Paul Bradford (Renua Ireland) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the HSE representatives. The scale of the delegation illustrates the scale of the organisation and the budget. As has been pointed out by Deputy Ó Caoláin, the €1.6 billion figure we are discussing is only part of the equation. I had the opportunity a few days ago to meet with the whistleblower and I was impressed by the recollection and clarity he brought to the presentation of his story. I hope he will be assisted in co-operating fully with the urgent investigation that is now going on.

This discussion arises from the "Prime Time" programme. The matters aired in the broadcast were brought to the attention of the Minister, subsequently passed down the line and the appropriate investigations commenced. Where financial matters are concerned, whether through VHI payments to a private hospital or tax funding to a HSE hospital, taxpayers are left at a loss. Clearly, the financial ramifications of these matters are very serious and we all agree they must be fully investigated.

A question arises regarding the medical side of the equation. One of the serious allegations passed from the Minister to the HSE was that, in the case of medical equipment which, in the normal course, should be sterilised or autoclaved, to use the technical term, a private clinic in Dublin regularly transferred this equipment, by arrangement with a member of staff of a public hospital, to the public hospital for sterilisation or autoclaving. To the best of my knowledge, this occurred three, four or five years ago on an ongoing basis. I am advised that the matter was investigated when it was brought to the attention of the authorities and the trade unions and hospital management were involved. However, using the Irish solution to many Irish problems, the member of staff retired. Was this matter investigated in the broadest sense as it clearly gives rise to a serious medical issue? It also forms part of a picture of an unusual relationship between a supply company and at least one person in a hospital. While the book was closed on the matter in some senses by the decision of the member of staff in question to retire, I wonder if the witnesses are aware of the case. Did it set off some degree of alarm or an investigation into the supply chain? As I indicated, this case occurred some years ago.

The witnesses are also aware of the allegation that medical equipment was regularly and deliberately broken, with the result that it needed to be replaced. It may be the case that this issue came to light last September and is now being investigated. From a hospital management perspective, if a significant amount of medical equipment is breaking regularly in a specific medical unit or hospital, would this not cause someone to ask whether there is a problem?

I welcome the action taken as a result of the "Prime Time" programme and the correspondence of last September, although I am not sure how quickly action was taken. Were there any other indications that unusual events were occurring and investigations were required? I refer, in particular, to medical cases. While financial cases also require attention, in the cases of medical issues, there all sorts of other ramifications. Did the retirement of the staff member in the case to which I referred cause the book to be closed on the matter or were further investigations carried out?