Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Yesterday, we had an extraordinary spectacle at the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach. One of the most senior and highest paid civil servants in the State engaged in an arrogant two-hour dismissal of an independent expert report commissioned by his line Minister. The Secretary General of the Department of Health, Robert Watt, was clear. He rejects "most" of the findings of the report by Maura Quinn, the former chief executive of the Institute of Directors in Ireland, into his botched handling of the secondment of Dr. Tony Holohan to Trinity College Dublin. This is despite the fact the Minister for Health says he accepts the findings of the report. It is also contrary to the Tánaiste's own assertion that the report cannot be questioned and is conclusive, so perhaps he can enlighten us because it is still not clear on what basis Mr. Watt has rejected the findings of the report. They are not a matter of opinion; they are based on verifiable facts. They are not open to debate.

Those facts are that Mr. Watt engaged in a solo run when Dr. Holohan indicated he was considering stepping down as Chief Medical Officer and moving to academia; committed €20 million of public money to this process without any Government approvals or oversight; failed to provide any rationale for the extent of the €20 million funding; completely bypassed the Health Research Board and its rigorous and transparent protocols surrounding applications for funding in assigning this money; failed to inform the Minister for Health about this process; misrepresented the fact he had not informed the Secretary General of the Department of the Taoiseach of the detail of this proposal; and misrepresented the fact the Tánaiste's own chief of staff had not been given any detail about this process. This is quite the litany. Of course, he now tells us he rejects the findings of the Government-approved report into this entire debacle. We know the Tánaiste's chief of staff, Deirdre Gillane, took a rather dim view of what Mr. Watt was misrepresenting in respect of her role in this shambles. In language that can only be described as damning, she said his assertions about her were "grossly inaccurate and unwarranted" and "wholly without foundation". I can fully understand Ms Gillane's irritation at being dragged into this controversy by Mr. Watt despite having zero involvement in it.

Important questions for the Tánaiste and the Government arise from this mess. It is not enough to say he accepts the report when Mr. Watt, its central character, is loudly intimating that he thinks it is a load of rubbish. I have three questions. Is it appropriate for Mr. Watt to reject the findings of this report? How can Mr. Watt's position be tenable? Does the Tánaiste or the Government intend to take any action to make Mr. Watt accountable?

I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. I also thank Maura Quinn for her report, which is welcome. The Government, in its entirety, accepts without reservation the recommendations of Maura Quinn in respect of this entire issue and also in respect of the broader issue of secondment within the public service and the Civil Service in particular. There are issues around the secondment policy area and we need to be stronger in identifying pathways for those who may, for example, have retired early as a Secretary General or, in this case, as a Chief Medical Officer but who still have a lot of expertise. How does one deploy that expertise across the public service and the Civil Service in a more effective way than merely secondments to a university? By the way, a secondment to a university can be beneficial.

I think people overall, when we stand back from this, were acting in good faith insofar as the idea of developing a stronger capacity in research for public health. I have no issue with that. I think everybody also was conscious of the role Dr. Tony Holohan had played as Chief Medical Officer in respect of the pandemic but, again, that does not in itself justify or in any way support the process here or what transpired. I think Maura Quinn is correct about how, in this instance, it should have happened and particularly in terms of individuals engaging in respect of their own situations with third parties. Ultimately, we need to capture the experience and expertise that people garnered over the two and a half years of Covid.

Will the Tánaiste answer the questions?

In respect of the recommendations, they will be implemented by the Government. The Secretary General of the Department of Health is clear they will be implemented by the Government and accepts the decision of the Government to accept all the recommendations of the report.

The report focused very much on doing this in a far more effective and better way and to learn lessons from it. That was the purpose of the report. There is an obligation on everybody now to get down to it and make sure proper procedures are in place into the future. As someone with a lot of experience in research funding, I think we have come a long way in research. Clearly, peer-reviewed, international-based research is the key way to do it. Again, my understanding is that was to be pursued. That is, to me very clearly, the way all research funding has to be deliberated on. It has to be by peer review.

Respectfully, the Tánaiste just talked around all those questions for the entire time of his reply. I asked him how Mr. Watt's position can be tenable and whether the Tánaiste or the Government intends to take any action to make him accountable.

Another aspect of this whole fiasco is deeply troubling. In April of last year, Mr. Watt refused to appear before the finance committee to discuss the matter, so the committee had to seek compellability powers from the Oireachtas to force Mr. Watt to appear before it, which it ultimately received. The clerk to the committee then had to write to Mr. Watt asking if he would appear voluntarily given that those powers were available to the committee, and it was only then that he agreed to appear before it.

If senior civil servants refuse or have to be forced to appear before Oireachtas committees, why should anybody else be willing to appear before a committee? I wonder if the Tánaiste thinks that this kind of disdainful treatment of the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach, which is there to hold people to account on behalf of the public, sets a good example for other civil servants.

As far as I know, the Civil Service accountability board, which is chaired by the Taoiseach and on which the Tánaiste and the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform sit, is supposed to hold Secretaries General and assistant secretaries to account. I am wondering when was the last time this accountability board met. Will Mr. Watt's conduct by reviewed by it?

I thank Deputy Cairns.

I will go back to my previous questions. The Tánaiste did not answer them. Does the Tánaiste think Mr. Watt's position is tenable? What is the Government doing to hold him to account?

First of all, I did answer Deputy Cairns's questions in respect of the report.

No, the Tánaiste did not.

In terms of the Secretary General in the Department of Health, when I came into office as Taoiseach, for the first six months we did not have a permanent Secretary General at the Department of Health. To put it mildly, in the context of Covid and other issues, this was-----

This is not relevant.

The Deputy has to allow me answer the question. I am coming to the point.

You are not.

My point is that stability has been brought to the Department of Health. The Secretary General has, in terms of the administration of the Department of Health, been effective on a range of fronts. That has to be acknowledged. That was required when we were coming out of Covid and dealing with the consultants' contract and the Sláintecare implementation, etc. That is why I am saying I believe it is important that the Secretary General of the Department of Health continues to work on the bigger issues facing health. We need to move now to improve consistently, reform and implement the Government programme in relation to health-----

We will take that as a "No".

-----and also the recommendations in terms of health itself.

In terms of accountability before committees, my understanding is that the Secretary General appeared in front of other committees in respect of this issue. Of course, a Secretary General should be accountable to the relevant Oireachtas committees in respect of issues that come under their administration or their specific Department.

I thank the Tánaiste and call Deputy Bríd Smith.

So the Tánaiste finds his behaviour acceptable. Is that what the Tánaiste is saying?

I call Deputy Bríd Smith.