The top civil servant at the Department of Health, Robert Watt, is likely to face questions at a Dáil committee on Wednesday after criticism of the botched appointment of former chief medical officer Dr Tony Holohan to an academic post in Trinity College Dublin last year were made in a long-awaited independent report published on Monday.
The report, by independent director Maura Quinn, was critical of aspects of the proposed appointment, which was abandoned last year following political controversy. It was proposed to second Dr Holohan to Trinity, with a research budget of €2 million a year.
[ The Irish Times view: now for the blame gameOpens in new window ]
Mr Watt is due to make a scheduled appearance at the Oireachtas Committee which marks the Departments of Finance, Public Expenditure and the Taoiseach on Wednesday, where he is likely to be questioned about the report’s findings.
Although there are criticisms of the process, and especially of the way Dr Honohan’s appointment was tied to the proposed funding for the programme, however, the report also made clear that there are fierce disagreements over the affair and continuing differences between the accounts of some of the most senior public servants in the State.
Our Little Secret: Awkward! Lindsay Lohan’s Christmas flick may as well be AI generated
Mary Lou’s eyeroll and the ‘Simon stare’: The body language in TV leaders’ debate
Edwardian three-bed with potential to extend in Sandymount for €1.295m
Kathy Sheridan: Anyone paying attention to Simon Harris could have predicted the outburst in a supermarket
In particular, there are clear contradictions in the accounts offered by Mr Watt and by the State’s former top civil servant, Martin Fraser – who was secretary general in the Department of the Taoiseach last year and is now ambassador in London – and in the accounts offered by Mr Watt and by Deirdre Gillane, chief of staff to the then taoiseach Micheál Martin and now in the same role for Mr Martin as Tánaiste.
In a submission to the inquiry, Ms Gillane said that Mr Watt’s assertions that she had been made aware of the prospective appointment were “grossly inaccurate and unwarranted”. She went to refer to other aspects of Mr Watt’s evidence as “fatuous” and said comments he made regarding her involvement were “wholly without foundation”.
