Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Kenny raised two issues. On the first one, I join him, as I am sure does everyone in the House, in expressing our deepest sympathy to the family of Frances Sheridan who died in the past few days. To respect the privacy of the family, I will not go into the specific circumstances of the case at this time. I understand that the State Pathologist has conducted a post-mortem, the results of which are awaited. My colleague, the Minister for Health and Children, met Mr. Paul Robinson, the chief executive officer of the health board. He was advised by the CEO that the board has established a group to undertake an urgent review of all the factors involved in the death of the child. The scope of the review will cover the period of the child's first contact with Cavan General Hospital on 7 January and her untimely death on 1 February. The membership of the group is Gerry Clerkin of the Cavan-Monaghan Hospital Group and Conor Egleston, a consultant in emergency medicine in Drogheda Hospital.

The second matter raised by Deputy Kenny concerned issues which have arisen in recent months in, as he described it, a personal dispute. A committee of inquiry has been appointed to examine complaints regarding two consultant surgeons in Cavan General Hospital. The two consultants concerned have been suspended without pay since last August, but both have been entitled to apply for ex gratia payments to allay any hardship they may experience.

The recently established committee is the third such committee to be appointed by the Minister for Health and Children on this matter. The reason is that the first committee, established immediately after the suspensions, had to be disbanded due to the withdrawal of the appointed chairman and one of the consultant representatives. The second committee, appointed by the Minister the following month, was disbanded before Christmas due to a perceived conflict of interest of one of the consultant representatives and the subsequent refusal of the second consultant member of the IHCA to continue due, among other reasons, to non-payment of fees for committee work.

The intervening period has been taken up with an extensive exercise to identify consultants without any potential conflict of interest who are willing to represent their colleagues on the committee of inquiry. The IHCA has indicated an unwillingness to submit a list of names to perform this work due to non-payment of fees for its members, despite the Department's willingness to provide locum cover for committee members, to indemnify them against any legal action arising from committee work and to pay travel and subsistence to the consultants concerned. I understand, and the Minister is confident, that the new committee, established with the assistance of retired consultants, will allow the matter to be resolved without any further delay.

As regards other matters in the health board area in question, the Minister has reported to the House extensively on his and the board's responsibilities and ongoing work in that area.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Every day, the Government, the Minister for Health and Children, his Department, the health boards, and almost 100,000 people who work in the health service try to do precisely what Deputy Kenny has requested. If he is asking if we will continue to do this and provide resources of €10.5 billion, much of which is being used to improve infrastructure in the health service, we will continue to do so.

I do not want to link local problems in any way with the circumstances of the death of Frances Sheridan, of which I am not aware and will not be aware until the State Pathologist has completed her report. We will then have to deal with that issue but I do not want to relate it to what is going on between two consultants in Cavan General Hospital who cannot get along with each other for some reason. I do not know the details of a tiff they have been having over something for the past six months. None of their colleagues is prepared, for one reason or another, to get involved in investigating the matter but at least we have reached that stage now.

I was not aware of the blow-by-blow issues. I received a full report yesterday on all the meetings which have taken place and the other circumstances regarding this issue. The Minister, who was dealing with the tragic death of Frances Sheridan today, has endeavoured to set up a third committee to investigate this matter and has given every possible cover to the consultants and others involved to try to deal with the issue. I do not know what the argument is about but I will do my best to solve it.

Seymour Crawford (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is time the Taoiseach did know.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On behalf of my party, I wish to be associated with Deputy Kenny's and the Taoiseach's expressions of sympathy to the family of Frances Sheridan. I greatly doubt whether another insider review is what is required in what is manifestly a dysfunctional service.

I return to a question I sought to raise in the House on a number of occasions in respect of the reason the Government decided it should apportion liability for people abused in residential institutions on the basis of capping the liability of religious congregations at €128 million, while the liability of the taxpayer was unlimited. Now that the Laffoy interim report has been published, it is clear in terms of the discovery Ms Justice Laffoy sought to make, that her commission was seeking to make a judgment on the same point. She sought discovery to establish the basis on which the Government decided to assume liability for all cases, irrespective of circumstance, and the basis on which it decided that there should be a cap of €128 million. She was refused discovery. Was the reason for this refusal the same as the reason no papers were presented to Government, namely because the papers do not exist?

Did the Government do any State audit of the liability in these circumstances? We know the Comptroller and Auditor General did such an audit and concluded the liability could reach €1,000 million. He stated Government approval was given on the basis of an oral presentation and that no memorandum was submitted to Government by the then Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Woods. Ms Justice Laffoy states in her report that she concluded on the basis of interviews she had with the then Minister, Deputy Woods, that there were some papers that would justify putting a cap of €128 million on the liability of the religious congregations. Why was she not furnished with those papers when she sought discovery of them? Do they exist and will the Taoiseach cause them to be furnished to the Ryan commission?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Anything Mr. Justice Ryan or his commission requires will hopefully be made available to assist him because that is what we want to do. Since the establishment of the commission, 16 discovery orders have been made to the Department, 12 of which were delivered within the timeframes provided. In the case of six of those, extensions of time were granted by the commission. The difficulties encountered with the other four were subsequently resolved, so 16 cases were dealt with.

I do not have time to go through the details of the report but I understand it will be debated in the House. The problems facing the commission would not have been resolved simply by providing more resources, although we have tried our best to provide more resources. The clear message from the reviews conducted by the Attorney General and Mr. Justice Ryan is that changes are required in the procedures of the investigation committee and in the legislation.

Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach should answer the question.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have answered the question. I have answered the question on discovery orders.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Allow the Taoiseach to speak without interruption. This is Deputy Rabbitte's question.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will answer Deputy Quinn. I was asked whether I would assist in discovery for Mr. Justice Ryanand I said that I would. I went on to say that all the other 16 discoveries were dealt with. I was not asked any other question.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The papers exist.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am now highlighting the issue of more resources, and this was also an issue highlighted in the report. Mr. Justice Ryan clearly states in his report that the legislation was overly ambitious, and this is the reason it was necessary to undertake reviews. Everybody accepted the fact that, if the commission were to continue as it was, it would not have produced a final report for at least ten years and would have cost of €200 million in lawyers' fees. Mr. Justice Ryan was of the opinion that both those figures were optimistic estimates.

I remind the House that the purpose of the commission is to give closure to victims. The Government has done everything possible in this case and will continue to help the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. The Government apologised on behalf of the State. The objective is to deal with the people concerned and not just to argue about the cap. We wish to see the matter completed and deal with the people who were placed in institutions by the State and not properly cared for. We want to bring closure to these cases and not have an academic argument about where the cap should be.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach did not deal with any of the questions I asked. I asked him if the papers exist. Ms Justice Laffoy sought discovery of papers that would buttress the interviews given by the former Minister, Deputy Woods. She said in her report, "The committee is not satisfied that since its establishment, it has received the level of co-operation which it is entitled to receive from the Department of State which is its statutory sponsor". Those are very strong judicial words.

I put it to the Taoiseach the reason her order for discovery was not complied with was that, if the Department furnished such papers, it would show that there was no basis or justification for the apportionment of liability agreed by the Government with the religious congregations. The Taoiseach and the former Minister, Deputy Woods, did a fix-it deal. They plucked a figure out of the air.

Everybody in this House accepts that the State has some culpability but, in circumstances where the Controller and Auditor General estimates that the liability could amount to €1 billion, the Taoiseach and the Minister fixed a deal at €128 million, behind closed doors on the basis of an oral presentation, without a memorandum and without the involvement of the then Attorney General.

The reason no papers were furnished on discovery to Ms Justice Laffoy is because they do not exist. The Taoiseach and the former Minister plucked a figure out of the air. The Government is the custodian of the public finances and it is a disgraceful arrangement on behalf of the Irish taxpayer.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will not agree with Deputy Rabbitte on this matter and he will not agree with me. I have a view that is contrary to his. Deputy Rabbitte's view is that the State should force these cases through to their finality——

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is not my view.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I could resolve the issue with absolute certainty by proceeding through the courts with the thousands of cases and there would be absolute certainty of where the blame lay.

Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach should produce the papers.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He should produce the papers.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Allow the Taoiseach to speak without interruption, please.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I was not prepared to do that.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Where are the papers?

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is Deputy Rabbitte's question.

Emmet Stagg (Kildare North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are waiting for an answer. They are all leaders on the Government benches.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I was not prepared to do that. We sought a way of making an apology to the victims, of finding a commission to process it——

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is trying to frustrate the commission.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——and to come to an agreement on what was a fair contribution. Whether Deputy Rabbitte likes it or not, in many cases the State put children into institutions where there was no proper inspection, control or accountability.

Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach should answer the question.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The State in this case is under an obligation. Over a long period of time, we sought to take a substantial amount of resources from religious institutions, but the State made the decisions, and we were right in what we did. Trying to jump off a few religious organisations and make them bankrupt is a deplorable act and that is really what Deputy Rabbitte is about.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On behalf of the Green Party, I wish to join with the other party leaders in extending our sympathy to the family of Frances Sheridan. Prior to the previous general election, the people were informed that the Government was in favour of continuing the moratorium on genetically modified foods and plants. Notwithstanding the widespread majority opposition of people in the EU to the lifting of that moratorium and the significant pressure exerted by the United States through people such as Mr. Sandy Berger and others at St. Patrick's Day events, what is the Government's position? The future of the EU moratorium on GMOs is to be decided during the Irish Presidency. Many farmers and members of the public are concerned and many organic farmers face losing their certificates if the moratorium is lifted. Will the Taoiseach clarify the Government's position on this issue?

While the EU regulatory committee failed to approve an application for GM maize, the European Commission has agreed to allow GM sweetcorn, BT11, into the EU. I understand the Council of Ministers now has three months in which to decide on the matter. Is it not strange that, despite the huge opposition to GM in this country and other EU countries, the Government finds itself in a minority of six nations out of 15 which wish to lift the ban? Many people in this country find that quite puzzling given the Government's position prior to the previous general election.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The position is that the ban still applies. The Irish Presidency will try to achieve consensus on this issue, but I understand from the Minister that this is unlikely to happen. Different countries have opposing views on this issue and are unlikely to come together in the short term or even the medium term. Countries have differing perspectives on this matter. The Irish Government position is that the scientific data and evidence needs to be explored fully so that whatever decisions are ultimately taken at EU level or at national level are based on the best scientific facts.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach gives the impression that Ireland did not vote or else abstained on the lifting of the ban whereas the Government voted in favour of it. A report in The Guardian today states that the EU will prohibit GM oil seed rape crops. The Belgian Government is in no doubt that growing GM oil seed rape is harmful to the environment and urges other EU countries to follow suit. Will the Taoiseach give consideration to Ireland being a GM-free zone? Will he let it be known that this is our view? We want this country to be a major food exporter that does not rely on genetic modification. The legal advice we have received suggests it is possible under the Cartagena Protocol on biosafety. Rather than sitting on the fence by waiting for consensus to arise like a dead body from the mire, I ask the Taoiseach to espouse a position. The Government's current position is that it is gung ho for GM.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not.

John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, it is.

Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister knows it.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Sargent, without interruption.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is what the Government voted for. I would like to get clarification, just as would many other people.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Sargent is aware that three issues are at stake in this regard, but I will provide details for the information of the House. This matter has been a major source of contention between the US and Europe for some years. Discussions on the issue have continued and will continue in that context.

John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Government is kowtowing to the US.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is also a major subject of debate in the WTO round, which is continuing. Deputy Sargent is incorrect to say we voted in a blanket way on a particular position at EU level. That was not the case. Attempts were made to try to put controls in place on a specific position, but that did not work. The alternatives that were proposed were not accepted and there was no compromise. The EU position is that there are different perspectives in different countries, but we should try to work to achieve a Common Position. Our position is that the Common Position should be based on scientific fact. If we make a move, we will know that it is based not on hearsay but on hard scientific fact. That will continue to be our position. Deputy Sargent asked me if the matter will be pursued during our Presidency. It is unlikely that countries will change their positions until the WTO discussions have concluded.

Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will we change our position?

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What is our position? I still do not know.