Jim Daly (Cork South West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 13.

In page 26, line 37, to delete “subsection.”.” and substitute the following:

“subsection.

(3) The Council shall not publish anything under this section which is inconsistent with a decision (if any) of the High Court arising from the performance of a function under section 39(3) or (4), 40(3) or (4), 41(5) or (9), or 42(3) or (4).”.”.

The Freedom of Information Acts, FoIAs, currently-provide information on non-minor sanctions is made known to the Minister, to the HSE and to employers, where they are known to the regulator. The Bill provides for two key changes.

It removes the requirement to notify the Minister. While it is important that the HSE and employers receive information about sanctions against their employees, it is not necessary for the Minister to receive this information, particularly as the Acts provide for no function associated with receipt of it.

On the other hand patients need to know that they are in safe hands when they entrust their health to a doctor or to another healthcare professional. The public needs to have confidence in the role of the regulator to address deficiencies in competence, behaviour or standards, through a transparent system of mandatory publication of sanctions. Accordingly, the Bill also provides that information on all sanctions will be made known to the HSE, to employers and to the public, where they are known. This is an important patient safety measure, widely supported on Second Stage, which will ensure that information relating to sanctions imposed on registered health professionals is placed in the public domain. Accordingly, the Bill provides that all disciplinary sanctions imposed by the five health regulators will be published, once confirmed by the High Court. While I understand concerns raised that the publication of all sanctions may negatively affect registrants, this must be balanced against the public's right to important information about the fitness of a health professional to provide them with safe healthcare.

However, I have considered the concerns raised by stakeholders outside of this forum, and in balancing these concerns with the public interest, I have decided to amend the Bill to provide for mandatory publication of all sanctions, unless publication is inconsistent with a decision of the High Court.

Deputies will be aware that when holding confirmation of sanction hearings, the High Court, in specific circumstances, can order reporting restrictions or can hold hearings in camera. These amendments will provide for those circumstances, where it is shown to the court's satisfaction that there are compelling reasons against publication, for example, when dealing with vulnerable registrants. I trust that this approach, which is supported by the regulators, will address the Deputy's concerns on amendments Nos. 36, 59, 117 and 160.