ANALYSIS:Department of Health grant was not the only money that flowed into the controversial fund
THE SKILL training scheme is, along with Fás, undoubtedly one of the major controversies arising from the era of social partnership.
How millions of euro in funding from various State sources ended up in a bank account controlled by two figures associated with Siptu and used, in part, to pay for numerous foreign trips undertaken by union representatives, and senior civil and public servants is the subject of more than half a dozen investigations.
The bank account known as the Siptu national health and local authority levy fund was described at the Dáil Public Accounts Committee last year as “a slush fund”.
Last summer, the Health Service Executive called in gardaí to investigate. The bank account was controlled by by a senior official of the union, Matt Merrigan, and another voluntary representative, Jack Kelly.
However, the union has said it knew nothing about the account. Up until yesterday, it had not provided a detailed explanation on the basis that it was awaiting the completion of an internal report.
The Skill programme for upskilling lower-paid staff in the health service, into which the State has invested about €60 million, has been generally commended as a worthwhile initiative. However, while serious irregularities have emerged into how the training programme operated, most attention has focused on an annual grant provided by the Department of Health to the union which was effectively top-sliced from the overall Skill allocation.
The secretary general of the department, Michael Scanlan, told the Dáil committee last December that it had not been possible to establish for certain the precise origin, nature and purpose of this payment or why it was paid into the fund account.
“However, the annual grant seems to have increased and evolved over time and the stated purpose of the annual payment of €250,000 sanctioned in December 2004 was to maintain support for the union’s human resource-personnel development schemes and the development of management-union partnerships of best practice.”
Last year, the department uncovered documentation which indicated that the annual grant to the union was approved by then minister Micheál Martin in 2004.
In a letter dated September 2004, Martin wrote to Merrigan at the union headquarters in Liberty Hall to say that funding was being provided for the continuation of the frontline supervisors’ training initiative.
The various investigations into the Skill controversy subsequently found that the €250,000 annual grant from the department was not the only money that went into the union’s levy fund account.
Eventually, it emerged that the account had received payments totalling €4.8 million.
Just over €2 million of this came from the annual department grant and a further €348,000 had come in cost reimbursements under the Skill programme.
Just over €924,000 had been paid into the account in payments from the Health Service National Partnership Forum.
Separately, a further €789,000 had been paid into the account from a partnership forum in the local authority sector, known as Lanpag.
Yesterday, it was disclosed that €100,000 came from Beaumont Hospital.
Scanlan said he understood that various foreign trips had been organised by a union official and that certain costs, generally flights and accommodation, had been met from the national health and local authority levy fund account.
Scanlan and HSE chief executive Cathal Magee said it was inappropriate for their officials to have taken part in overseas visits organised and paid for by trade union officials.
However, Scanlan said there was no impropriety or irregularity involved. Department of Health officials are known to have taken part in eight of 31 foreign trips associated with Skill.
Department of Finance assistant secretary David Moloney told the Dáil committee that it did not consider it appropriate for one of its officials to have travelled on trips paid for by a trade union official.
An internal Department of Finance audit revealed that the official concerned took part in 16 foreign trips. It found there was “limited evidence of output” from these trips and that it was unable to determine the relevance of them in most cases.
