Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 26 May 2004
35 Ms McManus 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; the steps being taken to address the serious concerns regarding the adequacy of the proposed inquiry raised by Patient Focus and others; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15739/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraFollowing the Medical Council's investigation into the conduct of Dr. Michael Neary, which found him guilty of professional misconduct regarding ten patients, the Government decided to establish a non-statutory inquiry chaired by Judge Maureen Harding Clark. A formal announcement of the terms of reference will be made shortly. In broad terms, it will inquire into whether Dr. Neary's practice was commented or acted upon by others at the hospital. It will examine whether internal or external reviews were conducted. It will also inquire into the measures put in place to prevent a repeat of those events at the hospital and offer advice on any additional systems that should be put in place. A number of meetings have been held with Patient Focus, the patient support group, with the most recent being on 20 May, 2004. As part of this process the group has been briefed by counsel to the inquiry in respect of how it proposes to conduct its investigations. In particular, the group has been assured that any woman who wishes to give evidence will be facilitated in doing so. I am aware that the group has some concerns about the scope of the report to be furnished by the inquiry and about the compellability of witnesses. As regards the report, I asked my Department, following a meeting I had last week with Patient Focus, to raise the group's concerns with the inquiry. I will revert to the group in due course. As regards compellability, if the inquiry finds itself unable to fully discharge its remit due to non co-operation by relevant persons or bodies, the judge will report that to me and I will ask the Government to consider what further action may be necessary. Such action may include recourse to an investigation under the Commissions of Investigation Bill 2003, particularly if the inquiry is undermined by such non co-operation. The inquiry team has already examined a substantial amount of documents and records which relate to the inquiry and the latter has been asked to report within a nine-month timescale.
I thank the Minister for his reply. It is not absolutely reassuring for him to say that on the issue of compellability, which is central to the success or otherwise of the inquiry, he may consider using the legislation that is in the process of going through the Houses. Is he giving to Patient Focus and the women who were so brutally and barbarously mutilated a guarantee that the Government will use the legislation that will be available to it if the compellability issue is not resolved under the current arrangements? Is he in a position to provide that guarantee now?
Will the full investigation sought by the women take place? They want included in the investigation, other than caesarean hysterectomies, gynaecological procedures, the death of babies and other issues. Will the investigation extend back to 1974 when Dr. Neary began his practice? What kind of co-operation or communication will be put in place with the women regarding the ongoing work of the inquiry? Has the Minister set up arrangements for keeping in contact with the women on an ongoing basis with regard to the progress of the inquiry?
I met the group last week in regard to the issues about which the Deputy has asked. The chairperson is an esteemed judge of an international court. It is clear that the Medical Council has set the parameters in the context that it found Dr. Neary guilty of malpractice in his performance, particularly with regard to a number of caesarean hysterectomies which came before the council for adjudication and on which he was found guilty. Our first objective and the ultimate objective of the inquiry is to ensure that such events never happen again, not just in Drogheda hospital but in any other maternity hospital in the country. We must also facilitate the women who were so badly treated by providing them with the opportunity to give evidence, tell their story and inform the inquiry about what happened.
On the issue of the scope of the inquiry, the group has said clearly that it does not expect the chairperson to investigate every procedure that took place in the hospital or to reach definitive conclusions on each adverse event or incident that might be brought to the inquiry's attention. In other words, the judge is in a position to find matters of fact or conclusions regarding events not covered by the Medical Council, and which may be the subject matter of individual presentations to the inquiry. The group does not expect every incident that happened to be investigated but it wants the opportunity to have them heard and, perhaps, reflected in the report.
The terms of reference relate to the systems in place at the time, the absence or presence of a clinical audit, peer review etc. The terms will encompass a systems approach to what did or did not happen in Drogheda. This will facilitate the women and ensure they have the opportunity to present their individual cases to the inquiry team.
On the issue of compellability, the chairperson is assertive and strong in her view that she can conduct an effective inquiry under the current arrangements.
What if she is wrong?
I do not want to say or do anything that would undermine her function in that regard, other than what I said in my reply. Action the Government may take in the event of non-co-operation will depend on the report we receive from the judge and the degree to which her inquiry was or would be hampered by the absence of co-operation. We want to get to the bottom of the issue. We want answers as to how matters went wrong. We know they went wrong and that appalling acts were carried out. The Medical Council has adjudicated on that. We must find out the reason such acts were allowed to continue for such a length of time and we are determined to do that.
Is the Minister saying that even though the legislation, which is at the end of the legislative process now, will be in place, he will not undertake to use it to ensure issues of compellability that exist are addressed? Let us assume that it is likely compellability will be an issue. Is he willing to give the guarantee now that if the issue arises as a problem, as is likely no matter how good the judge, he will use the legislation, which everybody in the House supports, that will be available to him? Is he willing to give that undertaking now?
That is not what I said, the Deputy is putting words in my mouth. I have clearance from Government to move on to the statutory phase in the context of the new commission of inquiry Bill. If co-operation is not forthcoming or if the degree of co-operation is such as to render the inquiry fatally flawed or undermined, there will be no difficulty about moving on to the commission of inquiry format. I want to respect the judge's position. She, as chairperson of the inquiry, is of the view that an effective inquiry can be conducted under the current format.
