Mary Harney (Dublin Mid West, Progressive Democrats)

They are the boss. We have a sophisticated system of democratic Government and accountability. Sometimes it is cumbersome, sometimes it is very procedural but it is democratic and fair. Ultimately, no one can be exempt from answering for the level of responsibilities they are given, or have sought, in public service.

I believe in political accountability and I am prepared to accept political accountability, clear, undiluted and unequivocal. I only ask of others what I ask of myself. I will answer for my decisions and for the decisions of any Government of which I am a part. I accept I can make mistakes. Governments can make mistakes. I believe there can be a tolerance for error. I do not think we should create moral and political gridlock by setting impossibly high standards for anyone in public service, elected or official.

I am required to take political responsibility by answering to the Oireachtas and I am not talking about the zero sum game of political charges across the floor of the House. I do not believe that if one comes away with a nil-all draw, one is somehow discharging one's political responsibility.

I believe in simple, straightforward accountability to the Oireachtas: an honest account of information available to a Minister, the reasons for decisions and an explanation of the substance and effect of those decisions. This is not rocket science or high political theory. It is the straightforward approach I adopt when I speak in the House, when I bring forward legislation, or when I sign off on 300 or more parliamentary questions on a particular day.

I am the political head of the Department of Health and Children and I will answer for that. As political head of the Department, I will work with everyone to learn from these events and work towards top class public sector performance. I said to each member of the departmental staff yesterday that I recognise the administrative culture of any Department is influenced by the style and leadership of its political head. I accept my responsibility in the coming months and years to lead the Department with a professional, effective and trusting relationship between officials and Ministers.

The Travers report speaks for itself about the extent of administrative and political responsibility for the handling of the charges issue. There is no fudge in his conclusions: there has been systemic administrative failure. There have also been lapses of judgment over the years by Ministers and they could have probed issues more. The main failure has been administrative.

Mr. Travers is a man of great integrity. I accept his assessment wholly and entirely as that of a highly skilled, professional, former civil servant. He knows what he is talking about on these issues.

I stand over my handling of this issue since October last. I asked for legal advice as soon as the issue was rased in the House by Deputy Kenny. There was a legal issue and I sought advice. I acted on legal advice when I received it. I stopped the charges within a day of being told they should stop. I confirmed my belief that there had been political and public support over many years for the principle that people should make some contribution towards the cost of shelter and maintenance.

I took seriously the problem of a loss of income of €10 million per month to our health services. It can be difficult enough to find an extra €1 million when needed. The health boards or the Health Service Executive could not easily do without €10 million per month.

I quickly prepared legislation for the Government. Most unfortunately, the Government's decisions on the Health (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2004 were based on inaccurate and incomplete information. The Attorney General's advice in advance of that decision was based in part on poor, inaccurate and incomplete information.

I do not know what we would have decided if we had had all the information in the Travers report available to us last December. It is hypothetical and I cannot speculate. I have no doubt our decision-making process would have been substantially different had we had the full facts then.

People will now say we should have waited for any consideration of the charges issue until we had the full information contained in the Travers report. That misses the point. I did ask for a full report for myself and for the Government on the issue. We were entitled to rely wholly on that information. Our system of Government would collapse if we had to ask for a second, external report every time we asked for information from the Civil Service. We would end up creating a second Civil Service. We rely on our Civil Service for very good reason because the norm is that information is accurate, relevant and complete.

I have been accused of instituting the Travers report as political cover for the Government's decision on retrospection. That is a vile charge. It shows ignorance of the facts and ignorance of how Government makes its decisions. I asked for Mr. Travers' report when it become clear to me, after the Government meeting of Tuesday, 14 December, that the information made available to the Government was incorrect in a key respect. I saw a need for a professional external evaluation to be carried out quickly and efficiently. The discovery process for the Supreme Court hearings and work on the Travers report began in parallel in January. In the course of both, my Department brought me some of the information now in the Travers report. The result was that in the Supreme Court, counsel for the State did not argue that the charges had been made in good faith. I was also obliged to correct the record of the House in respect of the statements the Taoiseach and I made that these charges had been levied in good faith and the Department believed it had a legally defensible position. I very much regret this.

The Government made its decision on retrospection in the December legislation, based on legal advice and in the context of a different understanding of what it might be required to repay if court cases were taken. I believe it is relevant that none of the main political parties insisted, either now or back in December, that the policy should be to repay all the amounts back to 1976, and that the Statute of Limitations should not be used in respect of estates.

This begs the question as to what was to be done about repayments as a legal requirement or as policy choice. That question confronted the Government from the start last December. This complex issue can only be addressed with precise information, but as I have pointed out, the information given to me and to the Government was not fit for that purpose.

I stand over what I said in the debate in the House on the Supreme Court decision. Had the Government taken any other action, the public and the people in public long-term care places would still be mired in legal uncertainty and there would be a multiplicity of legal cases for years ahead about repayments of charges.

I return to the main point. Approximately 315,000 people were illegally charged during 28 years and this was entirely wrong. As vulnerable people they were especially entitled to the protection of the law and to legal certainty about their situation. The charges should never have been made illegally, even though the principle of charging for shelter and maintenance had broad public and political acceptance. This is a society ruled by law; no person and no organisation can dispense with or alter a law. I will meet my political accountability under the law for my ministerial role, for Government decisions and for the legislation I bring to this House.

See this speech in context