We are discussing the Travers report.
Business of Joint Committee.
Mr. Travers should appear before the joint committee first. On page 39 of the report he states this problem did not start with the 2001 Act; its origins lay years earlier. We should wait until he appears before us and hear what he has to say. We can then see where we are going.
We should start with the 2001 legislation. Mr. Travers has made it clear that that legislation reactivated this issue within the Department. It dates back to 1976 but there were many occasions when it was brushed over. We could go back to 1978 when the legal advice was given to the Department of Health and Children but from 2000 we have all the major players and significant legislation has cost the taxpayer a large amount of money. We should start from that point. Most of the comments highlight the importance of that legislation. I do not have a problem with Mr. Travers coming here or with going back prior to 2000 but if we are to write a good report, we should focus on the most important issues in the limited time available, starting with events in 2000. Once we have dealt with them, we can examine issues prior to 2000 that Mr. Travers points out were highlighted in the Department at certain times.
Many of the main players prior to 2000 will not be available. There was a significant meeting between Dr. Rory O'Hanlon, the present Ceann Comhairle; the then Minister for Finance, Mr. Ray MacSharry, and the then Taoiseach, Mr. Charlie Haughey, in 1989. It would be difficult to get at least two of those to appear before the joint committee because they are no longer Members of the Oireachtas. We should focus on what might work for the committee rather than going back to 1976 in a disjointed manner.
Perhaps Deputy Twomey is right but at this point it would be premature to make such a decision. We should now decide to invite Mr. Travers, the author of the report, to hear what he has to say and question him. If needs be, we can then make decisions such as those outlined by Deputy Twomey.
If we start from 2000, we can issue letters of invitation to the people concerned now and see what their response is prior to 12 April. If we wait for Mr. Travers, we will be starting from scratch on 12 April.
We should not tie our hands as we enter this process. The Travers report has been published and we need to know exactly from where Mr. Travers was coming. Why did he not interview certain people? I would like to hear such questions answered before we make any decisions because we must do this right. We should get in the author of the report and take it from there.
This is interesting. It is even at variance with the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney's own record. We have been given a very limited timeframe to issue a report and do not have the possibility of opting for the leisurely approach being deliberately proposed by Government members. I regret that.
Looking at the timetable as it is set out, if we have Mr. Travers in on 12 April — that is a good idea — what do we do then? This is a tight timeframe and it is not within our gift to extend it. We have been given the task and it is important that all of us appreciate that there is a momentum we cannot afford to ignore.
It is clear from the Travers report and the approach of the Minister for Health and Children when she published minutes of the MAC meeting, an unprecedented step, that once the pivotal moment occurred in 2001 with the legislation for the over 70s scheme, a process was set in train where Pat McLoughlin received legal advice because the issue had come into focus and the Supreme Court upheld the view of the Minister for Health and Children in that respect. It is important that we take on that responsibility. We should invite Mr. Travers to appear before the joint committee and ensure that immediately afterwards people appear who can answer the questions clearly. The Travers report names certain people several times whom we should meet and question. They were in charge until the new Minister took over. Senior civil servants and advisers are pivotal in this context. We should all take responsibility for this and work on the basis of what we can do.
It may be historically interesting to reach back into the mists of time but when we questioned the present Minister about issues that arose in the past she said openly she does not have that information. She looked for it but cannot find it. There is no reference to John Boland except a sample of his handwriting in the margins of a script.
Let us be conscious of our responsibilities. It is important that we listen to Mr. Travers, to the former Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, and to the former Secretary General, Michael Kelly, and that they answer questions. If we do not do that we are not living up to our responsibilities, regardless of our political affiliations.
We must deal with the way this has been presented to us in a tight timeframe and consider the record of the present Minister for Health and Children. I do not agree with her on many issues but she brought information into the public arena that signalled issues of responsibility. Our law agent said the Government must answer this committee. We have no choice but to do it that way.
I do not hold any brief for Government but this involves more than Ministers. It involves successive governments over many years. John Boland tried to introduce legislation. We should hear what people like him have to say to get a better idea of the issues. I am not divorced from what Deputy Twomey says but we must decide after we have heard Mr. Travers. We should not bind our hands at this stage.
We are all saying the same thing. We have scheduled ten meetings on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. There is nothing to stop us sitting every day of the week if needs be.
The difficulty is that we are limited to a short timeframe which is not practical.
I do not know what Deputy McManus intended when said she knew what is going on here. I am trying to provide an agenda and a timetable to move the matter on.
The Government members here are not willing to face the fact that unanswered questions regarding Deputy Martin and Mr. Kelly remain, arising from the Travers report. The present Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, showed clearly there was a conflict of evidence which we must address.
I do not want to waste this committee's time. I do not see what evidence Deputy McManus can produce to support that. I noted what she said.
It is an opinion.
Here is another opinion: I do not recall people ever coming here for coffee and a chat. To reduce the discussion to the suggestion that we bring people in for coffee and a chat is——
I did not say that.
I wrote it down.
I said we would have coffee and a chat.
The Deputy might do so but this committee will not. We want to give this matter maximum time.
Good.
I do not intend to waste time on coffee and chats with the committee. The committee wants to do business, not to cover anything up. We intend to move as quickly as possible, taking into account the views of this committee, to ensure there is no cover up. I suggest that we invite Mr. Travers for our first meeting on this issue. If the Deputy feels time will be lost we can put people on provisional notice to be ready for 13 or 19 April.
We should decide whom we will call for the first two weeks, that is, for 12, 13, 19 and 20 April. Time could be wasted because the timeframe is short.
I take that point and reiterate that the committee is not in the position of trying to tie up 12 April without having decided on witnesses for the following days. We intend to ensure that all the time slots given are used properly so that no one can suggest on the final date that time was lost or that we tried to misuse the time allocated.
I suggest that we invite Mr. Travers for 12 April. If the members wish we can alert people provisionally that they may be called in on 13 April. If needs be we should have a list of people ready for 19 April and send word to them well in advance of that date.
The key people to see at a preliminary stage on those days are the former Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Tim O'Malley, and a former Minister of State at that Department, Deputy Callely, the special advisers to the former Minister, Deputy Martin, Michael Kelly and Pat McLoughlin.
I agree with that.
On what date does Deputy McManus suggest the Minister and the two Ministers of State appear? I do not wish to be accused of trying to give people space or cover but I ask that these witnesses be pushed back to 19 April to give everyone time to assemble the material.
Mr. Travers is coming in on 12 April and there will be another meeting on 13 April.
It is possible that Mr. Travers will be present also on 13 April.
I will provide space by provisionally suggesting to those involved that they be present on 13 or 19 April in case we complete the first round on 13 April.
Could the consultant be appointed and be present from 12 April too?
I hope to do that.
Must we meet again to confirm who that person will be? That person must be present when we meet Mr. Travers.
We cannot guarantee to have that person in place. I can only suggest that the papers covering our meetings on 12 and 13 April are available to the consultant to read in preparing the report. We would prefer that person to be present but I doubt he or she will be appointed by 12 April when we meet Mr. Travers.
When did the former Secretary General, Mr. Kelly, take up his position? Should we have his predecessor, Mr. O'Dwyer, too?
Mr. Kelly was appointed in 2000.
We will meet Mr. Travers on 12 April. The meeting will finish at 1 p.m. Following that we will have a week to invite people in for 19 April.
If Mr. Travers does not come in on 12 April we should invite the Minister, the Ministers of State, the advisers or Mr. McLoughlin to attend that week. We do not want a situation in which no one is available on 12 and 13 April.
The motion sets out our task. That must begin with Mr. Travers, although members may have other views.
Our task has been set and we must adhere strictly to it if we are to stay within our remit. Our terms of reference include considering in public session, and reporting on, within three months or by 9 June, the Report on Certain Issues of Management and Administration in the Department of Health and Children associated with the Practice of Charges for Persons in Long-Stay Care in Health Board Institutions and Related Matters, to Dáil Éireann, concerning the legislative and administrative implications of the report, its findings and conclusions. Therefore we must start with Mr. Travers.
Nobody objects to that. It is a good idea. My point is that the other people need to be invited and that we try to slot them in between 13 and 19 April. There may be an overrun and someone may have to wait and return but that is the nature of this business. It is important that we slot them in for those two days.
We can let the people the Deputy has named know that they may be called in on 13 April and failing that they will be called for 19 April. If we complete our business with Mr. Travers on 12 April they may be brought in on 13 April. Otherwise, we will bring them in on 19 April. If we have completed our business with Mr. Travers on 12 April, then clearly they may be brought in on 13 April. If we have not done so, we will bring them in on 19 April.
We do not know what Mr. Travers might have on his agenda for 12 April. Could we consider sitting on a day or two when he is available, in order to move things forward, even if that eats into our holidays? Rather than sitting on 12 April, and taking someone ahead of Mr. Travers, it is important that we talk to him first, even if we have to sit the week before 12 April if he is not available on that date.
Government speakers are obviously trying to ensure they are available and not holding up anything.
We should not have a persecution complex. I do not think Deputy McManus really meant what she said.
We will not go down that road.
I presume we will not hear from all six people on the one day and that they will be split up.
We cannot set this agenda until we complete our business with Mr. Travers on the first day.
We have made a great deal of progress. There is a willingness to have some kind of order regarding this matter. We need Mr. Travers to attend first. If he cannot attend on 12 April we should return earlier. We should do whatever we need to do to hear Mr. Travers on or before 12 April. We need to notify people that they are to be invited to attend on 13 and 19 April. We cannot force them to attend. I have named the people and I think there is general agreement on what we need. It is in line with what Deputy Twomey has proposed.
Everyone understands that people are sometimes unavailable and must come at another time. Nobody will make a fuss about that, but 13 and 19 April must be provided for those people to come before us, because they are so central to this.
We have no difficulty with that. We hope to accommodate Mr. Travers on the first day and will seek the people suggested on the following day. We will write to them. Is Deputy Twomey proposing that the Ministers be invited in first, and then the Secretaries General?
The Secretaries General, the advisers and Mr. Michael Kelly.
We will hear the Minister and Ministers of State involved at the first session after we hear Mr. Travers.
I would prefer the Secretary General to attend, if he were willing to do so, because the civil servants are obviously the ones more directly involved in this matter. It would be helpful if Mr. Michael Kelly attended.
Rather than waste time, we should have the direction of the committee on who we are inviting for the time slot on 13 April. In other words, after Mr. Travers has attended, how do we proceed?
I suggest we then invite the Minister and the two Ministers of State.
This matter has been ongoing since 1996 and there have been other Secretaries General in the Department during that time. It is important to have a sequence. It might be useful to invite the Secretary General who preceded Mr. Kelly and get the sequence of what happened. That is when the proverbial hit the fan, I suppose, and we need to know.
I am not saying we should go back into the past and hold up proceedings but we need a fix on the situation. When we hear Mr. Travers we will get a good idea of why he did not interview certain people and we can then decide if we will invite those people to attend. It is not a big task to invite in Secretaries General and to allow them explain what happened, who knew about it, who did not know, why certain action was not taken, and how John Boland was informed enough to attempt to bring forward legislation when other people were not? These are the questions we need answered.
There is no difficulty in going backwards on this matter. We need to get the process started. The central issue is the players pinpointed by the Minister, Deputy Harney, along with the crucial date of 2001. Nobody is saying we should not go back further. It is a matter of what comes first in the sequence. Mr. Travers cleary must come first, after which there are six people. I recommend that we then review and decide. We will have some time then. That is the way to proceed if we are to manage this.
I agree with the previous speakers but I suggest the former Secretary General, Mr. Kelly, should be invited in first, and that he would be followed by the Minister and Ministers of State. I agree with Deputy McManus. We have already heard the speech made in the Dáil by the former Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, but we have not heard officially from Mr. Kelly, good, bad or indifferent.
Is that agreed?
As I do not often have the opportunity to agree with my colleague, Deputy Cowley, I will avail of this one. The Deputy makes a good point because when Mr. Kelly attends he may say something that would necessitate us inviting his predecessor to appear before the committee. That might be more important prior to the attendance of the Minister and Ministers of State. Can we reserve our decision?
Yes. We have agreement on that. We know where we are going.
We will hear Mr. Travers, Mr. Kelly, the Minister and Ministers of State, and the advisers. Whatever arises from all that will have a bearing on inviting the previous Secretary General.
Must that be set in stone?
I submit strongly that this be done if we are to consider the matter in a comprehensive way.
There is an important point here. All the people about whom we are talking are either civil servants or public servants. Previous Secretaries General for example may be retired and might not be as available as the current players.
I accept that but we should try to get in touch with them if they are available, to get the complete picture.
Yes. We should try to meet anyone who is named in the report.
We will move on. We are agreed on 12 April for Mr. Travers, 13 April for Mr. Kelly and 19 April for the Minister and two Ministers of State. Two advisers may also attend, though perhaps not on that latter day.
We must not forget Mr. Pat McLoughlin, who is crucial.
We will get the first week's arrangements out of the way first. We will then sit down on the evening of 13 April after we have heard from Mr. Travers and Mr. Kelly. We will hear from the Minister and Ministers of State on 19 April and will then work out, on that day, how we will proceed. Agreed?
As long as we are agreed that Pat McLoughlin is invited.
We will make him aware of 20 April.
It is clear from our earlier discussion with our legal adviser that there is no clarity about the status of the South Eastern Health Board legal advice. The Minister tells us that she cannot release it because it is tangled up with pending court cases, but there is an issue whether it has already lost its status because it may have been disseminated. We need to know the position. I am very keen to see this legal advice, as no doubt is everyone else. It is very difficult for us to do our work without seeing the full advice. Could we appoint our legal adviser to represent us in seeking that information, and ensure every avenue is explored to see if we can have that information?
The legal adviser could perhaps seek out, on behalf of the committee, how much of the document can be made available to us. We are speaking of a substantial 80-page document. The parts of it that are not sub judice might be released. Those parts that have nothing to do with current court cases perhaps could be released to the committee without prejudice to anyone else.
Is there any reason we cannot have that advice immediately, once the parts that relate to sub judice matters or pending court cases are taken out?
Ms O’Hegarty
We had to seek the information first but if the committee so requests, I will undertake the clarify the situation with the Attorney General, the Minister or the appropriate person.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Sitting suspended at 10.50 a.m. and resumed at 10.52 a.m.