Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, Independents 4 Change) | Oireachtas source

I concur completely with the points Deputy Connolly made.

I am nearly shaking with anger at the discussion we have had here today. I was hoping that at least we would get some information or update on where the Minister is at with talks and negotiations and all we got was the same as before.

I had a Topical Issue matter taken two weeks ago. I was told in reply, because the Minister was not here and it was responded to by a Minister of State, that the Minister would not say anything on the matter until he brought his memorandum to Cabinet. The Minister will keep rolling on and ignore the Dáil.

This morning, in a reply to Deputy Gino Kenny, he repeated the allegation that there are people spreading misinformation on the issues surrounding the National Maternity Hospital's relocation to the Elm Park site at St. Vincent's Hospital. The Minister raised it again in his speech tonight. He was at pains this morning to point out that it was the midwives and the doctors who were saying this, and it was not him. On the point that was made by Deputy Connolly, after 14 February when Professor Higgins was on "The Pat Kenny Show", the Minister came out with a comment on Facebook stating that he shared the view that the allegations being made about the provision of services, "including by certain Dáil TDs, are misleading, ill-informed and manifestly false". My understanding of spreading misinformation is deliberately distorting the truth. I am insulted by that. I am sure everybody else in the Chamber is the same. I would like the Minister to clarify exactly who is spreading this so-called "misinformation". Is it Dr. Peter Boylan, the former master of the National Maternity Hospital, Holles Street, a very well respected member of the medical profession? Is it Dr. Marie Casey, also a respected member of the medical profession? Is it Uplift, a campaign group? Is it the elected Members of the Dáil who have raised serious concerns about the ownership of the National Maternity Hospital, concerns which are not only held by them but reflect concerns of many people in society, or is the Minister referring to some group of conspiracy theorists on social media? I would like an answer because it is quite insulting, to say the least, to be dismissed as ill-informed, despite the intensive efforts I have made to inform myself of medical and expertise on the issue and which I am also sure has been done by others raising legitimate questions on the questions of ownership, operational control and the possibility of Catholic religious ethos being a factor. Everyone wants a maternity hospital built and I would not accept any turn of phrase that makes out that we in the Opposition are not in favour of a hospital being built.

I agree with the doctors and other medics at Holles Street who want to work in a professional, well-maintained and well-run hospital.

I will state what I consider to be facts. If I am wrong or misinformed, perhaps someone from the Government will put me right. The first fact is that the national maternity strategy set out an objective to have four new maternity hospitals co-located with acute hospitals. The issue of co-location for the national maternity hospital at St. Vincent's hospital has been taken off the agenda, as recommended by the Mulvey report. Am I right or wrong in stating that this is a fact?

The second fact is that the question of ownership of the hospital is not clear. The State will not own the land it is to be built on but will instead lease the land from a private company – St. Vincent's Holdings – which, to my knowledge, has not yet been established. The State will apparently own the hospital but not the land on which it is to be built. Why does the HSE need to negotiate a licence with a private company to run a hospital that is supposedly owned by the State? Perhaps someone will explain to me why this does not ring alarm bells and raise questions as to who will own the facility.

The Minister repeated assurances this morning and again during this debate that the national maternity hospital would not be subject to any religious ethos and that all medical procedures legal in the State would be available. I can accept the Minister's seriousness in pursuing this objective, but the wording of any legal agreement must be the subject of serious scrutiny. I find it difficult to believe that the Religious Sisters of Charity, the Catholic bishops and the Vatican would be agreeable to abortion and other legal services being available at a facility that they have an interest in and where they have fought tooth and nail to retain that interest.

If I am misinformed, please set us straight. The issues involved are too serious. The future of women's healthcare and healthcare in general depends on the resolution of this contentious issue.

See this speech in context