Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I support the Bill on the basis that the 221+ patient support group and its spokesperson, Stephen Teap, support it and hope there will be no delays to the process. Stephen Teap said, "With the details for this tribunal we haven't seen yet but the first step in the whole process is getting this legislation passed before we can get to what this tribunal means for us." The devil will be in the detail as to what the tribunal process will mean to the women and families affected by this terrible situation.

I have concerns, like other Members, that the legislation is being rushed. It must be clarified to the women and families concerned that it is a tribunal and not a redress scheme. It can potentially be private by request of the woman. However, the adversarial situation we have seen in the High Court to date was also private. That has to be made clear.

The tribunal itself can be accessed by the women and families of the 221 women involved with the CervicalCheck audit, along with individuals who are identified during the independent expert panel review undertaken by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in the UK, where the review presents findings discordant with those of the original cytology examination. How many women are affected? I have significant concerns about those women who did not take up the opportunity to go into that review.

The Bill’s intention is that women and their spouses can make claims in an alternative, faster and less adversarial surrounding from the High Court system. Women still have the option to proceed through the courts system as well. Will the Minister explain why the claimant, the HSE and the labs have to agree for the case to go to the tribunal? Why can it not just be the claimant or her family who decide whether they wanted heard in public or private? Will the Minister clarify if the labs can block the claimant’s request for the case to go to the tribunal? Will he also clarify that the State is not appealing the €2.1 million award in the Ruth Morrissey case but only the legal points?

How does that affect the establishment of the tribunal? Will the laboratories in question proceed in the same way? Are they only appealing the legal aspect and not the awards to be paid to the families and women concerned? The Bill makes no provision for women who may have a later recurrence of cancer. That issue has been raised already but it is a very important point on which I would like clarity. How many women have applied for and received the ex gratia payments of €20,000 to date?

I will make one last point. I only have five minutes as Deputy Connolly is leading our grouping on this issue. I recently read that the private laboratory which processes cervical cytology tests in Ireland has said it will no longer do so in light of recent controversies and the recent High Court ruling in the case of Ruth Morrissey. News that the judgment from Mr. Justice Kevin Cross has resulted in changed working practices at the laboratories owned by one large global operator will fuel concerns that a new and problematic legal precedent has been set. In a letter to doctors last month, the company in question, Eurofins Biomnis, stated that women who wanted to be tested would have to get a human papilloma virus, HPV, test to help detect the presence of that virus, which can lead to the development of cervical cancer. I have concerns about that. In the debate last year, the Taoiseach specifically stated that HPV testing would be rolled out by the end of last year. We still have not seen it happen and now certain laboratories are saying they will only undertake the tests in conjunction with the HPV test. That is of huge concern to me and the many other women who will face testing in the future.

See this speech in context