David Norris (Independent)

I strongly support this two amendments, which are very important. If the amendments are not agreed I will call for a vote, and if such is granted I will vote against the entire Bill. I will do so because there is something profoundly undemocratic about what would happen today without these amendments. I say this for a number of reasons. There is a clear wish on the part of patients that this service be retained. Those campaigning for St. Luke's are very rational, reasonable and moderate in their demands. The principal demand I have come across is the idea that people should listen to patients, and as a result of the patient's views, St. Luke's should at least be retained as a satellite hospital.

I know St. James's Hospital to be excellent as I was a patient there for a while because of medical silliness. An investigative operation went wrong and I was given the benefit of septicemia. I cannot speak highly enough for the care I received and it is a teaching hospital of Trinity College, where I used to work. I have the highest regard for it and the staff working there.

I wonder how appropriate it is to concentrate all the work done historically in St. Luke's - it has a very special place in the hearts and minds of people not just in Dublin but around the country - in St. James's Hospital. A new building will be required, which will be fairly tall. People will no doubt have the kind of comfortable accommodation I eventually received in St. James's Hospital but that is not the same as what one would get in St. Luke's.

If one is considering an holistic approach to medicine, it is interesting to note what so many people have commented on to me. In St. Luke's, extended families could stay in the facility or visit easily. The patients could enjoy the health-giving surroundings and wonderful gardens. This may sound sentimental but it is not because the state of mind of a cancer patient is extremely important.

There is also the risk of cross-infection. Senator Prendergast raised - as I had intended - the question of cystic fibrosis and the moving accounts given by several people in the newspapers recently, particularly Ms Orla Tinsley, on the issue. For five years, Ms Tinsley has been promised the development of a special 24-bed unit but at the moment people like her must endure being placed in a ward with other decent patients - she does not criticise such people - but some of them are in a pretty feeble state, incontinent or with wandering minds. They have different diseases and Ms Tinsley and others have described their experiences as like being forced to sleep in a public lavatory, and there is a serious risk of cross-infection.

All of us have been touched in some measure by cancer and we all know that after chemotherapy or radiation therapy, a significant impact is the reduction in the effectiveness of the immune system, leaving people open to infection. That can be extremely dangerous. Will the Minister of State respect the views of the patients? Will he understand and respect the fact that the patients, their families and supporters have raised €26 million? To a certain extent, the ownership of the hospital, at least morally, is vested in them.

Is it the intention to dispose of the land, as this has been happening all over the place and people are being forced from nursing homes on ridiculous and specious arguments about health and safety concerns that involve nothing more than a lick of paint? Such action occurs so land and planned facilities can be sold to realise money for the central Exchequer. My concern is that this will ultimately be a fund-raising exercise so will the Minister of State address what will happen to the money that may be raised from the possible sale of the hospital and its grounds?

In addition to the €26 million raised, a petition was handed in at Leinster House last Wednesday containing 150,000 signatures, which is a massive vote by the ordinary people, whose representatives we are, against this unqualified move and in favour of, at the very least, the two amendments put before us. The first amendment is in the name of Senator Frances Fitzgerald and the Fine Gael Party. It deals with the modest requirement that any review of services and alteration in the use of land and buildings should be laid before the Oireachtas. That is accountability, and this Government has quite rightly preached to us about openness, transparency and accountability.

The second amendment is in the names of Labour Party Members. It deletes part of the Bill and includes instead a proscription preventing the Minister disposing of any land or buildings except in a manner informed and determined by the executive, with the consent of the Minister, which must contain medical services related to the treatment of cancer. I have no difficulty in strongly supporting these amendments.

I will, with regret, be forced to call for a vote if these are not accepted and have to vote against the Bill. I do not like doing so because I like to vote in favour of positive and progressive measures in health and treatment sectors. I do not see this Bill as such without the amendments put down by my colleagues.