David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I will first establish the facts because the correspondence raises a number of issues beyond Waterford Institute of Technology, WIT, in terms of process and how we conduct our work. The Higher Education Authority, HEA, has produced a report on the governance of intellectual property, which we welcome. It is a national overview and a review of policy. We also received a report from the Comptroller and Auditor General which was published and we discussed with Professor Donnelly. It looked specifically at the company FeedHenry and its disposal only. That was one part of the issue at Waterford Instituted of Technology. We then received a separate report from the HEA, which cannot be published for the reasons we were given in correspondence received from the Department and the HEA. The difficulty is I received correspondence from a number of individuals who were part of that process. They are very upset at the letter sent by the HEA, which is very similar to the letter we received. Essentially, the HEA states we cannot publish the report for legal reasons, that it has carried out a global review of intellectual property, that the Comptroller and Auditor General's report also looked at the issue and that that is the end of the matter. The problem is that the Comptroller and Auditor General looked at it very narrowly in the sense that he looked at one specific issue. The HEA's report looked at the issue more broadly and raised a number of issues. The former head of the HEA has confirmed to us that it raised substantial issues. Simply, it seems that the HEA did not have the power to produce the type of report that it did produce. Essentially, we are being asked to forget about it as if it never happened and simply accept that the national review of policy and the Comptroller and Auditor's report which looked at one narrow element are sufficient. I do not believe they are sufficient and that it is fair to all those who took part in the process, especially those who have concerns who I imagine might also write to the committee about the issue.

Essentially, the letter from the Department states there are a number of questions that it has put to the board, which is fair enough. However, the questions arise from the Comptroller and Auditor General's report only. As i said, that report is very narrow. Again, the Department seems to be stating that is at what we are looking. We are looking at it through the prism of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, not the wider examination of the issues involved undertaken by the HEA. That concerns me. The Department can do that in the context of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report. My concerns are that there was a substantial report produced over the course of many months, for which a lot of people were consulted, including in the institute who were also defending their positions. A comprehensive report was compiled. At no time in our hearings or discussions were allegations made of wrongdoing by individuals. Again, the report looked at the process. It seems, both from the HEA's letter and that of the Department, that they think it is sufficient that the Comptroller and Auditor General has produced a report and that we can now move on.

I welcome the response from Professor Donnelly because it is good that an Accounting Officer takes an interest in the work of the Committee of Public Accounts, but there is a lot of correcting what Members said and statements made. I am concerned about that memo we sought to have released has been redacted. The response from the Accounting Officer is as follows:

With regard to the "Memo", as outlined in our letter dated 20^thFebruary 2019, we reiterate that the Institute has received legal challenges to the release of the Memo. Subsequent to our previous letter, a third person, who is a current WIT employee, also challenged the release of the Memo on the same basis and also on the basis that the Institute has a duty of care to them. As the Institute is duty-bound to protect itself against legal and financial exposure, and as it is of the opinion that providing even a redacted copy of the Memo would not provide such protection, we must respectfully decline to provide a copy of said Memo.

I find it extraordinary that even a redacted version cannot be given to us. I am not saying the institute has not received legal advice, but it is a memo that was cited in the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Interestingly, the Accounting Officer has no difficulty in referencing the memo and, in fact, corrected the committee in its interpretation of the memo. However, we cannot be given a copy of it to adjudicate for ourselves and decide what the issues are.

I have a concern about page 2 of the Accounting Officer's letter where he takes exception to one of the members who had raised concerns about the memo. Can the Comptroller and Auditor General quickly remind us what the memo was and what the observations in his report were on that memo?