Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does he accept that he totally and utterly confused this committee with his evidence?

According to the story we are being told, two meetings were mixed up. I appreciate Mr. Connor's directness on that. To be fair to my colleague, Deputy Jonathan O'Brien, he is the one who pursued this matter. What worries me is that we are left with this ram-jam of a story and we will have to make a decision on what we believe happened. We must take the word of witnesses that there was no disagreement at the meeting between the State Claims Agency and HSE. However, neither organisation should have intercepted something that would obviously come back before the Committee of Public Accounts once the letter had been written to the SCA. Having been before the committee before the State Claims Agency wrote to the committee, surely Mr. Connaghan was aware that there was a problem with this evidence? Soon after the meeting it became clear that the information given at the meeting was incorrect. Given that this is glaringly obvious to everyone following proceedings and everyone present, why did Mr. Connaghan choose to do and say nothing? The only reason the committee is addressing this issue again is that the State Claims Agency wrote to us about it. Mr. Connaghan needs to reflect on that deeply.

In layman's language, this was a case of the HSE believing the committee had not noticed this and the HSE had, therefore, got away with it and would say nothing. However, when Mr. Breen and his colleagues wrote to the committee, the HSE had to deal with the issue. If ever a series of events symbolises my view of arse covering in the HSE, it is this. We are being told a story and we have to take people's word for it. The committee took their word last time and it has since transpired that there were inaccuracies. That is fine. We will take the word of the HSE again today and it may stand up. The committee will have to make a judgment on that but it is not a court of law.

However, the bigger issue is why the HSE did not deal with the issue once it became clear there was a problem. In fairness to Deputy Jonathan O'Brien, that became obvious when he raised the matter. While I acknowledge Mr. Connaghan's statement that there is a lesson to be learned from this, it is not damn well good enough. We represent the public and the whole country is following these meetings, as are HSE management and staff. The impact of the performances of HSE witnesses at this committee and other committees has had a serious and negative impact on its staff. The administrative work creeping up on the HSE is multiplying as a result of those performances. HSE staff did not like what they saw, namely, multiple instances of arse covering. As a result, many people in the organisation believe they must push everything up the line, rather than assume personal responsibility in case their managers land them in it. I have outlined one such example and the events that transpired following a meeting of this committee. While the problem that has arisen may have been accidental, the fact that it was not dealt is emblematic of the HSE. If Mr. Connaghan cannot see what is glaringly obvious, I do not know where we are going. He may respond if he wishes.