Mr. Gearóid Ó Conluain:

They include: the use of an incorrect procurement model to obtain the best value for money; the duplication of effort in administration across the university; failure to streamline processes to acquire maximum efficiency with the resources available; and, generally, a lack of effort in obtaining value for money on behalf of hard-pressed taxpayers. These were quite general and not specific.

It was also the case that this person or persons referred to a procurement report that was in gestation at the time. An early first draft of it had been made by a company that we had procured to look at our systems from the point of view of efficiency and to see whether, from a systems point of view, they could be made more straightforward in such a way as to lead to efficiencies, including value for money. I will not name the company but it is in the documentation before the committee. We are unsure how it happened but it seems clear from the correspondence from the whistleblower that the whistleblower obtained that early draft. The early draft contained a number of inaccuracies, subsequently shown to be and proven to be inaccuracies. Obviously, that formed part of the report the university made to the HEA. The report was also shared with the Department of Education and Skills. Further information was sought from the Department after October 2012. I understand that the Secretary General discussed the issue before the Committee of Public Accounts at one stage.

The upshot of the consideration of the university report by the HEA and the Department was that they were satisfied there was nothing of substantive concern at issue.