Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)

The Deputy asked what I would consider to be a proper briefing. Mr. Travers has described it very succinctly in his report. It is nothing unusual or extraordinary. A sufficient briefing is fundamentally an analysis of a particular issue, an outline of the options a Minister could potentially pursue consequent on that analysis and recommendations by whoever is making the report on what the Minister should do. That, in essence, is what most people would understand to be a proper briefing on an issue of this substance and importance. Mr. Travers makes the point that at no stage, having gone through all the documentation covering over 28 years, did he come across such an analysis.

On the management advisory committee meeting, it is stated in the Travers report that the briefing documentation was e-mailed to the ministerial office or the outer office on the evening prior to that meeting. He has described my explanation — I did not read that particular documentation — as entirely and highly "credible and understandable". I would not have been in Dublin the evening before the meeting. I could have driven up late that evening or flown up the following morning. I would have gone straight to a Cabinet meeting on the day in question and perhaps had a quick bite to eat thereafter. I would have gone to meet the American ambassador thereafter and then straight to the management advisory committee meeting.

It is interesting what Mr. Travers says about the management advisory committee meeting. He actually describes it as a missed opportunity to brief me. One should remember that the legal opinion was with the Department for nine months prior to the meeting. There was plenty of time and sufficient opportunity to prepare the kind of briefing document I have described. Unfortunately that did not happen. I could have been briefed specifically on that issue well in advance of the management advisory committee meeting. I would like to recreate the atmosphere of that meeting. This was not flagged as a substantive issue. There were no alarm bells ringing about this either in advance of, or around, the meeting.

The key item on the agenda, on which several people briefed me, was the health reform programme. A couple of months later we were to set up the new health structures and the Health Service Executive. That had implications for the contracts for chief executive officers of health boards who were somewhat annoyed at the lack of progress in reassuring them about their future and the future of staff across health board administrations. That was the central concern. I was briefed to tell the chief executive officers there was a future for them in the health service.

Immediately after that meeting a further meeting was held with the chief executive officer of the Mid-Western Health Board to discuss the composition of the board that would be charged with implementing the Hanly proposals in the mid-west because we were concerned about certain proposals made by the health board on that issue. I remember that very clearly. They were the core issues. The other six items on the agenda were for brief mention only. No objective analysis of the agenda would give an impression that this was a substantial issue.

Political accountability entails coming into this House to answer questions and to account for one's time in office, which is critical, as well as taking responsibility for issues about which one knew and with which one was in a position to deal. The Opposition talked about maladministration. For years people have known about the difficulties in running the health services, the great pressure on staff in the Department of Health and Children and the almost daily need to react to events. I know this more than most because I was there for four years, nine months.

I was the first Minister in over 30 years to try to restructure that in line with the leadership of the Administration at that time. Flowing from the health strategy of 2001 we made a clear decision to look at how we structure and deliver health services. That gave rise to the Prospectus report which said the service should be changed to create a national delivery system, remove much of the operational detail from the Department and develop a more strategic framework with clear functions for the Department.

I attempted to alleviate pressure on the health service, a problem that had been known for a long time. It is in train and I set up the Health Service Executive on an interim basis and abolished the health boards, which we debated in the House. That was my role in dealing with the pressures under which people worked.

The Travers report refers to the parking of issues. I discussed the concept of eligibility in my speech. I was briefed regularly during and after the health strategy to the effect that our society needed to take a comprehensive look at its eligibility framework. For example, if one reads that document there is no clear framework for access to a range of community services, such as, dietary advice, speech and language therapy, physiotherapy etc. It was necessary to create a modern statutory framework covering the full range of eligibility across all the areas, including private nursing homes.

Deputy Healy alluded to some of the issues that emerged consistently in that respect. A sub-group formed as part of the health strategy to look at eligibility produced a document. The group included Department officials, members of the National Economic and Social Forum, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, UCD, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul etc.

See this speech in context