Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour) | Oireachtas source

On 11 May 2018, the Taoiseach appeared on "RTÉ News: Six One" and stated that the women would not have to pursue the laboratories. I watched it live, and I saw what he said. I found what he said to be unbelievable. That this would be honoured had to drift through this letter, to the State Claims Agency. I believe that anybody reading this letter, and hearing what Mr. Breen has said, would see this as splitting hairs. It is insulting. The agency has guaranteed in writing that it will not raise any objection should a claimant applicant at the CervicalCheck tribunal seek to sue the HSE as sole defendant. We know there is a small amount of cases in the first place. It then goes on to state it will add the laboratories as necessary. In the spirit of what came from Government and from that letter, what Mr. Breen has just said is not fair for the women and families affected. It is not appropriate, nor is it in the spirit of how the agency should be acting.

I am close to a number of these cases. As far as I can see, the issues we have seen with strategies pursued in relation to disabilities, nursing homes and so on are still being pursued. Liability is admitted to try to avoid court, the case is run right up to trial and then causation is denied in defence and there is usually a refusal to apologise. For all of the cases the State Claims Agency has been defending in the tribunal or the courts, will Mr. Breen provide me, in tabular form, the date on which the court cases were first due in court and the date on which mediation commenced? Amazingly, on most occasions it will be shown that it was quite close to the actual case. If the spirit of mediation were appropriately acted on, it would have been dealt with long ago.

There is a lady currently going through the 11th day of her case. The idea that the State Claims Agency is acting in an expedient manner to try to deal with these cases quickly is just not true. I am conscious of that because I am aware of so many of these cases. Why would these women, who are going to the High Court and, separately, to the tribunal, in many cases enter mediation when we end up in a scenario where the strategies being pursued are so vehement and rigorous, almost to the point of being shameful? Why would they enter mediation when they have to go through that sort of process each time? Why is the spirit of the letter sent by the SCA not being honoured?