Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State is here again and there is no senior Minister. As we are discussing one of the most important and devastating reports, it is unacceptable again that she has been put in that position. I had intended to speak on what all other Deputies have spoken about in terms of waiting lists for the very good Jigsaw programme in Galway and CAMHS in Galway. I was going to refer to the mental health reform group that represents 76 member organisations on the ground and what they tell us in terms of the deficits. Consent for young people to procedures has already been mentioned. They are treated differently in respect of physical and mental health. I refer to the level of self-harm, particularly among young girls, with a clear connection with suicide. I am saying all of that in less than one minute, not to diminish any of it but to say that I have repeatedly raised it. Like domestic violence and gender-based violence, from the day I came in I have focused on issues.

We had A Vision for Change, Sharing the Vision and an implementation body that was deprived of its function because it functioned so well. All along I have asked not to have any more statements but to look at the implementation body and look at implementing. Then we came along with Sharing the Vision. Tonight we are sharing the horror in relation to this report, are we not? I have done my best to read it in the time allowed. Really, if we do not put this down on the agenda for discussion in here then we should all resign. This is not specific to Kerry. It has serious implications for all of the facilities around the country. It is just devastating. Governance has utterly failed here. Of course resources are an issue as is clearly identified. The report sets out 35 recommendations. It sets out the background, key contributory factors and so on and they are all worth looking at. Certainly there was tiredness and over-work. There are still two positions vacant. There was an absence of a clinical lead - all of that. Where was the governance? The governance was in place and utterly failed to do a risk assessment, first in respect of the vacancy itself and then as the issues arose. Then we have the whistleblower once again. How many times have we stood here from Sergeant McCabe to the whistleblowers from Limerick, from Waterford in the Grace case and so on? One whistleblower after another and their lives made a misery.

Allegedly - I believe the reports - the doctor whistleblower has suffered greatly for raising these matters.

The doctor had courage, was good and did his duty, but what has happened? Nothing. The system was alerted to this issue in 2018. Nothing happened in 2019 either. In 2020, there was an audit of a select few cases, which found that there were problems. There was then what appeared to be an independent investigation. I have been through this in Galway. I will never believe the word "independent" again. The doctor who was brought in was independent. He talked about the investigation being essentially independent. What does the word "essentially" mean in this instance? On a different page, though, we can see that the persons involved all worked for the HSE and the only independent element was the chairperson. The rest were not involved in the events but were all involved in the HSE. At eight, there was no shortage of them either. Apparently, the doctor was pulling his hair out at the lack of resources as well as many other issues relating to governance whereas there was no problem getting a minimum of eight staff, with any amount of backup, to perform an investigation. This is going to be repeated.

I have many questions but I only have a minute left. Will the Minister of State put this report down on the clár oibre of the Dáil? It has serious implications. It shows how governance has failed time and again. Governance in this case repeatedly failed to comply with the 2015 guidelines. One of the basic recommendations is that these institutions comply with those guidelines.

We could focus on many issues but I will focus on the list of upset. There is a statement of findings. The report puts them in context. It starts off by saying that there was no extreme or catastrophic harm. So, no one died or was catastrophically injured. Imagine including that in the report? It then sets out three findings that 227 children suffered, 13 others were found to have been exposed unnecessarily to harm and there was clear evidence of significant harm caused to 46 children. Notwithstanding the independent chairperson, HSE speak dominates this report if it has to put what happened in the context of there being no catastrophic harm done. What relevance has that?

I will be fair to my colleague and stop mid-sentence.

See this speech in context