Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)

The Minister opened her contribution by saying that her first priority was to have services that would result in better outcomes for patients. Nobody in the House could disagree. She said her second priority was the roll-out of the cancer-screening programme, which is a reasonable priority. I do not understand how she comes up with her priorities and how they can be so changeable or interchangeable depending on the situation. Deputy Reilly already quoted from the Minister's statement on 5 August, which is only three months ago. She stated: "It is clear the main priority now is to move to the introduction of the vaccination programme for 12 year old girls to commence in September 2009". I do not know whether her first or her main priority is more important, nor do I know what has changed since.

The Minister also stated that she was "having regard for the need to prioritise in relation to budget and competing demands of other service programmes". For this reason, she decided not to put in place the catch-up programme. It was because cost was a consideration that 13 to 15 year old girls were excluded.

The Minister did not raise this issue for the first time on 5 August. Although I was unable to find the date, I raised this issue in the Dáil before the summer recess. When I stated that the vaccination programme's introduction seemed positive, the Minister sat there and smiled. Obviously, some degree of forethought was given to the 5 August statement.

The outcomes cited by Deputy Reilly make understanding the Minister's decision more difficult. Most victims of cervical cancer tend to be young mothers. In addition to not vaccinating 12 year old girls, the Government is denying another group of children the opportunity to grow up with their mothers, given the chances of survival without vaccination.

For as long as I have been a Deputy, the Minister has been stating that she is rolling out breast cancer and cervical cancer screening, but they are still being rolled out. She is asking people to accept that the vaccination programme will not be available and to hope on the never-never that they will be able to avail of the screening programme. Given the circumstances, this is a sizable request. How do we know that, in a few months time, the Minister will not inform the House of delays in the programme or that it is no longer her main priority?

The Minister used the phrase "when choices came". There are always competing choices, but the Minister knew last August that the economy was in a difficult situation. Given the mini-budget in July, she knew the situation we were facing when she made her announcement. As the Government got its figures appallingly wrong, we must allow for the Minister not fully understanding the situation and relying on inaccurate figures while waiting for something more precise from the Minister for Finance. However, she was aware of the difficulties when she made her decision.

Will the Minister reconsider her decision and allow 12 year olds to avail of vaccinations? She should not blame the requirement for an IT system. We were vaccinated in school before there was an IT system. It would be a poor excuse to use in 2009.

See this speech in context