John Moloney (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

I wish to recognise the contribution of Deputy James Reilly and to acknowledge the importance of the proposed legislation.

It is unusual that such important proposed legislation attracts so little attention from the public as demonstrated by the empty Public Gallery. Deputy Paul Connaughton made the point that the public would believe that all medical practitioners are covered by insurance. This brings the matter into sharp focus and the proposed legislation before the House is timely. It strikes me as strange that it has not come before the House before now. I was pleased to hear the Minister, Deputy Mary Harney, reflect last night on the proposal made by Deputy Reilly. She agreed to remain in close contact and introduce legislation sometime in the new year, which I welcome.

Deputy Reilly's Bill makes several proposals which the Minister for Health and Children and the Government consider merit serious consideration and analysis. I am pleased that the proposal has not been long-fingered. There is a specific timeframe involved, leading to early in the new year. I am pleased that the debate has focussed on the protection of patients in their dealings with the medical profession, something upon which all Members agree.

In her contribution last night the Minister emphasised the importance of a health system characterised by trust, patient involvement, responsiveness, fair processes and continual learning. I acknowledge these are the hallmarks of and the background to Deputy Reilly's proposal. We have made great strides towards achieving a system characterised by such principles and the developments which have been implemented to date support that assertion.

Much has been said of the role of the Medical Council, the significant changes to its functions and the procedures arising from the implementation of the Medical Practitioners Act 2007. The new role is characterised by open procedures, accountability, patient involvement and, most important, producing a system which will require doctors to maintain their skills and competencies on an ongoing basis. This point shows the importance of the proposed legislation.

Deputy Connaughton asked if the Department had a full database of those who were insured and those who were not. I acknowledge that I did not know and I had to check with officials. The presumption was correct and there is no such register. This underlines the importance of what is before us. We can presume that legislation will come before us and will succeed in going through the House. Medical practitioners will ensure that they will continue to upgrade their skills. Hopefully, the day will come when insurance will become mandatory. The new role is characterised by open procedures as I pointed out previously.

Many interesting points have been made by Deputy Reilly and his colleagues on both sides of the House regarding the issues arising from the debate. The Government is supportive of the principles of Deputy Reilly's Bill. However, it is keen to ensure that the method we use to introduce more defined requirements for medical practitioners will be practical and workable.

There is a requirement on doctors to have adequate professional indemnity for the work they perform and the need for this has been mentioned by many Deputies. There are circumstances in which doctors have reneged on this ethical requirement and it is the patient who is left with no definitive avenue or means of redress.

I refer to the main points of the debate. Several Deputies expressed concern with the lack of regulation of private clinics. I look forward to the legislation that will come before the House eventually to address this area. There is no point repeating everything that has been said. I recognise the contribution of Deputy Reilly in bringing forward this debate. I am amazed someone did not think of this long before now.

See this speech in context