Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)

I welcome this debate, although I deeply regret that a division will be forced by the Government's refusal to support the joint motion agreed between the Labour Party and Fine Gael. The motion seeks to provide counselling for the victims, to establish a commission of investigation and to ensure proper procedures for the future. I cannot fathom what part of the motion is so offensive to the Government that it cannot accept it. We need to support the victims, we need to know what happened and we need to ensure it does not happen again. Even at this late stage in the debate, I urge the Government to withdraw its amendment.

There is a terrible familiarity about the experience of victims at the hands of a medical doctor. The people at the heart of this debate have had their lives blighted by a man who used his power, medical training and position of trust for his sexual gratification. On the one side, young innocent men and boys were abused and damaged for life. They have known what it is like to be isolated, stigmatised and not believed. On the other side, a senior hospital consultant was protected by the hospital, the law and his professional colleagues. In such a dysfunctional hospital, he was free to roam at will and prey on vulnerable patients. By using delaying tactics, he was then able to retire and to this day continues to enjoy a good pension.

This case has resonance of the Michael Neary saga. In that case, a doctor in the same hospital was able to mutilate women at will by carrying out unnecessary hysterectomies. The victims in the Neary case were also isolated, stigmatised and at times not believed. I recall that when I raised the case in the House I received abusive telephone calls from supporters of Mr. Neary. The victims persevered, however, and when the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, decided to establish an inquiry into the case, I applauded her. The Minister did the right thing. It is disappointing, therefore, that she has not come in to the House and made a clear unequivocal commitment to an independent inquiry in the case of Mr. Shine. It is inconceivable that she would deny the victims and irresponsible for her to deny future patients the new dispensation that would arise from such an inquiry.

Dignity 4 Patients has pointed out that not only does hospital practice need to be scrutinised, so too does the practice of the courts, criminal justice system and State agencies. For example, questions arise about the 2003 trial in which Mr. Shine was found not guilty. Why was the trial held in Dundalk? Why did the State's lawyers not object to three jurors who were, respectively, a former patient of Mr. Shine's, the daughter of another patient and an employee of the North Eastern Health Board? Why was Mr. Shine allowed offer medical advice to a member of the jury when she fell ill? Why were expert witnesses not called to give evidence on behalf of the victims while 15 professional colleagues testified on Mr. Shine's behalf? Why have some of the charges relating to other complainants never been activated? How could the Medical Council find against Mr. Shine in two specific cases when the State failed to bring them to trial? Other questions remain unanswered.

While everyone understands the independence of the courts - that is not at issue - an inquiry needs to be empowered as a wide-ranging review to ascertain the full truth. This House has correctly spent time debating the victims of institutional abuse. There is a real desire from all sides to respond appropriately to the evil uncovered and suffering caused, even though we know in our hearts we cannot make up for what was done. In this instance, however, the abuse was also real and persistent and protected by those in authority.

The Minister stated yesterday that she was impressed by the deputation from Dignity 4 Patients and I believe her. A weak, inadequate, ineffectual response from her would be worse than no response. The victims have set out clearly what they want, namely, a commitment from the Minister to hold an independent inquiry. It has taken 15 years for them to be vindicated. Surely they should not be expected to wait any longer for justice.

Even in the most dysfunctional system, there are individuals who stand apart because they refuse to collude in wrongdoing. The heroism of Bernadette Sullivan must be acknowledged and given respect. Nurses, in their work, do not tend to question doctors. They work in a hierarchical structure. To stand up in defence of one's patients and against a hospital establishment is a tough call.

In her report on the Neary case, Judge Harding Clarke describes the culture in Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital as one "of fatalistic acceptance". Bernadette Sullivan was a remarkable whistleblower. What protections and safeguards are in place for those who find themselves in similar or different circumstances who want to do the right thing and live by their integrity. Bernadette Sullivan was told if she persisted she could lose her house and reputation, yet persist she did. She stayed true to the ethic of patient care and is a role model for the nursing profession. It is important to note this in this debate.

Those who were abused by Michael Shine came to a hospital, not far from here, seeking care and healing. Instead they suffered because of a pederast doctor and a systemic failure to keep them safe. There is an imperative now for the right political response to be made. The Opposition parties have played their part in raising this matter for debate. It is now up to the Minister who will be negligent unless she makes the right decision without delay.

In paying tribute to Bernadette Sullivan and to those who have been badly affected in the Michael Shine case, it is important we do not leave only words. A much more appropriate tribute could be made if all parties were to agree to recognise that action must be taken to discover and explore the record and to ascertain how people viewed what took place and what people did in terms of concluding a process that has taken so long. This is the appropriate response for the Minister. None of us underestimates the cost issues which arise in this regard, particularly as there is so little money available to spend in the health service. While costs present difficulties, they must not serve as an obstacle to doing the right thing.

Previous commissions of inquiry established by the House have been successful and delivered much that is good. In particular, I cite the commission established to inquire into the Neary case, from which we learned a great deal. In terms of public policy, I hope we never unlearn what was stated in the commission of inquiry's report, specifically its recommendations which remain unfinished business. They have at least provided us with an important road map and the progress made in this regard needs to be recognised. A similar approach must be taken in the case of Mr. Shine.

The Minister frequently refers to standards in the health service. She must judge herself by the same standards. It would be beneath her role as a Cabinet Minister to ignore the requests and imperative to establish a commission of inquiry to deal with this issue in a fair manner and protect patients who come after those who suffered so terribly.

See this speech in context