Mr. Jim Breslin:

In reviewing the detail and looking at the information available to the Department I can see that the sense within it was that it was a retrospective clinical audit for the purposes of quality assurance and that, importantly, a process had commenced to inform the women via their consultants. These two facts would not have raised serious concerns on the part of the Department. In fact, they would have been seen in a positive light in the context of commitment to operational improvement and a commitment to openness. The Department was updated over a period and the updates showed the progression of the process. They were showing that what people had set out to do was being done.

What we were not advised of was the subsequent widespread non-disclosure of the results. Had we been so advised, I think our attitude would have been very different. However, based on the information we had at the time, we looked at it as something that was worthwhile and being delivered. We were told that the process had finished with good progress being made and that the road set out had been gone down. Everything had been done as intended.

The process for an official in the Department is to engage with the issue and seek to manage it out with the HSE. It is only if they such issues are not resolved that they are escalated. We are a relatively small Department and I want to have responsibility within the Department for interacting with the HSE at various levels and to identify issues and raise them with the HSE. Sometimes we will get a very appropriate response and everything will be fine. Sometimes there is an issue, and then we need to push the issue to try to see it followed through. If at that stage more support is needed to resolve an issue, it is escalated. Simply to escalate every piece of information which comes into the Department from an organisation the size of the HSE would not be realistic and effective in terms of how we do our work.