Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I will make two points. First, the Taoiseach made a statement to the effect that the Committee of Public Accounts should not be involved in this matter, which was supported by some Ministers. A meeting was held by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to discuss whether the Committee of Public Accounts should do so and Deputy Harty, as Chairman of the Committee on Health, has stated in writing that he does not believe it should. I am not saying any of this is connected and I am not joining any dots. As party leader, I have never interfered with the Committee of Public Accounts nor given any guidance or instructions in this regard to anybody. It is important that the Government does not attempt to muzzle a key committee of this House. Whether one agrees with what it does or how it does it is beside the point. It is a parliamentary committee. Dr. Scally has also referenced the fevered atmosphere and so on. I am raising this issue in a plenary session of the House because I do not think we would have had sight of those documents last week but for the Committee of Public Accounts. The Minister, Deputy Bruton, said the Minister, Deputy Harris, is committed but he gave a commitment three weeks ago and we did not get information. I find it inexplicable that people did not front up at that early stage and provide the documentation.

Second, on open disclosure, what is evident in this documentation is an attempt to exempt the cervical screening programme from the strict rigours of open disclosure. The templates for the letters to the women concerned provide consultants with a way out in terms of the use of the word "may". It is clear there is a circumvention of open disclosure. Is there any link between this and the decision of the then Minister, Deputy Varadkar, not to proceed with his original commitment to introduce mandatory open disclosure? It is an interesting point from a policy perspective. Many people are making decisions without Ministers' knowledge and, equally, on substantive issues of policy, this appears to be the case also.

See this speech in context