Department of Health secretary general Robert Watt has said he does not accept the findings of a review into a controversial proposed secondment of the then chief medical officer.

“I’m very happy that the secondment process was appropriate,” he told the Oireachtas Committee on Finance on Wednesday.

“I don’t accept the report,” he added.

Mr Watt also said the Minister for Health was informed of the funding proposal as part of the secondment, but the message may have been lost as his computer was “hacked”.

On Monday, an external review into the proposed secondment of Dr Tony Holohan to a post in Trinity College Dublin was published.

It said that there was a lack of formal consultation with the Taoiseach, Minister for Health and Department of Public Expenditure and Reform throughout the process.

It also said an associated annual commitment of two million euro in research funding to be allocated through the Health Research Board (HRB) was not based on any scope nor costings and that the HRB was not consulted.

The report said the proposed funding bypassed all accepted protocols for research funding and did not, in the author’s opinion, meet accepted norms of scrutiny, transparency and accountability.

It said the proposed secondment and associated research funding should not have been linked together.

It said the CMO should not have been exclusively personally involved in the negotiation of funding.

Following controversy over the proposed secondment, it did not take place.

Appearing before the Oireachtas committee on Finance on Wednesday, Mr Watt said those involved in the secondment were motivated by public interests.

He consistently rejected aspects of the report that were put to him by multiple TDs.

Committee chairman and Fianna Fail TD John McGuinness accused Mr Watt of being “arrogantly dismissive” of the report.

Asked if he would have done anything differently, Mr Watt said no.

“I think … obviously hindsight is a great thing,” he said.

“What do they call them, Monday-morning quarterbacks I think is the expression in America they use, there’s a lot of that around of course,” he added.

Asked about lessons to be learned, he said: “I can be facetious and say, you know, to have it all over again, is don’t make a decision, don’t try anything different, don’t be innovative.

“That might be the sad lesson people learn from this.

He added: “I think the real lesson is around communicating better and, you know, making sure people are aligned.”

Mr Watt claimed a message on the two-million euro figure was sent to the Minister for Health while he was in America but “his computer was hacked”.

“There was a technical issue that got in the way. I haven’t spoken about this before because that sounds like making excuses but that’s actually what happened.”

He said the machine was corrupted for four to five days and it then “slipped our mind” to inform the minister again.

“Whatever, we didn’t communicate with him. We should have.”

The two million euro annual fund could have risen to a total spend of 20 million before Dr Holohan’s potential retirement in 2023.

Asked if this would require Government or Department of Public Expenditure approval, Mr Watt said: “No, I don’t think it does, no.”

Asked by Sinn Fein TD Pearse Doherty if the minister knew on March 16 if Mr Watt had approved an allocation of two million euro, Mr Watt said: “I didn’t approve an allocation, I set out our intent to commit more money for research funding, it wasn’t an approval.”

Mr Watt did not accept Fianna Fail TD Jim O’Callaghan’s characterisation of the proposal as a “very casual arrangement”.

Mr Watt said it was never the intention for the funding to be awarded to any one college, particularly TCD.

“It was very clear that this was inter-institutional collaboration that we managed through the Health Research Board on a competitive basis.”

Asked when the HRB had agreed to allocate the funding, Mr Watt said there was an intention to engage with the board on that.

“The intention definitely would have been to have a conversation with the HRB,” he said.

Mr Watt noted that the HRB had since received an increase of two million euro for pandemic preparedness and is engaging with the university sector, adding they seemed to be “happy enough” with that.

The review also details significant differences in the accounts of Mr Watt and then Department of the Taoiseach chief of staff Deirdre Gillane.

Mr Watt told the review that he had informed Ms Gillane and that she was aware of “all the critical details” of the secondment, including the proposal to increase research funding.

He requested that comments relating to Government officials not being told be removed from the report.

“Based on the facts it is not accurate to suggest that Government or key players were not told,” he said.

In her submission to the review, Ms Gillane criticised some assertions made by Mr Watt as “grossly inaccurate and unwarranted”.

At committee, Mr Watt said he accepted the views of Department of the Taoiseach Secretary General Martin Fraser and Ms Gillane outlined in the report, adding that he believed it did not contradict his own submission.

He said the substantive points of the proposal were contained in the CMO’s letter to Mr Fraser.

“That’s all history now,” he said.

Earlier, the Minister for Health said he accepted Ms Gillane’s timeline of events was correct but added he would not take any action towards Mr Watt.

Stephen Donnelly said those involved in the proposed secondment of former chief medical officer (CMO) Dr Tony Holohan were acting in “good faith”.

“The report is very clear that Ms Gillane’s account of the timings is correct.”

Social Democrat TD Roisin Shortall asked the minister if he intended to take “any action” on that.

“I don’t, deputy,” he replied.

Asked by Sinn Fein health spokesperson David Cullinane about his submissions to the review, Mr Donnelly said his main point was that, notwithstanding the letter of intent, there would still have been procedures before the allocation of funding.

Asked if he was “kept in the dark” until very late in the process, Mr Donnelly said the report is “quite clear” on timelines.

Mr Cullinane said established processes had not been followed.

“This was informal, and that informality has led, I think, to a lot of problems,” he said.

Mr Donnelly said he would not disagree with that.