Mr. Maurice Neligan:

I have a lot of experience of this issue. I was appointed as a consultant in public practice under a type II Buckley contract in 2005. I resigned in 2012 and have been engaged full-time in private practice since; therefore, I have seen both sides of the argument. If things continue the way they are going, in the future the people who will be discommoded will be all patients. The reason I say that is I am already seeing patients who do not have health insurance attending my clinic with members of their family saying they will club together to pay for their mother to have a hip or knee replacement operation. These are patients who have served the community. They have paid their taxes throughout their lifetime and now when they need treatment, they cannot access it and have to pay for it themselves. If things continue the way they are going, consultants will drop out of private practice for whatever reason – this will happen - and these patients will be forced back into the public system. That is the burning issue among my 400 colleagues.

Having worked in the public system, I know that it took two years to be given a routine outpatient appointment to see about a joint replacement. It took a further two to three years to have surgery performed. They are the facts and that is what is going to happen. More people will be forced into the public system which will not be able to cope. We know what is happening in Beaumont hospital where there are rolling theatre closures. I have particular experience of this in Cappagh Hospital where my colleagues work and where there have been rolling theatre closures for years. The system will collapse and it will be catastrophic. This issue needs to be addressed in terms of having a fair indemnity insurance cost to allow consultants to continue to practise.

Having seen it from both sides, that is my honest opinion.