Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)

This is a simple and specific motion and I doubt if there is anyone on the opposite benches who, in his or her heart, disagrees with it. Last August, practically everyone in this House, including myself, welcomed the Minister's announcement. We were disappointed there was not to be a catch-up programme for 13 to 15 year olds but we welcomed the fact that 12 year olds would be able to avail of this vaccine.

The Minister and the Government are full of contradictions on this issue. They have blamed the economic downturn as the reason this vaccination programme is not proceeding. Yet the announcement was made by the Minister four weeks after the emergency mini-budget or financial announcements in July and four weeks before the announcement that the budget would be presented earlier than planned. When the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, announced that the budget would be early, he said that in July the Government also made it clear that additional economies would be required in the event of a further fiscal deterioration. I do not think there was a person in this country in early August who did not realise that our fiscal position was going to deteriorate further and I do not think the Minister for Health and Children thought that either when she made her announcement. In August we knew the economy was in tatters and still the Minister made her announcement.

In her contribution to the debate last night and to which Deputy Shatter also referred, the Minister said we live in a country where our cancer outcomes are not what they should be. How is the decision she has made going to improve our cancer outcomes? It will do anything but improve it. The Minister said she is seeking to reorganise services for patients who already have cancer and this is welcomed by everybody. However, what about the issue of prevention?

I cannot understand how she can claim to be a strong proponent of the vaccine while at the same time refuse to supply it to 12 year olds. The main economic contradiction in the Minister's speech was when she stated that if it were a once-off sum of money, it would not have been a difficult decision but that it represents an ongoing sum of money for this year, next year and the year after. She then referred to Dr. Reilly's point that the companies were willing to defer payment for the first year. In response she stated the decision was not to introduce it in 2009. That is the first year. She could have gone ahead with it, based on what was being offered by the pharmaceutical companies yet she said earlier it was a year on year decision. Which is it?

I agree it is important to have a national screening programme but neither of the programmes are mutually exclusive and both are needed because the use of both is what delivers the best outcomes. Our record on cervical cancer is not good and this decision will not change it.

The Minister of State, Deputy Mary Wallace, said last night in her contribution that this is a cancer which affects younger women more than many other forms of cancer, younger women who have children, commitments and responsibilities. Today's 12 year olds are tomorrow's younger women, whom I hope will be given the chance to have those children, have those commitments and have those responsibilities. I remind the Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, that this is a children's issue because those children of today and tomorrow want to have their mothers around with them.

See this speech in context