Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

We all know that we need a national maternity hospital. With respect to the Minister of State, with whom I have discussed this matter before, that is not the question. I am quite concerned by references to misinformation. What we are hearing again and again are simple assurances and reminders that we need a hospital but, in fact, the information related to this matter has been very concrete and real. It is written down in negotiating texts, in the Constitution and in documents that have come from the Sisters of Charity and other organisations. A pile of evidence is building up. This is not a matter of who wants to show they care about women's healthcare. This is about the very real, concrete evidence of the dangers we face if we move ahead with the model suggested.

On the timeline of this project, I spoke about this issue in my very first year here in the Seanad. As the Minister of State acknowledged to me previously on the floor of the House, the Mulvey report is outdated. It comes from a time before the referendum to repeal the eighth amendment and a very different fiscal time. The State now has access to funding that we did not have at that time. We are in a very different context and the Mulvey report is not adequate and not acceptable as regards the idea of undue influence.

The debate must now move on to how to ensure State ownership of this site. Will it be acquired via CPO or will the church and the Sisters of Charity gift that site to the State? Those are the only questions. People talk about delay. Campaigners and consultants such as Dr. Peter Boylan, who has done incredible and detailed work on this issue for years, asked that the State start the CPO process four years ago so we would be much further along if they had been listened to at that time. They should not be blamed for any delay. Let us be clear: most of the delay since 2016 has been in waiting for the Pope to write back to us. That is what we were waiting for; a letter from the Vatican. That was the delay. The delay now is due to the complex negotiations and the fact that the Government is spending years in rooms negotiating with St. Vincent's Healthcare Group. If it is negotiating for years with that group and the Sisters of Charity, that is for a reason. Those reasons have been made very clear by the Sisters of Charity and were made clear again this week. They said they will not sell the land because they want to have clinical consistency.If we all operate under the same rules and healthcare laws in the State, why do they need to have an extra layer of control? We know we have co-location of other public and private hospitals. Why can this not be the case? Are they telling us they will not be able to work with the public hospital? This in itself raises questions.

The key is that we know what the law is. We do not suggest they will break the law but there is a lot of room for interpretation. We know that, for example, when we were debating the eighth amendment, at a time when people could only get an abortion if they were going to die, how that might have been interpreted varyingly from place to place. It is about the services people want and are entitled to. It is not just that there might be three abortions in a year for people at death's door or that there may be one or two circumstances. It is not about having a national maternity hospital that simply does what it must do because the law makes it but having a national maternity hospital that leads the way, that embraces and is driven, and that has as its only priority women's rights and women's health services and not the interests of a private holding company, whatever they may be.

The arguments do not stand up and nor does the idea that we would be negotiating again in 150 years. We have read there is a lien on the site. This might be why it cannot be compulsorily purchased. There is nothing to stop there being a greater lien on the site in 100 years. The independent board can pile up the mortgages on the site. Here is the thing. The arguments do not stand up but, most importantly, we should not need to have this argument. We should not be condemning for another 100 years women in Ireland to further arguments or to complex power plays in the board of the national maternity hospital about who is on it this decade and who is on it that decade to inquire into the details. There should be no more arguments and there should be State ownership.