Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)

I congratulate the Ombudsman for producing this detailed report, which meant her office having to travel a difficult road, and for being fearless in that respect. As her report states, she did encounter hostility from both the administrative and political side of Government. That is hugely regrettable. Coming as it does hotfoot on a previous report by the Ombudsman into the Lost at Sea case, it reflects poorly on the Government. It also indicates a pattern of behaviour by this Government that is contemptuous of the Office of the Ombudsman when it seeks to vindicate the rights of individual citizens. That is a regrettable departure upon which the Minister should reflect seriously. When it was established under legislation in the 1980s, the Office of the Ombudsman enjoyed the support of all sides of this House. Clearly, however, the actions of the Minister and the Government, both in the context of this report and the Lost at Sea report, reflect a clear departure in respect of the Government's policy towards the Office of the Ombudsman.

It is interesting to note that there are no Green Party representatives in the Chamber. When the Lost at Sea report was raised initially the Government attempted to bury it, but at the insistence of the Green Party it was referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Regrettably, however, the approach of "might is right" operates in committee. An inbuilt Government majority means that, having gone through the contents of that report in forensic detail, the committee divided along party political lines. It is regrettable that there were no Green Party members on the committee. The Fianna Fáil majority on the committee voted to reject entirely the findings of the Ombudsman's office.

As we can now see, at least initially, a similar report from the Government reflects the combined thinking of Independents, Fianna Fáil and the Greens. That is an alarming departure. If this was a functioning Legislature we should leave our party political hats outside the door in order to bring our distilled wisdom to bear on this report, as well as making recommendations which would have the imprimatur of a committee of this House acting in unison. Because of the Whips system, however, there is an immaturity beyond belief which demonstrates the Legislature's lack of self confidence. We hide behind political Whips while serious work, such as these two reports, are jettisoned for party political reasons. That is hugely regrettable.

In anticipation of this debate, I tabled two questions for the Minister for Health and Children. Unfortunately, however, for some unknown reason, the Ceann Comhairle stated that the Minister had no official responsibility to Dáil Éireann for these matters as they anticipated the debate on Private Members' business scheduled for this week. The questions concerned the amount of compensation paid and the number of legal cases pending. I cannot understand why the Office of the Ceann Comhairle believes that providing such information in advance of this debate would in some way seriously undermine our capacity to have a rational discussion, or in some way transgress the rights of Members or of the Minister to protection.

As a Member of this House I am fed up of being abused by a process which means that I cannot carry out my duties as an elected Member to hold Ministers to account. This system is broken beyond repair. It requires radical surgery to make this a functioning democratic Legislature whereby we would not just rubber stamp decisions but would hold Ministers to account. That is a clear weakness in the current system.

This report is essentially about section 52 of the Health Act 1970 and whether rights to nursing home care as enshrined in that legislation were denied. I was doing a quick calculation and I think that reflects on the management of 13 different Governments and possibly more Ministers for Health in that period. In so far as we on this side of the House may have been implicated in the denial of those rights, I wish to apologise personally to people who were adversely affected. The Ombudsman's report clearly states that there was a denial of entitlement. Given the precarious nature of our public finances, it is fortunate that the Ombudsman did not go down the road - as she did in the previous report on the Lost at Sea scheme - of outlining a solution. The hardship that was suffered by the denial of these rights caused serious financial pain to those who were adversely affected. It is a reflection on the maturity of the Office of the Ombudsman that it has not gone down that road, but asked this House to reflect on the matter. If we had displayed some degree of maturity in reflecting on an Ombudsman's previous report, that would have been the way to proceed. Regrettably, however, we have not done so, which is a big problem.

The HSE assumed the responsibilities of eight former health boards, but it is now beyond redemption. The Minister knows it is impossible to get any accountability through representations by individual Members via parliamentary questions. For instance, when I sent in a query nearly two months ago about a development in my constituency, a senior manager in the HSE South replied stating this matter would be dealt with as a matter of urgency. Two months later, however, I have still received no response. The same body issued an unwritten edict to senior staff in the throes of the 2007 general election to say that no bad news was the emanate from the HSE South during that campaign. That is a fact, so the HSE is beyond redemption. It betrays the good efforts of thousands of its frontline staff, in addition to well-intentioned middle management. The sooner the HSE's structure is dismantled the better. We should start again with a blank canvas to put in place a public administration for our health services that captures the abilities of those who work there. It should enable them to deliver services more efficiently.

The report accuses the HSE and the Government of obstruction and unprecedented intervention. The Government amendment asks the House to note that the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman relates primarily to administrative actions and does not encompass issues such as Government policy, legislation passed by the Oireachtas, the conduct of litigation by the State and the wider governmental process. In her reply to this debate, the Minister should explain how the Ombudsman can carry out her duties if she is not entitled to assess how those charged with implementing legislation carry out their administrative functions. How can the Ombudsman conduct her functions if she is not in a position to assess how administrators interpret legislation passed by this House? She is not seeking to direct or overturn legislation, but in the administrative process is seeking to see if legislation is being properly implemented.

Deputy Crawford referred to the interview given by the Minister when she appeared on the "Prime Time" television programme. The Minister wanted to draw a line under everything that happened up to the introduction of the nursing home subvention scheme. The scheme is welcome and has delivered some clarity to the situation, but it was as if we should not hold anybody to account for anything that had happened prior to that date. While the Minister and the Government may wish that to be so, it simply cannot be the case. If citizens were previously denied their entitlements and legal rights just because we addressed the matter from a specific date, it does not mean that discrimination did not happen or that those responsible should not be held to account.

The Government amendment goes on to state that Dail Éireann notes with concern the way this particular investigation was undertaken and in particular the failure to follow fair procedure. Time does not allow me to elaborate on all of the issues I would like to address in respect of the report before us. It would be preferable to proceed by referring this report to a committee of the House to investigate it in a forensic manner. The experience of referring the Ombudsman's report on the lost at sea scheme to a committee of the House was futile and meaningless. I sat through every deliberation of the committee for many weeks, with all parties given an opportunity, but the fact that deliberations of the committee were thwarted by a simple vote that was railroaded through by a Government majority raises the question of what the purpose is here. The Government sees this House as a nuisance and an interference in its divine mission to govern. That mission will come to an abrupt end shortly but we need to reform the way this House does business. It is not serving the best interests of the citizens we represent. It will seriously undermine the Ombudsman's office if it does not take this report seriously.

See this speech in context