Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

I have noticed that too. To protect those who excel, every relevant profession should be included. Even if a profession is self-regulating, the relevant body will make some attempt to ensure the highest standards prevail as to do so is in their own interests. Alternative medicine practitioners offer good services that stand up to scrutiny, which is why cases such as the one referred to by Deputy Stanton require urgent action. The case in question should have been addressed before now. It should not be the case that the Minister or I can establish an alternative practice with as much credibility as certain people are currently doing.

There is a great need for speech therapists and other practitioners from among the designated professions. Anyone who deals with the boards of management of schools will readily attest to the shortage of speech therapists, special needs providers and psychologists, all of whose services are in great demand. While we do not have enough of them, we must ensure that those we have are good at their jobs. My experience with those with whom I have dealt is that they are good at their jobs and that they make a difference. More are needed given the requirement to a greater extent than used to be the case for their services. While statistics are available which inform various theories, I do not know the underlying reason for the increased demand for services. These circumstances, however, require a response which meets the demands of quantity and quality. It is right, therefore, that the provisions of the Bill incorporate the professions providing services in this area.

Self-regulation is important to enable professionals to take responsibility for the actions of all members of their professions. Collective as well as individual responsibility tends to improve service quality. There must also, however, be an overarching regulator as a self-regulating body should not constitute the only supervisory authority for a profession. I presume the legislation will make provision in this respect as every regulatory authority needs a certain amount of supervision from time to time. All State institutions should set an example.

When I was a member of a health board I always tried to apply the same standards to the health board institutions that the health board purported to apply to others. Things have changed and I am afraid it does not always happen that way. I do not know what is the cause of that. I have a general idea that for some unknown reason as we progress further into the Celtic tiger infested forest, people no longer care and do not wish to take individual responsibility.

People no longer have the vocational commitment that existed 25 or 30 years ago. This can be measured by talking to older professionals in any profession, including those who come within the compass of the Bill. If one compares the degree of vocational commitment that existed when those people trained and got their first jobs, and the level of commitment evident today, there is a vast difference. It even relates to the professionals in this House. We must recognise that this is a fact of life.

There is a colossal difference, for example, in the degree to which volunteering takes place now compared with 25 or 30 years ago. Voluntary commitment in any area or profession is vastly different from what it was. The older professionals operated above and beyond the call of duty. I have reasons for citing that commitment which I do not particularly want to go into in this House. Many people protest when this matter is raised but it is a fact and we are all culpable when we examine the extent to which we are required to make sacrifices in the course of our jobs.

Let us look at how the standards apply. It is important that each profession applies the highest possible standards. It follows that in the field of operation one professional will observe another and the degree to which the standards to which they all aspire are applied. If there is a weakness in any area, far from that weakness becoming the subject of a whistleblower, it will become the norm. The lowest common denominator becomes the standard.

I regret a development that sadly applies to the health area in particular, which is not a criticism of the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan. If a Member of this House asks a question about any aspect of the health service, it is to protect the Minister as much as to protect the members of the Opposition and the public, and if the answer is not forthcoming, there must be a reason. There are no circumstances in which the information sought should not be made available to the House. It makes no difference whether the Minister has direct responsibility for the matter, the Minister will ultimately be held responsible if a major scandal arises under the Ministers and Secretaries Act 1924, as was borne out in a recent speech made by a former civil servant. He correctly identified that the Minister is responsible, directly and indirectly, for everything that happens within his or her Department even though he or she may not have known what was happening.

I emphasise this issue because scarcely a day goes by without some circumstance coming to light where somebody is wronged and their rights are infringed upon because somebody somewhere would not answer a question or raise his or her voice. The media invariably blame the person who did nothing about it. The only people who can do something about this are the Members of this House and members of other parliaments throughout the world. If the answers are not forthcoming, it ultimately reflects on the person who did not provide the answer for one reason or other.

It has always been my view that there is a need for Ministers on taking office to call their senior civil servants together and explain to them that everything that happens within the ambit of the Department should be made known to the Minister forthwith, and that regular evaluations to this effect would be carried out and communicated to the Minister. That would protect Ministers, Governments and those in Opposition. More importantly, it would protect the public. If that approach is not taken, problems will arise.

I know that the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, will agree with that principle. I have a different reason for saying it, not because I am in Opposition, but because I believe it protects people in Government as well as those in Opposition. When criticism is made and there are valid grounds for it, the public blames the institutions as a whole. They do not distinguish between them. It may be good for those who are in Government when the odium is equally applied to everybody and it may be good for the Opposition to say that the Government is to blame, however, ultimately it reflects on all of us if matters are not handled in the best possible manner.

Why has this ethos begun to develop? I believe we live in a time in which nobody ultimately wants to take responsibility, when everybody wants to shirk his or her responsibilities. People want to give good news when there is good news but to run like hell when there is anything else to be said. That is a sign of the times, and it goes hand in hand with the lack of vocational commitment to which I referred. I foresee great difficulties arising in future unless something is done about this because it does not matter who is in Government or who is Taoiseach or Minister, ultimately, events will catch up with them as something will happen along the line that will emerge three, four or ten years later and when it does, it will reflect on all of us in this House.

Something was said to me recently in a different context about how to make the democratic process more efficient. I had to remind those concerned that democracy is not about efficiency, it is about transparency, accountability, the right of the people to elect those who represent them and the right of the public to ensure that those whom they elect to high office are ultimately accountable to them. One cannot do that on the cheap. It has to be done in the hard, old fashioned way. Alternatives to this have been tried in many countries. They were tried for 50 years in eastern European countries and they failed.

I wandered a bit from the area where I started — professionals — but my remarks relate to professional accountability and responsibility.

See this speech in context