Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy for raising this issue again. I emphasise that this is largely an historical issue. It relates to nursing home charges prior to 2005, which is more than 18 years ago and disability payments prior to 2007 or perhaps even prior to 1996 and largely relates to laws from the 1970s. We do not have all the facts yet - nobody does. As I said last week, we will do whatever is legally required, just and in the public interest.

The Attorney General's report is now published. It takes about 20 or 25 minutes to read. I encourage everyone to read it from cover to cover. The House can debate it tomorrow and I know Oireachtas joint committees will also want to discuss this matter. The Ministers for Health and Social Protection will study this matter and revert to Government with a further report in under three months.

There are some important points from the Attorney General's report which are worth putting on the record of the House. The Attorney General points out very clearly that the State's only interest is the public interest. There is no other interest that the State can have regard to than the public interest. That means taking into account the justice of any claims made by people on the State. It means taking into account taxpayers as well as taking into account those who depend on public services today, such as children in our schools, patients in our hospitals and older people who need home care.

The Attorney General points out that anyone taking a case or defending case has a legal strategy. Either someone taking a case against the State or the State itself has a legal strategy. That is confidential and the fact that is confidential or secret is not sinister in any way. He also points out that anyone taking a case or defending a case has privilege. It would not be fair for anyone to expect one side to waive privilege if the other is not willing to do so.

He also points out that Cabinet documents are confidential and are protected by the Constitution. Even the Government does not have the authority to release them. He also points out that the State is it is not a normal litigant. I have heard people describe the State as being callous or operating like a company in the way it defends cases. That is not the case. All the time the Government takes decisions do things that it is not legally required to do. We have a 100% redress scheme for mica and for people who live in defective apartment blocks. No court has found, nor would any court find, that the State, central Government, is 100% responsible for that.

There are other examples such as the symphysiotomy scheme established by the former Minister James Reilly and followed through by me when I was Minister for Health, which provided a redress scheme even though the women concerned, with one extreme exception, lost all their cases in court. We also have other schemes such as the mother and baby homes institutions scheme, for example, where the commission of investigation found many people responsible for what happened there but only the State has stepped forward to fund a redress scheme.

Importantly, he also points out that in settling it case, it is essentially a compromise. Settling a case does not mean acceptance of being in the wrong. It is done by agreement on both sides. Cases cannot be settled unless both sides agree to settlements. Nobody can be forced to a settlement. They are always free to have their case tested in court and these cases may yet be tested in court.

See this speech in context