Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the lucid argument put forward by Senator O'Toole and previous speakers. On behalf of this House I thank Mr. Travers for his report which is clear, lucid, understandable and sharply and crisply written. I welcome that in any report. This report is an example of what can be done when the job is given to a competent person who concentrates on it. The report requires at least three readings, an initial cursory one followed by more detailed reading. I read it twice yesterday and once this morning and each reading confirmed my estimation of the report. It should be recorded that Mr. Travers has done the State a service.

I was struck by how the report is a litany of "nearly there but not done" or lost opportunities. It is like a novel of lost opportunities. There were many occasions on which the matter almost came to the Cabinet table, but did not and then lapsed for another few years. The report clearly points out that the starting point was 1976. There were missed opportunities in 1987, 1989 and 1994 when the Government health strategy publicised the matter and said amending legislation would be made. It never happened. The reason we are concentrating on the years 2001 to 2004 is that they became the pivotal three years because of meetings, including in the Gresham Hotel, etc.

Mr. Travers clearly points out that there were degrees of culpability. In a particular section of the report he points out that, perhaps, Ministers should have poked around and sought further information. However, he says the greater culpability was on that part of the public administration which did not see to it that this matter was given the highest priority. If it had happened in 1976, for example, the cost would be negligible. However, this is 2005 and we are paying the piper. It is correct that this should happen because elderly people suffered losses in the intervening years. The Minister referred to having to get an outside agency to correlate all the information because it is a major task, particularly given that a number of institutions no longer exist and records are not available.

I would like to take up Senator O'Toole's point. If we want to go down the route of picking ministerial villains, Ministers of all Governments bear responsibility but one cannot pick out a period and a villain, put the villain's hat on him or her and put him or her in a corner. The report highlights numerous incidents of ministerial culpability.

I must correct Senator Browne's misstatement. He stated the Secretary General reported the file was on the Minister's desk.