Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 3 November 2020
81. Deputy Alan Kelly asked the Minister for Health the reason he commenced the CervicalCheck tribunal while still negotiating with a group (details supplied) in view of his assurance that it would be postponed to allow time for its concerns to be addressed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33478/20]
Amharc ar fhreagraMy question relates to the CervicalCheck tribunal. On 26 October the Minister said he would postpone the tribunal when he met the 221+ group on Zoom. However, it was commenced the following day. The Minister signed the order on 23 October. Vicky Phelan, has announced, unfortunately, that her cancer is back.
Lorraine, Stephen and all the members of the 221+ group are watching the Minister tonight for his answer. The Minister thinks he has more time than he has. We need all of these issues to be solved. They are very solvable. I presented some of the solutions myself. I urge the Minister, please, to give them confidence that these issues will be resolved this week.
As Deputy Kelly is aware, it was originally intended that the CervicalCheck tribunal would be established at the end of March. Both Deputy Kelly and I voted for the Act to set that up, and we debated some of the various parts of it in this House. The establishment was delayed due to Covid and then a further delay arose, as Deputy Kelly is aware, due to issues concerning membership when two of the judges were called on to do other jobs. The 221+ group has consistently raised its concerns over the delay in establishing the tribunal and its members have stressed to me the importance of establishing it without further delay. The group wrote to me in July, very shortly after I was in situ to ask that the tribunal would be set up immediately and with no further delay. In September, the group sought confirmation of an imminent start date. I have always made clear that I accepted the urgency of setting up the tribunal and my focus has been on its establishment as soon as possible. In July, I announced two new tribunal members and I also progressed work to make the tribunal facilities as safe as possible, or as Covid-proofed as possible, in the current environment.
There has been very in-depth and ongoing interaction between the 221+ group, me and the Department. The group has raised a number of concerns in respect of the tribunal, and progress was made in addressing these at our meeting at the beginning of September. I committed to consulting the Attorney General on some of these issues and to responding to the group before the establishment of the tribunal. I wrote to the group on 20 October, with the benefit of the Attorney General's advice, and informed the group of my intention to proceed with the tribunal's establishment on 27 October.
To effect the establishment of the tribunal, a number of steps were then taken, including the signing of the establishment orders, as Deputy Kelly referenced. I met with the group on 23 October and 26 October and further progress was made on its concerns. The most substantive of the concerns is one Deputy Kelly and I debated with the then Minister in this House and related to recurrence. I believe Deputy Kelly tabled an amendment at that time. The second concern, which Deputy Kelly and I discussed previously, was in respect of the Supreme Court judgement in the Morrissey case. I have more to say, which I might come back to in the next response.
To refresh my memory, I have read everything the Minister ever said in regard to this matter, so I know what commitments he made. Second, he did meet with the group, but he did not take on board what was said. Two months passed, and he did not take on board what was said. He just commenced the tribunal without addressing the main issues. One or two of the smaller issues have been addressed since.
I do not know why the Minister made a commitment on 26 October, having signed an order on 23 October, without rescinding it, for the tribunal to commence on 27 October. The Minister's excuse here is just not believable. It just does not help for a Minister to sign an order on the 23rd for the tribunal to commence on the 27th but to meet a group and tell it on the 26th that it was being postponed.
The Minister knows the main issues. They relate to the State Claims Agency joining as defendants and the Statute of Limitations. The most significant issue that the 221+ group wants sorted is the provision whereby a woman can return to the tribunal if she suffers a recurrence of cancer. They are the three outstanding issues. They have always been the three outstanding issues. I have discussed them with the Minister. There are solutions. I have even produced a Bill and sent it to the Minister, which, amazingly, his private secretary asked me for again last week even though I had sent it to her with a briefing note. When, this week, will the Minister give the assurances the 221+ group needs? Otherwise, the members of the group are going to ask publicly that people do not engage with the tribunal. The Minister and I do not want that.
I accept Deputy Kelly's bona fides on this. He and I have worked on this together on the committee and in this House. I hope he appreciates that I cannot get into a negotiation here with him that I am having in private with this group.
I do not want the Minister to do that.
It has been my intention from the very start to do right by this group. The group wrote to me and asked that the tribunal would be set up immediately, and that is what we moved to do. The group reiterated that in September. Deputy Kelly said that a few small issues may have been resolved but I am afraid that is factually incorrect.
The Minister would want to stop with that attitude.
The single biggest issue is the Supreme Court ruling in the Ruth Morrissey case, and they said themselves that that was a game changer. The group asked for an undertaking that the labs would not be joined as co-defendants in the tribunal. That has been supplied not just by me but in a letter furnished by the chief executive of the State Claims Agency.
Has the Minister read his letter?
So, with the greatest of respect, that has been done.
The Minister's attitude is appalling. He will not solve this issue with that attitude. He got a letter today explaining to him why that will not work. He obviously has not read it, or else he is choosing to ignore it. He is being quite ignorant on these issues. At this stage I have gone in-depth on all these issues for many years, specifically in relation to the tribunal. I know exactly what is needed. I have even supplied legislation to the Minister in regard to it, which he has ignored. I do not mind if he even takes the Civil Liability (Amendment) Bill on board, amends it and uses it as Government legislation. It does not bother me, but it sorts out the issue that we know we have to sort out regarding the re-occurrence of cancer for these women.
The Minister has very little time. I do not think he gets that. Vicky Phelan is watching this now as we speak. She has put her heart and soul into solving these issues in recent months. It is one of the last things she wants done. I urge the Minister, please, to honour that. There are comprehensive solutions here regarding the three issues that I believe everyone in this House would support. The Minister should just do it. He should not adopt an attitude like that. It is not appreciated and it will not work, with me or with them.
We can all make comments about people adopting attitudes with each other. With the greatest respect, what I say to Deputy Kelly is that I, the Department and the Government are in detailed discussions with the 221+ group. Various issues have been raised. A lot of them have been dealt with comprehensively.
The Minister received a letter today.
Good progress has been made on the others. I cannot get into a negotiation with Deputy Kelly in the Chamber about this. I need to respect the process that we are going through with the 221+ group. I have received the letter today, and I read it.
If he did read it, the Minister would not say what he has said.
I am sorry, but with the greatest respect, it is being looked at. It is a seven-page, detailed legalistic letter. It raises a lot of very detailed issues and we are going to afford it the respect it deserves. We are seeking legal advice on it. We are going to discuss it and we are going to see what progress we can make. The only thing we are bound by is the law.
The Minister can change the law.
My position going into this is exactly my position today. The only thing we want to do is what is right by these women. Deputy Kelly and I voted in this House for the Act that sets this tribunal up.
I produced legislation to deal with this issue.
What I want to do and what I believe Deputy Kelly wants to do is get this tribunal set up. We have made progress right across the board, within the bounds of the law, which we obviously have to follow.
No, the Minister has not. He does not realise how serious this issue is.
I thank the Minister. I am moving on.
The Taoiseach-----
Deputy Kelly should please not interrupt. I am moving on to the next question.
