The report is good in some respects but weak in criticising the political establishment and advisers. The criticisms levelled at the civil servants in the Department are fair in some respects and Mr. Kelly has paid a price. However, the report is weak in drawing conclusions from a political perspective.
From the report it is clear that Mr. Kelly said he recollected discussing the issue of charges for persons in long-stay care in nursing institutions with the Minister and also the implications of a reply from the Office of the Attorney General. He is very categoric; there is no ambiguity. The Minister of State, Deputy Callely, indicated that he also was aware of the difficulties ahead and spoke directly to the Taoiseach. In his own words, he did not bother to speak to the former Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin. He said it was the norm for officials to deal directly with the Minister. He also said the Minister's officials and advisers were at the meeting and that as the Minister arrived later, he saw no need subsequently to speak with the Minister about the issue. The assumption is that the Minister of State, Deputy Callely, clearly believed the then Minister, Deputy Martin, was fully aware of the issue in question.
There is also the issue of a folder being seen in the outer office of the then Minister for Health and Children by an independent civil servant who backs up the earlier claim by Mr. Kelly about the folder which subsequently disappeared. Does Mr. Travers accept the word of the civil servant who said he recollected seeing the folder in the outer office of the then Minister? If so, who does he believe would be responsible for losing the folder? As someone looking in, I see no benefit for any civil servant in the loss of a folder. However, I would see benefit for a Minister or a political adviser in the disappearance of a folder, especially one with such dire consequences as the one we are discussing. We now know the cost will be at least €500 million, if not more. Does Mr. Travers accept the word of the civil servant who verified that he saw the folder in the then Minister's outer office, and will he make a statement about the missing folder? How could a folder disappear? Does Mr. Travers agree that if the folder was to disappear, it would be of more benefit from a political angle than from the point of view of somebody working in the Civil Service who would obtain no real benefit?
On an earlier point, does Mr. Travers agree that the changes to the Freedom of Information Act introduced by the Government in early 2002 would have had a major impact on the report? We can conclude that there are few written records of the then Minister knowing, yet all the indicators point to the fact that the Ministers, junior and senior, were fully aware. Where we are coming unstuck is on the lack of written records. The restrictions on freedom of information have played a negative role in that respect. Civil servants are now afraid to put anything down in writing. This was argued when the restrictions on freedom of information requests were being introduced.
My view is that the Government planned to hold a general election in 2001 and that is why there was a giveaway budget. That had implications for this issue also. As Mr. Travers correctly stated, the decision on the matter of providing medical cards for those over 70 years of age should have brought the issue to the surface again but instead it was buried. I say it was buried for political reasons because it knew it was facing into a general election and that it would have considerable financial and other implications. As it happens, there was the foot and mouth disease crisis in 2001 which it appears led to the deferring of the election. All of this is hearsay and we cannot prove it but it is my personal view.
The shocking aspect of this case is the inconsistent stance taken by the health boards, where people who were strong enough to argue their case were exempt from paying charges while those who were not continued to pay them. It is amazing that alarm bells did not ring within the Department of Health and Children arising from these inconsistencies and the fact that court cases were not being pursued by some health boards. It was an unsatisfactory state of affairs.
I wish to ask about the briefings provided for the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney. Two weeks before it was published she told me categorically that the former Minister, Deputy Martin, would be vindicated by the report. I was puzzled that someone could speak so clearly on an issue in advance of a report being published. Mr. Travers has mentioned that he gave the earlier chapters to different people but would the Tánaiste have seen the conclusions in advance of publication of the report? It puzzles me that she was so categoric in stating the former Minister, Deputy Martin, would be vindicated by it.
It is ironic that the Minister of State, Deputy Callely, failed miserably in his job as Minister of State with responsibility for the elderly. Every second week Oireachtas Members received letters from him outlining all the good work he was doing for the elderly, yet he completely failed to deal with this major issue.