David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I have raised some of the issues raised last week and in the past few weeks. A narrative has been spun by some since and questions have been asked about the commercialising of intellectual property. It has been suggested that, as a committee, we do not really understand how all of this works. There was a misunderstanding of the questions being put. I can only speak for myself but I imagine for most member also. The committee will agree that we made it very clear that spin-outs and the commercialising of intellectual property were good. Taking advantage of research from institutes in creating jobs and companies, given the value such companies can have, not just for an institute but also for a wider catchment area is all good. That is not in question. Researchers and academics commercialising intellectual property is fine.

None of that was in doubt or was questioned. What was being examined was at the point where a private company establishes contact with an institute to transfer the ownership or licence of its IP how the institute is protected, how conflicts of interest managed and all of the questions and issues raised by others. All of that is fair and it is within our remit.

Following the meeting last week one of the witnesses to whom I put questions suggested he would rather resign than continue with that line of questioning because he felt it was damaging the institute. That was followed up by a press statement from a Minister of State in the Department of Education and Skills inferring something similar and suggesting that the questions that were being put would have a destabilising effect on the institution and its joint application with the Carlow Institute of Technology to become a technological university. There was also an inference from a number of parties that somehow the line of questioning of the witness in question from the Committee of Public Accounts and me was an attempt to damage the institute. There was also a view that I was inferring that a crime had been committed by the president of the institute. To be fair to you, Chairman, I wish to make it very clear that at every stage and every single hearing I stressed that I personally was not alleging any wrongdoing. I make no apology for putting questions on process and procedures. That is what we are here to do. We have to put robust questions, as other members did of institutes in their constituencies as well. It is not done to damage them but to strengthen them. What we are here to do is to strengthen processes. We cannot allow a situation where individuals try to pick off members of the PAC and we have seen that approach from other Ministers as well. It is not good for the PAC and we must protect ourselves.

I have received a number of protected disclosures from people who worked in WIT as researchers and I have not put any of the allegations made into the public domain. What I have done is given a synopsis of them to the Comptroller and Auditor General this morning. I will also meet with the head of the Higher Education Authority, HEA, to give him a similar synopsis. That is following due process and doing what is appropriate. The HEA is doing an external review of what was an internal examination of the management of conflicts of interest in WIT. It has asked for suggestions and ideas on the terms of reference and I submitted draft terms of reference to the HEA as well.