Mr. Tom Boland:

I did not mean to be economical with information in any way, other than to keep my opening remarks short. I fully anticipated the question and I hope to help the committee as best I can in all of these issues.

It is somewhat overstating the situation to say that for ten years the system of control and accountability in Waterford Institute of Technology had broken down or did not exist. The Comptroller and Auditor General's office has said WIT is, by and large, a well-run organisation. There can be no question but that there was a breakdown of accountability and control in respect of one area of expenditure. One can call that disappointing or shocking, but it certainly should not have occurred.

Without wishing to limit its importance, no system of control can guarantee against human failure, or human ingenuity to get around the controls. In the first instance, the job of an institute of technology is to ensure that the processes are as foolproof as possible and that they are regularly reviewed. It is our job to ensure that is happening. It is said we waited ten years. In fairness to the HEA, we did not know this was happening, nor could we have known, until April or May 2011. That is the reality in which we are operating.

With regard to Dr. Port, I understand that, as of yesterday, there is new information on that situation. As far as I can recall, the HEA knew nothing about the presence, or not, of Dr. Port in Waterford. We knew he had been appointed by the Department of Education and Science to do a review of issues regarding the application for university status. We knew nothing, however, of his comings and goings and had no involvement in them. That is as much as we were involved in it. Obviously, we had no knowledge at all of the chartering of private jets to bring him to meetings.

I have been given a note relating to the flights which, if I may, I will read into the record.

During the course of the institute's meeting with the Public Accounts Committee on Thursday 27 September, the institute's response relied upon the information included in the Deloitte report. This report stated, based on clarification by the former president, that this transaction related to the charter of a plane to transport a visitor from Waterford to Dublin. This view has been further reinforced by the statement of the former chairman on 28 September 2012, in which he confirmed the plane was chartered to fly Dr. Jim Port from Waterford to Dublin and stated that, "he was comfortable authorising and, indeed, organising it at the time".

Based upon your query [that is the query of this committee] we have further investigated the matter. The following has come to light. An invoice for the sum of €4,200 was approved for payment by both the former president and the former chairman. The invoice refers to a flight on 29 June 2007, which is at odds with the timing of the trip made by Dr. Port in March 2007. The narrative on the invoice states that it related to the hire of aircraft and pilot for a return flight from Filton, England, to Dublin, including all landing and handling charges at Filton airport and Dublin Airport. When the invoice was presented for payment the institute's finance office queried this transaction in relation to origin, cost and detail. The president's office confirmed that it was in order to pay.

Based on the information to hand, it would appear that the invoice did not relate to a trip from Waterford to Dublin, but a different trip. The institute is currently investigating this matter further and has been in contact with representatives of the airline involved and is awaiting their response. The invoice for the Waterford to Dublin flight in March 2007 amounted to €769.56. Until further information can be obtained in relation to both invoices, only the former president and the former chair can fully clarify the matter.