I will check with the Department. I can certainly confirm that I did seek such advice.
On prevailing side: this member voted with the winning side in 646 of 653 decisive votes (4 abstentions excluded). Read it as a government-or-opposition indicator rather than a measure of influence — the figure is near 100% for members supporting the government of the day and near 0% for those opposing it.
This is the point of the site: contributions keep the party held on the day, not the one held now.
| Party | Recorded as | Contributions | Period |
|---|---|---|---|
| FF | Fianna Fáil | 2,703 | 2020-03-05 – 2024-11-07 |
Membership spells on record: IND 2011-02-25–2015-07-15 · SD 2015-07-15–2016-03-09 · SD 2016-03-10–2016-09-04 · IND 2016-09-05–2017-02-01 · FF 2017-02-02–2020-01-14 · FF 2020-02-08–2024-11-08
I will check with the Department. I can certainly confirm that I did seek such advice.
What is not a good starting point?
It is certainly relevant. For example, there is very close co-operation between the Rotunda Hospital and the Mater Misericordiae University Hospital and between the Coombe Women and Infant University Hospital and St. James's Hospital and, potentially, Tallaght University Hospital as well. It is quite regular for there to be co-operation between major adult teaching hospitals and maternity hospitals.
No, I think cases could be made. For example, the Rotunda Hospital has a very close working relationship with the Mater Hospital and, in the same way that critically ill women are moved from Holles Street to Elm Park, critically ill women are moved under blue light from the Rotunda Hospital to the Mater Hospital, yet the proposal that has been in place for many years for the Rotunda Hospital is to move it out to Blanchardstown and co-locate it with Connolly Hospital.
Yes.
No, I would not. It is a very sensible extra layer of protection.
The constitution explicitly obliges the new hospital to provide all services and to do so without any religious ethos. In the context of our country's history regarding women's reproductive health, having an extra layer where the State, via the Minister for Health, has this very broad power to intervene and compel the hospital to do what it is meant to do is a good thing. In fact, I would like to see it in other voluntary hospitals, to be honest.
The Deputy has made a lot of accusations. She and I have worked together on the Joint Committee on Health for many years and I hold her in high esteem. Just for clarity, can I ask if her comments about being "gaslit by men in suits" pertain to me?
Not only do I acknowledge it, but I acknowledged it clearly in my opening statement, in many interviews I have given and at the health committee yesterday. I ask the Deputy to accept that in good faith.
I apologise, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
That is a very fair question, and one that is being asked repeatedly. The advice I have from the legal team, to which I posed exactly the same question, is that for lawyers and clinicians, the phrase “clinically appropriate” is a normal phrase used all the time. It is used in every hospital, on every ward and by every clinician. The legal team told me that in the same way that it would not define "obstetrics", "gynaecology" or "neonatal", for example, “clinically appropriate” was in that category. However, if I may…
I just want to clarify this point. The Deputy said I am not prepared to provide a definition. I am, through debate and also very clearly in writing to the health committee.
I accept that point and Deputy Shortall asked a reasonable question. I want to listen carefully to the contributions of the Deputy and all colleagues. I will then reflect on those. I agree with the Deputy and other colleagues. Deputy Cullinane and others have said it and Deputy Duncan Smith may have said it as well. For people watching this debate who are coming from a baseline of mistrust for real and legitimate reasons, we need to address those concerns. As I said, I am not ruling anything out. I want to listen t…
I am not a lawyer but I would not regard that as a substantial change.
I do not believe adding a definition would be a substantial change at all. On the Deputy’s first question as to why I could commit now and yesterday to write to the health committee, it is because that is immediately within my gift. However, any changes to legal documents that have multiple parties involved would require consultation and other conversation. I am not in a position to commit to that. However, I certainly can commit to providing a definition directly to the health committee and indeed to all colleague…
I do not, but there may be lawyers who do.
Do I have time to respond?
I am not only seeking to be pleasant. I absolutely accept the validity of the concerns that are being raised.
What I have said is that I cannot commit to changes to legal documents here. I know the Deputy appreciates that. What I can commit to is reflecting on exactly this and seeing if there is more to be done, including exactly what the Deputy has laid out. I am, of course, already reflecting on this, what was said at the health committee yesterday-----
----and on the wider public debate.