TRIBUNALS were not held in high esteem in 1994 when two Department of Health officials briefed the Minister on the emerging hepatitis C scandal, the tribunal of inquiry was told yesterday.
Mr John Hurley, secretary of the Department of Health between 1990 and 1994, said he could not recall if the then Minister for Health, Mr Howlin, sought advice on whether a tribunal of inquiry or an expert group should be set up after the hepatitis C crisis became known in February 1994.
Mr Hurley said he and his assistant secretary, Mr Donal Devitt, had concluded that there were two investigative options when they met Mr Howlin around February 28th, 1994. They discussed the pros and cons of an expert group or a tribunal of inquiry.
"We understood, and this was discussed, that tribunals were not held in high esteem at the time. We went on to discuss the question of the expert group," he said.
The advantage of a tribunal was the compellability in calling witnesses and discovery of documents. But the expertise of an expert group could be brought to bear immediately.
"He [Mr Howlin] took on board two points. He broadened the terms of reference because of the concern in the BTSB, and secondly he did not rule out the question of a tribunal," he said.
Mr James Nugent SC, counsel for the tribunal, asked it, "in the real world", the minister had turned to Mr Hurley, asking which of the two options he would advise him to favour.
"I cannot recall that, but I can recall teasing through the various options in a thorough way," he said.
When the tribunal chairman, Mr Thomas Finlay, pointed out that Mr Devitt's evidence had been that he was clearly "pro tribunal", Mr Hurley replied that he could not say if he [Mr Devitt] was. "But what I can say, what he made clear, were the significant advantages of a tribunal. I cannot really go further than that," he said.
Mr Hurley said the Department knew during his term as secretary that there were great difficulties in terms of work backlog at the National Drugs Advisory Board.
When Mr Nugent said product authorisation licences had taken up to six years to secure in the early 1990s, Mr Hurley replied that he was not involved in that particular operation.
"My recollection is that we were taking steps to ensure that the NDAB would be able to put proposals to us for the more effective running of the organisation ... We knew at that stage that they were having great difficulty in terms of the backlog of work. We knew that to tackle that needed a proper structure and a proper management ethic," he said.
But Mr Patrick Hanratty SC, counsel for the NDAB, said there was not a single document at the Department suggesting that there was a managerial problem at the NDAB and the perception there was they were "grossly understaffed".
Mr Hurley replied that the appointment of a chief executive officer was crucial but there had been a broader issue of delays in processing product licences and a backlog. He was extremely surprised that no one at the NDAB was aware that there was a management problem.
Mr Hanratty added that the terms fixed by the Department for the post of NDAB chief executive had been "grossly inadequate", and that the stated starting salary for the post was equivalent at the time to assistant principal in the Civil Service.
Mr Hurley said the Department of Health had made as strong a case as it could but the decisions were made centrally.
As assistant secretary in the personnel division of the Department between 1986 and 1990 he could not recall his knowledge of NDAB staffing at that time.
He was aware that it took a year to fill the post of the former NDAB medical director, Dr Allene Scott, when she retired in March 1992, which "caused a huge increase in the medical assessment part of the process", according to Mr Hanratty.