Will the Tánaiste refer to what she told the House about long-stay charges in nursing homes and other institutions of the State, that there was "systemic maladministration"? On 3 March, when queried about this, she said specifically that maladministration did not relate only to officials. Subsequently, in the abridged and inadequate debate we had, Government Deputies argued, one after the other, that there was systemic maladministration relating to officials only. Will the Tánaiste tell the House to whom she was referring if it was not officials only? Will she name the Ministers who had knowledge and who were responsible? In particular, I wish to ask her about her colleague, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment? Why, on the night before the meeting in the Gresham Hotel, were briefing documents despatched to him, his officials and the two Ministers of State at that Department? Legal opinion secured by the then South Eastern Health Board was referred to in those documents as well as a memorandum explaining the view on it and that was discussed at the next meeting. We know that even if it is true that the Minister was absent, the two Ministers of State were there, as were his officials and advisers. We know that the Minister of State, Deputy Tim O'Malley, told Mr. Travers he understood the full legal, financial and political implications of what he had read. This probably shows that the Minister, Deputy Tim O'Malley, should be considered for promotion in that at least he reads his documents.

The Minister of State, Deputy Callely, briefed the Taoiseach, thereby taking out a very important insurance policy for him. He has now implicated the Taoiseach, who cannot sack him because he told him all about it. Will the Tánaiste explain why the Minister, Deputy Martin, is the only Member who knows nothing about what was going on? The information advanced to the House is simply unbelievable. The Tánaiste's decision not to release the documents from the Gresham Hotel meeting is surely calculated to protect her Cabinet colleague. Why will she not release the document from the then South Eastern Health Board? That is not her decision. Property, in that legal opinion, had been transferred to the HSE, following the establishment of that agency. Why should those documents not be made available in full to this House and to the committee examining the Travers report? It can be concealed for no other reason than to protect a culpable and incompetent Minister?

To deal with the last issue first, I gave an undertaking that the briefing document would be made available. There were four elements to that briefing document. Two of them are published in the Travers report and the other two relate to the South Eastern Health Board legal advice. That contains advice other than in relation to long-term charges. It contains advice on matters that are about to come before the courts. Cases are pending as regards other issues which are dealt with in those legal opinions. For that reason the Attorney General has strongly advised that I would prejudice the position of the State if I released those documents. They are, as the Deputy knows, subject to client and professional confidentiality. All those documents were available to Mr. Travers, who quoted from them in his report.

Maladministration may refer not only to public servants but also politicians. The Travers report was clear on where blame lay. While Mr. Travers said there were misgivings on the part of Ministers over the years for not probing more deeply, he said, I think the words were, on the scale of comparison, "it was nothing in comparison to the fault that lay in the corporate public administration of the Department of Health and Children". He went on to instance why he believed that to be the case. Those were Mr. Travers's findings. He is a reputable former public servant and head of a State organisation, and I accept his findings — I see Deputy McManus has the report. He said he could find no evidence of any Minister having been appropriately briefed by the Department of Health and Children. I am sure that was among the reasons he came to the conclusions outlined.

Mr. Travers said there was no written evidence. Surely, if the Tánaiste believes that the documents refer to other matters, she can excise these and still put the documents that relate to this particular issue in the full possession of Members of this House. It simply is not credible. The Tánaiste gave a commitment to the House that she would make these documents available. She subsequently made contact, presumably with Deputy Kenny and certainly with me, to the effect that on the eve of the bank holiday she was not making public two of those documents. If there is a separate matter involved, that should be excised and the documents should be made available. Is the Tánaiste saying that Mr. Travers had full access to all the documents in question? Does she have any explanation as to why a man who was the head of such an important Department can claim never to have read his documents or talked to the Ministers of State at the Department? One Minister of State felt the matter was so serious that he had to talk to the Taoiseach about it, but not to the Minister. Can the Tánaiste offer any rational explanation for that situation? Will she say if the Government committee, established to examine what form redress might take, has met and, if so, how many times and when is it likely that information will be published on what scheme of redress the Government is committed to?

The Government committee met this morning and I will bring a memorandum to the Government at our first meeting after the Easter recess, on 6 April. We examined the possibility of deleting references to the other issues in the legal opinion, but as the matters are all intertwined that would have been impossible. It would not have made sense. A number of cases are pending, as I am sure the Deputy is aware, where we would jeopardise the position of the State and particularly that of the HSE. It is not traditional that legal advice that could prejudice the outcome from the taxpayers' viewpoint would be put into the public domain at this point. Above all else, we all have to be professional in the manner in which we handle this issue. All the advice was available to Mr. Travers. He saw the entire legal opinion and the memorandum in relation to it compiled by the South Eastern Health Board. Essentially, the two documents——

Fumbling along blindfold in the Department is not being professional.

——are the legal advice, extending to more than 80 pages, and a shortened version of it in the form of a memorandum. The other two documents are in the report. Mr. Travers found that no Minister had been appropriately briefed. I went to the Department of Health and Children on 30 September and was not briefed about this matter. It was only after the intervention by Deputy Kenny that I sought the legal advice of the Attorney General. I felt that I should have been briefed, as the new Minister, on issues as serious as this, but that did not happen.