Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an mBille seo. Is dócha gurb é an Bille is giorra a tháinig os mo chomhair agus os comhair na Dála i m’amsa ar aon nós. Níl i gceist ach leathanach amháin. An rud atá i gceist ag an Rialtas a dhéanamh ná deireadh a chur le táillí d’othair chónaithe i ngach ospidéal. Cuirim fáilte roimh an gcinneadh sin. Is dea-scéal amach agus amach é.

I welcome the Bill. It is the shortest Bill that has become before us in my time. It is very positive and it will put an end to in-service charges of €80 per night up to a maximum of €800. I am delighted with that. It amends the 1970 Act and the regulations made thereunder. I welcome that because it is 53 years since the Act came into force.

I do not welcome that accident and emergency charges remain in place. I do not understand the logic behind the view that if we took away the charges, accident and emergency departments would be overwhelmed. Most people are reasonable and rational. A few weeks ago, my partner and I tried to avoid going to the hospital as best we could. Most people who are reasonable do that. I do not agree with the logic in this regard. I do not believe there should be a charge for accessing accident and emergency services.

It has taken a very long time for the Bill to be brought forward, as Deputy Shortall said. In the context of Sláintecare, all parties came together because at every election the biggest issues are health, housing, public transport, neutrality, hospitals and public services. They are at the top of the list. That is why Sláintecare came into existence. That is why there was a report. The implementation of that has been tardy.

I refer to the Bill digest. I thank the staff of the Oireachtas Library & Research Service once again for the work they do under pressure. They pointed out that a review of Sláintecare and its implementation showed that there had been some progress, but that progress in respect of removing the barriers to access has been slow. We finally now doing the latter, which I welcome.

I welcome the positive things the Minister outlined. I pay tribute to him for doing that and for his work on the public contract for consultants. I wish him the best of luck with that.

The Bill digest brought a certain matter to my attention. It is something of which, again, we are all aware. It remains the case that people who opt to be treated as private patients in public hospitals are subject to a charging regime as set out, I presume, in the Schedules to the 1970 Act, although they may have been amended in the interim. When I went to the hospital with my husband, the first question we were asked was if we had private health insurance. I am not sure why that would be at all relevant in a public hospital. Is it a throwback? Is it a legacy issue? Why are patients being asked if they have private health insurance? I presume there is no difference in the treatment offered to public and private patients in hospitals.

See this speech in context