Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 7 April 2004
8 Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Health and Children if the terms of reference of the inquiry, to be chaired by Judge Maureen Harding Clark, into the activities of a person (details supplied) have been finalised; when the inquiry will begin; the form it will take; when he expects it to be completed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10788/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraArising from the Medical Council's report of an investigation into the professional conduct of Dr. Neary, Judge Maureen Harding Clark has been selected to chair an inquiry into the issues raised in it.
Following the appointment of the chairperson, a premises has been secured and fitted out for the inquiry. In addition, Judge Clark has conducted an extensive examination of relevant documentation, including the transcript of the proceedings before the council's fitness to practise committee. The inquiry has as its principal purpose the objective of seeking to determine the reasons certain practices at the hospital were performed, and continued for so long, as well as seeking to ensure that all necessary measures are put in place to prevent a repeat of these events at the hospital in question, or elsewhere in the hospital system.
I have had a number of meetings with Patient Focus, the group representing former patients of Dr. Neary, and have discussed the proposed terms of reference and format of the inquiry. I met this group again yesterday in this regard. I indicated to it that I will revert to Government in regard to some outstanding issues it raised with me. It is my intention that the inquiry commence as soon as possible.
The Minister will accept he has the support of everybody in this House in ensuring this inquiry is up and running, is comprehensive and is as broadly based as the Medical Council has sought and as the unfortunate women who suffered at the hands of Dr. Neary have been seeking through Patient Focus.
I wish to ask about points at issue which are serious and which, if not addressed, a good inquiry will not result. In regard to the date of the start of the inquiry, will the Minister ensure it goes back as far as events in 1974? Will he ensure it is truly broadly based in the sense that it does not just look at caesarean hysterectomies but also at injurious procedures, such as the removal of ovaries? Will the Minister deal with the compellability issue so that witnesses are compelled to appear before the inquiry? If that issue is not addressed, the inquiry will not meet the needs of those seeking it. I understand Patient Focus has put forward proposals for compellability using the 1970 Health Act as a means of ensuring this happens.
I am looking at the issue of compellability and will respond to Patient Focus via another meeting shortly on the issues the Deputy outlined. The judge is anxious to concentrate on and to take as accepted fact the report of the Medical Council having gone through all its procedures, taking of evidence and declaring professional misconduct arose in the instances investigated by the Medical Council. It falls to this inquiry to establish how that professional misconduct was allowed to continue for so long. That was one of the original core requests of Patient Focus. An answer to that basic question would benefit all of us because it would help to inform policy in other hospitals.
The judge is anxious to facilitate persons who wish to come before the inquiry to bring forward evidence or to tell their own story on issues outside caesarean hysterectomy. Patient Focus has said — I hope I am faithfully interpreting what it said — it accepts the judge cannot go into every case which would arise in such a circumstance and make judgments on each case. There is an issue of clinically having to examine each case which may now emerge subsequent to the Medical Council report. Those issues have been raised with us. We are reflecting on them to see how we can accommodate them. We indicated that the inquiry team and the judge are willing to accommodate people to bring forward their stories to the inquiry.
The Medical Council report gives a clear template of professional misconduct which is now accepted. There is no argument but that Dr. Neary was guilty of professional misconduct in regard to the cases that came before the Medical Council. The key issue for the inquiry is to establish why this was allowed to happen for so long. We are looking at the compellability issue to see if we can accommodate the concerns of the group in that regard.
I do not think anybody is disputing the importance of the Medical Council's fitness to practise committee's report but what is sought by the Medical Council and Patient Focus is a broadly based inquiry which was understood would take place with the appointment of this judge. I am not clear whether the Minister is saying he is willing to extend the terms of reference back to 1974 and beyond the specific issue of caesarean hysterectomies to other unjustified and injurious procedures. Will he also ensure compellability to make this inquiry effective?
On broadening the inquiry to cover different procedures, I am still not clear what is requested from the discussions I have had——
There are only 130 women; it is not a large population.
——in the context of different cases and so on. The group has said it does not expect the judge to reach conclusions in each case that would come forward.
They want to be able to give their evidence.
The judge has indicated that she is willing to hear what people have to say on those specific issues.
Why not extend the terms of reference?
I think we will have further meetings with the group. We will see what emerges from them.
