Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

As Deputy Kelly is aware, it was originally intended that the CervicalCheck tribunal would be established at the end of March. Both Deputy Kelly and I voted for the Act to set that up, and we debated some of the various parts of it in this House. The establishment was delayed due to Covid and then a further delay arose, as Deputy Kelly is aware, due to issues concerning membership when two of the judges were called on to do other jobs. The 221+ group has consistently raised its concerns over the delay in establishing the tribunal and its members have stressed to me the importance of establishing it without further delay. The group wrote to me in July, very shortly after I was in situto ask that the tribunal would be set up immediately and with no further delay. In September, the group sought confirmation of an imminent start date. I have always made clear that I accepted the urgency of setting up the tribunal and my focus has been on its establishment as soon as possible. In July, I announced two new tribunal members and I also progressed work to make the tribunal facilities as safe as possible, or as Covid-proofed as possible, in the current environment.

There has been very in-depth and ongoing interaction between the 221+ group, me and the Department. The group has raised a number of concerns in respect of the tribunal, and progress was made in addressing these at our meeting at the beginning of September. I committed to consulting the Attorney General on some of these issues and to responding to the group before the establishment of the tribunal. I wrote to the group on 20 October, with the benefit of the Attorney General's advice, and informed the group of my intention to proceed with the tribunal's establishment on 27 October.

To effect the establishment of the tribunal, a number of steps were then taken, including the signing of the establishment orders, as Deputy Kelly referenced. I met with the group on 23 October and 26 October and further progress was made on its concerns. The most substantive of the concerns is one Deputy Kelly and I debated with the then Minister in this House and related to recurrence. I believe Deputy Kelly tabled an amendment at that time. The second concern, which Deputy Kelly and I discussed previously, was in respect of the Supreme Court judgement in the Morrissey case. I have more to say, which I might come back to in the next response.

See this speech in context