Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 82: To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children if she has plans to meet the IHCA; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [4267/05]

Mary Harney (Dublin Mid West, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am keeping in close contact with the IHCA and the IMO regarding recent developments. I am available to meet them as and when required.

Paul McGrath (Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 83: To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children if she has plans to support a hospital consultant to sue the Medical Defence Union; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [4266/05]

Mary Harney (Dublin Mid West, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The question of who is responsible for settling claims against consultants arising from events, which occurred prior to the establishment of the clinical indemnity scheme, is, in the first instance, one for consultants and their defence bodies. Consultants paid substantial subscriptions to the Medical Defence Union, MDU, over many years. The primary purpose of joining the MDU was to secure professional indemnity cover without which a doctor could not practice. Doctors would have had a reasonable expectation that claims against them would be met despite the fact the MDU did not consider itself to be carrying on an insurance business. The failure of the MDU to meet the reasonable expectations of its Irish members is regrettable.

As the State reimbursed up to 90% of the cost of indemnity cover purchased by consultants employed in the public service it has a legitimate interest in ensuring that Irish consultants are treated in a fair and equitable fashion by the MDU. Giving tangible expression to this interest may result in the State giving assistance to consultants, or joining with consultants, in taking legal action against the MDU.