Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I do not think that is correct. All this debate and the discussion earlier at the briefing indicate that this is an exceptionally complex matter. It is, literally, one of life and death. It goes to the heart of some significant issues within healthcare, the right to know and the duty of candour. It underlines how inappropriately this has been handled in the sense of being rushed and all these amendments being supplied to us at the last minute, with no briefing and no pre-legislative scrutiny.

I have two amendments in this grouping, which are somewhat different, but I would like to add my voice to the statement that it is more important for us to get this right than to do it quickly. If the Minister is proposing opening this legislation up again and allowing for proper interaction, perhaps outside this House, by way of briefings etc., or perhaps in the Joint Committee on Health, that would probably be a better way to tease out the implications of the legislation, with a view to getting it passed by January. I am certainly in favour of that approach.

Regarding my amendments to the Minister's amendment No. 19, concerning the statement in respect of the procedure for open disclosure under Part 5, where section 41(2), without prejudice to the generality of section 76, states now that the Minister "may" make guidelines, I am proposing that the "may" be changed to "should". Similarly, regarding section 51(1), concerning the review information, where the text reads that a health service provider "may" at any time during the holding of a Part 5 review provide information on the guidelines, my amendment would change this to "should". I propose that these two changes be made to put the onus on the healthcare provider, rather than leaving it open where it may be argued. This is also vague, and there should be no place for vagueness in this legislation.

See this speech in context