David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are a couple of issues with the letter received from Professor Donnelly, president, and Ms Elaine Sheridan, vice president for corporate affairs and finance at Waterford Institute of Technology. It is on the back of the meeting regarding the special report of the Comptroller and Auditor General which mentioned several documents, one of which was a memorandum sent to Professor Donnelly by a subordinate highlighting concerns about the process involved in the establishment of FeedHenry and other governance issues. I sought a copy of the memorandum. If my memory is correct, it was accompanied by an email stating it should be sent to the president and the financial controller, but it did not reach them. The president who was vice president at the time went back to the author of the memorandum and asked questions about its contents. I am aghast that the correspondence states, "In light of the threat of legal proceedings issuing on foot of any disclosure of the Memorandum, it would not be appropriate for us to provide it to the PAC". I do not understand why there would be any legal impediment to the memorandum being provided for the committee. There has been an ongoing issue with transparency in dealing this matter. That is one of the reasons the committee has looked into the process involved in the establishment of the companies. However, there has been a full examination and the Comptroller and Auditor General has completed his report which mentions the memorandum, yet Waterford Institute of Technology is stating it cannot provide it for us for legal reasons which are not outlined, other than the possibility that certain individuals may be named in the memorandum. However, it should be possible to redact the names of such persons.

The committee also requested an information note on the shareholders in FeedHenry, given that WIT was one of the shareholders, but the correspondence states that information cannot be provided either. The information is available on the website of the Companies Registration Office, but WIT is not in a position to provide it for the committee. This goes back to the stalled HEA report.

We need to refer back to the Department and ask it if it has considered appointing a statutory inspector to deal with this. If it is the case that with every item of information being sought, there is a legal impediment or legal advice is offered as to why we cannot get it, somebody with the authority to look at all of these memorandums and documents is necessary if the committee cannot get them. I propose that we write back to the HEA and the Department, with copies of the correspondence we received from WIT, to ask them their current position with regard to having another look at the report, which is stalled at present, and what the next steps will be.