Travers Report: Statements
Deputy Devins: I wish to raise an issue concerning the committee’s publication of its investigation into the Travers report on nursing home charges. It is reported in the media that two members of this all-party committee held a press conference yesterday at which serious allegations were made about other committee members. Words used, such as “bullying” and “censorship”, carry a distinct and implicit nastiness. Other members and I are not prepared to allow unfounded and emotive language such as this to go unanswered. It was political spin of the worst kind, displaying a complete disregard for and insult to members.
The emptiness of these false claims is displayed by looking at the facts. The committee met in 14 sessions and spent over 35 hours debating the Travers report. We have interviewed all the leading people named in the report. On two occasions, we have met the author, Mr. Travers. The committee was asked to consider the legislative and administrative implications of the report, its findings and conclusions. Despite the naked ambition of certain Opposition members, who wanted to make a political killing, they were unable at any time to show that the contents of the report were wrong. The Travers report censures politicians and her advisers, a point made to the committee by the Minister and her advisers. However, the then Minister was not informed of the implications of the crisis and the subsequent disappearance of the request for definitive legal advice from the Office of the Attorney General. At no time was any member of this committee given any evidence which contradicted this vital point.
I wish to make a number of points in respect of yesterday’s highly unusual press conference. Fine Gael and Labour published what they called 12 “conclusions” which they say were not included in the report. These are not conclusions. They are simply proposals brought forward by the Opposition. At no stage did the committee agree to those proposals and to call them conclusions is to confer on them a status they do not warrant.
We live in a democracy. All over this country, people meet in clubs, community gatherings, societies, etc. When a proposal comes before any group of people, it is debated and, if possible, agreement is reached. If no agreement is possible, the proposal is put to a vote. That is the foundation stone of our democracy, where the result of the vote is accepted. That is what happened in the final committee meeting during its investigation into the Travers report.
The failure of the Opposition to accept the democratic wishes of this committee reflects badly on it and displays petulant and child-like behaviour which covers up for its frustration at failing to achieve its narrow partisan aims. Do Opposition members accept the democratic structures under which this committee operates or do they wish to have a fascist dictatorship under which their narrow sectarian viewpoint must prevail? If they do not accept democracy, let them remove their names from the report. This will reflect their inability, despite three months of questioning, to expose major flaws in the Travers report.
Deputy Gormley: Unlike Deputy Devins, I do not have a prepared script. However, I will comment on some of the issues he raised. I did not take part — nor was I asked to do so — in yesterday’s Fine Gael-Labour press conference.
Deputy Devins: Is that an indication of things to come?
Deputy Gormley: I do not know. Deputy Devins said he was interested in the facts and I am relating them.
I do not argue with Mr. Travers when he concludes that there was an administrative failure and that there was greater culpability on the part of civil servants than on that of those in the political domain. No one argues with that assertion. However, Mr. Kelly has taken the rap. He has fallen on his sword. The problem I and other Opposition members have is that no responsibility was accepted in the political domain.
When the committee interviewed Mr. Travers on two occasions, he made it plain that the then Minister should have probed further. The then Minister did not do so. I ask Deputy Devins to consider that if his office operated in the same way that the Department of Health and Children did in this instance, some of the people who work there would have been sacked.
Under current structures, the Minister is in charge of the Department and then come the Ministers of State and special advisers. One of the Ministers of State said that he read the relevant material and realised that it had serious implications. However, the then Minister — Deputy Devins would use this an excuse — was not informed. Ignorance has, therefore, become an excuse.
Deputy Devins: That is not being said.
Deputy Gormley: Claiming ignorance is what gets the Minister off the hook. Is that good enough? If the Deputy asks himself the same question, he must reach the sincere conclusion that it is not. When one is Minister of the Department, one cannot claim innocence as a result of ignorance.
What are the legislative and administrative implications of this report? Do they mean that a Minister can get off the hook because he has not informed himself? If that is the conclusion, this is a very bleak day for democracy and the political system in this country. It is as if the captain of the Titanic said that nobody told him about the iceberg. Is that the excuse being used? The captain of the ship is supposed to go down with it. This captain has refused to take responsibility.
After three months we have come to the same conclusions that were reached in the Travers report, namely, that Mr. Kelly was totally responsible. I find that difficult to accept. We must ask again what the function was of everyone, including the Ministers of State, involved. For example, the Minister of State, Deputy Callely, said he informed the Taoiseach. Where was the follow-up in all of this? A file went missing and there have been conflicting reports about it. One person said it was definitely in the Minister’s office, while someone else stated that they were unable to recall it being there. That contrast is interesting. As I said to Mr. Travers, there seems to be greater certainty on the part of the person who said she definitely saw it.
I welcome the part of the report which states that the Minister and Ministers of State met very infrequently. What way is that to run a Department? The report says that they met on three or four occasions but minutes were not kept so we do not even know if they met that number of times. Another member referred to their assistant. If an assistant did not tell a Deputy about major issues occurring in his or her office, he or she would be, and rightly so, extremely annoyed. Nobody seems to have communicated anything in respect of this matter. Three months after commencing our deliberations, we are back where we started.
People must understand our deep frustration in respect of this matter, particularly as we have reached these conclusions. What are the legislative and administrative implications? If one is a Minister and one does not inform oneself, one is better off. If one sees no evil or hears no evil, one can have a great career and possibly become Taoiseach at a later date. That is unacceptable.
I am very disappointed at the conclusions. I hope that they are not a sign of things to come and that the committee will not break down along partisan lines in the future. I say that because we must discuss other important issues and I hope we can do so in a reasonable atmosphere in which a consensus can be reached. Due to the fact that the stakes are so high with regard to the report before us, it is clear that we will not be able to reach such a consensus. That is regrettable.