Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

One issue, and it refers back to an earlier question I had, is the reporting of adverse events. On whom do the witnesses depend for that report now, and on whom will they depend for such a report after the passing of this Bill or other legislation? For example, there is a freedom of information officer in virtually every public body. That person decides on the status of the information requested and so forth. I do not see anything comparable in this case, which is much more serious. For example, somebody might decide that an incident is not reportable and should not be reported. Some incidents, while small and seemingly insignificant, might well have a permanent impact on the lifestyle of a patient. I am mindful of a number of incidents which I do not propose to discuss here. There is a need for more streamlined instantaneous reporting of an incident. It is not much good reading about it in the newspapers two or three years later. One can do nothing about it then and we certainly can do nothing about the quality of attention and care available after the event. There should be a learning process after any such event whereby actions should be taken. What action can be taken in those circumstances and how does one do it?

The other question is about the fitness of somebody to practise in a particular area. HIQA does not have an input into the appointment in the first place. If it is subsequently proven that a person is unfit for fulfil a role or to practise in a certain capacity, there are two different bodies involved. One is the appointing body that fills the post and the other is when something is found out afterwards. One could look back and ask why something was not spotted earlier. There might be a situation where some unusual incident occurred but, generally, if the person is not fit to practise now he or she was not fit two years ago either.

The Deputy might bank that question.