Michael Finucane (Fine Gael)

I am aware of two politicians who have been described as ambulance chasers and who have advertised for elderly people who may want assistance or advice on this issue to contact them. I do not blame them for this because if people try to contact the helpline in Tullamore, they will be waiting a long time for the information they require. These individuals might be better off taking the short-cut and contacting politicians.

People tend to nit-pick in respect of quoting the Travers report. A statement on page 54 of the report from the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, indicates:

However, this is very different from discussing the specific point that a charge was being illegally levied since 1976 and that action was required to regularise the situation. The fact is that this was not drawn to my attention either formally or informally at any time.

I saw an interview with the Minister on Sky News Ireland last night and he stated that he was not aware of the issue and that it was never drawn to his attention. This is a senior Minister who was appointed to his post in January 2000 and who has a great deal of experience. He has, in many instances, been hailed by the media as a potential future Taoiseach. In my view, as a seasoned Minister he would have been aware of what was happening around him.

In January 2001, 2003 and 2004, the Ombudsman specifically referred to this issue. Every Member of the Houses would have received copies of the Ombudsman's reports. It is interesting that in January 2001 the Sunday Independent carried a headline to the effect that thousands of medical card patients had been charged for public health care. The article to which this headline refers says that State-designed systems saved the health service €1 billion. This article appeared a full year after the Minister's appointment. However, the Minister has indicated that he was never told, either formally or informally, about the matter. Ministers have the support of many spin doctors. If I was a Minister and I had not read about matters in the newspapers which related to my brief, I would fire all of my spin doctors on the basis that they had not done their jobs.

I refute claims that the Minister did not know what was happening, particularly in terms of the legal interpretation that these charges were invalid. In 2001, Deputy Martin introduced medical cards for those over 70 years of age. The Supreme Court's assessment indicates that, if anything, this legally underpinned the situation in terms of the charges being invalid. What research did the Department of Health and Children or the then Minister carry out in respect of introducing medical cards for everyone over 70? It was known that an election would be held in 2002 and account of this may have been taken in respect of many of the decisions made at that time. We are aware that the research carried out was limited and that the number of people involved could not be quantified.

All Members deal with the Department of Social and Family Affairs, which I regard as an efficient organisation. If the Department of Health and Children had wanted to obtain a tabular assessment in respect of the number of pensioners in the country and the number of these who were over 70, the Department of Social and Family Affairs, particularly in light of the type of computer records it possesses, could have supplied it. However, the scheme for granting medical cards to those over 70 was introduced even though it was not possible to quantify the numbers involved.

In my opinion and in light of the newspaper headline to which I refer, many of the decisions made in 2001 took account of the fact that a general election was to take place in 2002. Those in authority would, therefore, have been afraid to even look at what was happening with regard to subventions on the basis that people would have to be recompensed and that this would have reduced the size of the war chest available to fight the election.

It has been stated that the then Minister was not available for the meeting in December 2003. There is a conflict of opinion between him and Mr. Kelly in that regard. Mr. Kelly states that he informed the Minister about the matter under discussion on two occasions. We cannot assess who is telling the truth and who is not doing so. It is clear, however, that someone is not telling the truth. Mr. Kelly will probably not speak out on this issue on the basis that he has got a new job, with a salary of €168,000 per year, as chairman of the Higher Education Authority. The current chairman is due to retire and the position was due to be offered on a part-time basis for the future. However, the Government had to find a niche for Mr. Kelly because if the new appointment had not been made, he might be in a position to say much more about this issue. I am tired of Government spin doctors trying to tarnish everyone by telling the public that this all goes back to 1976. It is only in the past few years that this has come before the public in a significant way. When the former Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, appeared on television to say that he knew nothing about the situation, he was not being factually correct.

What are the special advisers to the Ministers of State doing? It is obvious that they are supposed to be a conduit between the Department and the Ministers. To what degree were they effective regarding this issue? I believe that they were completely ineffective or if they were effective, then they were being ignored.

Mr. Travers refers to special advisers and where they fit in between the Department and Ministers. The Minister has serious questions to answer. Once he goes down the road of denial, he has to keep it up, which he has done throughout. He must be blind if he does not read the newspapers and recognise the situation in which he finds himself. If I was a Minister and I read these reports, I would ask serious questions of my Department as to how factually correct are such reports and if anything could be done about it. However, this occurred in 2001. The Government could not take serious action in 2001. After all, free medical cards were to be given to those over 70, which would look good in 2002 when it was seeking re-election.

Where were the Ministers of State? They attended the meeting. Deputy Callely wrote to me on a regular basis regarding the elderly and what he was doing for them. These were unsolicited letters. He said at that meeting that he spoke to the Taoiseach and to the Minister. He may have been acting the big man but to whom did he speak? He had a cursory discussion in the Dáil with the Taoiseach and that was it. If I was a Minister in that Department and my Minister of State did not tell me what was happening in my absence, I would have him replaced. There are serious questions to be asked of the Minister. Whatever spin is put on it, the reality is that the buck stops with the Minister. The Public Service Management Act 1997 states that the Minister is responsible for the functions assigned to his or her Department. The senior civil servant in the Department has been made a scapegoat in this affair.

When Fine Gael was in power for a few years, it was subject to savage attacks on a regular basis by the Opposition regarding accountability and stewardship. Senator Browne is correct on that issue.