Results 14,321-14,340 of 26,685 for speaker:David Cullinane
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
David Cullinane: Who was at the meeting?
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
David Cullinane: Was a note or minute of the meeting taken?
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
David Cullinane: I will return to what Mr. McCallion has just said. Were notes taken of the meeting?
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
David Cullinane: No minute was taken.
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
David Cullinane: I know what the output was. No formal minutes were taken.
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
David Cullinane: I understand that the output was a letter. I asked whether formal minutes were taken.
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
David Cullinane: I know that a letter was issued. However, no minute or note was taken.
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
David Cullinane: Mr. McCallion stated that a position had to be agreed.
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
David Cullinane: Was it a case of aligning positions?
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
David Cullinane: There were two contradictory positions, as Mr. Connaghan stated. It is unusual that the HSE would bring officials from both sides together and a letter would emerge to state that the two sides did not contradict each other and a mutual understanding had conveniently been reached. That is how it appears to some members and Mr. McCallion and the other witnesses are here because we want to...
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
David Cullinane: Mr. Breen was clear. It was crystal clear from the note that all women had not been informed, one way or another.
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
David Cullinane: No caveats?
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
David Cullinane: Even when the word "assumed" was used, was any clarity sought? Why assume? Either they were informed or not informed. Mr. Breen is certain now and says he knew they were informed. If the word "assume" was there, did anyone question why an assumption was made? Either it was known or not known.
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
David Cullinane: So we do not know what clarifications there were. I assume a legal person, when somebody uses the word "assume", would want to know more because there is no certainty then. I imagine some clarification might have been given.
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
David Cullinane: It would be clumsy on the side of the legal representatives there if they accepted the word "assume", would it not?
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
David Cullinane: Mr. Gleeson is saying to this committee that he was informing the State Claims Agency that, in his view at that time, his assumption was that all women would have been informed, primarily through their clinicians. That was essentially Mr. Gleeson's view at that time. Is that correct?
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
David Cullinane: No.
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
David Cullinane: Yes. Mr. Gleeson is saying that, at that time in 2018 when he was part of this conference call, he was very clear to the State Claims Agency that one way or another, but mainly through their clinicians, all women had been informed. Mr. Gleeson would have had no concern that women were not being informed.
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
David Cullinane: I accept that. It was only through their clinicians. We are clear that all women would have been informed through the clinicians. Mr. Gleeson would have had no concern that women were not informed.
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
David Cullinane: That does not stack up at all. Who wrote the memo that was given to clinicians?