During the course of a 2½-hour session of the Oireachtas finance committee, Department of Health secretary general Robert Watt was pushed on the findings of a report into the botched secondment of former chief medical officer Dr Tony Holohan to Trinity College Dublin. Here’s what we found out.
The report
Watt strongly disputed, on multiple occasions, many of the key findings of the report. These include that Dr Holohan should not have been as involved as he was in aspects of the deal and findings about the structure of the process – including that it bypassed protocols for the allocation of research funding. Watt said he was “very happy the secondment process was appropriate” and at one point told the committee: “I reject most of the findings of the report.”
Funding
A key issue in the whole episode has been the linking of €2 million in annual research funding to the establishment of the position. That money was to have been given by the Health Research Board (HRB) – which said it had no knowledge of the proposed arrangement, which was outlined in a letter of intent to TCD signed by Watt.
On Wednesday, Watt sought to downplay the significance of the letter of intent. He said many details were still being worked out when news of the appointment was leaked (despite the fact an announcement had been planned for the same time as the leak).
Asked about why the funding had doubled in the space of a month – as outlined by correspondence contained in the report – Watt said it was “to show we were serious about a commitment to invest”.
He said the intent was in line with government decisions to increase funding to research in public health, and that had it needed legal sanction down the road or an allocation from the Department of Public Expenditure, one would have been sought.
Watt also insisted that the funding was not destined for TCD solely – he argued that other than a portion to cover Dr Holohan’s salary, the remainder would have been allocated on a competitive basis by the HRB to TCD or other institutions seeking support for research. None of this was outlined in the letter of intent. He said he did not accept that he committed funds to TCD.
[ Miriam Lord: A jaw-dropping performance from the prince of permanent governmentOpens in new window ]
[ Robert Watt rejects ‘most’ of Holohan report findings and reveals laptop ‘hack’Opens in new window ]
Conflict with Deirdre Gillane
One of the most eye-catching aspects of the report was a letter from Micheál Martin’s chief of staff, Deirdre Gillane, who responded to claims made by Watt during the report process that she had been briefed about the secondment, describing them as “grossly inaccurate and unwarranted”. Watt sought to draw a line under this and other apparent differences between his submissions to the report and those of Martin Fraser, the then most senior civil servant in the country. He said that he accepted “the substance” of what Gillane told the review and that he accepted people’s “bona fides”.
Stephen Donnelly’s laptop
What the political system had or had not known, and when, was the subject of a bizarre interlude in which Watt told the committee a note about the research policy had been drawn up for Minister for Health Stephen Donnelly, who was out of the country. However, it never made it to Donnelly because his laptop had been hacked, Watt told the committee. After Donnelly’s system was corrupted it “slipped our mind” to provide another briefing, Watt said. The report ultimately found Donnelly had been told about the research funding only later.
Bad temper and accusations
The committee session featured multiple bad-tempered exchanges – including several barbs about Watt’s €300,000 salary. Committee protocol seems to have been the first casualty – Watt had not sent an opening statement, which was criticised by Sinn Féin finance spokesman Pearse Doherty. Chair John McGuinness revealed the committee had sought to compel Watt to appear before he voluntarily agreed, before telling him his answers had fallen short of the standard to be expected of a secretary general and later saying he was being “arrogantly dismissive”, which Watt said was unfair, arguing he was being personally criticised in committee.
