Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 15 Oct 2002

Vol. 555 No. 2

Other Questions. - Professional Indemnity Cover.

Simon Coveney

Question:

85 Mr. Coveney asked the Minister for Health and Children the difference between his reply to a parliamentary question of March 2002 regarding the transfer of funds to the Medical Protection Society and the information obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, 1997, of an agreement made in May 2001 whereby his Department indemnifies medical practitioners for all the claims over and above 80% of the minimal subscription fund; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17906/02]

Olivia Mitchell

Question:

266 Ms O. Mitchell asked the Minister for Health and Children if he will reconcile his reply to a parliamentary question of March 2002 that there was "no transfer of funds directly or indirectly" to the Medical Protection Society with the information obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, 1997, of an agreement made in May 2001 whereby his Department indemnifies medical practitioners for all the claims over and above 80% of the minimal subscription fund; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17935/02]

Olivia Mitchell

Question:

273 Ms O. Mitchell asked the Minister for Health and Children if he will reconcile his reply to a parliamentary question of March 2002 that there was "no transfer of funds directly or indirectly" to the Medical Protection Society with the information obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, 1997, of an agreement made in May 2001 whereby his Department indemnifies medical practitioners for all the claims over and above 80% of the minimal subscription fund; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17942/02]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 85, 266 and 273 together.

The agreement which was entered into between my Department and the Medical Protection Society in May 2001 was intended to ensure that consultant obstetrician-gynaecologists in practice in Ireland could continue to secure professional indemnity cover at an affordable cost. The risk that up to 30 of them would not be able to continue in practice arose from a decision by the Medical Defence Union to increase the cost of indemnity cover from £68,000, or €86,342, to £393,000, or €499,007, for this group. I was concerned that the inability of this small group of practitioners to secure indemnity cover for the period leading up to the introduction of enterprise liability would precipitate a crisis in the provision of obstetric services. Apart from its impact on the public services, it could have led to the closure of the two remaining private obstetric facilities at Mount Carmel Hospital, Dublin, and at the Bon Secours Hospital, Cork.

In an effort to avert this crisis my Department wrote to the Medical Defence Union and the other mutual defence body, the Medical Protection Society, asking them for proposals which would allow obstetricians to have access to secure and reasonably priced indemnity cover for the 12-18 months leading up to the introduction of enterprise liability. The proposals received from the MDU and the MPS were evaluated by officials of my Department and their external insurance advisers. They recommended acceptance of the MPS's proposal.

The agreement with the MPS provides for the subscriptions of Irish consultant obstetricians to be placed in two funds to cover consultants in the public sector and the private sector. When enterprise liability for consultants is introduced the balance remaining in the fund relating to consultants in the public sector will be transferred to the Exchequer less any moneys expended on claims against those doctors which had been lodged after the effective date of the agreement. The liabilities arising from these claims would be transferred with the balance of the fund. The fate of the fund relating to consultants in the private sector would be the subject of discussions with the MPS and representatives of the private consultants at the appropriate time in the context of the long-term arrangements to be made for this group.

The agreement does not provide for any transfer of funds to the MPS, whether directly or indirectly, other than the normal reimbursement arrangements in place for consultants in the public hospital system. These arrangements apply to consultants in all specialties whether members of the MDU or MPS. The agreement with the MPS provides for the public consultants' fund to be transferred to the Department within one month of the introduction of enterprise liability for consultants. The position of the fund has recently been reviewed with the MPS and I can confirm that no payments have been made from it to date. I am satisfied that the moneys placed in the fund plus investment income will be transferred to my Department in 2002. Therefore, the factual position is that there has been no transfer of funds to the MPS regarding these liabilities.

In reply to a parliamentary question last March, the Minister said there was no transfer of funds, directly or indirectly, to the Medical Protection Society. However, it became clear from information obtained under the Freedom of Information Act a couple of months later that in the previous year the Minister had agreed to provide limitless funds to the Medical Protection Society. That offer was not made to the alternative insurer. There has been a complaint to the European Commission that this is contrary to EU competition law. Will the Minister agree that he has placed himself in an invidious position in respect of European law? It would not be accepted for any other Department to favour one company over another. The proposals sought did not give any indication that the Department was willing to prop up one company but not the other.

My advice is strongly to the contrary on the points advanced by Deputy Mitchell. There was a real danger of a crisis being precipitated in this area as a result of the decision of the Medical Defence Union to increase the cost of indemnity cover to the degree it proposed. I have been in ongoing discussions with the Medical Defence Union for some time and our discussions did not relate to this issue to any significant degree. They concentrated on the issue of historic liabilities and the wish of the Medical Defence Union that the State should, almost without condition, accept responsibility for any arrears or payments into the future that would arise from claims against the MDU. These are termed "historic liabilities". That was the main issue when we were working on enterprise liability. The MDU also raised this issue, particularly latterly, in the discussions.

They did not find out until latterly.

We employed our own external consultants on this. They went to London to try to assess what the historic liabilities would be. They are considerable.

Everybody understands the circumstances and there is no argument that a serious issue was involved. However, will the Minister reassure the House that he is certain he has acted legally? Would he not have been better advised to go through a formal tendering process to ensure there was no ambiguity or misunderstanding, to put it at its best? There is now an aggrieved party which believes it was not given an equal chance and a complaint has been made to the European Union. Can the Minister be certain he applied the correct mechanism to go through this process?

We will strongly and robustly defend the position as outlined.

Did the Minister get legal advice?

In respect of this question my advice is that we—

Did the Minister get legal advice at the time?

Legal advice has been taken on this.

At the time?

The officials at the time would have taken advice but I will check that for the Deputy. I do not have exact details of what the advice was at the time. People can make claims to the European Union but that does not mean the claims will win. Obviously, we will contest it.

There are sufficient grounds for worry here.

That in itself does not mean that the claims will win through, of course. We will contest that, obviously.

On the question of historic claims, what does the Minister think of the future of private medicine in Ireland? Does he think it has any future at all if they will have to fund from future subscriptions the cost of any historic claims that may arise?

The State has taken the private obstetricians on board to maintain the provision of private obstetric services. We made that decision some time ago to maintain capacity. We see enterprise liability as the only way forward in terms of maintaining services. We are still in discussions with the IHCA representing the consultants.

Will there be any private medical care?

There had better be.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

We must move on to Question No. 86.

Top
Share