Mary Lou McDonald
Ceist:1. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the social dialogue co-ordination unit of his Department. [30736/23]
Ceisteanna - Questions
Departmental Bodies
Ruairí Ó Murchú
Ceist:2. Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the social dialogue co-ordination unit of his Department. [32454/23]
Rose Conway-Walsh
Ceist:3. Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the social dialogue co-ordination unit of his Department. [32509/23]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Ceist:4. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the social dialogue unit of his Department. [32549/23]
Paul Murphy
Ceist:5. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the social dialogue unit of his Department. [32552/23]
Cian O'Callaghan
Ceist:6. Deputy Cian O'Callaghan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the social dialogue co-ordination unit of his Department. [32559/23]
Mick Barry
Ceist:7. Deputy Mick Barry asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the social dialogue co-ordination unit of his Department. [32645/23]
Brendan Smith
Ceist:8. Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the social dialogue co-ordination unit of his Department. [32834/23]
Mick Barry
Ceist:9. Deputy Mick Barry asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the social dialogue co-ordination unit of his Department. [34044/23]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 9, inclusive, together.
The social dialogue unit, part of the economic division of the Department, co-ordinates and assists the Government's overall approach to social dialogue. This includes the labour employer economic forum, LEEF, which engages with representatives of employers and trade unions on economic and employment issues insofar as they affect the labour market and which are of mutual concern. The most recent meeting of the LEEF took place on Monday, 3 July. This provided an opportunity to look at current challenges, in particular in the area of the cost of living. There are also a range of LEEF subgroups dealing with issues such as employment and enterprise, pensions and early years issues.
Social dialogue and engagement also take place through the national economic dialogue, which was held on 12 June; the National Economic and Social Council, NESC; the national dialogue on climate action; the national competitiveness and productivity council; the national civic forum for dialogue with the community and voluntary sector, which will meet again in the autumn; and many sectoral groups and consultative forums.
Another model for broad-based social dialogue are citizens' assemblies. In addition, I and other members of the Government regularly meet bilaterally with representative groups to hear their views on a wide range of issues. The social dialogue unit will continue to assist me and the Government in these engagements.
Did the issues facing the Tesco.com pickers and drivers come up during the work of the social dialogue unit? Some months ago Tesco Ireland announced a decision unilaterally to impose significant changes to the rosters of Tesco.com pickers and drivers. These are the workers who fill the orders when people place an order online. The move, which workers and the Mandate trade union have described as out of the blue, will potentially cost workers thousands of euro in lost income. The changes will not only have financial consequences for workers but it will also impact on their work-life balance.
It beggars belief that a change like this would be railroaded through. It is even more astonishing that the company is doing so without any negotiation with the workers. I am not asking the Taoiseach to intervene, I understand fully what his role in this is, but will he join me in encouraging the Tesco management to sit down with the Mandate trade union and agree these roster changes?
I am raising again the issue relating to section 39 workers. They carry out many necessary types of work, including work for people with disabilities, healthcare and addiction services. These services are all talking about how they cannot retain workers. Sometimes that is because people are leaving to work directly for the HSE where they are on better conditions which makes sense from a personal perspective. To deal with this, we need to see the introduction of decent pay and conditions. I would like to see some engagement on this.
I also raise hourly respite in Dundalk. I have been dealing with the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, on this. I do not expect the Taoiseach to come back with an answer but it looks as though it is closed. There is an issue with the staff from there and there may be others so that it can keep two other respite centres open. This is not something we want to see and I would like the Taoiseach to speak with the Minister of State and whoever else is necessary to deliver an optimum solution.
On Thursday the Dáil debated the report produced by the Committee on Budgetary Oversight on the section 481 film tax credit and issues in the film industry. This was the second committee in a number of years to recommend there would be a stakeholder forum to address very serious issues that echo in a very serious way the things that have happened recently in RTÉ. There are allegations of systematic blacklisting; that the law, in terms of the copyright directive on the remuneration of actors, performers and writers, is being systematically broken; that there is abuse of the rights of crew in terms of systematic law breaking in the fixed-term workers’ legislation; and there is an inside culture of a small number of producers getting all the money while other producers are effectively excluded. These are very serious allegations which are very similar to the closely related audio-visual sector. Indeed, RTÉ is involved in commissioning many of the television series.
There is claim and counter claim but given what we have seen in RTÉ, does the Government now not need to commit to getting to the truth and establish the stakeholder forum that will objectively investigate these very serious issues when there is a lot of public money at stake?
Last week, I and others raised with the Taoiseach the treatment of Tesco.com workers - those drivers and pickers who make the online store work, who pick up the produce in store and deliver it to people’s homes – and in particular the fact that these workers have had imposed on them unilaterally a change of their rosters which means some of them are down over €4,000 a year as well as having massive disruption to their plans including their family lives, childcare and so on.
Many Tesco workers shared the video of our engagement in the Dáil on their private social media pages. However, as a consequence of that and of other criticism, one worker, Patrick Reid, who works in Tesco in Naas as a driver received correspondence from Tesco summoning him to a disciplinary meeting for inappropriate material on a social networking site. This is his own personal Facebook page which he used to share a video from the Dáil and to criticise the behaviour of his employer for which he now faces a disciplinary meeting. At the very least, will the Taoiseach agree that workers should not be disciplined for what they post on their own social media pages and that they should be freely entitled to make criticism of their employer online and share videos from the Dáil?
More than 700 people attended a public meeting in Navan last night on the closure of Tara mines. It is fair to say the miners and the people at that meeting have not seen much evidence of a social dialogue. Some 650 jobs have been put on ice and no say for the workers. The mine is shuttered with no date for a re-start and no say for the workers.
During the pandemic this employer said those workers were essential. Three years later, it says they are dispensable, at least for the rest of the year. The Government should nationalise the mine, use the skills of the workforce to supply zinc for a new, not-for-profit Irish zinc battery industry which is good for the environment, for jobs and for Navan. Why does the Government not decide to go down that road?
One of the many benefits of the Good Friday Agreement has been the establishment of all-Ireland bodies including Tourism Ireland which is responsible for marketing the island of Ireland as a premier holiday destination. It has been successful in growing the tourism industry North and South. The British Government has introduced secondary legislation to put in place its electronic travel authorisation scheme for autumn this year. It will require people visiting Britain to have visas. Irish citizens are exempt due to the common travel area and legal residents in this country are also exempt. However, the introduction of this scheme is the source of serious concern for the tourism industry in this island. The majority of international visitors to Northern Ireland arrive via our jurisdiction. The tourism industry North and South is very disappointed that there has not been or that there will not be an exemption for tourists travelling to this State and then going on to Northern Ireland. The free movement of people has been critical in growing our tourism industry and our economy North and South. I would like the Government to continue to push the British Government on this matter and provide exemptions for tourists travelling to our country who visit North and South.
I also raise the issue of Tara mines. Tomorrow, representatives of SIPTU, Connect and Unite will be in the AV Room at 2 p.m. I encourage all Deputies to attend and ask the Taoiseach to spend time listening to the union representatives tomorrow. Workers will gather at the gates of Leinster House to protest the manner in which they have been treated. I encourage the people of Meath to stand in solidarity and swell their numbers so that we can have a very strong voice outside the gates here tomorrow on what is happening to those workers and their incomes - they are being pushed off an income cliff – and also what is happening to the economy and society in County Meath with the loss of these jobs.
The workers have been treated disastrously by Boliden in my view. The company is extracting Irish ore and paying very little corporation tax or royalties. It has experienced the loyalty of these workers and it is showing very little loyalty back. The Government itself is doing very little to reduce the cost of electricity which is a significant impediment to getting that business back on a sustainable level. The Minister, Deputy Humphreys, has promised to provide an income support to step down if people are made redundant or laid off yet it is not being done on this occasion when it is needed. It was done in relation to the pandemic unemployment payment, PUP, and I ask that the Taoiseach see that it is done in emergency legislation to help these workers now.
I thank the Deputies for their questions. As regards Tesco workers, pickers and drivers, that matter was not discussed at LEEF. Individual disputes rarely are discussed at LEEF but sometimes they are touched on. There are mechanisms for disputes to be resolved, such as the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, and the Labour Court. I would encourage Tesco to sit down with Mandate. Provided the workers want Mandate to represent them, Tesco in those circumstances should sit down with Mandate and discuss any issues that have arisen. Whether or not they can be made to agree is an entirely different thing, as I think people will appreciate, but engagement is the least that should happen.
As regards Deputy Ó Murchú's question about respite in Dundalk, I am not up to date on that but I will check the position with the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte. The truth is that we are experiencing recruitment and retention problems almost everywhere at the moment. It is a feature of full employment. Perhaps one of the unintended consequences of achieving full employment is that there really is not any sector of the economy where we do not have labour shortages now. They are in the public sector and in the private sector; they are in the towns and the cities; they are in well-paid jobs and in not-well-paid jobs; and they are in big businesses and small businesses. Just increasing pay or improving terms and conditions will not necessarily solve the problem. We have many more jobs available than there are people adequately skilled or qualified to fill them. That is why we need to increase the number of people who are trained for particular jobs and use our work permit system to bring in from overseas people who either have the skills or are willing to work in the particular areas concerned.
Deputy Boyd Barrett raised the issue of a stakeholder forum in the audiovisual sector. As he said, there are claims and counterclaims, and it is hard to know what is true and what is not. I do not think a stakeholders' forum could have any investigative powers - that is not how forums work by their nature - but it is not a bad idea on the face of it, and I will certainly bring it as a proposal to the attention of the Minister for Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media, Deputy Catherine Martin, given that she is the person who is responsible for the sector. We are supporting the sector in its growth with very generous tax incentives, which we put in place largely because we are competing with other countries that are doing the same. It is a sector that we will see expand, but it is important that there are proper career paths and a degree of economic certainty for the people who work in the sector. I know that the Deputy has raised this many times and that he is sincere about it. I will certainly speak to the Minister about it.
As regards Tara Mines, I know the situation is having a huge impact on Navan and on County Meath. It is about the hundreds of people who are losing their jobs and experiencing major reductions in their incomes. It is also about the wider impact on the payroll being lost in Navan and the wider area. There has been a lot of engagement by the Government. The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Coveney, has been very engaged in this matter. Only a few moments ago Deputy Bríd Smith gave the Minister a backhanded compliment by asking that he take an interest in the Iceland dispute to the extent that he took an interest in the Tara Mines dispute. There is a WRC agreement now. It is to be hoped that this agreement can be honoured. The Government will work with the company to try to get the mine reopened. We would like to see it open within months and we are of course willing to talk to the company about issues such as royalties and electricity costs. However, what it is saying now very clearly is that with the price of energy being high and the price of zinc being low, the mine just is not viable. We do not have any proposals to nationalise the mine. To do so we would have to pay the owners I do not know what amount of compensation. That is what happens when you nationalise something: you have to pay the owners compensation for it. It is a compulsory purchase, essentially. Also, it is loss-making. Our country has spending ceilings. I would not like to divert money from housing, education and pensions to nationalise a mine which would then lose money. That does not make sense, from my point of view.
It is profitable.
As regards pay-related benefits, I am a supporter of that. The Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Humphreys, is too. We do want to introduce it.
Just not now.
We could not introduce it for just one employer or one set of employees. That would not be fair. We should bring in pay-related benefits. There are disputes about it, by the way. I think it makes sense. The more you pay in PRSI the more you should get back out. Other people take a different view and think that is inequitable. In particular, people on the left oppose that concept. I do not. I hope we can get that done, but it would not be possible to do it for one set of employees. That just would not be fair. It has to be done for everyone because everyone pays PRSI.
As regards the matter Deputy Brendan Smith raised about a tourist exemption, we are pursuing that with the UK authorities and the British Government. When I was in Jersey at the British-Irish Council not too long ago, I discovered that there is an exemption for people making day trips from France to Jersey, so there must be some degree of flexibility around this. Could people coming to visit this State, the Republic of Ireland, not be exempt if visiting Northern Ireland for a few days as well? We are raising that issue with the UK Government and it is hoped we will get some progress on it.
I asked a question about social media posting by Tesco workers.
It is a fair question, but I just do not know exactly what happened, and I am loath to comment on something without knowing the facts. There may be a different side to the story.
Civil Service
Peadar Tóibín
Ceist:10. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Taoiseach if he will detail the salaries of the top ten highest paid civil servants in his Department. [32079/23]
Paul Murphy
Ceist:11. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Taoiseach if he will list the salaries of the top ten highest paid civil servants. [32553/23]
Mick Barry
Ceist:12. Deputy Mick Barry asked the Taoiseach if he will list the salaries of each of the top ten highest paid civil servants in his Department. [32646/23]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Ceist:13. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he will detail the salaries of the top ten highest paid civil servants in his Department. [34007/23]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 to 13, inclusive, together.
The role of the Department is to assist me as Taoiseach and the Government to ensure a sustainable economy and a successful society, to pursue Ireland's interests abroad, to implement the Government's programme and to build a better future for Ireland and all its citizens.
Staff employed in the Department of the Taoiseach are aligned to existing Civil Service grades and paid on the appropriate pay scales, which are published on gov.ie.
The following table provides the salaries of the top ten highest paid civil servants in the Department of the Taoiseach.
|
Grade: |
Gross Annual Salary: |
|
Secretary General |
€242,250 |
|
Assistant Secretary General |
€167,534 |
|
Assistant Secretary General |
€167,534 |
|
Assistant Secretary General |
€167,534 |
|
Assistant Secretary General |
€167,534 |
|
Assistant Secretary General |
€146,454 |
|
Principal Officer |
€125,135 |
|
Principal Officer |
€125,135 |
|
Principal Officer |
€122,568 |
|
Principal Officer |
€122,568 |
The applications of pay adjustments for staff in the Department is in accordance with the public service agreement, Building Momentum: A New Public Service Agreement, 2021-2023.
The reason so many people are angry over the RTÉ scandal, for example, and about the pay rates in certain Government Departments is that those pay scales are eye-watering in comparison with the incomes many families are receiving. There is no doubt that we want to ensure that there is a spark in the economy and that people are paid to a certain level to incentivise hard work, education and ambition, but some of the pay scales we have seen are so out of sync with the experience of people that it is hurting them quite a bit. We live in a two-tier society. Many public servants are making eye-watering salaries and, in real terms, that is having an effect on people across the country. One of the issues I want to raise is that people are struggling with a cost-of-living crisis. Electricity prices here are twice the European average per unit. We are the country with the second highest electricity prices. We were told last year that one of the reasons for that is that the price of electricity in Ireland is coupled with the price of gas. Other European countries such as Spain and Portugal decoupled those prices well over six months ago and, as a result, are enjoying far lower prices. The Government has said it will wait until the European Union decouples those prices. When will the European Union decouple those prices or can the Government not do it? We need to make sure that the incomes of normal Irish citizens are not pushed back further towards poverty at a time when so many big names in RTÉ and here in the public service at the upper echelons are receiving incomes which can only be described as largesse.
The independent review panel on senior public service recruitment and pay processes recently delivered its final report to the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform. That fundamentally puts the ball in the court of the Government in terms of deciding whether top civil servants - Mr. Watt is on close to €300,000, others are on €200,000 and some are in between - will get big pay increases of 10% to 15%. Has the Government discussed the outcome of that? Has the Government discussed the idea of these very significant pay increases which are being spoken about? Would the Taoiseach not agree that at a time of the cost-of-living crisis we should be imposing pay caps across the public sector? There is no need for anyone to be paid more than €100,000.
One particular issue I want to raise is that there has been an ongoing dispute, as I understand, in the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage regarding the pay of its Secretary General. He claims that on moving from his position as Secretary General of the Department of Transport to the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, he was promised he would be bumped up a grade from Secretary General grade II to Secretary General grade I, which comes with a substantial pay increase from around €235,000 a year to €250,000 a year.
It is being disputed by others as to whether such an agreement was in place. In the press statement that the Department put out, the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, is quoted as saying: "I have requested the Independent Review Panel to remain in place for the coming weeks to undertake a review of the grading of the Secretary General posts in the Departments of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth; and Housing, Local Government & Heritage within the existing structure." My reading of this is that it is paving the way to agree to a pay increase in grading. Is that the case and, if so, how can it be justified?
I thank the Deputies again for their questions. If they look at pay for public servants in Ireland, whether it is in the Civil Service or the wider public service, it does compare favourably with other European countries. Of course, you have to adjust it for tax and the cost of living, but even so, public servants in Ireland are relatively well paid compared with Northern Ireland, Britain, France, Denmark or Italy. It is important that we recognise this. It is only possible because of the economic policies that have been pursued over the past decades. We would not be able to pay our public servants the way we do now if we had pursued different policies in the past ten or 20 years. They would be paid much less. They would probably be paid what public servants are paid now in Britain, Italy or other European countries.
Regarding RTÉ "talent" or stars, they are not public servants, by and large. They are self-employed and they charge fees, so they do not have the benefit of the protections of public service employees and they do not receive pensions from the State, but they do have a very tax efficient way of being remunerated, to put it that way.
On electricity prices, we do expect them to come down. We are seeing business rates coming down already and we expect to see residential rates coming down in the next few months. I am familiar with what they have done in Spain and Portugal, but I am not sure that is the right way to go. They have seen a huge increase in the use of gas in Spain and Portugal, and that has come at a cost to the governments and the taxpayers. While the electricity bill someone gets is lower, the fact that the government has to pay for so much gas has put the bill on the taxpayer in a different way. I am not sure if that is the right route.
When is the EU reform coming in?
There are several EU reforms. I am not sure which one the Deputy means.
The one on decoupling.
I do not know if that is going to happen at all. I will have to revert to the Deputy.
Okay.
There are a few different reforms being proposed.
The Secretaries General of Departments are paid at three levels. That is something I did not know about until recent months. I am glad to say that, even though I have served in government for quite some time, I have managed not to take an interest, or get too involved, in how much individuals are paid in Departments. I do not think that is a role for politicians. They are graded at three different levels. That is now being reviewed, particularly given that the spec of the job and the size of certain Departments have changed pretty fundamentally. Everyone will know that the Department of Children and Youth Affairs was a relatively small Department under its former Ministers, Ms Katherine Zappone, Deputy Flanagan and Ms Frances Fitzgerald. It is now a huge Department that is also responsible for disability, international protection and our response to the crisis in refugees coming from Ukraine. It is a different Department. Similarly, the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage has a budget that has ballooned in recent years. It has a nearly €5 billion budget now whereas it used to be a relatively small Department in the past. There will be an independent assessment as to whether those positions should be regraded or not. I am sure the Government will accept the outcome of that process.
Departmental Legal Cases
Jim O'Callaghan
Ceist:14. Deputy Jim O'Callaghan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the new State litigation principles announced by the Attorney General on 21 June 2023. [31190/23]
Paul Murphy
Ceist:15. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the State litigation principles announced by the Attorney General. [32554/23]
Peadar Tóibín
Ceist:16. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the new State litigation principles announced by the Attorney General on 21 June 2023. [33724/23]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 14 to 16, inclusive, together.
The State litigation principles mark a codification and public statement of best practice in the State’s conduct of litigation. They were approved by the Government on 30 May. The 15 litigation principles were drawn up by the Attorney General following consultations with senior legal staff in his office on the advisory counsel side, in the Chief State Solicitor’s office and in the State Claims Agency. It should be noted that many of them are already applied on a daily basis by officials and lawyers charged with managing litigation on the State’s behalf. They are not, therefore, intended to change radically how the State conducts litigation. They affirm that the State should act in the public interest in pursuing litigation and should consider this broader public interest before taking certain procedural steps in litigation.
The principles apply where the State, through the Government, a Minister or a Department of State or an agency under its direct control, engages in litigation. They are intended to act as guidelines to help maintain existing high standards of ethics and integrity in the conduct of litigation by the State. They do not, however, contain rules of law, have any binding legal effect or alter the fact that the State has the same entitlements as any other party to litigation either as plaintiff or defendant.
I welcome the Taoiseach's reply and the publication by the Attorney General of the principles. I also welcome that the Government has adopted them.
This issue entered the public domain relatively recently because of the nursing home charges issue. There is a lack of awareness, and more information needs to be provided to the public, as to how the State conducts itself in litigation. Obviously, there will be significant State involvement in litigation, given that it is sued more than most other legal entities. Sometimes, it also has to initiate proceedings. As such, the State has a significant role to play in respect of litigation.
I sometimes fear that the public perception is that the State adopts a harsh and adversarial approach to litigation. While I do not believe that is completely true, it is certainly the case that this message seems to have spread abroad. It would be worthwhile if the Government tried to publicise in even greater detail what was involved in the principles and why the State could not just concede liability in certain cases. Alternatively, it needs to explain why the State cannot just accept the quantum of a claim that has been made by a claimant. The State has an important role to play in terms of litigation and it must ensure that it does not put up a defence if there is no statable offence. If liability deserves to be conceded, the State should do so, but a difficulty that the State sometimes faces is that a claimant, as is his or her entitlement, always tries to maximise the value of the claim. From the point of view of the State and the taxpayer, there are obligations on the State to try to ensure that it does not pay out excessive amounts in respect of any individual claim.
I have noticed something about litigation involving the State. Whether a person is appearing for or against the State, it can sometimes be more difficult for those proceedings to reach a resolution. In part, this is because many officials who are representing the State may prefer the courts to make a decision on a claim as opposed to the State making a decision to settle the claim and pay out. We need to try to encourage officials within the State to move away from that mindset. Resolution is always preferable to conflict. If there is an exposure to the State, that should be acknowledged.
I would like to see a greater publication of the principles, if possible.
I will allow Deputy Paul Murphy a generous two minutes.
I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
Yesterday, the Data Protection Commission fined the Department of Health €22,500 for excessive and disproportionate eliciting of sensitive personal details about the private lives of people who had taken legal action against the State over access to supports for children with special educational needs. It came after the exposure of this practice by Mr. Shane Corr, a whistleblower in the Department of Health who spoke about the practice of collecting sensitive medical and personal information about vulnerable children and their families when the State was defending lawsuits. He stated:
I saw several notes relating to alcoholism within the family structure. I saw notes relating to siblings of the children that weren’t relevant ... Whether the child was prone to violent acts towards its parents, its siblings, its teacher, its doctor. Everything that you would not want to know about the family living beside you was there.
This was an horrendous approach, with the State abusing its position as a provider of care in order to gather information and use it against parents and families who were just trying their best to get what they needed for their kids.
It is really horrific that it happened. I am not sure that a fine of €22,500 is sufficient. I invite the Taoiseach to take the opportunity to condemn what happened and to ensure that such an approach to these things will never happen again.
I want to raise the issue of CervicalCheck again. I am getting really frustrated with the Government's stonewalling of my questions. The CervicalCheck scandal broke in 2018. It involved among other things smear test slides that were misread. Women sued and received apologies and payments. The Taoiseach issued a State apology. The courts and the Government have conceded that these women were wronged and the slides were misread. However, when the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists review was announced by the Minister in light of the scandal, the terms of reference provided by the Department were such that only slides of women who had since been diagnosed with cancer were re-examined to see whether there were mistakes in them.
The problem is that countless slides were skipped over and left on the shelf because they belonged to women who did not have a diagnosis of cancer at that stage. At the time of the review, some of these women had cancer or pre-cancerous or abnormal cells but they did not know they were ill. As such they were excluded from the review. Some of these women have since been diagnosed and the slides, which date to before the scandal, have been examined. The courts have ruled that those historic slides contain abnormalities. Is it true to say that had their slides been included in the review in 2018 they would have been diagnosed earlier and their lives could have been saved?
With regard to what Deputy Jim O'Callaghan said earlier, I agree we should make some effort to make people more aware of the principles that have been set out by the Attorney General and agreed by the Government. This is being disseminated among Government bodies and agencies. There are plans for seminars. Perhaps this needs to be done more widely.
The State certainly does not always get it right in its litigation strategies. It loses cases from time to time. I agree that the perception of the State being an aggressive litigant is not entirely fair and I will give two examples. I will not go into the details of the cases. One that I am aware of is a medical case where the plaintiff settled for 25% of the original claim. This was presented by them and in the media as a total victory by the plaintiff against an unkind State which dragged them through the courts and strung it out and only at the end gave in. This is not what happened at all. The amount could have been settled for years previously. Questions are never asked by broadcasters or journalists as to how much the claim was, how much people looked for and how much they settled for in the end. I do not know why these questions are never asked.
I know of another case that had two aspects. The plaintiff won on one aspect and the State won on the other. Yet it was presented as a total victory and vindication on behalf of the plaintiff. Of course that is not what happened at all. The plaintiff won half the case and lost the other half. Again it was perceived that the State dragged this person into court, fought them all the way and lost. This is not what happened. There is a failure on behalf of journalists to dig into the cases properly and ask the hard questions that are not asked. We often see the solicitor for the plaintiff making a statement on the steps but we never see the solicitor for the State doing this. For whatever reason, the State does not stand over its position or the reason it took the position it did.
I am not aware of the finding mentioned by Deputy Murphy. I probably should be, so I will get briefed on it. Perhaps it was only in the past few days. Certainly if the Department of Health broke any rules, regulations or laws, I cannot stand over it. We need to make sure it does not happen again.
Deputy Tóibín asked very specific questions about CervicalCheck. I cannot answer them here. I will ask the Minister, Deputy Donnelly, to come back to him directly or I will do so myself. One thing I will draw attention to is the World Health Organization's report that came out recently which demonstrated the extent to which Ireland is now an outlier when it comes to how the courts and our justice system treat screening. Screening, as we have always said, is not a diagnostic test although we never really explain what this means. The whole point of screening is that it cannot be relied upon to diagnose cancer. The whole point of screening is that we take a large number of healthy people. Let us say we want to check people for their blood pressure. In that case we would take a large bunch of healthy people with no symptoms-----
These are misread slides.
I am not commenting on that because I do not know enough about it and they may or may not be misread. I do not know that.
The courts said they were misread.
I do not know about that.
You apologised for it in here. What did you apologise for?
The courts found in one case that they were misread so far.
I do not think that has been a finding in all cases. Maybe it has been a finding in a number of cases. I do not know about the particular cases to which Deputy Tóibín is referring to.
What was the apology for?
In most of the settlements there has been no admission of liability. I do not think we should be getting into this on the floor of the House, quite frankly.