Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I ask the loquacious people in the Opposition to please consider that we all have a right to speak. It would be nice if we could silence everybody who had an opposing view but I believe in the democratic way. It is the oldest and still the best way.

We then went on to a situation whereby, as the problem got bigger, there was a necessity to increase the charge. Otherwise, the system would have collapsed and we would not have been in a position to supply any service. By "we" I mean the people whose board I sat on - the health board - and the Government backbenchers. I do not mind accepting full responsibility for those things but we have to view them in the light of circumstances prevailing at that time and not in light of current circumstances, which are totally and absolutely different.

Members of the Opposition will continue to say the Government does not know what it is talking about. Maybe they are right but that could apply to everybody in the House. Maybe they are also right and maybe they are not. The fact remains that we have the right to speak.

We arrived at the situation - Sinn Féin introduced this first - where there was a campaign, not so much on the need for but the fairness of having a charge for accommodation. It transpired there was no legislation to enable the charges to be made. That is fair enough but it did not previously stop charges from being made.

The legislation was produced and it was then possible to charge but what nobody has spoken about, the Opposition or anyone else, is that the alternative system was far more costly. The fair deal scheme was introduced in more recent times to try to accommodate the situation arising. It does no harm to remember. Situations like this will always be used by the Opposition, whatever its hue, to blame the Government of the day and previous Governments. If, however, we have arrived at a situation whereby in future we will examine our conscience and decide to address retrospectively every injustice that has been done, there will be a lot of time spent on that, and we better realise that.

In another Department, I had responsibility for a different situation. You could, for example, qualify for a contributory old-age pension if you had in excess of 21 years' contributions. Therefore, if you had 19 years' contributions you got no pension. If you had 21 years' contributions you got 98% of the pension. I thought that was unfair. I believe I was right and I was in a position to do something about it. Specifically, I was a Minister of State in that Department and I said I wanted to do something about it, having tabled countless questions about it in the House. I had all the information on cost. I remember well that the first information I got was that it would cost £700 million, a lot of money at that time, to change it. There were not too many people ponying up or making offers to concede in order to provide for the £700 million. I tried that for a couple of years. It did not work and I had no success. Then I did my own review, in my own country way, as we do down in the country, as you will know, a Cheann Comhairle, and I came up with a different assessment of the cost. I came up with an assessment that was not £700 million or £800 million but a simple £14 million. I had erred on the conservative side because, in fact, it was costing only £9 million. I am not saying I was right or wrong, but we changed the system at the time for £9 million. We did so because we were able to explain that the situation was such that the people would gain and society would gain as a result of the decision to deal with it now and to introduce a pro ratapension in order that if you had 70% of the contributions, you got 70% of the pension. Try it in any court of law you want; it will stand up. If you had 50% of the contributions, you got 50% of the pension. There were those who said at the time that 50% was no good. It is a lot better than nothing, and that is a fact. That still stands.

I say this by way of illustration of the circumstances that prevailed during the times with which everybody else is now familiar, and we have to recall them, but that is the situation we were in at that time. We do not claim any responsibility for doing what was deemed to be the right thing to do, and we probably would not have got any credit for it, but the fact of the matter is that things like that happen every day to every Government of every hue.

The Attorney General, to my mind, is right. We have to have the moral consideration on the one hand and, on the other, the recognition of the factual situation in respect of two things: the setting of a precedent and the cost. Those things have to be borne in mind always in government. If a Minister, a Deputy or anybody else wishes to go beyond that, and if the question is then raised as to how satisfactorily they intend to deal with the situation when it arises, they are always asked, if setting a precedent, whether they are happy to be blamed for that precedent. If they set a bad precedent, how will that fit? If they spend money in a way that is not as it should be, the examination of which is a role for the Comptroller and Auditor General, who seems to have a view on these things as well, there are repercussions. We had better realise that this situation is very sensitive, very important and genuine. Hardships were caused as a result of decisions taken at that time but when we resolve them we want to resolve them in such a way that will stand up.

The last point I will make is about a different subject, about which I have heard several times in the House. I do not understand why the Opposition has raised it. I refer to the question of the wrongdoings relating to the mother and baby homes and the church's responsibility in that regard. Let us not forget that society had a responsibility as well. Society, in particular, took an interest in what was happening and allowed it to happen and walked away. It was society not only in this country but in adjoining countries as well. When we criticise others we have to look at ourselves as well and ask ourselves how that fit with society at the time. The answer to that question is simply this: society went along with it. That is what happened, and the mothers and daughters will tell us that to this day. To be fair to us all, we should recognise that that was not an easy time - not in this country. There are those who say that it happened only in this country. It did not; it happened in every country to a greater or lesser extent. Therefore, when we criticise all those who are responsible we should not exclude society, all of us.

See this speech in context