Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour) | Oireachtas source

It was very similar altogether but we will not go there.

It is incredible this issue has not been dealt with previously. Many of us know cases that have arisen because the legislation and the indemnity have not been in place. The gap in the legislation has created a range of issues for the individuals or groups involved, which is unnecessary and unfair on them. The fact the indemnity was not there and they had no cover has caused a serious burden and pain for many people. The legislation will help people any time there is a mishap. We must point out to the public, so they do not get concerned, that those working in the public system are covered. This relates to private practice. The legislation will speed up claims, litigation and awards, and all the stress and pain these cause to people who, unfortunately, find themselves in the situation.

The changes brought about through amendments on Committee Stage in the Seanad are welcome, because there was some concern and confusion regarding setting the minimum levels of indemnity through the Medical Council. The fact it will work with the State Claims Agency is something that certainly improves the legislation and makes it more robust. I have some questions on this and the Minister of State might answer them when replying. He spoke about 58 medical specialties and sub-specialties. I presume there is a big chart of various specialties available where they all have different risks, from very low risk to extremely high risk for a very complex medical procedures, and this is understandable. Will the Minister of State outline to the House the process by which all these risks will be set for minimum indemnity, with regard to the complexity of being able to assess the most high-risk specialties versus the most low-risk specialties, to ensure we can have confidence, particularly in high-risk areas, that minimum levels will be met and people will be protected. Certain specialties involve only a small number of people. They must be satisfied the indemnity cover set for them is appropriate. How will disputes, people with grievances or issues in this regard be dealt with? It is not fully outlined.

Deputy Kelleher referred to the cost of insurance cover, which has shot up by an incredible 42% since 2014 to €220 million. The impact this has for those taking out insurance is considerable, with regard to the cost of their plans, the cover they have and the general costs in a number of areas. What plans do the Minister of State and the Department of Health have in this regard? This has been rapidly growing in recent years. Are there any plans to stop this totally running out of control? There may not be plans. Perhaps the Minister of State will tell us when replying what are his comprehensive plans to try to manage this in the coming years.

This is very important legislation and it is unfortunate it has taken this long to be brought forward. It will give confidence to the public with regard to private practitioners that they will be covered. It would have been a worthy legislation if it had been in the House previously.

I had not intended to go near the next matter, but my colleague, Deputy O'Reilly, raised it. She referred to something very close to my heart, namely, the risks associated with what is happening in Shannondoc in County Clare. It does not cover just County Clare but it also covers County Tipperary. I use the Shannondoc service, as do my children. What is happening in County Clare at present is an absolute disgrace. It will create contagion throughout the country with regard to other co-ops. The service drop issues in east Clare and west Clare are not the same and the Department of Health and the HSE need to get a grip on this. In east Clare the drop in the number of doctors from 12 to two does not warrant a decrease from 55 hours to eight hours of service. It is a disgrace. I live in the area and I dare say I am closer to it than all the Clare Deputies.

See this speech in context