Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputies for their contributions. I will try to address them quickly. With regard to the process, yes, we can go back to the Dáil. Normal process would be for the Bill to go the Seanad after Report Stage where it would be amended and come back here anyway. However, colleagues are keen for the debate and the changes to be made here. My understanding of procedure, on which I am open to being corrected, is that we will adjourn at approximately 9.20 p.m. We can adjourn at that time until January, which gives time to craft and table the amendments. I will ask my departmental officials to engage with colleagues through that time in order that we understand what amendments are being brought forward. We are all talking about January for the right reasons but to be clear, there are only six sitting days in January. We do not want this to go on and on. We all want this done as quickly as possible but let us all be clear. I think we are back on 18 January and there are six sitting days. We will prioritise the Bill, obviously.

The second issue is one Deputies Kelly and Shortall had asked me to raise and I had not yet had the opportunity to do so. Deputy Kelly referenced it again. The issue is with regard to the rest of the Bill, rather than Part 5, but I committed to put on the record the patient safety incidences referenced in the Schedule, which make up a very small list of a very serious number of incidences. I was asked would I, as Minister for Health, add to that list. The intention is for those to be the ones no Minister could ever take out. The legal advice we have is that in order to make it as easy as possible for patients, the more specific those incidences are either in the Act or regulations, the better. It is in the interest of patients. Those are the incidences no Minister could ever take out without amending the Act. I absolutely commit we will add more to the list. Colleagues will be aware the relevant section in the Bill provides for a very broad range of incidences with regard to the parameters which could be covered.

A question was asked about patients who wish to avail of the patient requested review going back to 2018. That will be available for them which is important. Finally, to go back to the issue of substance, while I acknowledge and respect all views, there is no perfect answer to this but let us put aside the audit for a minute. What is being proposed is an obligation in every diagnosis of cancer among men and women, where the screening services are involved, for the man or woman to be told a patient-requested review is available. If the patient chooses, there would be a mandatory obligation to disclose the results.

Colleagues have said they would wish to know and men and women may wish to know. Leaving the audit aside entirely, the mechanism proposed will make sure every single patient is given the choice. As colleagues have said here, they would wish to know. I think I probably would too. However, the UK evidence suggests many patients do not. Every patient would have the opportunity to find out. The flipside of that if a patient says "No" - as we are told approximately half of patients in the UK say - the audit was non-anonymised and a discordance was found, the patient has clearly said he or she does not wish to know. There would now be an obligation to tell the patient even though the patient had said he or she did not wish to know. We need to reflect on that. We will work with officials to find wording and with colleagues across the House to find an amendment that reflects an obligation to inform of the right to a review.

See this speech in context