Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

On that note, prior to undergoing a surgical procedure many years ago, I passed a flippant remark to a receptionist to the effect that I hoped that the surgeon in question collected all of the tools afterwards. The reply was, "You have heard about that". This was not very reassuring. For better or worse I came through the procedure safely.

I thank my colleague, Deputy James Reilly, for bringing this Bill before the House. It is progressive legislation which should have been here earlier for a series of reasons. We must ensure the general public can rely on the full scale of medical procedures available and that they can rely entirely on the fact they are covered in the event of something going wrong. If something goes wrong compensation is little consolation to the unfortunate patient, particularly if he or she is left with a disability for life. We must strive for the best possible practices and the highest possible standards. A situation whereby anyone would be allowed to provide a medical procedure without the necessary insurance cover should be incredible.

I refer to two types of insurance cover, one for the individual carrying out the procedure and the other for the institution concerned, which in this case are the private institutions. Other speakers have referred to situations where patients have found to their cost that there was no cover and therefore no compensation and no recognition of their plight in the aftermath of a procedure. It is incredible that this situation should occur in the current climate under both national and EU law. The highest standards must prevail at all times and those standards are applicable across the European Union, whether in the public or private sector, to ensure the maximum protection for the patient and the general public.

Deputy Denis Naughten made an interesting intervention regarding various procedures and vaccinations. He made a distinction between pharmaceutical companies, practitioners and the State. Where the State advises a particular procedure and if as a result of the procedure being followed the outcome is not in accordance with the plan, in my view the State is liable and we should not walk away from that responsibility. I held this view with regard to hepatitis C many years ago in this House. I believe I was correct at that time and subsequent events have proved me correct.

There are new and ongoing procedures about which a patient may know very little and may be swayed by the views expressed by the person carrying out the procedure. This may well be for the benefit of the person carrying out the procedure. The State has a duty in those circumstances to make it quite clear to any patient the risks involved in any procedure.

With regard to those providing the indemnity, many of us know of instances where the insurers will maintain that the small print of a policy will stipulate that a person was not covered under a certain set of circumstances. I have a cynical view of such practices. Like many Members I am familiar with many cases where individuals believed they were covered for a particular procedure and that they had indemnity in the event of something going wrong but the insurers countered by saying the small print contained the information. This is unacceptable. We must endeavour that the customer, the patient and the public are protected in those circumstances. We should not tolerate the old-fashioned attitude with regard to reading the small print.

I do not wish to deviate too far from the main argument-----

See this speech in context