I move amendment No. 5: In page 6, to delete line 33 and substitute the following: “ “designated person” means— (a) in the case of a notifiable incident, the person designated under section 16 ; or (b) in the case of a Part 5 review, the person designated under section 46 ;”.

I move amendment No. 6: In page 7, line 17, after “than” to insert “screening carried out by”.

I move amendment No. 7: In page 7, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following: “ “making an open disclosure of a notifiable incident” shall be construed in accordance with section 9 : “making an open disclosure of a Part 5 review” shall be construed in accordance with section 39 ;”.

I move amendment No. 8: In page 7, to delete lines 30 and 31.

I move amendment No. 9: In page 7, after line 36, to insert the following: “ “open disclosure of Part 5 review” shall be construed in accordance with section 39 and references to the open disclosure of Part 5 review, or open disclosure in relation to a Part 5 review shall be construed accordingly;”.

I move amendment No. 10: In page 8, to delete lines 1 to 4 and substitute the following: “ “other than in person”— (a) in relation to a notifiable incident disclosure meeting, an additional information disclosure meeting or a clarification given under section 23 , and (b) in relation to a Part 5 disclosure meeting, an additional information disclosure meeting or a clarification given under section 53 , means holding such meeting or such clarification by means of the telephone or the internet (or other similar metho…

I move amendment No. 11: In page 8, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following: “ “ Part 5 review” means a review conducted in accordance with section 35 and includes— (a) a request for a Part 5 review, (b) the process undertaken by the health services provider to carry out the review, and (c) the findings of the review; “ Part 5 review disclosure meeting” shall be construed in accordance with section 48(1) ;”.

I move amendment No. 12: In page 8, to delete lines 17 to 20 and substitute the following: “ “relevant person” means in relation to the making of an open disclosure of— (a) a notifiable incident, a person specified in paragraphs (a) to (f) of section 7(2) , or a person nominated pursuant to section 7(3) , or (b) a Part 5 review, a person specified in paragraphs (a) to (f) of section 38(2) , or a person nominated pursuant to section 38(3) ;”.

I move amendment No. 14: In page 8, to delete lines 23 to 29 and substitute the following: “(2) References in this Act to— (a) “information provided”, or “an apology made” at a notifiable incident disclosure meeting or a Part 5 review disclosure meeting, (b) “additional notifiable information provided”, or “apology made”, at an additional notifiable information meeting, or at an additional Part 5 review meeting, or (c) information provided in a clarification under section 23 or section 53 , as the case may be, incl…

On Committee Stage, I committed to table an amendment on Report Stage to include provision for a review, so I think this amendment is superseded by my amendment committing to a review after the two years. The amending provision I am putting in today introduces the fact the Minister shall initiate a review of the operation of the Act no later than two years from the date of commencement. This provision closely mirrors those in other existing health Acts, like the Health (Termination of Pregnancy) Act 2018. Two years…

We discussed this amendment on Committee Stage as well and I acknowledge the intent of it. This amendment has a constructive intent. However, I cannot accept the amendment because the Independent Patient Advocacy Service is not a statutory one. Therefore, we cannot refer to a non-statutory service in statute. However, there are various things we can do and are continuing to do. We need significant investment in awareness training and in campaigns, not just in cancer screening but right across the HSE so that people…

I move amendment No. 17: In page 28, line 11, to delete "patient safety". Amendments Nos. 17, 18, 18 a and 18 b are technical amendments. Amendment No. 17 deletes the words "patient safety" from an occurrence of the phrase "notifiable patient safety incident" in page 28. This ensures the Bill references "notifiable incident"” consistently throughout rather than "notifiable patient safety incidents" on this one stray occasion. The change is also reflected in the change to the Title of the Bill which is dealt with in…

I move amendment No. 18: In page 37, line 34, to delete " Subsection " and substitute " Subsection (2) ".

I move amendment No. 18 a : In page 37, line 38, to delete “ section 18(2) ” and substitute “ section 18(2)(d) ”.

I move amendment No. 18 b : In page 38, line 24, to delete " section 18(2) " and substitute " section 18(2)(d) ".

I move amendment No. 19: In page 45, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following: “PART 5 OPEN DISCLOSURE OF PART 5 REVIEWS Part 5 review 35. (1) A patient may request a review (in this Act referred to as a “request for a Part 5 review”) of the results of a screening which has been carried out by a cancer screening service in relation to the patient. (2) A request for a Part 5 review shall be made in writing to the health services provider who provided the cancer screening to the patient. (3) Where a request f…

I move amendment No. 7 to amendment No. 19: To delete section 36 and substitute the following: “Obligation to inform patient of right to make request for Part 5 review 36. (1) A health services provider shall, in relation to a patient in respect of whom a cancer screening is to be or is being carried out, inform the patient in writing, either before or at the time that it carries out the cancer screening on that patient, of his or her right to make a request unde r section 35 for a Part 5 review. (2) Without prejud…

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for allowing a waiver for us to include that amendment at very short notice this evening. It is greatly appreciated.

This is something we need to do but we have got to do it right. It is being looked at. Dr. Scally quite rightly pointed it out. We have discussed it before. However, we have to do it right. Extensive work is going on around new complaints policies including legislative change. There needs to be funding allocation, training and clinical governance pathways put in place. There is an entire process that has to be put in place for the patient to make sure that those complaints are dealt with in the right way and in a w…

I accept the good intent in the amendment. I would reiterate that this is not a Bill about complaints; rather, it is a Bill about open disclosure and regulation. I want to be very clear. The open disclosure in the Bill covers clinical incidents. The issue in the 2004 Act is not about open disclosure; rather it is about who people complain to. The 2004 Act states that if a patient wants to make a complaint about a clinical issue, he or she does so through the professional body. Non-clinical issues go to the HSE. Tha…