Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am glad we have clarified that matter. However, my point still stands in that I can see progress in the itemisation of non-pay savings because that was a question I put to Mr. Fitzpatrick the last time. I return to the point of verification, a point we discussed. Paragraph 2.6 of the report outlines the four sample validations that were selected for evaluating the non-pay saving element. To the best of my understanding, the second point listed, the implementation of a national single procurement model in the HSE, is the biggest ticket item of the non-pay savings identified across that period. The third-party evaluation of it picked the big-ticket item of the €430 million. This was something of which I was critical in March and it has changed. I wanted to acknowledge that.

Is Mr. Fitzpatrick still satisfied that the evaluation methodology is as broad as it can be for logging these? I will give an example to bring it to life. On Tuesday evening at a meeting, which is now famous for other reasons, we had a discussion with representatives of the HSE. The most interesting part of the meeting came at the very end of it when we had a discussion with Mr. Tony O'Brien about the new consultant contract and the saving of €200 million. His perspective was interesting. He cautioned against saying that the new consultant contract would automatically deliver a saving of €200 million. His point was as follows: the consultants will work for different hours and they will see more people at different hours. While that is the right thing to happen, of itself it will generate an on-cost of which one must be aware as we work through the year. With that in mind, are we adopting the right approach in evaluating the non-pay savings resulting from the Croke Park agreement?