Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

I would like to respond to some of the comments Deputy Connolly made. Two interesting matters arise in the education sector. I mentioned institution C, which did everything very well. It got a UK framework and followed the guidance that was in that framework. The other institution had a reference to the HSE, and when we asked how it arrived at the figure, it said it looked at the terms that were in place in a voluntary redundancy scheme in the Health Service Executive and followed the conditions that were set down there. When we tested it we found that was not the case. If it had started out to do that, it did not achieve it. What is interesting, and particularly taking account of the surprise of the Department of Education and Skills when we brought its attention to these matters, is that neither body thought to go to the Department. That is what is surprising about this. Two major third level institutions did not turn to their Department and say that they had a problem, what did the Department think about it and how did it think they might best address it. If there is a thread in this, that is possibly the one.

In relation to gagging orders - and it is not only in regard to severance it could also relate to settlements where there is a legal dispute, a settlement is reached and there is a confidentiality clause in it - under no circumstances will we accept that we cannot see the contract or the deal; no matter what is written in it, we must see it. The day I do not get an agreement that I am looking for, I will come and tell the committee that I did not get the explanations and information I required. Usually we do not have that difficulty, but the point we always make is that one cannot contract one's way out of a statutory obligation. That is not the way the law works. If the law says that I must be provided with the document, then nobody can enter into an agreement somewhere that says I cannot be provided with it, and that usually ends the argument.