Micheal, a few simple questions...

A simple question for Micheál Martin: how can you claim to have known nothing about the residential charges problem when your own health strategy proposed solving the problem of residential charges?

If you did not know there was a problem, why would you be proposing a solution? Simple, isn't it? So a simple, straight answer will do just fine.

No need to sort out conflicts of evidence between you and Michael Kelly. No need to call other civil servants to say whether they gave you documents. Simply: if you did not know there was a problem with residential charges, why were you proposing a solution to the problem of residential charges?

We have the same question for Brendan Howlin. He of "best practice" and "state-of-the-art" fame. Why, if you did not know about the residential charges problem, were you proposing a solution to the residential charges problem back in 1994? But first Micheál.

Remember the all-singing, all-dancing launch of your health strategy in November 2001? How could you forget? The one that was to defuse public anger over the state of the health services? Well in paragraph 36 of chapter 5 of that health strategy, your health strategy, there is the following in black and white: "New legislation to provide for clear statutory provisions on entitlement will be introduced." And then: " legislation will include provision for a clear framework for financing of long-stay care for older people."

Now what was the point of the commitment to introduce legislation "for a clear framework for financing of long-stay care for older people", unless there was some problem with the existing legislation? So Micheál, please tell us, why were you making a commitment to introduce legislation to provide for a "clear framework for financing of long-stay care for older people" if you didn't know there was some problem with the then existing situation? And another thing . . .

A little further on in your health strategy there is the following: "In his report on the Nursing Home Subvention Scheme, the Ombudsman has drawn attention to the uncertainty surrounding the eligibility of older people for long-term residential care. Clarification of entitlement in this regard will be given particular attention in the general review of legislation on entitlement referred to above."

Now, we accept Micheál, it is not reasonable to presume you wrote the health strategy all by yourself. But we presume you read it before publication. Didn't you? After all, it was your health strategy and the least we could expect is that you read it. And on reading that paragraph, you did inquire: what is this about the Ombudsman's query? Didn't you? Please don't say you didn't. And when you asked this question, what did they tell you? So let's not bother about that hurried conversation on the way to a meeting in the Gresham Hotel or the subsequent alleged briefing in your office. Let's accept that whatever was said to you, the issue of residential charges did not register with you on those occasions. We are all prone to being distracted from time to time.

But when the issue of residential charges was spelt out in your own document, your health strategy, please don't tell us, Micheál, you didn't read it and didn't ask what the f**k is this about? Please tell us you did read it, that you did ask, but someone gave you a bum steer. And, by the way, who gave you the bum steer and what did they tell you?

Now on to Brendan Howlin. Brendan, in your health strategy of 1994, Shaping a Healthier Future, there was a paragraph about residential charges. Crystal clear. It read: "The principle has always been accepted that people taken into long-term care should contribute from their incomes towards the cost of their maintenance; however, the legislation gives rise to anomalies and inequities as regards charges that can be made. The legislation will be amended to provide a clearer and fairer basis for these contributions towards the cost of long-term maintenance."

You did inquire Brendan, didn't you, why there was need for legislation; what the problem was? Again, Brendan, please don't tell us you didn't read your own document. Also please don't tell us that when you read this you didn't ask the obvious question about charges, if you did not already know the answer.

So Brendan, why did you not introduce this legislation? Why did you let this slip by? Why not a cheep out of you about residential charges over all the years? And while we are at it, a query or two for Mary Harney. Wasn't the first thing you did, Mary, when you started to covet the health portfolio read the health strategy of your own Government. You know, the Government of which you are Tánaiste?

You remember the health strategy? You were there for the singing and dancing. Surely you read this before you took over in health to make sure what had been promised in your name as well as in the name of the Government? And when you read the strategy did you inquire (a) what was this about residential charges: and (b) was the promised amending legislation introduced? And when you did ask, Mary, what did they tell you?