Ms Anne O'Connor:

In terms of 2006 concerns, the letter is in. The concerns related particularly to clinical issues within the organisation. One could argue more governance related matters was the concern raised in 2009, which was internal to the national office where a staff member there raised concerns. At that time, Console were met by the then director of the national office - as Mr. Gerry Raleigh has previously said, everybody has changed in the national office since that time. However, they were met then. They were brought in. They were then signed up to a formal performance management process. At that time, the funding to Console was in the region of €250,000. It increased slightly in 2008-2009 because they were developing standards but the funding was substantially the same. They were advised that they could not get additional funding from the HSE. They were brought in for regular meetings. The concerns were addressed at that time to the satisfaction of the national office. The requests that they made for additional funding between 2009 and 2013 were refused.

It is also important to say that the funding that had been provided to the National Office for Suicide Prevention, NOSP, pre-2013 really had them in the space of being a grant-aid agreement rather than a service arrangement. The arrangement differs once you get past a certain threshold of funding and it is a difference type of governance process. It is a different structure. Their funding in the overall scheme of things was relatively low compared to many other organisations so it did not trigger a significant audit. It did not trigger significant scrutiny because the funding was very low.

The critical point here was 2013 when their funding increased, as we have discussed earlier, on the basis of the helpline. That then moved the organisation into a different category, if you like. It moved it into a service arrangement where there was a different governance. At the time of the increased funding, the organisation were advised that they would be signed up to intensive scrutiny on the basis of their funding, and that happened.

It is fair to say that in 2009, they were met on a regular basis and I suppose a limit was put on their funding. Their funding was not increased and they were advised but the concerns were addressed at that time by the organisation, again, as the director general has said, in terms of the decisions that were made at that time.