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

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 8, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following: “Report into the future of regulating health and social care professionals

6.The Minister shall, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas, and the relevant committee, setting out the implications of introducing an established criteria for determining which health and social care professions to regulate into the future under the Act of 2005.”.

I spoke about this at some length on Committee Stage. While the CORU Act is important, it is about regulating health professionals. It dates from 2005 and deals with 17 or 18 professions that were nominated for regulation. The progress on opening registers for those professions has been painfully slow. It is indefensible that things have been moving at this snail's pace. After 17 years, we are at the point where only ten registers are open. A further seven or so need to either be opened or are under consideration. We do not know where the Minister is going on this. Not only are there seven professions in respect of which registers are outstanding, it is also the case that a significant number of other professions did not appear on the original list. Some of these should have been on the list. Others have evolved into new professions in recent years.

Medical progress is moving quickly, particularly when it comes to the use of technology in diagnostics and so on. On Committee Stage, there were two particular areas I referred to. During the course of the year, a number of presentations were made to Members of the Houses. One was from the Irish Institute of Clinical Measurement Physiology, which, again, is a relatively new science. These are clinical measurement physiologists, and they have become critical people in diagnostics. They work across five disciplines in clinical measurement science. They are mainly people who operate diagnostic machinery and carry out measurements in the context of cardiology, gastroenterology, neurophysiology, respiratory issues and vascular issues. These are major areas of health and they are doing this important diagnostic work. It was put to us that in the area of cardiology, for example, Croí gave a good presentation and showed how one of its clinical measurement physiologists could operate, essentially with a laptop with the right software, and carry out large numbers of tests which, in other circumstances, a person would have to wait to see a consultant for. It makes sense to ensure that these professions are properly regulated.

I made another point before, which I want to repeat. I have had correspondence from the presidents of Dublin City University and the South East Technological University. They were talking about a high-level course they provide in their universities for athletic therapists and these are people who are working in sports organisations like the FAI and the GAA. They work in private clinics, private hospitals and other sporting and recreational settings. That is another profession that is not regulated.

There is a massive backlog that needs to be dealt with quickly because when we are talking about regulation, we are talking about patient safety and ensuring high standards. It is the professionals that are calling for this. It is not a case of the Department trying to get professions regulated; it is the professions that are calling for it because they want to ensure high standards and they should be supported in achieving those high standards by the system and the Department. I recognise that a report has been done to look at this area and to see what happens with regulating health and social care professionals in other countries. It is not necessarily the case that every profession has to be regulated, but it is important to have a system in place that identifies those professions that have the potential for high risk to patients. There is a need to make a decision. We need to hear from the Minister what his intention is going forward with these outstanding professions and what kind of approach he will take. The recommendation from the Health Research Board has been that we take a risk-based approach but we do not know the level of risk across different professions. That is why we need the Minister to prepare a report in this regard. This issue has been dragging on for a long time so we need to see movement on it.

On Committee Stage, I had an amendment that the Minister would bring forward a report - to go to the Committee on Health - on how he intends to proceed, within a three-month period of the passing of this legislation. I recognise that the Minister is well disposed to that. He said he would consider it for Report Stage, which he has done, and he has brought forward an amendment. I acknowledge the progress and movement on that but it would be better if that report was produced at the end of this process, when the legislation is completed, and that the report would go to the Committee on Health. I am okay with the six-month period, but I ask the Minister to undertake that he will do it within six months of the passing of this legislation because it is important that all of those many professions that are waiting for regulation are clear about what the future holds. I ask for a general timeframe as to what is involved.

See this speech in context