John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

In that, just for the information of members, there are three things. All secondments will be temporary in nature, all secondment advertisements will be sent to the Civil Service HR division and, in general, an advertised position should be circulated to all staff. It is very clear on the steps that one has to take.

Let us move then to the letter of 16 March to Professor Linda Doyle, which is a public document so I presume I can refer to it. That proposal or letter of intent sets out the agreement to the secondment of Dr. Tony Holohan and in the second paragraph Mr. Watt writes: "I recognise that agreement is conditional on the approval of any necessary authority within the University." I am not asking you to comment on this, Mr. Fraser. I am setting a scene here as to where all this started. The authority mentioned here is only the university. The superannuation arrangements and alignment with contractual terms and conditions relating to the position of CMO is addressed by the Department of Health, is what it says here. However, the letter of intent goes on to state clearly, under the proposed agreement, what the Department of Health commits to. It actually commits to the secondment and to continuing to pay the salary at its existing level. It refers to "salary terms and conditions equivalent to the position" on the date of signing of the agreement and also commits to "improvements, awards or regrading that may apply to the position of Chief Medical Officer over the course of the secondment". It commits to making an "annual, ring-fenced allocation of €2M for the duration of the secondment, to be administered through the Health Research Board, a body under the aegis of the Department of Health...". It goes on to talk about funds to provide for Dr. Holohan's salary "until his retirement". It asks that Trinity College would provide an office on the campus and that it would provide administrative support for the position. That is what was stated on 16 March 2022. All of that is what has brought us to this juncture and this examination. Let us be clear about this. It was advanced to a stage where the final document was to be signed at the end of March. The letter refers to the appointment of an officer in the Department of Health to work on details "such that a final agreement is signed prior to 31 March 2022". All of this was advanced, apparently, without any sanction from anyone except the Secretary General and it flies in the face of Circular 27/2021.

That is the backdrop to this. Questions have been asked about the remit of committees. It has been suggested Circular 27/2021 does not define the involvement and role of this committee clearly; it does. I am saying that because I am moving now to the recent happenings. In the public arena we have been fed a diet of smoke and mirrors, obfuscation, spin and a determined effort by Government to cloud the issues here. The issues are clear. They were set out on 16 March. They are set out in the document dated 21 December. It is quite clear that there is an issue here that should be dealt with by this committee.

On 12 April 2022, the Secretaries General were asked for information. They were told about the invitation. On 13 April 2022, Ministers were informed. They were advised that they might need to appear depending on what might be said by the three Secretaries General, Mr. Fraser being one of them and the Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform being another. There is an apology there; the Secretary General is not available which is fine. Then there is Mr. Watt. They were the three. We then asked for information just to inform the committee to put us into a position where we clearly understood what was going on, our role within what was going on and our oversight role as a committee. To say that some showed utter contempt for what was going on is an understatement. Deadlines were not met. Information was not given. Requests for further information were not acknowledged. Telephone calls from the secretariat here were not returned. I think that shows an awful example to those at a junior level within the Civil Service where they should be seeing exemplary conduct from Secretaries General.

I now turn to the political situation and comments that were made before I get back to Mr. Watt's letter of last night at 8 o'clock. It is regrettable that the Taoiseach used the words he did because this committee - I am sure it is the same for every other committee of the House - is about its business. It is about accountability and transparency, and bringing before the committee various witnesses depending on the subject matter and doing it in a constructive, courteous fashion, getting to the truth of the matter. It would seem that there is no appetite in Government to get to the truth of this matter.

The Taoiseach has suggested that we should wait until the independent report is completed following due process at which point we can get the report and discuss it. That stands in stark contrast to the treatment of a Minister who asked for due process but was sacked. If that does not show double standards, I do not know what does. Therefore, the committee has a remit. It must answer the questions from the public in the context of the belief that there is a senior cabal of politicians and civil servants who are ignoring the due process, ignoring the Oireachtas committees and just doing as they please.

Last night's letter from Mr. Watt to the committee as usual provides a lot of packing. There is a lot of stuff in there, some of it irrelevant. He states: "I have answered questions on these matters at the Health Committee and I do not believe it is reasonable for me to be asked to attend a different sectoral Committee to answer questions on the same issue." He is not being asked to answer questions on the same issues. He is being asked to address the issues that are of public interest and of concern to the people of Ireland. He is being asked by a parliamentary committee, taking its task responsibly. He has been asked to appear before it to clarify matters. The circular letter puts him right in the frame to be asked to attend this meeting.

That answers that part of his letter. This is not personal. I just need to do my job as Chairman. It has been made seriously difficult by the attitude of Ministers, the Taoiseach and senior civil servants. He states:

I understand that it has been practice for some time now that one committee should look at each particular issue under its terms of reference rather than duplicate examinations of issues. I'm sure you would agree this is neither in the public interest, nor is it efficient use of members' or public servants' time.

I put it to Mr. Fraser that he has eaten up an enormous amount of this committee's time and indeed the time of the clerk and the people who serve this committee by not answering letters, by not giving information and by having everyone here chasing after the information not being responded to and the numerous telephone calls that are not returned. There is no dispute between the health committee and the finance committee. There is a clear line of responsibility for both committees. I would suggest, as I said earlier, all of it is contained not only in that circular, but in the title of the committee, the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach. If ever we needed to look at public expenditure in this case, and reform, by God we need to do it now.

A politician cannot go anywhere publicly without someone pointing out the disgraceful behaviour of some politicians and some civil servants. I wonder if this attitude gave rise to the decision by those in the HSE, whom the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, wanted to meet, not to meet her.

Mr. Watt's letter continued:

I hope that we can carry out our respective duties in a respectful and courteous manner... issues that arise in a professional, factual, and policy focused manner, without unnecessary and distracting personal commentary.

None of this is distracting commentary. None of this is personal. None of this is outside the realms of being courteous to everyone. I find it a shocking state of affairs that this committee has to sit like this and work its way through nonsense and through all the misinformation and spin in order to try to get to the truth.

I go back then to the report from Mr. Watt to the Taoiseach. I hope the Taoiseach and his officials will ponder on what has been said at this committee. Point No. 20 in his submission states:

This involved the Secretary to the Government and myself as Secretary General of the Department of Health. [That implicates Mr. Fraser.] ... the CMO has an outstanding record of public service on behalf of the Irish State. Both the Secretary to the Government and I indicated our strong support to facilitate and help where possible.

Again, he refers to Mr. Fraser as Secretary to the Government. The report also states:

In early March, the Secretary to the Government spoke to me and I confirmed that I was working on the details of this arrangement, including the proposed research funding element. I was aware that the Government had recently endorsed open ended secondment arrangements...

The circular from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, which I refer to again, has other things to say about that. He then commits the research board: "...with details to be agreed between all three parties. It was never envisaged that this salary would be paid directly on the Vote of the Department of Health."

Yet it would be seen to be paid from an agency under the remit of the Department of Health.

Point No. 43 refers to "the Public Service Management Act 1997, which stipulates that the administration of Government Departments is a matter for Secretaries General", and I do not dispute that. He is not a lone ranger, however. He is a manager within a system that is accountable to the people through Oireachtas committees, and he should be accountable to the Government, if it is interested at all, particularly given the sums of money involved.

In point No. 44, Mr. Watt indicates:

It also has been suggested that the Taoiseach and other members of the Government were "kept in the dark". The Secretary to the Government was aware of the proposed secondment move (but not of course the precise details) and I understood that the fact of discussions regarding the CMO's future plans were known in the Department of An Taoiseach. I assumed that key decision-makers were aware of the proposal but of course not the precise details. [...] In early March the Secretary to the Government spoke to me and asked me to confirm that I was working on the details. I confirmed "yes". I inferred from this that this had political support in Government Buildings.

Everyone seems to be running a mile from that one.

In point No. 56, Mr. Watt states:

...it is disappointing that some commentary alleges erroneously that I failed to keep the Minister appropriately informed. The Minister was informed of the proposal for Dr. Holohan to take up a professorship at TCD in advance of the announcement and was supportive.

I wonder if the advance announcement the night before was his way of informing the Minister, as he did with us last night at 8 p.m., sending us the email that he sent.

This brings me to the final point. After all that, the committee was available to Mr. Watt and others such as the Minister to come before it. It is a two-way street here and people get the chance to clarify their positions. They get a chance to put the facts before the general public because it is a public meeting. We all get the chance to learn from mistakes because nobody gets it right all the time.

We are now faced with the investigation to bring what the terms of reference refer to as "learnings" from this. It has been a debacle from start to finish and it has cast a shadow on Dr. Tony Holohan, for whom I have the greatest respect. Even the commentary over the past few days in the Dáil has been nothing short of an attempt to cloud the matter, as I said earlier. I find it truly shocking that senior politicians and civil servants do not see beyond the position they are currently holding and cannot understand that the public is furious about what is going on. It is not so much about Dr. Holohan but the carry-on of Ministers, comments of senior civil servants and particularly the misleading commentary put to the Dáil by the Taoiseach when he speaks about a "witch hunt" in three committees taking this up and his referring to what should or should not happen. I made the point that this committee certainly has a remit to be involved. I ask for Mr. Watt to reconsider his position on attending before this committee. I ask the Taoiseach and the two Ministers to consider their position on attending before this committee and giving clarity not to me but to this forum as a committee of Parliament with representatives of the public. I ask that this be done sooner rather than later.

If Mr. Fraser wishes to clarify any point, he should please do so now. I acknowledge that this is not the first time he has come before this committee when others would not, and I respect him for that. It is a pity others do not take his example and attend committee meetings when they are asked to do so.