James Reilly (Dublin North, Fine Gael)

I thank the Minister for her clear reply but I am sorry she has taken that approach. We could save people much pain and anguish if we had a patient safety authority. I note the report of the Commission on Patient Safety and Quality Assurance which fell short of recommending a patient authority, but I still feel that is the obvious way to go. We need a clear identifiable body that can deal with the anxieties of patients and their relatives when things do not go right.

The Minister stated previously, as has Professor Drumm and others — it is accepted fact — that there will be more mistakes throughout the country. Are we to ask other families to endure what the families in Ennis endured and what Rebecca O'Malley had to endure, that they have to go public to get satisfaction, clarity and justice? A patient safety authority or ombudsman would allow people to go in confidence without recourse to publicity or the expense of litigation to find out what went wrong. Most people are good people and they do not want trouble, publicity or to have recourse to the law, but they want information. They do not want to be treated as if they are stupid and to be fobbed off with weak excuses. They want the truth, often they want an apology, but most of all they want to be assured it will not happen again and that their own misadventure or that of their loved one will at least produce changes in the system that will make it less likely to happen again.

I urge the Minister to review the decision because HIQA is all very well but it was not able to act in this instance until the Minister instructed it. The Minister referred to its terms of reference, namely, when there is "serious risk to the health or welfare of a person". What happens when the event is over and the patient has passed away? People want answers and they are not getting them.

I am familiar with a case in my constituency where somebody wrote to the Minister who rightly referred them on to the HSE. It referred them on to the hospital safety committee, which said there was no case to answer. From what I know of the case, I regret to say there is a case to answer. It may not be the case that the person thinks there is to answer, but there is a case to be answered because a patient was allegedly prescribed three times the dose of a drug for a prolonged period of time that may have had a detrimental effect on them. It may or may not have been the cause of their demise but if it is true, in my view it certainly had a detrimental effect. I use the word "true" advisedly. Why not put this in place? It makes sense, would not be very costly and would not be another quango. The Health Information and Quality Authority can come in under it and can take, rightly I believe, the matter off this floor and off the politician's table. Several colleagues have come to me with examples in their constituencies, such as the matter mentioned by Deputy Michael Noonan last week. Why must people go through politicians to get satisfaction in these matters? They should be able to go to a clearly identifiable body, a patients' ombudsman or a patient safety authority.

See this speech in context