Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 115: To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the position of negotiations with hospital consultants on the indemnity scheme; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [9388/05]

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

The principal concern of hospital consultants arising from the clinical indemnity scheme, CIS, has been the risk that some consultants could be left without indemnity cover for claims arising from events which occurred before the inception date of the scheme. In agreeing to establish the CIS the Government decided that the scheme should not cover claims arising from events which preceded its establishment. The justification for this decision was the fact that health boards and hospitals had purchased insurance cover for these events and consultants had paid substantial subscriptions to the Medical Defence Union, MDU, and the Medical Protection Society, MPS, to cover claims against them arising from the same period. In practice the vast bulk of the cost of both forms of indemnity cover was borne by the Exchequer. The Government's position on historical liabilities has been accepted by all of the insurance companies which operated in this market and by the MPS. The only organisation which contested this decision was the MDU which argued that the State should take over some of its historical liabilities. In an attempt to force the Government to alter its position, the MDU has decided to withhold or withdraw indemnity cover from between 25 and 30 of its Irish members. These decisions have caused understandable worry and distress to the doctors concerned, several of whom are retired.

The Government believes that these liabilities are the responsibility of the MDU. The doctors concerned paid the subscriptions set by the MDU. They are not at fault if the MDU did not charge the correct level of subscriptions. It would also be unjust if patients were to be left without compensation because of the unreasonable and unjustifiable behaviour of the MDU. Accordingly in October 2004 I gave an assurance to the Irish Hospital Consultants Association, IHCA, and the Irish Medical Organisation, IMO, that no person who has suffered from a medical mishap in Ireland would be left without compensation and that no consultant would be left without cover in all reasonable circumstances and in accordance with law. In February the Government formally endorsed this assurance and this decision was conveyed to the IHCA and IMO by the Secretary General to the Government. Following receipt of this information the IHCA decided to suspend its threatened industrial action. The IMO has deferred its threatened action for two months. A small number of residual issues relating to the operation of the scheme will be the subject of discussions between my Department, the State claims agency and the medical organisations.

I should point out that the granting of these assurances does not in any way imply that the Government has changed its view that these liabilities are the responsibility of the MDU. This view is shared by the IHCA and the IMO. The Government and the medical organisations are determined to ensure that the MDU will not be allowed to walk away from its obligations to its Irish members. For that reason the assurances given to the consultants cannot be legally binding. I have also given an assurance that the State is willing to support consultants who decide to challenge MDU decisions to leave them without assistance in dealing with personal injury claims. The intention is to exert the maximum pressure on the MDU to honour its obligations to its Irish members and former members.