Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

-----and I missed what she had to say. I have the text of her contribution and I will take the time to study it afterwards. If any of the points I have made were not covered in it, I ask that they be addressed in the closing contribution on Second Stage.

The second part of the Bill divides the designated profession of radiographer into two separate professions of radiographer and radiation therapist. There is an important difference and I welcome this development as something that will be to the benefit of patients and also to what will be the two stand-alone recognised professions of radiographer and radiation therapist. These roles have different focuses and I believe that such a division will aid in ensuring the roles keep up with developments internationally along with aiding transparency ,and will further improve patient care.

That the Bill will allow the cancellation of registration of a registrant convicted of an indictable offence if it is in the public interest is to be welcomed. Indeed, it is unfortunate that this has not been a part of legislation to date. I also welcome the provision for the appointment of persons to aid investigations and immediate suspension on an ex partebasis. The publication of the transcript of the proceedings of a committee of inquiry, a new departure, will add to transparency and will help to increase the public's trust in CORU and in the provision of multidisciplinary health care. It is to be hoped this will avoid the lack of transparency and omertathat was seen in representative bodies in the past and will not lead us into future health care scandals in which the public is kept in the dark following an injury to one or more of our number. The horrors of the Michael Neary scandal or the symphysiotomy scandal come to my mind, and they must press us to demand a better standard of care and more speedy access to redress in the health sphere.

The Health and Social Care Professionals Council will be given new investigative powers similar to those of the Medical Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Ireland. While the vast majority of those represented by Health and Social Care Professionals Council are, without question, diligent, hard-working and caring individuals, the public must, nevertheless, be protected from rogue practitioners and those whose standard of care is not up to scratch, or even in some cases dangerous to the general population.

Reducing contribution amounts that cover essential daily living costs for those maintained by, or on behalf of, but not accommodated by the HSE, is concerning to me and to many Deputies in the House. I would be worried that this might be an effort to reduce supports in general. The Bill tells us that amounts of contribution would be varied, based on income levels of service users and-or levels of dependence or independence, as the case might be. This passage most certainly needs clarification as it is open to interpretation. It could lead to a Minister - I will not say "the Minister" - deciding that some or many of those receiving support would no longer qualify for it, either in part or in full.

In summary, I support the principal thrust of the Bill, certainly with regard to the Health and Social Care Professionals Act. Much of its substance focuses on the necessary regulation of health care practitioners but, unfortunately, as I have said and intended for the Minister of State's senior colleague if he were here, many of these are among the practices that have been so severely hit by recent years of Government-driven cutbacks. I would have urged him, as I urge the Minister of State, to ensure these are matters of serious and immediate address.

To encapsulate the key points which I believe need clarification, I seek clarification whether the Bill allows registered optometrists or dispensing opticians to delegate certain non-clinical functions of the dispense to suitably qualified staff, as is the case at present. I reflect on the provision for a reduction in contribution supports to cover essential daily living costs for people with physical or intellectual disabilities. If it is, as I fear, it needs to be removed. If it is not as it suggests at first reading, I ask for detailed clarification on how it is to be interpreted and how it will work out in real terms. These points merit the Minister of State's attention and clarification and I look forward to hearing what she has to say.

See this speech in context