Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)

I wish to share time with Deputies McEntee, English and Crawford.

At the heart of this case is the fact that evidence was put before the Medical Council that is required to be of the same standard as that needed in a criminal court for a conviction and that Mr. Shine was struck off and found guilty of professional misconduct. The same evidence was presented in the courts, but the prosecution was not successful. The reason we need this inquiry is to find out why that happened and how we can make sure it never happens again. The criminal justice system failed to secure a conviction on evidence that was presented to the Medical Council where he was found guilty of professional misconduct. That is why we need a inquiry - to find out where the mistakes were made and where we have to learn. That is why this inquiry supersedes everything else. I welcome the commitment of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to pursue the matter with the Garda Síochána and Interpol. All of these investigations can proceed in parallel with this inquiry which can continue in private. There is no conflict between the two because that is what happened with the Ryan inquiry and what should happen now.

The victims of Mr. Shine and their families are at the heart of this issue. We have met them and are saddened and deeply shocked by what happened to them. What went on in Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital is unbelievable. It is a hospital in my town in which 1,500 people work. I know hundreds of people there. I know the nurses and the nuns and of their commitment, honour, dignity and absolute resolution to make sure they provide a proper service. There was a rotten core at its heart that must be and has been exposed. The reasons it happened must be exposed to ensure it never happens again.

If there is no inquiry, only one group will suffer - the victims. Until and unless they have an inquiry, they will not have closure with regard to the pain and hurt they and their families have suffered for some decades. Primacy must be given to their needs and wants which must be satisfied by the State and everybody else. Every single effort must be made to have an inquiry. I do not doubt the commitment of the Minister for Health and Children and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, but we are presenting the Minister for Health and Children with new arguments which should help to tip the balance in favour of holding an inquiry and in favour of those who have been disadvantaged most by Mr. Shine.

People ask how could this have happened in a hospital. I live in Drogheda and have visited the hospital many times. The truth is that Mr. Shine was always deemed to be an excellent surgeon. Late at night one would see him going around the wards. Everybody considered he was a tremendous, dedicated man, but none of us knew what was lay at the heart of his activities and about the evil that was driving him in his work. That is an absolute shame.

I have hard things to say about the Medical Missionaries of Mary and its administration. However, I accept the integrity of the Medical Missionaries of Mary and the work it has done, as well as the people I have known who have worked at home and abroad for the order. The nuns were not locked up in a convent every night; they worked in the hospital and on the missions. The order must tell the truth, as it knew it. If it knew it in the 1970s, let us have all the facts. At the end of the day, it will benefit the order and do justice to the memory of Mother Marie Martin and all those who established the order, as well as all the doctors, nurses and staff who worked in the hospital.

The inquiry must ask how much information the Medical Missionaries of Mary and its administrative staff had on Mr. Shine. Will they make all the information available immediately? What reports, if any, did the order have on Mr. Shine? What reports did it make available to the North Eastern Health Board child care division? When did it make them available as it was obliged under the Child Care Act to do? What advice did it give in overseas locations in which Mr. Shine had worked as a missionary? How did it discharge its duties there? When did it inform the Garda of the allegations? When did the Garda receive its first report on Mr. Shine? When did it inform the North Eastern Health Board about the matter? In 1995, 60 to 80 cases were forwarded by the health board to the Garda and the Medical Council. Between 1995 and 1997, before the hospital came into the ownership of the health board, what action did management at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital take on child protection issues in regard to Mr. Shine?

Is the Garda fully satisfied that its investigation accorded with best practice? The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform referred to the Garda Commissioner and whether the Garda would need specialist knowledge and skills in following up the allegations. That may have been what was missing in the original Garda inquiry which did not have the benefit of an outside person investigating the matter. I refer to specialist investigators; people with access to forensic psychiatry services and psychologists. That did not happen in this case and is why the inquiry must ensure that in the future this must never happen again.

This is a very complex case. The Director of Public Prosecutions was unable to obtain a conviction with the same evidence on which the Medical Council convicted Mr. Shine. That is at the core of the matter. Is the Director of Public Prosecutions satisfied that he should have relied so much on local evidence? Should he not have made sure there was an outside inquiry? Was too much emphasis placed on local and national medical experts who gave evidence about Mr. Shine but who may have known him? Would it not have been better to seek external professional advice in the case, as happened in the Neary case? That was the difference between the two. The evidence of Irish consultants who spoke for Mr. Neary was completely overturned by the strong independent, authoritative evidence from another jurisdiction. That is what was needed in this case, but it did not happen.

The Medical Council found Mr. Shine guilty of professional misconduct. However, what was the point of the professional evidence given about Mr. Shine at the trial? There are serious questions in that regard. There are also serious questions at which the Royal College of Surgeons must look in regard to the clinical standards and protocols which were not met but on which it had insisted. Does the Medical Council stand over the evidence given on behalf of Mr. Shine by medical people in the court? That is a core question because, clearly, there was a big difference between what they said he was doing and what he did. Medical people have serious questions to answer, as has An Bord Altranais. An inquiry must also look at these issues because this must never happen again. This evil must be rooted out forever.

We reject the claims made by the Government Deputy that an inquiry would interfere with the criminal process. The idea behind having commissions of investigation is that they take place in private, evidence is given in private and the legal rights of defendants or those who appear before them are absolutely respected. They can appeal to the courts when a decision is made, if they so wish. There is no diminution of their legal rights.

At the heart of this case is an evil perpetrated in our society which must never be allowed to happen again. The absence of an inquiry will hurt those who were victimised most. There is one person, Bernadette Sullivan, who shines like a beacon of light in all of this. She was a whistle-blower who worked with might and main for many years to highlight the truth and seek justice. Another person I wish to mention is Dr. Ambrose McLaughlin who at the time was chief executive officer of the North Eastern Health Board. As a member of the health board, I was involved in dealing with many issues relating to Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital. Dr. McLaughlin's integrity, professionalism, commitment and dedication have been acknowledged independently, as in the Mr. Neary case. In this case an examination of the files will exonerate and show that public servants such as Dr. McLaughlin need to be very much involved in the administration of health services because his absence is a massive loss to us.

See this speech in context