Sean Barrett (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I also wish to welcome Senator Colm Burke's Bill. The Senator obviously did a great deal of work on the legislation and the explanatory memorandum to it, both of which read well. Of course, he brings a wealth of experience to this matter and it is an honour to contribute to the debate on his Bill.

The annual report of the State Claims Agency for 2010 indicates that at the end of that year it had clinical claims under management with an estimated liability of ¤786 million. This is an extremely important area. In the context of our commendable and successful efforts to reduce the level of risk and the number of accidents on the roads - the number of deaths fell from a high of 650 in the past to a low of 160 last year - one sometimes wonders whether similar efforts are required in the health service, in which the level of claims is quite high.

It would be interesting to discover how much the indemnity insurance to which the Bill refers would cost and whether it would be a barrier to entry. Would people have difficulty in obtaining insurance if they had no track record? There is a need to do further work in this matter, particularly in the context of the difficulties with the public finances. We have tended to transfer the cost of catastrophes to the taxpayer. As there is insurance, we should move risk away from the taxpayer, given that the Exchequer is hard pressed.

One of the suggestions Mr. Justice Quirke and his committee made in meeting claims is that we consider using periodic payment orders rather than awarding lump sums. That may have attractions similar to those relating to the promissory notes, whereby payment would be made over the period of total liability, rather than in the form of an up-front lump sum. Mr. Justice Quirke's committee recommended the introduction of legislation; perhaps this might also be considered.

The Minister has said he foresees difficulties with the new subsections (2A) to (2G) to be inserted into section 11 of the 2007 Act. These subsections appear to contain perfectly normal functions in respect of insurance and I do not understand why the Minister perceives that they will give rise to difficulties, particularly as he stated, "The Medical Council is doing a very good job in providing an efficient and accountable system for the regulation of the medical profession." Seeing to it that people are insured does not appear to raise the obstacles to which the Minister referred. I am sure, however, that matter will be resolved during the discussions between Senator Colm Burke and the Minister as the Bill progresses.

The Minister has also indicated that he has certain concerns with regard to competition and how certificates should be displayed. On the latter, his concern seems to relate to whether a practitioner's certificate should be displayed at his or her principal office or at his or her second office, if he or she owns one. The original could be displayed at the principal office and a photocopy could be put on display at the second location. Sometimes the responses to certain Bills seem to be designed to make it appear that minor obstacles are actually major difficulties, which is not the case.

I commend Senator Colm Burke for introducing the Bill. I also commend the Minister for his response to it. I look forward to progress being made on this matter because it is very important that medical practitioners be properly insured. I hope the Bill will be allowed to proceed.