I regret the Minister, who accused me in November 1997 of political mischief-making when I raised this issue, is not in the House to answer my questions.
The proposal by the Blood Transfusion Service Board to abandon testing of blood products in the Cork BTSB unit – thereby effectively downgrading the unit – is a cause of concern, not only to the people of Munster and surrounding health board areas but also to the Southern Health Board members, consultants and other medical staff working within the service.
The Cork unit has served the country well as a back-up for the Dublin unit and has rescued it in times of blood shortage. It is respected and has good working relations with the medical community. Therefore, it is very difficult to understand why a unit that has been working so well should be downgraded. Is it a Dublin-Cork power game?
The arguments put forward in support of a centralised testing unit in Dublin are finance driven, not medical. They are flimsy, poorly thought out and appear, at best, spurious. Surely the lessons of the hepatitis C scandal in the Dublin unit should teach us the wisdom of retaining a second centre in the country for backup, cross-checks, balances and quality control.
At present, all blood donations are tested by a serologic method in Dublin and Cork for potential infectious contaminants. Centralisation of such testing was not thought necessary before. Why now? There is no valid reason the Munster unit cannot continue. The drive to downgrade the Cork unit cannot be justified financially when judged against the millions of pounds that the errors in the Dublin blood transfusion board have cost the taxpayer in the case of the hepatitis C scandal, not to mention the heartache and tragedy. The lesson we should learn from that tragic episode is that there is great merit in retaining a second backup testing centre.
Is the Cork unit to be sacrificed because the new blood transfusion service building in Dublin has run seriously over budget? Why has the Blood Transfusion Service Board not undertaken a rigorous cost/benefit analysis of retaining testing in Cork?
In March 1997 the Finlay tribunal report stated that the replacement of the premises in Cork should be immediately commenced. In October 1997 the Irish Medicines Board threatened to withdraw the licence of the Cork centre unless substantial improvements were made in that centre.
In November 1997 the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Cowen, stated:
The Blood Transfusion Board, in conjunction with my Department, has decided that the Cork centre requires replacement. I have given my approval to this. As an interim measure, refurbishment will take place on the present centre to meet the standards required by the Irish Medicines Board and for both projects my Department will make available the necessary resources.
Of course, that was in the middle of an election campaign.
Also in November 1997, the Blood Transfusion Service Board stated:
We propose to replace the centre. Pending completion of a new centre, which will take two years, the board wishes to update the existing centre to meet the Irish Medicines Board's requirements.
The BTSB also stated in November 1997 that the schedule was to complete construction and equipment validation by November 1999.
The question now is what has happened to change that scenario at a time when the buildings housing the centre are in need of replacement to meet the standards set by the licensing body, the Irish Medicines Board? What has happened to the Minister's commitment to provide the necessary resourcing for this replacement building? Is the Minister bringing about a scenario whereby the requirements of the Irish Medicines Board will not be met and, as a result, the Cork centre will lose its licence and will only operate as a depot? Why should a centre, which is working well and has achieved a quality standard – ISO 90002 – be downgraded, which is in stark contrast to the stated policy of the Minister, the Government and the Department of rewarding good service, decentralising health services and protecting those working and living outside the capital? These serious questions have not been answered.
Only yesterday, for example, it was stated in Cork that the medical services will be unable to cope with major accidents and disasters if the country is left with just one blood transfusion centre. This warning has been issued by the medical profession, lay interest groups in Cork and, most recently, by IBEC and Cork Chamber of Commerce. An article in The Examiner of 14 June 1999 stated:
Interest groups state that the proposal to close the blood transfusion unit in Cork in favour of upgrading the Dublin centre would leave the medical services vulnerable in the event of a major accident at either of the two international airports, Cork and Shannon, or at any of the many chemical and power companies in the south west region.
County Cork has the only oil refinery, the only commercial off-shore natural gas well and the only oil storage facility in the country. In view of this, it is absolutely essential that Cork retains the ability to deal locally and speedily with any major accidents. Past experiences, such as the Buttevant rail disaster and the Whiddy oil disaster, have shown that the existence of the major accident plan in Cork was a key to reducing the number of casualties. In view of the facts, it is incomprehensible there is a proposal to centralise blood testing which will only make the situation worse, not better.