A TRIBUNAL of inquiry was considered an inefficient investigative vehicle in 1994 when options for examining the hepatitis C scandal were being considered, the former Minister for Health told yesterday's tribunal.
Mr Brendan Howlin said the tribunal option was not one seen as getting "effectively or efficiently or officially" at the truth because of the experience of the beef tribunal which was running at the time.
"The consensus once it went public was it was the right thing to do," he said. The Government had accepted it and there had been no opposition Dail motion.
Mr Howlin said the expert group, which consisted of a haematologist, microbiologist and one of the most distinguished women in this country" (Dr Miriam Hederman O'Brien) formed a trio of expertise which would be a better way of getting at the truth. The Department's experience the previous year with the Kilkenny incest case had shown that an expert group could report effectively and efficiently, he added.
The Minister rejected evidence given by an assistant secretary at the Department, Mr Donal Devitt, that he had recommended to Mr Howlin that a tribunal of inquiry should be set up. Mr Howlin said no advice on one particular option was considered but it was his view that Mr Devitt favoured a tribunal.
The meeting, on February 18th, had also included the Minister's special adviser, Dr Tim Collins, and the Department secretary, Mr John Hurley. Mr Howlin said that at the end of the meeting he, his adviser and the secretary favoured the expert group option.
"It would similarly be my view that Mr Devitt felt, despite all the drawbacks, the tribunal of inquiry would have been the preferred option "he said.
The first time he heard there was a dispute about whether he was advised on establishing a tribunal was when he read a news item on evidence given at this tribunal. But the mechanism for coming to his conclusion was a meeting where the options were examined.
"It produced a balance sheet of fors and againsts. That was the nature of the dynamic of the meeting. The notion of someone coming in and saying that was the way to go simply did not happen," he said.
The suggestion, made by Mr Nugent to the tribunal on January 13th, that every official "from the assistant secretary down" favoured a tribunal in 1994 was patently untrue, Mr Howlin said.
The option of an inspector was dismissed early on and the options of an expert panel or a sworn inquiry were considered.
"The pros and cons of that were clearly debated and strongly put and I ultimately made the decision that I made... In the context of the times any reasonable person would have made the same decision," he said.
He said the date of the meeting was "clearly after" the date when a higher executive officer, Ms Dolores Moran, was asked by her superior, Mr Devitt, to review the legislation on tribunals of inquiry.
He also rejected evidence from Mr Devitt who had said that the Minister had favoured a "ratcheting up" to a tribunal of inquiry if the expert group was unsuccessful.
"There was no question of ratcheting up or ratcheting down. Whatever was the best decision I would support," he said.
He added that there had been a thorough audit under way by that March "on the nuts and bolts of the BTSB, its obligations and its' deficiencies".