Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Tá sé seo sách ráite cheana féin ag cúpla Teachta, na Teachtaí Shortall, O’Reilly agus Cullinane ina measc. Cuid bhunúsach den fhadhb ná an tslí inar cuireadh soláthar ar na seirbhísí sna Stáit Aontaithe, in ainneoin go raibh go leor daoine ag rá go raibh baol ann de bharr na gcaighdeán sna labs sin, an osradharc ar na tástálacha sin agus an tionchar a d’fhéadfadh a bheith aige sin ar an gcaighdeán eolais a bheadh muidne, agus na mná, ag fáil anseo. so

Is tromchúiseach an toradh a bhí ar sin agus chonaiceamar go leor cásanna ainnis dá bharr. Is dóigh liom go bhfuil dualgas sách mór orainn é seo a fháil i gceart. Nílimid ag rá nach feabhas é seo ar an rud a bhí ann cheana féin ach níl sé maith go leor go fóill. Cuirim fáilte roimh an gcinneadh tuilleadh ama a chur ar fáil faoi láthair ach nílimid san áit inar chóir dúinn a bheith. Níl an rud a bhí Vicky Phelan, Emma Mhic Mhathúna agus go leor daoine eile ag lorg anseo sa reachtaíocht.

The point has already been clearly made that there is a key lesson here for other public services. It is not the case that nobody warned of the danger of outsourcing and sending these slides to laboratories in the United States where, after some time, it became evident that the standards of the checks were not what they should have been. The implications were enormous. It was clearly raised in correspondence with the then Minister for Health and Children, Ms Mary Harney, and she was aware of it. It was raised by former Sinn Féin Deputy, Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin, and other Opposition Deputies at the time. There is a lesson in that for us but in this particular instance it had very weighty consequences. It led to women not being informed of a very serious health concern and threat to their lives and, unfortunately, several of them died subsequently.

What the Minister has put before us is not so much the issue. We do not have an issue with the Bill or the amendments. It is not that this is not better than the status quo ante. It is an improvement on it but it is not a duty of candour or open disclosure. The definition of "candour" is "the quality of being open and honest; frankness". There is an active obligation on the person who has the information. This legislation is not pushing for any active obligation on the part of the medical practitioner here. The Minister states that he might deal with this obligation in regulations but we are not nailing it down in terms of an obligation to inform people of their right to review. I note the Minister is shaking his head but we are not telling people that they have a right to a review. The Minister can address the issue in a minute, if he wishes, but that is certainly my understanding of the legislation. It is welcome that there is a right to a review, which is better than what was there previously, but it is not the case that there is an obligation to inform people of that review or to inform them that there is a legislative obligation to tell people of a discordant slide.

I emphasise that I am a big believer in screening. It has been a crucial public health intervention, not only in relation to this cancer but in relation to other cancers as well and in other areas of health. It has a crucial role to play. It is vitally important that we ensure there is full confidence in screening but to do that, we need to heal the scars of the past, rectify the failings that occurred and become leaders in this regard.

The Minister will be aware of the scale of screening. How many women go through the screening programme each year? We will take this year as an example. Does the Minister know that figure off the top of his head? In any event, I would expect it to be several thousand. When dealing with that scale, it will include women who potentially have limited English, vulnerable women and women with limited health literacy who are undergoing a crisis of whatever sort and simply want to get out there. Many women will ask for a review. Many will see this debate and become aware that they have that right. That is welcome and it is better than what is there now. However, there are other women who will not have that knowledge, wherewithal or, potentially, the English or communication skills to ask for a review, and it will not occur to them to do so. We have to take into account every category of woman who will potentially go into this programme. The scale is significant. We need to take into account every set of circumstances. That is why it is important that there be a duty on the medical practitioner to inform women of their rights and what they are entitled to know.

Much of this is technical and we could discuss it in detail but, on a fundamental level, it is quite simple. This is the bit I do not understand and for which I have not been given an explanation. I have not seen the Minister, truthfully or in any meaningful way, dispute the fact that there is not an obligation on the medical practitioner. I also have not heard an explanation as to why we are not doing this. Is there a good legislative or constitutional healthcare policy reason we are not doing this because it seems relatively fundamental? Whatever about future guidelines the Minister may issue, we are not making it necessary in law for the medical practitioner to tell women they have a right to a review and that there is a discordant slide. That does not seem to be the case and I do not understand why it is not being done. I would appreciate it if the Minister outlined why that is not happening.

There is a shared desire to rectify this issue, put Ireland in a much better place and make this State a leader in screening. That is laudable. I welcome the additional time for this discussion and the engagement in advance of these amendments. It is clear, however, that this is not what the women, including the late Vicky Phelan and many others, sought. That needs to be addressed and I urge the Minister to do so. I do not understand why we are not simply doing that.

See this speech in context