“We cannot even get guarantees there will not be religious iconography on the walls” – Deputy Duncan Smith on Government plans for the new maternity hospital.
This was the third such motion in seven months to come before the House. As Deputy Duncan Smith (Lab) observed, “this debate would not be happening in any of our sister democracies in Europe”. He criticised the Government’s decision not to oppose the motion while not supporting it. Not saying it or not putting it to a vote, he said, was “a dishonest way of putting forward that Government position”.
Frustration at the democratic deficit on this issue was palpable at times. Supporting the motion, Deputy Catherine Connolly said: “if that [delay] is the strongest reason the Tánaiste can come up with for not using a compulsory purchase order on the site, it is totally unacceptable…All we want is for the Government of the day to listen to the overwhelming voices of the people in the Dáil on behalf of the people of Ireland who say enough is enough”. She described Minister Donnelly’s speech, read out by the Minister of State at the Department of Health, as “an insult to the women of Ireland”.
If that [delay] is the strongest reason the Tánaiste can come up with for not using a compulsory purchase order on the site, it is totally unacceptable…
Deputy Duncan Smith said: “nobody has convinced anybody in this House, including people on the Government benches, that the new national maternity hospital will be free from religious ethos … No guarantees have been given on that”. Illustrating just how thin the ice is on this particular government skating rink, he added: “we cannot even get guarantees there will not be religious iconography on the walls, as there currently is in the National Maternity Hospital”.
Deputy Duncan Smith said: “nobody has convinced anybody in this House, including people on the Government benches, that the new national maternity hospital will be free from religious ethos…”.
Deputy Roisin Shortall (Social Democrats) skewered claims that there would be no religious ethos in the new maternity hospital. ‘The constitution and the operational values of the hospital are intended to be based on the original values and ethos of the Religious Sisters of Charity.”. She anticipated a “major problem” relating to “the curtailment of services” in the new facility, and said that where jobs had been advertised by St Vincent’s Healthcare Group, there was “a requirement to follow the religious ethos of the [Group’s] owners”.
The constitution and the operational values of the hospital are intended to be based on the original values and ethos of the Religious Sisters of Charity.
Deputy Duncan Smith emphasised the “massive risk” the Government was taking, post-Repeal, in driving forward the plan to build the maternity hospital on land owned by the Religious Sisters of Charity: “the Government is going down the path of least resistance, taking a gamble at a time when we are four years on from repealing the Eighth Amendment and we still have women having to travel”. In his view, “there is a critical mass within the Government that knows this [full State ownership of the new facility] is the right thing to do. The Government is not doing it”.
The project, he underlined, is fraught with uncertainty: “even the clinicians in favour of the move to Elm Park know they cannot provide these guarantees [of freedom from religious ethos] … They have said it to us”.
Even the clinicians in favour of the move to Elm Park know they cannot provide these guarantees [of freedom from religious ethos] … They have said it to us.
Deputy Thomas Pringle (Ind) zoned in on the operational control of the new hospital, saying he was “completely opposed” to St Vincent’s Healthcare Group or “any other religious or private group” running it. “The possibility of the Catholic ethos overriding legislation is very concerning”.
Minister of State at the Department of Health, Deputy Anne Rabbitte told the House the Government was “very aware” of the “concerns voiced” that “centre on the ownership and clinical independence of the new hospital”. She stated that the “draft legal framework” aimed “to copper-fasten these arrangements”. How was left hanging.
Deputy David Cullinane was of the view it was “reckless to proceed with building a hospital when the State will not own the land”. He assured the Minister that his (the Minister’s) assurances that there would be no “religious interference” in the new hospital were “not good enough”. Describing St Vincent’s as “a proxy organisation for the Religious Sisters of Charity”, Deputy Mick Barry asked a rhetorical question: “is the Government seriously considering allowing the site to remain in the ownership of this proxy organisation?”.
Deputy Shortall asked a question the Government has yet to answer: “why would the State fund a hospital to the tune of €800 million and hand it over to a religious organisation?”. She highlighted the requirement under the public spending code for business cases to be prepared. “Those business cases have not yet been prepared. There is a difficulty in preparing them because this does not stack up financially. The HSE’s own audit and risk committee has turned down this proposal on six different occasions. This proposal stinks on a number of fronts”, she concluded.
Why would the State fund a hospital to the tune of €800 million and hand it over to a religious organisation?
Summing up, Deputy Joan Collins quoted Dr Peter Boylan on ownership of the land as the “key issue” that determines “clinical independence and appropriate governance”, protects against “inappropriate religious ethos”, and safeguards the State’s investment.
A no-brainer. But the Government is not for turning.
Marie O’Connor
