MR Charles Flanagan TD of Fine Gael yesterday secured a High Court order preventing the Midland Health Board from taking steps to site cancer treatment services in Tullamore rather than Portlaoise.
Mr Flanagan claimed the decision to relocate to Tullamore was being seen as "a political intervention" to favour the Co Offaly town at the expense of Portlaoise.
The injunction will continue until after the hearing of a legal challenge by Mr Flanagan against a health board resolution last September to site the cancer services at Tullamore general hospital despite a majority report, considered and approved at a board meeting months earlier, recommending the services be located at Portlaoise.
In court yesterday, he was given leave by Mr Justice Kearns to seek an order, by way of judicial review, quashing the board's September decision relocating the services to Tullamore hospital.
Mr John Peart SC for Mr Flanagan said that while Tullamore hospital was the geographical centre of the board's area, Portlaoise hospital was "streets ahead with regard to its development of cancer services"
Mr Peart said an April meeting of the Midland Health Board had considered reports on cancer services in its area. The majority report favoured Tullamore. He said a health board deputation had met Mr Cowen, Minister for Health and Children, and the chairman of the National Cancer Strategy Forum, on September 15th last to discuss the matter. Less than 48 hours later the board had met and decided to relocate the cancer services from Portlaoise to Tullamore.
Mr Peart said Mr Cowen was the Minister for Health and was on the National Cancer Strategy Forum when he met the board's deputation and his constituency included the Tullamore area.
Mr Justice Kearns said he did not think this matter should be personalised. Mr Flanagan's attack was on the board's September decision. The court was concerned with whether the board acted properly in relation to procedures.
Mr Peart said a large number of people were aggrieved and Mr Flanagan was bringing the High Court proceedings on his own behalf and as a nominee of the Laois General Hospital Action Committee.
He had voted in favour of Portlaoise at the April meeting. The board's chief executive had sought department approval for this even though Mr Flanagan believed this was "the board's call" and it could make decisions for its own area. The only thing the department could do was in relation to funding.
As the matter was not on the agenda for the September meeting he had not been given an opportunity to vote, and proper procedures had not been complied with by the board, counsel said. "The agenda simply said the board would `receive the report from the deputation appointed to attend on the Minister in connection with the board's proposals to develop cancer and pathology services'."
Mr Peart said his client claimed that, under the rules, the board could not change a decision within a six-month period unless eight board members had asked for it to be revoked and seven days' notice was given to members. He claimed this had not been done.
In an affidavit, Mr Flanagan said the April decision in favour of Portlaoise and its purported reversal were extremely serious matters for the people of Laois and the surrounding areas.
"It is seen as a political intervention to advantage Tullamore at the expense of Portlaoise," he said.