Ms Mo Flynn:

I echo my colleague's viewpoint in that, similarly, Rehab faced the same position. In 2017, we decided to include all of our deficits in our nine service arrangements around the country and the HSE moved to withhold 20% of funding. At that stage, we exercised our right under the service arrangement to enter into the dispute resolution process and were able to demonstrate clearly that the HSE had no legal right to withhold funding under that service arrangement. Once we had demonstrated this, the HSE rescinded its action. However, we are a large organisation and were able to enter into the process. In addition, we had the capacity to manage the situation during that period. For many smaller organisations, the withholding of 20% of funding on a monthly cashflow basis is incredibly difficult and poses considerable challenges in terms of meeting pay costs, service delivery costs etc. The measure pushes many organisations to the extent where they must sign in the way in which the HSE has indicated and that is primarily by not demonstrating that there are deficits.

Again, I echo what was said by my colleague whereby if we continue to produce service arrangements, which are public documents, indicating there are no deficits, then we feed into the myth that there are no deficits in the sector. We have all been doing this for a good number of years. As a result, there is no public recognition or recognition within the health budgets that deficits are accumulating. This is something that is very much under the radar. It is only through our efforts and what emerged from the report compiled by the independent review group report that the deficits and the process that has been initiated have become public knowledge.