Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)

I wish to return to the issue of long-stay charges. We do not know what this cock-up will cost the taxpayer. The Government cannot tell us, but it estimates it could be up to €2 billion. We have had no political accountability from the Government, while one civil servant has been promoted sideways. As the House rises for the Easter recess, the Government is clearly calculating that media interest will wane, the taxpayer will cough up and nobody will be responsible. The Tánaiste implied political culpability when she stated that systemic maladministration did not just involve officials. Now she retreats behind the Travers report for shelter and states that it found no Minister culpable. Travers found no paper record that states that the former Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, was sufficiently briefed. However, it is admitted in the report that two Ministers of State knew about it. The Minister of State, Deputy O'Malley, stated that not only did he know about it, but that he understood that "they would give rise to significant legal, operational, financial and political implications." He went on to state mysteriously that the issues involved did not fall within his area of responsibility in the Department, so he never went back to them. He is the Minister of State with responsibility for mental health and there are many people within that area. However, I presume he means that the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, was responsible. We know the Minister of State, Deputy Callely, knew because the Travers report states that he told the Taoiseach about it. However, the Minister claims he did not know.

Mr. Kelly states that he briefed the Minister twice and we know that documents were sent to him the night before, spelling out the implications. However, the Minister says he never read them. Yet when the Tánaiste asked Mr. Kelly to prepare a report for her for Cabinet, we know that Mr. Kelly had a secret meeting with the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin. Why would Mr. Kelly want to compare notes with a Minister who knows nothing about it? I am bemused by that and we have had no explanation. The Tánaiste has made her reputation as a purveyor of high standards in politics. Yet when she found out about all this, she decided to legislate to make it legal retrospectively. When the Supreme Court struck it down, she stated that she welcomed it because it brought clarity to the issue. She then implied in this House that Ministers knew. She then commissioned the Travers report for shelter and defended the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, by claiming that he knew nothing about it. How can anyone who has read the Travers report reach that conclusion? How can the Tánaiste be happy to serve in Government with him and his two Ministers of State? Unlike the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, the Ministers of State had the guts to admit they knew all about it.

See this speech in context