Mr. Tony O'Brien:

I thank the Chairman and members of the committee. I am joined by Mr. Ray Mitchell and Mr. Dara Purcell, who are not witnesses but who will assist me with the documentation. I have reviewed the transcript of my evidence to the committee on 2 February 2016 as requested. I note the clarification from the Chairman to the effect that the focus of my contribution should be only on those areas where the record needs to be corrected.

In the interest of garnering as much information as possible to respond to the committee, I initiated an examination of the two matters referred to by the Chairman in his letter to me. Whereas this examination had not fully concluded when my initial letter was sent to the committee on 16 March, in the interests of providing as much information and clarity to the committee as possible, the examination continued after my initial letter was sent. Consequently, the committee will note that I sent a second letter to it on foot of further and better information. I have sought to expand on those aspects of my contribution where issues were raised by the members of the committee as per the Chairman’s letter. I have limited my reply to the specific issues identified by the Chairman and I will focus my contribution on those matters. Arising from my review of the transcripts, there is one other matter, while not raised specifically by the committee, that I wish to include in this response by way of providing additional clarity. I wish to stress that the evidence provided by me to the Committee of Public Accounts on this matter has been given with the utmost of good faith and with the sole purpose of assisting the committee and its members in as much as I possibly could at those individual sittings.

As I highlighted to the committee on a number of occasions, the evidence I provided at three sittings in 2015 and 2016 on this matter was somewhat restricted for reasons outside my control. Given that neither of the two reports - the Devine and Resilience Ireland reports - had been published at that time, I was attempting to answer questions and provide information to members while constrained by the fact that I could not speak openly on matters. This, as Deputies are aware, was to avoid interfering with a live Garda investigation. Consequently, words or phrases chosen by me during questioning by members to explain matters would not necessarily have been ones that I would have chosen had I had complete freedom to discuss the information contained within both reports.

I will turn to the question of liaison with An Garda Síochána since 2012 on the matters concerned. The HSE has been aware since 2011 of live Garda investigations into a number of cases relating to this former foster home. Since that time, HSE staff at local level have been involved in ongoing engagement and liaison with senior members of the Garda Síochána who have been leading the investigation into this matter. Liaison and engagement between the HSE and the Garda Síochána involved many forms, including meetings, the exchange of relevant correspondence and the provision of additional information and files to the Garda Síochána, as live investigations proceeded throughout 2012, 2013, and 2014. By way of example, the Conal Devine report was provided to the Garda Síochána in July 2012 to further assist it with its ongoing investigations at that time. In April 2013, HSE staff at local level were advised by the Garda Síochána that they would retain files pertaining to Grace as there were, at that point, three further investigations being conducted as a direct result of the investigation into the case.

Later in August 2013, further files were sought formally in relation to these investigations.

Furthermore, throughout the years 2014 and 2015 there was considerable contact between AGS and the HSE------