I call on the Minister for Health and Children to fully investigate the circumstances whereby a consultant psychiatrist was able to successfully perform his duties of employment with the South Eastern Health Board even though he was under suspension from his duties as a GP in the United Kingdom. Dr. John Harding Price was employed in a locum capacity from 17 April 2000, until 5 November 2000, by the South Eastern Health Board. He was employed at Saint Luke's Hospital, Clonmel, and Saint Canice's Hospital, Kilkenny, both of which are psychiatric hospitals. The South Eastern Health Board received three references in respect of this applicant arising from their advertisement. It was not aware of any allegations against this doctor prior to his employment. The Irish Medical Council, which is charged with the responsibility of verifying consultants' fitness to practice, confirmed the registration of the doctor on 13 April 2000, just a few days before he was formally appointed. Dr Price was suspended by the General Medical Council in the United Kingdom a month previously in March 2000. It has been confirmed that the Medical Council was informed of this matter in April 2000, the very month in which it confirmed and verified the fitness of this person to be employed by the South Eastern Health Board. I am informed that Dr. Price was suspended—
Adjournment Debate. - Employment of Consultant.
An Leas Cheann Comhairle:
Deputy Hogan, I would prefer if you could refer to the matter in more general terms and not mention the doctor's name in the House.
The doctor's name is in the public domain already.
Even so, I would prefer if you did not mention his name.
I am informed that the person was suspended by the General Medical Council in the United Kingdom because of claims of alleged sexual abuse. In an era of modern websites and all the modern communications facilities and taking into consideration the movement of health personnel generally between this country and the United Kingdom, it is difficult to understand how this fiasco could have occurred. A series of legal steps were subsequently taken to remove the person from the Irish Medical Register and this was achieved through a High Court order in January 2001.
I am extremely disappointed to note that the doctor's name was restored to the same medical register by order of another High Court decision on 10 August 2001, even though there is no indication that the person had been investigated in respect of the complaints in the UK and that he was a fit person to practise and verified by the Irish Medical Council.
I am not so concerned about the legal issues as outlined by Professor Bury of the Irish Medical Council on 1 November 2001. He asserts that the Medical Council has fully and promptly discharged its responsibilities in this case. I agree that it discharged them but at a considerable length of time after this matter had come to its notice originally. I must treat with disdain and call a load of nonsense, the fact that Professor Bury, the president of the Medical Council, did not see fit to apologise for the error that was created. The Irish Medical Council allowed a doctor, while suspended by the General Medical Council in the UK to be employed by the South Eastern Health Board in two hospitals and nobody knew that he was under suspension in a neighbouring jurisdiction. The Minister has indicated that he will examine the circumstances surrounding the recruitment procedures and I welcome that. The Minister has been aware of this case for a number of days. I expect that a considerable number of vulnerable people in our hospitals, particularly the section of society that we are speaking about, the psychiatric patients and their families, will be quite anxious to have this matter cleared up as quickly as possible. I urge the Minister to conduct an investigation as quickly as possible and to publish the findings and ensure that we have proper recruitment procedures in future so that this cannot happen again. We need accountability in this matter, not only from the Department of Health and Children and the health board, but also from the Medical Council. Legality stands in the way of accountability in this matter.
I want the Minister to take action as he is a man of action. Speed is of the essence to allay the anxiety and fear of the vulnerable people concerned.
I raise this matter because in order to protect patients and professionals in the health service, there is an urgent need to establish a proper data management body and to review procedures relating to registration and the ongoing upkeep of information in a policing system of this kind. Will the Minister bring together representatives of the Medical Council, the health boards and the Department of Health and Children as a matter of urgency to establish such a system?
The Harding Price case, which is in the public domain, has underlined serious deficiencies in the system.
I will make the same point to the Deputy as I made to Deputy Hogan. I would prefer if the name of the person concerned was not mentioned in the House.
This case, which is of national interest at this stage, has underlined serious deficiencies in the system and caused hardship and personal trauma for patients. The record of the case has been outlined publicly. The General Medical Council in the UK suspended this man and the minutes of that suspension and the case leading up to it are in the public domain and make for very sad reading. I am sure those minutes which were available to me would also have been available to the Medical Council had it chosen to pursue the matter further before giving any comment to the South Eastern Health Board.
This man was suspended in March 2000 and the Medical Council was informed of that in April 2000. Why was that information not flagged for the South Eastern Health Board before it employed this individual? Why does the remit of the Medical Council not cover knowing how many professionals are in the system and where they are located? What action can the Minister take in this regard?
The inaction of the South Eastern Health Board has been appalling. The issue was flagged for that board a long time ago because a legal case was pending, but at the same time an effort was made to shroud the issue in a cloak of secrecy, a fortress like mentality. Why can the board or the Department not come clean on this issue, apologise to the patients involved and create a list of those patients who were treated or, it might be more appropriate to say, interviewed by the man concerned? Why is action on this matter not pro-active rather than reactionary by way of public comment on the radio and so on?
The help line offered is a sham. It is not manned by professional counsellors or competent staff. Callers were occasionally answered by a sec retary, programme managers and so on. The line is not confidential. Various callers have said that their caller ID comes up on screen and, therefore, they are easily traceable, particularly those who, in their private capacity, like to keep an eye on the developments within the health sector.
Why were the references in this case not checked or why are the references of all professionals in this area not checked? The normal practice in the commercial world is to check at least three or four references when employing a person. One would go beyond the first port of call, of being told the person is registered, and check the person's work ethic and ability to respond to patients and work as part of a team in the health services. That was not done. Why was that overlooked? If this had happened in the commercial world, someone would be responsible, someone would have to carry the can and say he or she did not do his or her job. We must reflect on that. We must ensure that what happened in this case does not happen again.
I am particularly concerned about the vulnerable patients involved. One patient aged 46 rang the help line today but did not get any assistance. In spite of the fact that she was treated by this gentleman, was to the fore listening to the public debate on this issue, is vulnerable and suffering from depression, there was no response. When a complaint was made to the board, there was still no response. That procedure is totally unacceptable. I raise my voice on behalf of the vulnerable patients concerned. I ask for a pro-active response to this matter from the Department through the health board first thing tomorrow morning.
I thank the Deputies for raising these matters and allowing me the opportunity to clarify the issues.
As Minister for Health and Children, I am committed to ensuring that any health professional providing a service to a member of the public is properly qualified, competent and fit to practice.
In relation to medical practitioners, Ireland has a strict regulatory regime which is designed to ensure that only competent, properly qualified medical practitioners of good standing can work in the country. No doctor is allowed to practice medicine in Ireland unless he or she is registered on the Register of Medical Practitioners maintained by the Medical Council.
Under the Medical Practitioners Act, 1978, the Medical Council is the independent body charged with regulating medical registration. We introduced that legislation to establish independent bodies which are charged with responsibility for these issues. It is important to bear that in mind in our comments on particular cases as they develop.
To whom are those bodies accountable?
They are independent—
I would prefer if Deputy Hogan would refrain from interrupting the Minister.
—to prevent any intervention in the operation of their day to day work and activities. We can examine the issue in terms of the broader Act, legislation and so on. From time to time we forget we have devolved statutory authority to different bodies to do different things. We tend to try to leave those bodies off the hook and to bring what is at issue back here too quickly.
The overriding rationale behind the requirements in the Medical Practitioners Act is the protection of the public. Deputy Hogan mentioned all health professionals, I am sure he will pardon me if I mention that in relation to nurses, An Bord Altranais is the statutory regulatory authority for this profession in Ireland. In considering applications for registration from nurses or midwives from abroad, An Bord Altranais, as a matter of standard practice, requires verification of the applicants' professional and training status and their current registration status from the relevant competent authority in their home country or other applicable country. In the case of applicants from non-EU countries, An Bord Altranais requires two professional references and one employer's reference. Best recruitment practices require that these nurses are subject to the same employment and police checks as Irish nurses. This point will be reinforced in new guidelines being finalised by my Department and which will be issued to all health service employers.
My Department is also currently working on legislative proposals to provide for the introduction of a system of statutory registration for certain health and social care professionals. Those would be the allied health professions including physiotherapists and speech and language therapists.
The proposed structures for this system of statutory registration will comprise a registration board for each individual profession involved and a registration council for the system overall. The system will share a set of three common statutory committees, which will include a fitness to practice committee. These committees will play a key role in protecting the public by ensuring that a quality service is provided to the public and that all professionals continue to provide a service of the highest standard.
Under this system of statutory registration, each registration board will be legally obliged to maintain a register of all persons deemed eligible to practice within the profession. Each board will determine the criteria for registration, including approved qualifications, education, training and practice experience. In addition, each registration board will maintain details of each registered professional's employer, the position held or place of private practice. The board will also record and maintain all post-registration qualifications held by registered members.
With regard to the case to which Deputies Hogan and McGuinness referred, I made inquiries of the South Eastern Health Board in this regard. The board informed me that it employed the named doctor in a locum capacity from 17 April 2000 until 5 November 2000. He was employed at St. Luke's Psychiatric Hospital, Clonmel, until 31 July 2000 and from 14 August 2000 at St. Canice's Psychiatric Hospital, Kilkenny.
I have also been advised by the South Eastern Health Board that the temporary appointment was made following the board's advertisement of the post and in accordance with the board's normal recruitment procedures. These procedures include an interview process, obtaining written references and confirming the registration status of any doctor who is employed by the South Eastern Health Board whether in a full-time or temporary capacity.
Any doctor wishing to practise medicine in Ireland must be registered on the Register of Medical Practitioners. During the period of his employment with the South Eastern Health Board, the doctor in question was registered with the Medical Council and a copy of his registration was forwarded to the South Eastern Health board by the Medical Council on 13 April 2000, that is, prior to his taking up duty with the South Eastern Health Board on 17 April. In fairness to the South Eastern Health Board, the person was on the register when it employed him.
What about the Medical Council?
I am making a point about the board's position on this. Any objective observation of the matter would have to come to the conclusion that the board was not aware that the person was suspended from the register in the United Kingdom.
The Medical Council was.
The doctor's name had effect in the Irish medical register until 29 January 2001, when it was removed following a High Court order obtained by the Medical Council. However, as the result of an appeal, the doctor's name was restored to the medical register by order of the High Court on 10 August 2001. The South Eastern Health Board has confirmed to me that it was not aware of any allegations against this doctor prior to his employment with the board, nor did it receive any complaints about him during the period of his employment with the board.
The South Eastern Health Board has established a helpline for patients. I will take up the issue raised by Deputy McGuinness with regard to the operation of that helpline. It was established for patients who may have concerns in relation to their contact with this doctor. I have been advised that since the establishment of the helpline, four inquiries have been received by the board. Two of these inquiries are in the nature of complaints and these complaints are being urgently investigated by the board.
As the board is also conscious that some people may not wish to make contact by using this line, direct contact is being made by the board with all GPs, giving them details of the periods of employment of this locum doctor and advising GPs of supports that are available. The South Eastern Health Board has also informed me that it has initiated a review of its procedures for the employment of locum doctors.
I have asked officials of my Department to undertake an examination of all the circumstances surrounding recruitment of health professionals and to liaise with the relevant parties in order to determine how best to strengthen existing recruitment procedures and to ensure best practice is followed in all cases. If, arising from this examination and this case, any points emerge in relation to the adequacy of the legislative framework, these will be addressed in the context of the review of the Medical Practitioners Act, which is at an advanced stage. We are currently reviewing this Act with a view to new legislation which will update and supersede it. The issues that have arisen in this case can be dealt with in that.
The Minister should hurry.
I also intend to meet with the Medical Council on this issue. Clearly, the issue relates to the fact that there was a temporary suspension in the United Kingdom and it appears that the Medical Council was of the view that it, in itself, did not disqualify the person from operating here. The public comments have been to that effect. We can pursue these issues further with the Medical Council.
I understand the concern this has caused in the areas where this person worked and I am anxious to allay that concern as quickly as possible.