Jack Chambers (Dublin West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

The remarks my colleagues made outline how shameful and inhumane the Minister of State's two speeches tonight have been. While he mentioned at the start he was not speaking personally, maybe he should speak personally. Maybe he should front up as the Minister of State with responsibility for disabilities, and leave a positive legacy on these people's lives. Maybe he should not have delivered that script because what we have seen from him was a continuity of the net defence, the brick wall, the reliance on the Statute of Limitations and a really shameful defence of the lack of action by the State.

He did not take into account what I said in my opening remarks about the quantification of damages by the failure of the State to remove the drug. While he mentioned that the State has an ongoing commitment to these survivors, what he outlined today is very worrying. It is an ongoing alliance between the State Claims Agency and a company with a very dark past. This is a multi-billion euro company that sought to cover up documented evidence. The State Claims Agency and the Minister for Health, mentioned in that court action, are rocking in and using the Statute of Limitations to block the people here from pursuing their court action.

While using the Statute of Limitations, the Minister of State has superseded that with the next defence - Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin can vouch for this as we have seen it at the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice and Equality - the old money message. What he is bringing to a conclusion is what we have specifically referenced in the Bill, which is that we are not prejudicing a potential court action. I reject the Minister of State's claim that the Bill would give rise to civil litigation that could not otherwise be prosecuted before the courts, resulting in the appropriation of public moneys. We have been very clear about giving someone a right of action. The Minister of State is going directly to the conclusion because he knows damn well beyond the brick wall, beyond this defence, the State is exposed. However, by allowing this defence to remain he is also allowing the brick wall to remain for that company, Grünenthal, a company that has failed to deliver for victims of thalidomide.

The Minister of State mentioned very little of the company in his two statements. By opposing this Bill, the State is providing a defence for a company with a very dark past that was linked to Nazi Germany from the outset. While I did not go into the detail of it, it is one of the war secrets yet to be fully detailed and discussed in public. I will read out the text of a letter Grünenthal sent doctors.

Dear Doctors,

In pregnancy and during birth the female organism is under great stress. Sleeplessness, unrest and tension are constant complaints. The prescription of a sedative and hypnotic that will hurt neither the mother nor child is therefore often necessary.

That was the cold spin that company sent Irish doctors. That was the spin that T.P. Whelehan allowed to continue to roll around the Irish State for years after the withdrawal of the drug internationally. That was the line that allowed the drug to remain within Irish hospitals over an extensive period. That is what the Minister of State is defending. That is the legacy that began post the birth of many of these children who had grave difficulties.

9 o’clock

The Government failed to take account of the advice of the Attorney General at the time which resulted in damages not being quantified in the 1970s. The Minister of State said this is a matter for the Minister for Justice and Equality rather than the Minister for Health. This is no more than Cabinet deflection and spin. Has the Minister of State heard of the constitutional principle of collective Cabinet responsibility? That principle was ignored in his address to the House this evening.

I welcome the support of Deputies Ó Caoláin, O'Reilly and Connolly, all of whom spoke of the difficulties faced by victims over many years. It is the case that previous Governments and Ministers failed victims and I am not afraid to say that. The Bill gives the House an opportunity to give victims support and a chance to pursue their claims in court. The Minister of State said that because of the importance of serving the public good, the principal Act grants extensions of time to limited cohorts who are described in the Act as being "under a disability". Does he not see the physical consequences for people who suffered as a result of thalidomide? To have a Minister of State with responsibility for disability putting the words "under a disability" in quotation marks in his speech is quite insensitive. Perhaps he did not write the speech but to even put that on paper and to question their entitlement, as people who have definite difficulties and disabilities as a result of what happened to themin utero50 years ago, is shameful and a poor reflection on the Departments of Justice and Equality and Health.

The Minister of State also said that 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 such an extension. Again, the Minister of State is questioning whether this should be granted on the basis of the disability criteria. This reinforces the apparent alliance between the State Claims Agency and Chemie Grünenthal before the High Court under case management. The Minister of State went on to say that extensions of the limitation period apply to those with disabilities who need to be greatly impaired in their ability to take proceedings. Is he aware that some of the people who took the ex gratiapayment are now dead? Does he realise that? Some of the people who, on the night of the long knives in 2013, were forced to accept that payment have since died. They were put under enormous pressure at that time which is why some of them accepted that payment. For many of those involved, time is of the essence and resolving the ongoing case management is extremely important.

The language in the Minister of State's speech is terribly inhumane and it shows that the State has learned nothing in the past 50 years. Examples of what could occur were referenced but what we have here is the permanent government of today trying to defend permanent governments of the past. This does not only rock the political system, but also the departmental system. It rocks the Whitehall model we have in place here, which is based on mounting a defence, regardless of the consequences. The Minister of State is supporting that approach when he could help these people. I am confident that we will get this Bill passed and dispute the Government's contention in that regard. An independent assessment will be made as to whether it requires a money message. When the Government has to rely on the money message defence, it shows its inhumanity in dealing with people.

Despite all of the spin about the HSE, the effect of the non-provision of services, including aids and appliances, has resulted in the exacerbation of difficulties and the deterioration of the physical health of many victims. The Minister of State gave beautiful spin about all of the supports and wraparound services that these people enjoy. Has he spoken to any of the victims of thalidomide? Have they told him that they have the perfect system of supports, as outlined in his speech? The opposite is actually the case. Any independent assessment of the State's delivery of healthcare packages from the 1970s will find it lacking to a shameful degree, which continues to this day. That is why court actions are ongoing.

The State now has an opportunity to do the right thing by this cohort of its most vulnerable citizens. To date, the Government has procrastinated, stood on ceremony and relied upon technicalities. The Minister of State has promoted falsehoods and spin in his speech today. The Government should not be trying to allow a company such as Chemie Grünenthal to gain unfair advantage vis-à-visthalidomide survivors. For this reason, it should reverse its decision, support this Bill and allow it to go through the Oireachtas so that the limited number of people involved can finally have their say and justice can prevail.

See this speech in context