Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)

I have grave concerns about the Government's general policy of pushing legislation through the House at breakneck speed without affording Members sufficient time to obtain legal advice or scrutinise and debate the various changes it proposes. We are paid to do this job but are not being given a chance to carry out our remit. This approach, which is particularly evident in the area of justice, is also notable in the area of health.

The only reason the House is debating this motion for one hour is that the Ceann Comhairle initiated changes in Standing Orders in response to the practice of introducing swathes of amendments on Report Stage. This practice, a characteristic of the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, is evident in the amendment to the Health Bill. It prevents Members from ensuring legislation being passed meets needs.

A chunk of amendments has been introduced at the 11th hour to deal with fundamental issues. The right to speak, the right to know and the right to marry are basic human rights but Deputies do not have an explanatory memorandum for the various amendments being proposed. While we received a note, the normal practice in presenting Bills is to provide an explanatory memorandum to inform Deputies and ensure we are on the right track. In the absence of such a memorandum, I must confess that I do not feel sufficiently well equipped to live up to my responsibilities in this regard.

The Labour Party takes seriously the issue of whistleblowing on which it introduced a Bill in 1999. The Government accepted the Bill tabled during Private Members' business and referred it to committee. It has behaved badly since, however, because the select committee has not met to discuss the legislation. Although subsequently included again on the Order Paper, no action has been taken to progress the legislation.

The Government gave a commitment to provide protection, sector by sector, to allow people to feel safe when reporting something amiss in their sector. If that is Government policy, one would expect it to have a standard template under which the same type of conditions and safeguards for protecting disclosure would apply to each sector. In such circumstances, we would not need to continually reinvent the wheel. Does the health sector have particular requirements which do not exist in other sectors? I do not imagine that is the case. While working in the health sector carries a great deal of responsibility because one deals with life and death, the act of disclosing information to an appropriate person does not vary. The original whistleblowers Bill introduced by my party related to enterprise and employment.

If there is a template for whistleblowing protection, why on earth did the Minister not introduce this amendment, which she knew she would publish, as part of the original Bill? On Second Stage she alerted the House that measures to address this issue were coming down the tracks. This showed a certain incompetence on her part in that she knew what she wanted to do but did not include the relevant provisions in the Bill in the normal fashion so as to enable public scrutiny. Deputies are a small circle. Those affected by this issue have not had an opportunity to make an input to the proposals. Whatever the restrictions applying to Members, those applying to the public at large and people affected by this issue are absolute. Given that the Minister knew what she wanted to do, the question arises as to why the proposals in the amendment were not in the original Bill.

It transpires that the Minister did not have the right to state she would introduce an amendment on Committee Stage because she had no powers to do so. At the end of Committee Stage she informed the select committee that she would introduce the amendment on Report Stage. I believe her admission that she did not have any knowledge about how this was done. Having asked for a short debate, I discovered that the particular requirement was already addressed by Standing Orders. This is not a good way to process legislation.

Deputy Twomey asked whether people can have confidence that the person to whom they are reporting is truly independent. Without such confidence this process will not work. The case of the two midwives who finally blew the whistle after 18 years of practice in the case of Dr. Neary should be salutary. To this day, we do not know their identities and while the Minister may argue that this is by choice, we must ask why they would choose to maintain anonymity after all the good they have done and all the courage they have shown. The reason they choose anonymity is not fear or cowardice but well grounded.

This is an important issue in terms of getting the legislation right. The Labour Party is fully committed to the principle of protecting whistleblowers. We want to support the Minister in extending the Freedom of Information Act to new areas in the health service. As Minister of State at the then Department of Enterprise and Employment, Eithne Fitzgerald, did the country a great service when she introduced a Freedom of Information Act that was regarded at the time as living up to a difficult challenge. It has proven to be progressive even though the Government tried to cut back its provisions. The fundamental principle of freedom of information is now established in our culture.

I cannot help but smile when I hear the Minister speak about a culture of openness in the HSE. Problems still exist in that organisation. Even now the culture of openness is more an aspiration than anything else. My colleague, Deputy Moynihan-Cronin, gave me a letter she received from the HSE dated 12 March relating to issues relevant to this Bill. I understand it was couriered to her. This letter was issued in response to her inquiries about nursing home inspections, including such questions as when they would be available and the reasons that some had not taken place. This information was sought by her on 5 December last but no response was forthcoming until 12 March.

There is much tokenism from the Government in regard to openness and transparency but the evidence indicates otherwise. Reference is frequently made to evidence-based practice in the health sector. This is also a good standard for politics. The evidence does not support the existence of a culture of openness and transparency. Extending the freedom of information legislation to the professional bodies or whatever does not necessarily deal with the issue in terms of how the HSE is operating. We all support efforts to ensure there is more access and that the norm is openness rather than concealment. However, the Minister must recognise that we are dealing with a vast organisation — one of the largest employers in the country — that is almost impenetrable not only from without but often also from within. That is what I hear from staff in the health service.

The amendments relating to the registration of marriages cause us to question the competence of the Government. It introduced legislation in 2004 to enable people to get married in more congenial conditions and surroundings. This was a positive initiative and we all supported it. We are still waiting, however, for that legislation to come into operation. One of the most remarkable discoveries in wading through these 30 pages of amendments is that the right people used to have to be married in their own home where, for example, one of the parties suffered from a chronic illness, was taken away by the Government without it even realising it had done so. This was only brought to its attention because the legislation could not be implemented.

This Bill was originally intended to establish an inspectorate for nursing homes but it became a Bill to establish HIQA. In addition, it now provides safeguards for whistleblowers and also entitles people to get married in their own home. I assume there will be no more surprises. Again, one must question the competence of the Government in providing good legislation. Several of the amendments to the Schedules, for instance, include an asterisk and accompanying note informing us that a "printing error has resulted in incorrect line references". What standards are applied that we end up with these notes and asterisks? Can these printing errors not be rectified before Report Stage?

This may seem a minor point but one must bear in mind the importance of this Bill. Its original purpose, the establishment of a nursing homes inspectorate, became the new purpose of the establishment of HIQA. I hoped this body would be empowered to deal with facilities across the health sector. I was deeply disappointed, however, to find that hospitals, for example, do not come under HIQA's remit. It is likely to be something of a toothless tiger if that function is not included from day one.

The Minister, Deputy Harney, does not work out her actions in advance. This is the Minister whose greatest achievement was to force through the establishment of the HSE without adequate planning and preparation and without even a chief executive officer to manage the change. We have been living with the dire consequences ever since.

See this speech in context