Joanna Tuffy (Labour)

Yes, but there was also an office of the inspector. A point I made during that debate is appropriate to this one, namely, that more needs to be done in terms of a patient's ability to have his or her grievances with the health system dealt with. There is a need for something along the lines of the proposal in the Labour-Fine Gael document, Patients First: An Agreed Agenda on a Patient Safety Authority, which calls for an independent safety authority with a strong legislative base and patient-focused remit. It would bring together the various regulatory bodies and work in conjunction with the other statutory or professional bodies with a regulatory function in the health system. A patient-focused avenue of complaint is needed.

When the Bill was discussed in the Dáil, Deputy McManus referred to Mary Rafferty's comments on the need for something along the lines of New Zealand's commissioner, who is not unlike an ombudsman in that one can make complaints to an independent body. The system, both as it stands and after the Minister's proposed reforms, involves many diverse bodies such as HIQA, the office of the inspector and the medical council, which deals with complaints about doctors' conduct. In a system without an overall one-stop-shop, such as a patient safety authority to which people can bring all of their complaints in the first instance, grievances or concerns can often fall between the gaps and people do not know where to bring their complaints. The patient safety authority's advantage lies in the fact that if a person complains to it in respect of a body with which it deals, it could refer the person to that body, explain the process or identify any gap in order to have it addressed. However, the Bill does not go that far.

When the Garda Ombudsman Commission begins operating, it will be an obvious place for people to go irrespective of their concerns. For example, they could ask for advice and make complaints. This is what the health system needs. People are confident with the ombudsman commission because it is independent. While lay members will be included on the council under the Bill, it will not be an independent avenue of complaint.

Like Senator Leyden, who raises the matter in the House frequently, Senator Feeney referred to section 17 on the council's membership. Section 17(7) states:

A person is not eligible for appointment as a member of the Council, or of a committee, if the person is-

(a) a member of either House of the Oireachtas or of the European Parliament,

(b) regarded, pursuant to section 19 of the European Parliament Elections Act 1997, as having been elected to the European Parliament to fill a vacancy, or

(c) a member of a local authority.

Will the Minister of State explain in his response why this subsection is included? An explanation is a common provision in legislation. Has the subsection been included for the sake of it or due to a politically correct idea in the Civil Service that there is something wrong with politicians being on the board? Unless a reason is given, it is not something over which we as politicians should stand. I am not 100% sure about whether it was previously the case that politicians could not be members, but I see no reason for this provision. If it is justified, we should be able to make up our minds.