Calls for Martin to quit likely to fail
Fine Gael, Labour and the Greens are expected to table a motion of no confidence in the minister, but it is unlikely to succeed, the Government having the necessary numbers in the Dáil to defeat it.
The reality is that the report largely appears to exonerate the minister even though there are several key issues which remain unresolved.
These centre upon the clear conflict between evidence given to John Travers, the author of the report, by Mr Martin and Michael Kelly, his secretary general while at Health.
Mr Kelly said he clearly recollected discussing the legal issues arising from the charges with Mr Martin on two separate occasions.
The first was on the day of a meeting between senior department officials and health board chief executives at the Gresham Hotel on December 16, 2003.
Mr Martin arrived late to the Gresham, and Mr Kelly left the room to meet him at the entrance, where he quickly briefed him on the issues that had already been raised, "including nursing home charges".
Mr Martin, however, said it was "clear any mention of the discussion which may have taken place was, at the very most, brief and undetailed".
The second occasion when Mr Kelly said the issue was discussed with the minister was on March 10 last year, during a meeting about the department's annual business plan. Mr Kelly said they discussed "what the best solution might be, if it proved necessary on the basis of legal advice to introduce amending legislation, as a stand-alone item from the general overhaul of eligibility legislation". The idea was that amending legislation would have given the charges the proper legal footing they required.
But Mr Martin denied that this was discussed.
Another issue was a submission seeking legal advice from the Attorney General that was prepared following the December meeting. The folder containing the submission never made it to the Attorney General, but did leave the secretary general's department some time in January or February last year.
"I did not retain the folder and my firm belief is that I referred it elsewhere in the department," said Mr Kelly. "Given its potential consequences, my belief is that I would have brought it to the attention of the minister."
Mr Kelly also said another official at the department observed the folder "in the outer office of the minister's office at some point in early 2004".
However, Mr Martin said it was "clear that I was not shown or asked to comment on the file".
On the conflict of evidence, the report author concluded: "Absolutely no documentation was made available to me to demonstrate or to indicate that the minister had been fully and adequately briefed by the department on the serious nature of the issues arising which the management of the department acknowledge carried significant potential legal, financial and political consequences.
"Such briefings that did take place appear to be at the most superficial of levels."
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
