Mr. Ciarán Breen:

I would return to the point, and I must make it to the Senator again, that our expert evidence and Vicky Phelan's expert evidence was that the non-disclosure point, albeit a terrible point and I deplore the fact that she was not told, did not change her clinical outcome. That was agreed by her expert and by our expert. I deplore the fact that she was not told. We, as an agency, do not have any control over that. We have for a very long time told all of our agencies and hospitals that they should practice full open disclosure.

If I could return to the issue of why her case went to trial, the only reason it went to trial was because the solicitors for the US laboratory could not get sufficient instructions at a point in time, and then they did and they made the offer in the case. The Senator might recall that this case, which we supported being settled via mediation, which would have prevented Vicky Phelan from giving any evidence, collapsed because of the confidentiality clause provision which was insisted upon by the US laboratory. We went on record at that time to say that this is wrong, this should not be done, and that there should not be a confidentiality clause. We did everything we possibly could to try to get the case settled, but we had a letter of indemnity, a complete indemnity, for everything from the US laboratory.