David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I accept that the amendments have been ruled out of order. The Minister dealt with some of these issues on Second Stage with regard to recurrence and the Statute of Limitations and the reasons he was not able to deal with these issues at the time the tribunal was being established. He also stated while responding to Deputies on Second Stage, and in dealing with some of the issues addressed in the amendments that have been ruled out of order, that we have to wait and see whether more women will make claims. He stated that some women are themselves waiting to see how all of this pans out. On what is that based? Is it based on hope? Is it based on engagement? The engagement I have had with the 221+ group indicates that it does not expect more women to make a claim. I certainly am not going to offer an opinion to any woman as to whether she should make a claim before the tribunal because it is not my job to do so. It is entirely up to each woman, her family and her legal representatives. Each woman should be free to make whatever decision she wishes, rather than politicians or anybody else making the decisions for her.

I wish to read into the record a letter sent to the Minister. It was published. It is important because it deals comprehensively with the concerns of the 221+ group, which makes the arguments better than I could. The letter is dated 26 November 2020.

As we have outlined both in meetings and correspondence over recent weeks, the sole focus of the 221+ cancer support group is and has always been to reflect and represent the views of our members, whether that is in respect of the CervicalCheck tribunal or any other matters arising from the past failings of the national cervical cancer screening system. In respect of the tribunal specifically, your letter of 19 November set out clearly that it has not been possible to meet our requests on members' behalf in respect of the statute of limitations and the issue of recurrence on the basis that the advice received from the Attorney General on both sides is unambiguous. We have relayed that position to our members and advised them to seek their own advice on the matter. We have advised also that the talks in which we have engaged with you and your colleagues since 2 December last have run their course and that the letter of 19 November, which was unambiguous in tone, represents the definitive position of Government on the matters outstanding. Your letter of yesterday, Wednesday 25 November 2020, now appears to contradict that position. You will appreciate that there have been a number of missteps on communication around this issue since the establishment of the tribunal was first announced four weeks ago, which would have undermined the confidence of this group in the approach of Government. In that context, it is unclear to us as to whether this most recent letter shows that anything of substance is being offered over that represented in the letter of Thursday last week. We are unclear as to how expressions of hope and an aspiration that no woman would be left behind would offer any relief from the obligations of the legal process as it would be applied. If there is an opportunity to get the tribunal to a point where it is fit for purpose for the women impacted, then we will play our part but, as things stand, we would need to have an unambiguous commitment in writing and with any caveats set out clearly. We cannot, in conscience, go to our members with anything less, and it would be an abuse of their faith in us to offer any verbal or second-hand briefing on what seems to us to be a nuanced political promise rather than a formal commitment of Government. In the absence of that detail, we do not see any basis to meet at this time. We would, however, be happy to consider a more developed explanation of this new commitment, written in consideration of it being shared with our members. Were that available to review, a meeting at that point may be an appropriate medium by which to clarify any matters outstanding.

I do not think there has been any correspondence since then or, if there was further correspondence, the public position of the 221+ group was that it did not have confidence in the tribunal and was disappointed that its concerns were not met. It certainly was not in a position to recommend the tribunal to women, but it did say that it was a matter for women and their families.

To bring up costs of the tribunal in the context of this issue can come across as crass because we all know that it should not be about costs. If the tribunal is fit for purpose and is working, it does not matter what the cost is because it needs to be in place. It is in place because women have been wronged. The tribunal is there to make it less adversarial, to give them an option other than the High Court and to give them additional comfort and support they did not have up to now. The problem is that is not happening.

I may be wrong and the Minister may be able to correct me if I am, but I referred to five cases earlier. Is it still five cases? Has the number gone up? It is a very small number. Surely the Minister must be concerned that the number of women who have availed of the tribunal and made a claim is low. Surely, as the Minister who set the tribunal up, that is of concern to him. It is certainly of concern to me and to the 221+ group. If the number continues to stay low and the deadline for women to make claims is extended by six months, and then maybe another six months, but no more women make claims, how long will the tribunal have to last, with all the additional costs that will incur, before there is a recognition that there is a more fundamental problem? That is a reasonable argument to make, albeit not necessarily in respect of costs but, rather, in respect of the rationale for a tribunal being in existence when it does not have the support of the very women it wishes to make claims before it. Those are reasonable arguments. I will say no more as I know other Members wish to come in and we are short on time. I hope the Minister will be able to respond to some of the points I have made.

See this speech in context