I welcome Mr. Watt. We are starting a little bit late. It just shows how one can fall in the pecking order in that we had a school in from Kilkenny and it had to be seen first.
Engagement with Secretary General of the Department of Health
Mr. Robert Watt
I imagine it is much more important.
It is a Gaelscoil. Earlier, we introduced our new adviser, Donna Maguire, who replaces Caoímhe O'Rourke. We also have a new member. Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh is very welcome. We have worked together previously on committees so I am sure that she will be anxious to get into the work. I look forward to her contribution. I pay tribute to Deputy Mairéad Farrell, who fitted into the committee quite well and did a lot of hard work. She carried out a good forensic examination of the issues at hand. I thank her for her contribution and wish her well. She is an excellent parliamentarian.
We will move on to the business for today. We have already dealt with the minutes of the meeting of 29 March. They were agreed in the private session. Mr. Watt is very welcome. I think he understands the procedures here.
I remind members of the note on privilege. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise, or make charges against a person or entity outside the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. I understand Mr. Watt might like to make a few comments first.
Mr. Robert Watt
Absolutely. I am very happy to make a few comments, although I do not have a written statement. This matter has been ventilated previously at committee meetings. I submitted a report on 12 April last year to An Taoiseach. This report sets out the position. As people are aware, a further report on the matter was commissioned and was published this week.
I do not have much to say by way of introduction because I think Deputies and Senators know the issues. Tony Holohan, Martin Fraser and I entered into this matter in good faith to propose something we thought was clearly in the public interest, that is, to enhance public research across the university sector and for Tony Holohan to take up a secondment in Trinity College to facilitate that. We were motivated by the public interest. I said to committees previously and I said in statements that there were issues around communication that we should have handled better in terms of how this was communicated. In March of last year, we were bounced into issuing a statement before all the details of this matter had been finalised. That led to some confusion and commentary. I am very happy to answer questions from Deputies and Senators in relation to this matter.
Mr. Watt is welcome to the Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach. I fully accept that what Mr. Watt did was motivated by public interest but I hope he will also accept that the questions we are putting to him and the reasons we want to question him are also motivated by public interest.
Mr. Watt's timing is quite fortuitous and, as he says, the report only came out two days ago. What was the reason for the six-month delay in publishing Ms Quinn's report?
Mr. Robert Watt
I was not involved in the commissioning of the report. The report was commissioned by the Minister and he was responsible for it so those are matters for the Minister.
Is Mr. Watt aware of why there was a six-month delay in the publication of the report, which is dated 17 October 2022 and which was not published until 17 April 2023?
Mr. Robert Watt
I can speculate as to why.
I am asking if Mr. Watt is aware of the reason why there was a delay.
Mr. Robert Watt
I have a good idea but it is not my report. It is the Minister's report so it is probably best for the Minister to answer that.
Did Mr. Watt in any way seek to delay its publication?
Mr. Robert Watt
Absolutely not; of course not.
When you look at the report it is clear that in February and March 2022 Mr. Watt commenced detailed negotiations with Dr. Holohan about his secondment. Is that not correct?
Mr. Robert Watt
We had brief discussions in August 2021. A discussion took place between then Secretary General, Martin Fraser and Dr. Holohan at that time and I was involved with Dr. Holohan and Mr. Fraser separately on that. In those discussions Dr. Holohan indicated that he wanted to leave the service and that he was thinking about some role and we were supportive of that, given his track record of public service and what he had done for the State. Mr. Fraser was particularly supportive and I was supportive of it. The matter was parked then because, as the Deputy may recall, the Omicron variant kicked off so Dr. Holohan was back as Chief Medical Officer, CMO, in the Department and we were working during the autumn and early into 2022. The issue then arose when we had a calmer period and Dr. Holohan reignited his interest and started having conversations on what he might do and we were supportive of that.
Then it was agreed that Dr. Holohan would go off and speak to the third-level institutions on his own. Is that not correct?
Mr. Robert Watt
Dr. Holohan had a conversation with a number of institutions, including University College Dublin and Trinity College Dublin, to explore the issue. The general principle was that it was a good idea to try to enhance public health research across many different Departments and across our universities, where we have good people. The notion was to ask how we could galvanise all that support and inter-institutional collaboration to have better research and understanding to better prepare ourselves for the next pathogen that might arise. We felt, given Dr. Holohan's great experience as CMO at the Department of Health for 14 years and in dealing with the pandemic, that he would be ideally placed to lead. That was the motivation behind that.
Looking back on it, does Mr. Watt accept that it was not appropriate for the person who was seeking the secondment to be involved in the negotiation about the terms of the secondment?
Mr. Robert Watt
No. I do not accept that.
Is Mr. Watt aware that in Maura Quinn's report, at page 31, she has effectively criticised that? She has said that no one individual should be personally and exclusively involved in any negotiation with third parties which involves the disbursement of State funds in which they have a potential personal interest. Does Mr. Watt disagree with Ms Quinn?
Mr. Robert Watt
I disagree with that.
Is it not the case that there will be a conflict of interest, however, if a senior civil servant is in negotiations with an intended seconder about the terms of his or her employment?
Mr. Robert Watt
It is a standard arrangement that people who want to go from one organisation to another would approach the receiving organisation - this happens all the time - and say they are looking for a new challenge, that there is a role in this organisation-----
Would they agree the terms? Would they negotiate the terms on behalf of-----
Mr. Robert Watt
The terms and conditions of employment were the same ones the CMO served under in the Department of Health. There would have been no changes in his conditions of employment, salary, remuneration or pension. The secondment would have been on the same terms. The thing that was different about this is that the idea and scope of the job was developed by Dr. Holohan with colleagues in Trinity College Dublin.
Department of Public Expenditure and Reform Circular 27/2021 states that secondments can only be for a maximum of five years, and this one clearly was not to be for that length of time. Was that not taken into account?
Mr. Robert Watt
That refers to secondments within the Civil Service. This was a secondment between the civil and public service.
What were the other examples of that type of secondment that were more than five years? Can Mr. Watt give us an example?
Mr. Robert Watt
There are numerous secondments between Civil Service Departments and the wider public service. This is something we have been encouraged to do and I was involved in this from 2011 in my previous role. We encouraged much greater mobility between the different sectors.
For more than five years?
Mr. Robert Watt
Yes. We have people within the Department of Health, and I set this out in my note of 12 April 2022, including colleagues from the HSE, who have been with us for many years. People use the expression "open-ended" but it is for an indefinite duration.
Is it common for somebody to be seconded to a university for longer than five years though?
Mr. Robert Watt
We had situations where two retiring Secretaries General were seconded to universities last year.
But not for more than five years.
Mr. Robert Watt
That depends on their retirement ages. It could be longer than that depending on their retirement ages.
Looking at Maura Quinn's report I thought that those secondments were for two and four years, respectively, but maybe I am wrong about that.
Mr. Robert Watt
The position on those two secondments is that they were up to retirement age. I could be mistaken but I think that was it.
We get to 25 February and Mr. Watt gives his formal support for this. Mr. Watt makes the point that there was an email from Dr. Holohan to the then Secretary General of the Department of the Taoiseach on 24 February. Ultimately a letter of intent was sent to Trinity College Dublin on 16 March and it set out the terms. Am I correct in saying Dr. Holohan wrote that letter of intent, Mr. Watt saw it and the only other person to have seen it on the State's side was the head of HR in the Department?
Mr. Robert Watt
The letter was drafted by Dr. Holohan and the details were shared with Martin Fraser on-----
Was the draft shared with Mr. Fraser?
Mr. Robert Watt
The email that was sent to Mr. Fraser on 24 February was more or less the letter of intent and then there were some subsequent changes to the letter of intent. I had subsequent conversations with Dr. Holohan in early March, the HR people in the Department were involved, we had some discussions and then that was the letter of intent that went to Trinity College Dublin.
There is one significant difference between the email to Mr. Fraser of 24 February and the letter of intent of 16 March and that is the funding. It went from €1 million to €2 million. How did that happen?
Mr. Robert Watt
I sent this out in my report, which I sent to the Taoiseach last year. We had further discussions about setting out our serious intent that we needed to enhance research funding. This was across many different university departments and organisations within the third level sector. Last year we spent almost €1 billion on research funding across the system and the Health Research Board, HRB, had over €50 million. We wanted to show that we were serious about a commitment to start a conversation about investing significantly in research funding. Previously, in July 2022 the Government agreed a policy around enhancing research funding to improve our pandemic preparedness so we came to the view that we needed to set out more intent. As I set out in the letter, as the Deputy is aware, the details had to be worked through and there were many things that had to be worked through. Unfortunately, the matter was leaked before we were able to finalise all of those matters.
It is stated in the letter of intent that the €2 million would be administered through the HRB. When did the HRB agree to that?
Mr. Robert Watt
When it comes to research funding in the health area, we have a body, the HRB, which runs and administers the competitions so we had set out that this was the vehicle through which we would do it. The intention would have been to discuss with the HRB how it would do that. We would have planned to have had conversations between the time the letter of intent was sent and when we finalised the agreement because we would have had to make arrangements with the HRB at that stage. The intention would have been to have a conversation with the HRB.
It is of note - and this has not featured in any of the commentary since then - that in the Estimates for 2023 the HRB had an increase in its allocation of €2 million for pandemic preparedness. I understand that the HRB is in the process of engaging with the university sector on projects to utilise that platform.
It is a separate body that was established by legislation in the 1960s. It has its own board and minutes. Mr. Watt is aware that the HRB was not particularly happy when it heard about this in April 2022.
Mr. Robert Watt
It seemed to be happy enough with the additional research funding.
Let us read what its minutes say. The minutes of the HRB state that it "was not involved in any discussion around this post" and the report states: "the HRB has rigorous and transparent policies and processes in place... [for] both application for, and assessment of, research awards."
That sounds to me like they knew nothing about it and they were not particularly happy at the fact that they were being seen to commit €2 million in circumstances where they had not been consulted.
Mr. Robert Watt
The process is as I have set it out. As I said, the Minister decided to allocate an additional amount of money for the Health Research Board for this year so, in effect, the Minister gave effect to the intent that was set out in the letter of intention subsequently.
Okay. We do not really have the full picture here. All of the communications from the Department of Health with Trinity were done through Dr. Holohan and we do not have access to those emails because it was done through his personal email. Is that correct?
Mr. Robert Watt
Whatever is available is available, yes.
Hold on. You are the Secretary General of the Department of Health. Surely you know if there are communications between the Department of Health and Trinity College in respect of this important secondment.
Mr. Robert Watt
There is much communication available. I do not know how much more there is, so I do not-----
Ms Quinn says it was all done by Dr. Holohan through his personal account and she did not have access to them.
Mr. Robert Watt
That is a matter for Dr. Holohan. I do not know if there is any more communication or the substance of it.
Does that not underline the sort of casual nature of this arrangement? Mr. Watt, do not be offended by this. It seems to underline that this was a very casual arrangement where the person who was benefiting from the secondment was doing the negotiations on his own behalf, and everything seemed to have been approved without it going through what appeared to be the process as provided for under the HRB.
Mr. Robert Watt
I do not accept that characterisation, Deputy, no.
I have a few more questions and I will be finished with you then. In your briefing note to the Taoiseach on 11 April, Mr. Watt, you say expressly: “It was not explicitly stated but it was envisaged that this would involve competitive funding organised appropriately.” When you look at the letter of intent, the Department of Health is committing €2 million and there is no question that we might try to get competitive funding for this.
Mr. Robert Watt
It is committed to the Health Research Board, which would organise the competition. Again, I would disagree with some of the characterisation of this. The intention was not for this money to be allocated to one college. It was very clear that this was inter-institutional collaboration that we managed through the Health Research Board on a competitive basis. That was clearly the intent that is set out in the letter. I think Dr. Holohan confirmed that at previous Dáil committees, I confirmed it and I think the Minister has also confirmed that as well in statements he has made.
So you do not think there is any inaccuracy in the statement that you made to the Taoiseach on 11 April 2022, when you said it would involve competitive funding, when the letter of intent, which is agreed and signed, expressly says the Department is committed to €2 million.
Mr. Robert Watt
I absolutely stand over what I said in April 2022.
Ms Quinn concludes her report by saying: “The proposed funding mechanism and absence of any detail on the governance of same, do
not, in my opinion, meet accepted norms of scrutiny, transparency and accountability.” I have to say, having read her report, and coming to this objectively and in the public interest, that I agree with what she says there. Do you agree with it?
Mr. Robert Watt
No, I do not agree with it.
Why do you not agree with it?
Mr. Robert Watt
Because it was very clear what we were trying to achieve. It was a public interest measure to give a very clear intent to enhance research funding in line with what the Government have committed and what the Government has decided in Government decisions. We said that the statutory body, as the Deputy referenced, which was set up in the 1960s and which managed this on behalf of the State, would run the competitions. Subsequent events show that to be the case because the Government has allocated additional funding to the very same body and I understand they are in the process now of organising those competitions on the line that was envisaged, so I do not accept the report, no.
I have a final question for you, Mr. Watt. The draft report was furnished to you, I think, in June 2022 and you made a submission back to Ms Quinn in respect of it. One of the things you say in your response is: “I was subsequently instructed to finalise the arrangements to give effect to this.” Who were you talking about? Who instructed you to finalise the letter of intent?
Mr. Robert Watt
This comes down to the definition of what is “instructed” or “asked”. We can debate this. It was my understanding that there was a view here that there was support for this initiative. Obviously, the Secretary to the Government at the time, Martin Fraser, and Dr. Holohan had discussed the matter and they had shared correspondence, and whether I was instructed or asked, I was to go and finalise, which is appropriate given my responsibilities as Secretary General of the Department – my administrative responsibilities in the Department.
So it is probably fairer to say you were not instructed but you believed you had the authority to finalise it.
Mr. Robert Watt
I absolutely believe I have the authority under the relevant Act, the 1996 Public Service Management Act – absolutely - which I think has been set out by Secretary General Fraser in his evidence to this committee previously.
Thank you.
I call Senator Maria Byrne.
Mr. Watt, you are very welcome. Reading the report and reading the findings over the last couple of days, there seem to be a number of disparities between your recollection and Mr. Fraser and Ms Gillane. I know they are not here today but perhaps you will be able to give us a clear output as to the different stages that were taken and what you believe happened at the time.
Mr. Robert Watt
Thank you for the question. I have set out in the report for the Taoiseach last year, and I have reiterated some of it in response to Deputy O'Callaghan, the sequence of events. There was a conversation in August 2021, which involved Martin Fraser and Dr. Holohan, that Dr. Holohan had expressed an interest in leaving the service and taking up a different role, perhaps in the public service - that role had not been at that stage scoped out or developed. Martin spoke to me about it and I spoke to Dr. Holohan separately. I expressed my support for him and, like anybody who comes, if you are working with somebody or somebody reports to you, and they say to you that they are leaving a job, you say “Okay, fair enough. I am happy to support you and wish you all the best.” Clearly, Martin and I were motivated by great respect for Dr. Holohan and all he had done, because he did an incredible job during the pandemic, and not only during the pandemic but during his career previously as CMO, so we had great respect for him. We wanted to support him and we thought that it was appropriate that he be supported. He wanted to leave the service and then he wanted to do a different role. We thought there would be great benefits to the State to retain his expertise within the public system. Obviously, he no longer wanted to stay within the Department of Health but he wanted to explore other opportunities. As I said, those conversations were put on hold when the Omicron variant hit in autumn of 2021, and then the conversation resumed again in February when we had more time to reflect upon that. Dr. Holohan and Martin had conversations, and Dr. Holohan spoke to various universities and scoped out the role, and Trinity College developed this chair or professorship, and so on. That is how it evolved.
The report suggests that, in terms of the secondment process, there should be a proper process put in place, but there was a process at the time. Why was that process not followed?
Mr. Robert Watt
There is a very clear process, which is that I supported the secondment, Trinity College established a chair, I think, or a professorship, they went through their academic council and their processes, and I was very happy to support the secondment of Dr. Holohan.
There seems to be a bit of a question as to whether the process that was in place was actually followed thoroughly or whether there was a difference or changes made to it. Perhaps you could explain that.
Mr. Robert Watt
I am very happy that the secondment process was appropriate, and I am very happy that it is consistent with other secondments that take place within the civil and public service; I am very happy with that. As I said previously to previous committees and in my report, the communications of this created a lot of uncertainty or a lot of misinformation because of the way it leaked before things were finalised, and that created, I think, some wrong impressions which, unfortunately, have stayed as part of the public debate.
In terms of what we are trying to achieve, I am very happy that we were motivated by the public interest in trying to do the right thing by Dr. Holohan and by what we thought was appropriate, given what we had gone through with the pandemic and given the need for us to enhance research capacity across the university system.
If you had the time all over again, would you have done things differently and how would you have done it differently?
Mr. Robert Watt
Obviously, hindsight is a great thing. What do they call them? “Monday morning quarterbacks” I think is the expression they use in America. There is a lot of that around, of course. I can be facetious and say that to have it all over again is: “Don’t make a decision, don’t try anything different, don’t be innovative” - that would be the facetious answer - which might be the sad lesson that people learn from this. I think the real lesson is around making communications better and making sure people are aligned. I assumed people knew what was going on and there was support for this, and it transpired that that was not the case, so it is to be clear, I guess, in terms of people being informed and making sure the communications are better.
In terms of the report, it is recommended that just one person should not have responsibility and it should be a team and it should go through the Department - I think it was the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform that they were suggesting. Would you agree with that statement that one person should not have the right to sign off on this alone?
Mr. Robert Watt
No. I disagree with that. The Accounting Officer under the relevant Act is responsible for the administration of the Department. It is set out very clearly. When it comes to these matters, it is very clear that the Secretary General has responsibility. That is what we are asked to do and what we are charged to do. I think that is very clear. Of course, it us up to others in this House to propose that that legislation be changed. I would not advise that but that is for others to decide. I think that would be a mistake. As for the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform to be involved, no, I think that would be a mistake and totally unnecessary. This is a vast system. The Civil Service alone has 40,000 people. There are management board people within Government Departments. God, there must be 200-plus people who are at management board level. If somebody wants to be seconded from place to place, it is really a matter for the relevant people in the Department and the receiving organisation. In this case, Trinity College Dublin will make the decision. I think it just ties us up in more bureaucracy, more delay, more procedures, more protocols and it does not achieve anything. We are still going to make mistakes, by the way, no matter how many procedures and protocols we have. There is always potential for mistakes.
Mistakes were made - there is no doubt about it - with regard to this process. Should you have put up your hand and said "mea culpa" and gone back to the drawing board? Do you believe that?
Mr. Robert Watt
The decision was taken by Dr. Holohan ultimately not to take up the opportunity so that matter ended at that stage. Events overtook whatever might have been done but at that stage, Dr. Holohan decided he was going to pursue a different path.
Okay. I thank Mr. Watt.
I welcome Mr. Watt to the committee. It is the first time in my time here that we do not have an opening statement from any witness, including many individuals who do not hold public office and who stress out at having to provide an opening statement to the Members of the Oireachtas. Let us get into the meat of it, however.
You mentioned earlier, and I want to put on the record, that the report on page 6 does confirm that the two Secretaries General secondments were for four years in duration, and the others of two years, the reason being, obviously, that five years is permitted, while you approved a secondment up to ten years.
Do you accept the findings by Ms. Maura Quinn? She stated that:
The proposed funding of €2 million a year committed to by ... [you], in the Letter of Intent to Trinity College Dublin ... until the retirement of ... [Dr. Holohan], was a very significant commitment which by-passed all of the accepted protocols for research funding and was linked atypically to one named individual.
Mr. Robert Watt
Do I accept that? No, I do not.
What part of it do you not accept?
Mr. Robert Watt
First of all, what protocols is the review referring to?
It is referring to all "accepted protocols for research funding." The research body itself makes it clear that its funding is competitive. Do you accept that?
Mr. Robert Watt
We made it very clear previously in the report I wrote for the Taoiseach, in previous evidence, and again in response to questions from Deputy Jim O'Callaghan and Senator Maria Byrne, that this was a competitive process. The intention was always a competitive process. Despite what the report says, money was not allocated to Trinity College Dublin. It was allocated to a fund, which would be managed by the Health Research Board, HRB, on the same basis that the Government has subsequently agreed, because it subsequently agreed to allocate additional funding for pandemic preparedness. The Government is now actually delivering in terms of additional research funding through the HRB, and, I understand through a competitive process, what was set out in the letter of intent.
First of all, do you have the authority to guarantee €2 million of funding from the Health Research Board, whether it is linked to an individual secondment? Did you have that authority? Do you have that authority today as Secretary General of the Department of Health?
Mr. Robert Watt
That is not what was done. There was a letter of intent that set out our intention to increase research funding for pandemic preparedness on the basis of the Government decision that had been decided in July 2021. I think I have gotten my years mixed up----
I need to stop you there because the facts do not stack up. This is the letter of intent that you signed. It was not about increasing funding. The letter states:
To make an annual ring-fenced allocation of €2M for the duration of the secondment to be administered through the Health Research Board, a body under the aegis of the Department of Health, to support the development and activities of an inter-institutional collaboration led by Dr. Holohan from his position in Trinity College Dublin.
It was a commitment to make an annual ring-fenced allocation of €2 million for the duration of his secondment, which was ten years. That is €20 million. It was a commitment through the HRB, which had no knowledge of and did not authorise this. I will put the question to you again. Do you have the authority to actually make a commitment of €20 million of funding over a ten-year period to institutions through the HRB?
Mr. Robert Watt
Whether it was ten years or not, that is a question of the period of time Dr. Holohan would have stayed. We do not know how long Dr. Holohan would have stayed within the system.
It was potentially up to ten years.
Mr. Robert Watt
Potentially, yes, but we do not know. That is all speculation. The pandemic cost us €40 billion; it cost us €40,000 million. That was the cost to the Irish Exchequer of the pandemic. The Irish Government is committed to enhancing research funding. The Irish Government had given a clear policy decision-----
The question is-----
Mr. Robert Watt
-----and I was setting out a policy intent, and the Minister for Health knew about the notion of enhanced research funding. He knew about what we were trying to do.
He had no idea that you were committing €2 million of funding linked to the secondment of Dr. Tony Holohan. Is that not fact?
Mr. Robert Watt
No. It is a-----
Are you disputing that fact?
Mr. Robert Watt
Absolutely. It was a---
So, the Minister for Health did know at this stage.
Mr. Robert Watt
As I have said repeatedly, and as I said in my statement to the Taoiseach, the Minister knew about the proposals for Dr. Holohan to move on. He knew about the notion that there was enhanced funding. He supported that. He went on record that week on "Morning Ireland" in saying that. It was a letter of intent. It was setting out our intention. Obviously, from the time of the letter of intent to finalising, we would have finalised all the details of that. We would have gone through it and figured out exactly how that would have been managed, and whether we would have done that by the end of March or waited for the Estimates process. All of that needed to be figured out.
Let us unravel some of this, with respect, because we want to get the clear facts. You sent this letter of intent committing €2 million in association with the secondment of Dr. Holohan. That was sent on 17 or 18 March.
Mr. Robert Watt
It was 16 March.
Did the Minister know at that stage, on 16 March, that you were approving an allocation of €2 million-----
Mr. Robert Watt
I did not-----
-----and that was contained in the letter of intent?
Mr. Robert Watt
I did not approve an allocation. I set out our intent to commit more money for research funding. It was not an approval. Trinity College Dublin knew very well as a public body, and other bodies knew, that this still had to go through. We had to finalise it. We did not sign. It is not a legal agreement. We were committed in the letter to finalise an agreement. We were committed to appointing people to finalise the details. The details had to be worked out at that stage. The Minister would have been involved before we got to the stage of signing a legal agreement. If it is-----
Is the answer "No" that the Minister did not know that you had set out in your letter of intent €2 million of allocation of funds?
Mr. Robert Watt
That is not a fair characterisation of what the letter says.
Okay. Did he know or did he not know? Please, let me know.
Mr. Robert Watt
The Deputy is characterising what the letter of intent suggests, which is not what the intention was.
Okay.
Mr. Robert Watt
I do not agree. The Deputy is putting up a question with a false premise I am afraid.
What is the problem with my question?
Mr. Robert Watt
The Deputy is saying that I made a commitment. I set out a letter of intent that the Government was committed to enhancing research funding across the university sector. We put a number on it. That number would have to be finalised. The details had to be figured out, as everybody knows, in the normal course of events through the Estimates process to discussions with the Minister. Of course, subsequently, as the Deputy is aware, the Government has increased the funding for the Health Research Board-----
Okay.
Mr. Robert Watt
-----and has decided to allocate €2 million. That €2 million is in the context of the €40 billion that the Irish Exchequer paid during the pandemic, the €24 billion health budget and the €90 billion budget of the Irish Exchequer. A general €2 million intent is a reasonable base, and the Government had committed to enhancing research funding.
Okay. The Minister did not know in your letter of intent, as you call it, which you signed and which says that the Department of Health "commits to". Do you accept that those words are in that letter? The letter states commits to "make an annual ring-fenced allocation of €2M for the duration of the secondment.” You go on to say in the letter that "The annual allocation will provide Trinity College Dublin", thereby guaranteeing it is going to Trinity-----
Mr. Robert Watt
No, it is not going to Trinity.
It is in the letter. It is here in black and white. Do you dispute the words that are on that letter you signed?
Mr. Robert Watt
We made-----
Let me finish so you have the context. The letter states that "The annual allocation will provide Trinity College Dublin with funds to provide Dr Holohan’s salary ... until his retirement, superannuation contributions and relevant expenses ... membership, travel ... professional requirements." Do you accept that you committed funding to Trinity College Dublin?
Mr. Robert Watt
No, I do not accept that.
It is in black and white.
Mr. Robert Watt
No.
But-----
Mr. Robert Watt
That is not-----
The letter states that "[t]he annual allocation will provide Trinity College Dublin with funds". Is there another Trinity College Dublin to which this money was going? You signed this letter. You said you were committing this funding.
Mr. Robert Watt
We said in the letter we would "make an annual ring-fenced allocation of €2 million for the duration of the secondment, to be administered through the Health Research Board, a body under the aegis of the Department of Health, to support the development and activities of interinstitutional collaboration led by Dr. Holohan from his position [in Trinity College Dublin]". We further stated that this allocation would provide the university with funds to provide for Dr. Holohan's salary. The letter does not say all the funding would go to his salary. It says the funds will provide for his salary and other professional expenses. It further states that this collaboration is "to include University Departments of Public Health, the Department of Health, the HSE and others as appropriate to support research and its translation into practice, policy analysis and capacity [building]...". This is my understanding of what the letter means. It is the same understanding Tony Holohan has, the same understanding Martin Fraser has and the same understanding the Minister, Deputy Stephen Donnelly, has. That is what we all understood the letter to purport to do.
That understanding was that at least part of the allocation of €2 million to Trinity College Dublin would be used for that purpose.
Mr. Robert Watt
Yes, part of it would be used to cover Dr. Holohan's salary.
It would be funnelled through the Health Research Board.
Mr. Robert Watt
It was to be administered through the Health Research Board.
Do you have the authority to dictate to the Health Research Board how funding allocated to it will be used or is it not the case, as the board pointed out, that it allocates funding through a competitive process?
Mr. Robert Watt
The board allocates money, as it has just decided on for 2023, to themes. It has allocated €2 million on the same basis we set out in the letter of intent, that is, for pandemic research purposes. It has actually done that exactly as we envisaged and as the letter intended. It is now administering competitions and I understand many institutions across Ireland are competing for that funding we have set out. The Minister and the Government have always set out themes and ideas around research and that money is then administered.
Am I right in saying that Trinity College did not apply for this competition and Dr. Holohan did not apply for this competition, but you actually committed that this money would be linked to Dr. Holohan's secondment and that Trinity College Dublin would at least have a portion of this €2 million?
Mr. Robert Watt
Trinity College would have the portion to pay for Dr. Holohan's salary. Yes, absolutely. Part of it would be used for that, as the Deputy has agreed.
It is about more than his salary. The question is whether you have the authority to dictate to the Health Research Board how funding that is allocated to it is dispensed. Is the answer not "No"?
Mr. Robert Watt
No, it is not.
Do you have the authority to do that?
Mr. Robert Watt
As the Minister has done-----
Do you have the authority?
Mr. Robert Watt
The Government had a clear policy intent to enhance the research funding. We gave agreement to that and to start the process. The Minister allocated the money in the Estimates in October in the normal way and the Health Research Board has that money. That was always the intention.
Do you have the authority to dictate to the Health Research Board how its money is spent and to whom it goes? You do not have that authority. Can you not just accept that?
Mr. Robert Watt
The Minister for Health has the authority to set out the key-----
You are not the Minister for Health and the latter did not even know of this letter when you signed and sent it.
Mr. Robert Watt
In order to give effect to the decisions on this, as the Deputy knows very well as finance spokesperson, this matter would have gone through the normal Estimates process, which it subsequently did.
However, your letter had no approval either from the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, the Minister for Health or the Government at the time you committed this funding. Is that a fact?
Mr. Robert Watt
That is clear from the-----
Do you accept Maura Quinn's view that the Chief Medical Officer "should not have been exclusively personally involved in the negotiation of potential University Partners nor should any possible research funding have been linked to the possible secondment to a university"?
Mr. Robert Watt
No.
Okay. You characterise this as a situation whereby if somebody wants to leave the public service, it is appropriate for him or her to talk to a university and say he or she is thinking of going there.
Mr. Robert Watt
Yes.
That is your characterisation of it. However, that did not happen in this case. Tony Holohan wrote up the letter of intent. Tony Holohan negotiated with the university, and with you, the conditions in regard to his secondment. Is that normal practice for such negotiations? Ms Quinn's finding is that such persons should not be personally involved in the negotiation of personal university partners and that any possible research funding should not be linked to a possible secondment to a university.
Mr. Robert Watt
Do I agree with that? No, I do not agree with it.
Do you believe it is appropriate for somebody who is looking for a secondment away from a Department to negotiate with the receiving body and the Department on his or her terms and conditions and the salary and funding that would be paid from the Exchequer and would go along with the secondment?
Mr. Robert Watt
The terms and conditions were the existing terms and conditions.
There was €2 million of funding involved. Tony Holohan wrote the letter setting out that there was €2 million of research funding to go along with his secondment. That was an enhanced package.
Mr. Robert Watt
That money was not for him, as the Deputy knows.
It was linked to the package-----
Mr. Robert Watt
It was linked to a proposal to enhance research across the university system.
Exactly, and there was therefore a benefit for him in being able to take up a position. It was part of the overall package. Do you believe it is appropriate that somebody should be able to do that? The findings are that it is not appropriate. Do you reject recommendation No. 7 in the report?
Mr. Robert Watt
To which recommendation is the Deputy referring? The recommendations are not listed.
Recommendation No. 7 states: "No one individual should be personally and exclusively involved in any negotiation with third parties which involves the disbursement of state funds in which they have a potential personal interest."
Mr. Robert Watt
I believe that is a very unfair characterisation of what happened. Yes, I disagree with that.
You disagree with the recommendation?
Mr. Robert Watt
I disagree with the characterisation of it.
The Minister agrees with the recommendation. The Government and the Taoiseach agree with the recommendation. As Secretary General of the Department of Health, will you confirm that you disagree with the recommendation?
Mr. Robert Watt
I disagree with the implication that somebody was involved in something that suggests the person acted out of personal interest. The person clearly did not do so. The individual was getting the same conditions as he was receiving in his existing job. I do not agree with the implication. As we all know and as we have just spoken about, the disbursement of funds is a matter that ultimately would have been decided by the Government and the Minister in the normal way. I do not agree with the characterisation in the report.
Will you implement this recommendation?
Mr. Robert Watt
The Government will make decisions and-----
The Government has already accepted the recommendation.
Mr. Robert Watt
Then it will be implemented.
You are at odds with it.
Mr. Robert Watt
The Government decides policy and-----
If a new Tony Holohan came along and started emailing you asking you to sign a letter of intent that includes that person's secondment to a university for possibly the next ten years and, along with that, the Department potentially having to commit up to €20 million of State funding, will you not allow that to happen in the future, given recommendation No. 7?
Mr. Robert Watt
I do not agree with the Deputy's characterisation of what happened but, clearly, yes, the recommendation will have to be applied to whatever circumstances may arise in the future.
You are a former Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform. Is committing up to €20 million of taxpayers' money something the Secretary General of the Department of Health can do or does it have to go through some process the Government approves?
Mr. Robert Watt
I think I have answered that question.
Perhaps my hearing is bad. Will you answer it again?
Mr. Robert Watt
I have answered the question already. I have already set out what the letter of intent was intended to do.
Okay, but that is not the question. The question is whether it needs Government approval.
Mr. Robert Watt
No, I do not think it does. Ultimately, at the stage when a legal agreement would be signed involving public money, if that money was not within the ambit of the Vote or it involved an allocation beyond the ambit of the Vote, there would have to be a decision by the Minister and discussions with the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform. It would depend on the circumstances of the decision.
The intention was that this secondment would be made public before there was Government approval. Is that not the case? You had sanctioned this and the press release was to go out on 24 March. You make a big issue that the details were not worked out. Is it not your contention to the committee that the details were not worked out and it had to be fast-tracked? Indeed, the Department delayed it by a day. What happened was that on 23 March, Tony Holohan wrote to HR with the intention that the press release would be issued the following day. However, on 23 March, there was a press query that therefore delayed the press release until the following day.
Mr. Robert Watt
I do not recall the exact sequence.
It is in the findings of the report. Given you have rejected so many of the findings I have put to you so far, I am not sure whether you reject the entire report.
Mr. Robert Watt
Yes, I reject most of the findings of the report.
For the avoidance of any doubt, I do, yes.
Okay.
Mr. Robert Watt
There is no point in suggesting otherwise.
Can you point us to the pages that you do accept?
Mr. Robert Watt
No.
Let us move on to Martin Fraser. Do you accept that Martin Fraser did not have the authority to sanction the approval of this process?
Mr. Robert Watt
I do not think there is any suggestion that Martin Fraser did. I do not quite understand the question Deputy, sorry. Martin Fraser did not sanction the proposal.
He did not sanction it.
Mr. Robert Watt
No.
In your submission to the external review, you said: "the facts indicate that the Secretary to the Government knew all the critical details regarding the proposed secondment and the proposal to increase research funding." Mr Fraser told Ms Quinn, "I was not aware of the details of the processes for allocation of health research funding, or of the potential sources of such funding". He further stated; "I had no involvement in the internal Department of Health ... discussions with TCD, decisions, approvals or implementation measures relating to either the secondment or the allocation of research funding." In short he contradicts your submission. How do you respond to that?
Mr. Robert Watt
I do not think he does contradict my submission, no.
So you say he had all the critical details regarding the proposed secondment and the proposal to increase research funding. He says that he was not aware of the details or of the processes for allocating health research funding or the potential sources of such funding. Are the potential sources of such funding and the process for allocating them not critical details?
Mr. Robert Watt
I think the letter that Dr. Holohan sent to Martin Fraser does set out that it is a secondment. It does set out that there will be research funding and does talk about the Health Research Board. The substantive points, apart from the response to Deputy O'Callaghan's questions, of the proposed allocation of the intended funding were enhanced then. In terms of the details, Martin Fraser is correct of course in what he said, absolutely.
Do you have the report in front of you?
Mr. Robert Watt
Which report?
The report that you have rejected over and over again at this committee meeting. The report by Ms Quinn.
Mr. Robert Watt
I am entitled to my views, am I not?
I know. I am just-----
Mr. Robert Watt
As you are entitled to your views.
I am just explaining to you what report I am referring to.
Mr. Robert Watt
The Quinn report, yes.
You say that the letter that went from the CMO to Martin Fraser contained the details, including identifying the health research funding. I have scanned some of this and I have read other parts in greater detail. That letter is contained on pages 28 and 29. Can you reference the point where the CMO identifies the source of that funding? Where does it specifically mention health research?
Mr. Robert Watt
I am just reading it now. It does talk about a specific funding allocation being made available to:
... to enable a collaboration between universities in relation to public health leadership and preparedness and response as one key area which requires strengthening at research, practice and policy levels. I would propose to facilitate this collaboration and capacity building from my Professorial position".
That is the paragraph.
It does not mention the Health Research Board. It does not mention the source of the funding.
Mr. Robert Watt
It does talk about collaboration and it does talk about-----
You said in answer to me that it mentioned the source of the funding.
Mr. Robert Watt
Well, I-----
Do you accept now that Martin Fraser was not aware of the source of the funding or the process?
Mr. Robert Watt
The key details here are that Dr. Holohan was going to the third level sector. He was going there to develop capacity. With regard to the main elements of the proposal, we could argue about how much. Obviously, there is more detail in the letter of intent and it specifically references the Health Research Board. There is a significant amount of the detail in the letter that was shared, yes.
Do you accept that Martin Fraser was not aware that the funding would be channelled through the Health Research Board? This is an issue because it is competitive funding and it has its own board and it allocates funding. Do you accept that?
Mr. Robert Watt
But I-----
You said earlier to me that the email from Dr. Holohan contained reference to the Health Research Board.
Mr. Robert Watt
No, it did not specifically reference it-----
Okay.
Mr. Robert Watt
-----but, of course, the subsequent letters did reference it, yes.
What subsequent letters?
The letter of intent referenced-----
Did Martin Fraser have the letter of intent?
Mr. Robert Watt
No, he did not.
So why are you telling me about the subsequent letters that he did not have when I am trying to ascertain what Martin Fraser knew or did not know at the time. You are disputing what Martin Fraser said to the review.
Mr. Robert Watt
There is no dispute at all.
You are disputing it because I have read-----
Mr. Robert Watt
I am not. The email is there on page 28. That is what Martin Fraser knew about. He may have known more. I do not know whether he knew more. You asked him questions at the committee, and he may have told you more. Clearly, Martin Fraser accepts that he received the email setting out more or less the substance of the proposal. You could argue there are further details, fair enough, but the substance of the proposal-----
You go on to say in your submission that you were "subsequently instructed to finalise the arrangements to give effect to this". What instructions?
Mr. Robert Watt
We can get into being asked or instructed. As I have said all along it is my understanding that people were supportive of this proposal and they were happy with this proposal. The Secretary General to the Government knew the details of it and was involved with Dr. Holohan about the details. Martin Fraser called me. Whether he asked me to finalise it or instructed me to finalise it or checked that the matter was being finalised, I took it that people were happy to proceed.
Is it the case that he may not have instructed you or he may not even have asked you to finalise it?
Mr. Robert Watt
I think when you get a call from somebody who is the head of the Civil Service, it is like if Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked you to do something. You might think that is something that you wanted to do but that is your own matter of course.
The question is whether Martin Fraser asked you to do it.
Mr. Robert Watt
I think Martin Fraser asked if these matters were being finalised and I said they were being finalised.
Okay-----
Mr. Robert Watt
But that is all history now. It is what it is.
That is what we are trying to ascertain. Mr. Fraser says he has no authority to give any instruction. You accepted earlier before this committee in answering questions from me that you accept that Mr. Fraser had no authority to give instruction to you.
Mr. Robert Watt
He had no authority in terms of ultimately sending the letter because he is not the Secretary General of the Department of Health, but he was Secretary General to the Government at the time and he asked if something was being finalised or not. You can interpret that any way you wish. Most people would understand what that means but you can interpret it another way if you wish.
You also say that Mr. Fraser confirmed to you that he told the Taoiseach's chief of staff Ms Deirdre Gillane of the secondment arrangement. How and when did Mr. Fraser confirm this to you? In his correspondence, Mr. Fraser disputes this, saying he did not discuss the matter with anyone except the CMO and the Secretary General of the Department of Health, yourself. He says he did not discuss this with Deirdre Gillane.
Mr. Robert Watt
I am not going to get into what Martin Fraser said to the committee. The transcript is there if you need to check what Martin Fraser said at the committee. It is there.
Okay.
Mr. Robert Watt
It is for others to interpret it. He gave his testimony so it is there.
You say that he told the Taoiseach's chief of staff Ms Deirdre Gillane. How and when did Mr. Fraser confirm this to you.
Mr. Robert Watt
I think he confirmed it to your committee.
No, you told the review that Mr. Fraser confirmed to you that he told the Taoiseach's chief of staff Ms Deirdre Gillane.
Mr. Robert Watt
I-----
Did that happen?
Mr. Robert Watt
Mr. Fraser gave testimony to the committee that he told Deirdre Gillane.
I was here at the committee. I know what he said. I was not there when Mr. Fraser was talking to you about Ms Deirdre Gillane and that is what I want to find out. Did Martin Fraser tell you that he informed Deirdre Gillane of the secondment? How did that conversation go? What were the details?
Mr. Robert Watt
No, he did not but I thought he said it to this committee. Anyway, I might be mistaken in that. Ultimately, whatever people said they were told I accept. I accept what people said they knew or did not know, that is fine. I accept people's bona fides on this. That is fine. If people said they did not know-----
Even if he said it to this committee that was well after the fact. At that point in time you would not have had any inkling that Deirdre Gillane, or indeed the Government, was aware of the details of this.
Mr. Robert Watt
I understood and my inference was that people did know about it. They confirmed they did not so that is fine. I accept they did not. That is fine.
Do you accept what Deirdre Gillane has said in-----
Mr. Robert Watt
Absolutely. If Ms Gillane said she did not know about it of course I accept that.
Do you accept in full what Deirdre Gillane has said to the review?
Mr. Robert Watt
Well, I accept the substance. If Deirdre Gillane said she did not know, I absolutely accept her bona fides of course.
Do you accept in full what Martin Fraser has told the review committee?
Mr. Robert Watt
Yes I accept it broadly. That is Martin Fraser's view and I am happy to accept his view. He has his view and that is fine, absolutely.
I will leave it at that.
Mr. Watt, is it not true that the decision to allocate up to €20 million from the Health Research Board was not based on any real proposal or costings? The secondment did not meet the criteria or adhere to it being time limited, ranging from six months to five years. Instead, it could have potentially, as the Secretary General said himself, have extended to ten years. This means we are talking about a sum of €20 million.
The real issue is that the Minister for Health and the then Department of Public Expenditure and Reform were side-stepped in the allocation of the money. That experienced civil servants have something to offer our third level education institutions is not in question here. Tony Holohan, as the CMO during the pandemic, had a unique insight. What is in question, and has ultimately led to Mr. Holohan not taking the position in Trinity, is the manner in which the secondment was handled. The issue is that tens of millions of euro of public money seem to have been treated as if they were a gift that could simply be handed out by a senior official without adherence to proper procedures. My understanding of Circular 27/2021 is that the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform must provide clearance for any secondment. Is that Mr. Watt's understanding of the secondment procedure?
Mr. Robert Watt
Which circular, Deputy?
Circular 27/2021.
Mr. Robert Watt
Where does it say that the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform must clear the secondment?
At the second point where it says, "All secondment advertisements."
Mr. Robert Watt
It says, "All secondment advertisements."
Yes, and continues by stating the "Department of Public Expenditure and Reform."
Mr. Robert Watt
This relates to secondments within the Civil Service.
So Mr. Watt is saying that this did not need to be cleared. Is that his understanding of it?
Mr. Robert Watt
Absolutely.
It did not need to be cleared by what was then the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.
Mr. Robert Watt
Absolutely, indeed.
The €20 million did not need to be cleared.
Mr. Robert Watt
There are two issues here. There are secondment issues, which did not have to be, in my view, cleared by the then Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. No. I do not agree. It did not have to be cleared, no, and it does not say in the circular that it had to be cleared.
When the Minister eventually did find out about the proposal, he thought the way this was being done and funded was problematic. It is beyond problematic that the Minster was not even informed. Should the Minister for Health have been informed that the €20 million would be attached to the secondment? Why was this not done?
Mr. Robert Watt
As I said, the Minister was aware of the details, the broad outline of it. The proposal would have been that the letter of intent was signed and then we would finalise the agreement subsequently. So at that stage. What happened, and I have not gone into this in public, and I did not talk about it previously but I will now. What happened actually was that, the Minister knew about the research proposal in generality. He knew about the secondment. There was a note, and I must be careful about what I say here, Deputy, for reasons which, Chair, I will explain to you.
Please proceed.
Mr. Robert Watt
I do not want to get into this issue but I will explain now, since you have pressed me.
The Minister was away in America and his machine or computer was hacked. There was, actually, an email with a one-page attachment setting out the €2 million and saying, look we are going to do this but we could not send. Then, four or five days later, the machine got up and the Minister was available again and whatever. We did not communicate with him. We should have. So there was a technical issue, which got in the way. I have not spoken about this before because that sounds like making excuses but that is actually what happened.
There was a note, which our intention was to share with the Minister but, unfortunately, he was away, and his system got corrupted, and then it slipped our mind to give him the detail. Nonetheless, the substance of it is still the case. When it came to the actual commitment of funds subsequently - and I stressed this with Deputy Doherty - that from the time the letter of intent was signed to the finalised agreement and subsequent decision, the Minister, of course, would have been involved before there was any legal commitment of public funding, and that would have been the intention.
It was done retrospectively. It was done afterwards.
Mr. Robert Watt
There was ultimately no commitment of funds because the process was paused. There is no expenditure of funds either, apart from the money that has now been allocated on the basis of the letter of intent, and I understand that the money is now being spent through the Health Research Fund.
Did that email get to the Minister?
Mr. Robert Watt
No.
Did the email get to the Minister at all? The Secretary General did not check if the email had been received. Did he check it had been received?
Mr. Robert Watt
Look, there was an IT challenge with the Minister and his system..
Let us have a copy of that.
Mr. Robert Watt
I will, yes.
It all seems rather strange.
Mr. Robert Watt
No it is not, I am afraid not.
You stated previously that the €20 million, or the €2 million annually, would have been administered through the Health Research Board. Does that mean that the funding would have come out of the allocation of the HRB or would additional funding have been provided by the HRB? Now Mr. Watt says additional money was-----
Mr. Robert Watt
Yes.
-----put in afterwards.
Mr. Robert Watt
Subsequently, yes. That would have been an issue, that would have been followed on in terms of the process. The question would have been whether it would require an additional allocation for the HRB or would it have involved a re-setting up their priorities, if there was not a higher allocation. I understand that what subsequently happened in the autumn was that additional money was allocated to the Health Research Board for this year, which it is using for this purpose, as set out in the letter of intent. As it turned out, there was a higher allocation. That might not have been the case, of course, depending on what the Minister subsequently decided on it.
The HRB states:
all funding received is disbursed by the HRB following rigorous international peer review of applications, based on strict criteria and principles laid down by the Board and in accordance with best international practices in research assessment and research management and governance. ... Funding is never provided in a manner where it is directed at a pre-named individual.
Why was the HRB not consulted on this allocating of funding? Why was Tony Holohan not simply expected to apply for the funding, from the HRB, in his new role, which you would have expected him to do?
Mr. Robert Watt
That would have been the intention, that the CMO would have led the research collaboration across different players within the university sector - the different public health departments across the different universities. The whole idea was Dr. Holohan would be there to identify what the priorities would be, and to get people to come together as teams and to then send in bids to the HRB to figure out who the best people would be to do the research.
I think the scale of this funding in the context of what we have been through is something which does not seem to get any coverage. We spent €40 billion on a response and I think the EU is spending €5.3 billion on research funding. If we are 1% of the euro economy, 1 % of that is €50 million. We are underspending here and we need to improve our preparedness. That is the key thing here. That is what we are trying to do. This is motivated all the time by public interest. We were trying to do something which we thought was in the public interest, to enhance our ability to prepare for the next pandemic and to have, what we thought, was an eminently qualified person leading this. That is what we were trying to do.
It is beyond question that we need more investment in research and development, particularly public research and development, to address the issues that we have not only in terms of a future pandemic but climate change and many other things.
Mr. Robert Watt
Sure.
Mr. Watt knows of the precarious working conditions inside of that sector for many of those who are doing extremely valuable research and the way they are treated, as well as the way they are treated as opposed to what has happened here, in terms of all of the procedures going out of the window. There was no international peer review of applications in this instance. You made the HRB go against all of its own governance in this situation. Does Mr. Watt believe that Tony Holohan pulling out of the secondment has been a loss to the public service and public health research?,
Mr. Robert Watt
Yes.
Does Mr. Watt take responsibility for that due to the manner in which the secondment was handled? That is the key question here.
Mr. Robert Watt
No, I do not Deputy.
Somebody must take responsibility for Tony Holohan pulling out.
Mr. Robert Watt
I have said previously and am happy to say that I regret the way it was communicated and the way it panned out. In terms of my role, yes, absolutely, we should have done it better and I accept that we should have done elements of it better. Tony Holohan, Martin Fraser and myself were all motivated by doing the right thing in the public interest. That has to be recognised and accepted. It would be nice if that was accepted and recognised. Whatever people might say about the process, we were motivated here exclusively by the public interest and what we thought was in the pubic interest. In that respect, I am very happy to stand over Tony's idea, which I think was an excellent idea. In a way, ultimately, the communications and how it became a political issue, it should not have become one and if it did, it was regrettable but that is history.
Mr. Watt, nobody disputes that.
However, this is public money and you tried to present it that people asking genuine, legitimate questions about procedures and how funding was allocated is what led to Tony Holohan pulling out. Is it not your mishandling of the process that has led to this unfortunate situation?
Mr. Robert Watt
No, I do not accept that.
In the same way that you completely dismiss this report, I will say to you that it is your mishandling-----
Mr. Robert Watt
Sorry, I do not dismiss the report. I am entitled to my view. I just do not accept some of the key findings of it. Fair enough. I am not dismissing it; I do not accept elements of it-----
You said almost all of it.
Mr. Robert Watt
I would challenge a number of the critical findings that were put to me by Deputies and members today. But look, that is all. The report is the report and that is-----
People will make up their mind. I think you are underestimating just how closely people are watching what you have done here. They are absolutely dismayed by what you have done, both in terms of your behaviours that led to Tony Holohan making the decision that he had to make in the end and in terms of the processes and everything being set aside in order that one person could make this decision around how €20 million was going to be spent.
I have finished my questioning.
Would it be fair to say that Tony Holohan did a great service to the country on a 24-7 basis during the entire period of the pandemic? Was that part of the consideration? Was it intended to in some way recognise that contribution? Was it anticipated that he might decide to move on after such a period of concentrated service and that it might be advisable to try to retain him and his services in some way within the public service?
Mr. Robert Watt
Yes, I know that was clearly a motivation for Martin Fraser and, certainly, for myself.
In view of that, would it have been assumed that there might be some challenges to the possibility of him being transferred to another branch of the services in the way that it occurred or was intended?
Mr. Robert Watt
We never envisaged that there would be a response to this proposal. No, that was never envisaged. But look, hindsight is a great gift. We did not anticipate there would be a response as there was to this proposal.
I did not quite get that.
Mr. Robert Watt
If I understand the question, the Deputy asked whether we expected this response. We did not expect the response to the proposal.
You did not.
Mr. Robert Watt
No, we did not expect the response to the proposal.
Why did you not expect the response? It is a very important position for a very important individual who had done this State a great deal of service. In those circumstances, would not have been useful to walk very carefully and make sure that every possible “t” was crossed and “i” was dotted?
Mr. Robert Watt
We did endeavour to do that, absolutely. However, clearly, we did not do as well as we should have. As I said, people had issues with it that we did not anticipate. We thought that this would be seen as a very positive development. We did not envisage that there would be such a response to it.
A negative response.
Mr. Robert Watt
Exactly. Martin Fraser did not, nor did I, nor Tony Holohan. So that part related to how it was leaked and we were not prepared in terms of the-----
When did you become aware of the level of negativity associated with it?
Mr. Robert Watt
I do not recall. It was a few days. It was leaked and then there was a statement. We then issued a further statement. It was during that week. I cannot recall the exact days. Over the weekend and into the week after it was announced that Dr. Holohan was taking up the role, it sort of became an issue.
There surely must have been some movement in the tall grass, for want of a better description, before it became a public issue in a negative fashion. There must have been some indication to somebody involved that this would cause a problem, there were going to be questions asked about it and they were not going to be helpful. In view of the facts that Tony Holohan had given such a commitment to the State and the services at a crucial time, would it not have been advisable at that stage to change tack and use a different system or be conscious of the fact that in these circumstances, situations have a tendency to grow in content and effect and it might be better to go a different route?
Mr. Robert Watt
With the benefit of hindsight, absolutely. Between this becoming an issue and Dr. Holohan deciding not to take up the appointment, we could have, at that stage, been thinking about doing something different. Dr. Holohan decided he did not want to take the position so then the story ended at that stage.
You mentioned earlier that this happened all the time in public service, in the Government Departments and so on. Does it still happen?
Mr. Robert Watt
Yes, I am sure it does. I am sure there are secondments all the time. It is a vast system. There are almost 400,000 people I think now in the public service. I am sure there are secondments all the time between Civil Service bodies and public services bodies.
Is that a good thing?
Mr. Robert Watt
Yes, I think it is a great thing.
Now hold on a second. I am trying to get my head around this now. I know that the intricacies or the workings of Departments are vague and above the reach of the ordinary individual. However, if you learn nothing from it from in terms of procedures to be followed in the future, if you say, on the one hand, that this still continues-----
Mr. Robert Watt
No, that is not what I said. Obviously, the Government said it will look at the procedures. I think the Taoiseach or the Tánaiste said they will look at the procedures and learn lessons from the report, so I am sure it will have an impact in the future on how these things are done. However, as a general principle, it is a very good idea that people are moved between Departments and moved between Departments in the Civil Service and the wider public service. I think it is one of the best things we have done over the past ten or 11 years, that we have allowed much more fluidity. That is good for the receiving organisation and good for the individuals concerned in terms of their own experience and learning. If you have somebody in a Government Department and they end up going to work for an agency or body, that is a good thing, the same way, for example, over the years, plenty of teachers have moved into the Department of Education. That sort of movement is a positive thing. However, of course, there are lessons. The Government said there are lessons to be learned, which might have relevance for future secondments of this nature. However, as a general principle, it is a very positive development. That is the point I was making.
Given, again, the importance of the appointment and the need to improve research and the sciences within the system for the benefit of the State and in view of the fact there was a negative reaction, how many contenders were there for the position? I am not asking for their names; I am asking for the number.
Mr. Robert Watt
The position was created by Trinity College for the purpose of Dr. Holohan making the move. It was not a vacancy created that people then competed for; it was a bespoke position.
He had a good chance of winning the competition.
Mr. Robert Watt
He had a good chance of winning the competition.
That was not my question at all. My question was whether there were many known contemporaries or otherwise potential competitors for that particular position in the event that it came up or, rather, whether somebody decided to sabotage that before it happened and that way, they could determine what the outcome would be. I put it bluntly now to you.
Mr. Robert Watt
I think a number of universities would be very interested in Dr. Holohan taking a position in their institutions, given his expertise. I think he had conversations with a few of those bodies. However, this was obviously a unique type of situation that developed on this occasion. I hope I have answered your question now.
You are very gently and adroitly tiptoeing around it but around every question and every pitfall, there is another one. The next question must surely be, how many universities were in competition for his-----
Mr. Robert Watt
I do not know precisely. I know Dr. Holohan had a conversation with at least two universities. There may be more than that, but I know there were at least two.
Two that we know of.
Mr. Robert Watt
Yes.
There were more as well, possibly.
Mr. Robert Watt
I cannot say, but there were at least two.
In view of the furore created around it, in the final analysis would it not have been useful to research all situations surrounding the potential appointment in a way so as to ascertain, for Mr. Watt's benefit, what might be necessary to avoid in the future and to avoid making a potential mistake? I am not saying there was a mistake.
Dr. Holohan played a massive role. He discharged his duties admirably. He did so regardless at what was a trying time for him and his family. He contributed heavily to dealing with the situation that was confronting the nation at that time. In view of all of those issues, we are saying, on the one hand, that we know of some of the competitors but do not know them all. Would it not be better in future to try to ensure we do know all the competitors? The first thing one should ask, in view of the way the appointment was going to be made, that in order to protect Dr. Holohan should it not have been necessary to ask around and find out if there were other potential competitors?
Mr. Robert Watt
Yes. I do not think what subsequently arose was in any way related to where Dr. Holohan was. Obviously, Trinity College acted in good faith at all times, and there was no criticism, correctly, directed at it. There are processes to be learned and things we need to better. To an extent, this was of course quite a unique situation, obviously, given Dr. Holohan's profile and the role he played. The Deputy is right about the need for us to look at this and do things differently.
Did anybody apologise to Dr. Holohan afterwards?
Mr. Robert Watt
I do not know, Deputy.
I would have thought it would have been very appropriate for person of his standing, having carried out the functions he did for the previous number of years, under the circumstances, personal and otherwise, at the time, that somebody should have seen fit to apologise to him for, as it were, messing up a very important appointment. Did anybody do that? Does anybody intend to do that?
Mr. Robert Watt
I do not know, Deputy, about that.
Would you think you should know? Is that not part and parcel of running the Department?
Mr. Robert Watt
Dr. Holohan and I had private conversations about what happened subsequently. Those conversations were private. There was great regret on our parts about how it subsequently panned out. There was great sympathy that the thing did not pan out as we had hoped.
I have to move on to two other meetings. Can I just say this? You say that lessons have been learned. A number of people said lessons have been learned. What is the extent of the lessons learned? What has changed to make sure that the circumstances do not re-occur?
Mr. Robert Watt
As Deputy Doherty mentioned, the Government has accepted the report and the Minister has written to the Minister, Deputy McGrath. There will be changes, no doubt, to procedures, circulars and processes. As to how things is done in the future in terms of the approval process, I do not know exactly what they will be. It is obviously up to the relevant Departments to make the policy advice that the Government ultimately decides on.
This has been a botched secondment in reality. It has not worked out in any fashion or which anybody could have designed. It has been a disaster in many ways. A lot of the facts around it, to be honest, many people find very hard to believe.
This was the highest profile public servant in the State at the time. Dr. Tony Holohan was a household name known by children across the land. Then we have a unique recruitment package, by all accounts, in many ways. In large part, the recruitment package was designed by the competitor for the recruitment or the person who was to fulfil the recruitment, a person who had a significant financial interest in the recruitment itself. It was an open-ended secondment in which the candidate, Dr. Tony Holohan, said he was not going to go back to the job of CMO at all anyway. That is not the definition of secondment most people would understand.
There was a €20 million budget, at a salary that was €30,000 higher than other equivalent people working within Trinity College at the same level. His was an outlier project at all levels. Most people, first of all, cannot understand how the Government did not know anything about this. This came very shortly after the Katherine Zappone affair where the Government appears, in that scenario, also to have recruited an insider for a particular job.
Most people would have the understanding that each citizen in the country is entitled to apply for a job and to be interviewed for the job on the basis of their qualifications and ability to be considered for that job. Yet, as we said earlier, we have a competition of one for the job in question.
I want to go to the issue of Deirdre Gillane, because there seems to be a difficulty in that regard. The report released a couple of days ago quite clearly states that the Secretary General went on to say that the Secretary General to the Government confirmed that he told the Taoiseach's chief of staff Ms Deirdre Gillane, and that the facts indicate that the Secretary General to the Government knew all of the critical details. Did you say to the author of this report that the Secretary General to the Government confirmed that he told Deirdre Gillane about this.
Mr. Robert Watt
Thanks Deputy. I have already answered this question. I accept that Deirdre Gillane did not know. I accept Deirdre's bona fides. If she said she did not know, she did not know.
Did you tell the report author that Martin Fraser told you that he told-----
Mr. Robert Watt
I was not told that Martin Fraser had said that Deirdre Gillane knew based on the testimony to the committee. In response to Deputy Doherty, I said I accept what Deirdre Gillane has said. I accept her bona fides in what she knew or did not know.
The report currently is that right now Deirdre Gillane refutes considerably what you have said in terms of Martin Fraser and that Martin Fraser refutes what you have said. It puts you in conflict and at odds with Deirdre Gillane and Martin Fraser. Indeed, the Minister for Health has said he believes Deirdre Gillane's version of these events. That puts the Minister, your political master, at odds with you in this information.
Mr. Robert Watt
I have given my views, Deputy. I have already answered the question.
That is highly significant. It leaves you in an isolated position, to a certain extent, in your own Department if the Minister for Health refutes something. I do not know the motivation of the Minister for Health. I just think it is incredible that the Minister for Health did not know this process. The Minister should have known about this process. Right now-----
Mr. Robert Watt
The Minister did know about the process.
At the time, the Minister said he did not know about the process in relation to this and that the Government did not know about it. That is where these sentences about who knew and when come from. Everybody is refusing your version of the statement.
Mr. Robert Watt
I do not think that is a fair characterisation of the report. The Minister knew, as I have said repeatedly, that Dr. Holohan was going. The Secretary to the Government knew that Dr. Holohan was moving to Trinity and that there was a secondment arrangement or whatever. I do not agree with your characterisation of the situation.
In fairness, what you are delivering there is different levels of knowledge but not the key facts of the knowledge, the-----
Mr. Robert Watt
The critical facts were that Dr. Holohan was moving to a university as part of a professorship and a research post. They were the critical facts which were known by others.
Okay. It is understood that there is a conflict of views in relation to who knew what and who said what. Unfortunately, you are isolated in terms of being the only person with the particular narrative that you have given. The other point is that the Government has backed the conclusions of the report. I understand the Minister for Health has backed the conclusions of this report.
Mr. Robert Watt
He has backed the recommendations, Deputy. I think the Minister said he was going to write to the Minister, Deputy McGrath, about the recommendations.
Okay. That again leaves you isolated in terms of the report, does it not?
Mr. Robert Watt
No, it does not. I have not given views on the recommendations. Some of them are fine. Some of them I do not agree with.
That sentence clearly-----
Mr. Robert Watt
I am entitled, Deputy, to my own view, am I not?
I understand, but there is a question-----
Mr. Robert Watt
Am I not entitled to my own views?
The point is that there is a question of governance here. There is a big question that is at the centre of Government in this country for years. Ideally, we should have a system where we have the elected representatives who choose the Ministers who then direct the public or civil servants to implement how the Government should be run. That means there needs to be an alignment with senior civil servants and Ministers on key issues such as this. There is a misalignment between Mr. Watt's analysis and the Minister on this. I do not know if this leads to a toxic relationship in that scenario but if it does not, it certainly must lead to a dysfunction in terms of the delivery of Government policy.
Mr. Robert Watt
Not at all; of course it does not. We are entitled to have our own views and disagreements and we get on. People are entitled to their own views and you get on with things. Does the Deputy think the 770 people in the Department of Health all have the same views? Of course they do not. Does he think I agree with everything the Chairman, Deputy John McGuinness, has said over the years, or that said by the Minister, Deputy Donnelly? Of course not. We have our views. You have your views, you debate them, a Minister then ultimately decides, directs his civil servants and they go about their business. That is how the system works.
What sort of accountability should happen on the basis of this report?
Mr. Robert Watt
It is a matter for the Minister and for the Government.
Do you think there should be accountability? Do you think your role should in some way be governed by what has happened and the recommendations in this report?
Mr. Robert Watt
As I understand it, the Government and the Minister have accepted the recommendations and that will have implications for how these things are done in the future, yes.
I understand with regard to how these things will be done in the future but even on how these things were done in the past, do you think there is a need for accountability in how this process happened? The report is very clear and says all accepted protocols were not fulfilled, or in other words, were breached. That is an action which through administration was a wrongdoing. One would imagine there is an accountability issue in relation to this because if people breach the protocols under which they are meant to administer, should that be an accountability-free action or should there be accountability?
Mr. Robert Watt
I do not agree with that finding.
The point is, if a report is written about me, or a ministerially generated report makes a recommendation-----
Mr. Robert Watt
It is a finding.
-----if you disagree with it, it does not give you immunity to accountability on it, does it?
Mr. Robert Watt
The reviewer has a view where they-----
No, no. If we are simply producing reports with accountability-free views, these are just analysis then. It is just meaningless opinion. However, this report is more than meaningless opinion surely. It comes to a conclusion; the conclusion is that there was wrongdoing and ill administration, then the highest-paid public servant in the country should have some level of responsibility to accountability surely.
Mr. Robert Watt
Are you asking me a question Deputy?
Yes.
Mr. Robert Watt
What is the question you are asking?
I will repeat the question for you again.
Mr. Robert Watt
What wrongdoing are you referring to? The report does not allege any wrongdoing about anybody.
It says accepted protocols were breached.
Mr. Robert Watt
What protocols? Are there protocols listed in the report? Are they footnoted in the report? Is there a bibliography in the report? Are they referenced in the report? Could you point out to me please the protocol to which you are referring and which part of the protocol apparently somebody bypassed? Did I bypass it? Did somebody else bypass it?
Okay, Mr. Watt-----
Mr. Robert Watt
It does not say individual X bypassed that part of-----
Do you have an interest in finding out yourself what protocols you are deemed not to have fulfilled?
Mr. Robert Watt
It does not say that I breached protocols. It does not name anyone. It does not say that. I do not think it does but anyway.
What we are likely to see here then is what happens in the public administration system in this country where there is a major political crisis; there is an outcry in relation to how the country is run; people are fearful individuals are involved in the design of particular roles from which they will financially benefit; that we have an inversion of authority within a Department in which civil servants are making decisions independently and without oversight from Ministers; and where then, as a result of that outcry, we have reports that are written which come to conclusions which are then crumpled up and pegged in a wastepaper basket. Is that what is going to happen to this report?
Mr. Robert Watt
These are matters for the Minister and the Government to set out their views on.
You have a view because you have offered your view a number of times. Do you have a view on that yourself?
Mr. Robert Watt
I do not on that matter Deputy. It is a matter for the Minister and the Government to decide what to do with the report that they commissioned, not me.
It seems to be that your views are strategic sometimes in relation to making pronouncements on what is happening here.
The other elements of this which I find interesting is that the National Public Health Emergency Team, NPHET, was wound up in February 2022, roughly at the same time when this process for secondment started. Many in the country, if we think back, were actually taken aback by the fact that NPHET was wound up with such speed and that the Government's policy in this area had nearly changed direction so fast. Is there any link between NPHET being wound up and this new job coming about?
Mr. Robert Watt
I do not think so, no.
Ms Quinn was asked, I think, on 1 July to write this report and on 1 July the CMO resigned from his job.
Mr. Robert Watt
I think it was earlier. I think it was-----
Both happened on the same day.
Mr. Robert Watt
I could be mistaken but I think the Government commissioned the report in April of last year. I think Dr. Holohan resigned mid-year. You are right, yes.
My understanding is both were on the same day and I can check in relation to that.
The other question here that strikes me is that Mr. Martin Fraser was obviously moved into the position of ambassador to London as well, which again makes it more difficult for elected representatives such as ourselves to be able to ask questions of him in this whole process. Is there any link to that?
Mr. Robert Watt
I cannot answer. It is nothing to do with me. The former Secretary General is now in a different role. It is the Government, I think, which decided that.
The learnings associated here from the research are indicated in section 5.2 of the report under the heading governance of the proposed research funding:
The proposed funding of €2 million a year committed to by the Secretary General, Department of Health, in the Letter of Intent to Trinity College Dublin (to include University Departments of Public Health and others) until the retirement of the Chief Medical Officer, was a very significant commitment [by which he] by-passed all of the accepted protocols for research funding and was linked atypically to one named individual.
The question that is asked is do you accept that finding?
Mr. Robert Watt
No, I do not accept that finding.
If you do not accept the finding, will behaviour change in relation to that?
Mr. Robert Watt
I am sure it will. As I said, the Government makes decisions in relation to the report and it will set out then what changes it wants to see in the future governing these and related matters. Obviously the system will then implement those new procedures and processes.
What kind of adjudication process should the elected representatives of people have in a scenario such as this where you are in full contradiction to a report of this magnitude?
Mr. Robert Watt
I am not in full contradiction. I just do not agree with some elements of it, which are the elements you put to me.
I think that is what contradiction means, in fairness.
Mr. Robert Watt
I just do not agree with it. I do not agree with the findings. We are entitled to our views. That is fine. You have asked me for my views. You have asked me a direct question which is do I accept the finding, and I have said no. I am not going to lie to you and say I do accept something which I do not accept. I do not agree with it but that is fine. Ultimately, the report is a report and the lessons and the actions from the report are the outcome of the report and the Government has now moved on from it.
Can you indicate what the protocols are for research funding in terms of the proposed funding of €2 million that was committed? What protocols did you adhere to? Can you identify those protocols?
Mr. Robert Watt
These are the protocols that are referenced in the report.
No, no. You said that the report itself does not identify the protocols that it then states that you did not adhere to. Can you identify what protocols you did adhere to in terms of that whole process?
Mr. Robert Watt
I think the point I was making is a fair point and people can dispute this or not. If I say that somebody did not adhere to something, I would set out what they did not adhere to and the document, the paragraph. You assess someone against an objective assessment of a standard. That is the point I was making.
As I have set out, the protocols governing research funding are that the Health Research Board would be allocated an amount and would manage that competition. That is what has happened here. The Government increased the budget for the Health Research Board in respect of this year. It did that in October around budget time. I understand the Health Research Board is now running competitions involving different institutions with a view to identifying areas of enhanced research to help us prepare for future-----
Because there is a difference of opinion between you and Ms Quinn about the protocols, can you identify what those protocols are by name, by location in law or however they exist? Can you identify exactly the protocols you used?
Mr. Robert Watt
I did not write-----
Right now, the answer feels unspecific and nebulous. In the interest of our being able to test those protocols, you should identify them to us.
Mr. Robert Watt
I did not write the report. The person who wrote the report should identify the protocols, should they not?
No. A person who is paid €300,000 per year and is making decisions like this should be able to reference the protocols on which the decision is based.
Mr. Robert Watt
I have already set out the position in relation to research funding and how such funding is managed.
Will you be specific as to the source of the guidance in terms of protocols on this and identify them clearly?
Mr. Robert Watt
As I understand, the protocols are the approach the HRB operates in respect of the allocation of research funding. It states it wants to investigate a certain area and invites people to submit tenders or applications. Those applications are assessed by a HRB committee set up for that purpose. Then it awards a contract, I guess, or funding line to senior researchers across the university system. They are allocated the money, do their research and so on. There is peer review of that research. As I understand, that is the protocol and approach. I do not quite understand what of that we breached, since it was clear we were setting out at the foothills of how we would develop this approach. It was clearly the intention that the HRB would be involved in administering the funds. The protocol is what I have just described. The letter of intent is consistent with what I understand the procedure or protocol to be. That is why I do not understand what the finding is suggesting we did. I am not trying to be facetious or smart about it. The document or particular paragraph is not referenced. I have set out my understanding of the procedure. The intention would be to meet the procedures and protocols.
Mr. Watt, you are not providing any detail on those protocols, where they are located or what the names are. That is a major hole in the evidence you are giving today, on the basis you are saying you did not breach any protocols. That is a weakness. There are major difficulties here. There is no doubt, right now, that there is a fracture in the governance of this State. There is a major problem within your Department. There is a lack of acceptance of a finding in which the elected representatives of the State and your political masters have confidence. There is a view that you have put forward that there should be no accountability in terms of-----
Mr. Robert Watt
I never said any of those things. The Deputy is putting words in my mouth, which I have not said. With all due respect, it is not his job to summarise or draw conclusions from what I said.
I am happy I am giving a fair summation of it.
Mr. Robert Watt
I do not think the Deputy is, or anything like a fair summation of it.
Go raibh maith agat.
Mr. Watt disagrees with the Deputy. I call Deputy MacSharry.
I thank the Chairman and members for allowing me to join the committee. It is nice to exchange with Mr. Watt once again. It is a year since we had our first exchange on this issue. It was at the health committee. I recall the Chairman of that committee and indeed other members wanting to have my comments withdrawn from the record and to disassociate themselves. It is ironic that a year later, here we are, having been proved correct in calling it out for what it was. I said that day that this was the retro-engineering of a position for somebody without central Government approval.
I have listened to you. I was not going to come down and I am grateful to the committee for allowing me some time. I listened to you earlier totally rubbish the contribution and independent investigation of somebody with a global reputation in governance and simply decide not to accept the findings. It is, "Tony this, Martin that, Tony the other and Martin the next thing." You said you have not broken any protocols. What specifically in any of the three Acts - 1954, 1997 or 2004 or whatever the year - endows you with the plenipotentiary authority to unilaterally spend €20 million over ten years?
Mr. Robert Watt
I thank the Deputy. No money was spent-----
Sorry, I did not ask you that. You have a lot of experience, and so do I. I asked you a specific question. What section of what Act endows you with authority to unilaterally decide on expenditure of €20 million over ten years?
Mr. Robert Watt
I have already set out the issue of the letter of intent, what----
No, I am not asking about the letter of intent either. You know these Acts back to front. What section of what Act endows plenipotentiary authority on you to invoke taxpayers’ money to the tune of €20 million over ten years?
Mr. Robert Watt
First, it was not €20 million over ten years.
What section of the Act, please? It was €2 million per annum, I understood. Let us not get into pedantics. What section of the Act is it? We are dancing around protocols, one's understanding of the Act and all of that. I have heard it for hours. You once told me at the Committee of Public Accounts that we do not have a gotcha culture in the Civil Service.
Mr. Robert Watt
We do.
Clearly we do not, and certainly not when the independent report disagrees with the great on high. The reality is that it is time taxpayers stopped being taken for fools. They pay you €300,000 per year and, despite the expertise of all these parliamentary party people, we await a direct answer. Who, or what authority under what Act, allowed you to say: “Tony wanted to go. Martin said it was okay, so yeah €15 or €20 million is no big deal. His service to the State demanded it. He wanted a change.” Do you remember the Minister’s interview that day? Tony wanted a change and the taxpayer would step up on Robert Watt’s say-so. For the journalists, the members and, more importantly, the taxpayers at home, will you tell us what section of what Act gave you this unilateral plenipotentiary control over taxpayers’ money?
Mr. Robert Watt
The 1996 public service management Act, as you are aware-----
What section of it, please?
Mr. Robert Watt
God, I do not know the exact section of it. It sets out the-----
It says the Secretary General-----
Mr. Robert Watt
Am I allowed to answer the question?
-----if a close and very hardworking colleague has impressed and done an exceptional amount of public service, we can design a bespoke retirement secondment package for him.
Allow Mr. Watt to answer the question.
Mr. Robert Watt
Under the 1996 public service management Act, I am responsible for the administration of the Department. As I have set out in detail, a secondment arrangement was proposed.
By who? By the man himself, is that not correct?
Mr. Robert Watt
By Dr. Holohan, and Martin Fraser was involved.
Of the 770 staff you mentioned earlier, who do not always agree with one another, in the Department of Health, how many are eligible for similar, self-designed, gilt-edged secondments or retirements following good service to the State?
Mr. Robert Watt
Anybody in the Civil Service is allowed to go to their line manager-----
How many can do that and be told, "Look, I will tell you what. What do you want to do? Do you want to be a professional footballer? I will tell you what, go out to Shamrock Rovers, you negotiate with it your terms and we will fund it." Is that how it works?
Mr. Robert Watt
Any individual in a Government Department is allowed to seek secondment. We have secondment arrangements in place. They are very positive.
Do you say “Yes” to everybody?
Mr. Robert Watt
In terms of my experience of heads of Department over a few years, I have mostly supported people who wanted to go on secondment because I think-----
How much are you managing to funnel to UCD to fund it now?
Mr. Robert Watt
Sorry, Deputy-----
For the role that Dr. Holohan now has in UCD how much of the research funding is being channelled?
Mr. Robert Watt
I do not know anything about that.
Well you knew all about it in Trinity. Is there money now going through the Department to UCD for this purpose?
Mr. Robert Watt
I do not know. You will have to ask-----
It is a very important question now.
Mr. Robert Watt
You will have to ask UCD
No, I am asking the Department of Health. You are the one who seems to have plenipotentiary status to dish out €10 million or €15 million when it suits. I am asking you, are there any moneys going to UCD to support the efforts of Dr. Holohan in that position?
Mr. Robert Watt
I understand that Dr. Holohan is an adjunct professor in UCD, which I do not think is a paid position, but I could be wrong on that.
I did not ask you that. Is the Department of Health giving UCD any money?
Mr. Robert Watt
The Health Research Board-----
How much are they giving?
Mr. Robert Watt
The Health Research Board administers €50 million plus of research funding.
How much of the €50 million plus did it increase from a calendar perspective, since the non-progression of the TCD secondments?
Mr. Robert Watt
I am very happy to furnish the committee with the details of the research funding.
Would there be additional money since then do you think?
Mr. Robert Watt
I do not know.
You do not know, but you seem to have taken a very hands-on involvement, a uniquely, almost exclusive hands-on involvement, in the design of this when it applied to TCD. It seems incredible that you would not have at least some knowledge of what is happening now.
Mr. Robert Watt
I think I have answered the question, Chair.
I will conclude by saying this whole debacle is unseemly in the extreme. Sadly, it has called into question the continuance in his position of an excellent and very talented Secretary General. It makes a farce of an expression of confidence in the Secretary General by the Tánaiste and the Ministers for Finance and Public Expenditure, National Delivery Plan and Reform, while we have an independent report authored by somebody of the highest calibre in international reputation. It is not credible for people to on the one hand express confidence in the Secretary General, to welcome the report and not take action. It simply makes a mockery of it. If it was somebody lower down in our public service, and certainly in the political world, they would have to walk.
I want to clarify a couple of things I have heard today and put them in the context of the meeting because they might have been lost in the course of the exchanges here. The committee wanted to get the detail of this arrangement some time ago, in 2022. We sought the attendance of various members of Government, Secretaries General and so on. We received some written submissions which have been helpful to our understanding of what went on. Mr. Watt, you decided at the time that you would not attend. You refused to come before the committee. For the record, the committee then forced to, agreed to, seek compellability and to insist through this means that you would attend and give evidence as a witness before the committee.
Mr. Robert Watt
For clarification, unless there is any confusion here, I volunteered to appear before this committee. I was not compelled to come before this committee. It should be noted in the record that I came voluntarily.
I am coming to that point. I have allowed you to say what you had to say. I want to clarify the facts here. We had to seek compellability, which was granted. I want those who are listening to understand that the clerk then contacted you as a courtesy to say that the committee had compellability but asking would you, understanding this, like to attend voluntarily. It is the first time I can remember that the Oireachtas has granted compellability powers to a committee. It is extraordinary that a Secretary General of a Department as significant as the Department of Health and with experience in the Department of Public Expenditure, National Delivery Plan and Reform, should have to be compelled. You are the first Secretary General I know of where agreement was reached to compel you to attend.
That is the background to the committee meeting. Others have come before it in relation to the issue and they have clarified what they knew and did not know. I can say from the evidence of Mr. Martin Fraser, as then Secretary to the Government, that he did not know the detail. That is the evidence I heard when he came here. Others gave similar replies. We could not verify any of this at the time because you would not attend. This makes the work of the committee very complicated because we do not have all sides of the story. You are someone who has always said: "Give me a chance to answer, I may not give the right answer or what is expected of me, but I will tell you what I believe the answer to be." It sets a very bad example for the other Secretaries General and indeed for the young civil servants who perhaps aspire to become a Secretary General some day. Would you not agree with that?
Mr. Robert Watt
I have no comment to make on that point. I am not here to talk about the matters that you wrote to me about so I am not in a position to talk about these other procedural matters. That is for you and the committee.
It is not a procedural matter, Mr. Watt. I will ask you again, and you can decide what to say or do, is it not a terribly bad example from a senior civil servant that this is the way we end up at the committee today?
Mr. Robert Watt
Chair, you know the background to this discussion. I am not going to get into it here. I am not here to talk about the procedures of your committee. I am here to talk about the substance of it. For the record, in case people think otherwise, this is now the fourth or fifth occasion that I have spoken about these matters before a Dáil committee. I have discharged my obligations to the public and to you and your colleagues several times and I am discharging them again and I am very happy to do so. To suggest otherwise is very misleading.
First of all, I did not suggest otherwise. I gave the facts as the committee members would know them and as you would know them. You have given an answer that, like the other answers you have given today, falls well short of what would be expected of the standards of a Secretary General of a Department, a senior member of the Civil Service. That is the question not answered. In the exchanges you had with other members it was said to you that €2 million per year had been committed to this secondment. You made the point that this €2 million was committed through the HRB so it was not going to the college at all. The funding was going to the HRB and it could decide what to do with that €2 million. Do I understand you correctly?
Mr. Robert Watt
The intention was that the money would be allocated to the HRB. It would then run competitions and the money would end up in the different universities that were successful in those competitions. As I understand it, that is what subsequently transpired.
In that case the only level of funding you are suggesting we are talking about is Dr. Tony Holohan's salary. That is it.
Mr. Robert Watt
The funding that would be ring-fenced for Trinity, as I referenced with Deputy Doherty, would be the part that would fund Dr. Holohan's salary.
.
An Cathaoirleach: That was the only ring-fenced funding? It had nothing to do with the €2 million. It was a ring-fenced-----
Mr. Robert Watt
The intention would be that the higher allocation of research funding for this area would in part fund Dr. Holohan's salary. There are other elements to this, Chair.
Just clarify this for me. The €2 million would go to the HRB and the salary of Dr. Holohan would be paid from that.
Mr. Robert Watt
They were the details that-----
You commented on that today, and I want to get this right.
Mr. Robert Watt
We did not get through all of the details of this, but in effect that is broadly it.
You are saying that €2 million was not for Trinity at all. The commitment in some of the correspondence is that the Department would pay his salary.
Mr. Robert Watt
I think there was a misunderstanding about that when this all broke.
By whom?
Mr. Robert Watt
In some of the media coverage. The intention was that the fund would go from the Vote of the Department to the HRB, and that would fund these activities including the salary of Dr. Holohan.
It would not go directly from the HRB to Trinity. It could have been disbursed to lots of universities, so it was not for Trinity at all. Is that correct?
Mr. Robert Watt
The fund was not for Trinity overall. That is exactly right.
That is what you are saying.
Mr. Robert Watt
Yes.
As I have already asked, how then was Dr. Holohan's salary to be paid? This reports states that his salary was to be paid by the Department of Health.
Mr. Robert Watt
Which report?
The report we are discussing today.
Mr. Robert Watt
That was not correct.
What was to happen?
Mr. Robert Watt
The details of exactly how we would do it had to be finalised. The intention was that Dr. Holohan's salary would be from the commitment of additional funding for research. Part of that would fund Dr. Holohan's salary.
Whatever HRB decided to allocate to Trinity, they were expected to pay his salary out of that.
Mr. Robert Watt
Yes. Those details had not been worked out as we set out in the letter of intent. They had to be finalised. Those details were not all worked out.
You mentioned earlier the period for this secondment. We spoke about the five years maximum, the six months and so on. For the ten year period of his secondment, because he will retire around 2032, this particular ring-fenced funding was to be made available. This included his salary, which would be paid to him by Trinity, but they would get nothing else.
Mr. Robert Watt
Trinity could, and I am sure would, have competed for the funding like everybody else, and could have been involved. As I understand it there are two different schools in Trinity that would have been involved, and which have an interest in this area. As I said, the details had to be finalised, but in broad terms that was the intention.
Your decision was only about Dr. Holohan's salary. Is that correct?
Mr. Robert Watt
In effect, if there is any dedicated funding for a particular issue, yes. That is right.
That was it.
Mr. Robert Watt
Yes.
The HRB was then allowed to allocate whatever funding it decided.
Mr. Robert Watt
Yes.
Why, then, was Trinity saying that it could not afford this proposal?
Mr. Robert Watt
Trinity was establishing a chair, and it needed to know how that was going to be funded. I am sure Trinity has significant funding outside of Exchequer funding. I am sure it could have been funded, but that was the policy.
No, Trinity was saying it could not afford it.
Mr. Robert Watt
Yes, so they said. Ultimately, the policy intent was that we wanted the former CMO to take up this role or a similar role. We were in favour of this. We thought it was a good idea, the spending of the money was a good idea.
I do not disagree. This is not about whether it was a good idea or not. You have spoken about the public interest. We are here in the public interest. Everybody present is supposed to be here in the public interest. I cannot fathom this. You say this €2 million got mixed up in the media reporting. Is that it?
Mr. Robert Watt
I think there was a lot of confusion about how this was reported.
Through the media.
Mr. Robert Watt
Yes. Anyway, that is all history.
How did you reach the figure of €2 million? It was €1 million. I know you have made reference to it before, but there were no costings on it. There was no background analysis apparently, to which we can refer, that would show us that the €2 million was better than €1 million. Obviously, €2 million is better than €1 million. How did you decide it?
Mr. Robert Watt
We ultimately wanted to show intent that we were serious about investing in this research and in this capacity, and about sending a signal to the different teams around the university system that we were serious about funding this research. They have to get teams together, and they might have international people coming in, and dedicated staff. We wanted to send a clear message to the university sector that we were serious about funding this particular research stream in the way it has been done in the past.
Are you less serious when you offer €1 million? I would consider that to be a big figure.
Mr. Robert Watt
In terms of research funding in other countries, and the costs of the pandemic we have come through, I am not suggesting that €1 million is not a significant sum of money. Of course it is. A lot can be done with €1 million. However, the intention was to give support and a strong commitment that we were interested in getting the different teams to work together. I understand that money has been allocated now. I do not know the outcome of the process.
No, do not confuse the story. Maybe it is my fault. Maybe I am confused about some of the conclusions being drawn from what is happening now, and what went on back then. What went on back then was that nobody knew the detail. It took a long time for that detail to find its way to paper. Protocols were spoken about here in terms of how the decision was reached. I do not know any other example in any other Department, where €2 million would be committed to. Deputy Doherty went through this with you earlier. It says that in the letter. You committed to €2 million. You committed to it for the period of this position, up until Dr. Holohan's retirement. You committed to paying him his salary up to the point of his retirement. Do you accept that now?
Mr. Robert Watt
I accept that we committed to the additional funding. We absolutely set out an intent to enhance the research budget.
No, we will keep it simple. I am asking you the question. Did you commit to €2 million per year, including his salary, as part of this? It is a yes or no answer.
Mr. Robert Watt
I do not think it was a legal commitment, if that is what you are suggesting. It was an intention to enhance the capacity.
What does "committed" mean?
Mr. Robert Watt
It was a letter of intent, like any letter of intent. We intend to do something subject to all of the details being finalised.
No. Saying "I intend to do something" is different from saying "I am committed to do it".
Mr. Robert Watt
The letter of intent is what the letter said. That is the title of the letter. It is a letter of intent to do something. It is not a final legal agreement. It is not a final approval.
It is a letter of intent that you are committed to doing this, because Trinity College says it is not in a position to fund the proposal. That is what it what it says in this report.
Mr. Robert Watt
No. We are doing it because we are committed to enhancing research across the university sector.
That is what you are saying today.
Mr. Robert Watt
That is what we said at the time in the letter of intent.
I do not see it anywhere at the time.
Mr. Robert Watt
We clearly said in the letter of intent that the HRB would be involved and it would be inter-institutional collaboration. We clearly said that in the letter of intent.
Okay. Sorry, I meant to quote this on page 9. It says here that, "It further proposed that the salary etc.would be paid to Dr Holohan by the Department of Health until his retirement in June 2032." You are saying that is not the case, and the salary was being paid out of the €2 million.
Mr. Robert Watt
Those details had to be established, but that would have been the understanding. We did not get into all of the details on it.
If you had a letter of intent, you would be covering every single angle of this so there would be no misunderstanding on either side.
Mr. Robert Watt
We say in the letter of intent that the details were to be finalised. Each party was going to appoint somebody to finalise the details and draw up what would then be the legal agreement.
That would be based on the fact-----
Mr. Robert Watt
Based on the generality of the letter of intent.
There is €2 million here. There is €20 million committed over the years.
Mr. Robert Watt
That is up to ... it is dependent on the retirement age.
No, it is not up to anyone. It is in the letter.
Mr. Robert Watt
It is not a legal commitment, it is a letter of intent.
If you put something in a letter of intent, it leads to a commitment.
Mr. Robert Watt
It may lead to a commitment; it may lead to an agreement.
Through your letter of intent, you were going to lead to a commitment for €2 million a year, which would be more than €20 million for the ten years. Is that correct?
Mr. Robert Watt
We were hoping-----
Just tell me "Yes" or "No". Is that correct?
Mr. Robert Watt
No. We were hoping the letter of intent would lead ultimately to a legal agreement in respect of the funding and between the moment the letter of intent was signed and the legal agreement, obviously, the Minister would have to approve it and we would have to figure out exactly what that meant in terms of the Estimates for 2023 and beyond, yes. That is what we were trying to achieve.
However, you did not write that down.
Mr. Robert Watt
That is what-----
You did not tell Martin Fraser. You did not tell the then Taoiseach, the Minister, Deputy Micheál Martin. You said you told Deirdre Gillane; you did not tell Deirdre Gillane.
Mr. Robert Watt
Hang on now. I have gone through all this-----
You have, but I have to say-----
Mr. Robert Watt
-----already now.
Let me finish. Your answers fall way short of the standard I would expect from a senior civil servant. I am sorry to have to say that.
Mr. Robert Watt
I am here answering questions in good faith.
You are not answering them.
Mr. Robert Watt
I am not quite sure if it is appropriate for you to comment in the way you have just done about me answering questions in good faith here. I do not think it is appropriate, okay?
To quote you-----
Mr. Robert Watt
I do not think it is appropriate.
-----I am entitled to my opinion, am I not?
Mr. Robert Watt
Yes, but you are meant to be chairing the committee, though.
I am doing that too.
Mr. Robert Watt
Are you not meant to be chairing the committee, though?
Am I not doing that too?
Mr. Robert Watt
I do not think you are doing it impartially, if you are going to be criticising me.
I am not criticising you.
Mr. Robert Watt
You are.
I am telling you what I feel about the standard of answers you are giving to this committee. It is my duty as Chairman to insist that you give comprehensive answers. You failed to answer Deputy Doherty.
Mr. Robert Watt
I do not agree I failed to answer Deputy Doherty.
Mr. Watt, you have answered a question to the extent that you are arrogantly dismissive of the report, which I find shocking. Your answers are "Well, that is my opinion." Honestly,-----
Mr. Robert Watt
I think, Chair, you are not in a position to personally criticise me. At committees, as Chairperson, you are not meant to personally criticise witnesses, as I understand it. I may be corrected here, but I do not think you are meant to personally criticise somebody.
I am not-----
Mr. Robert Watt
I came in good faith and have endeavoured to answer Deputy Doherty's questions. If I did not answer Deputy Doherty's questions faithfully, I am happy to go again.
Okay, well then-----
Mr. Robert Watt
I am honestly answering the questions here. It is not fair to suggest now that I am not here in good faith answering the questions. I just do not accept that.
I did not suggest that.
Mr. Robert Watt
You did.
I am speaking to you about the level of standard expected from a senior civil servant and the fact that Members of this Parliament have asked you certain questions that you have blatantly dismissed. In fact, at one stage, you said to Deputy Doherty that in the main you did not accept this report. Later on, you said, "Well, certain elements of it."
Mr. Robert Watt
Let me clarify what I said.
Is it one or the other?
Mr. Robert Watt
Let me clarify what I said in relation to Deputy Doherty. I said there are findings in the report I do not accept. Absolutely, there are findings in the report I do not accept. On the recommendations, obviously the Government has made a decision on that, which is fine. The Minister has indicated he is going to push ahead with that; that is fine. However, there are certain aspects of this that are not findings - they are conclusions or whatever way I describe them - which I do not accept. That is just to clarify in case there is any confusion about them.
This is my final question in this round anyway. Regarding the then Taoiseach and now Tánaiste supporting the position of Deirdre Gillane, the Minister for Health supporting the position of Deirdre Gillane in terms of her commentary, which was a pretty stiff rebuke of what you were saying, you are now accepting that she is correct in what she said and that you were wrong. Does it all not place you at odds with some of the most senior politicians and senior civil servants in government? Are you at all concerned that doubt is being cast over the manner in which all this was done?
Mr. Robert Watt
On the latter part of your question, of course, there are lessons to be learnt, but on the first part of your question "No" is the answer.
No, what? Is it that you are not concerned?
Mr. Robert Watt
We are entitled to different views; I accept that.
I know that. I am asking you. Does it mean you are not concerned about what was said today by the Minister, Deputy Stephen Donnelly, at the health committee or the Tánaiste previously or indeed Deirdre Gillane? Deirdre Gillane was pretty clear in her position. Your answer today is, "Oh yeah, I accept that". Is that an answer?
Mr. Robert Watt
I have given the answer to it already, Chair. I have nothing further to add on that matter.
You were going to put forward to answer Deputy Doherty's previous question; I think you suggested that you would do so.
Mr. Robert Watt
I have answered Deputy Doherty's question, I think.
That is for Deputy Doherty to say. I call Deputy Doherty.
Mr. Robert Watt
Could I just ask if we could conclude here, because I have been here for over two hours? I think it is standard practice for me to have a break.
We can have a break, no problem at all. How long do you want?
Mr. Robert Watt
About 20 minutes.
Twenty minutes, certainly.
I only need ten minutes if you want to wrap it up now. It is up to you.
It is up to you.
Mr. Robert Watt
Keep on going, Deputy.
I just have a couple of questions for the Secretary General. The report talks about the motivation here. I am not questioning the motivation of any individual here. I am questioning the processes and how a large amount of money was allocated without authority in my view. The author of this report is not here. There is what I would say is quite stinging criticism from you about the author of this report.
Mr. Robert Watt
Can I just clarify-----
I will make the point and you can clarify then. In response to questioning here, you suggested that there were no footnotes, no details in terms of-----
Mr. Robert Watt
Can I just-----
-----the protocols. I thought it was a very glib-----
Mr. Robert Watt
Can I just clarify? I have absolutely no problem with the reviewer. The reviewer did the job she was asked to do. I absolutely respect her role. I am not in any way criticising Ms Quinn, who did the report. I just do not agree with things that are said.
You suggested-----
Mr. Robert Watt
I am not dismissing it. I just do not agree with some things.
You were very-----
Mr. Robert Watt
In the hurly-burly of debate, I did ask. If it is said that protocols were bypassed, I asked a very legitimate question.
That is okay.
Mr. Robert Watt
That is all. I want to make it very clear that I am not in any way dismissing Ms Quinn or her report. She did a job and did a job to the best of her ability and good luck to her. I am sure it was not an easy job. All I am saying is that I do not necessarily agree with some of the conclusions. That is all.
Regarding Ms Quinn, you are saying "What protocols?" When she says there are defined processes and protocols in relation to the distribution of research funding, as Secretary General of the Department of Health, you are not aware of these processes or protocols. Is that your contention?
Mr. Robert Watt
I am aware of the protocol but in response to Deputy Tóibín, I set what I understand the protocols to be. However, the reviewer did not specify the precise protocol, nor did the reviewer say exactly where. It was just a general point about it. If I understand what the protocols are, it is around competitive funding and allocation of funding. That is what I understand. I have set that out.
You might clarify this for me because I have always wondered. As Secretary General of the Department, the responses to parliamentary questions end up on your desk before they are published. Is that correct? You answered a parliamentary question in the past about the processes and protocols for health funding. You answered a parliamentary question from my colleague, Deputy Cullinane, which stated "All applications for HRB funding are subject to international peer review, and the outcome of any application process is never predetermined." Tony Holohan's money was going to Tony Holohan, no matter what happened. Is that not correct?
Mr. Robert Watt
The professorship was being funded, exactly. Yes.
Is it not the case that that answer is no longer accurate? It should say, "never predetermined other than in the case of what we tried to do with Tony Holohan where we ring-fenced his salary, his expenses and his professional fees in relation to that."
Mr. Robert Watt
Within the funding. As I was saying in response to the Chair's question, how that was actually going to be worked out, we had not worked out. I think the intention would have been for it to be funded within the €2 million but we had not actually got to the details of that.
In the letter of intent, it is very-----
Mr. Robert Watt
It is clear, yes.
It is very clear. That portion of the fund is going to Trinity for his-----
Mr. Robert Watt
For Tony's salary, yes.
Ms Quinn says the processes and protocols are clear. Let me quote her here. She stated: "There are clearly defined processes and protocols in place". In fairness, you made the point that she did not name those protocols and did not reference those protocols. However, you answered the parliamentary question, yourself, on behalf of the Minister - or the Minister did - which actually outlined the processes and protocols.
Mr. Robert Watt
Absolutely.
Do you accept, because you make the point they are never predetermined, that in this case what was attempted was that a portion of that funding was predetermined?
Mr. Robert Watt
A portion of it, but 10% of it was-----
It does not matter if it was 10%, 5% or 1%.
Mr. Robert Watt
It does matter.
It does not.
Mr. Robert Watt
It does.
The question is that you actually rejected her findings. You rejected her finding that the protocols were bypassed. Do you now accept as the Secretary General that the protocol for a portion of that funding was bypassed and she is correct in her recommendation and in her finding? You made the point earlier that she did not say who bypassed the protocols. She did say it was you, as Secretary General, who bypassed the accepted protocols at the time.
Mr. Robert Watt
I do not think the review says that I bypassed protocols. It says that protocols were bypassed-----
On page 22 the review says that, "The proposed funding of €2 million a year committed to by the Secretary General [that is you] ... was a very significant commitment which by-passed all of the accepted protocols for research funding and was linked atypically to one named individual." It did mention you. She does find that you are the person who "by-passed all of the accepted protocols".
Mr. Robert Watt
I do not think that finding is that clear but it-----
I am reading it in the words.
Mr. Robert Watt
I am reading it myself.
Do you not see "by the Secretary General"?
Mr. Robert Watt
On the proposed funding committed to, first of all there are a number of things in that paragraph. There are a number of elements of it and "by-passed", I think-----
Whether you agree with it or not, with respect, I want you to accept the fact that she has found in this report that you, as Secretary General "by-passed all of the accepted protocols for research funding and was linked atypically to one named individual." You suggested this was not done.
Mr. Robert Watt
I do not accept it. Reading it again I do not accept the finding. No.
No, do you accept that this is what she found? Whether you accept the finding or not, she is making the finding that it was you who bypassed all of these protocols.
Mr. Robert Watt
It says "by-passed all of the ... protocols". One can read it in any way. I do not agree with whatever that is: a conclusion, a finding or a statement. I do not agree with it.
Okay, let us-----
Mr. Robert Watt
It goes on subsequently on page 23 to say "The ‘commitment’ to Trinity College Dublin by the Department of Health of €2 million per year". There is not a commitment to Trinity College of €2 million. That contradicts the subsequent statements that do not link it to Trinity College. It is not. I do not believe it. I am not going to get into it. The reviewer is not here to defend the report and it is unfair. I respect her work but I just do not agree with it.
I do not want to split hairs here, but honest to God, the commitment here in the letter of intent that you signed is for €2 million for "collaboration led by Dr Holohan from his position in Trinity College Dublin". It is not for Tony Holohan doing any other work but actually for "Dr Holohan from his position in Trinity College Dublin". That would allow Tony Holohan in his position in Trinity College Dublin to collaborate with UCD, or with the Department of Health or any other body, but it has to be linked to Trinity College Dublin. That is the fact of it.
The last point I have is on the draft, as the Chairperson has questioned. The draft letter of intent, which was the first letter that was sent by Tony Holohan to yourself on 1 March, was for €1 million of funding and his salary was coming from the Department of Health. You try to suggest there was confusion in the media about that. That was what the draft was. It was €1 million but his salary was coming from the Department of Health. The final version went that it was €2 million and his salary would be paid by Trinity. Is that not the fact of it?
Mr. Robert Watt
Certainly, in respect of the €2 million, the Deputy is correct. I am not sure if I recollect exactly the movement from the draft of 1 March in respect of how Dr. Holohan's salary was paid and the final outcome. Certainly, in respect of the €1 million to the €2 million, yes.
Do you accept that the draft letter of intent mentioned an annual ring-fenced allocation for the duration of the secondment? It did not mention a figure but it also proposed that this allocation "be administered through the Health Research Board", and it further proposed that the salary would be paid to Dr. Holohan by the Department of Health until his retirement. Amendments were made to that draft and subsequently the changes were that the €2 million figure was put in but Trinity was to pay the salary.
Mr. Robert Watt
Yes. There were various iterations as we were debating on what to do. On the letter of intent, as I said before to the Chairman's questions, the letter of intent was set out with the intent to support. We had not finalised the agreement. That was to happen. We did say in the letter of intent, very clearly, that we would finalise the details of the arrangements. We were appointing people on both sides to reach agreement with a view to coming back and signing. That would have formed the basis of a legal commitment and that would have had, before that, the involvement of the Minister and others. It was just to indicate that we wanted this to happen. How it would have actually ended up if the thing had proceeded and how we would have actually funded it might have been different from what was suggested in the 1 March draft or that draft. We had not actually finalised how that would happen.
This was going to be announced and everything. The letter of intent was there. We went through the banking crisis. We went through the banking inquiry. There was a letter of intent given by the Secretary General in the Department which actually guaranteed banks, before there was any law passed. A letter of intent-----
Mr. Robert Watt
That was €440 billion, which was the apparent cost of the guarantee. It was €440 billion of liabilities that were guaranteed. We are talking about €1 million or €2 million.
Letters of intent are not just-----
Does Mr. Watt know how long it takes the taxpayer to raise or make the type of money to pay taxes? You belittle all of that by saying it is only €1 million. I do not think any taxpayer watches this with-----
Mr. Robert Watt
Excuse me, Chair. Once again you are saying things. I did not belittle it. I put it in the context-----
You said it was €1 million Mr. Watt and you sniggered at it.
Mr. Robert Watt
----of the reference Deputy Doherty made to the bank guarantee. The Deputy knows very well of the night that happened. That was €440 billion of liabilities-----
You said, "We are talking about €1 million or €2 million."
Mr. Robert Watt
The point is-----
I know the point you tried to make, but in fairness you tried to deflect that, and maybe successfully. The point I am making is that you dismissed the importance of a letter of intent. My point is that this letter of intent had weight and had standing and therefore-----
Mr. Robert Watt
It did not have legal standing, Deputy.
It did not have legal standing but money was paid out on the basis the Government had entered into commitments. Therefore, letters of intent from the Secretary General of a Department have significant weight. When you signed off on €2 million, and potentially €20 million, without any authorisation in the Estimates process and without any Government approval-----
Mr. Robert Watt
I have answered these questions already, Deputy. That is not-----
This is not a question. This is a statement. You did so, as the report found, breaching all protocols. I will leave it at that.
That concludes the meeting-----
Mr. Robert Watt
I-----
Just one second, Mr. Watt. This concludes the meeting. I was just thinking, as we were going through the questions, that it is similar to the type of arrangement that was reached in relation to the increase in salary for a Secretary General, where a small number of people made the decision. I do not think that should be the case, either in that case or in this case. From your answers today, I think the people listening in have an interest in this and will make up their own minds. For me, as I have said, I felt it was a really bizarre exchange at times. I say this as Chairman listening carefully to what was said on both sides. It really disappoints me the standard I witnessed here today. If Mr. Watt has a closing statement, he can make it. Otherwise we will just conclude the meeting.
Mr. Robert Watt
I thank the Chair.
The joint committee adjourned at 3.59 p.m. sine die.