Victor Boyhan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will touch generally on the response to the three amendments with which the Minister dealt. First, I acknowledge that he has confirmed that he has written to the Catholic and the Church of Ireland Primates of All Ireland. I would be interested to see how that is all going. I am sure there are ways of finding out all that. That is no big government secret, and I am confident we could pretty well get a copy of the response within the next 24 hours. There is that acceptance. To echo what Senator Higgins said, we do not want another State indemnity for wrongdoing. We do not want any legitimisation of what has happened.

Then the Minister had his ongoing engagement with GSK, which would have been welcome originally. I cannot quite understand that negotiation. We know what happened. There is no ambiguity as to what happened in respect of the drug trials. As regards amendment No. 36, the Minister might consider running a parallel process. He did not really respond to that in the context of the illegal vaccine trials. Here we are suggesting we might get some funding out of the religious institutions that were involved. We may if this successful negotiation takes place, which is the Minister's expectation. I will not put any figure on that; that would be wrong of me. There may be other forms of compensation, yet the very people we are talking about, those who were from zero to six months of age, would not be beneficiaries of any compensation because they are excluded from the scheme. We have excluded people who were north of six months of age anyway so they do not come under the scheme - end of story. Everyone who was from zero to six months of age is excluded from the scheme, yet the Minister is pursuing, through a negotiation and now with Ms Sheila Nunan, who will negotiate on his behalf, I understand, a possibility of some compensation or some recognition of wrongdoing. However, how will those people who were zero to six months old benefit from that if they are excluded from the scheme? The Minister is seeking to pull in money, if he can get it, or some form of compensation, but, again, we have excluded those people.

There is also the possibility of looking at the issue of leverage in respect of GSK. It is substantially involved in our public health system in this country. It has substantial contracts with the State, and leverage may have to be applied. I ask and suggest tonight that that leverage be applied. It would be very simple to put in a request and a few parliamentary questions to ascertain the extent or level of GSK's engagement with the State. If it has contracts with the State and we are not happy with what it or its predecessors did, we need to say that loud and clear. We need to drag it to the table, hands up. There is no question of accusation. It carried out unethical vaccine trials on minors in this State without any parental consent or anyone in loco parentisgiving consent, and that is the fact.

I understand the parallel process, and the Minister has made a case as to how he is dealing with these amendments. Surely, however, he can run a parallel process in respect of negotiations and redress for many people who were the subject of unethical drug trials as children in State care. That is really important. If I were to go outside tonight to give an interview, as I will do tomorrow, since I am lined up for one, I would ask a question which I have rattled my brains on for many years, that is, how I can square up to the fact that the State is fully aware that these drug trials took place? It has the documentation. We remember the Ms Justice Mary Laffoy reports on this. We remember the involvement of the State. We know about the involvement of Deputy Micheál Martin as then Minister for Health, who was fully aware of all the issues. We know about the impacts of Bessborough on the children there. A substantial drug trials took place in Bessborough in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. We know these facts. How can we, as legislators, square up to walking out of here in a few weeks without making any provision for children in this State who underwent these vaccine trials? If this cannot be done in this legislation - and I take the point that that is the case the Minister has made and is making - can he assure us or come back here next week to say that he will take another look at this and will run a parallel system? It might be awkward or elongated, but we have to honestly put our hands on our hearts and say we are going to do something about this and are not going to lie down before a multibillion-pound pharmaceutical company. I know that pharmaceutical companies are powerful within the economy and that our economy greatly benefits from them, and I am a pragmatist, but we have to make a case as to how we can address this. I would like to hear how the Minister might look at that or even how he might just commit to going away and thinking about it again such that we can discuss it further.