Mr. Tom Boland:

First, I will respond to the Deputy's question about what went wrong. From the point of view of HEA, we have to be honest and say the Deputy's question must be addressed to us also. In general terms, there was over-confidence and over-reliance on assurances given to us. That confidence was based on respect - some might say the respect was excessive - for the autonomy of institutions. It was also based on our experience of the conscientiousness with which, in general, higher institutions responded to their governance obligations. What is to be done about it in the future? The Secretary General discussed the matter earlier.

We have to use our funding in a sensible way to ensure that not alone do institutions achieve the objectives they are required to achieve but also that they abide by the requirements of governance. We would be talking in the most extreme situation about up to 10% of funding being removed from an institution. In that context, one would have to make judgments about the impact of any such reduction in funding. Certainly, a message does need to be sent - such a message has been sent to the sector many times - that it is legitimate for the Government to use the instrument of funding in ensuring institutions do what they have signed up to do, in both academic and administrative terms. There is legislative provision, particularly for institutes of technology, where there is a failure of governance involving the removal of governing boards and putting in place commissions to run them. The legislation was operated on one occasion many years ago. I have every expectation and some confidence that the NCAD will do what is necessary in a timely way. Regardless of what the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General chooses to do, the HEA will conduct a review in the very near future - we have to assess when the time is right to do so - to make sure everything is in order. We will report to the Department on that matter.