Martin to face Oireachtas committee

FORMER Health Minister Micheál Martin is to be called before the Oireachtas Committee on Health next month to discuss the Travers Report.

The committee also wants to see the legal opinion on long-stay charges obtained by the South Eastern Health Board and given to Mr Martin in advance of a crucial December 2003 meeting.

Around 300,000 people were illegally charged for nursing home care since 1976, despite holding medical cards

Tánaiste and Minister for Health Mary Harney wants to invoke the Statute of Limitations to reduce the enormous bill the State faces in compensation for illegal charges for long-term care in nursing homes and other institutions.

However, she has been advised by the Attorney General Rory Brady the statute could not be used against anyone who was of unsound mind at the time the charges were levied or against living person.

The Health Service Executive (HSE) estimate that the cost of compensating people for the last six years would be €532 million, a sum that is substantially less than €2 billion for all charges dating back to 1979 when illegal charging began.

First to appear before the committee on April 12 next will be the author of the 160-page report, the former head of Forfás, John Travers.

After hearing what Mr Travers has to say, the committee intend calling former secretary general of the Department of Health and Children Michael Kelly.

Mr Martin and two junior ministers, Ivor Callely and Tim O’Malley, will be called before the committee on April 19.

Mr Martin’s advisers and the chief executive of the South Eastern Health Board, Pat McLoughlin, now director of the HSE’s National Hospital Office, will appear before the committee the following day.

The committee also hopes to call other previous ministers, former secretary generals and other health officials to address it on the long-stay charges issue.

Minister Harney refused an earlier request from the committee for the legal opinion obtained by the health board. The minister said she was concerned that some of the opinion in the 86-page legal document may prejudice the State in a number of court cases with which it is currently dealing.

The committee agreed that anything relating to a court case could be blanked out and the rest of the document could be given to the committee.