2026-01-21

My question is quite straightforward. It relates to the establishment of an independent, non-statutory Covid evaluation committee. Why was that route taken, rather than a statutory inquiry similar to other jurisdictions like the UK, Australia and America? Everybody in the House would agree that the greatest wealth we have is health. In this week of the World Economic Forum at Davos and the concerns over Mercosur, we must not forget the people. We are human beings, not human doings. Up to 100 years ago, anecdotal evidence was the norm, the gold standard. There were numerous systems of medicine from Ayurvedic medicine to homoeopathy. Modern medicine, where we have empirical evidence, clinical trials, data gathering and so on, has only evolved in the last 100 years. I am going to bring the Taoiseach some information that has been given to me in my role as a pharmacist, as a family member, as a friend and from constituents. What I am observing anecdotally includes stage 4 breast cancers in young women; an increase in prostate cancer in men, where previously it would have been in those aged 70 and over; stage 4 glioblastomas; and pancreatic cancers. These are in people who would not be considered to have underlying health risks. We have cardiovascular problems; sudden death in young men and women; strokes and aneurysms; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; neurological illnesses; and more diagnosis of Parkinson’s, MS, motor neurone disease, Bell’s palsy, Guillain-Barré syndrome, immunological illness and so on. Shingles was something that only ever occurred after multiple courses of antibiotics, generally after Christmas when pressure was off people. Sepsis, eye problems – I could go on. There have been studies done. Professor Angus Dalgleish in the UK, a leading oncologist, has dug deep. There are Japanese studies. I previously asked a parliamentary question about whether our State bodies are looking at these studies and possibly changing practices accordingly. I previously raised with the Taoiseach the issue of a protected disclosure, No. 17 of 2025 if memory serves me correctly, which relates to these matters. Because the terms of reference of the Covid evaluation committee are quite limited in scope, and the document is only three or four pages, these matters are not being brought up. We need an inquiry.

I am very committed to the evaluation model and have been consistently from the very beginning, even during Covid itself, for a number of reasons. Legal adversarial types of inquiry may not necessarily improve the situation subsequently or indeed for future pandemics as they may arise. We need to learn. We need to find out how to do things better into the future. We do not need people who are in the engine room or in the midst of a future crisis to be looking over their shoulder wondering how this will look in an inquiry, second-guessing their decisions and allowing paralysis to develop. I thought the British inquiry was terrible. I should not say it but that is my own personal, subjective view. Maybe I should not use that phrase. It was adversarial and great theatre but I am not so sure that brings light. We have established a Covid-19 evaluation. It is a fact-finding and lessons-learned approach. It has a far greater chance of being completed with wide co-operation of all the relevant players in a non-adversarial atmosphere and is likely to be concluded more quickly. That is my view. We know how long statutory tribunals of inquiry can go on in this country and they do not necessarily get the outcomes. A non-statutory expert-led after-action review offers speed and flexibility. It allows for public and private information giving. A lot of public consultations have been undertaken by this evaluation. There have been round-table events with stakeholder organisations. The proceedings of these round-table events are available to view on the evaluation's dedicated website, www.covid19evaluation.ie. In our view, compared to the statutory inquiry model, this is far more effective, efficient and timely. The chair and panel have a lot of flexibility. There is quite a range of members, including Professor David Heymann, a medical epidemiologist; Dr. Nat O'Connor, an assistant professor of social policy at the school of social policy, UCD; Dr. Nora Strecker, an assistant professor and Ad Astra fellow at University College Dublin's school of economics; Professor Bert Gordijn, professor of ethics and director of the institute for ethics at Dublin City University; and Professor Sara Burke, associate professor and director of the centre for health policy and management at Trinity school of medicine. That is the panel. Since February of last year, the panel has been reviewing and analysing wide-ranging data and information gathered from public consultation, stakeholders, experts, officials and research reports. These are focused on societal and economic impacts; health and care; rights, including the rights of children; and wider issues such as communication, education and public policy.

Go raibh maith agat, a Thaoisigh. I thank the Taoiseach for the comprehensive reminder of the evaluation committee and the members thereof. I have the height of respect and admiration for Professor Anne Scott, who is quite near me, and has vast years of experience across a broad range of medical disciplines. My question is quite simple. If there is not an inquiry, will the Government expand the scope or terms of reference? This is in relation to the protected disclosure, in particular. As I raised previously, it was first logged in July 2025. The milestones for dealing with it have been exceeded. It was passed to An Garda Síochána and Fiosrú and is integral to the remit of the evaluation committee, but it seems to have fallen into limbo. If we are to assess what has happened and safeguard the future, every submission is of the highest value.

I will talk to those responsible in terms of the public disclosure process. As the Deputy knows, we have a fairly elaborate process for the management of public disclosures under a legislative framework. There have been various amendments to the legislation and so forth. I will follow up on that in terms of the specific case she referenced. The terms of reference for the evaluation are quite broad, but I have no difficulty in following that up with the Deputy.