Mr. Jim Breslin:

I would not like to prejudge. Obviously, the merits of the case are being looked into.

To move it into another associated area, also in the account is the symphysiotomy compensation scheme. We would all prefer not to be in a very legalistic place. Our learning over the years is to try to put in services early and address genuinely the life circumstances of people in these situations and, where issues arise, not to go to the Four Courts or even into very judicial processes. The reason I reference the symphysiotomy situation is because that is operating under the Department's Vote in 2015 in a very speedy fashion where the same level of legal representation is not required, awards are being made and people are getting on with their lives. All those processes have to be worked through as a general policy matter.

Regarding any specific vaccine, we have to look at the fine detail of that to determine the merits of the argument so I do not want to prejudge that. In any event, what we try to do is tackle the underlying issues around services because in terms of people who have narcolepsy, other issues the Deputy flagged, a medical condition or who require other supports, the first thing we should do is try to address that as the most immediate need, and we are seeking to do that.