Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)

A number of matters were raised with regard to the four amendments under discussion. Deputy O'Sullivan began by saying that none of this should be necessary, and there is a grain of truth in that. It should not be necessary to extract information from an agency of the State under any circumstances. However, in the case of the Garda Síochána Act 2005, it was clearly required that we create a statutory obligation for a person - in that case the Garda Commissioner - to provide information to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The HSE is required to keep the Minister informed of matters under the Health Act 2004. What this Bill attempts to do is to create a much stronger obligation on the HSE to do this. The human condition being what it is - all of us are human - such measures are sometimes required.

It is essential to ensure that all staff in the biggest organisation in the State are aware of their obligations to keep the Minister for Health and Children and me informed; in turn, we can keep the Oireachtas informed. The core purpose of this is to improve the accountability of the HSE to the Minister and of the Minister to the Oireachtas. Having said that, it is impossible for the Minister to micro-manage the daily affairs of the HSE, although I am not suggesting this is being proposed by either speaker.

The issue of the Tallaght X-ray cases which arose in March came to media attention through a whistleblower who himself said that no blame could possibly attach to the Minister in these circumstances, although the political system and the media, as its camp followers, tried to implicate her. Fine Gael's own deputy leader - sorry, I am getting ahead of myself; I meant to say leader - described these events at the time as a national catastrophe. I remember him using those words, but it has not been spoken of since. The average national catastrophe usually has a news cycle of longer than one week. However, that is the standard of terminology under which events are described as scandalous or catastrophic - words that easily trip off the tongue.

We must be clear that we are dealing with a large organisation that works with the most vulnerable people, those who are sick and those who have disabilities. It has a staff of more than 100,000. The criticism that goes with running such an organisation and trying to ensure accountability must be borne by anybody involved in it, but there must be a change in the terminology that is sometimes used if we want to be fair, honest and generous about the attempts that are being made to improve things.

It was not me who stated that the Children First guidelines were robust. The review conducted by Helen Buckley in 2008 concluded that they were robust. It was the Deputy's position at that time that mandatory reporting should be introduced. Obviously, when the evidence changes, one is entitled to change one's mind, but now everyone accepts that the proper way to proceed is to put those guidelines on a statutory footing, and that is what I intend to do.

Subsection (2) of section 40B is intended to ensure the Minister can, if she wishes, give guidance on how the HSE is to provide information. This includes the manner of provision and the content of the information, as is proposed by Deputy O'Sullivan in amendment No. 3. Subsection (1) of section 40B imposes a duty on the HSE to provide information of the type specified in the subsection to the Minister without delay. The purpose of subsection (2), therefore, is not to direct that such information be provided, since the substantive requirement is contained in subsection (1).

The provision is intended to ensure flexibility, so that the information required is provided in a way that best meets the needs of the Minister. Accordingly, "guidelines" rather than "directions" is considered appropriate. In any event, any guidelines must be complied with. As Deputy Shatter mentioned, the issue is ultimately one of terminology and it probably makes no difference.

On the question of timing, the section already requires that the information is to be provided without delay as set out in section 40C(1). I am, therefore, satisfied that the current text meets the concerns of Deputy Jan O'Sullivan in that regard.

With regard to amendment No. 4a, Deputy Shatter suggested that the guidelines issued about class of occurrences and development in any guidelines that may be issued under section 40B(2) should be subject to Oireachtas scrutiny. I disagree because these provisions are intended to give the necessary flexibility to the Minister to ensure the HSE is quite clear on the nature and type of information she requires under section 40B. They are not, therefore, the same as directions under section 10 of the Health Act 2004, which requires a copy of any directions to be laid before both Houses. In any case, all of these documents are available under freedom of information legislation. Deputy Shatter, in spite of the cost-----

See this speech in context