Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)

Others have dealt with the issue surrounding the 19 bodies affected. I seek to voice my concerns about one of the 21 bodies that have been established and dissolved in the relevant period, the National Rehabilitation Board. The Minister is not dealing with serious concerns about the legality of that process. Questions have been asked since 2000 as to whether the Minister was empowered to dissolve the NRB and distribute its assets without being required to comply with the employment and superannuation legislation.

The NRB was established under the enabling legislation, which is the 1961 Act. It was dissolved in 2000 under a statutory instrument of the Minister for Health and Children. The staff were reassigned to other agencies, under coercion. The assets were stripped from the organisation. It subsequently transpired, as was determined by the Ombudsman and High Court, that a legal lacuna exists. In 2001, the Employment Appeals Tribunal examined the termination of employment of an official of the NRB which arose from the dissolution of the organisation. The tribunal confirmed that redundancy payment was due from the NRB in 2000, as defined under the Redundancy Payments Acts. It further designated the Minister for Health and Children as the appropriate representative of the NRB, as the NRB was established and dissolved by that Minister.

In 2002, however, the Minister appealed this determination to the High Court. That court upheld the redundancy finding, stating that there seemed to be no provision in the statutory instrument to provide for people in the position of the defendant in the case. However, the court said it was not its function to correct that omission and that the tribunal was incorrect in attempting to attach responsibility to the Minister as representative. The outcome of the High Court decision is that redundancy was due. The body was initiated by the State under the Health (Corporate Bodies) Act. The Employment Appeals Tribunal, in further clarification of the law in 2004, assigned responsibility to the NRB, dissolved, which by definition had no assets.

The legal consequences of the tribunal and High Court decisions were that the Department of Health and Children and the HSE were advised by the offices of the Chief State Solicitor and the Attorney General in 2004 that the legal position warranted the award of an abolition of office pension in respect of that redundancy situation because of superannuation regulations. This pension, which was illegally withheld from 2000, was finally granted in 2006 to one person, on foot of a question in October 2005 from Deputy Enda Kenny. A total of 185 staff were employed by the NRB when it was dissolved by the Minister. Their superannuation entitlements were withheld from them at the time as a matter of Government policy. That policy did not conform to the law. Now, in 2007, the lawful position of the NRB staff is being obstructed by the State, with the declaration by the Department of Health and Children that the Minister has no responsibility for the acts of the NRB. This is a complete contradiction.

The Minister has failed to vindicate the legal entitlements of the NRB employees for the past seven years. Their superannuation entitlements were withheld as a matter of Government policy in 2000 and the responsibilities vested in the Minister under the Health (Corporate Bodies) Act 1961 have been sidestepped without reference to the law. The Oireachtas has failed to address the legal lacuna. In accordance with the Health (Corporate Bodies) Act 1961, who does the Minister suggest is responsible for the superannuation entitlements of the NRB staff as they existed in June 2000? Who in 2007 and 2008 will address the legal liabilities of the State with regard to the superannuation entitlements of all former NRB staff? The NRB pensions group should be invited to speak to the joint committee on health at the first opportunity in the new year.

See this speech in context