Adjournment Debate

Ballymanus Mine Disaster

Deputy Pearse Doherty

I welcome the Minister for Defence, Deputy Alan Shatter, to the House.

The issue I raise is a very important one that affected west Donegal. The Minister of State, Deputy McGinley, will be familiar with the stories that come from that part of the country. This one scarred a whole community. It happened a very long time ago, well before my time, and was brought to my attention only in recent years. It relates to the Ballymanus mine disaster, one of the worst events that happened in this country during the Second World War. Last week marked the worst event in the history of the State, the bombing by the Germans of a part of Dublin in which more than 20 people lost their lives. In Ballymanus in west Donegal, 19 young men lost their lives. Their ages ranged from 14 to 34 years. Some came from the same household; one family lost three sons. Many of those killed were very young lads with their whole lives in front of them.

The incident happened on 10 May 1943. A mine came ashore at Ballymanus and a crowd gathered to watch it. As the mine came closer to the shore it is understood that some of the people present tried to throw a rope around it. Although the mine had been spotted earlier that day and reported to the gardaí at around 6.45 p.m. it did not explode until 10 p.m.

The reason I raise the matter is my belief that the families of those who lost their lives in the Ballymanus mine disaster deserve an apology or an acknowledgment from the State that it did not carry out its responsibilities in the way it should have. I understand there have been previous efforts with a previous Government to seek an apology. I realise the issue of compensation may be a stumbling block and therefore I ask the Minister to be open-minded and not merely to refer to the civil servants' script but to look for a way that protects the State but allows the families to put this issue behind them.

There are many documents relating to the period which clearly show that once a report was provided to the Garda that a mine was coming onshore it was the responsibility of gardaí to ensure the area was cordoned off. I have a report of an ard-cheannfort of the Garda that was sent to every Garda station and garda in the State. It states: "Whenever a report that an explosive article has been washed ashore is received at any Garda station the member-in-charge will immediately take such steps as are necessary to ensure that no one approaches to within 500 yards of the article and will at once report the matter to the nearest military post." I reiterate this mine was reported to the Garda three hours and 15 minutes before the explosion but gardaí did not attend the site. The Secretary of the Department of Defence in 1943 stated in a report: "You will observe from the report that the instruction was not observed" — namely, the instruction to cordon off the area — "by the local gardaí in as much as they did not take any steps to prevent members of the public from approaching the mine."

I have another document, referred by officials to the Minister's predecessor, Gerard Boland, in 1943 which states: "The Chief Superintendent has expressed the opinion that the request for the inquiry was made as the outcome of hostility against the local sergeant who apparently has been unpopular in the area for a long time and who was, of course, guilty of grave neglect of duty in this matter." It is clear that such was the view of officials at the time and after the inquiry that took place.

The Minister may not be able to do so tonight because he has been provided with a speech by officials but will he state clearly that he will examine the issue of bringing closure to the relatives and families and the entire community of that area of west Donegal who suffered so much as a result of the war? I do not claim that the sergeant mentioned in the report caused the deaths — of course he did not. However, there was a clear instruction and he should have done something but did not. The Department of Defence clearly stated as much, as did the sergeant in later correspondence with investigators. This is an opportunity for the State to issue an apology to the families.

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter)

The matter raised relates to a tragic incident that occurred on Ballymanus Strand, County Donegal, on 10 May 1943, in which 18 people tragically lost their lives when a wartime mine floated ashore and exploded. This tragic incident was also raised by the Deputy in Parliamentary Question No. 281 on today's Order Paper and was previously raised in this House as Parliamentary Question No. 512 on 13 May 2008 and in an Adjournment debate in the Seanad on 23 April 2008. In October 2010, my predecessor met with Senator Brian Ó Dómhnaill and the son of one of the men who tragically lost his life that day and the question of an apology from the State was discussed.

This House has previously heard details of the sequence of events leading up to the tragedy, based on information gleaned from the files in the National Archives but for the sake of completeness I will briefly outline the facts as I understand them. On 10 May 1943 a report was made to gardaí at Annagry in County Donegal at 6.45 p.m. that an object, believed to be a mine, was floating in the sea between Mullaghdearg Point and Broad Strand. The gardaí reported the matter to the lieutenant in the local marine service who went to Ballymanus Strand shortly afterwards. The mine was more than a mile offshore at this time. The lieutenant warned a group of men who were present on the strand to stay away. He waited there for over two hours until the mine came ashore and again warned those present to stay away from it. In his report he noted that the reaction of some of those present to him was almost hostile. The reports state it appears that when the lieutenant left the site at 9.50 p.m. to report the matter to his ordnance officer some of the men present on the strand proceeded to haul the mine ashore with ropes and some attempted to unscrew portions of it. The mine exploded at 10 p.m., killing 17 men at the scene. Another man died in hospital the following day. Five others were injured. Those who died ranged in age from 13 to 34. Eight were under the age of 18.

The file shows that an inquest was held the day after the event. Consideration was given at the time to holding an inquiry into the matter. However, it seems from the file that there was little local demand for an inquiry at the time. It was noted that a number of local representatives were of the view that nothing would be gained from such an inquiry and a meeting of local clergy apparently also came to the same conclusion. A report on file states that a meeting of the next-of-kin of the deceased was held on the 24 May which decided unanimously that no demand be made for an inquiry. The Departments of Defence and Justice came to the conclusion that an inquiry would not serve any useful purpose. The coroner was informed that no official inquiry was proposed and the inquest was reconvened on the 28 May.

The verdict of the inquest was that the deaths were caused by the explosion of the mine. The jury added riders to its verdict, stating that the disaster could have been avoided if the Garda sergeant at Annagry had cordoned off the area in the immediate vicinity of the mine until the arrival of the military; that there was disagreement as to whether the lieutenant of the coast watching service was negligent; and that it was the jury's opinion that the military authorities should be asked to establish a coast watching post in the vicinity of Ballymanus.

There is a report on file from the Garda superintendent of the area stating his opinion that the sergeant involved had not dealt properly with the report of the mine, that he failed to go to the scene before the explosion and that no attempt was made to cordon off the area. It is noted on the file that there was bad feeling locally about this.

As I have said, this was an appalling tragedy for the community of Ballymanus and the whole country. However, it must be questionable whether, 68 years after the event, it would be practical to inquire into whether anything more should have been done to prevent the dreadful loss of life, or to apportion blame or pass judgment on the actions of the individuals or organisations involved. Few of those directly involved are still alive to defend or explain themselves. Those who are alive have distant memories of what occurred. I have listened carefully to the Deputy's request for some form of apology to be given. I will reflect on what he had to say about this tragic event. I thank him for raising the matter. It is important not to forget such events. Of course I am deeply saddened by what happened in Ballymanus. I offer my personal sympathies to all those who lost loved ones on that dreadful day in 1943.

Parental Rights

Deputy Brian Walsh

I thank the Ceann Comhairle's office for allowing me to raise this matter, which is of some importance. I acknowledge the presence of the Minister, Deputy Shatter, and thank him for coming to the House to speak about the legal status afforded to unmarried fathers in Irish law and the right of such people to the guardianship of their children. Married parents are correctly considered joint guardians at present. They share equal rights in respect of their sons and daughters. In the case of a child born outside of marriage to unmarried parents, however, only the mother has an automatic right of guardianship. In such circumstances, the law considers the father to be a stranger to the child, in effect. It seems that under Irish law, a father's right of guardianship derives from his being the husband of the mother of the child, rather than his being the father of the child.

The human impact of this situation on the growing number of non-marital families in Ireland cannot be underestimated. Children are being deprived of their right to know and be cared for by both parents. Fathers are distraught at being denied the joy of playing an active part in the upbringing of their children. This is having a devastating effect on people's lives. I know of genuine and decent fathers who are suffering from severe bouts of depression as a result of this law. I suggest it is contributing to the growing incidence of suicide in society, which was the subject of extensive statements in this House in recent weeks. Like other Deputies, I have been contacted by grandparents who are concerned about their son's well-being and mental health. Equally, I have been contacted by people who are devastated because they have little or no access to their grandchildren. This divisive and saddening injustice is the result of a failure to legislate for the changing nature of the Irish family.

We live in a time of great social change. An increasing number of couples are living together in non-marital relationships. We now have divorce and civil partnerships. In 1996, the Constitutional Review Group noted that the Constitution — our founding document — was "clearly drafted with one family in mind, namely, the family based on marriage". The European Court of Human Rights has constantly reinforced the fact that families not based on marriage are families nonetheless. Children born in such circumstances should have the right to benefit from the support and affection of both parents, notwithstanding their marital status. As the Constitution was drafted in a different time, it reflects a different reality and social outlook. Just 3% of children were born outside of marriage in 1937, whereas today one in every three births is to unmarried parents.

The unmarried father is not part of the family within its meaning under Article 41 of the Constitution. He is not a parent within the meaning of Article 42. He has no personal right in relation to his child under Article 40.3 of the Constitution. Under our current laws, the unmarried father is a legal pariah, in effect. He is ostracised and ignored, voiceless and invisible. This stems from our Constitution, which professes to cherish the notions of family and equality but in many cases is destroying the very thing it purports to protect, apparently with the paramount welfare of the child at heart. We are all aware of tragic circumstances that have conspired to deprive a child of its father or deny a father the unique joy of watching his children grow up. We can do little to prevent such tragic instances, sadly, but we can do something to ensure fathers and children do not suffer in each other's absence as the result of an antiquated Constitution and inadequate legislation.

The right of every child to know and be cared for by both of his or her parents, regardless of whether they are living together, should be enshrined in the Constitution. An explicit provision should be inserted in the Constitution to guarantee equal rights to both the mother and the father, in accordance with Article 7 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. That would serve the best interests of the child. The extensive research that has been carried out in this area was reflected in the Law Reform Commission report on the legal aspects of family relationships, which was published last December. With this in mind, I ask the Minister if he intends to address the issues I have raised. Will it be done as part of the Government's legislative programme? I bow to the Minister's superior knowledge and wisdom on this subject. I respectfully suggest he take on board many of the recommendations in the Law Reform Commission report.

Deputy Alan Shatter

I thank my colleague, Deputy Walsh, for raising this important issue. As he will be aware, the key legislation relating to parental responsibility is the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964, which was amended extensively in 1987 and 1997 to strengthen the position of non-marital fathers with regard to their children. Some of the legislative changes that have been made in this area were required by the European Court of Human Rights. It is worth recalling the details of the substance of those provisions, as they relate to unmarried fathers. I will refer to how those provisions have operated in our courts and mention the actual rights that are conferred on unmarried fathers in our legal system.

In the absence of agreement between the unmarried father and mother of a child, the father may apply to the court to be appointed a guardian of his child under section 6A of the 1964 Act, as amended by the Status of Children Act 1987. The law is protective of the rights of the child to the society of both his or her father and mother. Section 11D of the 1964 Act, which was inserted by the Children Act 1997, obliges the court in proceedings relating to the welfare of a child to consider whether the child's best interests would be served by maintaining personal relations and direct contact with both his or her father and mother on a regular basis. In this context, it is worth noting that the majority of guardianship applications are granted. In 2009, the most recent year for which final figures are available, over 95% of applicant fathers were awarded guardianship, excluding cases which were withdrawn or struck out. My personal experience prior to becoming Minister, as a lawyer dealing professionally with family law matters, was that one of the big difficulties in this area is that many fathers do not take responsibility for their children. Indeed, many of them do not seek to form and cement relationships with their children, or to involve themselves in their children's lives.

If there is agreement between the parents, the law ensures there is no need for them to go to court to have a guardianship order made. Instead, they can make a statutory declaration under section 2(4) of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964, as inserted by section 4 of the Children Act 1997, appointing the father as a guardian of his child. Section 11 of the 1964 Act provides that the guardian of a child or the unmarried father of a child, irrespective of whether he is a guardian, can apply to the courts for either a custody order or an access order. Any court order that is made must be determined with regard to the welfare of the child as the first and paramount consideration. It is important to recall that in all proceedings under the 1964 Act, as amended, where appropriate and practicable the court must take into account the child's wishes in the matter, having regard to the age and understanding of the child. In practical terms, the older the child, the greater the importance the court attaches to the wishes expressed by the child.

While unmarried fathers do not enjoy the same automatic guardianship rights and responsibilities as married fathers, the mechanisms I have outlined make extensive provision to allow them to obtain that legal status in relation to their children. Based on the statistics I have mentioned, the courts operate the law to the fullest possible extent. The truth is that there is no major obstacle to the biological father of a child being named as guardian of the child in circumstances in which the father has an established relationship with that child. As the Deputy mentioned, a number of recommendations for reform have been made. I have raised this issue while wearing a different hat. As recently as December 2010, the Law Reform Commission published a report on legal aspects of family relationships in which it recommended that joint registration of a child's birth be made compulsory for unmarried parents; and that on registration a father should automatically become a guardian of the child together with the child's mother.

The report also recommends providing a statutory basis for other members of the child's family, including step-parents and other relatives, to establish a legal relationship with the child. These are far-reaching and important proposals to which I am giving careful consideration, and are relevant to both legal and constitutional policy. I believe consultation is required with relevant interests before we progress legislation in this area. It is important for all parties concerned that a necessary balance be maintained in the law in a way which recognises the rights of the parties but which fundamentally protects the welfare of children.

The programme for Government contains a commitment to reform and modernise aspects of family law. In this context, I want to assure my colleague the recommendations in the Law Reform Commission's report are under consideration by me and my Department, as are other crucial reforms in the area of family law. Ultimately, it is my hope to publish a family law Bill. In addressing some of the areas of family law, I expect not to be in a position to publish that Bill until next year.

In dealing with issues of this nature it is important not to deal with them too simplistically, and I am not remotely suggesting that Deputy Walsh would do so. However, there are other areas relating to both parenthood and paternity and guardianship rights which have for too long been ignored in this State and which are of considerable importance, such as the parentage and, indeed, paternity of children born as a result of the new scientific methods of reproduction and the assistance that parents may obtain from those who donate materials which can result ultimately in a child being born. These are issues which have for too long been ignored and in respect of which legislation is required. They affect not merely parents outside marriage but marital parents, and these are issues that I hope to be in a position to address by way of legislation next year.

Ambulance Service

Deputy Gerald Nash

I am disappointed the Minister for Health is not available to respond to this matter. I am also disappointed that none of the Ministers of State at the Department of Health appears to be available either. Notwithstanding that, I am sure that the Minister who is here this evening to respond will do so to the best of his ability. I want to put on the record the fact that it is unacceptable to me that Ministers from the Department of Health are not here to address this important issue.

If any one of us here this evening thinks that the health service is working, I would challenge all of us to think again. The public health service is not working if it allows a man fighting for his life on a busy street to wait 30 minutes for an ambulance. That man was Peter Sherlock and he died in hospital soon after being taken there in the back of a van by a good Samaritan who was passing by at the time and saw the man in distress. He was taken to hospital in the back of a van because there was no ambulance available to take him. We are not referring here to a street in a small provincial town 50 miles from the nearest acute hospital. We are referring to a tragic incident which occurred on the streets of Drogheda, the largest town in Ireland, less than one mile from Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital and only a matter of a couple of hundred metres from an ambulance base.

We have been told over the past few days in a series of HSE statements that all vehicles stationed in Drogheda at the time the call was received, at 9.59 hours on the 26 May, were what was termed "tasked on calls" at the time. We are told that the closest available ambulance was dispatched to the scene. Why is it then that the closest available ambulance was located at Navan, 30 minutes from the town of Drogheda, the health care centre of the entire north-eastern region?

We are told that the three ambulances that were at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital were all actively engaged with patients. We are also informed, thanks only to the tenacity of the team on The Michael Reade Show on LMFM, that other ambulances were involved in patient transportation at the time the call was received.

In a statement last week the HSE stated, "Ambulance Service resources are deployed on a clinical basis to ensure that the appropriate patient gets the appropriate response". I wonder if the Ministers present agree that Peter Sherlock got the appropriate response because I donot.

This tragic saga has led to a real fear in terms of the ability of the ambulance service to respond to emergencies in Ireland's largest town. The House will agree it is imperative that the public must have confidence in the ambulance service and in the health service in general, and this tragic episode has challenged that confidence. The internationally accepted emergency response time is eight minutes, whereas it takes approximately 30 minutes for an ambulance to travel from Navan to Drogheda.

The circumstances around Mr. Sherlock's death have sent shock-waves around the wider community in Drogheda and the Louth-Meath area in general. One person too many has died waiting for an ambulance in Drogheda. I ask the Minister of State present representing the Minister for Health if he can state with confidence to the people of Drogheda that this will not happen again. Does he have confidence that the HSE ambulance service has the necessary resources at its disposal to do the job the public ask of it?

I implore the Minister to take definitive action to address the failures exposed in this case, to take a different course, dispense with the impenetrable HSE-speak and confront this as the human tragedy it was. I want the Government to be able to look me and the people of Drogheda and County Louth in the eye and tell us that this will not be allowed to happen again in Drogheda or, for that matter, anywhere else in this country.

Minister of State at the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (Deputy Dinny McGinley)

On behalf of the Minister, I thank Deputy Nash for raising this tragic occurrence. The Minister, Deputy Reilly, and I offer our sincere condolences to the relatives of the person who has died.

From what the Minister has been informed, he understands that the man concerned had collapsed in the street and passers by came to his help and called for an ambulance. It appears that it was subsequently decided at the scene, because of the man's condition, to take him direct to hospital by car and the ambulance was cancelled. The HSE's log of calls to the National Ambulance Service bears out this version of events as the ambulance was cancelled nine minutes after the first 999 call had been received.

The Minister commends the instincts that prompted people on the street to help a fellow human being in a dire situation. No one can predict the outcome when faced with such a dilemma. The emergency services can provide advice and support over the telephone while an ambulance is awaited but the confusion on the ground may have made this difficult in this case.

This case underlines the need for the reform and modernisation of the ambulance service currently under way. While it does not appear to have been an issue in this case, the move to two national call centres to prioritise and manage calls is clearly essential. It is critical that emergency ambulances are used for emergency services and that there is a rapid hand-over of patients at emergency departments.

Supported by the Department of Health and by HIQA, the National Ambulance Service is working to improve the management and integration of its services. This includes a reduction to two ambulance control centres nationally, with appropriate technology, a clinical lead for pre-hospital care, development and implementation of new performance indicators for pre-hospital care and development of standard national criteria on non-emergency patient transport.

The HIQA report "Pre-Hospital Emergency Care: Key Performance Indicators for Emergency Response Times", published in January 2011, recommends response times for first responders and for ambulances. The HIQA response time standard for transporting ambulances is 18 minutes 59 seconds for life threatening emergencies in 75% of cases. The HSE has been recording this data since January 2011 and since March 2011 has advised that it meets this standard throughout Ireland.

The National Ambulance Service has undergone significant change in order to ensure quality, safety and value for money. In line with other clinical areas, this process is ongoing as clinical needs and standards develop. I and the Minister, Deputy Reilly, believe that these developments are in the best interests of patients and that they are a key part of the Government's work to ensure high-quality emergency care.

In conclusion let me once again offer my condolences and those of the Minister to the relatives in this case.

Guthrie Cards

Deputy Simon Harris

I thank the office of the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to raise this matter and I thank the Minister for being here.

The issue which I want to raise has ramifications for families all over this country. Every child born in this State receives a heel-prick test shortly after birth.

The blood samples taken from these tests are then stored in the metabolic laboratory in Temple Street Children's University Hospital on Guthrie cards. While the hospital currently has samples for every child born since 1984, the Data Protection Commissioner has proposed that these samples be destroyed and that the only samples kept are those for which the donor has given express permission.

The genetic material stored on these cards is highly sensitive and it is imperative that safeguards are put in place to regulate access. Of this there is no doubt or disagreement. However, these cards have a significant medical value above and beyond the results of a simple heel prick test. Since 1984, at least 1,200 people in the country have died of what are commonly referred to as sudden antenatal death syndrome, SADS, and sudden infant death syndrome, SIDS, or cot death. Deaths due to SADS and SIDS do not present abnormal autopsy reports. For this reason, tissue retention at the time of autopsy did not occur in this country until 2005 and the practice is still not routine. However, advances in medical technology have led to doctors identifying several genetic mutations which cause SADS or SIDS. More than 20 genes affecting the cardiac electrical system have been discovered. As a result of these advances we know that the families of those who have died from these conditions are at significantly higher risk than the general population. The genetic data stored on Guthrie cards offer many families their only chance of screening for multiple genetic mutations which can cause SADS. Once the mutation responsible is identified, other family members can be medically screened. Depending on the outcome of this assessment, preventative measures such as the implantation of pacemakers may be recommended.

The information stored on Guthrie cards can save lives. Arising from the tragedy of losing a loved one, people can help to save the life of another loved one. This is a serious matter. No family can be prepared for the tragedy of these conditions. There is nothing to say that future medical advances will not identify additional conditions where these samples can be used. One presumes their value will increase in time with medical advances.

It is unreasonable to expect individuals to act proactively to ensure the retention of this data. No other country in the European Union has destroyed the samples they have retained to date. Other countries outside the European Union, notably Australia, New Zealand and the state of California, have introduced governance structures to legally protect Guthrie card samples and to allow access to next of kin in specific circumstances.

This is a great opportunity for Ireland to show leadership internationally and on the European stage. We are all aware this is something we have not been doing as a country for some time. We can pave the way forward for the European Union to deal with this data crisis, to protect the contents of Guthrie cards and, ultimately, to help save lives or, we can go down the road of bureaucracy and HSE-speak and destroy these valuable samples and add to the distress of families affected by this tragic condition. I urge the Minister of State, Deputy McGinley, to discuss the matter with his colleague in the Department, the Minister for Health, and to call on him to interact with his counterparts in Australia, New Zealand and the state of California. Let us develop an opt-out system here where we give people the opportunity to have the data destroyed. In the same way that many people seek an opt-out in respect of organ donation let us encourage people to opt-out rather than opt-in.

This is a national medical resource. It is a lifesaving tool and it is vital that the Government and the Oireachtas are proactive in their efforts to save this resource and to give comfort and words of assurance to the parents throughout the country who are concerned about the implications of SADS or SIDS for their children.

Deputy Peter Mathews

Hear, hear.

Deputy Dinny McGinley

I am responding to this Adjournment matter on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Health, Deputy James Reilly. I thank the Deputy for raising this matter as it provides me with an opportunity to outline to the House the importance attached by the Minister, his Department and the Health Service Executive to the issue. The national newborn bloodspot screening programme, NNBSP, has been in operation since 1966 and screens newborn infants for five conditions including Phenylketonuria, Classical Galactosaemia, Homocystinuria, Maple Syrup Urine Disease, Congenital Hypothyroidism and, from 1 July 2011, Cystic Fibrosis will be included as well.

To comply with data protection legislation, several changes are required to the newborn screening card and the national newborn bloodspot screening programme. Data records associated with each blood spot will also be covered under the forthcoming health information legislation. These changes include the development of a revised newborn screening card, obtaining written consent from the mother to have her newborn infant screened for the conditions described, retaining the card for ten years and retaining the information on the result for 25 years in line with HSE policy on the retention of health care records. The mother's written consent will be included on the card and a new parent information sheet has been developed to provide the necessary information. As a consequence, it had been planned to destroy existing cards which are older than ten years. The baby's newborn screening card will only be used for checking the baby's results, for other tests recommended by the baby's or child's doctor and for which the parents' permission will be sought and for quality assurance to develop and improve the screening programme and the health of babies and families in Ireland.

These changes evolved from collaboration between the national newborn bloodspot screening laboratory, Temple Street Children's University Hospital, the Department of Health, the Data Protection Commissioner and the Health Service Executive. Subsequent to this policy being agreed, concerns were raised about the proposed destruction of the Guthrie cards and their retention for other medical purposes. The HSE has been asked to review the situation in the context of the concerns expressed before the proposed changes take effect at year end. The outcome of this review will go to the newborn screening governance group. I thank the Deputy again for his contribution, which will be conveyed to the Minister.

The Dáil adjourned at 9.05 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 8 June 2011.

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 7 Jun 2011