David Norris (Independent)

This House is being increasingly treated with contempt and a classic example was last night when I raised a very significant matter about the economy of the country and serious violations and infringements of liquidity regulations in a consistent, deliberate and repeated manner. The answer I received from the Minister of State was that there was no ministerial responsibility. If there is not, why did the Cathaoirleach allow it because that is the test it must pass? That was a lie. I impugned the reputation of the Office of the Financial Regulator and it was suggested to me that I should bring it up with the regulator. What kind of puerile nonsense is this? It is an insult to the House and I demand that this sort of behaviour should stop.

I agree with Senator Fitzgerald about the symphysiotomy situation. It is appalling. It is a cruel, barbarous and inappropriate treatment. I was shocked to hear on both programmes that it was motivated by sectarian religious impulses and I would like to know a little more about that. If it is true, it needs to be explored further and exposed. I would like to know more about Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda. Every time there is a scandal or a risk to health it seems to be at the centre of it. Why? Let us have an inquiry into that.

I was not impressed by the representative of the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Some years ago, it was asked by the same Minster for a report. It gave one page which was as contemptuous as the way in which this House was treated last night. It dismissed everything, and it was incorrect for it to do so. It was wrong about it. This operation has not been current in any other European country since 1944 and since the discovery of sulphonamide drugs. It is practised sometimes in sub-Saharan Africa in the bush because of difficulties such as a lack of medical supervision and so on. It is appalling to think that 1,500 operations were carried out. It is not a matter of one or two operations. It was a deliberate and consistent practice which was known and ignored by the professional body and now we are sending it back to them. They are not fit to be charged with this. It should be a fully independent inquiry. Every spokesperson on both programmes defended the practice in some-----