This has been a tough week for the women of Ireland. Last night, we had a heartwrenching and emotional debate on the Government's proposals to seal the records of survivors of mother and baby homes, women who were vilified, abused and treated as outcasts by this State. In the same week, issues surrounding CervicalCheck have unfortunately arisen again. Some 12 months ago, the Tánaiste delivered a formal State apology for the litany of failures in respect of CervicalCheck and he said sorry for the humiliation, disrespect and deceit meted out to the hundreds of women affected by that scandal. This came in the aftermath of the State joining US laboratories that were at fault in dragging a terminally ill woman through the courts and fighting her tooth and nail every step of the way. It was accurately described as deathbed litigation.

The Tánaiste promised the women concerned that this would never happen again and that an alternative to the courts would be provided for women to seek justice. The truth is that this adversarial and aggressive approach has been maintained. Vicky Phelan has come forward to express her shock and anger that women and their families have been let down by the State yet again this week. The Minister, Deputy Donnelly, has written to women and their families to say that the tribunal will be established next week. They got that news at the same time as the public announcement. It is like the mistakes that were made were brushed under the carpet and forgotten about. It is as if the voices of the women concerned do not matter. We heard women say last night that their voices did not matter. Against their wishes and pleas for a non-adversarial route, the Minister, ignoring those calls, insists that the laboratories must be involved in the proceedings if taken before the tribunal. This is entirely wrong. The Government should not be joining these laboratories in fighting these women and their families. A decent Government would stand up for and protect these women and ensure that it worked with them to get the justice that they deserve.

We need to fix the system and that is the least that we owe these women. I am a user of the CervicalCheck service and I want it to work. In order for it to work, there has to be transparency and trust. The women who are the victims of this scandal have to be listened to, so that all women can know they can have confidence in the service because they are having input into it. These women have been let down repeatedly and now the Minister for Health intends to proceed on a basis that is not acceptable to those women. Vicky Phelan said she is pleading with the Minister to redouble efforts to sit down again with the members of the 221+ group to identify an alternative solution for redress, which is what members have asked for and deserve. Will the Tánaiste accept that there is a failure to live up to the promise that he gave when he was Taoiseach, that women would not be dragged through the courts and an adversarial process? Will he accept that this has caused significant distress for women and their families, all of which could have been avoided? Will he intervene ahead of this tribunal being established next week and ensure that the cruel treatment of women is stopped immediately and that the tribunal is constituted in a way that will deliver justice for them?

I thank Deputy O'Reilly for raising this very important issue. The CervicalCheck tribunal is being established in good faith by Government, honouring a commitment made by Government after the Meenan report of 2018. It is being established as an alternative to court for those who want it where cases cannot be settled by mediation or negotiation, which is of course the preferred solution and has happened in many cases but is not always possible, especially when there is a dispute about the facts and whether or not there was negligence. The idea is that the tribunal will be quicker, will have fewer legal costs, can be done in private and can be less adversarial as the tribunal will have access to independent experts. The Minister, Deputy Donnelly, has met the 221+ group. I heard him say this morning that he is willing and will be happy to meet again with the 221+ group to hear its members concerns, sit down with them and listen to their ideas and suggestions. He has made that commitment and that is welcome. I know he will follow through on that.

On the issue of a system being adversarial or not, it is worth paying attention to the words of Ms Justice Mary Irvine. She said that adversarial, in this context, describes a process whereby the evidence of each witness may be tested on cross-examination. It does not necessarily mean that it has to be confrontational. Unfortunately, in some of these cases, it may not be clear-cut. The person taking the case may feel that her smear was misread negligently. However, the scientist who read it or the doctor who signed off on it may feel otherwise. There is then a dispute about the facts. The evidence is set out and each side gets to question the evidence. That is what happens and I have not seen anyone come up with a solution to get around that. I do not think it would be fair to deny a scientist or doctor the right to be heard and to say that they were not negligent and read the smear correctly. I have not seen any solution to that conundrum other than to refuse to allow people to make a defence. I do not see how that would work.

On the issue of the laboratories being involved, following from the recent Carrick case in the High Court, I understand that laboratories can be involved as third parties rather than as defendants. That follows on from the Morrissey case, which established that the HSE has primary liability and cannot delegate its liability. It will be possible for the HSE and the State to be the defendant but the laboratories will only be there as a third party. That may be necessary because third parties have indemnified the State and will have to pick up the tab for any compensation. If they are totally excluded from saying that there was not negligence, that would create an issue and require the State to sue the laboratories, resulting in a second trial and second court hearing. I do not think that would be in anyone's interests.

The Tánaiste has just read out a description of the process that has been rejected by the women and their families. I genuinely do not believe that the Tánaiste is doing them any service by seeking either to defend that or indeed to dismiss their concerns in this way. I do not think the Tánaiste is being fair. He says there is no perfect solution and no solution has been offered. Would the Tánaiste not intervene and request that the Tuesday deadline be lifted to give time for proper, meaningful engagement with these women? This matter came from the fact that information about women's healthcare and diagnoses was withheld from them.

They have already been left out of this process and sidelined and had the State try to shut them up. The Tánaiste should intervene and request that the Tuesday deadline be put back to allow sufficient time for engagement with the women and the families in the 221+ group.

The Minister for Health, Deputy Stephen Donnelly, said this morning that he is happy to meet again, listen to and engage with the 221+ group. It is his judgment then as to whether the Government would make a decision on Tuesday to defer the establishment of the tribunal. Obviously, I will be guided by him in that regard. Bear in mind that it is being established as an alternative to go to court for those who want it. Nobody has ever suggested, or is suggesting, that somebody would not be able to court if the person felt that it was in the person's best interests. It is the wish of everybody in government, and I believe every Member of the House, that as many cases as possible should be settled by mediation and negotiation, with no need for a court trial or a tribunal. That is happening in a number of cases.

However, there is an issue which is different from other issues in the past. That is where the facts are disputed. On the one hand, the person taking the case says her smear was misread and has experts to back that up, while, on the other hand, the doctors and scientists say they did not misread the smear and that they have a right to defend themselves and say they did not get it wrong. I am not sure what the Deputy is proposing. Would she like to take away that right from them? I do not believe she is proposing that, but that is where the difficulty arises.