John Gilroy (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the House. I wish to comment first on the amount of work Senator Burke has put into bringing this Bill to this point and on the list of stakeholders to whom he referred. I had a conversation on this with the Senator in the past few days; he has put a remarkable and exemplary amount of work into this. It is probably one of the more elaborate and well-thought out Bills I have seen originating in this House and being introduced in Private Members' time. I commend Senator Burke on that. I note this Bill is a progression of an idea the Minister had himself when in opposition. Senator Burke has taken that idea and developed it to this point.

It is mind-boggling that there is no legal requirement for medical professions to have insurance. This is something I had not considered until last week when Senator Burke brought it to my attention. I suspect that not many of the general public would even think it was necessary to ask their medical practitioner whether he or she had insurance to indemnify patients against any risk inherent in a procedure being carried out. I suspect that is the last thing a patient would think of, yet there is no legal obligation on a practitioner to have indemnity or to say he or she has.

Senator Burke referred to the fact that 99.9% of medical practitioners have some sort of indemnity insurance. Are his figures based on anything more than an intuitive belief? If his figures are correct, this means that for every 1,000 practitioners in the country, one has no medical insurance at all. Could the Minister provide more information on this? Senator Mooney suggested the IMO is unaware of the number of doctors without insurance or of the type of insurance provided.

There is a concern that medical insurance is becoming even more important as it becomes more common for procedures which used to be carried out in hospitals where all medical practitioners are insured to be carried out in community or private sector settings. I do not know whether the types of medical indemnity product are standardised. Can one go to a company and say, "I am looking for general medical cover"? Are there particular varieties of such products? Is there a gold standard of such cover? If the Minister understands the point I am trying to make, perhaps he might clarify whether there is the equivalent of third party fire and theft cover or comprehensive cover in this sector. In the absence of a legal framework in which medical practitioners face certain requirements in this regard, is there a concern that the providers of indemnity or insurance products might be a little behind the curve in developing medical indemnity or insurance products? As medical practices evolve, the line between those procedures which used to be considered invasive and non-invasive is becoming blurred. As medicine evolves in the community and private practices, these distinctions are becoming more and more blurred. Do the providers of medical indemnity and insurance products keep themselves fully up to speed in the development of their products? Are they as informed as we would like them to be? I would like information in that regard.

In supporting Senator Colm Burke's proposal to ensure medical insurance would be obligatory, I suggest there be a relentless focus on the need for indemnity to keep pace with the ever-evolving and complex procedures that take place in the medical sector. I will conclude on that point as I am afraid my voice is about to go. I support the legislation proposed by Senator Colm Burke. On the basis of his professional experience, does the Minister know of any case that was taken against a practitioner who did not have insurance? If there was such a case, what was the outcome?