Paudge Connolly (Cavan-Monaghan, Independent)

I welcome this opportunity to speak on the Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital inquiry and report into the events that transpired therein. I commend the report which is readable and a good job was done. I pay tribute to the Patient Focus group, which can only be described as excellent — its members are in the Visitors Gallery. Its persistence is beginning to be rewarded. I was concerned when the Tánaiste stated she would need cross-party support but I hope the Government will take on board the suggestions of this report. The report makes for sad reading, revealing that barbaric practices continued for so long with no one shouting "stop". The report focuses on hysterectomies performed by Mr. Neary. It does not refer to the death of babies, the removal of ovaries and Fallopian tubes, the disfiguring of women as a result of operations, or the lives destroyed because of physiognomies as these issues were outside the scope of the inquiry. The report does not refer to the baby who lived for two days and whose birth and death records are not available. Many issues are not addressed by this report.

However, Judge Maureen Harding Clark did a good job in producing a report of such quality. The report is part of the process and the speed at which events take place is what will determine the value of the report. This will not be known for some months.

The report highlights a number of issues that give rise to grave concerns about professionals investigating their peers, as has been referred to by earlier speakers. Three obstetrician gynaecologists were asked to investigate events in the maternity unit of Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda. This was an investigation into malpractice rather than a regular inspection and one would have expected it to be taken seriously. Despite being forewarned, these three gynaecologists found nothing wrong. They effectively endorsed practices at the maternity unit in the hospital. Subsequently, Mr. Neary was in a stronger position as he had been endorsed by his peers, the strongest endorsement one could receive. How could three professionals not see the barbaric practices, which were 20 times above national and international norms? Did they not wish to see the practices that were taking place or did they close professional ranks? The latter should not be ruled out.

The fitness of these three individuals to carry out an investigation is flawed and because endorsing malpractice is the ultimate wrongdoing in an investigation. Three statutory bodies should also engage in self-examination. The Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecologists has made a number of reports on the hospital. The Royal College of Surgeons approved the unit for undergraduate training and An Bord Altranais inspected the hospital to ensure it was a suitable place to train midwives. The public is reassured when eminent bodies such as these undertake inspections as they provide a degree of quality assurance. Such bodies are acting on behalf of the public and often the Government acts on foot of reports received by such bodies. The experience of hospitals in Monaghan shows the negative aspect of what the Royal College of Surgeons has done and we know the tragic consequences that resulted. What credibility do such bodies hold after what happened in Drogheda?

The issue of compensation must be urgently dealt with to bring closure to this case. The case of Alison Gough, contested in the High Court provides a benchmark in these circumstances. The High Court reduced the amount of money awarded and the Supreme Court has now ruled on the matter. These are the same victims, with the same injuries caused by the same malpractice. I urge the Government to acknowledge the benchmark and do the decent thing rather than putting women from Patient Focus through the court system again and throwing more money to the legal system. This should be dealt with as a matter of urgency. These women should be allowed to unburden themselves as part of the healing process.

Other cases exist at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, including those referred to as cases of bad outcome. A number of these cases occurred between 1974 and 1998 and must be examined.

The report's 156 recommendations should be urgently examined. I will return to this matter to review the number of recommendations implemented. The Garda Síochána now has a report, which we are awaiting, and I hope this will prevent something similar happening in other hospitals.

See this speech in context