Feargal Quinn (Independent)

The Minister of State is welcome. This Bill presents a great deal of difficulty. On many occasions recently, I visited two relatives in hospital, one in St. James's Hospital and one in St. Luke's Hospital, on the same day. The relative in St. Luke's Hospital did not live; the relative in St. James's Hospital is alive and well. I was reminded of the contrast between the two hospitals. I am a great believer in centres of excellence. I believe the policy of developing centres of excellence is correct. However, I am not convinced of the merits of bringing patients from St. Luke's Hospital to the busy hustle and bustle of St. James's Hospital. Although patient treatment is very good at St. James's Hospital, there is a difference between the manner in which the requirements of cancer patients are met there and at St. Luke's Hospital. St. James's Hospital is a very busy hospital. I am sure the medical care provided there is excellent, but it does not have anything like the calmness and serenity of the 18 acres of St. Luke's Hospital. While I support the concept of centres of excellence, I also support the view that St. Luke's Hospital must be allowed to continue, in whatever form is required.

An old Irish seanfhocal, éist le fuaim na habhann agus gheobhaidh tú bradán, which means "listen to the sound of the river and you will catch a salmon", is a great reminder of the importance of listening. In this instance, not only should we listen to the patients in St. Luke's Hospital, but we should also listen to the experts. I appreciate that the Minister for Health and Children employed experts to examine a number of hospitals. Earlier today, I saw some of the figures they produced after they had engaged in one-off examinations of certain hospitals five years ago. It is amazing that St. Luke's Hospital did not get what would be regarded as an acceptable recognition from its patients. It runs contrary to my entire understanding of the hospital that it was ranked in a much lower position on the list than it might otherwise have been. I suggest that much has changed in the intervening five years. Much more is required if we are to meet the challenges involved in the treatment of cancer in the years ahead. I have seen figures which predict that the number of cancer patients requiring treatment of this nature will increase by 50%, from 28,000 to 42,000, between now and 2020. Those people will need the services of the 500 staff who are employed in St. Luke's Hospital at present. We cannot do without the incredible experience and expertise of the staff in question.

I take the point that is made in the amendments before the House. Senator Feeney has suggested that we should provide for ring-fencing. We should all accept that the grounds of St. Luke's Hospital, like the expertise that has been built up at the hospital, must not be lost. These facilities should continue to be used for cancer care. If the hospital is not developed as the centre of excellence - I understand the centre might be required somewhere else - it should be maintained as a centre for the treatment of cancer patients. These 18 acres need to continue to serve as a valuable haven in this city for people who are suffering from cancer. We must not lose them. I have no problem with supporting entirely any amendment that proposes that this hospital should continue to be involved in cancer treatment. Just as it has achieved so much in the past, it can continue to achieve so much in the future alongside the centre of excellence at St. James's Hospital. It is time to renew our thinking to ascertain whether we have made the right decision. I urge the Minister of State to accept amendments Nos. 1 and 2, which are worthy of acceptance and represent the correct direction in which to go.