Finian McGrath (Dublin Bay North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Jack Chambers for bringing forward this important legislation. I wish to emphasise the central role of the Statute of Limitations in ensuring a fair system of litigation. However, let us have truth and honesty in this debate and let us deal with the facts from both a legal point of view and a humanitarian point of view. That is important. Despite my personal view, the Government is opposing the proposed amendment for the reasons I will outline. This Bill would give rise to civil litigation that could not otherwise be prosecuted before the courts, resulting in the appropriation of public moneys to fund the costs of the courts and other costs associated with litigation. The Bill therefore requires a money message in accordance with Article 17 of the Constitution.

The Department of Justice and Equality is the sponsoring Department for the Statute of Limitations Act 1957. The Act provides for limitation periods within which litigation can be brought. The Act recognises that a balance must be drawn between allowing litigants to make their claims and at the same time serving the public good by setting definite timeframes within which litigation can be taken against any person in the State. Due to the great importance of serving the public good, the Act grants extensions of time to limited cohorts who are described in the Act as "under a disability". It would run against the principle of protecting the common good to grant extensions of time to a cohort which does not meet the criteria for being granted this extension. The Department of Health considers that the amendment proposed has the potential for significant negative repercussions for the State as a defendant in litigation, as it would set a clear precedent for diluting the criteria defining what it is to be under a disability to such a degree as to make these criteria meaningless.

This Private Members Bill seeks to amend the Statute of Limitations Act to deem thalidomide survivors to be "under a disability" for the purposes of the statute, with retrospective effect. All of those currently recognised within the statute as "under a disability" are greatly impaired in their ability to take proceedings. That is why extensions of the limitation period apply in their cases. However, those persons whose injuries are attributable to thalidomide are not generally under severe legal disability which has impeded them from taking proceedings. The overall operation of the law in respect of the Statute of Limitations is complex and any changes to it will have a wide impact in law. This key area of the law is, therefore, a matter of ongoing review at the Department of Justice and Equality. This process is taking account of the findings and recommendations of the 2011 Law Reform Commission report and intervening developments.

In the ongoing consideration of the overall operation of the law relating to the limitation of actions or where specific areas of policy action arise, the core objectives of the Law Reform Commission report of 2011 will continue to apply, namely, that, "A balance is struck between the competing rights of the plaintiff and the defendant, as well as having regard to the public interest; in particular the right of the plaintiff of access to the courts and the right to litigate, the right of the defendant to a speedy trial and to fair procedures, as well as the public interest in the avoidance of delayed claims and the timely administration of justice." Account will continue to be taken by the Department of Justice and Equality of the commission’s recommendations and other relevant developments in bringing forward any proposals for reforming legislation in this area including, possibly, as part of any new programme of legislation and with the careful consideration of the Attorney General.

With regard to some of the points made about the State not stepping forward, I will take this opportunity to outline briefly some of the background to the current provision of State supports to Irish survivors of thalidomide, which I have always supported. Thalidomide is a drug that was marketed in this country between 1958 and 1962. It was withdrawn from sale by the manufacturers because it was linked to disabilities in children born to mothers who had taken the drug during their pregnancy. In January 1975, the Irish Government announced its decision to grant an ex gratiasum equivalent to four times the German lump sum and an ex gratiamonthly allowance for life equal to the German monthly allowance from the Contergan Foundation to each of the children found to have thalidomide related injuries. This decision reflected the deep sympathy with which the Government always considered the effects of this tragedy on the lives of the children and their families. This is something I have always supported.

There are a number of other measures for thalidomide survivors. The Irish survivors have a full medical card which does not take means into account and provides access to a full range of primary care, hospital and personal social care. A HSE national thalidomide liaison provides assistance with securing HSE-provided health and social care services, access services and supports provided by other Government agencies, for example, housing adaptation grants from local authorities. It is open to anybody who believes that his or her injuries are attributable to thalidomide to be assessed by the Contergan Foundation to establish his or her status. Obviously the State would recognise the outcome of this process and extend them the same supports.

Finally, without prejudice, the Minister for Health intends to refer shortly to the Government with proposed draft heads of a Bill regarding health and personal social services for Irish survivors of thalidomide. I look forward to the House's support for these proposals. We listen and we will support in the future.

See this speech in context