Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

I have a legal entitlement to any record but obviously I cannot use it for any purpose. It has to be specifically for a purpose. We looked at the document. It was relevant to the examination of the development and the disposal of the interest in FeedHenry because in 2009, Aceno Mobile Services was a shareholder in FeedHenry but it ceased to be a shareholder at some point in late 2008 or early 2009. That was why it was relevant to us to look at it but it was looking at a broader relationship between the company and the institute of technology. I had set a scope for the examination, which was to look at the development and disposal of FeedHenry, so it was not appropriate for me to throw a wider net just as it happened. I would have had to commence a whole separate piece of work on it. We looked at the memo and the issues that were raised and we identified what we felt were the risks that the memo spoke to about the relationship between an institute of technology and a campus company and we examined those issues in relation to FeedHenry in chapter 4 of the examination. I formed no definitive view on the relationship between Aceno Mobile Services and the institute of technology. That is a matter that is dealt with in the memo and, as the Deputy said, there are different views to be taken into account on that. Different interests might take different views on that but that is where the matter rests.

I needed to complete the work on FeedHenry and I have done that. Whether there is a case for further examination might be judged when the institute comes back to the Department on the questions about how the system deals with the matters going forward.