Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank Sinn Féin for bringing forward this motion, which we will be wholeheartedly supporting. This is a topic about which I have probably spoken more than most in this Chamber and about which I am very passionate. I will divide my contribution into two parts. I do not want to repeat the proposals put forward by others, which I support. As a result, I will just focus on the matters I feel should be concentrated upon. I will then deal with the civil liability (amendment) Bill, which is our priority in light of the judgment in the Ruth Morrissey case and the appeal to the Supreme Court, which she won. I was in a lonely place in this Chamber, with only a few others on my side. There were those who believed that the original judgment should not have been appealed. The Minister believed that it should have been appealed, as did what is now the main Opposition party. The Chief Justice has informed us that we, the Legislature, must deal with this matter. I will address that aspect as well.

I begin by welcoming the appointment of Fiona Murphy as head of screening services in the HSE. It is appropriate to welcome her, particularly as we are having this debate. I wish her the best. I thank the Minister for meeting online with the 221+ group during the week. I received a full report on the meeting, so, in the context of what he said, I would like to see the Minister's commitments honoured.

Turning to the Minister's contribution, I would have preferred it if he had provided some insights into where he is going with this matter rather than a commentary. This is about actions and measuring the data, as the Minister stated often when he was in opposition. What is he going to do? We all know about the issues. I want to know what the Minister is going to do, when he is going to do it and how he is going to spend the money.

The drop in the number of cancer screening tests since March will have a profound effect. We all know that screening is not diagnostic, but it can result in women and men needing different types of treatment, including more aggressive treatments. That is never a good thing. Regarding CervicalCheck, some 6,000 letters have gone out and there has not been enough of an uptake. This is a real concern. The low level of uptake needs to be tackled because otherwise there will be consequences down the line. Turning to BreastCheck, we also know that services are not resuming in the way that it was indicated they would. I also asked a question - but I did not get the answer - about the decision to move from an interval of two years to three years in the context of mammograms. If two years was the standard, show me the new medical evidence which states that three years should be the standard and please do not just use Covid-19 as a reason. I want to know why that interval between screenings has changed. Nobody has explained that yet or why we were using an interval of two years in the first place. I would like the Minister to outline the position in this regard in this reply.

I am glad that we have Ms Murphy in place because communication needs to be dramatically improved, especially now. I will make six points before I turn to the civil liability (amendment) Bill. Regarding BreastCheck screening, the status report on its resumption needs to come before us, and the same needs to happen with BowelScreen. We also need a plan, which I will not stick the Minister with, to bring screening home. We all agree that many of the issues which arose historically did so because we outsourced screening.

Turning to the CervicalCheck tribunal, I will give the Minister some space, not very long, to consider where he is going with that issue. It is going nowhere at present and, in light of the changes brought about by the Morrissey judgment, it will not go anywhere. I have many detailed thoughts on this issue, but I am not going to share them here. I want to give the Minister some space to consider what he heard last week.

I am delighted that arrangements for the administration of the HPV vaccine to girls and boys are in place. We have a good standard regarding HPV. I was pushing in the previous Dáil to bring vaccination forward for boys, so I am delighted that is happening. Given the circumstances we are in, however, it is important that there is no slippage in this happening. What is the plan to ensure that there will be no slippage? I ask that because we are protecting our future, and I know the Minister understands that.

I support the need for more funding. I have many reasons for doing so. The Covid-19 pandemic has given rise to practical reasons, but I also support the Irish Cancer Society's plan for the implementation of its strategy. I would like the Minister to break down what funding he thinks is required in order that we can support him with its prioritisation in this Chamber.

Finally, before I get to the other matter, I turn to the issue of auditing, which has stopped. We do not audit any more. That is unacceptable, particularly as auditing is good. When is it going to recommence? We cannot have a situation where there is no auditing. The Minister said the same thing when he was in opposition.

I turn now to the civil liability (amendment) Bill, a copy of which I sent to the Minister. I am raising this matter because his legislative programme will be outlined next week. I want to see this proposed legislation included in that programme. I do not care if the Minister amends my Bill. I want to do whatever is the right thing in the context of drafting, because this is not about egos. The Chief Justice stated that this legislation is necessary. Several cases, three of which I know well, are now before the High Court and those involved could really do this Bill being passed.

I attended the hearing when the Morrissey case was appealed to the Supreme Court. There were many issues with the Civil Liability Act 1961, and related legislation, prior to that case but they were all swept beneath the carpet. People were left in a difficult situation. They were faced with having to seek all their damages in the context of one case, with the woman or man - with cervical cancer it is always women obviously - then, hopefully, taking the €500,000 for loss of earnings and loss of free services. When negligence was found, the quantum was calculated out of that. Under section 48 of the Civil Liability Act 1961, only one case can be brought in respect of a fatal injury. As a result, if a deceased person brings and settles a case for losses prior to his or her death, it is not then possible to seek damages for his or her children and provide for them to be cared for.

In other words, women who are affected in that way are left in the difficult situation that either they take a case or wait for their children to do so. Timing is an issue because the women involved obviously do not know how long they will live. We cannot have a situation in which the children of someone with a fatal injury in a case where negligence has been proven cannot continue the case. The Chief Justice has said that we cannot deal with this situation through case law. He has pointedly said that we must deal with it from a legislative position and it is the Oireachtas that has to deal with it. He has also asked for that to be done in a timely fashion. The Bill I have put forward does that. I am asking the Minister to deal with it.

Many more cases are coming through. We must consider how to deal with the legacy of the achievements of Ruth Morrissey, Vicky Phelan and all the other women. The Bill I am proposing would be a legacy to all of their efforts. Ruth Morrissey should never have been put through what she was, especially after what the Taoiseach said on "Six-One". The law was written so there could not be double jeopardy but it did not anticipate the case pathway that has now developed. The children of the affected women now cannot take on cases after their death and that cannot be allowed to continue.

There is also a problem with the timelines in that regard. The women affected in these cases, and men affected by other forms of cancer, almost need to time their deaths because the statute of limitations can kick in. We have that extra problem.

I am asking the Minister to bring forward this legislation as a part of the legislative programme. The Minister should put it on the programme for next week. I will work with him to bring in the Bill. We can to and fro about how it will be drafted. We can meet and debate the Bill. It would be an absolute travesty if the Bill is not on the legislative programme because it would undermine everything that Ruth Morrissey did for this State. She should never have gone through what she did. She should never have had to go through the Supreme Court because that case should never have been appealed. The standard of absolute confidence existed in the UK. I ask the Minister to do her memory justice by ensuring that we bring in this Bill.

I looked at some of the messages that Ruth Morrissey sent me before she passed away. She really wanted this legislation to be her legacy. She wants us to work through this legislation in a timely manner to serve the many women whose cases are coming down the road. I ask the Minister to please do as I ask.

See this speech in context