Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)

Like every other Member, including the Minister, I would be delighted to see the introduction of the cervical cancer vaccination programme at this point in time. However, as a former Minister for Health and Children, and in fairness to the Minister, Deputy Harney, who has done excellent work in her Department, we must recognise that there are choices to be made. No Government in the world has the funding to do everything it would like to do in the area of health provision. I recognise the work that has been done, including the appointment of Professor Tom Keane, a dedicated man of ability, as director of the national cancer strategy, and the additional funding the Minister has provided for 2009.

In a choice between a vaccination programme and the national cervical screening programme, I would have absolutely no doubt that the latter is by far the more important for women aged 25 to 60 years. The screening programme will reduce the incidence of cervical cancer by 80% in the population as a whole and by up to 95% for an individual. These are the types of figures we aim to achieve. The vaccine is effective against four human papillomaviruses, of which there are almost 100 that can cause cancer. It has an effectiveness rate of 70%. During my time as Minister for Health and Children, we decided not to introduce testing for hepatitis C because it had only a 70% success rate.

The girls who would receive the vaccine at 12 years of age will still require pap smears because the vaccine on its own will not be sufficient to ensure they do not develop cancer. It is important to note that the 12 year olds who receive the vaccine will not be denied pap smears in the future. The cervical screening programme will be quality assured. The vaccines are relatively new, one of them being licensed in 2006 and the other in 2007, and there is uncertainty as to whether they are effective for longer than five years. Side effects have been reported which require further investigation. The vaccine has not been introduced in at least seven European countries. My colleague, Deputy McDaid, referred to the New England Journal of Medicine. An article that appeared in this reputable journal on 21 August 2008 set out several reasons to be cautious in regard to human papillomavirus vaccination.

We must all work hard in this House towards the objective of preventing, diagnosing, treating and eliminating all diseases. However, all Members know it is not possible to have the funding to do everything we would like to do. I am pleased the Minister is pushing ahead with the cervical cancer screening programme, although, like every other Member, I would have liked it to be possible also to introduce the vaccination programme.

See this speech in context