Dr. Alan Wall:

I do not think I was in a position to use it properly, although I could have done something. I want to say something and the Deputy might give me the opportunity to say it. With regard to a reading of that in isolation, having had an annual governance statement, AGS, signed off and having had a meeting with the institution where no governance issues arose, I read it at that point as an issue around HR and being bypassed in terms of decision-making, not as a specific issue around governance of the site. No reading of the letter gives any understanding of an issue around the site, other than fast decision-making. When we looked at it, our sense was that this was a HR complaint and had it been one for us, we would have treated it as a HR complaint. We knew we would try to get a report. We have been asking for the report since October and we have not got the report, and that is the outcome of that. What we have got is the high-level recommendations, which are around HR, but that is another one of the questions we will have and that we have been working through to try to get some clarity on that. Therefore, no, it was not usable but, also, it was not clear to me on a reading of that.

In fairness, on the question asked by Deputy Munster, reading backwards on a whole range of things is changing our perception of a number of things that have happened. We have limited powers. As the Deputy knows, we have no investigatory powers and there are very limited things we can do, and we rely on the statements we are entitled to. Reading backwards from where we are is why we are preparing to take a long, hard look at a number of engagements with the university.