John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

We should understand that the reason we are here today is because of Mr. Shane Corr and the articles in the Daily Mail, which carried banner headlines about rights delayed, justice denied, revelations, memos and the whole lot; front-page stuff.

If we want to understand this, we only need to go back to contribution made by the then Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children, Mary Harney, to the Seanad in March 2005 when she set out the history of this issue and referred to the High Court decision that was upheld by the Supreme Court. She said that: "At the time the regulations were introduced, the Department issued a circular to the health boards effectively telling them that they could move people away from full eligibility by taking away their medical cards."

That is just outrageous. It does not shock me anymore because I have seen this tactic in play in many different Departments. However, when we see it set out in black and white, dating back to 2005, we begin to understand that there is, indeed, a strategy here; there is a practice being followed. That practice, essentially, is to defend the State at all costs, whether it is right or wrong, and down the citizen, or ensure the muscle of the State wins over a person or group taking an action.

The former Minister went on to say that "by removing the medical cards, they became ... [people of] limited eligibility and could be charged." She continued that with regard to "the High Court and Supreme Court decisions, the then legal adviser of the Department of Health, as it then was, stated it was not possible to amend primary legislation by regulation, which is significant."

The Eastern Health Board brought forward the legal advice it had received, which stated:

The difficulties being experienced in levying charges on persons for long-stay care in health board institutions 'arises from the failure of the legislature to deal with the question of charges for maintenance ... in a clear and unambiguous fashion when the 1970 legislation was being passed'.

Basically, it went on from there with people knowing it was a problem and yet the Department did not address it. As this went on, and the Department sought advice but did not do anything about it, we come to the famous meeting in the Gresham Hotel. The Gresham grandees at that particular meeting were advised because Mary Harney in her report to the Seanad said that advice had been distributed. The Travers report referred to the accountability necessary by both the administrators of State - the bureaucracy - and Minister for Health. Travers went on to state:

I did not exclude the politicians from responsibility for these matters, I said that the politicians should have probed more deeply over the years and I include the former Minister, Deputy Martin, in this. This probing was not done.

It was dysfunctional within the Department. The normal, standard procedures were not followed. The result was that people were deprived of their rights and that a strategy was put in place as to what was needed to be done.

This is not new to me. We have seen it elsewhere, for example, in the case of Shane Corr who is now making all these revelations in the media. Is now the time to invite Mr. Corr in, in the response to all of his letters to the Minister, to talk to him in detail about what has yet to come? Mr. Corr has said there is more to come. We need to know what that "more" is.

Is it not time to look back on the issues within the Department? The thalidomide issue has been mentioned. It is yet unresolved but the Department continues to spend millions of euro on legal advice to fight off those thalidomide victims who are left, in trying to ensure that time will take care of things. That is a shocking policy or strategy to be employed by the State.

In the Grace case there was a similar Thursday debate here and we said that we would return to that issue because of what it revealed and yet nothing has happened. We continue to wait for the final outcome of the Farrelly commission report, but in the meantime the legal eagles and officials in the HSE are undermining the board of the agency in Waterford that was at the centre of this. The board members are trying to do the right thing. They are lay persons and over this coming weekend they are considering whether they should resign altogether or not from that. These are decent people making an effort to do the right thing but they are being confronted by the HSE and its legal arm to ensure they move things on away from the HSE and on to some other issue.

Let us consider the Vicky Phelan case and the bravery of that woman in not signing a confidentiality agreement and for coming out to deal with the issues openly and honestly. She too revealed a State that was continually trying to undermine the citizen, the person who was wronged by these strategies. It is there for everyone to see and the Minister seems to deny it in here. It now seems also to be denied by the Government. That is wrong. The first duty of a government is to keep its people safe. We are not keeping our people safe. We are exposing them to all sorts of litigation challenges just to protect the interests of a few within government that are attempting to keep a secret, and we are colluding with senior officials and politicians to keep that secret of so many years, while at the same time dealing an awful hand to those seeking justice and truth and to those who want to address an issue that should be addressed without all of these legal costs that are involved. This is all while the State hides behind this Attorney General's report.

This issue is not about that report. This controversy is about what was not done by Ministers. I have never seen as many of the Gresham grandees run for cover. If there was an Olympic gold medal then each one of them would get one. They run for cover and pretend they did not hear it. They do not address it. It is a case of if you do not hear it you do not know about it. It was not true because Mary Harney stated in her contribution to the Seanad that, in fact, they all knew. Someone has to call a halt to all of this and restore the rights and dignity to people who are trying to get justice for themselves. I agree with Deputy O'Dowd's comments earlier that in spite of all the positive things we may have done for older people, they are the very cohort of people in society that are feeling the pinch of everything the hardest. It is unfair, it is unjust and I put it to the Minister that it is not good politics. It is not good politics to come in and attempt to defend the indefensible. Tell the truth and shame the devil.

See this speech in context