The following is the full text of Micheál Martin's statement to the Dáil today:
"I welcome this debate as a chance for the House to consider what is an extremely detailed and comprehensive report. It is an opportunity for the House to consider all of what is actually in the report rather than the Opposition's spin on what is in it. The report goes into all elements of how a charge ruled illegal by the Supreme Court in 1976 was kept in place for 28 years. The facts of why the decision was made at that time to maintain the charge without making any attempt to regularise it, and why it was not dealt with until now, are complex and they reveal a substantial systems failure over 28 years. By presenting such an extensive treatment of the facts the report allows us to understand this failure.
I would like to comment primarily on those parts of the report, which relate to the last period, which it examines. Just like 160 other Deputies, I was not a member of the House in 1976 or for some time after that. I am not going to pretend to have detailed knowledge of events of that time, or for most of the subsequent period - though if we are to understand this issue we have to look at what happened during this time because the last few years fit fundamentally into a pattern established 28 years ago.
I feel it must be noted that for the last few months we have heard an ongoing cycle of spin and misrepresentation. Many people in this House have repeatedly tried to pre-empt and pre-judge this report. Now that it has been published, the same people are choosing to ignore facts, which don't suit their arguments. Faced with a choice between trying to examine and understand a major failure stretching across three decades or simply playing politics they have chosen the latter. The culture of playing the man and not the ball and foundation rocking is now so all pervasive for the opposition that they have no interest in serious debate.
Deputies Twomey and Kenny, for example, earlier this week issued a list of questions they said had to be answered by the report - even though they knew the report had been finished by then. What makes this even more breathtakingly cynical is that John Travers asked Fine Gael, just like other Opposition parties, if they wanted to make a submission to him. Fine Gael didn't even respond to him.
One of the biggest misrepresentations has been the attempt to confuse discussions on eligibility with discussions on the illegal charge enforced in 1976. The House should be very clear in this, eligibility criteria under health schemes are at the very heart of nearly all discussions on health policy. Discussions on eligibility take place all the time and will have played a significant role in the work of every Minister since 1976. The fact of the illegal charge and its imposition since 1976 is an entirely different issue; and the report is absolutely clear in saying that the discussion of one does not imply a discussion of the other.
If the Opposition is credibly suggesting that all eligibility discussions must, of necessity, have involved a discussion of the illegal charge, they must now explain why they are trying to apply a different standard to the last two years to the one they apply to Governments they participated in.
The root of this issue is to be found squarely in what the report calls the "foundation decision" of the regulation 7/76 signed by the Labour Party Minister for Health and Fine Gael Minister for Finance in 1976 and sent to the Health Boards. This and the letter sent to the Health Boards ignored the High Court's decision in the McInerney case and instructed the Boards that they were entitled to charge long-stay patients irrespective of whether they had full eligibility. From the point of this "foundation decision" the issue surfaced at different times and in different ways over 28 years.
As Mr Traver's Report shows, this issue was raised at various times over the years -.
To give a few examples from the report:
In 1979 the Department's legal advisor reiterated concerns about the 1976 regulations.
In January 1982 a specific review of the regulations said that they had no legal basis.
In 1987 a legislative change was proposed but not proceeded with.
In 1992 a review of long-stay charges was completed and legislative change advocated.
In 1994 the Health Strategy stated that the legislative basis for charges was inadequate and promise legislative change.
In inquiring into the period during which I was Minister, John Travers had full access to every document and every person involved in the issue. He examined all aspects of how the issue was raised or failed to be raised.
In relation to the extension of Medical Card cover to the over-70s through the Health Amendment Act 2001 the report shows that no submission was made to me that existing charges were illegal and that they should be regularised through the legislation. The report does show, however, that the Act ultimately forced clarification of the issues. There is no doubt that the receipt of a legal opinion prepared for the South Eastern Health Board in March 2003 should have led to rapid action. The report confirms that the first action, which was taken involved it being referred to a joint meeting of the Department's Management Committee and the CEOs of the Health Boards. This meeting was held on December 16 thof that year and of the many elements dealt with in the report it is the one where the difference between the facts and the political attacks is most significant.
The issue was listed on an agenda with 13 other items under the title "long stay charges - over 70s" and was explicitly stated as being for "brief mention only". The major topic for the meeting was intended to be, and was, the health reform programme including the future position of the CEOs. It is accepted by Mr Travers that I was not present at the meeting when this issue was discussed and decided upon and Mr Travers confirms that the decision to seek AG advice was a "predictable" one. The report confirms the position of all present at the meeting that the reform programme was the dominant issue and that it was followed by a meeting on the Hanly proposals.
The record shows that the items for brief mention were taken before I arrived specifically because they were not viewed as requiring my presence. It is certainly not a case of me having missed the discussion because I was late - and all of the persons who attended the meeting confirmed that the item merited only a short discussion. The context of the discussion was that clarification was to be sought before it could be substantively considered.
In light of the manner of the distribution of the briefing materials; the way in which the issue was listed on the agenda; the brevity of the discussion and the fact that it was discussed as a matter requiring clarification before its importance could be assessed - I do not see how the Ministers of State or advisers present could reasonably have been expected to know the seriousness of the issue. This fits exactly into the pattern of briefings over 28 years, which the report describes as being "at the most superficial of levels" and "completely inadequate".
On Tuesday of last week Deputy Rabbitte made statements in this House about the treatment of the issue at the December 16 thmeeting. The Deputy said, and I quote from the transcript, "At that meeting this was the main issue discussed". Over the years the Deputy has established a unique reputation for his willingness to read rumours into the record of the House. In light of the clarity of the report in showing that his statement was completely false, and also his often stated demands that the record of the House be corrected, I look forward to hearing the Deputy withdrawing this statement and explaining why he chose to make it.
Following the December 16 thmeeting the matter should have been, but was not referred to the Attorney General. Exactly why this was not done is not clear, it seems to have been an error, which arose due to the undoubted large workload then being carried by officials. .
While the recollections of officials differ and, as the different statements submitted during the course of the inquiry show, are not fixed, there is no doubt about the core issue. The fact is that the file was not given to me and furthermore, nor is there any record of it being given to me. This is particularly relevant because there was absolutely no reason for me to see the file. I was not required to take any decision or sign anything. In fact, it would have been a departure from normal practice for it to be brought to my attention. Just as in other Departments, legal advice is sought from the Attorney General's office on a regular basis and Ministers very rarely play a role in this.
The report also lays to rest the idea that I or my predecessors were briefed in any substantive way on the illegal charges and issue of retrospection. It states that irrespective of whether or not it is accepted that the issue was mentioned, any briefings, which may have happened, were "at the most superficial of levels" and "completely inadequate to what was required. It is worth quoting the report fully on this:
"Absolutely no documentation was made available to me to demonstrate to indicate that the Minister had been fully and adequately briefed by the Department of the serious nature of the issues arising which the management of the Department acknowledged carried significant potential legal, financial and political consequences. Such briefings that did take place appear to be at the most superficial of levels"
It also states:
"I have come across many expressions of views in the course of preparing this report that suggest that over the years Ministers were "informed", "advised", "briefed" "told" in relation to the issues concerned….... However if such contentions are correct … they would be completely inadequate to what was required given the nature, substance, risks and inevitable negative consequences of the practices in place"
During my time as Minister for Health, the record shows that I was fully accessible to staff and willing to address issues even at short notice. At no time did I shy away from sensitive issues because they might have cost implications or because they might reflect badly on governments. This is a policy, which I have followed throughout my Ministerial career.
In the normal course of events with an emerging issue, the relevant officials would seek a meeting with me, the issues and course of action would be discussed and decision arrived at.
The recollections of people about whether or not something was mentioned in passing as part of other discussions has been considered in detail by the report. Even if every person shared exactly the same recollections, there is absolutely no suggestion that briefings amounted to a substantive treatment which would have allowed Ministers to know about the seriousness of the issue or to take action.
The Opposition has been stating for some time that I and others 'must have known'. This is a way of ignoring the full evidence of the information available to us. If it is the Opposition's decision to reject the findings of the report on this, let them say so in a clear way. And there should be no mistake in understanding this, if we accept the Opposition's contention that Ministers 'must have known' because of the information in this report, they are rejecting a central finding of the report. If they want to do this, they must then get down to the business of showing how exactly the same types of briefings when involving Ministers of their parties should be treated differently. If they are saying that Ministers should be able to know about every issue and take action on the basis of "superficial" and "completely inadequate" briefings, then let them say so.
The report also considers the issue of what would have happened had I and my predecessors been fully briefed. It has been suggested that we would have shied away from it because it was too sensitive. The report states that the evidence does not support this as the required amendment is relatively uncomplicated, the idea that there should be such a contribution is widely accepted and that, and I quote;
In the context of the many difficult and controversial decisions taken by successive Governments and Ministers of Health over the years, a legislative change on the lines required to effectively legitimise existing practice could not plausibly be regarded as one of undue political difficulty.
As I have previously stated, at different times during my Ministerial career I have shown a full willingness to take on issues which were viewed as highly sensitive and which showed failures over many years. For example, as Minister for Education, I reversed the policy of the previous Government of ignoring issues of child abuse in state institutions. I opened up the state's files and provided funding for groups whose aims involved questioning the role of the state. In this case, had I been aware that an illegal charge was in place, I would have dealt with it.
However, I want to say again, as I have said in the past, everybody in the Department of Health carries a large workload and there is generally no let up in terms of major issues to be dealt. As Mr Travers notes "The life and death nature of the issues with which it is concerned, the scale, the breadth handled and the constant media and political attention all combine to produce an environment of immense organisational and individual work pressures in which the urgent constantly conspires to drive out the important. Mr Travers further notes that this practice of charges for persons in long stay care in health board institutions was a case of "good intentions not being supported by the requisite legal foundations"
I strongly agree with the report's conclusions concerning the need to reform the operations of the Department. In this context, the report explicitly cites the structural reform programme, which I developed and put in place, as offering a 'new beginning' for the Department.
This was the very intention of the programme, which is the most significant reform of the Department since its establishment. The Department has to be given the space to set strategies and oversee them, rather than be involved in minute issues of implementation.
This report shows a 28-year story of the failure to deal with a problem, which could easily have been rectified. The issue should have been brought clearly to the attention of successive Ministers, but it was not. Having considered in detail all elements of the information given to Ministers the report has concluded that it was at most provided "at the most superficial of levels" and was "completely inadequate to what was required.""