Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I made some remarks before the debate was adjourned and I intend to offer further clarification in this regard. I refer to section 40B. Deputy Shatter raised the issue of what "without delay" means. It must be read in the context of the section which places an obligation on the HSE to monitor and keep under review occurrences and developments concerning matters relating to its objects and functions. Given the requirement to monitor and keep such matters under review, there should be no reason for delay. In any case if there is a delay, the Minister can invoke section 40C and require the HSE to provide information within a period which would be defined. It was also suggested that ministerial specifications about classes of occurrences and any guidelines that may be issued should be subject to Oireachtas scrutiny. These provisions are intended to give the necessary flexibility to the Minister to ensure the HSE is clear on the type and nature of the information required. An analogy is drawn with section 10 of the Health Act 2004.

Other proposals have been suggested for inclusion in the Bill. However, as I remarked at the beginning of the debate, in the context of expedited legislation it is better to be as focused as possible and not to branch into areas that are not absolutely necessary. As everyone is aware, rushed legislation can sometimes lead to bad law. The narrower the focus, the more accurate the achievement of the aims of the Bill.

I have also set out why the Government has chosen not to amend existing law on the publication of reports. This belongs to the same category as that to which I have just referred. The purpose of the Bill was very narrow: to provide a safe channel of communication. This is what we set out to achieve. Certain points raised by the Ombudsman were widely discussed in the media. I refer to the conclusion of the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children. My intention is to seek further information through the avenue of the Child Care (Amendment) Act 2007.

I refer to Deputy Shatter's freedom of information request. The Department has undertaken a search of possible records and has identified approximately 500 electronic documents which may fall within the scope of the request and which, hopefully, will indicate the degree of intensity of my inquiries in this regard. Nevertheless, the Deputy was provided with an estimate of the time involved, some 52 hours, to procure this information as well as the relevant cost. It is important to remember that Ministers have no role in the determination of freedom of information requests.

I thank Deputies for their contributions. While there are issues for debate as we approach Committee and Report Stages, the Bill will help the work of the independent review group significantly.