Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 4, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following: "Amendment of section 17 of the CervicalCheck Tribunal Act 2019

2.Section 17 of the CervicalCheck Tribunal Act 2019 is amended by the insertion of the following after subsection (6):

“(7) The Tribunal shall be entitled to award aggravated damages in circumstances where—

(a) the Tribunal determines that a claimant has been cross-examined in an unnecessarily aggressive and/or adversarial manner by a respondent, or

(b) the Tribunal determines that the respondent advanced a defence that it knew or ought reasonably to have known was not justified by the evidence available to that respondent.”.”.

First of all, when the Minister said he cannot see the advantages of going to court, I suggest he might ask the women what advantages they see in going to court as distinct from the tribunal because clearly they are walking, talking and voting with their feet on this issue.

I know that the Minister tabled this amendment previously. I basically copied and pasted the Minister's amendment from the last discussion that we had before the CervicalCheck Tribunal Act was passed. The former Minister for Health, Deputy Harris, told the Minister that he should not worry and that aggravated damages are allowed for in the circumstances. If the Minister has accepted that, and he has repeated it here today, that is fine. However, since there is a huge kickback against this tribunal and all of its mechanisms from the actual sufferers themselves, I ask the Minister how he can guarantee the provision for aggravated damages. Therefore, I ask him to accept the amendment, because it copper-fastens the idea that aggravated damages will be awarded rather than just accepting that it is something that is stated. We have not seen anything here that would make women want to go to the tribunal more than the High Court. Considering the lack of trust that they have in the tribunal, accepting and passing this amendment might at least signal that we are serious about addressing their concerns.

The Minister stated that he would like to see a broadening out of the circumstances under which women can go to the tribunal. Why is that expansion not contained in the Bill today? If eligibility could and should be expanded, why is that provision not being brought before the House to address the concerns of the 221+ group? The group members' impression of the discussions they had with the Minister was that they were not listened to. If the Minister is listening to them and he thinks eligibility should be expanded, the provision should be brought before the House.

See this speech in context