Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The HSE witnesses are all very welcome. I congratulate Mr. Timmins and Ms Manahan on their respective appointments. I thank Mr. Goulding very much for being present. It is a testament to his character that he has turned up. I have never met him before. It gives me an indication of how important the CRC and its work is to him and his family.

It is also important to note, in the context of the chairman’s interaction with the HSE, that one of the reasons there are organisations such as the CRC is the holistic failure of the State - all of us collectively - to provide disability services. Had it not been for Mr. Goulding’s mother and many others like her, many people in this country would have grown up without services.

To link that back to the point made by the Chairman - that this cannot all be blamed on the HSE because the problems predate its existence - the situation in this country is that we all thought the only role of successive Governments, the HSE, and the Department of Health was to write cheques and hand them over to service providers. As the Chairman outlined, there has not been a greater level of forensic work and the linkage that is required for governance. I note the progress that has been made in a short time. I hope the new measures that have been put in place signal the beginning of a new culture in terms of the relationship between section 38 agencies and the HSE.

I note the comments of either Ms McGuinness or Mr. Cregan, in his report, that the HSE did not have any concerns about the quality or quantum of services provided by the staff. I can only imagine how difficult recent months have been for Mr. Timmins, Ms Manahan and many of the front-line staff and employees who are providing excellent services. It is important and welcome that the report made such a finding.

I wish to refer to how we got to this point. At this stage the debate has moved beyond the CRC. I hope our exchange can be more focused on the lessons we can learn in terms of section 38 agencies and the need for the HSE to interact with them for the benefit of both the taxpayer, which is the purpose of the committee, and service users.

I have heard the arguments on Mr. Kiely’s remuneration package. I have no doubt that, as Mr. Goulding has said, he genuinely believed a good financial deal had been achieved for the clinic. I have heard his rationale and I am struck by the genuine nature of his belief. I do not necessarily agree with the actions taken by him and the board. I am confused as to why there was not greater interaction with the main funder, the HSE, on the issue, but I believe the motive was good. However, where I get more confused and more concerned is on the appointment of the next CEO. That is the area I wish to explore. One could quite correctly say the CRC was contractually obligated to pay Mr. Kiely the sum of money, although people might consider it obscene or abnormal. But when it got to the appointment of Mr. Conlan, it seems at that stage there was blatant disregard for what had been agreed. My understanding from the correspondence trail was that there was an agreement between the CRC and the HSE that when the situation with Paul Kiely was resolved and the next appointment was made, the rules would be obeyed and the CRC would stick to the pay scales and consult the HSE. I wonder why that did not happen.