David Norris (Independent)

Senator de Búrca's contribution has been one of the best I have heard. It was delivered at rapid fire speed and was most enlightening. I felt privileged to listen to it. I do not have the same command of the detail as she clearly has. I was very impressed by her contribution.

I could be wrong, but I imagine the chief instigator of the Bill was not the Minister of State. The Bill has the hallmark of campaigns waged for a long time by the Minister, Deputy Harney. I do not always agree with the Minister and would have liked to take a bit of a smack at her on the last "Questions and Answers" programme, but felt that would have been wrong because of it being the occasion of John Bowman's last show. It would have been rather puppish for me to take a swipe at Deputy Harney on it. She was making extraordinary claims such as that thanks to the Progressive Democrats and its policies, people could now walk in off the street and get a phone. Of course one can, but they are mobile phones. That overlooks the fact that Eircom is a complete and absolute shambles. Thank God we can get mobile phones and are not dependent on Eircom any more. The same is true with regard to Progressive Democrat policies on air transport. They made ducks and drakes out of Aer Lingus, but thank God it has survived. They rubbished Team Aer Lingus and many of its jobs have now moved to Zurich.

I am glad, because I like and respect the Minister, that I now have something on which I can agree with her in principle. I am interested in the philosophical context of the Bill because I do not believe in a two-tier system, but in access. There should be a more radical approach to health. We should have universal health care that is paid for by those who can afford it and that is subsidised by the State. I have no objection to paying the highest rate, which I do, and do not mind my contributions, even if they are increased, going into a nationalised health service and helping to bring in some other citizens. That is real solidarity.

Senator de Búrca referred to the Canadian system. I suggest we should also look at the Australian system, which was explained in general outline to me in the past few days. Under that system, everyone has access to health care, but the people with extra money can buy the frills. Everybody has universal access to beds, treatment and care etc. That is the way to do it. If we want to have a private area, it should be for the frills. I am already on plan E, but if there was a plan F, I would be on it. People in my situation need not be a burden and to be able to afford to look after themselves. Therefore, health insurance for me is a prudent investment.

I well recall how the private capitalist investors in people's illness challenged the risk equalisation scheme, which I supported, in court where it took a bit of a toss. The principle, however, survives and I am glad that the Minister of State referred to this. At the end of his speech he unobtrusively used the key phrase, "the common good", to which I would like all Departments to pay attention. My view, and that of many who are more expert in law, is that the common or public good takes precedence over personal or commercial financial gain. This is a social and community issue. It is obvious that there should be a responsible rather than a profit-orientated attitude to health care.

At the beginning of his speech the Minister of State said that 51% of Irish people have private insurance. That is significant. It tells us that 51% of Irish people do not regard the public health service as satisfactory. That should be noted and addressed. They have every entitlement to that view. The sad fact, of which the Minister of State is aware, is that this stark figure may well fall because people will not be able to afford private insurance. The Minister of State points out that the VHI market share has fallen to 66%, but that is still a massive share.

Quinn Healthcare and others have moved up the scale. The English crowd, BUPA and others, tried to stick their noses in the trough. There is no doubt that the Quinn group is a very skilful and clever organisation dedicated to the generation of money for itself and its investors. It has a talent for cherrypicking, which is precisely what this Bill is intended to address. It cherrypicks in all its insurance activities. I have heard numerous stories on the radio, and read them in the newspaper, of people who applied to Quinn Direct and Quinn this, that and the other but happened to live in the wrong area of Dublin, as I do. Twice I wrote to Quinn Direct seeking a quote for my house but received no answer. I live in Dublin 1, near 'handbag corner' so it would not give me a quote. It did not even reply. The same applies for certain occupations. That is cherrypicking. That seems to be prevalent in the insurance industry but it is certainly not appropriate when we are dealing with health. Quinn comes to this trailing a reputation for cherrypicking. I am not saying it is doing anything illegal but that is its business practice and it is not appropriate when providing people with health insurance.

One of the interesting aspects of the Supreme Court judgment is that the Chief Justice immediately drew the Government's attention to the fact that it was not ruling out the principle of looking after the most vulnerable people through risk equalisation and more or less urged the Government to bring forward a new scheme. There are many occasions when the Judiciary reproves the Oireachtas for allowing lacunae to exist in the law. It also has ideas on its side of the fence on how we as legislators should address the law. I have suggested here a couple of times that there should be some channel of communication between the Judiciary and the Oireachtas. I know there is separation of powers but that does not mean there cannot be communication. There should be some institutionalised system whereby if the Judiciary sees a gap in the law that damages the interest of citizens, it can send a message asking us to look into it. That could perhaps operate in two ways.

I notice that the commission has approved this and so on. In general I welcome this Bill because it is in the interests of all of us. We are a community, not just a collection of financial units, and anything other than this would lead to a rather nasty fragmentation of society and compartmentalisation on an age basis. I suppose I would feel that as I sail into my late 60s. It is good that we do not stand idly and that we attempt to amend what could have been a fracturing of our sense of community.