Kieran O'Donnell (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

With due respect, this is about life or death. When it became known that there was an incorrect reading of a smear test in 2014 and which was not given to Ms Phelan until 2017, three years later, surely at best it was gross incompetence. Mr. Breen is speaking about the whole issue of intent. Surely, as the officer charged with legally advising the HSE, Mr. Breen should have said on the issue of non-disclosure - that is the key issue here - a wrong was done. At that stage Mr. Breen should have been advising the State to accept liability. Furthermore, he should have ensured the State Claims Agency and the laboratory in America, CPL, Clinical Pathology Laboratories Inc., accepted liability, offered a settlement to the Vicky Phelan and not have dragged her through court for four days. Instead, she was dragged through the court and had to put her condition in the public domain. It was offensive to the public and grossly unfair to Vicky Phelan and her family. As the chief legal officer advising the State, Mr. Breen should have said on non-disclosure that we accepted legal liability. It should not have happened. Instead, it resulted in Vicky Phelan being told at the end of 2017 of the difficulty she has with her health. This would not have arisen if she had been told of the incorrect smear in 2014.

When I read this opening statement, the State Claims Agency still does not appear to be admitting that the issue of non-disclosure was culpability on the part of the HSE. Vicky Phelan is an incredible woman. She came out when she was not well and stood up for women and the truth. We still have the situation, however, whereby Mr. Breen is advising the State, the HSE and the Minister for Health, that the issue of non-disclosure was something for which the State should not accept liability. If the State had accepted liability for it, Vicky Phelan would not have ended up having to go to court. Is that not correct?