Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)

——specifically because they were not viewed as requiring my presence. It is certainly not the case that I missed the discussion because I was late. All 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 manner 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 appreciate the urgency 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 16 December meeting. I will quote from the Official Report. The Deputy said: "At that meeting this was the main issue discussed." Over the years Deputy Rabbitte 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 meeting of 16 December, the matter should have been referred to the Attorney General but was not. 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 are not fixed, as the different statements submitted during the course of the inquiry show, there is no doubt about the core issue. The fact is the file was not given to me and nor is there any record of it being given to me. This is particularly relevant because there was no reason for me to see the file. I was not required to take any decision or sign anything and, in fact, it would have been a departure from normal practice for it to have been brought to my attention, just as in other Departments legal advice is sought from the Office of the Attorney General on a regular basis and Ministers rarely play a role in this regard.

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 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 matter:

Absolutely no documentation was made available to me to demonstrate or to indicate that the Minister had been fully and adequately briefed by the Department on the serious nature of the issues arising which the management of the Department acknowledge carried significant potential legal, financial and political consequences. Such briefings that did take place appear to be at the most superficial of levels.

Mr. Travers 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, even if all 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 and Children, the record will show that I was fully accessible to staff and willing to address issues even at the shortest of notice. At no time did I shy away from sensitive issues because they might have cost implications or reflect badly on Governments.

See this speech in context