I welcome Ms Charlotte Yeates, Mr. Clem Murphy and Ms Breda Butler of Parents for Justice. We look forward to hearing your presentation. We are allocating an hour to this meeting. We understand the implications of the reports of the past few days which have added to the concern of Parents for Justice as a group. I refer particularly to the reports in yesterday's papers that sand was used as a filler to replace organs. It adds a greater dimension and worry and makes the story much more grim than it was before the group forwarded its request for a meeting with the committee. We will hear the presentation and members will go through it with the group.
Dunne Inquiry: Discussion with Parents for Justice.
DEPUTY JOHN MOLONEY IN THE CHAIR.
Ms Charlotte Yeates
Parents for Justice was founded in December 1999 by four mothers, myself, Charlotte Yeates, Breda Butler, the late Margaret McKeever and Fionnuala O'Reilly, after we discovered that our deceased children's organs had been removed, retained and disposed of following post mortem examination in Our Lady's Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin, without our knowledge or consent. We were extremely frustrated at our inability to obtain answers to reasonable questions about post mortem practice, policy and procedure in Irish hospitals, so we decided to speak publicly about our experiences. A helpline was put in place by Parents for Justice and within a three-week period we had received 2,000 calls from distressed families. At present we have 1,576 members on our database.
Within a very short period of time it emerged that this practice was not confined to Our Lady's hospital. It was the procedure in all hospitals in the State. The practice was not confined to children; it included adults of all ages. We now know that it is highly likely that any person who underwent a post mortem examination in Ireland was potentially involved in this national scandal. Following much media publicity the organisation was inundated with calls from around the country. We also received calls from England, Wales, Scotland, France, Canada and New York from parents and family members who have now moved out of the country. We have a number of members in our group in all of the above countries whom we regularly keep updated by way of newsletters and our website, www.parentsforjustice.com.
Since December 1999 Parents for Justice has endeavoured to obtain a full statutory inquiry into post mortem practice and policy in this State. Since 1999 we have been asking the same questions. On whose authority were organs or tissues removed and retained without informing the parents or next of kin and, more importantly, without obtaining their consent? Why did this happen? What happened to these organs and tissues? Were they used for teaching or research purposes? Were any of these organs or tissues sold to pharmaceutical companies or any other institution?
This organisation and its members are not now, nor have we ever been, opposed to post mortem examinations. We know that the advancement of medical science and the availability of organs for transplantation purposes is vitally important. We know that in many cases our loved ones would not have survived as long as they did but for the information gleaned from previous post mortem examinations. Our members are reasonable people and we know that if consent for the removal and retention of human organs had been sought in an open and transparent way, and the reasoning behind it explained, the majority of our members would have agreed to allow their loved ones' organs and-or tissue to be used in any way for the benefit of others in the future. By taking the organs without informing us, the medical profession has denied us any comfort we may have felt if we had been allowed the privilege of donating these organs.
Parents for Justice has campaigned for a full statutory inquiry since 1999, but this Government refused the request stating that it would take too long and it would be too costly. We were offered a two-tier inquiry, the first part to be in private and the second to have statutory powers. In a letter from the office of the then Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, it is stated: "The Minister is fully confident that the structure and form of the Inquiry as established, which provides for the referral to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children (which has a statutory basis) will ensure the determination of the facts". The ministerial promises and guarantees led us to believe this would be the case. In September 2000, following numerous meetings with the Minister for Health and Children and departmental officials, the then Minister, Deputy Micheál Martin, addressed a meeting of our members and gave these promises and guarantees. This was followed by a written confirmation from his office. This organisation voted to accept the two-tier inquiry offered to us, but only on the understanding that families affected would receive answers to their many questions.
The Dunne inquiry commenced its work in March 2001 and was to produce a report in September 2001. Our information has always been that given the non-statutory nature of the inquiry, it was having great difficulty in obtaining co-operation from a number of hospitals, despite the fact that the Minister assured us there would be no problem in obtaining co-operation from any hospital in the State. Parents for Justice withdrew its co-operation from the Dunne inquiry in October 2002 and called on the Government to establish the statutory form of inquiry it had promised in the ministerial letter we received before the commencement of the Dunne inquiry, which read: "The Minister has confirmed that in the most unlikely event of the Inquiry not meeting its objectives in this regard, he will pursue the establishment of alternative forms of Inquiry, including the establishment of a statutory inquiry under the Tribunals Act, if necessary." The Dunne inquiry overran its deadlines on five separate occasions.
In spite of the aforementioned promises of this Government, the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Mary Harney, closed down the Dunne inquiry on 31 March 2005. No findings or recommendations have been published to date and to the best of our knowledge no family has received information on the organs of their loved ones. Ms Anne Dunne, SC, presented the Minister, Deputy Harney, with 54 bankers' boxes of information and documents relating to the inquiry. No report has been published from the Dunne inquiry and despite numerous requests from Parents for Justice to view the entire contents of these 54 boxes, we have been continuously denied that access.
In May 2005, the Government appointed Dr. Deirdre Madden to examine the information accumulated by Ms Anne Dunne and to write a report. Dr. Madden's report was published in January 2006. However, it must be stressed that Dr. Madden's terms of reference differed entirely from those of Ms Anne Dunne in so far as Dr. Madden was asked to make recommendations for the future. She only focused on three hospitals and on children who were born alive and who died before the age of 12 years. This effectively excluded almost 50% of our membership.Ms Dunne’s terms of reference allowed for findings from the past and recommendations for the future and included all deaths, stillborn children, miscarriages, children of all ages and all adults.
While this organisation welcomes the fact that new practices are now in place, it must be understood that the families affected by the unauthorised removal, retention, disposal and, in some cases, sale of human organs have not received any answers. We still do not know what happened to our children's and loved ones organs after post mortem. We have subsequently learned that approximately 14,000 human pituitary glands were removed from dead children and adults and sold to pharmaceutical companies to make a growth hormone medication for children with stunted growth. We also know that this growth hormone medication was made in the period 1974 to 1988. It was discontinued at that time because a number of people developed CJD from a contaminated batch of the drug and later died. We are also aware that hospitals paid full commercial price for this medication. The pharmaceutical companies then had to make a synthetic form of the medication. This information had been obtained by Parents for Justice prior to the appointment of Dr. Deirdre Madden and the subsequent publication of her report in January 2006.
This organisation feels that we have been completely misled and very badly let down by the Government. We relied on ministerial promises and guarantees and they have been reneged on. Other inquiries and tribunals have been established by this Government and in all on them the people affected have received information. While they may not necessarily have liked the information they received, they got it. No report has ever been produced by the Dunne post mortem inquiry. It is the only inquiry in the history of the State to have been closed down without reaching a conclusion. It is the only inquiry to have been closed down without producing a publishable report.
To the best of our knowledge, no report from the Dunne inquiry has gone before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children. This committee has never had the opportunity to decide what format the second phase of the inquiry would take. Members should take a look at the memorandum on procedures for the Dunne inquiry, section 2.4, which is enclosed with our documentation. We would like the committee to ask the Minister for the report of the Dunne inquiry and to make the decision for the second phase of the inquiry, as indicated in the memorandum on procedures.
The Dunne inquiry has cost the taxpayer in excess of €20 million, but the families affected have learned nothing at all. This is another scandal. We fail to understand why people should be treated as second class citizens simply because they have dared to ask questions about their dead children and relatives. To lose a child is a terrible tragedy, which can only be fully understood by another bereaved parent. To learn that one's child's organs have been stolen and, in some cases, sold or reduced to hospital waste is devastating. Families whose loved ones' organs, children's and adults' alike, were retained without their knowledge or consent need to find the closure which the Government has promised for so long, but this can only be obtained by finding out exactly what happened in the past. The answers to some of our questions may lie within the 54 boxes of documents from the Dunne inquiry and we want access to them.
Having gained access under the Freedom of Information Act to documentation sent by various hospitals and health boards to the Dunne inquiry, we have identified a number of issues which would be questioned by any statutory inquiry or tribunal. The inquiry may have asked these questions and there may be perfectly acceptable answers, but without access to the 54 boxes of documents we cannot know this. An example of some of the issues are as follows. First, a large donation or subscription to a Dublin hospital from an English based pharmaceutical company in 1972, when all other donations and subscriptions were for much smaller amounts and were from Irish based companies and individuals. Only one annual report was received from this hospital. Second, the fact that the pharmaceutical companies that harvested pituitary glands between 1974 and 1988 approached and dealt with individual pathologists in the hospitals rather than with hospital management. One consultant pathologist donated his fee to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. Hospital management have indicated they only received nominal sums for these glands, but there is no information about the arrangements for payment or otherwise with the individual pathologists. Third, the very noticeable increase in the number of coroner's post mortems in the late 1980s and early 1990s, specifically from 1991 onwards. This was a period when the numbers of hospital post mortems decreased worldwide.
We have also just recently obtained under the Freedom of Information Act a copy of the full executive summary of the Dunne inquiry and the following questions have been added to our long list. Is there documentation for all of these findings and, if so, where is it? As regards the fact that sand was placed inside the bodies of children to replace the weight of the removed organs, did all hospitals do this? Was it a policy decision or were people free to make their own decisions on weight replacement? With regard to the research projects that are identified in the report, is there documentation that can link retained organs with specific projects?
While there are many more questions and bearing in mind the legal lengths that people are willing to go to in order to prevent information being released, we feel at this point that the only way questions will ever be answered is by way of a statutory form of inquiry. Once again we remind members that this committee should have been in a position to decide the format of the inquiry. While Parents for Justice have justified concerns at the contents of the executive summary of Ms Dunne's report, it would appear that the Departments of Health and Children's main concern is that nothing "criminal" has been identified. It does not seem to be concerned about right or wrong, morals or ethics.
In light of this information and the lack of answers for our members, the committee will understand our anger and frustration when the HSE withdrew funding from our organisation in December 2007, despite the fact that Parents for Justice is actively involved in drawing up human tissue legislation, the national audit of human organs which is being carried out by the HSE and the development of a database by Biobank Ireland.
We appeal once again for this committee to make the decision allowed for in the memorandum on procedures and decide on a format that will get at the truth and give our members the answers we have been waiting for since 1999. We have a right to know where the numerous body parts of our children and loved ones ended up and what benefit, if any, society in general gained from our loss.
Thank you.
I thank the Chairman and Ms Yeates. This is a very upsetting situation for many parents and it has touched virtually every family in the country, one way or another, whether because relatives were involved or in the unfortunate cases of miscarriages and other things those concerned have had to endure.
Ms Yeates asked several questions but has she received any answers? Does she feel a statutory inquiry is the only way to proceed to get the answers? Are there any other modes of inquiry we can deploy? If the information is in the boxes I would certainly support its release but I wonder whether we can form opinions from the information we already have, given the extensive nature of the previous inquiry. What is the view of Parents for Justice on that question?
Ms Charlotte Yeates
Many of the answers we want are within the 54 boxes of documents the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, has. We have offered to go through the documents ourselves but were turned down and we cannot gain access to them. We are told it is a matter of natural justice because they contain people's names but we do not necessarily want names, nor do we want a witch-hunt. We are not after heads on plates but are looking for answers as to what happened to our children and loved ones. Much of the work has already been done by the Dunne inquiry and its recommendations, in the findings we have read this week, are far stronger than those in Dr. Deirdre Madden's report, which was published. We have serious concerns about that.
If so much of the work has been done, why can the Government not complete the inquiry and do what it promised? We are also considering doing what the Stardust victims have done, namely appointing a senior counsel to look at the evidence and assess whether there is enough information to warrant another inquiry. We have been left high and dry and have been misled. We have been lied to continually by this Government and the parents have had enough. We have taken so many calls since yesterday and we are sickened by it. The parents are sickened by the Government and are demanding answers.
We will not be fobbed off much longer. The HSE has decided to withdraw funding but we have almost 2,000 members, funded by four of us from our pockets. We cannot continue to do that but we will keep going as long as we can. We hope the HSE will reinstate the funding and give us the opportunity to look after our members and offer them support because the Government is not doing anything. We are very annoyed at this, as we are at the revelations in the findings. We are already angry that we have not secured a proper inquiry. We have been waiting since December 1999. That is an awful long time to wait to learn what happened to one's child. It is horrific that parents are put in this situation. They are being forced into court because we are refused another inquiry and the information in the 54 boxes.
We know people are sick listening to the organ retention saga but they have not lost a child or a loved one and are not involved. It is human nature not to pay much attention to something to which we are not closely connected. We understand that. We asked questions in December 1999 and we are still asking the same questions. We now have more questions, because of what we have learned in recent years, but basically the questions are still the same. We want to know why we cannot have answers. We are not looking for compensation. That has never been an issue. It was raised by somebody this morning on a radio show but Parents for Justice has never asked for compensation. Some members may want to go down that road but it is a personal choice. The organisation, however, does not want money. We just want to know what happened to our children. Is that such a bad thing?
I accept totally what Ms Yeates is saying. As I have already said, this touches everybody in society as well as everybody who has lost a loved one. There is a need for transparency, accountability and a rationale for these things being done. It is totally unacceptable for people's organs to be retained without their consent. We need to find out why such decisions were made in that period. One of the biggest concerns is the question of whether anybody profited from this. We all accept the bona fides of those who did it to provide help for others and, as referred to in the Parents for Justice document, to acquire information that would help patients in the future.
We can only empathise and understand where Parents for Justice is coming from, given that it has not achieved closure on this matter in all the years since what happened to its members' children. I would like to clarify the role of this committee. It seems from reading the reference to the establishment of the Dunne inquiry by the then Minister, Deputy Micheál Martin, that it was envisaged there be a role for the committee.
Ms Charlotte Yeates
Yes.
This committee was envisaged to have a role when the non-statutory inquiry had completed its work. For that reason we have a responsibility to get to the bottom of what is happening.
Does Ms Yeates have any idea why the information gathered before the Dunne inquiry was closed down has not been put in the public arena? I gather Parents for Justice obtained that information through freedom of information.
Ms Charlotte Yeates
Yes, we got it under FOI.
Has Ms Yeates ever been given a satisfactory explanation why that information was not made public? I do not know if this committee has been given an explanation as most of us around the table today are relatively new.
Ms Charlotte Yeates
We have always been told that natural justice dictated that the people whose names were included in the information in the boxes had the right to defend themselves. It also appears from the executive summary that Ms Dunne did not get the chance to finish what she had started. The Attorney General deemed that the report was unpublishable in its present state. Following the Abbeylara judgment a few years ago we were told by the Attorney General, Mr. McDowell, that a second phase of the inquiry was not allowed nor would it be allowed to come before this committee. However, the memorandum on procedures states that it is allowed to come before this committee. It also states that the committee will decide the format of the second phase of the inquiry. However, the committee did not get the chance to do that and we do not know why the Government made that decision.
As a committee we need to find that out. I was a member of the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights when the Abbeylara issue arose. My understanding was that the committee could not further investigate the facts but it was not that the committee could not receive a report.
Ms Charlotte Yeates
Exactly.
I felt this committee was perfectly entitled to receive a report and there have been plenty of precedents where, if there was sensitive information and people were named, giving rise to legal issues, their names were blacked out of the report. There are mechanisms that address the legal concerns of the Attorney General and others. We should be able to assist Parents for Justice in some way in moving the process forward. I am not quite sure in what way that should be but the committee should at least seek legal advice as to whether it can do anything because it is explicitly named in the documentation. I propose we investigate that possibility.
The attendance of Parents for Justice today will air the issue publicly but we should investigate what mechanism we can use to move the process forward or at least get the information published in such a way as addressed any legal concerns. That would, at least, allow access to whatever information was available and doing so is in the cause of natural justice, given the length of time the process has taken and the fact that the parents were assured, when the inquiry was set up, that its non-statutory status would not stop them from getting at the information. For all those reasons the organisation is entitled to more than it has received so far.
Ms Charlotte Yeates
I appreciate that.
Let me bring clarity to the issue. This issue did not come before the previous committee. No request was sent from the Joint Committee on Health and Children to read and discuss the report. The usual process is that the report would be referred to the committee by the relevant Minister. What I had in mind is that we would listen to the delegation today and on Thursday week, 6 March 2008, when the Minister and Professor Drumm appear before the committee, we will have an opportunity to go through where we stand on the inquiry and the report.
I read the advice and apparently the Attorney General has advised against publishing the report on the grounds of natural justice. In a previous committee we had reason to seek the advice of the Attorney General and met him on one occasion. I propose that we seek the advice of the Attorney General by requesting him to brief members of the committee as to the steps we can take to advance the report. That is the process I have in mind.
Rather than leave the delegation out on a limb while the process of meeting the Minister and the Attorney General takes place, let me assure them that they will be invited to return to the committee. In that way they will not leave the committee today thinking their presentation represents an end. The committee members believe the issue should be moved on. I cannot give advice on the issue of natural justice or the protection of same, but at least we would be in a position to indicate why this decision was taken.
I welcome the Chairman's intervention which covers the areas to which I referred.
Thank you.
With my colleagues, Deputies O'Sullivan and Reilly, I too recognise the trauma of the loss of a loved one, particularly the loss of child. We would be very conscious of that trauma even if it was many years ago.
My understanding is that the Dunne report was not published for legal reasons on the advice of the law officer of the State, the Attorney General. Once the Attorney General advised, there was nothing the Minister or Government could do, except to follow that advice. Dr. Deirdre Madden, as outlined, followed on from the Dunne inquiry and had access to all those papers, and made 50 recommendations in her report. The Minister stated she did not think a further inquiry would help at this stage but that she wanted the 50 recommendations implemented.
Some of the recommendations are legislative, some are to be implemented in the Department of Health and Children and some, such as the Coroner's Bill, apply to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Many of the recommendations are the responsibility of the Health Service Executive. My understanding is that the HSE is working through the recommendations that apply to it and the legislation is being prepared. I note the Coroner's Bill is at an advanced stage, although I do not know if it is published, and that legislation is being prepared. I fully endorse the steps the Chairman outlined to move the issue forward and I hope that will be of assistance to the delegation.
I was listening to the proceedings but the sound quality of the outside broadcast was fading in and out and I could not hear properly, but I heard most of the contribution.
It is a given that one can talk forever about a sense of frustration, loss and invasion when it comes from personal experience. We fully understand how this would impact on the lives of members of the delegation. The delegation now needs to consider how to move the process forward. I have read the original documents on the mechanism by which the inquiry was set up. It seems that from the outset the terms of reference were restrictive.
Ms Charlotte Yeates
They were.
The inquiry was to be reported in private and did not give a lead as to how the delegation would get the information to its members. The matter to be considered is how we get around that. The Chairman's suggestion about the Attorney General is the way to progress the matter because natural justice is an issue and if we were in that position, we would demand it for ourselves. However, equally there is a need to make a case for the right to natural justice for the victim.
Ms Charlotte Yeates
Of course there is.
The matter cannot be only about continuing to protect those who are in a position to advocate their own case. There must be equality of justice. If we are to talk to the Attorney General, it must be about how we ensure equality for the victim. I hate to use the word "victim" - but how does one ensure that this equality exists? How does one reach closure on this issue? We must accept that we will never have a happy ending to this issue.
Ms Charlotte Yeates
That is the case, but if we get some answers and know exactly what happened then that will go a long way. I do not think a parent will ever get over the loss of a child, but in this situation there are adults and children. We are here on behalf of everybody, not just on behalf of our children. We need to find out what happened. It is very difficult to move on when somebody thinks the matter can be put to rest by an assurance that it will not happen again following a slap on the wrist for those who were very bold. That is not good enough. Given the revelations of yesterday, that is certainly not good enough.
Until we get everything out in the open, yesterday's revelations are simply yesterday's revelations, and there may be more tomorrow.
Ms Charlotte Yeates
I agree.
That is the difficulty. I think the Chairman made an excellent suggestion because it is clearly about moving the issue forward. We will not move it forward with the Minister for Health and Children.
I do not agree with that assertion from Deputy Lynch. With the help of the Minister and the Attorney General we will move in the right direction. I do not want to differ on that point.
This is not about politics but about a need to find out information. There is cross-party agreement among the committee on the need to know. The committee provides a safety net. We have a responsibility to see that natural justice is applied to all. We must clear up the issue for those who were involved and who are still alive. Where does justice lie for those who are not here any longer to speak for themselves? It is a matter for the Attorney General and if needs be, we must change the legislation. As I stated previously, no matter which way we go, there will be no happy endings.
I am anxious to hear the other contributions.
I join with other speakers in welcoming the delegation. All members of this committee are parents and can appreciate this terrible tragedy. If I had to be in that position, I think I could go out and kill somebody. I would go so far as to say this is similar to the Neary scandal and should be treated in the same way. In the Neary scandal uteruses were taken but at least those women were alive and could tell their stories. The loved ones of the witnesses are not here and Parents for Justice wants to be the voice for them.
I have no idea what the witnesses are going through but I feel some of the pain being expressed today that they have gone through and continue to go through. I agree with the Chairman in that the committee has some role in trying to get this back on track and attempting to get some kind of closure.
What reasons did the HSE give for withdrawing funding? With the first inquiry, the Dunne inquiry, the findings from the past and recommendations for the future took into account all deaths, included stillborn children, miscarriages, children of all ages and all adults. That seems to have been a large remit. I take it that as parents, the representatives are looking for the remit to cover stillbirths, miscarriages and children.
Ms Charlotte Yeates
Yes.
I was very touched by the statement that if approached or asked, the parents probably would have given permission. I know it is a difficult position to be put in when faced with the heart-breaking news the witnesses were told. They probably would have given permission but the medical profession has now left them bereft of comfort.
Ms Charlotte Yeates
Exactly.
There is no comfort in the position they find themselves in. I agree with Deputy Kathleen Lynch in that we would all profess to say there must be natural justice for everybody. The medical people involved must have natural justice but in the same way, the witnesses must have natural justice.
Ms Charlotte Yeates
Of course we should.
These are the people who continue to suffer. One would wonder how often the pathologists involved go to bed at night or wake in the morning with tears in their eyes. They get on with their lives.
What was the position in Ireland before 1999? Were all organs taken from young children? I was horrified to discover there were cases where little bodies were filled with sand to maintain weight. It is barbaric and my stomach feels sick listening to the presentation made today.
I thank the Deputy.
Will the witnesses be allowed to answer?
I will take some more questions but I will come back to them.
I join with colleagues in welcoming Parents for Justice. I apologise for being a little late as I had to deal with questions to the Taoiseach in the House.
I commend the group for its tenacity over all these years in helping traumatised and bereaved parents and in helping to uncover the hidden and shameful secret from within our health system. I cannot describe it in any other terms. I have no doubt that although most of us would not be exposed to it, the tremendous support the group has been to the many parents who have become a part of Parents for Justice has meant each has taken great strength from the other and been helped over this period of time.
The latest revelations from the unpublished Dunne inquiry about how the bodies of children were treated and how so many of the organs retained were not used for any medical purpose must clearly add to the grief of those who have been bereaved.
Ms Charlotte Yeates
Of course it does.
It must add to the stress. Even the consolation that there may have been, where children's organs were employed in helping to save the life of another, is no longer a question for so many in, as yet, an unknown number of cases. That this is the case must compound the suffering and distress.
It is disgraceful that Parents for Justice has had to resort to freedom of information to extract this hitherto unknown element of the Dunne report. I am not a full member of the committee but I join with colleagues who have already spoken from all political opinions. I put to my colleagues of all opinion here that this committee should issue a very loud and clear demand for the immediate publication in full of the Dunne inquiry report. That is the most important statement this committee can make following this further engagement this afternoon.
This is a report that we have not seen and cannot see. As things stand we cannot secure an adequately detailed explanation of why we cannot see the report. The mystery demands full exposure and disclosure. I commend the Chairman, Deputy Moloney, on his proposition as to how the committee might practically address the issues highlighted today over the coming weeks. I wish to record my endorsement of the approach.
I remember shortly after the 2002 general election, when we were able to form a Technical Group. My very first involvement in a Private Members' motion before the House was almost five and half years ago in October 2002. I remember meeting the group before that. The motion was jointly tabled by ourselves in Sinn Féin, the Green Party, which is now in Government, and the Independent Deputies, and it supported the demands of Parents for Justice.
It was supported by the collective Opposition voices but, unfortunately, it was not adopted by Government. It called for a full public inquiry and five and half years later, if that had been instituted, we would not be meeting here today.
Ms Charlotte Yeates
That is right.
We demanded a comprehensive, economical and speedy address, which was the critical argument. The business would have been over by now and the question would have been substantively addressed.
I have three brief questions but one has already been answered with regard to State assistance. I understand the figure is nil.
Ms Charlotte Yeates
Yes, absolutely zilch.
I am mindful of the Chair's proposals with regard to the Attorney General, but has the detail of the Attorney General's advice to Government been exposed or shared with the representatives in any way and from any source over all this time?
Ms Charlotte Yeates
Never.
There are conflicting figures in all the information I have on file on Parents for Justice. To the knowledge of the witnesses, what is the figure for the cost of the Dunne inquiry, which is yet to publish its report?
Ms Charlotte Yeates
We have heard a figure in excess of €20 million.
I wish the delegation well and express continued solidarity.
As with my colleagues, I welcome the delegation. I do not know if the witnesses watch the proceedings of this committee normally but they tend to be quite robust. The fact that the mood in the committee room today is as it is, indicates we are genuinely sorry the delegation has had to come here. We would like to think that as a result of this visit, we can help in some way to advance this issue.
Considering the five questions posed by the witnesses, it would seem that if one person on the phone over the course of one week got co-operation from all the hospitals involved, surely all the questions could be answered.
I fail to understand how €20 million could be spent over a period of five and a half years and none of the witnesses' five questions has yet been answered. Members do not need to debate whether they or the Dunne inquiry received co-operation because it is clear they did not. It appears that every obstacle possible was put in the way of that inquiry. If this is the case, it arouses suspicions because when one does not receive clear answers one is inclined to think there is something to hide. This makes the difficult situation the witnesses are in a thousand times worse. Members greatly regret this because as a committee, we do not wish to be an obstacle to the witnesses finding out information.
If the information is available to witnesses about what happened to their children, it should be given to them without question. That is their human right and it is completely unfair and disrespectful to deny it to them. This is my personal opinion. To advance it I endorse the Chairman's comments. While I understand the witnesses have difficulties with the Government and the Minister, which they have expressed, the Minister will appear before the committee. This is the correct forum for the Minister to appear before members and answer the questions they will put to her. She holds the committee in fairly high regard. She appears before it every three months and I would be disappointed were members unable to advance this issue and get answers for the witnesses. Hopefully, members will be in a position to invite the witnesses back before the committee to hear a better news story.
I wish to be associated with the welcome extended to the witnesses. I had noticed that we are all subdued today. I have had contact previously with Ms Yeates. While I do not claim to understand the challenges, I appreciate the difficulties. At every meeting, members deal with all sorts of issues and as my colleague has remarked, some of our exchanges are fairly robust. That is perhaps the nature of politics which the public does not always understand. At a time like this, however, there will be no differences between us because everyone understands what is happening. We have read the reports and are aware of the issues.
As a parent and grandparent, I try to grasp these issues. All sorts of things cross a public representative's desk every day. On this issue we fail to understand why the State appears not to have been sympathetic. If we wish to do anything, we must try to support the witnesses. The Chairman has sent a clear message that it is time for whatever is going on to stop and that something should be done to advance the issue to the satisfaction of the three witnesses and those who support them around the country.
I have often said in respect of other business that there can be frustration at joint committee level when members deal with business, make commitments or state that things must be achieved and then nothing happens. On this occasion every member wants something to come out of this meeting even if that means waiting until the Minister attends at the next meeting. We want to see definite action and progress.
Thank you. The Minister will appear before us on Thursday, 6 March and will be made aware before then that this issue will be on the agenda. I will then seek a meeting with the Attorney General to brief the members in committee. Is that agreed? Agreed. This might help to clarify why the decision was made. We will invite the witnesses to return at 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 1 April. We will be meeting at 3 p.m. and will brief the witnesses on what exactly we can do.
Members have expressed their grave concern, chiefly that the executive summary referred to the storage of organs that deteriorated and were kept in formaldehyde in units outside hospitals. People realise the grave concern and worry that the witnesses have about this. Deputy Kathleen Lynch pointed out that we want to help the witnesses find closure on this matter. We pledge to try to see if we can assist the witnesses.
Mr. Clem Murphy
Normally a parent does everything possible to protect his or her children. Even nine years later I feel that my biggest failure was to let my daughter down because she was butchered. I could not have done anything about it at the time but I live with the guilt. If I get the answers then I might be able to move forward. All parents feel the same way.
Ms Charlotte Yeates
The only reason the HSE gave for cutting our funding was that it did not have money available. Our membership of almost 2,000 needs support. Some need formal counselling which we were providing but cannot do now. Most do not need formal counselling but need somebody to talk to on the telephone if they are having a bad day, who can tell them where to go for answers. We are leaving our office in Dublin tomorrow because we cannot afford it, which is a disgrace. We will keep Parents for Justice going but I do not how.
What was the grant from the HSE?
Ms Charlotte Yeates
Last year it gave us €320,000.
Ms Breda Butler
That was to cover counselling, support and help for families who did not receive counselling but needed the support that Ms Yeates outlined, who came to the office and looked for information. They might come in to find out if this had happened to their children and Ms Yeates or I would write a letter for them. People who had never been in such a situation, and did not know how to approach hospitals or politicians, needed that support. We have also helped families who have lost a member in different circumstances.
People, especially those in rural Ireland, need that help. We help families in south Kerry, Donegal and west Cork. Four parents started this movement. We have worked on our phone lines not just Monday to Friday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. but 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for the past eight years. We feel depressed telling people that we do not have the money to meet them in Donegal or Galway because of the cost of hotels, etc. We no longer have an office in Dublin so from tomorrow we will be back at our kitchen tables where we started in 1999.
I refer to yesterday's revelation that sand was put into the bodies of children. We received a number of telephone calls from families last night and this morning to ask whether it would have happened to their children and how they should contact the hospitals in this regard. In addition, new families have made themselves known to Parents for Justice in the past 24 hours. They have stated they never understood this had happened and question whether it was possible that sand was put into the bodies of their babies. Ms Yeates and I were unable to answer this question and it is very difficult for such families to ask hospitals whether sand was put in the bodies of their babies.
Why were such families not informed in 1999 that organs were removed from their sons or daughters and replaced with other materials, which included not only cotton wool or tissue, but sand? Everyone knows that sand is used for building blocks and bricks. Those children were not objects, blocks or bricks. They were human beings, regardless of whether they were stillborn, one hour old or whatever age. Their age made no difference because they were human beings and were someone's child. One must remember they had mothers and fathers and the Minister should acknowledge this matter concerns human beings, and not objects such as bricks or mortar that one would use to build a house. They were human beings and Irish citizens and deserve to have these questions answered.
I wish to empathise with the witnesses. As other members have noted, this cannot be expressed in words. The tone and mood of members demonstrates that all have been taken by this dilemma. As a new Deputy I have not received first-hand information on this matter, but I have followed the story through the newspapers over the years. I hope the joint committee can help to make progress on this matter by following the Chairman's suggestion.
My family suffered a loss when I was young and my sister was only 12 months old when she died. In itself, that was bad enough for my parents to live with. However, it is very sad to think that organs or part of a body could have been removed without the knowledge of the parents. I add my voice in sympathy and hope members can make some progress on this issue by virtue of the Chairman's proposal. I am glad to have the opportunity to try to get answers from the HSE, Professor Drumm and the Minister at a future date. My sympathy is with the witnesses.
For clarity, I wish to ask a final question of Ms Yeates as members try to move the process forward. If I understood correctly, her submission stated that as a group, Parents for Justice does not seek compensation. However, Ms Yeates later suggested that individual members of the group might go down that road.
Ms Breda Butler
We do not have control of that.
Ms Charlotte Yeates
While we do not have control over this, we have heard about a small number of such individuals over the years. The majority of people are not interested in money, as compensation could not make up for such a loss. We have heard of a handful of people in this regard. We are not aware that anyone received compensation and know they did not. Although some people might think this is all we have been looking for, this is not the case. If it was, we would have been banging down the doors years ago to say so.
The joint committee thanks Parents for Justice for its submission and looks forward to seeing the witnesses again at 2 p.m. on 1 April 2008.
Ms Charlotte Yeates
I thank members for their time.
The joint committee adjourned at 4.13 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 6 March 2008.