If the Deputy would not mind, we are all entitled to speak. One of her colleagues gave an example the last time we had a debate on this of a case where a dentist refused to treat a patient under the DTSS, but took the patient back when they were in agony and willing to pay privately. I do not believe that is acceptable. The Government has a role, but dentists should sign up to the scheme and should provide treatment to people with medical cards.

As the Deputy will be aware, the vast majority of payments have been made. There are specific guidelines across hospitals. Broadly, the payment is for people working in hospitals in patient areas. For example, security, catering, cleaning and contract are all covered. The kinds of people working in an acute setting who would not be covered might include people working in an administrative office that is typically separated from patient areas. If the 11 workers to which the Deputy referred were working in areas wher…

I move: That the Bill be referred to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence pursuant to Standing Orders 95(3)(a) and 181(1).

My understanding is that we are starting the debate on the amendment to amendment No. 14, which is in this grouping, although the earlier amendments were not disposed of on the previous occasion. I propose, therefore, that Deputy Kelly, who tabled that amendment, resume the debate.

There is quite a bit to unpack. If I go slightly over the seven minutes allotted, I ask the Acting Chair and colleagues to please bear with me. I thank several groups of people for where we have got to, which is the right place for this Bill. First and foremost among these are the patient representatives, including the 221+ group. Members of that group and other patient representatives who are here this evening have been involved for the past two years in detailed design of the patient-requested review, not just in…

I am sorry; there is quite a lot to get through.

Following the debate we had before Christmas, we essentially have three more pieces we are introducing again this evening. The first is mandatory informing of patients of their rights to a patient-requested review before or during screening. The second is mandatory informing of the right to a patient-requested review after screening and that the process needs to be put in place for that, which is contained within the wording. The third then is mandatory provision of information on the process online. Those are the …

What will I put in writing?

Yes.

I wonder if I could get two minutes apiece for my responses. It is very difficult to respond to colleagues in approximately 45 seconds each. I wonder if we could stretch it to two minutes.

Thank you, Acting Chair. We are in danger of getting on with each other.

I will get back to Deputy Kelly on his first question on cases being statute-barred. I will ask officials to get back to him with a legal opinion. Like him, my understanding of how the statute would apply is that it would be X number of years from when a patient finds out.

However, let us make sure. I will ask the officials-----

Yes. My understanding is that the time is from when you know, but let us get a legal view on that. In response to Deputy Kelly's second question, there will be several matters on which I will be writing to the HSE. Yes, it is my intent, and I will be including this in writing to the HSE, to say that what we mean in the second sub-clause by "after screening" is what the 221+ group means, which is at, or a reasonable time after, diagnosis and, critically, that patient representatives including the 221+ group will be …

-----time to train the healthcare professionals. I am not in a position to accept the specific amendment on "may" versus "shall" for a technical reason. Guidelines will not be required in every circumstance from the Minister and, regarding the second piece, from the healthcare provider. There may not be any additional information in every case. We would be putting an obligation on the Minister of the day and on the health service to provide guidelines where that simply may not be possible. It is not something we ca…

I move amendment No. 2: In page 5, line 17, to delete “private hospitals” and substitute the following: “private hospitals, to provide for the review by the chief inspector of certain incidents occurring in the course of the provision of a health service to a person by certain entities”. This group of amendments - group 2 - concerns the nursing home amendments and giving HIQA the important power to intervene. I flagged this amendment on Committee Stage when I advised the committee that I proposed to give the HIQA c…

I can respond to Deputy Cullinane's questions on HIQA having these powers by confirming that it does not currently have the powers under this Bill. Under section 9, HIQA has powers to intervene but only in very specific circumstances. I engaged directly with HIQA on one particular patient safety incident, for example, and the point was made to me that, in this case, which was not a good one, it had no power to intervene. It will now. This legislation will give it the additional powers it needs. The Deputy quite rig…

I might get back to the Deputy specifically on that. The initial view is on long-term residential care, but I will get back to him with a note on the question raised.

I move amendment No. 3: In page 5, line 24, to delete “Notifiable Patient Safety Incidents” and substitute “Notifiable Incidents and Open Disclosure”.

I move amendment No. 4: In page 6, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following: “ “additional Part 5 review information”, shall be construed in accordance with section 52; “additional Part 5 review information meeting” shall be construed in accordance with section 52;”.