Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter, which is highly concerning. First, I want to commend those who have helped to bring it to light, which has allowed us to discuss it in this fashion today. What is involved here is the State bullying into submission those who could not afford the risk of high legal fees to seek justice and compensation, those who were wrongly charged but either did not have the means or the knowledge to go about seeking redress. Instead of protecting and serving them, we have politicians and officials strewn throughout this debacle trying to manipulate these people into silence and submission.

I have read the Attorney General's report a number of times but it is fair to say my concerns have not been alleviated by it. Its second paragraph states "This account has accordingly had to be prepared on the basis of documentation readily available, and within a very compressed period of time." What documentation was readily available and more importantly, what documentation exists that was not readily available to the Attorney General? In paragraph No. 9, the Attorney General states the "period of time covered by the issues of controversy addressed in this Report includes an era in which the Government’s finances were very strained". Apart from the fact that the strain on the Government's finances at the time is irrelevant, how much did it cost in legal fees to settle these cases? In paragraph No. 13, the Attorney General states "Paying for the choice by citizens to take up beds in private nursing homes was, put simply, a benefit that the State never agreed to provide for its citizens, and legislation passed by the Oireachtas in 2006 and 2009 reflected this policy choice". In his report, the Attorney General is suggesting that the cases at the heart of this issue arose out of a choice to go into private care but it is my understanding, and that of everyone involved, that some people ended up in being placed in a private nursing home because the State was unable to provide a place in a public one. A test case has not been determined or even brought before the courts.

In paragraph No.14, the Attorney General states "the irresistible logic of such a perspective is that the State has unlimited resources, must concede every Court case that is brought against it, and must fund every claim for compensation or redress that is demanded of it". This is not a typical compensation case, nor is it a typical case for redress and it should not be framed as such. It is a case where the charges were taken in a way they should not have been taken and where, at a later date, the Government was prevented by the Supreme Court from making changes retrospectively in legislation to make those charges legal. By no means is this a typical compensation or redress issue.

Paragraphs Nos. 95 to 98 highlight the fact that in 2004 the Government sought to validate the maintenance charges which health boards had imposed. The only reason the Government would seek to do so in 2004 is because those charges were previously invalid. The health boards had been acting ultra vires. This in itself is an admission that the charges should never have been taken from people in the manner in which they were. Paragraph No. 171 references the "safeguarding" of public moneys. This phrase is disingenuous and is a most disingenuous way of describing the situation. This is not typically compensation or redress and should not be framed as such. This is about moneys illegally gathered by the State that should have just been paid back. There should not have been a debate about it. The strategy is a common one, as we now know, within the mysterious workings and back streets of Government Departments, with files that are labelled secret. If this is a regularly used strategy, let us hope that others will have the bravery and wherewithal to come out, blow the whistle and shine a light on it.

Unfortunately, the Attorney General's report merely raises more questions than it answers. I will be calling for an independent inquiry to be established into this whole affair if the three months of discussions in the interim do not provide the answers. It is an extraordinary day when the Government seeks to hide behind the Statute of Limitations to deny the most vulnerable in society what is rightfully theirs. The Statute of Limitations is a bargain basement defence that should be afforded to the most marginalised in society, not one that big Government can rely on to screw poor Joe and Mary. The Attorney General's opinion may be legally correct as of today but it is morally reprehensible and one given through a rear-view mirror. Relying on the Statute of Limitations in today's realm leaves me without words.

As Fintan O'Toole put it in The Irish Timeson Tuesday, the "Department of Health did not challenge those who refused to pay nursing home fees" but "hammered only those who were too poor to hire a lawyer". Most of the people affected by these charges are no longer with us but they have family members and loved ones who had to pay through the nose, in many cases, and rid themselves of assets to provide for the care of their loved ones. They deserve to be treated with dignity and respect but at the moment, the State is not treating them thus.

See this speech in context