Ceist 10. We cannot have a detailed cross-examination which could last for a day and a half.

Would the Minister agree that there have been a considerable number of unjustified and fallacious claims for compensation in relation to the toxic effects of the vaccine?

I hold the view very strongly that no amount of money would compensate for the trauma of the appalling effects visited on the tragic group involved. It is important to bear in mind that cash compensation does not change the situation. In some respects — I do not suggest this in relation to the parents concerned — in some of the representations I have received it may appear that there is an excessive preoccupation with cash compensation. My Department endeavoured to give every special facility to the 54, the 14 and the new 36. We have tried to provide special care, treatment and facilities for all persons who suffered this tragedy. In that regard the State more than meets the obligation arising from the whooping cough vaccination tragedy. In our publicity we stress that vaccination is an imperative in the case of infectious diseases and the prevention thereof.

I will accept one final supplementary from Deputy Shatter, who put down the four questions.

Would the Minister not agree that, even in the context of the parents whose children have been adjudged not to have been affected by the vaccine, the claims made by all of them were bona fide and were not made fallaciously or in an attempt to seek money? Would the Minister accept that the concern of the parents whose children have been adjudged to be unaffected by the vaccine is that the information upon which the expert medical group made their decision has not been made available to them? They feel they are entitled to have this information made available to them. Would the Minister not agree that the information should be made available to the parents to remove suspicions or worries as to the correctness of the decisions made? In the circumstances would the Minister consider establishing an appeals tribunal such as exists in other member states of the EEC for dealing with this issue?

That is repetition.

There is a major problem involved here. I have been very circumspect. I have used the phrase "as a lay person". Sensitive and confidential information is in the possession of the expert medical group. The case histories concerned, the detailed inquiries they made from family doctors, and which they had to make in order to assess those cases, and the detailed inquiries they made from paediatricians and others with a knowledge of each individual case are confidential to the groups concerned. If each parent has to be presented with all the assessments and the criteria used in relation to each individual claim, we are entering into a major area of medical ethical assessments. I have examined the situation very carefully, as did my predecessor. Deputy Woods and I came to the conclusion that it would not be in the best interests of everybody concerned that all of the information on the case histories should be disclosed.