Thread by @PhelanVicky

CervicalCheck Tribunal - A v angry Thread

I am late to the table responding to the announcement in Cabinet yesterday morning by Minister @DonnellyStephen that he proposes to appoint next Tuesday, October 27 as the establishment day of the CervicalCheck Tribunal.

1/n

This announcement was made AT THE SAME TIME that the @221plus received a letter from the Minister's Office informing us that the Minister would be formally establishing the Tribunal NEXT WEEK just as the country is entering its highest level of restrictions due to Covid-19!

2/n

The @221plus women & families who this Tribunal is aimed at, were not afforded an opportunity to respond to the Minister's decision to formally establish the Tribunal BEFORE it was announced.

As we have become used to, those most affected are often the last to know

3/n

We met the Minister and officials from @roinnslainte on a Zoom meeting just 6 weeks ago.

We set out several aspects of the proposed Tribunal that were causing us, and our members, serious concern

The Minister's response yesterday is a flat rejection of ALL of our concerns

4/n

ONE
We asked for a non-adversarial route to be found for the Tribunal, one NOT obliging women to fight the labs given recent rulings.

The HC in the Carrick case reaffirmed the view taken by the SC in Morrissey, that it was NOT necessary for women to sue the labs...

5/n

Women could instead rely on the non-delegable duty owed to them by the HSE, who were found primarily responsible for the cervical screening programme in the Morrissey case.

The HSE could then rely on their contractual and legal indemnities against the lab.

6/n

BUT
The Minister rejected these arguments and set out in his letter how the laboratories MUST be involved in proceedings if taken before the Tribunal.

This will NOT be acceptable to many of our members.

7/n

TWO
We asked that applicants to the Tribunal who receive an award be allowed to return to the Tribunal should they suffer a recurrence of their cancer, in the same way that the State allowed applicants before the Hep-C Tribunal to return where their health deteriorates

8/n

Such a right to return to the Tribunal would be an advantage over the High Court procedures where, of course, no such right exists.

The Minister's letter did not even address this hugely important issue.

9/n

THREE
Another issue that the Minister did not address is that of the Statute of Limitations.

We explained to the Minister that some of our members have received legal advice that they may now be statute-barred because they relied on the Government's promise...

10/n

...of a 'non-adversarial' Tribunal and did not issue HC proceedings.

These members may now, through no fault of their own, be statute-barred because of delays by Government of more than two years in establishing this Tribunal.

The Minister did not address this issue

11/n

We had been given to believe that it was the needs of the women and families affected by the CervicalCheck debacle and NOT those of the @HSELive and the labs that were to come first in the Government's response to the terrible wrongs visited upon our members.

12/n

On the basis of all of the above, we would ask the Minister to reconsider any move to launch the
CervicalCheck Tribunal next week.

Instead, we would plead with him to redouble efforts to sit down again with members of the @221plus

13/n

to identify an alternative solution of redress which is what our members have asked for, and what they deserve.

Otherwise, we will be recommending that @221plus members NOT participate in this Tribunal
should it go ahead in its current format next week.

14/n