I want to raise another and separate dereliction of duty by another Minister. I refer to the subject matter of the Travers report. Will the Taoiseach indicate if the Travers report will be put into the public domain on receipt or kept under cover until after the by-elections? Will he answer clearly whether he still has confidence in the Minister, Deputy Martin, in particular? This must be the biggest debacle in the history of public administration in Ireland. It certainly rivals anything we saw previously. Despite what the Tánaiste has caused to be made public, the Minister, Deputy Martin, blithely sails through it all as if it had nothing to do with him and he carries no responsibility for it.

Whatever the arguments about going back to 1976, is it not the case that, as the Supreme Court judgment has made clear, and the only inference that can be drawn from that judgment was that after the 2001 decision, for political motives, to give medical cards to the over 70s, there was no doubt about the illegality of what the State was doing? That is the only clear inference, and the Minister charged with preparing the legislation to bring in those cards for those over 70 could not but have known about it.

Hear, hear.

If he did not know about it, he had to know about it in 2003. When one health board got explicit legal advice to the effect that the charges were illegal and passed them on to the Department and the other health boards, for some reason it took ten months to get a meeting in the Department of the top chief executives, the top management and the three managers on 16 December 2003. At that meeting this was the main issue discussed.

The Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, may be accused of dumping on the Minister, Deputy Martin, and that may be because she suspects he was responsible for leaking the information about her stopping the authorised officer's inquiry into Ansbacher in her Department. I am sure he was not, but it is good that there is tension between them because she put into the public domain the minutes of this meeting, which show the three Ministers are listed as attending. He says he was not there for part of it, but he got the minutes. He had two Ministers there, one of whom was a Minister for older people.

That is right.

If a Minister for older people did not know about this, what did the Minister for older people know? Does the Taoiseach still have confidence in these three Ministers?

Deputy Rabbitte asked when the Travers report will be available. I do not know exactly; it is due in shortly. The report is not that long in preparation but I understand Mr. Travers is anxious to complete it as soon as he possibly can.

After the by-elections.

Maybe before that, it depends on when it comes in. Obviously, the Government will have to consider it but it is committed to publishing it.

We were promised it before the by-elections.

Deputy Allen, this is Deputy Rabbitte's question.

We will publish it. If these matters had been dealt with before the election in 1977, we would not be here now.

Who brought in the medical cards?

What was clear in 2003 was very clear in 1976. It went through——

That is rubbish.

Unfortunately, it is not rubbish.

Allow the Taoiseach to reply.

That is absolutely pathetic.

It would be nice to say that everyone knew everything a year ago. It was as clear at the time of the judgment in 1976 as it was after the latest legal advice. That is the position.

That is not what the Supreme Court is saying.

Allow the Taoiseach to reply without interruption.

The Supreme Court has found that the retrospective provisions of the Bill on making lawful the imposition and payment of such charges in the past is unconstitutional in so far as this concerns the property rights of individuals. The provisions to allow such charging in the future were not found to be repugnant to the Constitution. When we deal with the Travers report we will also have to deal with that legislation. We had a meeting last week to discuss the process and the organisation of the repayments that have to be made. When the Travers report is available the Attorney General will have to look again at the legal aspects of it. We will have to decide how to put together a scheme of repayments that will be sufficiently fair. It is estimated that at least €500 million will have to be repaid. However, that matter must be considered in light of the Travers report and the Attorney General's ongoing examination of the Supreme Court judgment. The volume of calls on the Health Service Executive helpline has caused delays and difficulties. I hope additional operators will be employed to deal with calls from the public.

The Taoiseach should tell them to ring Deputy Perry.

Eleven governments and 40 health boards in the past 29 years have supported the policy of charging in respect of long-stay care.

The Taoiseach has evaded the question and described the problem. We know what is the problem. I do not know whether it should have been known about in 1976. From its judgment, it is apparent the Supreme Court does not know either. However, it knows that the position was clear from 2001. The documents the Tánaiste has placed in the public domain indicate that, at the MAC meeting on 16 December, the then Minister and Ministers of State are listed as meeting the chief executives of the health boards to discuss this problem. How can they seriously state that they were unaware of it? I accept that 16 December is close to Christmas and the then Minister of State at the Department, Deputy Callely, might have been signing his Christmas cards but what is the excuse for the other Minister of State, Deputy Tim O'Malley, who is responsible for people with mental incapacity included under this category?

What is the explanation in respect of the senior Minister who received the MAC minutes, which recorded the decisions taken? A decision was taken at that meeting, as a result of an assessment prepared by the Department, to communicate by letter — this would have been signed by the Secretary General — with the Attorney General and request legal advice. It has been stated that this letter was, unfortunately, not sent at that time. Who causes a Secretary General of a Department not to sign a letter? Who made that decision? Why was the letter not sent to the Attorney General? Does the Taoiseach have confidence in the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, following this, as the Tánaiste described it, systemic maladministration and political incompetence?

The Deputy, the House and everyone else should wait until the Travers report is published. In answer to the Deputy's final question as to whether I have confidence in the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, the answer is "yes".

The Taoiseach has not yet seen the Travers report. How could he have confidence in the Minister?

The Deputy asked me if I have confidence in him now. I hope I will also have confidence in him when the Travers report appears. I do not believe the Minister, Deputy Martin — following the version he has imparted — was responsible for stopping the letter being sent. However, I will have to see what will be included in the Travers report.

It is only the Minister's version.

The Minister does not organise the sending of letters on behalf of others. He may, however, organise sending his own letters. Unfortunately, the letter in question was never sent to the Attorney General. As Members are aware, the first occasion on which the Attorney General was asked to investigate this matter was in the autumn of 2004. He investigated it quite speedily and issued a report to the Tánaiste. The Government also acted speedily in respect of the report. That was the sequence of events.

It beggars belief.