Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank our witnesses for the evidence they have given. I might not be able to wait for answers after I have asked my questions because I am supposed to be somewhere else. I apologise in advance if I have to leave. I will be able to catch up on the answers that are given. My first question is a fairly basic one. We heard from representatives of the Chiropractic Association of Ireland just before the current group of witnesses came before us. They advised us in fairly plain language that they are more than willing to be bound by any regulations that are deemed necessary. They told us they would have no difficulty complying with any standards that the Department or the RCSI might want to set out. They said they would have no difficulty moving away from the current model of self-regulation. They have assured us that it is a fairly robust model. They held their hands up and fully accepted that there may be a need for further regulation. As someone who represented workers for a long time, I can assure the committee that it is rare enough for a group like this to embrace regulation. Dr. Holohan might agree that the opposite is generally the case. People do not usually embrace regulation as wholeheartedly as the chiropractors have indicated they are willing to do. Could the witnesses comment on that?

Dr. Sheehy referred to a lack of evidence of appropriate training. The chiropractors would cite the example of someone who is trained to a certain level and is practising in Dundalk. If the rules change, he or she might not be able to practice here but will be able to go 10 miles up the road to practice in Newry under the same regulations. It seems to me that this is something of a discrepancy, given that we are talking about an actual individual who could practice in both jurisdictions. The regulations are not different. The same EURATOM regulation applies. I ask the witnesses to explain their position in that context. I understand that the training received by chiropractors meets the 2014 education guidelines of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Maybe the witnesses have an alternative view. They might advise us of that. I am aware that chiropractors use the iRefer guidelines. I am not a professional in this area. As I understand it, those guidelines are considered to be an industry standard.

I know the association has written to the Minister and is patiently awaiting a reply. I appreciate that the Minister is busy and that is fine. Dr. Holohan might be able to advise us on the status of that correspondence.

My final question relates to the national radiation safety committee. Obviously, this is all about ensuring that patients are as safe as they absolutely can be. I understand that the committee will sign off on any legislation that will have to be transposed. I am not quite sure exactly what its role is, how it is constituted or what its status is at the moment. I understand it was dissolved, perhaps not fully, before being reconstituted but I am not clear on that. Given that we are here to discuss issues of patient safety, it would helpful if we could receive some advice in that respect. I am informed that the national radiation safety committee will be considering issues relating to the impact of the transposition. If this process is not finalised, what exactly will the committee be considering? Will it be considering the final draft? What is the status of its role in this process?