Dáil debates

Tuesday, 8 December 2020

Ceisteanna ó Cheannairí - Leaders' Questions

 

2:30 pm

Photo of Micheál MartinMicheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I am not aware of what was said because, obviously, I was not at the meeting. I will check the position immediately because we must all uphold the decisions of the Supreme Court and of the courts in general. On the previous Government's decision, those who work for the State can have their views in terms of Government decisions but they must facilitate the execution of those decisions within various services. That remains the position.

Since it entered office, this Government has been doing everything possible to facilitate the establishment of the tribunal in order to create a less adversarial forum to give women who have taken cases to the courts a better alternative. Towards the latter part of the summer, judges were selected and appointed. This was because the judges who had previously been put in place had either been appointed to different positions or had moved on because of Covid-19. There was a pause during the first phase of Covid-19 and we were anxious to get the tribunal operational for women who wanted to lodge claims through their legal representatives at the tribunal. It was important that we got it established.

There were, obviously, ongoing discussions with the 221+ patient support group. It is fair to say it was not satisfied that all the issues it had raised with the Government were resolved, particularly that relating to recurrence and the Statute of Limitations. The Government took a decision a fortnight ago on the Statute of Limitations which, I believe, will ultimately enable that issue to be resolved. Obviously, in the first instance, it will be a matter for the tribunal to decide on any case with which it feels it has difficulty because of the Statute of Limitations. Due to the fact that the tribunal commenced its work later than the women would have expected, there was an obvious delay in terms of their being in a position to lodge their claims.

The issue of recurrence was well-debated in the House during the passage of the legislation. The legal issues raised by the then Minister are the same legal issues that have not enabled the Government to deal with that in the context of the tribunal. There are wide-ranging implications arising from the recurring issue, beyond CervicalCheck. The Government is very committed to seeing through the work of the tribunal and facilitating a less adversarial and confrontational, and more suitable, environment for the resolution of these issues where the laboratories would be joined as third parties, not as core defendants, because negligence has to be established, as the Deputy will be aware. The tribunal follows the work that was initiated by Mr. Justice Charles Meenan. He recommended the framework and then followed through on the Act that was passed by all parties in the House last year. We genuinely believe that the tribunal offers a better, less confrontational alternative to the courts.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.