John Gilroy (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister and wish him well in his new job. The magnitude of the responsibilities involved and the frustrations to which the job gives rise turned his predecessors grey, not just in terms of their hair but also, perhaps, in the context of their reputations. I have every confidence that this will not happen to the Minister. He has begun his tenure very well and some of his recent pronouncements have brought certainty in respect of the position with regard to health care. He will enjoy the support of the Labour Party as long as he continues to do that. If he fails to do it, however, our support cannot be automatically taken for granted.

The legislation before the House is extremely important. As Senator Mooney pointed out, it is more or less the same as that which was introduced by Senator Colm Burke some time ago. Senator Colm Burke has been gracious and generous enough to state that the Bill is an improvement on his legislation. I am not sure whether that is the case or whether the Senator's natural generosity prompted him to make his statement to that effect. As Senator Mooney also indicated, there is something wrong if perfectly good legislation is introduced and then the Government finds it necessary to remove it before bringing forward a virtually identical Bill.

While I may have been surprised by the fact that Senator Colm Burke's legislation was not accepted, I was even more surprised when I discovered that medical practitioners have heretofore not been required to provide evidence of indemnity cover. That is extraordinary. Is the Minister in a position to indicate the number of medical practitioners who have been operating without indemnity cover? Is he aware of any instances where people before the courts have been found not to have indemnity and can he outline what were the consequences in that regard? The legislation before the House addressed two aspects of this matter, the first of which relates to public safety. When practitioners are registering, they will now be required to provide proof of competency, experience and indemnity cover. That is only right and proper. The second aspect relates to public confidence. Patients are going to be able to rest assured that the medical practitioners under whose care they may find themselves will all be in possession of the relevant insurance.

My colleagues have already covered the various matters which arise in the context of the Bill. However, Senator Colm Burke referred to the fact that the amount of indemnity or insurance cover which medical practitioners are obliged to pay is €70,000. Is account taken, in section 6 or elsewhere in the legislation, of people who are not full-time medical practitioners? I refer, for example, to people who may be job-sharing and who might see three or four patients per week? I refer to individuals who may wish to keep their hand in, so to speak, but who are not practising on a full-time basis. These people would not make a fraction of €70,000 in terms of their annual income, so the cover may prove to be out of their reach financially.

The Minister stated that the legislation will fulfil Ireland's obligation under the EU directive relating to medical practitioners and that similar legislation that will apply to other registered health professionals will be drafted as soon as possible.

Who might these other health professionals be? Senator Crown referred to the fact that I am a psychiatric nurse. Will nurses fall under this legislation? There is already a requirement for a professional register for nurses. I understand that when nurses are practising within the health service they are automatically covered by their employers, but in certain circumstances nurses work for agencies in the private sector - for example, looking after patients in their own homes. Is there a requirement in such cases for the agency to provide indemnity, or is the individual practitioner required to so provide?

I look forward to discussing this in greater detail on Committee Stage and I will have more questions for the Minister at that stage. Anyway, if the Minister could have my considerations addressed at this time I would be most appreciative.