Our last exchange on this issue was one of the most frustrating exchanges I have had on this particular topic since I started raising it about a year and a half ago. Every attempt at diversion was sought. I am asking this question very clearly. There are concerns in relation to the State Claims Agency and so on, and perhaps we can get into that some other time. What I asked the Minister for the last time and am asking for again is an update on the approach the Government proposes to take in relation to the whole category of people affected by chemical exposure in the Air Corps in terms of an examination of health outcomes and medical supports.

I appreciate that the Deputy has raised this a number of times, and that he might not always like the answer I give him. However, I am reminded continuously that in the discussions we are having here, while the Deputy appreciates there are certain things I cannot say and certain areas I cannot talk about, that is because I am a main defendant, as Minister, in all of the cases that have been brought forward, cases that are being brought forward and cases that may come forward in the future. While the Deputy talks about the whole group of people that may be impacted by the issue we are talking about here, there are current live litigation cases that are potentially being brought forward in the weeks ahead that will have implications for any other person who might find themselves in a similar situation. I am not trying to be evasive or avoid questions.

It is clear to me that matters of health and safety in the Air Corps, particularly when we are talking about allegations of exposure to chemicals, are directly relevant to all of the cases before the courts which is why I cannot get into detail in terms of what is next. I know of the number of cases that are there. There were 23 cases. One has been settled through mediation, 12 are moving forward and ten have only come to the fore in the last number of years. There are a number of cases that have been presented. I cannot speak beyond that because there are limitations in that regard currently.

In respect of the current litigation cases, I can bring a recent development to the Deputy's attention, which he might not be aware of since we last spoke. The State Claims Agency has informed me that a number of cases have been taken under active case management by the courts. At the moment, nothing is moving. As I referenced previously, there have been attempts by the State Claims Agency to actively engage with a number of plaintiffs over the last number of months, with a particular view to mediating cases. However, these offers to progress the mediation have not been taken up. Neither has there been progress in relation to the courts. There has been an active case management taken on by the courts. As I am sure the Deputy knows, this means a judge can actively pursue, require engagement of the parties, push matters forward, seek papers and testimony, compel mediation and set specific deadlines. This may result in the development of these cases in the near future. There has been progress since we last spoke about this. Obviously, this means that this is now moving forward in the courts process. This is not a decision that we have taken ourselves; it is the decision that has been reached by the judge. It is important that I do not say anything here that would in any way impact that process.

I have never asked the Minister or her predecessor to do that and I would not do so because it would be a waste of time. I would never ask about ongoing court cases because I know it would be completely pointless. I have never asked about that because I know the Minister cannot say that in this place. The equivalent of what the Minister is saying is that when more and more attention started being brought to bear on abuse in industrial schools or the treatment of women in the Magdalen laundries, the Minister for education or for children, or whoever was responsible for the issue at the time, would come forward and say that he or she could not do anything about that because people have a right to take a court case, that there were a number of court cases and the Minister could do nothing about that. That was not true then and it is not true now. In that instance, commissions of inquiry, redress schemes and things like Caranua were set up. None of those were prevented by the court cases. People continued to retain their entitlement to take court cases. That continued and people did take court cases but the Government was able, separate from the court process, to put in place measures for redress. The same thing should be happening here. The Government should be doing a health audit. None of that is prevented by the court cases. The Government should be looking at forms of redress and at health protections. None of that is prevented by court cases.

It is not procedurally different at all.

What we know is the number of people who have come forward. I know the number of people who have presented, be it through the State Claims Agency or who are going through litigation processes and have only in recent times put themselves forward and highlighted their own situation. There is one case, as we know, that has gone through mediation and concluded that mediation process. There is a particular decision that has been taken by individuals as to which route they want to take here.

Beyond that, as I have said, a body of work was done in the Department to see if there was anything further that should be done. Subsequently, since that work was done, I have engaged with the Attorney General, the State Claims Agency and my own Department. Based on those conversations, I have determined that the process that is currently happening at the moment is the most appropriate course of action. There is no suggestion to me at this moment in time that we are talking about numbers that the Deputy has referenced in other types of cases or scenarios. What I do know is that we have active cases that are now going to be brought forward because of case management. Individuals have the option to engage in mediation as well. That is a process that is there and that has a legal structure to it as well and one that we have supported. I do not want to push people to the courts for any issue here. That is not something that we would do as a Department. There are options there and there are alternative options for people. Again, I would say those options are available to people if they do not wish to go through the courts process.

What I am interpreting from what the Minister is saying - perhaps she can clarify it because she has not said it explicitly - is that she received advice from her officials, engaged with the Attorney General and the State Claims Agency and effectively, on foot of that, there is no policy solution to this. Ultimately, it is all through the courts. Contrary to what the Minister has said, her strategy or proposal is that the court is the only route here. She is not offering any policy solution. Of course, in terms of the substance of the issue, it is very different from any of the examples I just gave. However, in terms of the principle, the Minister does not have to step into the court cases or interfere with them in order to do right by the whole category. The Air Corps chemical abuse survivors have counted up to 130 deaths that they consider to be premature. I am not a clinician. I cannot go through each of those cases and identify that. What I am and have been asking for, and what Deputy Micheál Martin asked for when he was in opposition, is an assessment of those people, with patterns identified. We need to make sure they are looked after and that there is an inquiry into it. None of that is prevented by the court cases. Not a bit of it.

What I am saying is that I have engaged with my team. A body of work had started when I came into the Department and I had asked for it to be completed. Since then, I have engaged with the Attorney General and the State Claims Agency. I have also assessed the current situation. What we know is that we have a number of cases that have gone through the State Claims Agency or that have engaged with the agency, as they were entitled to do. There is another process, and that is through the courts. What I am saying is that is not the route we are forcing people through. There is a separate process through the State Claims Agency that we have already seen an individual go through, where there has been a resolution following mediation-----

The Government is not doing anything outside of the courts.

It is not a back and forth.

There has been a conclusion there but because this process is ongoing and because of the cases, there is not much more that I can say in this regard. It is important to stress that the State Claims Agency has reached out. I understand that it is very much the decision of individuals as to which route they decide to go or what they decide to do. On that basis and given the legal advice I have received, I cannot go into any more detail on this.