Colm Burke (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

It certainly came as a huge surprise to me.

Let me touch on one or two issues that were referred to. The Minister referred to Medical Council expertise. It is referred to in the Bill. At my meeting with representatives of the council Mr. Ciarán Breen of the State Claims Agency was present.

A concern was expressed to me that the Medical Council did not have the expertise to decide the level of insurance doctors should have. As a result, we have incorporated this into section 5(2B) of the Bill which states the council "shall, having consulted with the State Claims Agency, publish on its website guidelines as to the form and scope of professional indemnity cover to be held by medical practitioners". That deals with the criticism made by the Minister that the council does not have the expertise. I fully acknowledge this and we took that criticism on board.

The second issue raised by Senator John Crown is very important because if affects doctors who want to retire and are retiring, namely, follow-on cover. This issue must be dealt, but I am not at all sure how we should do so. I have provided for it in section 5(2A)(b)(i) in that there would be an obligation to have follow-on cover after retirement. I accept it is a problem at which we must look in the long term. The Medical Council must be involved in this issue. There are more than 18,000 medical practitioners in the country and I fully accept that they have a huge administrative workload and that this would be a further task. There would be no point setting up a new regulatory authority or giving this tasl to another Department. The Medical Council is the most appropriate body to deal with the issue.

Senator John Gilroy asked if there was any evidence of people not having insurance. Recently I spoke to a legal practitioner in Cork who said he was involved in litigation against a medical practitioner who did not have professional indemnity insurance. It is happening and important that we close this loophole as soon as possible.

Senator Sean D. Barrett referred to the periodic payments scheme. The Quirke report on the scheme was very comprehensive and is something at which we need to look in the context of the award of compensation. Going back to what Senator John Crown said, we need to look at the issue of litigation, which is costing the State and medical practitioners a considerable amount of money, to see if we can do something to deal with it, while ensuring there is adequate compensation for anyone who suffers as a result of inappropriate treatment. However, there must be limits also.

I looked at the initial Bill published in 2009 and had consultations during August and September, when there was less pressure on people, which were extremely helpful. The Bill may not tick all of the boxes, but it covers 90% of the issues which need to be dealt with. I am a little surprised that the Department believes it needs to draft a totally new Bill because this one can be amended and we can take on board amendments it may propose.

The Medical Protection Society has written to me again to say it needs one or two things to be tidied up and I have no difficulty in taking on board its views, as well as those of the Medical Council. As I said, one cannot drive a car or I cannot practice as a solicitor without insurance, but one's local general practitioner is not required by law to have insurance. I do not want to alarm people as the vast majority of medical practitioners have insurance, but we need to tidy up this area because under EU regulations, we cannot stop a person from coming to this country and setting up a practice. We must insist on the public being protected by ensuring there is adequate insurance cover. That is the reason I brought forward the Bill and why we should proceed with it.