Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute on this issue. There have been three Private Members' items of business on this issue and, unfortunately, Private Members' business does not allow time for Government backbenchers to speak, so I welcome this opportunity for statements, which do. I was in the Chamber twice in successive weeks when various Opposition Members called for time for these statements to be scheduled. During the course of this debate, I have wondered whether these statements have come too early in advance of the Government's final decision. In a way, that depends on whether we believe the Minister's decision will differ depending on the course of the debate, although I suppose the Dáil should be used to try to influence change within the Government.

Nevertheless, in my view, we are speaking in something of a vacuum because that final legal framework is not yet available and those details, that squaring of the circle Deputy Shortall spoke about, have not been finalised. It is difficult, therefore, to comment in advance on what the final arrangements will be. All I have to go on, and all many Fianna Fáil Deputies have to go on, is the commitments the Minister has given to the House and, more important, the commitments he has given to us at several parliamentary party meetings when numerous members of our parliamentary party have raised this matter with him. Off the top of my head, I can think of members such as Deputy Murnane O'Connor, Senators Fitzpatrick, McGreehan, Ardagh and O'Loughlin and many others who have spoken to him about it. In fact, it has dominated a number of the meetings. I say this not to the Deputies who are present but to people who might be watching the proceedings. This ongoing debate has been extensive. Our opportunity to influence the Minister is at that forum and it is there the Minister has given us the guarantees he gave to the House during tonight’s debate.

There are two main areas to address, namely, the issues of religious influence and the financial or legal arrangements that will protect the State's investments. Both issues are crucial and they will form the test by which we will judge whether this proposal will pass. They are based on a twofold legacy. I do not often disagree with Deputy Durkan but he suggested this is not about male Ireland versus female Ireland. We have to accept male Ireland let down women for decades and, therefore, it is utterly understandable to have genuine concerns and fears such as those expressed not only by Opposition Members but also, more important, by many women who have contacted many of our constituency offices. Their fear is there will be a religious influence on the services that are provided. That is justifiable, and anybody who has read any of the reports that have come before this House will know the reasons for those very justifiable concerns.

The second issue relates to the financial arrangements. Ireland has a legacy of the State allowing religious orders to provide social services and of those social services then being transferred into voluntary organisations. While some of those voluntary organisations retain a religious ethos and others do not, there is a complex mix of voluntary providers providing healthcare, education, disability services and so on. It is clear that as the State has matured and as we have grown in our economic ability, there is a desire that we should have increased State control and governance of social services that are provided. We can see that in the discussion on childcare or disabilities, and the Taoiseach, the Minister and many others have pointed to it. The difficulty is we are at the point where we are trying to construct a national maternity hospital and we know the right thing to do with that, from a medical perspective, is for it to be co-located. The current relationship between the two hospitals, St. Vincent's University Hospital and the National Maternity Hospital, suggests they are the correct combination but the former is a voluntary, not State, hospital.

Given the legacy of religious interference and of dependence on religious and voluntary bodies rather than on the State, we have a long way to go to prove to people we will realise the commitments the Minister has given to the House. The only way we will prove that is in the details when they arrive. Despite the calls from the Opposition for this debate to be held at a later date, I believe this is late enough. I nonetheless look forward to a debate on the final arrangements, which I imagine will be held when the time comes. The reason I came to the conclusion we should proceed with the current arrangements is one, perhaps, of pragmatism. Some within the larger parties, even within Sinn Féin, are saying that while we need to ensure it is done right, we need to just get on with this. In politics, there is always compromise. Decisions have to made in respect of complex and messy situations, such as that which I described with the legacy of all those decades. We have to work with that legacy to provide this new hospital. Many within my party and others have argued we need to get on with this, but we must put in place protections to ensure the interference and that dependency on those voluntary bodies will not exist. The difficulty is this will involve compromise. There have been some reassurances about the public ownership of the building and the removal of the religious orders from the governance arrangements, but we will have to wait and see.

A letter persuaded me, on balance, that we needed to proceed. During the repeal referendum campaign, Dr. Rhona Mahony was someone I listened to intently throughout the committee hearings in December of that year and into January. She has added her name to the letter, a copy of which I have to hand. People have quoted from it back and forth.

The letter is there for everyone to read about who was using the word "misleading" and who was using the word "misunderstanding", but it states we should get on with building the hospital on this site using the broad arrangements that are known to be the case. On balance, 52 clinicians have far more experience than I in the provision of maternity service. On balance, 52 clinicians, including somebody whom I respect greatly and who, I believe, has a strong understanding of women's health and of protecting women's health including reproductive rights, are saying that this arrangement will not compromise those. On balance, therefore, and awaiting the Minister's final arrangements, I believe we must proceed. We must not have religious interference. We must protect the State investment but we must build the hospital too.

See this speech in context