Bríd Smith criticises hospital plan, warns of religious control
Bríd Smith criticised a government plan to place a new publicly funded maternity hospital under the control of a private company linked to a religious order and raised concerns about omissions in the minister's statement. She challenged the absence of female government members from the debate, questioned a dropped lease detail and called for state ownership under Solange Care.
Absence of women
She opened by noting that not a single female member of the three government parties was present to defend the policy, suggesting it was inappropriate that women from those parties were not in the debate and saying at least one or two should have attended.
Questions on lease and ownership
Smith said the minister's statement offered nothing new and highlighted a missing reference to a 99-year lease that had been reported as increased to a 299-year lease. She described a complex structure - from one voluntary hospital to another, from staff who work in both, from a holding company to a subsidiary - and noted the claim that the arrangement would be wholly owned, ultimately, by the Sisters of Charity even though the nuns have resigned from the board.
Religious influence and historical context
She warned against potential religious influence, invoking around 200 years of Church control and the legacy of Magdalene Laundries and illicit adoptions linked to the St Patrick Guild. Smith said the history of Church authority over women made the issue especially sensitive and questioned the use of the term "undue influence" in the minister's statement.
Funding, control and Solange Care
Smith argued that the State would pay wages, maintenance and running costs while control would rest with a private company, saying taxpayers would fund a new, state-of-the-art maternity hospital yet not own or run it. She said the arrangement conflicted with the goals of Solange Care and called for a break from mixed voluntary and religious models in favour of state ownership and control.
Health professionals and COVID concerns
She referenced a letter from 52 frontline professionals and criticised the minister for not responding to calls from the INMO to reintroduce masking amid hospital COVID concerns. Smith said she had seen "huge holes" in the statement and expressed disappointment that opposition scrutiny had gained no ground in the debate.
We publish thousands of recordings to make Irish politics transparent and resistant to manipulation. Spotted an error? Report it — together we are building a reliable archive of Irish politics.
Look, something intrigues me, and this is not to insult anybody, but I am intrigued that there's not a single female member of the three government parties here to talk about this issue. Not a single one. Now, they might all have to go home and mind the kids, I don't know, but I think it would have been appropriate for at least one or two of them to be here to defend this issue, because it would have been appropriate because it's government policy to impose this new structure, this government policy to impose this structure on us. And there are women in the government parties, they should be here to defend this position. That's the first thing I want to just observe. The second thing I want to observe is, Minister Donnelly, your statement is extraordinary. We have been pulling teeth to get this statement here today, pulling teeth literally, all of us here in the opposition, repeatedly asking for time for time to debate this, and we get nothing new in it, except omissions. Where have you dropped the 99-year lease that you then announced was increased to 299-year lease on the land? That seems to be gone from the historical record. Why is that? I am really intrigued by this question, because all of this convoluted, complex way of doing business from one voluntary hospital to the other, from staff that work in both, from a holding company to a subsidiary, wholly owned, ultimately by the Sisters of Charity, but yet the nuns have resigned from the board, and they have nothing to do with it, and we have nothing to worry about. And we are all a bit hysterical anyway, aren't we? We are all a bit, oh, over the top and hysterical and worried. I wonder why? I wonder has it anything, anything at all to do with around 200 years of oppression and control by the Church, of our bodies, our lives, and the hopes that we had held for the future for women and girls in this country after appeal was won? Has it anything to do with that? Isn't it bizarre that you, on the other side of the house, find us niggling and annoying because we keep asking this, because we look for this debate? And then you come in and you don't even explain to us how this whole process is working. And we will come out of here believing at the end of it, as will the people in the gallery, that you intend to hand over a billion euros worth of taxpayers' money in a new maternity, state-of-the-art hospital, with the best facilities and all the rest of it, into the control of a religious order. A religious order who has a legacy in this state of running Magdalene Laundries and having illegal adoptions through the St Patrick Guild. Now, has it anything to do with history? Has it anything to do with the position of women for decades in this country? And shame on you, were you still sitting up beside me there when we had to share the same role when you were in that position? You'd be saying exactly the same thing now, but you've completely done a U-turn on your position on it. And I do want to make reference to one line here in your statement. You say, secondly, to prevent any undue influence, religious or otherwise. Why don't you just say to prevent any influence, any religious influence in its totality? Why are you sticking in the word undue? My undue mightn't be your undue. I really am suspicious of what's going on here. And I also really resent the idea that you spend all your time listening to those on the front line. Respect and all to the 52 professionals that wrote to you, but you must listen to them, because they are the professionals. You've had nothing to say in response to the INMO call today for reintroduction of masking in order to prevent the situation in the hospitals with COVID getting out of control. I haven't heard a single statement from you. If you're the one that listens to the nurses and the doctors all the time, why aren't you responding? Why aren't you responding to that? I'm not just looking to pick holes in it, but there are a huge amount of holes, and I haven't got time to go through them all in your statement. We are bitterly disappointed that we haven't gained an inch of ground in this whole debacle. But finally, I want to make this point. Whatever about the nuns, and there is a really serious case there to be answered of the religious influence, undue or otherwise. Whatever about the nuns, what you are doing is you're handing the future of a maternity hospital publicly funded. The wages and the maintenance and the running of the hospital will be paid for by Jo Blog's taxpayer and Josephine Blog's taxpayer. You're handing it over to a private company. Now, does that not fly in the face of Solange Care? Does it not fly in the face of the future of all our health services in this country? We have made huge mistakes by having combinations of voluntary, religious run, and all sorts of machinations. What we fundamentally need to do now is to make a break, and now is the opportunity, make a break, separate church and state, and have the state own, run and control the new National Maternity Hospital. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Tiffany. No.
Thank you for downloading 🙏
If you publish this material on social media, we would be very grateful if you tagged VideoParliament. It helps us reach more people and keep building a transparent archive of Irish politics.
