Clare Daly (Dublin North, Socialist Party) | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State is aware that RTE's "Prime Time" programme recently shed light on the Government's handling of the thalidomide scandal in the 1960s. Documents produced show that the Government made a conscious decision not to issue a public warning on the dangers of thalidomide as such a move was regarded as "undesirable". That has serious ramifications for a scandal that has gone on for decades at this stage.

Thalidomide was a drug marketed for morning sickness but problems arose with it which led to the foetus in many instances being malformed and the children being born with serious lifelong physical defects. The German Government and chemical company involved brought forward a compensation package years later. I am aware the programme for Government gave a commitment to reopen discussions regarding this compensation programme. Many of the survivors, of which there are 32, are seeking an enhanced care package with access to adapted housing, cars and other services. They are saying that the spirit of the agreement entered into with their parents in the 1970s should be honoured.

Discussions between them and the Department broke down earlier in the year. The Minister for Health said they had broken down on the basis of legal advice to the Government that the State does not have legal liability for injuries suffered by the survivors of the drug. The recent revelations from documents from the Department cast doubt on the accuracy of the Minister’s statement, however. If the State was well aware of the concerns about the drug in 1959 but failed to take any action until the middle of 1962, then several of these survivors and victims of thalidomide have a legitimate case to argue the State is wholly responsible as it had possession of knowledge with which it refused to deal.

At the time, the drug company involved had withdrawn the drug from the market. Some of the quotes from the Irish State authorities at the time in the recently disclosed documents seem quite callous. Basically, they said because the drug companies had withdrawn it, they need not worry about it. This was inappropriate. Another document reveals, “It was felt that any supplies which had already reached domestic stocks presented a special problem that could only be tackled by public announcements. This step was regarded as undesirable. It was thought that even if it were taken, it would prove largely ineffective”. Sadly, we will never know because the public announcement was not made. Instead, we had a confidential circular issued with an inadequate recall of the drug.

These documents alter the balance of forces in the Government’s position on the negotiations with the thalidomide survivors. The points made by the Minister in July that the State is not responsible have been shown up to be not the case. I hope the Government will take this into account in addressing the outstanding concerns of the victims of thalidomide for adequate compensation to meet their needs.

See this speech in context