Mary Upton (Dublin South Central, Labour)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this debate and to support the Fine Gael motion. When the word "cancer" is uttered, it strikes fear into the heart of anyone who is conscious of the horrific consequences it can have on the individual affected and his or her wider family. A commitment was made in which the word "cancer" could have been included in a positive sentence with the words "vaccination" and "prevention". It is a great disappointment to all Members that there has been an about-turn on this commitment. Instead, we must go back to worrying about the consequences in this lost opportunity for cervical cancer prevention.

When the vaccination programme was first mooted, there was a concern it could be controversial, particularly regarding the vaccination of young girls of 11 and 12 years of age. I recall debating this with someone who told me there may be concerns but realistically the positives would be more substantial. Interestingly, the telephone calls that I and some of my colleagues have received relate to the disappointment of those young girls who were told they would be the first to avail of this positive opportunity. The programme's cancellation has become a great disappointment to people.

It is also a great pity that it has become an economic debate. This should not be about economics; it should be about good health and preventive medicine. Last year, a friend spoke to me about the magic €1 million and €10 million, these figures which can be pulled from everywhere and anywhere. I accept, in reality, that cannot be done in all cases. However, I propose we establish a set of priorities. While it is very well for me to say this will cost €10 million, so let us find it, it must be seen in the context of a much wider budget, and if necessary, the health budget. I accept there will be consequences but it has been outlined by my colleagues how important it is to set priorities in the overall budget, particularly the health budget. It is against this background that the Minister should look carefully at her decision not to go ahead with the cervical cancer vaccination programme.

The Government's policy has been very remiss in not taking on board the value of preventive medicine. We are always chasing the story. This occurs with other illnesses such as, for example, diabetes. Diabetes is a common illness which is well-documented and the costs around its treatment and so forth have been worked out. If we were to put in place a preventive programme that worked on re-training and re-modelling, its impact could be substantial. We should be looking much more at prevention rather than constantly curing an illness. As a previous speaker stated, it seems we are focused on a Minister for illness and not a Minister for health. If people could only take account of the fact that certain illnesses can be prevented, we would have a much more positive approach to the whole health programme. As a consequence there would be much greater savings to the health budget in the long term.

This has become an economic debate rather than a health debate. While I spoke about the consequences and difficulties in finding the moneys to fund the cervical cancer vaccination programme, as they are relatively small they should be found. The effect of cancelling the programme has been damaging to people's attitudes to the health services and health care. The programme was promised and was coming on stream. It was accepted it could be very valuable with long-term savings. In economic terms, we should measure the economic value as well as the health care value.

The HIQA report, Health Technology Assessment on the Role of Vaccination against Human Papillomavirus (HPV) in Reducing the Risk of Cervical Cancer in Ireland, recommended:

Universal [HPV] vaccination of 12 year old females can be recommended as a cost-effective intervention in the Irish health care setting. In relation to a catch-up programme, vaccination of 13 to 15 year old females in the first year of the programme would be the most cost-effective catch-up strategy.

The 11 and 12 year old age group will not just be affected but also the 13 to 15 year old age group.

Regarding the question of priorities, it seems a great pity that those who can afford health care can buy it while those who cannot are being neglected and deprived.

See this speech in context