David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I have just come from a meeting of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade. I apologise, therefore, for not being present to hear the contributions of the Minister and many of my colleagues. I am sure they were extremely significant. We are very lucky to have someone such as Senator John Crown, a professor, among us. I look forward to reading the transcript of his speech.

It is interesting that the Minister for Health is in the House. He is a senior member of the Cabinet, which shows a degree of respect for Senator Colm Burke whom I commend for introducing this timely and important Bill. It is appropriate that the Minister is present because he addressed this matter in 2009 when he presented the Medical Practitioners (Professional Indemnity)(Amendment) Bill, the principal object of which was to make it a criminal offence for a medical practitioner not to have medical insurance. I understand it is neither a criminal nor any other kind of offence not to have medical insurance. Not having such insurance is extremely unwise. I apologise if previous speakers referred to this fact and have no wish to be repetitive, but I would be surprised if more than a very small number of doctors did not have medical insurance. Although the Bill includes penalties for those not registered with insurance companies, it does take a somewhat benign approach to the matter. I have no doubt, therefore, that those involved in the medical profession would find its provisions reasonable.

The difficulty that arises revolves around the enormous cost of insurance, particularly for the medical profession.

I refer to the considerable cost of all kinds of insurance but particularly of medical insurance and the avariciousness the human animal displays sometimes when dealing with doctors. I have had serious infection as a result of a rather badly done treatment but I did not sue the doctor. I do not like suing doctors because I think they do their best. I am reminded particularly of the woman in America whose life was saved by a doctor on board a cruise ship. He removed an ulcerated appendix which was about to burst - and from which the patient probably would have died - with a penknife, on the deck, at the behest of the captain. Having recovered she subsequently sued the doctor for the cosmetic appearance of the scar which rose above the bikini line. She received $1 million. That would put anyone off. If I were a doctor and I saw someone dying I would say, "Go on, just die." It is a terrible story. We have to recognise this kind of culture which leads to a significant increase in costs.

I refer to a settlement of ¤45 million in January between the Medical Defence Union and the Government which was part of the indemnification involved. The Medical Defence Union is a British body and a mutual association. It is not a commercial insurance company. In fact, the costs to the Government were considerably greater than this. Tragically, there are situations and circumstances involving injury to a child, perhaps during childbirth and the child is brain-damaged or there is other damage. Negligence is asserted by the family on behalf of the child and then enormously expensive treatment is made available so that this child can continue to live. No one would decry the life support systems that are necessary but which are very expensive. That is the realistic fact in terms of medical insurance.

I ask the Minister of State, Deputy McGinley to convey to the Minister for Health the issue of the price of medicine in this country. The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade was dealing with trade issues between Britain and Ireland. I asked about the impact of our financial situation down here in terms of the rather realistic approach of many people in Northern Ireland and which may have affected the recent poll. The first reaction was to do with the medical services here. In the North there is a system of free at delivery to the patient. Apparently the services are considerably better and perhaps cheaper - I know this is the case with dentistry. I refer to an article in The Irish Timeswhich asks if there is a reasonably priced doctor in the house. I am aware that I am standing next to a seated doctor so at least I am in a position to run away if I antagonise him very much. I know there are very good doctors who charge very reasonable fees and are charitable in that they sometimes will not charge a poor person. The article described a couple of cases such as a woman in very average circumstances who had very little money. She was charged ¤50 for a repeat prescription. She did not even see the doctor. She wanted to collect a repeat prescription from the receptionist who refused to give her the prescription until she coughed up ¤50. In another case, it cost ¤60 for a repeat prescription. I ask the Minister of State to convey this information to the Minister. That practice should not be tolerated.

Senator Burke has done the House and the Oireachtas a service. I note the quality of the debate and the attendance of the senior Minister. This is a good day for Seanad Éireann. I note that the Minister has said he has great sympathy and that Senator Burke has done considerable work and has consulted very widely. I do not know if he consulted with his party colleague, the Minister, Deputy Reilly, but the Minister has taken the usual position of saying that the Bill is excellent work but that it has some deficiencies and that it will be put through. I would have thought it would be much better, having studied this legislation, having attempted to introduce legislation of this nature unsuccessfully in the other House, it would have been preferable if the Minister had taken the time and the trouble, with this officials, to amend the Bill. The degree of variation between the Minister's position and that of Senator Burke, is not sufficiently large to sink the Bill, in my opinion. We have had Bills in this House with more than 200 Government amendments presented at the same time as legislation. It would not have killed the Government to lose its dog in the manger attitude and to put Senator Burke's excellent Bill through with whatever amendments the Government chose. It could show a little bit of deference and respect to this august Chamber of Seanad Éireann.