Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick East, Labour)

I thank the Minister and the Whips for the opportunity to discuss this matter. I call on the Minister, Deputy Harney, to reverse her decision immediately. It would not be described as a U-turn and there would be no criticism. Rather, it would be described as a humane, caring and life-saving measure.

Only three short months have passed since the August announcement, which was made despite what we already knew of difficulties in the public finances. Presumably, the manner of funding was discussed with the HSE. This morning, it was suggested on radio that the HSE does not have money to fund the programme. I urge the Minister to reconsider, as the programme would save 50 lives. We are a developed country and can surely introduce long-term preventative measures such as this to save lives.

Within the overall budget, the amount of money in question is small. I dispute the Minister's figure, but I will revert to this matter shortly. It is closer to €10 million. Deputies have suggested other ways to find the money. For example, we do not need so many Ministers of State. This immediate saving would be a considerable contribution. Regarding the variety of consultancies used by the HSE, it has farmed out a number of jobs that it could do, including the writing of letters to all of the unfortunate patients in the north east who needed X-ray reviews. Using a private company to administer the nursing home repayment scheme costs €15 million. There are many ways to find the money.

How does the Minister prioritise if this life-saving preventative measure, which would lead to greater health outcomes for women, is not a priority? Not for a minute would I suggest that the money be taken from the cancer control programme or the roll-out of cervical screening or BreastCheck, the latter of which has not been completed. These are not the type of programmes from which money should be taken. Rather, it should be taken from areas such as consultancies, bonuses, extra Ministers or farming out to the private sector work that could be done by the large number of people employed by the Health Service Executive and the Department of Health and Children, which has lost only a handful of employees since the HSE was established. With a little will and imagination, it will be possible to find the money needed to re-introduce this programme.

I want now to speak briefly about the cost of this programme. The Minister suggested this morning it will cost €14 million to implement it. She arrived at this figure by multiplying 24,000 by 600. The Health Information and Quality Authority document published in February this year, suggests it would cost €100 per dose of vaccine and that if a school-based programme were introduced, which is what the Minister is suggesting, the administrative fee would be €30. This amounts to closer to €10 million than €14 million. I ask that the Minister revisit this issue in that context. Also, given there is competition between the companies that produce the vaccine, it should be possible to negotiate a price that is lower than the €100 quoted.

I am afraid that what is lacking is the political will to address this issue. With political will, savings could be made in a variety of areas to enable this vaccination programme to be implemented at reasonable cost. Following announcement of the vaccination programme, I spoke to a mother of a young girl who is approaching 12 years. She had already explained to her daughter that she was going to get this vaccine. She, and other mothers, now have to explain to their daughters that while they had told them they were going to get a vaccine which would prevent them getting cervical cancer in the future — a difficult enough issue to explain to a 12 year old — they may well be 12, 13 or 15 years old before the programme is introduced and as such they may not get the vaccination.

I urge the Minister, given the relatively small cost involved and the value of this programme, to reconsider her decision. Despite the fact that we are in recessionary times, we are a relatively rich and developed country and we should be able to find the wherewithal to introduce programmes that will have positive results for future generations.

See this speech in context