Mr. Robert Watt:

It is good to be here this morning and I thank the committee for the invitation. This is the first time I have been before this committee since being appointed to my role. I am looking forward to working with the committee in the period ahead on the various challenges the health system faces, on which the members will be engaging with us. I am joined by a number of my colleagues this morning. I thank them for all the work they have done, particularly over the past two months, in responding to these allegations. A significant amount of time has been put in, by colleagues who are here with me and by others who are not, in responding to these allegations, during a period when the Department was very busy dealing with issues relating to the pandemic and the variety of other issues with which we deal. As it is my first time here as Secretary General of the Department, I also thank my colleagues more widely in the Department for all their work over the past 16 or 17 months in dealing with the challenges we face due to Covid. The enormous contribution people have made and the enormous work and effort put in embodies what is great about the Civil Service and the public service.

I have been invited to discuss matters arising from allegations made in the "RTÉ Investigates" broadcast that has been mentioned. It is important to highlight the context in which these allegations were made. The Minister for Health is named from time to time as a defendant in litigation cases. This was the situation in a number of cases dating back to the early 1990s related to special educational needs taken against the State. In approximately 230 of these cases the Department of Health and the Department of Education are co-defendants, and 29 of these cases remain open. They could be active or dormant but they are open in that they have not been settled through mediation or court settlements. As is the practice, both Departments are jointly represented by the Chief State Solicitor's office, under the co-ordination of the Office of the Attorney General. The long-standing approach of both the Department of Education and the Department of Health to students with special educational and health needs is to seek to ensure the provision of the appropriate services for those students as best they can. It is only where the suitability of such services is contested that litigation ensues. The Department always seeks, in the first instance, to resolve proceedings on appropriate terms where possible. The majority of concluded cases have been resolved by the parties involved through mediation and not by the courts. That is an important point to emphasise.

As members will be aware, the allegations previously brought to the Department of Health's attention in February 2020 through a protected disclosure were subject to an independent review by senior counsel. This was completed in November 2020 and published on 21 April last. I have shared a copy of this review with the committee. The Chair and I spoke about this. The reason for the delay in sharing that with the committee was to ensure that the rights of the discloser were protected, that consent had been received and that we had gone through all the necessary processes to ensure that. The committee will be aware that this review assessed an allegation of gathering and sharing of information regarding special educational needs litigation related to correspondence and spreadsheets. It found that there was no basis for a reasonable belief of wrongdoing, as defined in the Protected Disclosures Act 2014. It also outlined that the information shared between the parties is consistent with, and typical of, the sort of information that arises in such litigation. The report is very detailed and goes through the types of information that were provided by the whistleblower to counsel. It sets out the context, conclusions and assessments on foot of the review.

Following the RTÉ broadcast and the allegations it contained, I set up a team in the Department to establish the facts surrounding specific allegations made in the programme and related articles on the RTÉ website. The team was supported by three independent barristers who acted as external documentary review counsel. This, in effect, involved going through files and establishing what was on them and the extent to which the allegations were made were true. This report was also published on 21 April and a copy has been made available to members of the committee.

I will set out some important facts that have been established based on this independent review. First, the Department of Health has never gathered sensitive medical or educational information on children involved in court cases in the manner portrayed by RTÉ. Second, there is no evidence the Department of Health was secretly compiling dossiers on children with autism involved in special educational needs litigation, as alleged by the RTÉ programme. As a co-defendant in litigation cases, the Department of Health may have documents on file that form part of the proceedings. Such files contain information arising in the course of the proceedings, including the pleadings and correspondence received from all parties, including plaintiffs. Most of the information on file includes the information provided by plaintiffs in the course of their pleadings setting out the case they wish to make and the basis on which they are taking a case against the State. I think there has been some misunderstanding about the nature of the information that is held. Most of the information was provided by the plaintiffs or provided in pursuit of their action by their legal representatives. There is no evidence that the Department of Health is prying on families. I use the word "prying" because that was the term used in the RTÉ programme. I am not entirely sure what was meant by that but the word is generally meant in a pejorative way, suggesting something underhand or covert, and there is absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever. There is no evidence the Department of Health gathered information that was beyond instructions as part of the normal defence of a litigation case. Based on the review from the evidential barristers, this was confirmed in the original review by Conleth Bradley. The information held on file was of the type one would expect to see in cases such as these. I have had a chance to look through some of the summary information and it is of the type one would expect to see: the name of the plaintiff, his or her legal representative, the case he or she is making, the status of the case and so on, along with accompanying documentation, in the main, as I said, provided by the plaintiffs. There is no evidence the Department of Health sought updates or reports on plaintiffs directly from schools or the Department of Education. There is no evidence the Department of Health sought clinical reports on plaintiffs directly from clinicians.

There are data protection issues, which the various papers identify, and we welcome the inquiry by the Data Protection Commission, which is investigating data collection practices in this area. Of course, the Department is co-operating with the Data Protection Commissioner and will gladly take on board any recommendations the commission may have in respect of how we could do better in this area, if that is the conclusion and recommendations arising from the review.

I know the headlines generated by the programme have caused distress to some of the families concerned. Accordingly, the Department of Health appointed an independent support liaison officer to engage directly with the 29 families involved in these allegations. I have personally written to each of the families through their solicitors on file offering an opportunity to engage with him. I have also endeavoured to keep in touch with stakeholder organisations. On 1 April, I provided an update via open letter and further on 21 April, when the two reports were published, and I shared these with the organisations. I again underlined that their role representing many patients and families affected by autism is valued. I continue to be committed to engaging with them and informing them of updates on this issue as we go forward. The mission of the Department of Health, and the mission of me and my colleagues, is to improve the health and well-being of people in Ireland. The core priority of the Department over the past year has been the response to the Covid pandemic. The intense work in continuing to respond to the impact of the pandemic on our nation's health and on the services we deliver will continue long after society has reopened and the last vaccine has been administered.

I look forward to our discussion today. I assure the committee of our commitment to delivering on the Department's priorities. The health and well-being of the people who use the health service is at the centre of all the decisions we take within the Department. I am very happy to engage with any questions.