Mr. Tony O'Brien:

It is true that we provided information on this subject to a series of meetings of the Committee of Public Accounts. The information we provided was that the procurement complied with the EU directives, that is true. However, as the Dignam report pointed out, there was not provision in the HSE's internal procurement regulations to avail of those directives. Consequently we have accepted the conclusions of Mr. Conor Dignam SC, that it would be appropriate to ensure that what had been custom and practice was properly reflected in the internal regulations. He also accepted that the circumstances in this case were such as to amount to exceptional circumstances within the meaning of the procurement policy and the National Financial Regulations Act of the HSE, thereby permitting a derogation from normal procedures. He then says:

It does seem to me that the HSE was justified of derogating from the normal process and in those circumstances was not obliged to engage in a tender process. Indeed I agree with the HSE submission that such a tender process would probably have been inappropriate and unworkable given the subject matter. There was therefore no inadequacy in relation to complying with the relevant procurement rules, arising from the fact that the contract was not the subject of an open tender. One can readily see why such a process would have been wholly inappropriate.

He also says later on, and I cannot quote the precise words right now, in relation to Dignam that it represented fair value for money.