Mark Ward (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I never met Vicky Phelan but like most of the nation, I felt like I knew her. Those who listened to her or watched her could not help but be struck by her honesty, courage and dedication. She had the courage to fight - the bravest courage of all - for those who would, ultimately, come after her.

I listened to other speakers who knew Vicky Phelan. Deputy Kelly said this Bill does not pass the Vicky test. The Minister has to make time to make the Bill Vicky-proof, and I hope he and his officials can achieve this. As he will know, managing disclosure was one of Vicky's core demands. Managing disclosure means there is a legal obligation on clinicians and healthcare providers to tell a woman if there is an issue with the reading of her cervical cancer screening slides. There was a consensus that the original Patient Safety (Notifiable Patient Safety Incidents) Bill did not provide for this demand.

As a united Opposition, we have said all along that we would work with the Government on this legislation to get it right and over the line. While that remains our position and commitment, the Government amendment does not provide for managing disclosure. There is provision for a right to review, which is welcome. An obligation on a clinician or health service provider to reveal and pass on information and manage disclosure where legal responsibility is on the clinician and organisation is what the women fought for. This was recommended in the Scally report. There is a concern beyond the definition of managing disclosure or the duty of candour about the review process. There is no legal obligation for the women, at the point of diagnosis, to be told she has a right to review.

We have no issue with the Bill. It is better than what was previously proposed and better than the status quo. It is an improvement. We take issue with the process, however, and the absence of a statutory duty of candour in the Bill. It does not place an obligation on the provider or clinician to inform patients of their right, under Part 5 review, at the point of diagnosis. This obligation must be on the clinicians and not the patient.

This is rushed legislation. In my time in the Dáíl, I have Bills being guillotined. Rushed legislation makes bad legislation. We do not want to come back in a year's time to make further amendments to the Bill that we could sort out here and now.

Approximately 250,000 women will go for cervical screening tests each year. This is really welcome and we will encourage it. It is a vitally important tool. As a father of two young girls, this is something I want my girls to be able to access. I also want them to have the confidence that when they go to CervicalCheck screening, their human rights will be catered for and if there are any discrepancies in the results, the clinicians will have a duty of care to inform them straightaway. We have to protect patients' rights. This is the crux of the problem. We cannot expect everything of the person going for the test and nothing of the system. I cannot understand why a duty of candour is not enshrined in the Bill. I hope the Minister will clarify the reason for that because people need that question answered.

Lay people looking at this debate want clarification on why something that could so simply be put into this Bill should not be put in to give people confidence in CervicalCheck going forward. If that were done, those who went before and their families would feel vindicated that they basically got the Bill they deserve.

See this speech in context