|
(Speaker Continuing)
[ Mr. Seamus McCarthy: :] Sample-based auditing is not going to catch everything. One would hope that it would catch a significant amount and give one enough pointers to where one might need to redirect or refocus attention. The point about Waterford is that in the testing we did in areas like procurement, travel and subsistence over the years, we picked up relatively little because, as I understand it, the issues were specifically confined to the president's office. In general, the institute is well run, with good controls in place. That was our conclusion over the years.
Chairman:   I raised the question because expenditure started at €30,000, which was a reasonable amount, but it travelled some distance to €180,000 and from there to €635,000. That is such an exceptional difference over the years that, in my view, someone should have picked up on it. I cannot accept the explanation given by the governing bodies that some of the auditing committees are voluntary. If a person is appointed to a committee of that kind and has a job to do, whether voluntary or otherwise, he or she has a responsibility to carry out that job to the finest level of detail. That is the reality of a position on an auditing committee. At a previous meeting, this committee heard from an official in the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government who was not quite sure if he was a director of a particular company or not, when Deputy Fleming raised the matter with him. There are many issues of concern with regard to people's participation on these committees and governing bodies. The people involved really need to know exactly what they are getting into.
Was Dr. Jim Port employed by the institute or the Department of Education and Skills?
Dr. Ruaidhrí Neavyn: My understanding is that he was retained by the Department.
Chairman: Mr. McFeely, did Dr. Port not see anything wrong with being flown from Waterford to Dublin?
Mr. Tony McFeely: He was advised that he had to get to Dublin fairly quickly to meet some senior officials, as I understand it, and the only way to get there at that stage was via the chartered flight. That is the explanation we got and we were under the impression that the cost of that flight would be borne by a third party.
Deputy John Deasy: I want to make a comment, which is not directed at anyone here. We are all busy people but what we are hearing is extraordinary. It is extraordinary that anyone who is contracted by the Department of Education and Skills would put himself or herself into that position. We are all busy and often in a rush to get somewhere and I just do not understand this at all.
Chairman: Is there a timeframe for the court case or the legal proceedings referred to earlier?
Dr. Ruaidhrí Neavyn: We would expect it to happen in the next 12 to 18 months.
Chairman: In that context, Mr. Neavyn was questioned about another report but that will not be available until after those proceedings conclude. I accept that but given what we have heard today, there is further work to be done with regard to our understanding of what happened. Perhaps after the court case, at a time acceptable to Dr. Neavyn, he could come before this committee again and explain the rest of this saga to us. We have a number of other contributors to deal with at this meeting so I suggest that we come back to this-----
Deputy John Deasy: Could I also suggest that the committee ask Dr. Jim Port why he did what he did?
Chairman: The Department of Education and Skills will be before the committee next week so we can pose that question again, directly to Dr. Port.
Deputy John Deasy: The question needs to be asked.
Chairman: Finally, various pieces of information were requested by Deputy Fleming and others and I ask the contributors to ensure that they are sent to the committee clerk as soon as possible. I refer to information on employment numbers, various grades and so forth. Due to the fact that we are not completing our deliberations on special report No. 78, we will not dispose of it today. We have a scheduled meeting with the Higher Education Authority and the Department of Education and Skills and we can continue our examination of it at that meeting next Thursday.
The clerk has just reminded me that under the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges and Immunities of Witnesses) Act we will be writing to the former president, who has been named extensively here today, regarding a right of reply.
Deputy Kieran O'Donnell: I suggest that not only should we write to him concerning a right of reply but we should also invite him to come before the committee to give his viewpoint on the matter, although he may not wish to.
Chairman: He is involved in a court case. We will explain the right to reply and send him the information from this meeting.
Deputy Paschal Donohoe: What is the nature of the court case in question?
Dr. Ruaidhrí Neavyn: The court case relates to the interview process for the president’s position at the institute, which Professor Byrne applied for, to retain his post.
Deputy Paschal Donohoe: It is about his retention in that post.
Dr. Ruaidhrí Neavyn: The correct expression is reappointment to the post.
Deputy Paschal Donohoe: I think we all feel that the issue regarding the flight is bonkers and we must get an explanation next week. Also, in the interests of fairness, at this point we do not have evidence to prove that the person for whom the flight was procured requested it.
Dr. Ruaidhrí Neavyn: That is true.
Deputy Paschal Donohoe: We do not have evidence that Dr. Jim Port requested that flight. We know a flight was taken. At our meeting next week with the Higher Education Authority and the Department of Education and Skills, we can explore how it was that somebody who was in a hurry to go 120 miles ended up on a plane funded by the taxpayer.
Deputy John Deasy: He was an employee of the Department of Education and Skills.
Deputy Paschal Donohoe: Yes, and his flight was paid for by the taxpayer. We will explore that but at this point, in fairness to him – because he is not here – we are not saying that he requested it.
Chairman: We will accept that point.
Deputy Paschal Donohoe: I feel it is important.
Dr. Ruaidhrí Neavyn: On a point of clarification, I wish to confirm again that the flight was not requested by Dr. Jim Port nor, as I understand it, was it requested by the Department of Education and Science.
Chairman: That is the point made by Deputy Donohoe.
Deputy Paschal Donohoe: I wanted to make that point because the individual is not here.
Deputy John Deasy: Did Dr. Neavyn say that the Department requested it?
Dr. Ruaidhrí Neavyn: No, the Department did not request it.
Deputy Kieran O'Donnell: Who requested it then?
Dr. Ruaidhrí Neavyn: My understanding is that the flight was acquired for Dr. Jim Port through the president’s office. That is what we said earlier.
Deputy Paschal Donohoe: So the flight was booked through the president’s office.
Chairman: It was a transport offer provided to Dr. Port, who had to get back to Dublin.
Dr. Ruaidhrí Neavyn: Correct.
Chairman: It was a great offer. It could not be missed. It is a bit like the advertisement for the lottery with the little woman in it.
I thank the witnesses for attending the meeting.
The witnesses withdrew.
The committee went into private session at 1.40 p.m. and adjourned at 2.05 p.m until 10 a.m. on Thursday, 4 October 2012.
|
Page of 23
