Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion as the Labour Party's spokesperson on health. I wish I had much more time than I do because this is a very important issue for all of us. In the time I have I want to focus on the need for independence of the new maternity hospital and the lack of staffing in maternity services, which the Minister knows is an issue about which I speak quite regularly at committee meetings and personally to the Minister. I believe it is in our national maternity strategy. I also want to speak about regulation.

Despite the best efforts of clinicians and staff in our health services women are continuously let down by Governments in respect of maternity care in Ireland. The controversy about the new national maternity hospital is only the tip of the iceberg. Here we are in 21st century Ireland debating whether a religious order or the State should own a taxpayer-funded institution charged with providing maternity care to the women and young children of this country. It is quite extraordinary that the Government would, aside from all else, consider gifting sole ownership of this incredibly important State-funded hospital to the Sisters of Charity, the same people who were party to a €128 million redress scheme with the State. Given what we know about how this order behaved, is there any other modern, developed country in the world which would actually act in this way?

Yet, in this country, we were going down that road.

Only last week, we saw the resignation of Dr. Peter Boylan from the board of Holles Street, citing that he can "no longer remain a member of a board which is so blind to the consequences of its decision to transfer sole ownership of the hospital to the Religious Sisters of Charity, and so deaf to the disquiet of the public it services". Further in his resignation letter he states, "To believe the new National Maternity Hospital will be the only hospital in the world owned by a Catholic congregation to permit serialisation, IVF, abortion, gender reassignment surgery and any other procedures prohibited by the Church is naive and delusional". In a more warning manner he states that "all women who will require transfer along the interconnecting corridor to the general hospital for specialist care will be, as you must be aware, transferred into an environment where there is no dispute that [a] Catholic ethos applies". I agree wholeheartedly with Dr. Boylan's comments and sentiments. I have spoken to him at considerable length. I believe he has done the State a huge service and has done it an even larger service in the last few weeks. The influence of Catholic teaching arguably has no bigger impact than it would under maternity services. Every hospital owned and funded by the taxpayer must be in a position to provide any and all medical procedures allowed under Irish law, not just currently, but we need to future-proof it, and that is not what St. Vincent's said. This is simply not up for discussion.

An interesting piece by a former Senator and oncology professor, Professor John Crown, raises further concerns about the clinical independence that might be an issue in the new maternity hospital. He has said: "I had the firsthand experience of having clinical trials delayed - not by long, because I fought them on it - on an issue where it was specified that contraception was required for patients who would be exposing themselves to drugs which could be horrific to a developing foetus". The idea of any religious interference in health care decision-making is absolutely, clinically wrong. There is an indisputable need for the urgent construction of the new National Maternity Hospital. I said it myself. I have spoken on it on new numerous occasions. The current situation of having three maternity hospitals operating on separate sites is unsustainable and contrary to clinical best practice. I know that following persistent public pressure, the Taoiseach has come forward to say he can confirm that there will be complete clinical independence and that the Sisters of Charity will not have a majority on that board.

The Minister, Deputy Simon Harris, now wants one month to decide the best course of action. I have spoken with the Minister and have no problem with giving him that month, but I do say it in the spirit that he comes back with the right answer. I do not want to spend too long with this, because we have to have a wider discussion on divestment, but this is up-front and now. We need to solve this now and we need to deal with the wider issue. We need to solve this issue in one month. We cannot come away with the wrong answer. There are many options out there including leasing, compulsory purchase orders and a number of others. I do not buy the fact that we cannot do some of those. This is a Chamber that bailed out the banks in 24 hours. Surely we can sort out this and surely the Minister can sort this out in a month. I have the same concerns the Minister had, because he was right three years ago in the Committee of Public Accounts, when he raised all those questions on how the Sisters of Charity could use the ownership of St. Vincent's as collateral in regard to developing their private practice, car parks and all the rest. The Minister was right.

See this speech in context