David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

That concerns me. I could put it a different way but I want to be careful in what I say.

It troubles me that we heard from two organisations that had polar opposite views on what is a very sensitive issue. Conveniently — if I can use that word — we now have a mutually agreed position. As I simply do not accept that at face value, I believe Mr. Gleeson has to appear before us again.

We should not, however, miss the bigger point, which is what An Teachta Kelly was getting at. I am giving my opinion from what I have heard. We look at process failures and systems failures but there is a sense that a deliberate strategy was put in place to limit the number of women made aware of the results. That is the bigger issue. In my view, Mr. Gleeson was at the core of the decision-making in that regard. I do not believe that issue should be lost in the confusion over emails and what was said or not said. The Committee of Public Accounts should produce a report from that perspective and should not encroach on the work of Mr. Scally or anyone else. We have had a number of meetings, however, and cannot just bookend them saying we have had discussions with witnesses because we have our job to do.

There were three elements to the strategy. One was to limit the number of women who knew. The second was to get those who knew and who had legal recourse to sign confidentiality clauses. Where that did not work, the third element was to drag it out through the courts. Ms Vicky Phelan rumbled all that. That is my sense of it. It is only my sense of it so I am not speaking for the committee. I do not believe we can forget the strategy.

As the Chairman knows, some of the women involved were in Leinster House again yesterday. Some of them are still taking cases in the High Court. Women who are dying are still in the High Court fighting the system. We have to have their backs. Deputy Fleming, as Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts, promised them that we would fight their corner for them so we cannot just drop the matter and say that is it. At the very least, we have to produce a report and give our view on whether we feel there were systems values. I know the word "cover-up" was used by the solicitor for Ms Phelan. That is still an allegation. I do not believe Mr. Scally will be looking at that. I would imagine that if there were failures he will come back and state that. Then we will need a commission of investigation. If that happens, it will be locked into a two-year process whereby nobody will be able to talk about the matter again. That is what happens with these commissions. We have been here before with all these issues. I am just making the point that we started a process and made a commitment and promise to the victims at the centre of this. Not only because we made a commitment, but because of our responsibility, we need to see it through.