Mary Harney (Dublin Mid West, Independent)

The Ombudsman is critical of what she calls the marketing and spin involved in calling this the fair deal. On page 103 of her report, however, she refers to the nursing home support scheme being so poorly drafted that it would be incomprehensible to the average citizen or even the reasonably well educated lay person. It is difficult to believe this is valid criticism of legislation that is doing so much good.

As the Government was so concerned by the Ombudsman going way beyond her remit in her report, I wrote a strong letter on the advice of the Government and drafted by the Attorney General. Regarding fair procedures, twice after the Ombudsman initiated her inquiry she made public statements - once at the MacGill summer school in July and previously during the nursing home conference - in which she set out her views. This was at a time when she was asking the Department to respond. Eleven times the Department asked for a copy of her report, to which we were entitled under the Act. Section 6 states: "The Ombudsman shall not make a finding or criticism adverse to a person in a statement, recommendation or report under subsection (1), (3) or (5) of this section without having afforded to the person an opportunity to consider the finding or criticism and to make representations in relation to it." The report was out for two hours before we received a copy. A journalist could ring at 10.30 a.m. last Wednesday and tell us the gist of what the report contained. That is incredible, but it is the story. Fair procedures were not followed, which is not something I say lightly.

I am a strong fan of having an Ombudsman for Children and an Ombudsman, Ms Emily O'Reilly. They are important roles in a democracy. In the case of the latter, she protects the rights of citizens who have been grievously dealt with administratively by Governments. No more than myself or any other constitutional officeholder, though, the Ombudsman must operate within the law as laid down. I make no apologies for vigorously and robustly defending on behalf of my Department the fact that it could not reveal the legal strategy we were adopting.

Some 400 cases have been taken against us and how quickly a case advances is a matter for the plaintiff. There have actually been 13 settlements, so I was wrong last week when I said 12. We are vigorously defending the Mrs. B case referred to in the report. Many of the cases against us are taken by estates where the individuals concerned have passed on. If we were to compensate, we reckon the amount involved would be approximately €7 billion. There is no pot of money from which to compensate people, so the compensation would come from today's services. We could not possibly countenance that, nor could anyone in my position.

See this speech in context