Mr. Bernard Gloster:

That is a very appropriate question. There are three parts to it. On the publication of the report, to be fair to CHI, it has a view, it has taken advice and has articulated that at the committee. I have a different view. I believe that report could have been pseudonymised and published without interfering with somebody's rights. That is my view and I stand over it. I will not resile from that. To be fair to a lot of people who work on initiative funding in hospitals, including doctors, nurses and others, not all of it is characterised in the way that the alleged incidents were.

As the Deputy said, they are most egregious and should be dealt with as that. I do not, however, think that defines the totality. I do not think that is the way it works in most cases. The Deputy will have seen the level of seriousness with which I viewed that when I heard it. This is because I can see the difference in the content. It was very clear to me that the difference in the content, albeit alleged, met the threshold to be further investigated. This is where it stands and it will be judged in its own time. I really think the governance between the voluntary sector and the State and the State funding of hospitals is something we have to tighten much further.