David Cullinane
Waterford · Sinn Féin · Ireland
“I met many of those patients and people with the illness yesterday. Many of them were here in Leinster House. They told me, as they have in the past, they cannot walk and they cannot swallow and, as the Taoiseach acknowledged, it is also very difficult for their families who have to watch as their condition worsens and the disease progres…”
“In fact, in the programme for Government the Government committed to reviewing that process because it was accepted it does not always work. The technical review group obviously now needs to be convened and needs to meet urgently. Emily cannot afford more delays.”
“Yesterday, as the Taoiseach knows, the HSE drugs group met to consider reimbursement of Skyclarys, the first approved treatment that can slow the progression of Friedreich's ataxia. Patients hoped for a positive decision. This process has been ongoing for years.”
“They were left desperately making phone calls, checking for updates, asking journalists and asking politicians if they had heard anything. They were treated appallingly. Then, when the news did eventually filter though, they were left devastated.”
“Richard Walsh, consultant neurologist and co-director of the National Ataxia Clinic, has described this drug as a ground-breaking development. He has said that he would prescribe it if it were available in Ireland and that it may reduce the rate of disease progression.”
“"We are not going to regain any of the abilities we've lost, but Skyclarys will give us time. Time when you're dealing with our progressive relentless disease is everything. We all deserve time with our loved ones." Those are the words of Emily Felix, a 28-year-old trainee solicitor from Kilkenny who is living with Friedreich's ataxia.”
The complete record
Every one of 786 lines we hold for David Cullinane, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 16.
“We have all recognised in law and policy that women should have access to abortion services in the first trimester on the basis of their own free choice. This is the compassionate position put before the people in 2018 and it is the basis on which services have been provided since. Sinn Féin has tabled a targeted Bill to remove the mandatory three-day wait. We think that this Bill strikes the right balance. It is the right change to make. It respects women's decisions. It removes an unnecessary barrier to care. Removing the mandatory three-day wait does not provide remove a woman's ability to take more time if she wants to. That option will always remain open to her, and rightly so. Our Bill removes the requirement that the State must force every woman to wait, regardless of her circumstances, decision, health or needs.”
“It simply makes access harder, especially for women in difficult circumstances, whether they are victims of coercive control or domestic violence, rape or sexual assault or simply find out about their pregnancy too late and face timing out of access to care due to the mandatory wait. It particularly puts women who are subject to controlling or abusive partners and are from marginalised backgrounds in a difficult position because the first appointment may be the only appointment they get. The clear feedback from women and the review of the Act was that some women were also being pushed beyond the 12-week threshold by the three-day wait, which denied them their choice to end the pregnancy. We have always said that when it comes to personal decisions such as abortion, we need to trust and support women when they are making these decisions.”
“The Bill seeks to remove the requirement for two medical opinions for access to a termination on risk to life or health grounds, to allow access following consultation with a single practitioner and to require the Minister to, within six months, issue guidelines to provide clarity to medical professionals in carrying out procedures under risk to life or health in an emergency and a condition likely to lead to the death of a foetus grounds. Finally, the Bill seeks to require a further operational review of the Act within three years. As I have set out, Sinn Féin supports removing the three-day wait for access to abortion services and replacing it with a right to a reflection period. We never supported the three-day wait. This waiting period does not provide care.”
“That is not grounded in the O'Shea report and the review of the Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act. The Bill further proposes to remove clinical provisions for medical practitioners who knowingly and wilfully provide abortions, access to terminations or advice on terminations which are outside the scope of the Act and which are, and would remain, illegal in this State. The Bill proposes to require practitioners or health professionals who are conscientious objectors to ensure access to abortions in an emergency. This is already provided for in the Act where there is an emergency threat to the life of the mother. This amendment, at best, seems to be redundant.”
“The Minister for Health and the Taoiseach need to step up and implement the findings of the review. The Minister should bring forward a progress report on the consideration and implementation of the recommendations of the review. Moving to the Bill before us, I note it proposes to remove the three-day wait, instead obliging doctors to inform a woman of her right to a reflection period, to be exercised at the woman's discretion, and I support that. The Bill proposes to replace the death within 28 days prognosis-based definition for a condition likely to lead to the death of the foetus, otherwise known as fatal foetal abnormality, with an open to interpretation, circular and untested definition, namely "that there is present a fatal condition affecting the foetus".”
“Only 10% to 15% of GPs provide early medical termination services, which means fewer than ten GPs in some counties as of early last year. The review recommended a geospatial analysis of services to identify the biggest gaps. I am not aware of the Department ever conducting or publishing such a review. Maybe it exists and the Minister might come back to me on that. The review provided 75 recommendations to be worked through. Most do not require legislative change. It is important that the House receives an update on the steps the Minister is taking to improve services, to ensure access to services through community providers and to ensure hospital-based services are accessible in a timely manner. The Oireachtas did not intend for the Government to carry out a review and leave it on a shelf.”
“It highlighted serious imbalances in access to care, significant geographic variation in access to services, the underdevelopment of regional services and barriers such as the three-day wait. My priority is that the services which were voted for and endorsed by the people in 2018 are fully operational and accessible to all women. Women should be able to access the services which were voted for democratically, yet there are still barriers for access for many, as identified in the review. There is a postcode lottery in access to care. One of the biggest barriers identified in the review was a lack of GPs providing access to early medical terminations and the fact that regional centres and multidisciplinary teams are not fully operational. This creates a postcode lottery in access to care.”
“We are also concerned by proposals to decriminalise medical practitioners who knowingly and wilfully act illegally beyond the scope of the Act. We have a long history in this country of scandals in women's healthcare. The law is the law and medical practitioners should not be given carte blanche to act outside of the law. I want to address each of these points and the other provisions in the Bill in turn. The provision of termination of pregnancy services was endorsed by the Irish people by referendum, with a clear picture of what those services would look like. The Act was put in place with a clear understanding that the legislation underpinning these services would continue to be reviewed for operational effectiveness. The review of the operation of the Act was published three years ago.”
“I welcome the opportunity to debate the shortcomings in abortion services in Ireland. My priority is access for women to the services which were voted for and endorsed by the people in 2018 and the too many barriers which remain. One of those barriers is the three-day wait. Sinn Féin supports removing the three-day wait. We never supported the three-day wait in the first place. We have tabled legislation to remove the three-day wait and have always been clear that this waiting period does not provide care or support or make the service safer. Rather, it simply makes access harder. We do, however, have significant concerns about the proposed new definition of a condition likely to lead to the death of the foetus, which is not grounded in the recommendations of the review of the Act and ignore the intention of a clear and tight definition.”
“I commend the Bill to the House, and note that we intend to move this Bill on Second Stage when we get an opportunity to do so.”
“I thank the Bills Office for its swift facilitation of this Bill, which I am introducing as soon as possible following the Ard-Fheis, as mandated by our party membership. The Bill strikes the right balance. It is the right change to make. It is overdue. It respects women’s decisions and it removes an unnecessary barrier to care. There are many other issues that these Houses should and must work through arising from the review of the Act. It raised many issues that we have to carefully work through, which will take some time. While that work is being done, there is no cause for delay the passage of this Bill. The review of the Act was clear. The view of women who have used abortion services is clear. The mandatory wait is a barrier, and it should be removed.”
“For many women, having to return days later is not a small inconvenience. It can be a very serious barrier. Removing the mandatory waiting period does not mean that a termination must take place on the first day. It does not remove a woman’s ability to take more time if that is what she wants. If she does, all of the supports should be made available to the woman at that point. That option should and will always remain for women. What this Bill does is remove the requirement that the State must force every woman to wait, regardless of her circumstances, her decision, her health or her needs. The Bill clearly sets out the Sinn Féin policy that was endorsed at our Ard-Fheis a fortnight ago.”
“This was the compassionate position put before the people in 2018, which I and many in this House supported, and it is the basis on which services have been provided since. The question before us now is whether the State should continue to impose an arbitrary delay after a woman has made her decision and presented to a doctor. I do not believe that it should. The waiting period does not provide care. It does not provide support. It does not make the service safer. It simply makes access harder and more difficult, especially for those who can least afford delay. It can create real difficulty for women - women who have travelled long distances, women arranging time off work or childcare, women in crisis or women living with coercive, controlling partners or domestic violence.”
“My party has always been clear and consistent that we did not approve of the mandatory waiting period, that it put women in difficult positions and that it was not compassionate to women who had suffered rape or sexual assault, women who learned of their pregnancy late or women who are subject to controlling or abusive partners, for whom that first appointment may be the only appointment they can get. The three-day wait has long been recognised as unnecessary. It was examined as part of the review of the operation of the Act. Its removal was one of the clearest recommendations arising from that process. We have all recognised, in law and in policy, that a woman should have access to abortion services in the first trimester on the basis of her own free choice.”
“Our Bill deletes that requirement. It allows certification to take place as soon as may be, but before the pregnancy has exceeded 12 weeks. This is important because the clear feedback from women and the review of the principal Act was that some women were being pushed beyond the 12-week threshold by the three-day wait, which denied them their choice to end a pregnancy. This is not a complicated proposal. It is a focused, practical and compassionate change.”
“I move: That leave be granted to introduce a Bill entitled an Act to amend the Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act 2018 to abolish the mandatory three day wait rule for access to a termination of pregnancy. This is a straightforward and targeted Bill. It does just one thing. It proposes to remove the mandatory three-day wait for access to an abortion during early pregnancy. It does not require an abortion to happen on the day of a first consultation, but where a woman is certain that this is what she wants, it allows her to make that decision for herself in her own time about her own pregnancy without a mandatory delay. Under the current law, where a woman attends a doctor seeking a termination of pregnancy within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, the doctor cannot certify the procedure until three days have passed.”
“Some €78 million was collected in car parking charges in hospitals over five years and a record €17.5 million was collected last year. In 2018, Simon Harris was so concerned about hospital car parking charges that he promised a review and that action would be taken. Here we are in 2026 and no action was taken. In fact, hospital car parking charges have increased. The programme for Government gave a commitment to examine again reducing the cost of car parking charges at hospitals but it simply has not happened. We have seen them go up and up. It varies from hospital to hospital and site to site. Where is the programme for Government? Why is it taking so long for any action to be taken? Patients who have recurrence and repeat appointments and people who visit sick people in hospitals are paying more and more. It is not fair.”
“People at risk of harm cannot be left waiting any longer for legal protection. Every time there is one of these scandals, we end up having statements in this House. Sometimes there are crocodile tears and we all say this should never have happened, but it has happened again. We do not have the legislative framework to ensure that at an organisational level, people can be held to account whether in nursing homes or disability centres. For far too long, unfortunately, I have been raising these issues. It all comes back to the same failures. If the law does not exist, the protections are not in place. While these failures obviously rest with abusers or those responsible for neglect, there is also a responsibility on the State if we do not have the proper legal architecture. That is why we are introducing this Bill.”
“This legislation would protect older people, people in care facilities, people with disabilities and adults at risk in their own homes and communities - our friends, sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, cousins, colleagues and loved ones. The Bill would ensure perpetrators, those who cover up abuse and those who cut budgets or impose policies without regard for the consequences can face real criminal consequences. There is an urgent need for the Oireachtas to act against adult abuse, neglect, coercion and exploitation. This is about protecting people and accountability. I ask the Ministers for Health and justice to engage with us and the experts on this Bill before Second Stage. My office will be in touch with their respective offices. I hope they will engage in a constructive manner and see if we can get the Bill supported and implemented.”
“They have been exposed not by the Government or at times by people in the HSE but by families, social workers, regulator, the media and whistleblowers, and yet the Government has failed to put proper adult safeguarding laws in place. Families, social workers, advocates and Opposition TDs have been calling for a comprehensive adult safeguarding law for years. This Bill is a first step. The Bill was drafted by the Law Reform Commission following extensive and deep engagement with a wide range of stakeholders. The Bill would create stand-alone criminal offences for those who abuse, neglect, coerce or exploit adults. Similar protections were introduced for children more than ten years ago. In my view, they have worked.”
“I move: That leave be granted to introduce a Bill entitled an Act to provide for offences committed against adults whose ability to guard themselves against violence, exploitation or abuse, whether physical, sexual or emotional, or against neglect by another person is significantly impaired; and to provide for related matters. We have all heard the horror stories - Áras Attracta, Lees Cross, the treatment of Grace, failures in home care and care homes, and the indefensible failures in the Brandon case. A simple question is always asked: who is held accountable? Time and again devastating failures have been exposed in care facilities, at home and across society.”
“I support the call of my colleague, Councillor Catherine Burke, for Waterford City and County Council and, indeed, the Comeragh district to write to the National Transport Authority to lobby the Minister for Transport. I am appealing to the Minister to do what he can to raise these issues with the relevant Ministers to make sure those rural communities in Waterford get the Local Link services they deserve.”
“It is about equality, independence, inclusion and ensuring people living in villages and rural communities and areas are not cut off because they do not drive or cannot afford a car, or no longer feel able to drive. We cannot speak in this House about balanced regional development, climate action, reducing car dependency and tackling rural isolation while at the same time allowing essential rural transport projects to slip to 2027. Waterford needs these services now. People of Portlaw, Kilmacthomas, Mahon Bridge, Lemybrien and, I imagine, many more rural communities in Waterford, across the south east and across the State deserve certainty and not delay.”
“We do not have public transport, we have rising fuel costs, a Government that is not doing enough and these types of setbacks with Local Link services not being properly funded. My colleague, Councillor Catherine Burke, has been very clear on this and has described this delay as a major set back for Waterford and the Comeragh district in particular. She is right. This is not a minor inconvenience. It is about whether people can get to work, students can get to education, older people can remain connected and whether those without access to a car can attend medical appointments or reach basic services. I imagine the Minister agrees Local Link is a lifeline. In rural communities, public transport is not simply about convenience.”
“I acknowledge the consultation process on rural future policy. I raise the delay in funding for vital Local Link services in rural Waterford, particularly affecting Portlaw, Kilmacthomas, Mahon Bridge and Lemybrien. These services were expected under the National Transport Authority’s “Connecting Ireland” plan to be properly funded. However, communities in Waterford are now being told they may have to wait until 2027. This is a major setback for rural Waterford and communities which have waited long enough for proper public transport. My colleague, an Teachta Conor McGuinness, spoke earlier about the simmering anger in rural Ireland because of the dependency on the car.”
“We need to keep these products out of sight, behind the counter where adults who are trying to quit smoking can still access them but where they are not pushed in front of every person who walks into the shop. We need the HSE and enforcement authorities to up their game. The Minister of State should not reach for a blunt instrument where a more proportionate tool is available. This Bill contains a great deal that is necessary and overdue. I support those measures I outlined earlier but I cannot support the blanket ban on flavours. I have put forward what I believe is a much more proportionate path. That path is to protect children, to respect adults, to make sure that we reduce the incidence of smoking and vaping, and to keep public health policy anchored in common sense.”
“It sounds clean and decisive and there are times, of course, when a ban is the right approach. The sale of nicotine products to children should be banned. Aggressive marketing tactics aimed at children should be banned. Devices made to look like toys should be banned but the same logic does not justify banning all flavours except tobacco for adults. To reduce youth vaping we need effective age verification at the point of sale, backed up by strong penalties for those who break the rules. We need to ban the advertising of these products, ban child-focused packaging and stamp out the marketing tactics that prey on children and teenagers.”
“This Bill should start with a limited number of flavours and if after all the measures have been implemented we do not see progress, of course, we can always review what is being done. There is another practical problem with the Government's approach because flavoured vapes and components for mixing liquids at home are readily available online. They will continue to be available online, even if they are banned in this State. We can pass laws but we cannot legislate away the Internet. Therefore, a blanket ban is likely to inconvenience law-abiding adults and legitimate retailers while creating an opening for a black market which means unregulated, low quality and potentially unsafe products. I do not believe that is smart public health policy. A ban is always an easy tool to reach for.”
“It also requires acknowledgement of the very significant difference in harm between smoking and vaping, and it addresses the legitimate concern that childish, novelty-based flavouring systems can be used to target young people, because the reality is many adults who vape are also former smokers. The central public health question should always be whether policy helps move people away from smoking, which remains far more harmful, or whether it makes that transition more difficult. If we reduce vaping to tobacco flavour only, we may well reduce its appeals relative to cigarettes, and I think that is a real risk. If the effect of this measure is to push some people back towards smoking, or to stop some smokers switching in the first place, then that is a serious mistake.”
“It was far too slow to tackle aggressive youth-targeted marketing, and children were exposed to brightly coloured packaging, open retail displays and products designed to look like novelty items. We should not now pretend that every problem can be traced back to flavours alone. This brings me to what I believe should happen instead of what has been proposed by the Government. My position is that the range of flavours should be limited to a small number of standard flavours under purely descriptive names. This is what they have done in New Zealand where vape flavours must be from a list under seven categories. I think the list in New Zealand is a bit too long and I would support a very tight list of a handful of flavours. That is a proportionate alternative. We have to recognise the rights of adults to make decisions for themselves.”
“Anyone who sells vapes or cigarettes or nicotine products to children or who ignores age restrictions or breaks display rules or flouts advertising rules should, of course, face real and heavy consequences. I support the broader approach in the Bill because it is intended to future-proof regulation rather than forcing the State to scramble after every new product category that comes onto the market. Let us be honest about the problem we are trying to solve. There has been a sharp and a deeply worrying rise in vaping among young people, including many who never smoked and were never nicotine dependent before. That trend is real. It is serious and requires intervention but it also requires honesty about how we got here. The Government was far too slow to ban the sale of vapes to under-18s.”
“I support the restrictions on advertising and on point of sale display and putting these products behind the counter and out of sight in mixed-retail units. I support tighter controls on packaging, imagery, colours and device design, particularly where these things are clearly aimed at attracting children and teenagers. I support measures to stop the production and sale of devices that resemble toys or games or that are effectively gamified nicotine products. This is reprehensible and indefensible and it is, if we are being honest, a blatant attempt to hook children and young people and of course that should be stopped. I support stronger penalties and stronger enforcement powers. Laws mean very little if they cannot be enforced and we have been here before in different areas in relation to that.”
“It risks drawing people back into smoking, which is the most serious issue for me and that is a very strong message I have heard from vapers. This is where I have my disagreement with the Government. Let me be very clear on what I do support. I support the regulation of nicotine consumption products, including nicotine pouches. These products should not sit outside the law. They should be regulated and they should not be sold to children. I support the prohibition on the sale to under-18s. Children should not be able to buy nicotine products, end of story. That should not be controversial. What is controversial is that the Government was far too slow to act in the first place. It took years to ban the sale of vapes to children, or to ban colourful, single-use vapes.”
“This is not a minor issue as it goes to the heart of whether this legislation has struck the right balance between protecting children and respecting adults while also keeping sight of the central public health objective. Unfortunately, the Government has gone too far. The proposed flavour ban is an overreach into the personal decision of adults. It risks being counterproductive and enabling a black market where all of the products that we all want gone, including single-use vapes, the unsafe chemical products and the cheap imports from questionable manufacturers, will actually thrive. It reflects a simplistic view that vaping can be treated as though it is exactly the same as smoking, and that the answer to youth vaping is simply to strip vaping products of any appeal, regardless of the wider consequences.”
“However, one part of the Bill does not sit right with me and my colleagues for a number of reasons. This is the Government's proposed ban on all flavours except tobacco. I want to be very clear that I support regulating flavours. I support banning names and marketing tactics targeted at children. The Bill prohibits flavour descriptors and language other than basic flavour names for vapes, and I think this is the right approach. However, strangely, despite allowing for different flavours, only two flavours have been included in the draft Bill, namely, tobacco or unflavoured. In plain language, that means a ban on all vape flavours except tobacco.”
“It is important that nicotine pouches are regulated as tightly as cigarettes and vapes in terms of packaging, naming and advertising and, obviously, we will tease this out on Committee Stage. Second, the Bill strengthens controls around nicotine inhaling products or vapes. It tightens the rules on advertising, sale and display. It restricts colours and imagery on devices and packaging and toy-like vapes, and all of this I support. These are serious interventions and they are justified. Third, the Bill strengthens enforcement. It increases fines and penalties for breaches of tobacco control law. It includes provisions dealing with serious risk products, enforcement mechanisms and appeals. It also includes a review clause requiring the operation of the amendments to be reviewed within three years.”
“When I test the Bill against these principles, there is a great deal in it that I can support. However, there is one significant measure that goes too far and gets the balance wrong. That is the total ban on all flavours except tobacco, despite the Bill as drafted allowing for additional flavours. The Bill does a number of important things. First, it extends regulation beyond traditional tobacco and vaping products to include nicotine consumption products, such as nicotine pouches, including a ban on sales to under-18s. That is the right thing to do and it has taken too long to get here. These products have been developing in a grey area for too long. They carry a high risk of oral and gum diseases and it is beyond time that they should be regulated properly.”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Public Health, Tobacco Products and Nicotine Inhaling Products (Amendment) Bill 2026. This is an important Bill, which is broad in scope and long overdue. For too long, policy in this area has been reactive. New products emerge, marketing tactics change and the law has lagged behind. This Bill marks an important change in approach from the Government, which we in the Opposition have sought for years. This is future-focused legislation rather than the usual catch-up and piecemeal approach we have seen over the past few years. The purpose of legislation like this should be clear. It should be to reduce smoking and it should be to protect children and young people from nicotine addiction. It should regulate products in a way that is proportionate, practical and grounded in common sense.”
“I will be one of those who will go out and say what we need. We need to have the backing of the Government and the Departments to make this happen when push comes to shove.”
“However, there is a concern, as with lots of these big projects, and I think this is critical, that in the final analysis it may not get the backing and the funding from the Department and Government that it needs. I want the Government to prove everybody wrong. It goes back to what I said. High-level targets are one thing. Here is a plan, a planning application and a funding ask that will come very quickly and will be transformative. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. If we are serious about this, the Government will fund it. I want to impress upon the Minister and the Government the importance of this for Waterford and the south east. For those of us who will go out and aggressively sell the advantages of offshore renewable wind, there will be some kickback, as there always is.”
“In fact, if we want Waterford to become a zero-carbon city, then this is the game-changer. The port has submitted its landmark planning application to An Coimisiún Pleanála. It is a multimillion euro terminal that is being proposed at Belview. The Maritime Area Regulatory Authority, MARA, has granted the maritime area consent. The plans consist of a 250 m extension of the existing wharfs, land reclamation, more operational facilities, office space, a new electric substation and solar panels for enhanced solar power, so it is transformative. Here we have a port that wants to play its part. It is moving through the planning process; I get that.”
“I do not see a sense in our continuously setting high-level targets which we cannot reach and not having a debate about how we will actually meet them or having concrete plans, Department by Department, area by area, as to what we are doing and what we can do to meet those targets. I will give one example of this in my constituency because it is really important to me and I have been out there a number of times and am a really big supporter of it. I refer to Waterford Port. Waterford Port and, indeed, Rosslare Europort in Wexford are uniquely placed to play a really strong part in offshore renewable energy. They want to do it. They have the capacity to do it. They have the ability to do it, the plans and the drive, and it would be transformative for Waterford and for the south-east region.”
“I welcome the opportunity to have a debate here on climate action and commend the Green Party on bringing forward this motion. The frustration for me when we have debates on climate action is that, in part, yes, the debate is framed around carbon taxes, which is one part of the overall strategy, and we have our view on whether or not it is effective, which was very clearly set out by my colleague an Teachta O'Rourke. The other is that we have a discussion about high-level targets which we never meet. Any climate action target I have ever seen this State commit to we have not met it.”
“We still do not know what that means and when the facility will be built, which also leads to frustration. It is the same with the multi-storey car park. In fact, it is the same with the mental health unit as well. I do not doubt that the Minister of State is pushing these issues; I accept that 100%. All I am saying is that there is frustration that when announcements are made by local Ministers or senior Ministers, they then seem to either fall off a cliff or take far too long to go anywhere. That causes frustration, particularly when we cannot get answers to parliamentary questions when we table them.”
“I raise these issues to illustrate the point that when announcements are made, people expect things to be delivered and then ask how quickly they will get them. If there is an announcement regarding additional health capacity, that is really good news. It is exciting, and people want it. When people hear about the announcement of an additional 60-bed ward block over five storeys at University Hospital Waterford but then do not see it and when I am putting in parliamentary questions and cannot get answers on the timeframe for it to happen, that causes frustration. There was a clear announcement of a proposal for a two-floor vertical extension with all of those consultation and treatment rooms to come with it. We are now being told there is a change to that.”
“We need the additional 96 beds, we need the underground car park and we need the two-storey extension to the lab, but we also need the vertical two-storey extension that the Minister of State talked about and all that additional space. The frustration is that these projects are listed in the capital plan, or maybe some of them are not now listed. People do not know if we are going to get them, if they are funded or how quickly they will be delivered. We all want the best for our regional and local hospitals. I raise these projects because they are really important in the context of University Hospital Waterford.”
“I very much hope that the new adult mental health unit will progress as quickly as possible. I agree with the location and I want to see it developed as fast as it can be. There was also a promise for a 96-bed ward block over five storeys at University Hospital Waterford, and a multi-storey car park. The Minister of State issued a press statement a number of years ago where she said there was a proposal for a two-floor vertical extension over the existing outpatients department, to provide an additional 36 consulting rooms, four treatment rooms, four measurement rooms and two virtual consultation rooms. I do not know the status of that plan at the moment. I have been tabling parliamentary questions seeking updates on all of these projects.”
“I think the criticism was because there was frustration that developments can be glacial and it takes a long time for these projects to get over the line. There are other projects I want to talk about, which I will later. On this particular project, it is important to have timeframes as to how quickly we can expect this development might be delivered, which I think we all accept would be massive and a game-changer for mental health services in Waterford.”
“I am looking for an update on the replacement of the existing adult mental health 44-bed unit at University Hospital Waterford with a 50-bed single bed unit. I acknowledge the work of the Minister of State, Deputy Butler, in making sure this was on the current capital plan recently. I was criticised in one local newspaper for doing so.”
“I have got it in relation to the elective hospitals. They want the low-lying fruit still in public hospitals. It is why insourcing was so profitable and something they were trying to protect. We have to protect public patients, get value for money and efficiencies but also reduce waiting times. I guarantee that if the elective hospitals are built, the Minister will see some of those wait times in orthopaedics and other areas come down rapidly. It will be the biggest reform that could be made in the health service.”