Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I came into the Chamber to hear some answers and, unfortunately, I have not heard any. We might as well say that. We had hoped to get answers from the Minister. I do not think anyone in the House disputes the need for a new maternity hospital. I gave birth in Holles Street in 1995 and we needed a new hospital then. My daughter gave birth to my grandson in Holles Street in 2015 and we needed a new hospital then too. Nobody is disputing that this hospital is necessary. We know how necessary it is. We know that the men and women working in Holles Street day in and day out, and the women who are attending there, are doing so in appalling circumstances. The need for the new hospital is established and understood.

It is now five years since the House passed the Sinn Féin motion calling for the new maternity hospital to be built as quickly as possible. We all agreed on that. We also called for the hospital to come entirely within public ownership and with legally guaranteed independence from all non-medical influence in its clinical operations. That is the piece we need to get right. There are profound reasons that women in particular, and the Opposition in general, are very concerned about the governance arrangements and the influence that may be exerted. The Minister may not be able to codify against the chilling effect of any association with the church. That is causing consternation.

The go-ahead was given by the Vatican in 2020 for the transfer of the lands earmarked for the hospital to a new charity group. There are questions around that process. The move left us a step closer but also put the spotlight on issues of ownership and control. The decision to transfer the land from the church to the St. Vincent's holding group raised the question of why it was not gifted to the State. This has never been clarified and the fundamental question still remains unanswered: who will the hospital belong to?

We know who will own the building, but who will own the land and how will that impact on the care and on how women are treated in the hospital? What should be a fairly straightforward matter has been fraught with debate and difficulties. Simply, the hospital's independence in all its clinical operations should be guaranteed and that is what we seek. The questions around the legal terms of the ownership of the entire campus still remain. We have been asking these questions for years now and we still do not have any sufficient answers. I came in here this evening hoping to get some of those questions answered and I have not learned anything beyond what I knew when I came in.

I did this previously today but as March is her anniversary month, I will again mention Sheila Hodgers. As the Minister knows, I knew Sheila. She died in March 1983 and so did her baby. Sheila was denied treatment because of the ethos of the hospital. That is why she died. That is what killed her. I know what is written on her death certificate and I know what killed her. While the influence of the church in 1983 was very explicit, it is no less worrying, disconcerting and troubling that there would be even a hint or a suggestion of any influence in 2022. That is why we need answers to the questions that have been raised. There is a chilling effect today. I will not use the word for what it was in 1983 but we all know what happened to Sheila and her baby at that time. All our lived experience suggests we have to get this right. The statement the Minister made this evening suggests we have not achieved it right yet. There is unanimity in our support for building the hospital. We know that has to happen but we have to get it right.

See this speech in context