Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I want to begin by welcoming Vicky Phelan home. I am delighted that she is on her way home to her family. I hope she gets to spend a lot of quality time with them in the coming days and weeks. Without her, I do not think we would be here today discussing all the issues, failings and positive aspects. I was in touch with her last night and she is looking forward to coming home.

We will support the Bill. I do not know if anyone would oppose it because it is purely a technical Bill to extend the tribunal which was established by these Houses. I accept that. We all know it is limited. Five women are using the tribunal. That says it all for me. I have had many discussions with the Minister on this and also with the Taoiseach. While we will vote the Bill through tonight, unfortunately I do not think it will have much impact, to be honest. It is unfortunate because that is not the way it was meant to be.

Last October, the Minister signed a statutory instrument to commence the tribunal even though he had made pledges about consultation and what he would do to try to make the tribunal better, but it just did not work out. I felt the way that was done was so haphazard and wrong. I told the Minister that at the time and that is on the record.

Good faith was lost around then. I know because I was dealing with the 221+ group. I dealt with Lorraine Walsh, Stephen Teap, Vicky Phelan and many others. That was when good faith was lost and when they said they would not advocate for any woman or family to go through this process. Now €2.5 million has been spent for five cases and I do not believe there will be many more. It is overstating it to say that there will.

When we gathered in Leinster House on 22 October 2019, the then Taoiseach said:

We have found the truth and the facts and are making changes to put things right. We need to restore trust and rebuild relationships that have been severely damaged.

On 2 September 2020, the Minister for Health met online with the 221+ group. The meeting went through all the group's concerns. Where the Taoiseach spoke of restoring trust, the issues were never dealt with. One issue was that the tribunal would be non-adversarial. That has not been the case. Lorraine Walsh, in particular, highlighted the need to allow women whose cancer recurred to be able to go back to the tribunal. She put a great deal of effort into trying to sort that out but it has not been dealt with. The question of why laboratories have to be brought into it has not been fully addressed. The HSE is primarily liable, and that is something I will return to in a minute. They sought a guarantee that the HSE would not object. There was the issue of the statue of limitations, which has already been raised. All five of those issues were sincerely raised but were not dealt with. There is a lack of respect for the Chief Justice's decision following the Ruth Morrissey judgment. I have spoken of this often in the House. It is a stain on us as a Legislature that we have not dealt with what the Chief Justice asked us to do in relation to the Ruth Morrissey judgment which was appealed by the last Government. I stood almost alone - there may have been one or two with me - in saying that was wrong. The judgment was held up by the Supreme Court. It changed everything. Ruth Morrissey was an amazing woman and because of her case and the way she stood up, she will have changed Ireland for so many in this area.

The HSE is now primarily liable for these cases where negligence is found so why are these cases not being dealt with beforehand? Why are they not being dealt with far more quickly? Following the recommendation made by the Chief Justice to us as legislators, why is it not a requirement in the Government's legislative programme to change the Civil Liability (Amendment) Act to ensure that women are not faced with having to choose between taking cases or allowing their families to do so after they pass away? That is scandalous. These are not equal options. It is neither tolerable nor fair. I have told the Taoiseach and the Minister that I have drafted a Bill to deal with this so that women do not have to face the choice of taking cases or allowing their families to do so after they pass away. I have never received a response of any substance. I am not saying that the Bill I produced is perfect - in fact, it probably is not - but it is a start and one that was made a year and a half or two years ago.

We must deal with what the Chief Justice, Mr. Clarke said, but we have had radio silence on it. The draft Bill I prepared permits both legal actions to be taken, while prohibiting double recovery. The draft amends section 48 of the 1961 Act to provide that, where:

– a person before their death has brought an action and recovered damages in respect of a wrongful act that caused their death, and

- a court, if it was awarding damages in an action under section 48 for the benefit of the dependents, would be entitled to take account of heads of damage additional to those in respect of which damages would have been awardable in an action brought by the person before their death,

At times, the Minister and the Taoiseach justifiably castigate some in the Opposition for not having alternatives and bringing forward solutions. I have brought forward a solution to that has been identified by the Chief Justice as a massive issue. It is unfair on so many people to be left in this position. Will the Minister please engage with me? My party has made the first steps in this regard.

My good friend, Vicky Phelan, when speaking about the establishment of the tribunal, asked why was it so hard for the Government to do right by the women of Ireland? She is right. Everything that has been done in the aftermath of the CervicalCheck scandal has been done through a paternalistic lens, in particular in how we ploughed on with the tribunal. We now have a situation where many women are being advised not to participate in the tribunal. The cost is €2.5 million. We have five cases and an empty building that has been fitted out for the purpose at a cost to the State of €600,000 a year. It is not good.

This legislation is required because the term of the tribunal must be extended given the circumstances in which we have found ourselves in the past year, but it does not deal with the fundamentals of how we ended up here. This is flawed. I have probably met more of the women and their families than anyone else in this House, but I would not advise any of them to go through this tribunal. As somebody who had to vote on it, that is not good.

Women and their families want to have confidence not just in the tribunal but also in the screening programme. We all know that screening is not diagnostic but bringing screening home would go a long way to help build up confidence in the system. Knowing that their smears are not being sent off to different corners of the world would give women peace of mind. That must be a big priority for the Minister.

I welcome the changes in the appointments to various roles across the screening programme. However, I want to sound a word of advice: the paternalistic attitude in any form must go. What Vicky Phelan exposed was how a minority in the medical profession spoke to their patients and looked down on them. That must stop. Patients are entitled to ask questions about their own health. I would be worried if a little bit of that paternalistic "I know better" attitude from some people were to creep back in. I am flagging that for the Minister because I am seeing some stuff that I am not very happy about.

I want to end with the words of the great woman that is Vicky Phelan. She said:

Confidence comes from actions not words. If an absence of trust continues it is in the absence of action by the State to deal fully with the past. The change that is needed must come from within the system. It is never too late to do the right thing. The discourse will follow.

See this speech in context