James Reilly (Dublin North, Fine Gael)

This is a simple motion which I hope will not cause controversy or disagreement between me and the Minister. A couple of weeks ago, almost every Member of the House contributed to the debate on a long motion on the Ryan commission report into the abuse of children in institutions. Regrettably, the motion before us addresses a further case of abuse which appears to have occurred for 30 years in another institution which was delivering medical care to the people of the north east, particularly Drogheda, on behalf of the State.

Mr. Michael Shine was struck off the medical register as a result of a Medical Council fitness to practise committee inquiry which found him guilty of professional misconduct in respect of three patients and of the following allegations: making sexual advances to patients; making indecent suggestions and-or behaving indecently; assaulting and-or indecently assaulting patients; undertaking inappropriate or improper medical examinations and-or treatment of patients; and failing to treat patients with due dignity and respect.

On 16 June, in this House, the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy John Moloney, told Deputy Fergus O'Dowd that the Minister, Deputy Harney, had indicated she did not propose to establish an inquiry into this matter. I understand that following her meeting with the organisation, Dignity 4 Patients, the Minister indicated she will consider an inquiry. I am concerned she will not revert to Dignity 4 Patients before the end of the session. The ambivalence shown by the Government and the mixed messages it is sending are also matters of concern. I hope we will agree to hold an inquiry and avoid having a division on the motion.

Victims, some of whom have waited for up to 30 years while others have passed away, are entitled to a full hearing before a commission of inquiry. We need to underpin everything we do with regard to State activity and service, whether provided directly by the State or indirectly through agencies, with three key principles, namely, transparency, accountability and fairness. If we had transparency about Mr. Shine and his activities and the manner in which management at the hospital, the former health board, the Health Service Executive, the Garda Síochána and the Director of Public Prosecutions dealt with complaints, this motion would not be before the House. The cases of abuse we are discussing started in the 1960s. Following a conversation I had today, I understand the first complaint about Mr. Shine's behaviour was made in late 1969 or early 1970, albeit not to the Medical Council. Many people could have been spared a great deal of pain and the experiences they endured under this surgeon if these early complaints had been dealt with properly.

Of the 29 initial complaints made to the Medical Council, nine were considered and only three were pursued because the council was careful of the litigious nature of the issue. Mr. Shine had been found innocent in a court of law previously and had managed to block many complaints using various points of law. While we all want to uphold the law, the question is whether we are more interested in legal niceties than in justice and morality and looking after people who need to be looked after. The victims must be looked after and the full truth must come out.

The Fine Gael Party seeks to have protocols and clear guidelines introduced to govern how complaints should be dealt with by all relevant parties. We need to create a culture of openness in which people will be more concerned about examining complaints rather than suppressing or ignoring them. We must stop any tendency to circle the "collegiate" wagons by any group, whether professions, civil servants, Government agencies or others.

I note from the Government amendment that the Minister met representatives of Dignity 4 Patients and gave them a commitment to revert to them in July regarding their request for an inquiry. Why does it take so long to make such a decision? Why wait until the Dáil is in recess? Anglo Irish Bank and its difficulties were dealt with overnight. How many people had to be consulted on that occasion? Only last week, the Minister introduced, at short notice, amendments to the Mental Health Act to facilitate the use of private contractors in the transport of psychiatric patients. Clearly, it is possible to act independently and expeditiously and this should be done in this case.

The Medical Council found Mr. Shine guilty in three of the strongest cases and did not make any finding in the other six cases. While a review was carried out in 1996, it was done at the behest of the hospital and carried out from its perspective. Patients and victims believe the review failed to consider their perspective on the issue. The chaperone system which is supposed to be in place in hospitals is not universally applied. The subject of investigation and its consideration by the relevant statutory authorities must be examined given that the review group did not concern itself with the question of whether the allegations were justified, as it made clear to all those it met. It specifically precluded itself from investigating this aspect of the allegations. None of us can disagree with the demand of Patients 4 Dignity for truth, justice and disclosure.

Following Mr. Shine's departure, Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, Drogheda, set aside money to address any claims that could arise. This indicates that the Medical Missionaries of Mary were aware of the problem but chose to allow Mr. Shine to return to work after attempting to have him retire. Mr. Shine, it seems, called their bluff. Why was he not suspended and investigated thoroughly by a competent independent body or person at the time?

The question remains as to why the Minister will not give a commitment to hold an inquiry, as per the Ryan commission. One cannot argue that legal cases are pending given that legal cases are also pending arising from the matters investigated by the Ryan commission. The report of an inquiry could be held over until such time as outstanding cases currently before the courts are heard.

With respect to the criminal cases, the support and advocacy group wants the files of the Medical Council referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions and prosecutions taken in cases in which prosecutions have not been initiated. It also seeks a review of the Garda investigation and criminal prosecution of the cases in which Mr. Shine was acquitted. The organisation wants reform and change of the procedures for handling sexual assault cases in court, including the fast tracking of cases, action to prevent long adjournments, the use of personnel trained in sexual assault cases and counsel with experience in prosecuting cases of these nature as well as the introduction of guidelines on jury selection. Many individuals were concerned about the manner in which the first court case was handled, including the fact that a large number of witnesses appeared for the defence and few witnesses appeared for the prosecution.

The scale of the abuse which took place at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, Drogheda, demands a proper investigation. More than 100 complaints have come to the fore. In light of the fact that they were reported to the Medical Missionaries of Mary and hospital staff, the reasons action was not taken, particularly on patient safety grounds, must be investigated. It is also a matter of concern that the reports of abuse at the hospital were not recorded on Mr. Shine's personal file and were not referred to the Garda or Medical Council at the time.

It should not be necessary to have a division on the motion. All we ask of the Minister is that she commit to an inquiry and justice for the victims. These abuses allegedly continued for more than 30 years and involved in excess of 100 cases.

People believe they have been badly treated or ignored. Today I heard a story involving a man who had finally been able to walk down West Street in Drogheda with his head held high because these matters had been made public. He could not previously look others in the eye. The cloak of secrecy meant that people who had reported incidents were never informed that others had suffered in the same way. They felt alone and demeaned. Any redress board that ensues from these events must not adopt the adversarial approach taken by the Residential Institutions Redress Board which made people feel victimised for a second time.

The only difference between the motion and the Minister's amendment is her failure to commit to an inquiry, but where there is a will, there is a way. She can commit to such an inquiry for the sake of those who have suffered. Let us not make them suffer any longer.

See this speech in context