Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

This committee received letters from the HSE months earlier on the open disclosure policy. It is on file - I am sure the letters are here in front of me - that the HSE highlighted that the Civil Liability (Amendment) Act 2017 had not yet commenced and this was proving an obstacle to open disclosure. The witness had to know that the section on open disclosure has still not been commenced. The HSE put it in writing that the failure to commence Part 4 of the Civil Liability (Amendment) Act 2017 relating to open disclosure was an obstacle to open disclosure. Mr. Gleeson and all senior figures in the HSE must have known that open disclosure was not fully operational because the legislation to back it up and give people protection had not yet commenced at that point. It still has not commenced. That correspondence was sent months ago, in January or February this year, which means Mr. Gleeson must have known there was an issue with open disclosure. Part 4 of the Civil Liability (Amendment) Act 2017 was designed to facilitate open disclosure. The HSE knew Part 4 had not been implemented, yet Mr. Gleeson is hanging onto the view that open disclosure was occurring. What was the purpose of the legislation if Mr. Gleeson believes there was 100% open disclosure? He could not have believed that. While I accept that he was acting in good faith in making the assumption that the women affected had been informed, it was not a valid assumption to make based on the state of his knowledge of the issue of open disclosure. Does the witness accept that? I am trying to understand his assumption. I find it hard to believe that he validly arrived at that assumption.