Mr. Stephen McMahon:

Before offering the floor to Ms Murphy, I will just address some other insights to this issue. I am not a legal person, but I have spoken to a few people and they say there will be very few courts which would make a decision simply on an apology. It would not really have that great a significance, albeit it is part of it. It may actually be to someone's credit. The reason we are looking for statutory mandatory open disclosure is that we are not of the view that it will drive things underground. We live in a law abiding society where people abide by the laws as best they can. It is so important because we know from what is happening out there and from the various studies that they are the tip of the iceberg.

To try to answer Deputy Louise O'Reilly's question on accountability, it is true, as Mark is on record saying, that doctors, nurses, pharmacists, allied professions are all regulated. If they do not perform at their best, they can be hauled before the regulator and may ultimately lose their incomes. Within the hierarchy of the public service, there is not that accountability, but there should be. We hear at times, as the Deputies know themselves when they have heard about the reconfiguration of health systems nationally, that some service may be closed. However, we never see that resource actually moved to wherever it is supposed to go. That is part of accountability and open disclosure, too. It is not simply saying that it is the frontline staff who have to go and make that disclosure. If resources are needed to make the system safer, as we know there are having heard about one hospital yesterday that needs more investment, that is not within the remit of the CEO, the national director or the director of the HSE. It is up to the Government and the Department of Finance on behalf of society to make that investment.

We deal with about 500 cases per year and in the past 21 years that is a lot of people with whom we have had contact. In a huge percentage of those cases, the people were not interested in litigation. As Margaret and Mark said, they want to know what happened and why and an apology. We say to people that they should go back to the hospital in a year's time and see what has been implemented from the study. It is an aspect about which we do not often hear. What has actually come out of that event? I hope that has provided the committee with some insight.