more opaque and the precise nature of what the funds were to be spent on is somewhat vague.

READ MORE

However, in relation to both initiatives, the governance and oversight systems which were put in place have been strongly criticised in an internal HSE audit report.

About €12 million annually was paid by the department to the Skill programme. This money was channelled through the HSE in later years. Sources close to the department said the bulk of the money allocated to the programme went on the provision of training courses and paying for staff to replace those on training courses. Some money also went on administering the scheme.

However, as part of the €12 million payment to Skill, the department also stipulated that about €250,000 should go to Siptu, a funding stream that dated back on an ad-hoc basis to 2002.

Sources close to the department said the original decision to make the payment in 2002 was taken against a backdrop of industrial disputes in the health sector. It is understood that Siptu had argued at the time that arrangements for career development and progression were being made for other health service groups but not for its members in areas such as catering, housekeeping and portering.

The department said yesterday that the money to Siptu was authorised at official rather than political level. This money was initially channelled through one of the former health boards and later through the HSE.

In 2004, the department moved to place the payment to Siptu on a firmer footing. In late 2004, a senior official of the department wrote to a top official in Siptu confirming the arrangement.

The letter stated: “Ongoing funding of €250,000 per annum out of the overall parallel benchmarking budget for the training, education and development of support staff [Skill project] has been earmarked to maintain support for Siptu’s human resource/ personnel development schemes and the development of management/ union partnerships of best practice in health enterprises.”

“This funding has been provided in the Midland Health Board letter of determination for 2005 on the basis that it will be channelled to Siptu via the office for health management, as in previous years,” the letter states.

The Irish Timeshas established that the money was paid out by the HSE (following its establishment) to an account named the "Siptu national health and local authority levy fund".

However, Siptu headquarters has said it never received any of this money.

It would appear that there was no service level agreement – setting out what the money would be spent on – or accounts verifying where it was spent.

Full details of expenditure from this account have not emerged. However, it seems that some of the money paid for at least some of the 31 foreign trips undertaken by those associated with the project.

The HSE internal audit states that while travel to the US, Australia, Hong Kong and the UK had taken place, financial records maintained by the Skill project did not record expenditure in relation to such visits.

“Travel expenditure was processed outside the Skill books of account as union A’s employee arranged and paid for overseas travel for public and other officials and subsequently recouped the unvouched, unspecified costs from Skill or funded it from the Department of Health . . . annual grant.”