Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)

The House will have to wait until another day for Deputy McManus's incisive contribution. I must finish this point.

The Government would have us believe the former Minister for Health and Children is personally insulated in circumstances where his two Ministers of State were present, where his two advisers were present, where he had received an advance briefing paper, and where he had received the minutes afterwards, and that he knows nothing, like Manuel in "Fawlty Towers". We are expected to believe he never read the advance briefing paper, that he never read the minutes when they issued, and that he knows nothing about it. Nobody who has ever served in Government would believe that is possible. It is entirely implausible, and I suspect the Minister Deputy Martin knows it.

Political accountability in this case rests on two questions. First, did the former Minister for Health and Children know or could he reasonably have been expected to know of the problem of illegal charging for nursing home care? Second, if he knew, did he act at appropriate speed to close off the accumulating liability to the State? The only rational inference and answer in respect of the first question is "yes", that he knew. The answer to the second question is "no", that he did not act. I use the phrase "could reasonably have been expected to know" advisedly. I do not believe a Minister can be expected to keep tabs on the location of every paper clip in his Department. However, I expect him to ask questions and to inform himself on crucial matters. This Minister would have us believe he did not do that. I cannot accept that.

I am on record in this House and elsewhere as acknowledging the integrity of the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children in political and other matters. The Tánaiste, whether she likes it or not, mounted her white steed this morning and she is protected by a halo, a Colgate ring of protection that does not surround the rest of us. It is very important this House should know that it was Deputy John Perry and not the Tánaiste who caused this matter to be investigated in the Department. When the Tánaiste learned about it she compounded the original error by seeking to legislate to make it retrospectively legal. It is fair that should be recorded.

When the Tánaiste says she will not adjudicate as between the conflicting positions of Mr. Michael Kelly and the former Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Mícheál Martin, she is evading her responsibility. She knows the implications and she ought to come down on one side or the other. As far as I am concerned, it is patently clear that Mr. Michael Kelly has quite properly taken the honourable course because there was failure on the part of the administrative Government, although I do not regard a sideways promotion to the HEA as much of a penalty.

It is equally clear that there was even more gross dereliction of duty on the part of political Government and that the Minister proposes to take no such honourable course. This is a very bad day for accountability. I propose to send this report to Mr. David Blunkett as an illustration of what would happen if he were a Minister in this jurisdiction. He resigned from Government because he was accused of fast tracking an application for a non-national. If a Fianna Fáil Minister did not fast track the application, he would probably lose his place in Government.

The State is being exposed to a bill of what the Tánaiste thinks might be €2 billion and the Minister responsible seeks to tell us he knew nothing. That is simply not plausible. Unless he is accusing the civil servants of a conspiracy of silence there is no rational explanation. We know from the Travers report that they knew. Therefore, the Minister must be saying they conspired not to tell him. Does the Chair believe that? I certainly do not believe it, and there is only one honourable course for this Minister to take at the end of today's debate.

See this speech in context