Dr. Tony Holohan:

That is my understanding. Will the Deputy now let me explain why I did not believe it should be escalated? When we look at the escalation of issues broadly related to patient safety, there are categories that we use. The top category and the most significant involves a situation where we have information on a service which is still open and into which patients are still going and which is not safe. That is the most significant issue that might require an intervention and there have been such examples. The next most significant involves a situation where something comes to light and where we know that patients have been through a service, harm has occurred, they have been exposed in some way to something and a lookback needs to be conducted in order that those patients can be identified and some service offered to them to try to remediate what has happened. The next level would be where something else has happened, but it is an individual case in which we do not believe there are wider risks to the public. However, the merits of the case are also something that consider by way of escalation. In the particular case we had potential for something to become a matter of reporting. That potential could be realised at any point over a period of time. If I were to say to the Minister, frankly, that we were giving him warning of a potentia casel in March of 2016 and something were to happen six months later, I do not think he would able to rely on it - I would have to let him know at the point at which in order that there would be readiness and-----