Professor Shane Higgins:

I thank the Chairman. I wish him, the Deputies and Senators a good evening and I thank them for the opportunity to meet with them to discuss this vital national healthcare project that has already been delayed for far too long.

As a practising clinician and Master of the National Maternity Hospital, I am proud to work in a hospital that has led the way in ensuring women can avail of all their legal rights.

Although the debate has focused on the right to access gender affirming surgery, tubal ligation, termination of pregnancy and artificial reproductive techniques, we should not forget that last year we delivered 7,855 babies to 7,694 mothers. We had 79,750 attendances in our antenatal clinics and 10,000 attendances in our gynaecology outpatients, all in the cramped, inadequate, antiquated, unfit for purpose buildings in Holles Street.

It has been difficult to hear claims both in the media and in this room that our fervent support for the proposed move to Elm Park is some kind of surrender to the church. Legitimate concerns are welcome and deserve every consideration but we must also deal in facts, and I am alarmed by the combination of emotive misinformation and misunderstanding that prevails. Just because the contracts underpinning the new hospital appear complex, that does not indicate the church stealing influence over women's reproductive choices through clever contractual stealth. I appreciate members of this committee are holding these hearings in an effort to bring clarity to the issues and I hope that this evening, along with my colleagues, we can allay some of the fears that exist.

Having spent much time listening to the debate over the past week, I believe four key points remain. The first is the clinical imperative. Although the undisputed need for relocation has been stated many times, lest we forget in the maelstrom of irrelevancies, I will continue to remind members that we want to provide advanced level care in an appropriate setting where women and their babies can be afforded the dignity and privacy they deserve. This can only be provided in a new purpose-built maternity, gynaecology and neonatal hospital. For anybody to describe the current location as fit for purpose or to argue the definition of a Nightingale ward, where 14 patients are separated by curtains, with very limited toilet and shower facilities, it is clear that he or she has not been in the hospital for some time and cannot have the best interest of our patients at heart. Women should have single en suite rooms for antenatal, labour and postnatal stays, unless otherwise indicated. Current investment reflects a Band-Aid approach to a gaping wound.

The second point for mention is ethos. The NMH, as a public voluntary hospital, has no constraints on the procedures it offers patients, and I can say with absolute certainty this will continue when we relocate. The hospital will remain a clinically independent, publicly funded, self-governed organisation with a board composed of nine directors, each with a fiduciary duty to the National Maternity Hospital and a shareholder split, with the most important share - the golden share - belonging to the Minister for Health of the day.

It would a sad day if the unambiguously supportive views of 52 senior consultants in a letter to the Taoiseach last February were to be drowned out in the public debate by relentless claims that services offered at the new hospital will be curtailed by religious ethos.

The third point relates to ownership. There is another misplaced fear that, as owner of the freehold, St Vincent's will have control over the operations of the new national maternity hospital. I had a conversation recently with an expert in property law, who is removed from the project, who stated a 300-year leasehold conveys effective ownership or freehold equivalent and is an ownership form used across both the city and country for campus developments where there is mixed use or ownership. The expert gave me a number of examples, including IDA parks, colleges, Dublin Airport, the Central Bank at Dublin Landings, Capital Dock and Connolly Quarter. Many of these developments have been funded by the State. The National Maternity Hospital, along with many other hospitals, is an example of leasehold.

The final point relates to trust. Why should women and their families trust instruments of the State such as politicians, the religious or the health service, having been let down so appallingly in the past? Why should they listen to a male master of the National Maternity Hospital tell them that all will be well? They should not just believe me. They should listen to the women who were powerful advocates for women's right to choice, such as Mary Higgins, Mary Brosnan, and the many other clinicians who signed the letter we recently sent from the National Maternity Hospital to the Taoiseach. They should listen to the 400 plus clinicians who signed a letter to the Taoiseach from all hospitals, who work in all specialties, general practice and public health from around the country - and even a colleague of mine who is based in London - who have written to support the proposed move to St. Vincent's.

Currently, approximately 84%of trainees in obstetrics and gynaecology in this country are young women, including my daughter. All those asked have indicated their support for the project. These will be the future of our speciality, many of them consultants in the NMH at Elm Park, service users themselves of the new facility, many of them advocates in the repeal campaign, who recently wrote a letter from the Junior Obstetrics & Gynaecological Society, JOGS, of the Institute of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists, supporting the project and the move and stating they had no concerns about it. I and my medical colleagues and those in midwifery and nursing in the NMH would not sign up to a proposal that was not going to 100% guarantee the new hospital's integrity and independence. The reality of failure, due to doubts which need no longer exist, is to turn your back on the urgent needs of Irish women, girls and their children whom my colleagues and I have the privilege of caring for. I look forward to answering the questions of members as fully and completely as possible.