Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the fact that this legislation is before us. In fairness, this has gone on for a long time and I acknowledge that the Taoiseach made a commitment when Vicky Phelan passed away that it would be done. I also acknowledge the Minister's officials and the people who work with him. They met us earlier and went through my concerns and those of others and, in fairness, addressed some of them. We should not be here, however. This is so rushed. We got more than 40 pages of amendments on Friday. The more I go into this, the more questions I have. I want to support this Bill. We should not be here doing this like this. Even next week would have been fine because we could have done with more time with the Minister's officials. I have had more questions since I came out of today's meeting. I have spoken to many more people. We should not be here. It is not good practice, particularly on such a sensitive Bill. I am passionate about this Bill for reasons the Minister is well aware of.

This is simply not open disclosure. I will not have enough time to go through all my issues but having reflected on the meeting we had, I understand the balancing act the Minister's officials have. There is a balancing act here. This is highly technical legislation that crosses into many different areas. I understand that. I have sympathy for the Minister and his officials in trying to perform this balancing act, particularly when it comes to screening given everything that has happened and in relation to ensuring we have providers into the future. Dr. Scally, in moments when one talks to him privately, will acknowledge that there was a balancing act and a need to keep the system in place.

I often speak to Lorraine Walsh and Stephen Teap, as the Minister knows. They are very good friends of mine and I have worked with them for many years. They are watching me speak. They do not support this legislation in this format. That is the test for me because, to quote Stephen, it is "not fit for purpose." I will not quote Lorraine because of the way in which she put it.

Others have spoken before me. This does not pass the Vicky test. That is so important to me. It does not pass the test because if Vicky's case was going through this process, there would not be an obligation. This is why we cannot support the Bill as it is drafted. I know the Minister has said that is not the view being taken.

I have a number of other points to make on the way in which the anonymisation will be done. In fairness, the officials have made good inroads in explaining this to me. It is causing real issues. In this scenario women will have to request their files and they will have to know how to do it. I did not come out of the meeting convinced. I knew information would be provided on this, that and the other but I did not come out of the meeting fully convinced that the people who would need to tell the women would legally and morally do so. It is just not there. It is not strong enough for me.

I was told in the meeting that members of the 221+ group were fully consulted on this legislation. I want to ask a direct question. Were they shown the Bill? The Minister might answer that. I know what they were consulted on. Was the 221+ group shown the Bill? Did officials or anybody go through it with the group? That is a very direct question and I would like an answer to it. I think I know the answer but I would like to get it on the record from the Minister to give him an opportunity, to be fair.

I have an issue with how the audits will work and the process by which the laboratories will behave and the contractual nature of how this will operate. I am not in any way satisfied with the legislation in relation to this. I have a significant issue with regard to a point that is often missed. People forget that we are not doing auditing at present. I know audits are good things. They are good for various reasons such as to learn. We can learn things that go across other programmes, not even in the programme itself. There is a range of reasons it is very good practice. The audits stopped at Vicky's case and they have not begun. I have significant concerns that there will probably be legal issues with regard to the Bill being introduced now and being retrospective from 2017 to now. All of the variables with regard to what happened to Vicky, Ruth Morrissey and everybody else have not changed an iota. That means statistically there have to be other issues. This Bill is going backwards and there will probably be legal issues with it.

I want the Minister to reflect on what has been said tonight. I do not believe the Bill will be finished tonight. The officials and the Department need to reflect, come back and work with us on proper amendments. They need to speak to Lorraine Walsh, Stephen Teap and others in the 221+ group. They need to go through the legislation completely, explain it and address their concerns.

I have a point to make on notifiable incidents. I took from what the Minister said earlier that 12 of the 13 reasons are where somebody passes away. I understand the Minister can extend this by secondary legislation. The Minister needs to say on the record that it is his intention to do this while the Government is in place. This is a significant weakness.

See this speech in context