David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

To provide the background, last week I raised concerns about the fact that a report by the HEA into research and development, spin-out companies and process at the institute and which was supposed to be in September 2017 has still not been published. We are now in October of the following year and there is still no report.

The concerns I raised at our previous meeting were not necessarily directed at Waterford Institute of Technology, they were directed at the HEA and whether it had dotted the i's and crossed the t's with the terms of reference and, perhaps, overreached in the context of the scope of the report. Anything we put on the record is a matter of fact. We know, as a matter of fact, that strong legal letters were issued by a number of individuals, as is their right. They felt that the draft report might have been unfair to them. That is how it appears and that is what Dr. Love told us previously.

Obviously the HEA needs to protect itself. I have no difficulty with that. People are entitled to due process. If people have concerns, they have a right to take legal action and that is what is happening. At no point did anyone ever undermine their right to do that. However, what the Accounting Officer and the president of the institute said is that I was trying to deconstruct 20 years' hard work by the institute, that I was being negative, that I was trying to do down Waterford and that my motivations were not to protect the staff at the institute. He suggested that there was an ulterior motive. I am dealing with facts. I have not responded publicly because he talked about due process. This is due process. The Committee of Public Accounts has a job to do. I will respond at the Committee of Public Accounts, which is part of the due process to which he refers.

We received a letter from the Teachers Union of Ireland, TUI, which represents the staff. Members of staff obviously approached the union and stated that, having come forward and been part of a process where the HEA was conducting a review, they are concerned that there is nothing at the end of it and that they feel isolated. That is their concern; it is not an invention of mine or an invention of any other member of the Committee of Public Accounts, it is real.

There a number of different issues arising. There is an attempt by the Accounting Officer - he used the words himself - that I should stop asking questions. I resent being told by an Accounting Officer that I should stop asking questions. Even by saying that, it makes it very difficult for me to raise these issues again. I will raise them in any event because I will not be deterred. We need to get information from the HEA as to whether the report will ever be published. Does it need to go back to the drawing board? Where is it? What is its status? It is reasonable that we get responses to those questions. It is very disingenuous and almost unprecedented for an Accounting Officer to attack, in my view, a member of the Committee of Public Accounts on his local radio station in that way and to suggest that I have an ulterior motive. I do not have to defend myself; I think my record speaks for itself. I represent the city and county of Waterford. I will always do that to the best of my ability. I have no ulterior motive other than to protect and defend staff who work at the institute and who have raised concerns separate from those articulated in the TUI report. I have received separate emails from individuals who go further and say they are concerned that they came forward. I have not put any of that into the public domain.

I seek the Chair's protection in the first instance. Accounting Officers - especially this Accounting Officer - should understand there would be no HEA review if it were not for the Committee of Public Accounts. That is due process. There would not have been any examination of this if the Committee of Public Accounts had not examined it. That is due process. It is perfectly reasonable for me or anybody else to ask questions about the status of a report that should have been published in September 2017. We can all be vulnerable. It happened to Deputy Kelly in the past, although that was political. It is a horse of a different colour when an Accounting Officer says, "I want to take on Cullinane and look forward to taking him on at the Committee of Public Accounts." That is a bit much; it is overstepping the mark. I am uncomfortable with his choice of language and with the way in which he has chosen to respond to issues.

I will make a final point. Given that he was the vice president of research and development who oversaw the process that is being examined, to then attack me in this way is highly problematic and unusual. I am very concerned about it and have put my concerns on record. I will continue to ask questions without fear or favour. Whether issues impact locally, regionally or nationally, we are here to do a job and I will do my job.