Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome this debate, although I deeply regret that a division will be forced by the Government's refusal to support the joint motion agreed between the Labour Party and Fine Gael. The motion seeks to provide counselling for the victims, to establish a commission of investigation and to ensure proper procedures for the future. I cannot fathom what part of the motion is so offensive to the Government that it cannot accept it. We need to support the victims, we need to know what happened and we need to ensure it does not happen again. Even at this late stage in the debate, I urge the Government to withdraw its amendment.

There is a terrible familiarity about the experience of victims at the hands of a medical doctor. The people at the heart of this debate have had their lives blighted by a man who used his power, medical training and position of trust for his sexual gratification. On the one side, young innocent men and boys were abused and damaged for life. They have known what it is like to be isolated, stigmatised and not believed. On the other side, a senior hospital consultant was protected by the hospital, the law and his professional colleagues. In such a dysfunctional hospital, he was free to roam at will and prey on vulnerable patients. By using delaying tactics, he was then able to retire and to this day continues to enjoy a good pension.

This case has resonance of the Michael Neary saga. In that case, a doctor in the same hospital was able to mutilate women at will by carrying out unnecessary hysterectomies. The victims in the Neary case were also isolated, stigmatised and at times not believed. I recall that when I raised the case in the House I received abusive telephone calls from supporters of Mr. Neary. The victims persevered, however, and when the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, decided to establish an inquiry into the case, I applauded her. The Minister did the right thing. It is disappointing, therefore, that she has not come in to the House and made a clear unequivocal commitment to an independent inquiry in the case of Mr. Shine. It is inconceivable that she would deny the victims and irresponsible for her to deny future patients the new dispensation that would arise from such an inquiry.

Dignity 4 Patients has pointed out that not only does hospital practice need to be scrutinised, so too does the practice of the courts, criminal justice system and State agencies. For example, questions arise about the 2003 trial in which Mr. Shine was found not guilty. Why was the trial held in Dundalk? Why did the State's lawyers not object to three jurors who were, respectively, a former patient of Mr. Shine's, the daughter of another patient and an employee of the North Eastern Health Board? Why was Mr. Shine allowed offer medical advice to a member of the jury when she fell ill? Why were expert witnesses not called to give evidence on behalf of the victims while 15 professional colleagues testified on Mr. Shine's behalf? Why have some of the charges relating to other complainants never been activated? How could the Medical Council find against Mr. Shine in two specific cases when the State failed to bring them to trial? Other questions remain unanswered.

While everyone understands the independence of the courts - that is not at issue - an inquiry needs to be empowered as a wide-ranging review to ascertain the full truth. This House has correctly spent time debating the victims of institutional abuse. There is a real desire from all sides to respond appropriately to the evil uncovered and suffering caused, even though we know in our hearts we cannot make up for what was done. In this instance, however, the abuse was also real and persistent and protected by those in authority.

The Minister stated yesterday that she was impressed by the deputation from Dignity 4 Patients and I believe her. A weak, inadequate, ineffectual response from her would be worse than no response. The victims have set out clearly what they want, namely, a commitment from the Minister to hold an independent inquiry. It has taken 15 years for them to be vindicated. Surely they should not be expected to wait any longer for justice.

Even in the most dysfunctional system, there are individuals who stand apart because they refuse to collude in wrongdoing. The heroism of Bernadette Sullivan must be acknowledged and given respect. Nurses, in their work, do not tend to question doctors. They work in a hierarchical structure. To stand up in defence of one's patients and against a hospital establishment is a tough call.

In her report on the Neary case, Judge Harding Clarke describes the culture in Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital as one "of fatalistic acceptance". Bernadette Sullivan was a remarkable whistleblower. What protections and safeguards are in place for those who find themselves in similar or different circumstances who want to do the right thing and live by their integrity. Bernadette Sullivan was told if she persisted she could lose her house and reputation, yet persist she did. She stayed true to the ethic of patient care and is a role model for the nursing profession. It is important to note this in this debate.

Those who were abused by Michael Shine came to a hospital, not far from here, seeking care and healing. Instead they suffered because of a pederast doctor and a systemic failure to keep them safe. There is an imperative now for the right political response to be made. The Opposition parties have played their part in raising this matter for debate. It is now up to the Minister who will be negligent unless she makes the right decision without delay.

In paying tribute to Bernadette Sullivan and to those who have been badly affected in the Michael Shine case, it is important we do not leave only words. A much more appropriate tribute could be made if all parties were to agree to recognise that action must be taken to discover and explore the record and to ascertain how people viewed what took place and what people did in terms of concluding a process that has taken so long. This is the appropriate response for the Minister. None of us underestimates the cost issues which arise in this regard, particularly as there is so little money available to spend in the health service. While costs present difficulties, they must not serve as an obstacle to doing the right thing.

Previous commissions of inquiry established by the House have been successful and delivered much that is good. In particular, I cite the commission established to inquire into the Neary case, from which we learned a great deal. In terms of public policy, I hope we never unlearn what was stated in the commission of inquiry's report, specifically its recommendations which remain unfinished business. They have at least provided us with an important road map and the progress made in this regard needs to be recognised. A similar approach must be taken in the case of Mr. Shine.

The Minister frequently refers to standards in the health service. She must judge herself by the same standards. It would be beneath her role as a Cabinet Minister to ignore the requests and imperative to establish a commission of inquiry to deal with this issue in a fair manner and protect patients who come after those who suffered so terribly.

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share time with Deputies Wallace, Flynn, Kirk, Dooley and Conlon.

Unfortunately, five minutes does not give one much time to speak on this issue. As a Government Minister and Deputy representing the constituency in which Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, Drogheda, is located, I am very concerned about the allegations in this case. In December 2008, I spent considerable time discussing the issues arising from the case with some of those involved. Like the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, who met them for the first time last week, I was struck by their intensity and the unease with which they spoke about what went on in the hospital. Wearing my hat as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and given that so many people were coming forward, I advised them that the Garda investigation should be allowed to continue. To the best of my memory, nine fresh complaints had been made at the time. I urged them to ensure anyone who came forward made a complaint and provided a written statement for the Garda.

I subsequently consulted the Garda Commissioner, the Attorney General and the Minister, Deputy Harney, on what was necessary in the context of a criminal investigation. I am happy to say the Garda Commissioner and his force have been assiduous in liaising with the people involved. He informed me today that 64 new complaints have been made, most of which were subsequent to the decision by the Medical Council to strike this doctor off the register. Further complaints were made in the aftermath of the "Prime Time Investigates" programme. I understand a number of medical records have been obtained from Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital. The Garda has been in contact with the Medical Council regarding an expert who could help the investigating team's examination of these reports. Interpol has also been contacted regarding some of the issues raised in the programme. A full investigation is ongoing. Gardaí from the National Bureau of Criminal Investigation and the domestic violence and sexual assault investigation unit are heavily involved in the case and hope to bring a comprehensive file to the Director of Public Prosecutions as expeditiously as possible.

I acknowledge the request from Opposition Deputies for an independent inquiry. Deputy O'Dowd and his colleagues from surrounding constituencies approached me several months ago in this regard and I repeated to them what I had said at my meeting with those concerned in December 2006. They accepted that the primary focus should be the criminal investigation in order that nobody will avoid criminal sanction for the new allegations which have been made. Deputy O'Dowd stated recently on a radio programme this is not a political issue. The Government has not ruled out an inquiry but we need to take it one step at a time because we do not wish to prejudice a criminal trial. We are in effect dealing with somebody who in 2003 was acquitted by a jury in a court of law, and we must be careful in deciding whether we can pursue a public inquiry in advance of or alongside a criminal trial. We know to our detriment that when criminal investigations are ongoing, the redaction of names can be such as to produce an unsatisfactory response to inquiries.

An examination was originally conducted in 1995. Like the Minister, Deputy Harney, I am not casting aspersions on that examination but it is clear that some people were gravely dissatisfied with its focus. Ultimately the Government and the Oireachtas will have to decide on whether to hold a public inquiry. I ask that we be allowed time for a discussion in that regard. I do not wish to divide the House when I ask that the matter be addressed step by step.

Mary Wallace (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, for meeting representatives of Dignity 4 Patients to discuss their request for an inquiry. Having attended that meeting, I can attest to her genuine concern for the victims and their devastating stories of betrayal and abuse. It is all the more shocking that the abuse took place in the setting of an acute hospital. During the meeting, the Minister indicated that she would need time to discuss the issues with the Attorney General, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Garda Commissioner but committed to a further meeting with the group in three to four weeks' time. In such circumstances, it is difficult to be sure of the value of this debate other than in terms of the opportunity it provides us to show solidarity with the victims and the Minister in her anxiety to make the correct response.

While progress has been made on developing a complaints procedure, we must never lose sight of our ultimate duty of protecting patients from abuse. We need to further examine a culture and system which allowed Michael Shine to abuse patients for 25 years despite the many complaints that had been made since 1970. The victims have many questions but three in particular stand out. First, how could so many people, including in particular teenage boys, be sexually abused in an acute hospital setting? Second, how could 70% of this abuse occur in broad daylight and in an outpatients department? Third, who knew what was going on and why was nothing done to protect these young people? These questions need to be addressed within the hospital system.

I understand that more victims have come forward since the "Prime Time Investigates" programme was broadcast. Dignity 4 Patients has given these people the courage to speak up. For more than 30 years, Dr. Michael Shine abused the patients in his care. His victims were betrayed by him and by a society and culture which revered doctors and allowed people to turn a blind eye. Our priority is to assist the victims because they cannot be let down again. I understand a Garda investigation into these complaints is ongoing. The Minister, Deputy Harney, is committed to ensuring transparency and accountability in our hospitals. The correct solution for the victims is her main concern.

We all wish to see an inquiry into what happened at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital but we must be mindful of the concerns expressed by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform about prejudicing a possible future trial. However, while the criminal investigation should be our primary focus, serious questions nonetheless arise.

The victims' stories have truly shocked and appalled us but their strength and dignity in speaking publicly is remarkable and their determination to keep this issue in the public domain is admirable. They rightly want to expose the regime which allowed Michael Shine to abuse his position in a horrific way. I look forward to the Minister's second meeting with Dignity 4 Parents and I am confident that every effort is being made to address victims' concerns.

Beverley Flynn (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Like other speakers, I do not regard this as a political issue and would hate to see the House divide on the motion. We are all horrified at the activities that took place at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, Drogheda. I welcome the fact that the Minister, Deputy Harney, has met the members of Dignity 4 Patients and listened to their horrific stories. I commend the victims on their bravery in relating those stories because it takes a lot of courage for a person to come forward and do so. I am delighted the Minister met them, received their submission, listened to their request for an inquiry and has agreed to give that request the detailed consideration it deserves. I also welcome the fact that she has committed herself to getting back to the group within a matter of weeks.

This is the second time the House has had to debate the appalling misconduct of a consultant at this hospital in Drogheda. It is clear that the appalling misconduct was well known. It is terrible that money had to be set aside from the sale of the hospital because they knew that claims were inevitable concerning this consultant. Some of my colleagues from the constituency, who are more familiar with the situation, made the point that the first complaint was made in 1970. That the consultant was allowed to practice at the hospital for so many years afterwards, while abusing so many people, is a horror story that shames everybody.

In recent weeks, the House has debated the Ryan report. It was shameful that this type of activity was carried out in this country for so many decades and was known to so many people, yet nothing was done about it. In her 2006 report, Judge Maureen Harding Clark spoke out about the pervasive culture concerning consultants in that hospital. It was a culture of acceptance and compliance with the activities of these consultants who went around the hospital with a God-like complex and nobody could question them. Patients and hospital staff lived in fear of them and were not in a position to do anything about it.

I am delighted that in recent years we have seen Part 9A of the Health Act 2007 come into effect, which allows whistleblowers to come forward. It is a protection for patients and staff who can now make the type of complaints we saw brave people in Drogheda making against Dr. Michael Neary. On that occasion, a midwife from another jurisdiction was the first brave whistleblower to come forward. The new legislation gives protection to employees to blow the whistle, and we can only hope there will be no recurrence of this type of activity.

Changes have taken place at the Medical Council which now has a lay majority and, in addition, its fitness to practise committee must also hold hearings in public, which is a welcome development. When Dr. Shine was investigated all the hearings were held in private, which gives no comfort to victims of the terrible conduct in which he engaged.

In yesterday's debate the Minister said she had spoken to the Garda Commissioner and that new complaints are being investigated. I welcome that development. As a public representative my concern, and that of all other Members of this House, is for the victims who are the injured parties. All appropriate support services must be provided for the victims in this case. Serious consideration must be given to their request for an inquiry. Having heard the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform earlier, I welcome the Government's openness in listening to that request, which I know will be given full consideration.

Victims should be informed of the support services available to them. Many of them have been already in contact and are availing of those support services. I commend them on their bravery and I hope we will see justice for them.

Margaret Conlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I also welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. As the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Mary Harney, said last night, the assault on patients which is at the heart of the Medical Council's decision to strike Mr. Shine off the medical register was truly a betrayal of his patients' trust. It attacked the special, privileged relationship between doctor and patient which should never be compromised, as patients allow themselves and their vulnerabilities to be placed in the confidence of doctors. We all expect such trust when we visit a doctor. It betrayed the culture of assumed and expected responsibility which is needed in certain professions.

I welcome the fact that the Minister met with the support group, which gave her a comprehensive document and requested an independent inquiry. The Minister indicated that she will be discussing the issues raised with her Government colleagues and will revert to the group in July. I commend her on the compassionate and humane manner with which she dealt with the people concerned and listened to their tragic stories.

We live in a culture and environment which is totally different from that in 1995-96 when these issues first came to public notice. The deference to religious orders in that era was nationwide - not only in Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, Drogheda. This was a hospital run by a religious order and deference was shown to consultants who could do nothing wrong. Nobody was prepared to criticise them. Mr. Shine betrayed his patients and broke that vital link of trust which is absolutely necessary in our hospitals. I encourage the Minister to contact the group as soon as possible after she discusses the issues involved with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Dermot Ahern, and the Attorney General.

The length of time that Dr, Shine ruled is horrendous. He ruined people's childhoods and they, not to mention their families, are still suffering the effects today. The ramifications of that are still being felt. Protect, deny and circle the wagons seemed to be the policy that ruled the roost in hospitals all around the country. However, as Deputy Johnny Brady said last night, this culture pervaded all sections of society from parishes to churches to hospitals and everything in between. It was wrong.

The health service is now committed to promoting a culture of openness and accountability in order that employees can report any concerns they may have about their workplaces. That is to be welcomed. Part 14 of the Health Act 2007, which amends the Health Act 2004 by inserting a section which allows for the making of protected disclosures by health service employees, commenced with effect from March this year. The purpose of this new section is to facilitate employees to disclose matters of concern to them to an authorised person and to provide statutory protection against penalisation in their employment and against civil liability. This procedure applies to all employees of the HSE and agencies funded by the HSE, as well as bodies established under the Health (Corporate Bodies) Act 1961, such as the Crisis Pregnancy Agency and the Women's Health Council.

It is important to recognise that Dáil Éireann is not politically divided on this issue. The Minister's interest in this matter is genuine and I look forward to her reporting back to the group as quickly as possible. I acknowledge the challenge that Dignity 4 Patients had in highlighting this important issue. I can only imagine how difficult it is for abuse victims to tell their stories to anyone privately. It must be tougher to have to do so publicly, and worse again to try to put them on paper in chronological order. I truly admire and salute the victims in this case for doing what they have done. It is obvious that many of them are continuing to suffer, and the Government must respond with due care and diligence.

We are discussing this matter very soon after the Ryan report, the effects of which are still very raw. These two debates underline the fact that it is not that long ago when certain things were hushed up and swept under the carpet. We will have the Archdiocese of Dublin's report soon, which will focus again on another period when these activities were allowed to take place. We continually say "Well, it can't get any worse" or "We've heard it all", but then something new and more gruesome is revealed. Let us hope that era is well and truly over.

The victims need and deserve answers to their unanswered questions. I am satisfied the Minister has listened attentively to their stories with compassion. She will give their request the detailed consideration it merits. I understand the Minister will revert to the victims' group as soon as possible.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. Like others in the House, I have been approached by a number of victims who have sought our intervention to ensure they receive the justice they deserve. They also wish to ensure the practices of Mr. Shine are brought to the fore publicly in a way which seeks to address their concerns. They also want to ensure justice is done and that somebody like Mr. Shine is dealt with appropriately.

As the facts emerge in this case, just like they emerged in the Ryan report or in other cases, we are provided with a frightening insight into what happened in a period of time in Irish society which I hope has passed and we will never revisit. It was a time when people who were privileged by virtue of their education or ability to attain a certain status in society sought to abuse their position. They were in an untouchable position. Clearly, nobody can be above the law, nobody can manipulate it and nobody can find a way of weaseling out of responsibility for their actions.

I was very distrubed by the "Prime Time Investigates progamme", some of which I had the benefit of watching. Watching an individual explain in a perverse way his actions or reject facts that had been established must have been a source of much pain and suffering for those victims who have been mentioned this evening. Seeing somebody like that walk freely on the streets and allegedly continuing to participate through visits to orphanages outside the State must have been so hurtful to the victims. The person concerned was still at liberty and able to continue to abuse and break the trust between a patient and his or her doctor. It must be a great source of pain, annoyance and anger for the victims. The people with whom I spoke shared their feelings on the matter. It is particularly disappointing that we have seen so many affected in such a negative way.

I can understand why some see a need for an inquiry. However, we must be careful in that regard. I have no doubt that due consideration will be given by the Government to it. We have to know the ultimate outcome of that inquiry. The difficulty we have had in the House is we have not found an effective mechanism to ensure the victims can seek the appropriate redress, the inquiry would not become an elongated, protracted legal battle in which the perpetrators of a crime such as this would ultimately find a capacity to avoid facing justice. I hope that whatever deliberations the Government has on the matter, it wants to find an outcome to ensure some level of redress or acceptance of wrongdoing and ensure the victims will be at the centre.

What happened must be most damaging to the lives of young men or women who were abused at an early age. They carry that burden throughout life. We have seen the victims mentioned in the Ryan report vent their frustration and anger in recent weeks. When one listens or talks to victims later in life, one can see their pain and suffering. Until such time as we get it all out in the open, it will not bring the comfort they need. It is not enough to say our society has changed and that this practice no longer happens. We have to show the victims and their families that we are prepared to prosecute the perpetrators.

I welcome the Minister's decision to contact the Garda Commissioner on the issue. It is a critical part of the healing process for the victims that the perpetrators are brought to justice. There is a difficulty, however, because of the passage of time and the need for corroboration of evidence and so on. However, when evidence starts to stack up - we see from the "Prime Time Investigates" programme that Dr. Shine appears to be divesting himself of his assets on the basis that he might be called to account at some stage - that in itself is almost an admission of guilt. The Minister has brought forward what might be considered to be draconian legislation in any other time, namely, the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2009. We need to look at legislation under which the burden of proof that might be necessary in other situations can be set aside in some way, based on the actions of the perpetrators in their efforts to create what could only be a false defence. Anything the Government could do in that regard would be most welcome.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There was to be another speaker, Deputy Kirk. There are four minutes left in the slot. Therefore, any time Deputy Dooley does not use will accrue later to the Minister of State, Deputy Moloney. It is up to Deputy Dooley to decide.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I recognise the tremendous efforts the victims have made in making contact with various Members of the House and in ensuring others who would not have had the wherewithal or the capacity to go public will have the opportunity to do so. They are doing many a great service and I hope there will be an effective outcome from this debate that will assist them in dealing with what is a very difficult problem.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Shane McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for giving me the opportunity to speak. Some of my speech will be directed at the Minister for Health and Children, but I am glad the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is present because he is a man for whom I have much time. I thank him for arranging the meeting at which he outlined to us how he felt this should run. I very much respected and listened to everything he had to say. He did what he said he would do and his earlier report gives everybody hope things will follow on in this way. However, it is crucial that we continue with this debate and that an inquiry is held. That is what the people want. The decision to table the motion and put it to a vote was not taken lightly. Nobody would do anything to jeopardise the case and I would not like to say anything that would do so.

It is very important the issues involved are addressed at this level. People in the north east have lived with the case for 30 years. The difference now is that they are better educated and they will not take no for an answer. Therefore, the mindset is very different from what it was. The one great thing which has happened in the past 15 years, through the education system and modern technology, is that people no longer feel they cannot speak out against figures in authority. A number of months ago all Deputies were asked to attend meetings on this issue and much has happened since. The fact that we are debating it is evidence of this.

Some people must be complimented on the way they have highlighted the plight of those affected. I refer to Bernadette Sullivan and her great team who have carried the burden for a long time. She acted not only as a responsible nurse but also as a concerned person for the victims who had found it hard to come forward. I refer also to the excellent and responsible journalism which led to the the case being highlighted continuously, in particular by Michael Reid and the LM FM team and all our local newspapers, without mentioning any in particular. I congratulate sincerely Deputy James Reilly, my party's health spokesperson, for the genuine offer of an apology on behalf of his profession on the day Dignity 4 Patients held its press conference. People with issues can achieve what they have set out to achieve by political lobbying. Dignity 4 Patients has worked tirelessly in the political process to bring the issue to attention. It has acted alone without resources or backing. The fact that we are debating the issue and calling for an inquiry and that the Minister for Health and Children met the group last week shows how far we have come. However, it has taken too long to reach this point. To be fair to the Minster, one could see in her speech last night how genuine she was in trying to meet the needs of the people affected. However, everybody knows that when the House goes into recess, things will not happen. It would be unforgivable of the Minister to allow the people concerned to wait another day, month, six weeks or three months for further action to be taken.

One thing I find frustrating as a Deputy is that Ministers and persons in responsible positions cannot make a decision on their own initiative. The facts are clear. The Medical Council has acted and almost 200 people have come forward. Living in the area, as I do, I know there is a similar number who have not come forward. One more day is too long for the people concerned to wait. Those who head the campaign on behalf of so many want unanswered questions dealt with and to be assured that this will not happen again. I respect the views expressed by the Minister for Health and Children last night and her sincerity. While she did not forget to mention that the same proposal had been made to a Minister from my party in 1995, owing to the fact that Mr. Shine was struck off the register by the Medical Council in recent years and that almost 200 people have come forward with complaints, a person in her position should be strong enough to order an inquiry into how this had continued for so long. The people concerned have waited long enough. I call on the Minister and members of all parties to support the motion.

Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister said this matter was not political. I take issue with this. It may not be divisive, but it is political because it is down to politicians to put this right. Other systems and procedures in the former health boards, hospitals and the justice system have failed the victims in this case. It is down to politicians to put this right or at least try to ease the pain of the victims. All Members present have met the young men who were badly affected. One can see in their eyes the hurt they have endured and their families and friends have had to live with. It is up to all of us to use the political system to get results.

A debate calling for a proper inquiry has been a long time coming. I accept the Minister on first meeting the victims could not have immediately agreed to an inquiry. However, she could have given a guarantee that she would ensure, no matter what it took, to get the answers, be it an inquiry as proposed in the motion or whichever way was best. From day one, I have said whatever way is best must be used to get answers and justice. Mr. Shine must feel what justice is all about.

We believe it will require an inquiry because much happened in this case. It was not just the abuse of young male patients but also the subsequent cover-up. Even if a small percentage of what the patients claim about the cover-up case is true, there are some serious problems facing us. The case was dragged out with barrier after barrier and delay after delay to prevent justice being done. That is what is also wrong, just as much as what went on in the hospital under Dr. Shine, a title I will no longer use for him. It was an abuse of power and we must ensure it does not continue.

The victims are not asking for much as an inquiry would not cost a fortune. If it is a funding issue, we know there is money left in the kitty by the hospital's previous owners. It must be put to good use to get results. The victims need answers and all sections involved in the case must be investigated. There was a problem in this country of protecting people in powerful positions and who were well educated. I hope those days are gone. It can be proved by going after all those involved in the cover-up of this case.

Being a small country, we must go the extra length to protect whistleblowers. The health service is dysfunctional; it is a system in which people are afraid to speak up about wrongdoing. I know this from when I worked in the health service from 1995 to 1997. People were afraid then and still are to speak out; they were afraid the walls had ears. I spoke to Professor Drumm about HSE staff being afraid to share their opinions and point out wrongs. We must do away with this veil of secrecy and fear to speak out in all Departments, especially in the health sector. We need people like Bernadette Sullivan to know they can come forward to point out wrongs and even give an opinion without their careers suffering as happened in the past. The latter is not encouraged in our system and we suffer as a result.

What occurred in the hospital in question was an abuse of power and could have happened to any one of us. For too long consultants have been given too much power. They must realise, like all those who provide a service, that they are only a cog in the wheel and need a team. While many of them may have come to realise this, those who have not must recognise nurses and other staff are just as important as they are. We must stop bowing to people because of their position. I accept we should respect it, but we should not shy away from them, letting them away with wrongdoing. I hope what went on with Mr. Shine and the way he treated and abused people does not happen any more in our hospitals. Procedures may be in place, but we must ensure they work. Just because a person is educated and in a top position we should not shy away from him or her. They are only part of the system. Without the nurses and other hospital staff, the consultant cannot do his or her job either.

The delay in having this case dealt with is another issue. The Minister must agree to an immediate inquiry. We hear all these compliments, thanking the Minister for meeting the victims. That is what is wrong with this country. She should have picked up the telephone to arrange to meet them rather than being asked by numerous Members on all sides of the House to do so. This matter has been ongoing for years but last November it became clear that it could be tackled, yet today, 1 July, the Minister is still scratching her head, going to talk her colleagues and think about it. She has had long enough to think about it. It is time to act, not to pretend it is great she is meeting the victims. This country will only learn from its problems when Ministers take direct action to deal with them. It should not be a case of being hounded into taking action. They should lead the way in ensuring such cases are investigated and will not recur. That is real justice and would go some way towards helping the unfortunate people concerned, the 150 about whom we know, and their families who suffered greatly because of this abuse. We must go the extra length to ensure this case is explained as best it can with no stone unturned. What went on and the delays in investigating these events were wrong.

Apart from an inquiry, the victims' group also needs financial assistance and secretarial backup. So far, it has only had one woman and a small team putting in serious hours to get justice. The least we can do is to release some funding to allow the group to do its job properly.

Last night Ministers referred to counselling services being available to the victims. They need specific counselling by those trained to understand their situation, not a general helpline service. Members on the other side also spoke about the guidelines introduced to ensure the safety of children. However, not enough use is made of soft information. Its use was debated many years ago at the education committee and it needs to be determined. There are stories, but abuse seems to continue in places.

Seymour Crawford (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I cannot say I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion. It is not a matter on I wish to speak but I feel I have to. I did not say anything when the Ryan report was published and, in a similar way, this issue of Mr. Shine is extremely serious and has had some serious effects on many people. I have not had the same contact with as many people in this case as colleagues from both sides of the House from counties Louth and Meath have had. I have had direct contact with people who are extremely worried and annoyed about this issue. One cannot help but feel for them and wonder how they have survived over so many years without getting any consolation or help. I pay tribute to nurse Bernadette Sullivan of the Dignity 4 Patients group. She has played a major role in helping many of these people to deal with the situation.

Like my colleague from County Louth, Deputy O'Dowd, I pay tribute to Dr. Ambrose McLoughlin, who was an absolutely committed gentleman. He has been a tremendous loss to the health system. We all know why that has happened. He approached me and quietly warned me about what was coming down the tracks in this case, as he did in the Dr. Neary case. It is obvious that these extremely serious issues were not treated seriously by the management of Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital at the time. I have some respect for the hospital, especially as I was born there a small few years ago. It has given the people of the north east a tremendous service, in general, down through the years. The hospital authorities turned a blind eye to this type of thing, however. Perhaps their religious beliefs meant they could not accept that anything like this could take place at the hospital. I do not believe they ignored it on purpose. They just could not believe it. Perhaps they thought people were telling stories to get money or for some other reason.

I would like to refer to an e-mail I have received from one of the people who contacted me about this matter, in which exactly what happened is simply expressed. When the man in question was young, he was brought to hospital when he injured one of his limbs. It was not his actual limb that was handled by Mr. Shine, but his private parts. Can anyone explain the logic or medical reasoning for that? It is unforgivable. That is just one of many examples. It happened on more than one occasion in very difficult circumstances. The man who contacted me has lived with this for his whole life. He did not tell his nearest and dearest about it for many years because he felt he could not do so. His immediate family now knows about it. As a result of the help of his wife and other people, including Bernadette Sullivan, he can now talk about it, at least, and be helped through it. Like the rest of those involved, he wants this to be dealt with quickly by a public inquiry.

I listened with interest last night to the speech made by the Minister, Deputy Harney. It is great that she extended her sympathy to this group. She gave a commitment to examine the matter and have it dealt with as quickly as possible. She mentioned the possibility of establishing an inquiry. I remind the Minister that I have been dealing with these issues for some time. I am not talking about the situation at Monaghan General Hospital, as I would have to stay here all night. I am sure the Leas-CheannComhairle would not allow me to speak about it. Like Deputy Johnny Brady, I was deeply involved in dealing with the Neary case. We got good success for a large number of people in that instance. There is a group that has not been dealt with, however. We were promised on many occasions that it would be dealt with. As I understand it, we have not yet received a ministerial commitment in this regard. It raises questions about the Minister's commitment to finalising these things as quickly as possible. We recently learned that the Neary case cost approximately half of what it was initially expected to cost. There is no justification for not using additional moneys to finalise this case. In that context, I question the guarantee given to the House by the Minister, Deputy Harney, last night. I welcome the fact that her colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, added something to it tonight. The pressure felt as a result of this means it has to be dealt with.

I would like to conclude by referring to an issue I raised on the Order of Business this morning. The Minister, Deputy Harney, used the €2.1 million cost of the Leas Cross inquiry to defend her argument that rushing into inquiries might not be the best thing to do. I urge the Government to deal with the justice system as it has dealt with the rest of the public service. Public servants at the lowest grades have had to accept income reductions as a result of levies and charges, etc. For years, we have been promised that a Bill will be brought before this House to reduce legal charges. Despite the cost of all the tribunals, etc., nothing has been done. If something were done about legal charges, we would not have to worry as much about the cost of an inquiry into this affair. I thank Deputies Reilly and Jan O'Sullivan for jointly tabling this motion. It is an example of the unity that is needed on this side of the House and across the floor. An inquiry must be established if these people are to be given the justice and peace of mind they need, after 30 years in some cases.

John Moloney (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

While I do not have a local connection to this issue, I understand the concerns of many of the Deputies who have spoken and acknowledge the substantial difficulties they face. I dread to think that the same issue could arise in my local hospital. Rather than waffle on with a prepared statement, I will address some of the points made by Deputy O'Dowd and others. I welcome the remarks made by the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, a few minutes ago. When I read some documents in recent days to try to understand the background to this debate, I learnt that the Irish Medical Council spent 12 years pursuing this man. That, in itself, underlines the need for urgency. In that context, I accept the point made by Deputy Crawford about the need to bring this issue to a conclusion.

I will try to deal with some of the issues that have been raised during this debate. I recognise the need for closure. I believe the Minister for Health and Children acknowledged that in the Dáil last night. I take the point that it is important for Ministers to meet groups. The Minister, Deputy Harney, has met the relevant group in this case. I am sure she brought her sincerity to that meeting. The unity of purpose in this House has been evident this evening, as it was last night. While I take the point that a political decision may be needed, at the end of the day this is not a political or adversarial issue. It is a question of recognising that this issue has gone on for a long time. When those of us who are removed from this case watched the episode of "Prime Time Investigates" that dealt with it, we started to wonder how it has remained unresolved for so many years.

I was struck by Deputy O'Dowd's summary of the views of the people of the local area. Some of them have praised Mr. Shine for working so late at night and for being so hands-on, in the medical sense. It seems that people believed he was up to good practice. It is unfortunate that it has taken so many years for people to realise that the Minister, taking into account all she has heard over recent days, weeks and months, is of a mind to bring this issue to a conclusion as quickly as possible. Obviously, I am not in a position to say what the Minister's final decision will be. Last night, Deputy Reilly quite properly made the point that accountability and transparency are important. Every Deputy has recognised that throughout this debate. We totally agree with it. I accept Deputy Crawford's point that people of goodwill and good practice might find it difficult to believe such a thing could occur in a hospital. I do not say that as an excuse, but it partly makes me understand why people ignored certain submissions, including private calls to the effect that wrongdoing was afoot.

It is worth mentioning a specific report in the context of the debate on accountability and transparency, or the lack thereof. In her report Judge Maureen Harding Clark said there was a culture of unquestioning respect towards the hospital consultants by the Medical Missionaries of Mary. Medical facts and knowledge could be questioned but the handling of the management of a patient could never be broached.

Openness and transparency will have to form the cornerstone from here on, in ensuring that the patient is protected. More importantly, if medical staff have an issue regarding the management of a patient there should be a process that ensures such questions should not remain unanswered and nothing happens. While the vast majority of medical practitioners are best practice professionals, it is important to emphasise that it was necessary to deal with some issues by implementing provisions regarding accountability and transparency. Complaints officers will be installed in every hospital and while this might not be seen to be strong enough, it is nonetheless an attempt to ensure there is a process in place to allow patients to make complaints.

As we are all aware, under the Medical Practitioners Act 2007, for the first time the Medical Council has a lay majority, with 13 members and 12 medical practitioners. The fitness to practice committee comprises a majority of persons who are not medical practitioners and the Act provides for fitness to practice inquiries to be held in public.

Deputies may say that was then and we are now speaking about changes for the future. By way of the points made this evening by Deputy O'Dowd, particularly regarding practice in the hospital, the fact that the Minister has listened to the debate first-hand will bolster her submission to Cabinet regarding when the inquiry begins. I also want to stress the health service's commitment to promoting a culture of openness and accountability now so that employees can report in the future regarding any concerns they may have in relation to the workplace.

The Health Act 2004 was amended so that from March 2009 the law provides for the making of protected disclosures by health service employees. Again, it is HSE policy that all incidents when identified should be immediately managed in accordance with the incidents management policy. Lessons that are applicable nationally will be applied nationally.

Last night in the debate, Deputy Catherine Byrne made a point about the need to restore trust. We all have to acknowledge that trust is precious. However, trust cannot be restored unless the people legitimately making those complaints and who were ignored for years see that trust restored. I must also express my disgust at the shocking betrayal of his patients by the consultant.

The issue of counselling came up in the debate. The Minister, Deputy Harney and the HSE are anxious that all former patients of the consultant are made aware that free counselling support is available.

Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is not the proper counselling that is required.

John Moloney (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not too sure about that. My information is that the HSE has made arrangements for counselling support using the national counselling service which provides services for individuals, couples and family groups. Persons affected by these issues who do no wish to avail of such counselling can speak with a psychologist or counsellor in confidence. In addition to those concerns, the then Minister for Health at the time of the purchase of Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in 1997 ensured that the previous owners, the Medical Missionaries of Mary, set aside a process of the sale as a fund, which is now available for addressing claims arising from incidents of alleged sexual abuse by the former consultant referred to. When, as Minister of State, I took the Adjournment some time ago I said at that stage no consideration was being given to holding such an inquiry. Since then, however, matters have moved on in the light of further evidence. Notwithstanding the crucial evidence given by Opposition Deputies, things have moved on. I firmly believe the Minister has good intentions in this regard.

Dan Neville (Limerick West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share time with Deputies Kathleen Lynch and James Reilly, with the permission of the House.

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Dan Neville (Limerick West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate and commend Deputy Reilly for tabling the motion. I saw the television programme and it was shocking that such a level of abuse could be inflicted on such young people, affecting them so deeply.

Mr. Michael Shine was struck off the medical register as a result of a Medical Council fitness to practice committee inquiry, which found him guilty of professional misconduct in respect of three patients and of the following allegations: making sexual advances to patients; making indecent suggestions and-or behaving indecently; assaulting and-or indecently assaulting patients; undertaking inappropriate or improper medical examinations and-or treatment of patients; and failing to treat patients with due dignity and respect.

I wish to deal with the effects of child sexual abuse. A common myth that many people hold is that men cannot be victims. The thinking is to the effect, "This is a guy and he could have stopped it if he really wanted to". It is assumed that the survivor must have consented in some way because sexual abuse does not happen to "real men". The very nature of sexual abuse and its associated stigma causes humiliation, shame self-blame, fear and secrecy for survivors. It can be hard for them to speak openly about their experiences. Survivors of male to male sexual abuse have to contend with the additional stigma and impact of homophobia, which increases their shame, isolation and secrecy. Equating the abuse with gay sex leaves most survivors confused and conflicted about their sexuality. If they identify as "straight", they may experience homophobic fear and panic, when perhaps they are not. They may take desperate measures to prove to themselves they are not gay. Some men may behave in a really macho way, for example having sex with a number of women or trying to get women pregnant and harassing gay men.

It is not uncommon for survivors of abuse to blame themselves. However, men blame themselves for different reasons to women. Men often believe, and quite strongly, that they let it happen, simply because they are men. Males are supposed to be all-powerful, never victims, even when they are children. This places an incredible burden on boys and men, often leaving them feeling guilty, ashamed, depressed, self-hating and conflicted about their gender and sexuality.

The level and severity of the effects often depend on a variety of factors, including the age of the child, when the abuse first occurred, how long it lasted, the developmental status of the child and the relationship of the abuser to the child. In this case it was the physician who abused the child. Other factors include whether force was used to ensure the child's participation and the degree of force used will affect the degree of shame or guilt experienced by the child. Then there is the reaction of the child's parents and other professionals if the child reveals the abuse or it is discovered by another person, which has an implication for this case. Children who have been sexually abused may display negative behaviour and attitudes.

Sexual abuse in childhood increases the risk of suicide in men up to ten times, according to research carried out by the University of Bath. A recent study of Australian men has found that those who were sexually abused as children are more likely than women to contemplate taking their own lives. While gender and mental health problems are the most important risk factors in those contemplating suicide, it is being increasingly acknowledged that traumatic experience such as childhood sexual abuse is a significant risk factor. A report on the study stated:

They found the men who were sexually abused as children were up to ten times more likely to have suicidal tendencies; many of these men had not been clinically diagnosed as depressed...Men are particularly vulnerable because they do not like to talk to others about their problems. It's difficult for anyone to come terms with traumatic experiences such as childhood sexual abuse but for men the stigma is worse because they don't tend confide in their friends as much.

Many suffer feelings of failure and isolation and think that it is a sign of weakness to discuss their past abuse with others. Men also tend to visit their doctors less frequently, so those who are risk of suicide often slip under the radar of the health care system. Men are particularly vulnerable to suicide and are three and a half times more likely than women to end their own lives.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

To a great extent the topics we pick for debate in here, apart from legislation, are dear to our hearts more than anything else. I am glad tonight's joint motion in the name of the Labour Party and Fine Gael is about a topic everybody is interested in. The majority of people in Ireland are very interested in this motion because they have some connection with some child, whether a niece, nephew, child, grandchild or family friend. Most people are asking themselves how this litany of abuse could have continued for so long. It defies logic. In this case of Mr. Shine the abuse continued through the 60s, 70s, 80s and into the 90s. How could it have continued for so long?

One can consider where it took place. There is the awful barbarism of the women who are still suffering as a result of symphysiotomy and the Michael Neary case. How did that happen? Listening to the previous speaker, Deputy Neville, more people than the victims need counselling. These people thought it was more than likely that they were individual cases and nobody else was affected, because it is not something one readily goes out at night and speaks about to the person sitting next to one, man or woman. It must have come as quite a shock to them to discover quite a number of people were involved and there is a huge number of victims.

We should think about the parents of those young boys. We all know as parents we consider it our job, although it is an impossible task, to protect our children 24 hours a day. No matter what their age we expect that is our job. Yet the very person to whom these parents took their children to care for them abused their children. They must feel deeply hurt and must be remembered and taken into the equation on counselling and helped to get over this trauma.

Why did it happen and why did nobody stand up and say, "Stop"? These are questions we ask about the Ryan report, Michael Neary and, now, Michael Shine. I do not believe this happened in only one hospital. We have had our problems in Cork with a GP. There was no prosecution and it was drawn out for so long that eventually the DPP allowed it to drop. Women were, if not physically abused, psychologically abused by this man. We had a priest who was a chaplain and abused children in hospitals. We all heard the rumours telling us not to go to that guy or to go to another guy. Why do people not simply stand up and say they have their suspicious about a person? The "Prime Time" show told us very clearly why it did not happen: the one person who brought it to the attention of the authorities was ostracised.

When will we have protection for people who have suspicions and are prepared to come forward? When will we have whistleblower legislation? The Labour Party introduced it a number of years ago and the Government took it on board and buried it in committee. The people here tonight who are directly affected by this issue, which is only one of many, need to know. They are not here to ask that we shine a light on this, although it is very important. They seek an inquiry to ensure this never happens again. That is what it is about. We are all great on hindsight. It is about ensuring no child ever again has the experience these people had, and that if it does happen there is enough protection for people who suspect something might just be wrong so they can stand up and go to the authorities and report that they suspect something. They must be protected.

I hope the days of the deference, nodding and hiding when a consultant comes into a ward, no matter what that consultant is, are long gone. These are people who treat us when are sick; they are not gods.

James Reilly (Dublin North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I acknowledge the Minister, Deputy Moloney's contribution. It is right that we do. I was going to say the reason we put this motion forward was the ambivalence and confusion with Deputy Moloney having made a statement a few weeks back and the Minister then having a change of heart. I fully acknowledge the Minister's right to do that and I welcome his comments. I had hoped, as others had, we would not divide on this issue, and maybe we will not. The motion is simple and I will not read it again because Deputy Neville did that for us a couple of minutes ago.

The Minister for Health and Children has told us she must consult with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Attorney General and the Government and that nothing can move until this happens. I find this not really believable in some ways given that the Government meets weekly and that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is local to it and is familiar with the case. He must talk with the Attorney General weekly if not daily. Where there is a will there is way. I do not say this to score points, but there is enough opportunity to have a meeting of minds if there is a will to do this. I hope this will can find its way in an expression that the Minister will go ahead with this.

I acknowledge all the other Deputies who have contributed here. There has been a good history of co-operation between the Deputies in the north-east from all sides of the House regarding the many catastrophes and injustices that have emanated from that one hospital.

Criminal trials can proceed in tandem with an inquiry and report after a trial so they do not prejudice it, so that is not really a reason not to do this. The issues around the case have to be examined, including, as has already been said, how complaints are dealt with by the Garda, the health boards, now the HSE, hospital management, the Irish Medical Board and the DPP. Last night and many times I said we must have transparency, accountability, and the Minister has mentioned this, and fairness in all State activity whether carried out directly by the State or on behalf of the State, as in this case.

The victims of Mr. Shine may all have suffered in the north-east of this country but the whole country is concerned it should not happen again. We must have an independent inquiry and a commission can do that in a private, cost-effective way. We need a new culture where investigating complaints is the automatic response rather than ignoring or suppressing them as has been the case in the past. There can be no more circling of the collegiate wagons in these situations. If we do not pass this motion and ensure an inquiry we make a mockery of the Ryan commission and all that flowed from it. Virtually all Mr. Shine's victims were children at the time of the assaults and abuse. We said we would cherish all the children and this inquiry must be part of achieving that.

I have found it particularly difficult as a parent and a doctor that such things were done to hurt children, particularly by a fellow doctor. I am ashamed of him. I have apologised and I will apologise again on behalf of my profession that these things were done by one of ours. He has damaged the profession and the entire basis of the doctor-patient relationship, which has at its heart trust. However, it is nothing compared to the damage he has done to the victims, many of whom have suffered in silence for decades. I pay tribute to them, to Dignity 4 Patients and to Bernadette Sullivan, who was the whistleblower and who suffered as a result. However, she has persisted in her fight for justice for the victims. We owe it to her and to them to ensure this inquiry takes place. We need whistleblower legislation, but we also need legislation to protect people's good names from vexatious complaints. I do not profess to have the automatic answer - the inquiry can do that for us.

These victims have suffered for decades. Last night, I mentioned the man who could not walk down West Street in Drogheda but feels he can now because he has been vindicated to a certain extent. However, let him be fully vindicated. I ask Members on the other side of the House to try to put politics aside tonight. If they feel they cannot vote in favour of the motion, at least they should abstain. Let tonight be the night for the victims. Let victory be theirs tonight. Let justice and truth be theirs tonight. Most importantly, let us never allow this to happen again in such a lengthy fashion. As I have said before, we know there will always be perverts among us, but what is important is that a system is put in place to protect people from them and catch them quickly so they cannot continue their evil ways over three decades. I commend the motion to the House.