Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)

Will the Tánaiste refer to what she told the House about long-stay charges in nursing homes and other institutions of the State, that there was "systemic maladministration"? On 3 March, when queried about this, she said specifically that maladministration did not relate only to officials. Subsequently, in the abridged and inadequate debate we had, Government Deputies argued, one after the other, that there was systemic maladministration relating to officials only. Will the Tánaiste tell the House to whom she was referring if it was not officials only? Will she name the Ministers who had knowledge and who were responsible? In particular, I wish to ask her about her colleague, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment? Why, on the night before the meeting in the Gresham Hotel, were briefing documents despatched to him, his officials and the two Ministers of State at that Department? Legal opinion secured by the then South Eastern Health Board was referred to in those documents as well as a memorandum explaining the view on it and that was discussed at the next meeting. We know that even if it is true that the Minister was absent, the two Ministers of State were there, as were his officials and advisers. We know that the Minister of State, Deputy Tim O'Malley, told Mr. Travers he understood the full legal, financial and political implications of what he had read. This probably shows that the Minister, Deputy Tim O'Malley, should be considered for promotion in that at least he reads his documents.

The Minister of State, Deputy Callely, briefed the Taoiseach, thereby taking out a very important insurance policy for him. He has now implicated the Taoiseach, who cannot sack him because he told him all about it. Will the Tánaiste explain why the Minister, Deputy Martin, is the only Member who knows nothing about what was going on? The information advanced to the House is simply unbelievable. The Tánaiste's decision not to release the documents from the Gresham Hotel meeting is surely calculated to protect her Cabinet colleague. Why will she not release the document from the then South Eastern Health Board? That is not her decision. Property, in that legal opinion, had been transferred to the HSE, following the establishment of that agency. Why should those documents not be made available in full to this House and to the committee examining the Travers report? It can be concealed for no other reason than to protect a culpable and incompetent Minister?

See this speech in context