Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

My apologies for arriving late. I have read Dr. Coffey's statement. A couple of points arise. I was probably responsible for having the National Cancer Registry set up in the first instance because I asked so many questions that somebody decided it was time to move on with it.

To what degree has the incidence of the various forms of cancer throughout the country, and any potential cause or causes, been identified and collated? Do we have absolutely accurate information on that? Every time I followed up on this matter previously, comparisons were made that I could not necessarily always agree with, based on my own information - comparisons made per 1,000 or the population and so on for instance. I remember at one stage the incidences in Donegal and Tipperary were quite similar and that was not the information I was given in reply. The populations were similar, so the only other difference there could have been was the age profile of the populations. Obviously if data on the various forms were collated properly comparisons could be made. In general, huge strides have been made in the treatment of cancer, which is great. We should always try to have our statistics as up to date as possible. If we have the statistics available on the number of incidents, the type and forms of cancer, the degree of treatment provided and which appropriate treatment was given, it gives us an advantage in terms of being able to deal with future issues.

The last point is in respect of vaccinations. We have had this debate on a number of occasions. It can be difficult. My own layman's theory is that different people's metabolisms react differently to certain treatments. I cannot prove that but I have seen and heard evidence to suggest that it might be so. I know as well that in general, inoculation will have the biggest single effect on the broad sweep of cases that appear right across the community. The side effects, however, can affect a number of people and whether they are directly attributable to vaccination remains to be seen. We do not have information to that effect despite the exhaustive pursuit of cases such as my colleagues have referred to. It would be useful if we did, because confidence in the system can be eroded if somebody is not able to tell us plainly that, in a given case, a person's child should not have had a particular vaccine because of its composition and the child's metabolism. We have no way of knowing how to cross that Rubicon in the beginning because, at that particular age, the parent does not know what their child might be vulnerable to. We await, in good faith, the best information we can get from those who are best capable of providing it. We know that the broad thrust of the issue might be best dealt with by way of vaccination, which would have the biggest single effect across the board, but we do not know what percentage of the population might not benefit, whether it be 5%, 10% or a figure in between. That information would be helpful.