Results 781-800 of 50,134 for speaker:Micheál Martin

Report on Long-Stay Care Charges: Motion. (10 Mar 2005)

Micheál Martin: I welcome this debate as an opportunity for the House to consider what is an extremely detailed and comprehensive report. It is an opportunity for the House to consider what is actually in the report rather than the Opposition's spin on what it contains. The report examines all the elements of how a charge ruled illegal by the Supreme Court in 1976 was kept in place for 28 years. Why the...

Report on Long-Stay Care Charges: Motion. (10 Mar 2005)

Micheál Martin: I have listened for quite a long time and I would appreciate the opportunity to put my contribution on the record of the House.

Report on Long-Stay Care Charges: Motion. (10 Mar 2005)

Micheál Martin: Deputies Twomey and Kenny, for example, earlier this week issued a list of questions they said had to be answered by the report, even though they knew the report had been completed. What makes this even more breathtakingly cynical is that Mr. Travers asked Fine Gael, just like other Opposition parties, if it wished to make a submission. Fine Gael did not even respond to him. One of the...

Report on Long-Stay Care Charges: Motion. (10 Mar 2005)

Micheál Martin: He examined all aspects of how the issue was raised or failed to be raised. In respect of the extension of medical card cover to the over-70s by means of the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2001, the report shows that no submission was made to me that existing charges were illegal and that they should be regularised through the legislation. The report shows, however, that the Act...

Report on Long-Stay Care Charges: Motion. (10 Mar 2005)

Micheál Martin: ——specifically because they were not viewed as requiring my presence. It is certainly not the case that I missed the discussion because I was late. All the persons who attended the meeting confirmed that the item merited only a short discussion. The context of the discussion was that clarification was to be sought before it could be substantively considered. In light of the manner of the...

Report on Long-Stay Care Charges: Motion. (10 Mar 2005)

Micheál Martin: This is a policy I have followed throughout my ministerial career. In the normal course of events with an emerging issue, the relevant officials would seek a meeting with me, the issues and course of action would be discussed and a decision arrived at. The recollections of people about whether something was mentioned in passing as part of other discussions has been considered in detail by the...

Report on Long-Stay Care Charges: Motion. (10 Mar 2005)

Micheál Martin: It is in the report.

Report on Long-Stay Care Charges: Motion. (10 Mar 2005)

Micheál Martin: The Deputy asked what I would consider to be a proper briefing. Mr. Travers has described it very succinctly in his report. It is nothing unusual or extraordinary. A sufficient briefing is fundamentally an analysis of a particular issue, an outline of the options a Minister could potentially pursue consequent on that analysis and recommendations by whoever is making the report on what the...

Report on Long-Stay Care Charges: Motion. (10 Mar 2005)

Micheál Martin: I will stay as long as the Deputy wants.

Report on Long-Stay Care Charges: Motion. (10 Mar 2005)

Micheál Martin: I am answering it.

Report on Long-Stay Care Charges: Motion. (10 Mar 2005)

Micheál Martin: I appreciate that but there were approximately nine questions.

Report on Long-Stay Care Charges: Motion. (10 Mar 2005)

Micheál Martin: I do not want to be accused subsequently of not having answered a particular question. This is an important point. The sub-group asked what we should do about eligibility over the next ten years. In its report it noted that according to the Department the terms "eligibility" and "entitlement" are legally distinct. The Health Act 1970 provides for eligibility for a service but not that a...

Report on Long-Stay Care Charges: Motion. (10 Mar 2005)

Micheál Martin: ——that those in Government care were governed by inadequate legislation. It also stated the principle was accepted that those in long-term care should contribute to the cost of their maintenance from their incomes but the legislation gave rise to anomalies and inequities in these charges. It promised to amend the legislation to provide a clearer and fairer basis for these contributions....

Report on Long-Stay Care Charges: Motion. (10 Mar 2005)

Micheál Martin: I wish to be fair. I accept the Travers report according to which successive Ministers were not told that there was a fundamentally illegal regime in place for charges for long-stay residents in nursing homes.

Report on Long-Stay Care Charges: Motion. (10 Mar 2005)

Micheál Martin: In regard to the 2001 Act it is being bandied about that Ministers——

Report on Long-Stay Care Charges: Motion. (10 Mar 2005)

Micheál Martin: ——must have known as a result of the extension of the medical card and its inclusion in the 2001 Act, which was not brought in exclusively to extend the medical card to people over the age of 70. Mr. Travers says that I was not told in any shape or form——

Report on Long-Stay Care Charges: Motion. (10 Mar 2005)

Micheál Martin: I co-operated with Mr. Travers and he spoke to other people as well. He said there was no submission to me and that based on discussions with other people I was not briefed. I was not. He says in response to this issue the Department knew from the beginning in 1976——

Report on Long-Stay Care Charges: Motion. (10 Mar 2005)

Micheál Martin: It is important that I have the opportunity to put this on the record because the reference to the 2001 Act is in that context. Only if I knew about the illegal device of the 1976 circular could I have known the full impact of the 2001 legislation.

Report on Long-Stay Care Charges: Motion. (10 Mar 2005)

Micheál Martin: It is true.

Report on Long-Stay Care Charges: Motion. (10 Mar 2005)

Micheál Martin: The Supreme Court made its decision just last month. It states that circular 76 and the regulations were illegal from 1976 onwards. It then went on to say that the 2001 Act should have made it clear that it was even further illegal to those in the know, including everyone in this House. Let all of us not pretend that we did not know that charges——