Jennifer Carroll MacNeill
Dún Laoghaire · Fine Gael · Ireland
“It will be provided by a registered pharmacist in accordance with the relevant pharmacy legislation, including this Bill. Section 2 of the Bill makes various amendments to the Irish Medicines Board Act and the Pharmacy Act. Those amendments ensure that whole legislative framework is cross-referenced correctly.”
“We now have a common conditions service where you can go to a pharmacy instead of a GP to get a diagnosis and prescription for eight basic conditions like conjunctivitis or urinary tract infections - the kind of things that just come up in people's lives all the time. We would like to expand more and more what pharmacies can do.”
“In particular, the board will be focusing on aspects of menstrual health, on aspects of postpartum mental health, particularly in traumatic birth cases, on something we have overlooked for some time, which is endometriosis, on women who are finding it difficult to access services in different ways, as Senator Harmon suggested, and on more…”
“The extension to 41- to 45-year-olds could possibly be €5 million to €8 million because there are statistically fewer women in that bracket trying to conceive, so the numbers are higher. It really is a question of funding. I remind Senators that they have also asked me to fund various other programmes.”
“That followed confirmation from the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland and the Health Products Regulatory Authority that the patch and ring are classified as medicinal products, not medical devices. That is just a correction there.”
“That is why we have put so much money into supporting them in different ways, including the conclusion of a €50 million increase to their fees and to provide for the opportunity to raise private funds in this way, for example, the common conditions service. I want to see pharmacists doing more.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,593 lines we hold for Jennifer Carroll MacNeill, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 17 of 32.
“That is slightly different from the delivery of services, which we all understand, and that will be apparent. We have to get away from, in particular in the regions, the idea that you can only do something if you have a new person. I gave the example of the endoscopy suites in Bantry for the very reason that there is no point asking for new things at CUH when these exist at Bantry for the convenience of patients, who can get an endoscopy there instead of having to travel to CUH. It is the consultants who must go to the patients to make sure that diagnostic equipment is delivered and used in accordance with Sláintecare.”
“That is absolutely fair enough, except that this will happen under this service plan. On new money, we have additional money for new drugs, for example, in the drugs budget. We have an additional 3,300 people, which at a cost of €90,000 is all new money. They are all people who can be allocated not just to people with cancer, but people who have cancer with other things. This is the new money and the new investment. The distribution of that, which is what the Deputy is asking for, will be apparent in the service plan, which we expect in the coming weeks, having sent the letter of determination. It is a completely reasonable question. There is a process to work that out, particularly in this year 1 of a change. There will still be funding for the strategy itself, which of course is different. It is about research, programming and strategy.”
“It needs consultants from CUH to come out. Some of them are already doing that; others need to come out. The totality of investment in cancer is around treatment, drugs, diagnostics and, as the Deputy correctly identified, utilising the infrastructure we already have in a more complete way. I am trying to do that, hospital by hospital and region by region, to make sure that is maximised. In the letter of determination in the service plan, it will be for the region to recognise where it is coming up short and to make sure it is allocating its resources in an appropriate way.”
“We are talking about services that go beyond the cancer strategy. The Deputy correctly identified regional gaps that need to be filled by the regions, particularly where they are not meeting their targets or the same standard as other parts of the country. For example, this week, I was in Bantry, where there are two endoscopy suites, which are really important for bowel cancer and gastric cancers generally, but are under-utilised, although there are two theatres. That is a form of investment in cancer and in preventing, diagnosing and ultimately treating cancer. The two suites are there but are under-utilised. One of them is running for half of one week and the other is not being utilised at all, yet there is a list in Cork. The facility is there and we have to reorganise the resources. It does not necessarily need new people.”
“Work will begin shortly on an evaluation of the cancer strategy, which will inform the development of a new strategy next year. The budgetary situation is that the letter of determination has been sent, which will indicate very clearly, as the Deputy outlined, that there is inequality of access to diagnostics and treatment within the different regions. It is a priority to try to achieve better equality. In the service plan, we will see the specifics of trying to acknowledge and achieve that in a better way.”
“Capital investment already operates multi-annually and it is a priority for me to introduce this across all areas of the budget. Since its launch in 2017, the Government has allocated €105 million to the national cancer strategy itself to support cancer services and improve outcomes for patients. That, of course, is not the totality of funding for people who have cancer but to the cancer strategy itself. Since then, very significant progress has been made in improving cancer services and there are now over 220,000 living with or beyond cancer, 50% more than a decade ago. One in two people is expected to receive a cancer diagnosis in their lifetime. We are seeing tremendous advances in cancer care and I am committed to ensuring that patients can take advantage of these developments.”
“Funding of €27.4 billion, as the Deputy knows, has been allocated to the health service for 2026, an increase of 6.2%. Next year a new approach is being taken to funding allocation with health budgets being devolved to the HSE regions, giving them greater autonomy to meet local needs while holding them accountable for ambitious targets and national standards. The National Cancer Control Programme will continue to lead on service design nationally and implementation of the national cancer strategy. The programme also monitors performance and works closely with the regions to ensure the delivery of safe effective cancer services, continuing to work towards the delivery of multi-annual budgets in health over the coming years.”
“I move amendment No. 6: In page 23, after line 22, to insert the following: "PART 5 Amendment of Patient Safety (Notifiable Incidents and Open Disclosure) Act 2023 Amendment of section 68 of Patient Safety (Notifiable Incidents and Open Disclosure) Act 2023 25. (1) Section 68 of the Act of 2023 is amended, insofar as that section inserts section 41A(10) in the Health Act 2007, in the definition of "relevant designated centre", by the substitution of “paragraph (a)(iii) or (c)"for “paragraph (c) ". (2) The amendment effected by subsection (1) shall come into operation on the date on which section 68 of the Act of 2023 comes into operation. (3) In this section, "Act of 2023" means the Patient Safety (Notifiable Incidents and Open Disclosure) Act 2023.".”
“It is also required to facilitate persons with disabilities to exercise their rights under the regulation and to facilitate the submission of complaints, including providing easily accessible tools in this regard.”
“These guidelines are to be prepared in consultation with stakeholders, including patient representative groups and the National Disability Authority. In addition, the European health data space regulation we have discussed previously requires that health data be easily accessible for persons with disabilities, vulnerable groups and persons with low digital literacy. The regulation provides that member states should create targeted digital literacy programmes as well as providing patient-centred guidance in relation to the use of national guidelines, with specific attention paid to vulnerable groups. The digital health authority will be required to publish an activity report every two years and it must contain detail on how it does this.”
“Digital health literacy is critical to fostering trust and safety around the use of health data. For example, the HSE is working with a number of advocacy organisations to ensure that its app can be used by people with a wide range of needs. It is also seeking to ensure that the app uses inclusive language and takes into account additional requirements that patient groups may need by conducting user research and testing groups to see where people might be experiencing challenges in using the app. I am not in a position to accept the amendment for a number of reasons. Primarily, section 21 of the Bill empowers the HSE to prepare guidelines to enable patients to access their electronic health record as well as to set out the additional targeted measures to enable persons with a disability to access their electronic health record.”
“I am not sure if Deputies received an update on this, but I can confirm that it is intended to appoint the HSE to the role of digital health authority. The Bill provides the HSE with the clarity in Irish law that it will need. For all of these different reasons and the safeguards that are built in, I am not in a position to accept this amendment. I hope I have given the Deputy some comfort as to the level of detail of engagement the Data Protection Commission will have at all stages.”
“Member states must formally appoint their digital health authorities by March 2027. As part of its role, the digital health authority must publish an activity report every two years. That report must contain the measures to implement the regulation and information on the percentage of the population with access to the various data categories in the electronic health records and on the handling of requests from individuals regarding the exercise of their personal rights under the regulation. The digital health authority will also be expected co-operate with a range of health stakeholders. This will include the Data Protection Commission. The authority will be mandated to accept complaints in respect of infringements and patient rights, and to immediately refer those to the Data Protection Commission.”
“That is the huge advantage of electronic health records generally and of the sharing of information that is enabled by this legislation. It is not something that I would opt out of, but the Bill provides for people to be able to do that and to have that respect afforded to them, as long as they are advised of the potential consequences of doing so. We are not trying to force anybody to do anything in particular, but there are major advantages to the sharing of information in their own interests. It is also important for the Deputy to note that this Bill is the first of a suite of legislative measures to give full effect to the EU regulation on the European health data space under which member states are required to appoint a digital health authority to oversee governance of the primary use of electronic health data.”
“Patients have the right, subject to some caveats, to obtain information on access to their records, the date and time of access, how it was accessed and the personal health data that was accessed. This is an important transparency measure to ensure patient confidence in the health record system. We can imagine the circumstances in which this may be important. If I was in long-term care in, for example, a particular hospital in Dublin and then was involved in a car accident in Cork and is brought to Cork University Hospital, which is a major trauma centre, I would very much want my electronic health records to be immediately available to the staff there in order that they could treat me in the best way possible.”
“This is going to be a constant frame of engagement. In addition, the Bill already provides for a full review no later than five years after the passing of the Act. That has to be done in consultation with the Commissioner for Data Protection. The Health Information Bill complements and builds on the rights of natural persons provided under the GDPR in respect of their personal data. By way of example, it provides that a patient or their representative may restrict access by health service providers to all or part of their electronic health records, subject to being advised of the consequence of their decision. Importantly, if a health service provider accesses restricted information, the HSE has to keep a record of that and the reasons why it was accessed.”
“It certainly will be required. I am very glad. I understand that there will be a technical briefing next week or the week after in relation to that, which is a step in the ongoing engagement that is appropriate of that nature. I agree with what Deputy Cullinane said in respect of taking forward electronic health records generally, but, if I may, I will deal with the amendment before us. It is important to say to Deputy Rice that there has been a really sustained and positive engagement with the Data Protection Commission throughout the drafting process relating to this Bill. It is envisaged that this engagement will continue into the implementation phase. Consultation is specifically provided for in relation to data processing safeguards, ministerial regulations and HSE guidelines, among other things.”
“The Minister, Deputy Chambers, has supported that so there is very clear political direction on this and it really is up to those entities that are entirely publicly funded. They are staffed by public servants who will of course not just get public service salaries but public service pensions. They are entirely public servants. It is up to them to adopt the systems that in a small country help us to have visibility over how tax payers money is used, to have consistency and also better opportunities for realising savings and efficiencies through better procurement management.”
“It is fair to say in the same way we have had the Health Information Bill, there has been a difficulty of engagement over different issues, whether it is sharing of patient data or the adoption of certain systems. There are already media reports of voluntary hospitals buying other systems that are not IFMS and it is the taxpayer who is paying for those as well so there simply has to be an alignment. It is fair to say I would not be doing this if there had not been a reluctance of some kind. That reluctance has been expressed directly to the CEO of the HSE, less so directly to me, but obviously the CEO and the chair of the HSE are working at my direction on Deputies' behalf and there has been a specified and written reluctance in relation to that. I have written directly to the CEOs or chairs.”
“There is no tension between me and any part of the health system. There is a report of an engagement in relation to one of the voluntary hospitals and the Chair and there is a difference of opinion that was aired in the media. My broad sense is that there is exceptionally good work being done in voluntary hospitals. Many of them, for example, have addressed their trolley situations in exceptionally good ways and are to be commended on that. I think there is a difference of understanding in relation to the role of the board and the obligations of the board, who take their obligations under the Companies Act very seriously. Of course, the first obligation of any company director is to comply with the law of the land and to comply with the direction of the funders and shareholders, where that is appropriate within certain sectors.”
“Were I to receive that sort of enthusiastic engagement from the voluntary hospitals within the next number of weeks, it would ease my path to providing that sort of accountability both to the Comptroller and Auditor General and to your good selves as the lead members of the health committee.”
“However, I reserve some position because what I would like to see from the voluntary hospitals is communication to me about their timeline for this. It is incumbent on me to provide to the health committee or the public accounts committee a list of the voluntary hospitals, the budget each of them received in 2024 and 2025 and the number of public servants that are working there. I believe it is appropriate for me to be able to provide the Deputies with a timeline as to the implementation, hospital by hospital, of IFMS. I am not in receipt of information that enables me to do that at present.”
“The background to voluntary hospitals is that they come from the days before when health services were in large part provided by religious orders and that is as may be. Many of them are providing a simply exceptional service with extraordinary clinical outcomes and research but they are nevertheless entirely funded by the public system and must adopt those structures. I set out some measure of reserve, as it were, to bring Seanad amendments because I am very conscious that there has been sustained engagement for a number of years on this and it has not happened. There has been sustained political direction and engagement from me and from the Minister for public expenditure in this part of the year and the service level agreement going into 2026 will be exceptionally clear as to the need to do this.”
“I thank both Deputies for their very clear political direction and statement of intent on this issue, which align with mine and with the broader public interest in the supervision of public funds. From the perspective of the patient, I honestly believe the patient does not know whether he or she is attending a voluntary hospital or HSE hospital. If you are attending hospital due to a trauma or in a vulnerable situation, you honestly do not care whether the structure of the hospital to which you are presenting in need is a voluntary one or otherwise. Patients particularly do not care when they know that, as taxpayers, they are funding all of the hospitals. Indeed we are essentially funding all of the hospitals between 95% and 100%. There is simply no question that they are publicly funded and the staff are public servants.”
“I will continue to reflect on my engagement with the sector. I know this is something that is of great importance and interest to the health committee and the Deputies across from me, who have already expressed their support for the full integration of, for example, the integrated financial management system throughout the voluntary hospitals as well as the HSE hospitals and more broadly. I will continue to reflect on our engagement with the sector, and should I or Deputies consider it necessary, we will bring further legislative provisions or other measures to ensure this obligation is complied with without exception.”
“The Bill is clear as to the powers provided to the HSE in recognition of its role as the custodian of public investment in health and social care services. The Bill is also clear as to the positive obligation it places on health service providers, including section 38 and 39 bodies, to provide this information when and as requested to do so. Of course, it should not be necessary to wait for legislation to be enacted to ensure there is a full alignment of reporting across our publicly funded health and social care services and to ensure an effective and efficient use of resources. This should be happening in any event under existing provisions and arrangements, including the service level arrangements that section 38 and 39 bodies are required to enter into with the HSE in return for the very significant levels of public funding received.”
“A "relevant person" is defined under the Bill as a body established by or under an enactment to perform functions in relation to health services, including section 38 and 39 bodies under the Health Act 2004 or private providers who have entered into an arrangement with the HSE to provide health services. This amendment is, therefore, a technical amendment to clarify that a relevant person can fall under any one of those three categories. Deputies may wish to note that under Part 4, the HSE also has the power to specify, among other matters, the structured collection of health information to be provided as well as the digital format in which the information should be provided. Requests under Part 4 must be complied with and, in the event of non-compliance, the HSE can apply to the Circuit Court for an order directing compliance.”
“It is a critical step in ensuring we move beyond our current, often fragmented and even reluctant, approach to information sharing. These obstacles to information sharing remain in place. They do not serve the interests of the public. They frustrate our collective efforts to provide for health service improvement commensurate with the sustained and substantial public investment in health and social care. The Bill will provide a clarity in law that will allow us to surpass these obstacles and join other EU nations who have made more progress in digital health and social care.”
“It is indeed, one of the more controversial things we will deal with today. The definition of "relevant person" primarily relates to Part 4. Part 4 concerns the secondary use of health information for specified public interest purposes, namely, a public interest purpose in the area of public and occupational health, policy and regulatory activities, including in respect of service planning and performance management, and statistics. Under this Part, the HSE will be empowered to request and receive from a relevant person health information for these specified public interest purposes. The provisions set out under Part 4 will, therefore, support greater and effective use of information and data, including in support of a number of activities.”
“I move amendment No. 3: In page 8, line 17, to delete “2004,” and substitute “2004, or”. This is a minor technical amendment to add the word "or" between subsections (b) and (c) and the definition of "relevant person" under the Bill.”
“This was considered by the Department's legal department and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. As the current definition of a relevant designated centre does not include public nursing homes, these amendments are necessary to ensure that public as well as private nursing homes are covered by the provision and therefore to bring the section in question in line with the intent of the Act, which it currently is not. It is important to note that it is not a new provision but the amendment we are bringing forward today would allow us to then commence the rest at the earliest possible date. I also apologise to the House for the non-textual amendments but there is nothing I can do about that.”
“The Patient Safety (Notifiable Incidents and Open Disclosure) Act 2023 is significant legislation signed into law on 2 May 2023, but section 68 has not yet been commenced due to the need for a technical amendment to an existing provision. Alongside a number of other provisions, the 2023 Act amends the Health Act 2007 to extend the powers of HIQA. Section 68 provides that a new section be inserted into the 2007 Act to provide the chief inspector with a discretionary power to carry out an independent review of a defined type of serious patient safety incident where some or all of the care of the patient was carried out in a nursing home. Prior to commencement, a query was raised as to whether the provisions of section 68, as it stood at the time, included public nursing homes. It is essential that public nursing homes are included.”
“I move amendment No. 1: In page 5, line 31, after “Act;” to insert “to amend the Patient Safety (Notifiable Incidents and Open Disclosure) Act 2023;”. I am pleased to bring forward the Health Information Bill for consideration on Report Stage. Its purpose is to bring forward a number of statutory measures around the consistent sharing and use of health information while ensuring it best serves the individual patient, healthcare practitioners and society as a whole. However, amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 6, which I understand are related and can be taken together, concern technical amendments to section 68 of the Patient Safety (Notifiable Incidents and Open Disclosure) Act 2023, which I have agreed to carry as part of the Health Information Bill.”
“I move: That it be an instruction to the Committee on the Health Information Bill 2024 that, pursuant to Standing Order 194(2), the Committee has power to make amendments to the Bill which are outside the scope of the existing provisions of the Bill in order to introduce a technical amendment to the Patient Safety (Notifiable Incidents and Open Disclosure) Act 2023, in order to bring public nursing homes within the remit of section 68 of that Act and to make other consequential amendments required to take account of the changes above.”
“I will get more understanding of this as I meet with CHI tomorrow and over the next period but I think it is an important update for the House that I could not have and not share. I hope I have tried to address as many questions as possible and I thank the House.”
“I also understand CHI has written to patients in the last two weeks. It is important to say this to the House because I have this knowledge and I want to make sure I share it in the most appropriate way. I would like the opportunity to delve into this tomorrow but I do not want to withhold information I could give to the House. CHI has written to 81 patients who have been waiting longer than the period we would want to try to set out the parameters of international travel and how that might work, recognising, of course, that it has to be clinically appropriate and that it takes a certain length of time. There has, within the last two weeks, been an effort to engage in a different way with families and look at that international travel option.”
“I will work with the members of the health committee in a public and private way, for example, to try to outline all the different issues I see coming up. It is really important we have the advice of the facilitator. I suggest that we work together, publicly and privately, because it is the Government and the Oireachtas that sign off on it, to ensure we have the best possible expression of all the stakeholders that contribute to it and to take the steps with legal advice that we believe will give us the best and most robust model of an inquiry as well. I am just trying to set that out honestly. I do not want to walk into a brick wall with something we all know is so very important. There was a question about hip dysplasia. The chair was appointed on 24 October and that work will begin.”
“There will come a point, however, where we will have to agree that we are reaching the best possible position for the functionality and legal robustness and endurance of an inquiry capable of challenge, that is, one that is going to be operationally effective and possible for the person chairing it and which will reach the sort of outcomes and findings that will be found. If I do not say this now, and if something happens to the inquiry in six, 12 or 18 months, the Deputies will quite correctly say that I did not set up the terms of reference properly. I am trying to set out at a very early stage the need for honesty and the understanding that we are operating within legal constraints that have important implications.”
“Equally, we do not want the terms of reference to be so wide as to either run into legal challenge or get to a point where we do not ever get an outcome to the inquiry in an appropriate way. I am not time-binding it or limiting it in any way. I am just very conscious that in the past we have had discussion in this House about the need for an inquiry into a matter of significant and urgent public concern and it has taken many years. I am thinking of Siteserv, for example. As Deputies may agree, it went considerably beyond the terms of its discussion. I am not trying to limit this inquiry in any way. What I am trying to say is that it is the Government and the Oireachtas that both set and sign off on the terms of reference. In every way imaginable, that will be done in collaboration and agreement with the advocates.”
“If I may say so, Deputies have said a couple of slightly competing things that I think it is important that we together address. We want an inquiry that can have the power to investigate the issues of shared concern to us. We also want it to be an inquiry that will report and have teeth. It is a fact-finding inquiry and, therefore, we cannot take things necessarily as they are happening if the chair of the inquiry has to go through their own process. We are moving into a legal process that has to be managed by the chair of the inquiry. We will not be able to interfere with the inquiry and nor should we. It is also a legal process that is capable of legal challenge. As we are drafting the terms of reference, we do not want them to be so tight that they do not do the work we want them to do.”
“It is different from the unit established in CHI last year that is responsible for managing the waiting lists. The issue of the inquiry, possibly most important, was raised by several Deputies. I need to try to address a number of different issues, but what we can say with certainty is that it will be a statutory public inquiry. It will have the power of compellability, of necessity. We will also continue to try to drive improvements at the same time. Those things are not incompatible. We will absolutely engage with families, with children, in a voice-of-the-child appropriate way, and with stakeholders, the different representative groups and the different advocacy groups, all with a view to developing the best possible terms of reference.”
“The terms of reference are to engage with stakeholders, listen, engage and act on advice and the concerns of parents, outline improvements, engage on the development and delivery of services, engage with the HSE and its spinal surgery management unit and provide oversight and assurance. I thank them for their work. It is ongoing work. It really has contributed valuable information, as have those advocates outside of it. Neither is better. Everybody is contributing their experience for the improvement of services. I really do thank all of them. It is important to say the task force has no operational oversight. I think Deputy Coppinger may simply have confused the two elements, but the task force is not responsible for operational oversight. It is a group to try to improve the services.”
“There are also exceptional advocates who are not on it. All of them are contributing to the improvement of services. I thank all the advocates, both those on the task force and those not on it, and they will all contribute to the development of the terms of reference. They all have direct lived experience, either as a parent or as somebody with spina bifida or scoliosis. They all have very important perspectives and all have done exceptional work. The members are Gerry Maguire of Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus Ireland, Elaine Kelly and Deirdre McDonnell of Scoliosis Awareness Support Ireland, and Lily Collison of the Cerebral Palsy Foundation. There are then different departmental, HSE and CHI representatives.”
“The technical draft of the more quantitative audit element being done by the internal auditor will be technically available in December, but there is always a procedure to triple-check - I cannot recall the audit phrase - when producing data of that kind. That will happen within December. We will publish it as early as possible outside of the normal quarterly cycles, but that has to happen. Turning to the task force, there was some very strong, and somewhat unfair, criticism of the paediatric spinal task force that I think it is very important to address. The paediatric spinal task force is an entity separate to the management of lists within CHI. I think it is important to say that. Regarding its membership, Mark Connaughton SC the chair. Exceptional advocates for spina bifida and scoliosis are on the task force.”
“The CEO of the HSE has assured me that the matters that led to the report are being attended to in major improvement plans and patient safety measures. The report itself is not being waited upon to action that. Nevertheless, the CEO has also advised me that for significant legal reasons, he cannot at this time apprise me of the report, but we hope he may be able to do so in the near future. There is a significant legal issue in regard to that and I cannot go any further than that. A number of Deputies correctly asked me about the audit because it is a really important part of waiting list management. I am informed that the qualitative element of it should be with the CEO at the end of November, so I would expect to be in a position to publish it in December.”
“That is a significant improvement, and I hope it will provide some confidence to families who have correctly raised this issue in the past as being a big issue. It is very much reduced. I think that is important. My door is open to bringing cases, but it is not as though I will be able to clinically intervene. What I can do is to try to shine a light on the management of cases, particularly for those most urgent cases, which are of real concern to me. I have met many of the families directly and I am aware of the difficulties. I am not a clinician and I never will be, but I will do everything I can to make sure the correct attention is shone on those most urgent of cases. In relation to the Nayagam report, there are two things.”
“I want to try to address all the points, but there is a time limit. Let me try to address a couple of things quickly, and then some of the more detailed issues. In relation to the 2024 annual report for CHI, the annual financial statements are with the Comptroller and Auditor General. The intention is for it to be published by the end of the year. Forgive me, but I cannot recall who mentioned infection rates. It is importanto acknowledge that there has been significant difficulty in the past but that is reducing. For example, the surgical site infection, SSI, rate was 8.7% in 2022. In 2023 and 2024, respectively, it was 4.3% and 4.4%. This year, I am pleased to be able to say it is below 3%, at 2.9%.”
“Perhaps I can address any questions that Deputies have in my concluding remarks. I am conscious there will be a lot of interest in that. We are continuing with the journey in relation to the integration of CHI into HSE. I am not sure I have had the opportunity to formally update the House in relation to the board members who have been appointed or the chair being confirmed by Cabinet last week. That work is ongoing. We will need to now prioritise the legislative element of that and bring it to the House, I hope in 2026, to begin the process of making that transfer more formal. I wish to give my colleague the opportunity to speak now.”
“It is the intention to do that with families in the most appropriate way, recognising that it is, of course, the Government and the Oireachtas that will have to ultimately sign off on them. The Attorney General is already engaging with potential people and potential names, including senior counsel and so on, to determine who may have availability to do this work and to get that going as quickly as possible. Of course, the calibre, the quality and the experience of the people we want to do this work is not always immediately available tomorrow. They have schedules and commitments already, so we are trying to do our best to get somebody as quickly as possible but also who is as capable as possible for doing that. I am very conscious that my colleague is going to speak and I do not wish to speak across her.”
“It is our intention to have a statutory public inquiry into the care generally received by children with scoliosis, complex scoliosis, spina bifida and hydrocephalus, and the care issues around that. It is really important now that I become extremely careful with what I say about the detail of that. I am conscious that we want to establish a process that is legally robust and that has very clear terms of reference. We have asked the parents, the advocacy groups and the breadth of stakeholders, including the advocacy groups that are on the spinal task force, to engage with a facilitator who will help and listen to understand the best scope and help develop a proposal to me so I can properly draft terms of reference and have those agreed by the Government .”