Amendment No. 1 is in the name of the Minister of State. Amendments Nos. 2, 10 and 11 are related and may be discussed with amendment No. 1.
Voluntary Health Insurance (Amendment) Bill 2007 [Seanad]: Report and Final Stages.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, line 4, to delete "13” and substitute “10”.
Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 11 are technical drafting amendments arising primarily from the insertion of three new sections on Committee Stage to correct cross-references to sections in the Bill. Amendment No. 10 is a technical drafting amendment providing consistency on the use of tense.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 4, line 6, to delete "19” and substitute “16”.
Amendment agreed to.
Acceptance of amendment No. 3 involves the deletion of section 3. Recommittal is required in respect of this amendment as it does not arise out of committee proceedings.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendment No. 3.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 4, to delete lines 23 to 37 and substitute the following:
3.—Section 2(1) of the Act of 1994 is amended—
(a) by the insertion of the following definition:
"‘Act of 2001' means the Health Insurance (Amendment) Act 2001;",
(b) in the definition of “health insurance contract” (inserted by section 2 of the Act of 2001), by the substitution of the following paragraph for paragraph (d):
"(d) a contract of insurance, or any other insurance arrangement, the purpose of which is to provide for the making of payments specifically for the reimbursement or discharge of fees or charges in respect of the provision of hospital in-patient services or relevant health services to persons or any dependants of any of them and one of the following conditions is satisfied—
(i) neither the said persons nor any such dependants are ordinarily resident in the State, or
(ii) where any of the persons to whom the said contract or arrangement relates are temporarily resident in the State during the subsistence of the said contract or arrangement—
(I) those persons are so resident solely for the purpose of carrying out their duties as employees, and
(II) those persons constitute not more than—
(A) 20 per cent of the total number of persons (other than dependants of them) to whom the said contract or arrangement relates, and
(B) 20 of the total number of persons employed in the State by the one person;", and
(c) by the insertion of the following definition:
"‘in-patient indemnity payment' means any payment made pursuant to a health insurance contract by a registered undertaking for the purposes of reimbursing or discharging, in whole or in part, fees or charges in respect of the provision of hospital in-patient services.".
This is a technical amendment to insert a reference to the amending Act in the principal Act. Paragraph (b) substitutes the proposed text for paragraph (d) of the 2001 Act. The amendments to paragraph (d) of the definition of a health insurance contract passed on Committee Stage provided for the removal of a cumulative requirement currently contained in the exemption from the definition of a health insurance contract, and therefore the regulatory framework, for health insurance cover sold to persons moving from one country to another on a temporary basis. As some additional qualifications limiting the exemption to temporary stays for employment purposes are now being added to that subsection, it is considered better to substitute the subsection in its entirety. The principal changes are the removal of “domiciled” from (d)(i) and the addition of “solely” to (d)(ii)(I). Paragraph (c) reproduces the definition of an “in-patient indemnity payment” passed on Committee Stage.
We never discussed any of this on Committee Stage. The Bill has been through the Seanad and this is the last opportunity we have to deal with it. I get suspicious when long amendments are submitted at this stage in the passage of legislation. Why could this not have been introduced on Committee Stage? The Minister of State claims it is simply transferring sections into other sections. The amendment, however, contains a reference to persons or their dependants not ordinarily resident in the State. Will the Minister clarify this is not designed to deny health insurance to eastern European workers in Ireland?
This amendment is to facilitate international health insurance contracts and ensure they will not be subject to regulatory framework.
Regarding the reference to persons not ordinarily resident in the State, the word "domiciled" will be removed.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 5, to delete lines 5 to 13 and substitute the following:
""(3) Subsection (1) shall not apply to a health insurance contract—
(a) where, and without prejudice to the generality of paragraphs (a) to (d) of the definition of ‘health insurance contract’ (inserted by section 2 of the Act of 2001) in section 2(1), such a contract, either of itself or as construed with any linked or related other health insurance contract, makes no provision for the making of in-patient indemnity payments, or
(b) relating solely to the public hospital daily in-patient charges made under the Health (In-patient Charges) Regulations 1987 (S.I. No. 116 of 1987).”.”.
The related amendments moved on Committee Stage provide that obligations arising from sections 10 and 12 of the Health Insurance Acts are not applicable to contracts that do not involve indemnity cover for inpatient services. This means they will not have to meet minimum benefit requirements, as provided for in section 10, or be subject to risk equalisation, as provided for in section 12. Contracts that relate to relevant health services, for example, GP outpatient only or public hospital daily inpatient charges only, are already exempt.
Amendment No. 4 improves the structure of the subsection inserted on Committee Stage. It removes subsection (a) as the contracts that would come under that subsection are encompassed within the proposed subsection (a), previously subsection (c). It also clarifies that the provision is to be read having regard to the exemptions contained in the definition of a health insurance contract.
Amendment No. 5 improves the structure of the subsection inserted on Committee Stage and clarifies that the provision is to be read having regard to the exemptions contained in the definition of a health insurance contract. It also clarifies that a binding arrangement involving the exempt contract would result it in being treated as a health insurance contract.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 5, to delete lines 14 to 22 and substitute the following:
5.—Section 12 (inserted by section 9 of the Act of 2001) of the Act of 1994 is amended, in subsection (2), by the substitution of the following paragraph for paragraph (c):
"(c) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraphs (a) to (d) of the definition of ‘health insurance contract’ (inserted by section 2 of the Act of 2001) in section 2(1), a scheme may include a provision specifying that the scheme shall not apply to so much of the activities of a registered undertaking as consist of effecting health insurance contracts where such a contract, either of itself or as construed with any linked or related other health insurance contract, makes no provision for the making of in-patient indemnity payments.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 7, line 12, after "facilities" to insert the following:
"(not including facilities which are co-located on the premises of public hospitals)".
There was much debate on this matter on Committee Stage. The amendment signals our opposition to co-location projects involving the building of private hospitals on the grounds of public hospitals and the separation of public and private patients.
Under co-location, a public patient will be sent into one hospital while a private patient will be sent to a brand new purpose-built private hospital, which has significant tax breaks for the developers concerned. The Labour Party is fundamentally opposed to this health apartheid which separates patients on whether they are private or public. We do not want this legislation to facilitate this development or the VHI becoming involved in running private health facilities on the premises of public hospitals.
I went into our opposition to the co-location principle on Committee Stage while the Minister for Health and Children restated her commitment to it. The Minister has signed eight co-location projects but there is little clarity as to what arrangements have been put in place. Will patients presenting at accident and emergency departments be marched off in one direction or other, depending on whether they are private or public?
The main purpose of this amendment is to state our opposition to the concept of co-located hospitals, which the Minister is very set on. Most of her political focus is on a public-private patient division. The Labour Party believes it would be better if that division did not occur and instead we had a Minister focussed on building up the public health services.
I want to associate myself and my party with Deputy Jan O'Sullivan's remarks. While it may not be relevant to a health insurance Bill, it is important every effort is made by this House to demonstrate the Minister's folly in proceeding, with a certain vigour, with co-location. It will do no more than compound the already unequal and unfair health system our public is asked to enjoy. Since she first took the job three years ago, it is an issue that has taken her time, energy and determination to the detriment of the national health service, patient well-being and welfare. It must be stopped.
I urge the Minister of State, Deputy Smith, to demonstrate to the Minister for Health and Children the inequity involved by accepting this amendment. It is remarkable to see in today's newspapers the hypocrisy of certain Government members on this issue. No less a figure than the former Minister for Health and Children and now Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, is actively leading the opposition to co-located facilities in his native city, Cork.
We are told it is Government policy but some days it is appropriate and suitable for Fianna Fáil Cabinet members while other days they have difficulties with it. It is extraordinary that Fianna Fáil is buying the ideological drive of the Progressive Democrats which is fundamentally unfair to the people.
I refer the Minister of State to the co-location contract signed for Beaumont Hospital. A private, for-profit establishment will be constructed on lands for which planning permission was already issued for a psychiatric unit. This planned unit would have relieved the strained and difficult circumstances residents at St. Ita's psychiatric hospital in Portrane must endure. It had been agreed at HSE level to relocate St. Ita's residents to a newly constructed facility at Beaumont. However, the unacceptable and poor Victorian facilities at Portrane will continue indefinitely while the private commercially driven hospital, as proposed by the Progressive Democrats and Fianna Fáil, takes its place in Beaumont. Members of this House should take every opportunity to ensure that we have a fair and equal health system and that we do not support the Minister's American-driven crusade for profit and against the public interest. I support Deputy O'Sullivan's amendment.
I wish to record my support for Deputy O'Sullivan's amendment, which draws particular attention to the potential outworking of this section of the new Bill. We must remind ourselves that this is in the realm of additional functions of the board. Section 7 states clearly that in addition to the functions conferred on it by the Voluntary Health Insurance Acts 1957 to 1998, the board may — and this is the specific area that Deputy O'Sullivan seeks to address — acquire, manage, operate and maintain medical facilities. The amendment seeks to exclude facilities that are co-located on the premises of public hospitals. I absolutely agree.
It is extremely worrying that the Bill is open to the interpretation that the VHI could seek to sponsor private for-profit facilities co-located on public hospital sites. This is an outrageous proposition, particularly given that many of the people who contribute to the VHI scheme are doing so due to enforcement and out of real fear and concern about what might happen to them and their loved ones in the event that the need for acute hospitalisation would present within their families. This is as a result of the under-resourcing of the public acute hospital system, the network of hospitals and the services they provide within the public system. That the perpetuation of the two-tier system is now to be compounded by the idea that the VHI could utilise its position to add insult to injury by being a party to a private, for-profit co-located facility is absolutely unacceptable.
It is worrying that this could be a subtext to what is being presented in the text of this section of the new Bill. I appeal to my constituency colleague, Deputy Brendan Smith, to take on board the concerns already expressed by the mover of the amendment and Deputy Charles Flanagan and to recognise that the Opposition is of one voice in this instance. We are asking the Minister of State to accept the amendment in Deputy O'Sullivan's name and to recognise that it reflects accurately the thinking of the overwhelming body of people out there who will be noting this particular element of Report Stage of the Voluntary Health Insurance (Amendment) Bill 2007. I appeal to the Minister to accede to the amendment and to recognise that this section of the Bill, if it proceeds without amendment, leaves open the possibility that the board of the VHI could capitalise on an already intolerable situation in which our public hospital system is being undermined by the piggybacking of private, for-profit moguls.
I thank Deputies Jan O'Sullivan, Flanagan and Ó Caoláin for their contributions. This Bill has no provisions that direct the VHI towards becoming involved in co-located hospitals. I understand Deputy Jan O'Sullivan had the opportunity, with Deputy Reilly, to speak at length on this issue on Committee Stage, at which point the amendment was opposed on the basis that it would impose an unnecessary qualification on the board following authorisation. In the interim, the VHI has confirmed that the board has no plans to become involved in the operation or ownership of hospitals.
Under section 19 of this Bill there is a limitation on borrowings by the board for purposes other than authorisation. The limit is such that the board, given that its focus will be on building reserves for the purposes of authorisation and, equally, maintaining them for that purpose, would not have the financial capacity to become involved in the ownership of any hospitals in the foreseeable future. The board's interest at this time is in the non-acute SwiftCare clinics, the locations of which are best left to VHI management. I oppose the amendment that has been moved by Deputy O'Sullivan and supported by Deputies Flanagan and Ó Caoláin.
I fully accept the Minister of State's assertion that the board currently has no intention of doing any of this, but who is to say what it might do in the future? I also accept that it is currently restrained by financial considerations, particularly with regard to the implementation of this legislation, but I am concerned for the future. The wording of the section we seek to amend is "acquire, manage, operate and maintain" rather than "build". It could well manage these co-located facilities if our amendment is not accepted. I will pursue this amendment. I thank my colleagues Deputies Flanagan and Ó Caoláin for their support. It is an indication that the Opposition is united on this issue.
I note the Minister of State's reply but the Minister will be first to acknowledge, although perhaps not in the context of a direct response in the course of this debate, that the fact that the VHI does not have any plans in this regard in no way puts to bed the concerns of the Deputies who have spoken in the course of the discussion on this amendment. The VHI may very well present plans in the future or be tempted to take the course we as Opposition voices have highlighted, and there is absolutely nothing in the Bill that would prevent it from doing so. That is the critical point and it merits and requires further consideration by the Minister of State, who I note is in consultation with the official present. I hope they both recognise that plans at this point in time are in no way an assurance of intent in the future. Those are the assurances sought by the Deputies in this House.
I understand that the VHI is not in an arrangement with any group that is tendering to operate co-located hospitals. As I said earlier, and as Deputy O'Sullivan accepted, the focus of the VHI will be on building up the reserves and achieving a critical mass with regard to authorisation. Naturally, having achieved authorisation, it is equally important — and in fact mandatory — for the VHI to ensure that the reserves are maintained to keep that authorisation and work within the regulatory framework. I oppose the amendment.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 52; Níl, 67.
Tá
- Breen, Pat.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Catherine.
- Carey, Joe.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- D’Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, John.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Andrew.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Enright, Olwyn.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Flanagan, Terence.
- Hayes, Brian.
- Hayes, Tom.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lynch, Ciarán.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McHugh, Joe.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Neville, Dan.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Mahony, John.
- O’Shea, Brian.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Perry, John.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheahan, Tom.
- Sheehan, P.J.
- Sherlock, Seán.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Tuffy, Joanna.
- Upton, Mary.
- Varadkar, Leo.
- Wall, Jack.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, Barry.
- Andrews, Chris.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Aylward, Bobby.
- Behan, Joe.
- Blaney, Niall.
- Brady, Áine.
- Brady, Cyprian.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Carey, Pat.
- Connick, Seán.
- Cregan, John.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Curran, John.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Flynn, Beverley.
- Gogarty, Paul.
- Gormley, John.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Healy-Rae, Jackie.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kennedy, Michael.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Mansergh, Martin.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McGrath, Michael.
- McGuinness, John.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Brien, Darragh.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Flynn, Noel.
- O’Hanlon, Rory.
- O’Keeffe, Edward.
- O’Rourke, Mary.
- O’Sullivan, Christy.
- Power, Peter.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Mary.
- White, Mary Alexandra.
- Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Stagg and Kehoe; Níl, Deputies Kitt and Curran.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 7, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:
"5.—(1) The Board must achieve solvency and prove itself to be so before any additional powers are vested on it so to ensure fair competition within the market.
(2) The Board shall foster competition within the health insurance market and refrain from engaging in any actions which may hinder the operation of competition within the market.
(3) The Board shall cease to tie or bundle an of its existing ancillary products, or future ancillary products, to its health insurance products.
This matter was considered at length on Committee Stage and the amendment has been resubmitted on Report Stage by Deputy Reilly. He considers it of the utmost importance that the Voluntary Health Insurance agency should not be allowed to engage in further activities until it reaches a situation of solvency. It is certainly not clear from the Bill if there is such a sanction on the VHI that it would be solvent at all times. It is important that it would be solvent and not have the type of preferential treatment it has enjoyed in the past. In the interests of a competitive health insurance market, it would be a fair and reasonable requirement that this House would place on the Voluntary Health Insurance board that it would achieve a level of solvency in respect of its core business. Because of that I ask the Minister of State to reassure the House that the VHI will be in a position to achieve solvency. I am reluctant to divide the House on the issue but I ask the Minister of State to use his good offices to clarify matters.
I thank Deputy Flanagan for outlining those issues. The two points of his contribution will be answered in that the position as provided for, under the provisions of the Bill, is that the VHI would be obliged to attain authorisation at the earliest opportunity. Until authorisation is achieved it is not to be given any additional powers. I hope that assurance will assure Deputy Flanagan on the two important issues he raised.
The other matter of relevance is that the Financial Regulator has granted the VHI a licence to act as agent. That application was processed independently by the regulator. It is a matter, as all of us in the House are aware, for the regulator as to what products may be bundled by companies it has authorised. The VHI is an authorised agent in respect of its travel insurance product. It is a matter for the Financial Regulator to determine whether the VHI is complying with its requirements.
The Minister wrote to the VHI concerning its travel insurance product and has been assured that its practices are acceptable to the regulator. Related meetings have taken place between the regulator and the VHI. I hope those assurances will assure Deputy Flanagan that the issues he has raised are being adequately dealt with.
Is the amendment being pressed?
The Minister of State has given certain assurances. If he is happy that the regulator is endowed with sufficient powers to meet the needs of the amendment I am prepared not to press it. I think there is an issue to which we may have to return at a later stage.
I am happy the regulator has the relevant authority.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 7, line 22, after "dispose" to insert the following:
"(but only to an entity or person within the public service)".
This amendment has to do with subsidiaries of the VHI. If my amendment is agreed, the intention is that we would not allow the privatisation of any aspects of the business of the VHI or any subsidiary of the VHI. It is designed to ensure the power to dispose of shares in a subsidiary is limited to another entity within the public service. I had another concern but it is not incorporated in this amendment. In the event of a dispute, if a policy holder has a claim against the VHI, it appears from the section that the dispute would be against the subsidiary and not against the board. In that sense we have some concerns about the weakening of the position of the policy holder, but that is not specific to the amendment I am proposing. I propose this amendment to ensure we do not have a privatisation of aspects of the work of the VHI.
Amendment No. 9 will clarify that the provisions included in section 8(3) will also apply to the subsidiary established for the purpose of carrying on the board's health insurance business under section 10. It is noted that this amendment does not extend to section 8(1). However, it clarifies further that the relevant subsidiary, on establishment, shall be required to be consistent with provisions of the VHI Acts and that it shall have the objects and powers necessary for the attainment of the principal objects of the subsidiary.
The amendment proposed by Deputy Jan O'Sullivan on Committee Stage was given detailed consideration. As the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, stated at the time, the structure of the Bill provides that VHI cannot dispose of any share in subsidiaries that are carrying on functions that are excluded from this section. The excluded function specifically encompassed the functions within section 2 of the 1996 Act, the board's health insurance and related business. This is a key limitation and it would not be appropriate, given the thrust of the entire Bill, to include a broader limitation. Nor would it be feasible to limit the board in respect of any share disposal in the manner proposed.
Since Committee Stage, the provisions around the establishment of the subsidiary to carry on the health insurance business, has been given further consideration by the Parliamentary Counsel. It is considered desirable to specify that the memorandum and articles of association of the relevant subsidiary avail of the provisions contained in section 8(3). It is clear that the relevant subsidiary, being the health insurance business subsidiary, will not come within section 8(1). Consequently it will be appropriate to accept the amendment I will move to section 10. I urge the House to oppose amendment No. 8 and approve amendment No. 9.
Clearly, I would like to go further than the Minister of State but I welcome the fact that he has clarified the role of subsidiaries. I retain my position that we should move further
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 8, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:
"(3) Section 8(3) shall apply to the relevant subsidiary as that section applies to a subsidiary referred to in section 8(1).”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 8, line 43, to delete "does" and substitute "shall".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 9, line 49, to delete "11” and substitute “8”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 10, after line 49, to insert the following:
16.—The Competition Authority must review the health insurance market on a 12 monthly basis, particularly with a view to examining whether the Voluntary Health Insurance is abusing its dominant position, and to ensure that the Voluntary Health Insurance cooperates fully with any investigation carried out by the Competition Authority.".
This intent of this amendment is to provide that the board may foster competition within the health insurance market and refrain from engaging in actions that may hinder competition in the market. We should recognise the importance of market-driven, consumer-focused competition in the private health insurance market. The Minister of State may say that it is already the case but we have just three players in the market. In view of that, the consumer has seen the cost of health insurance rise on an annual basis. The basis of this amendment is to ensure the Competition Authority reviews, on an annual basis, the health insurance market. The Minister of State may say that is something the Competition Authority may do in any event but, given the importance of the market, it is appropriate that the Competition Authority be mandated to do so. If the market contained more health insurers and was more evenly distributed, the dependence on the VHI would diminish. With more competition we could expect lower premiums.
The Barrington, Health Insurance Authority and Competition Authority reports all recommended that the VHI discontinue its policy of cancelling the travel insurance policy should a consumer switch health insurance provider. This has not happened and I hope the Competition Authority could be empowered to undertake annual reviews, particularly to ensure that the VHI's dominant position can be broken up. This amendment was considered on Committee Stage. If the Minister of State is not prepared to accept this amendment, could he give assurances that a body, such as the Competition Authority, could have such appropriate power vested to ensure it can act at all times in the interest of the consumer?
I thank Deputy Charlie Flanagan for raising some important issues of competition and the dominant position of the VHI. This amendment is not necessary. The Competition Authority is an independent body that is not subject to direction from legislation of this nature. The Competition Authority has powers under section 30 of the Competition Act to take an action where any enterprise may be engaging in activity that could be regarded as anti-competitive. Deputy Flanagan referred to the need for the Competition Authority to have that authority. VHI is entitled to the same commercial freedom as other operators and to the same presumption of innocence as any undertaking in any market.
As evidenced by the reported risk imbalances in the profiles of the different insurers the position in the health insurance market is that VHI is not in a dominant position, notwithstanding its market share. It is internationally recognised that new entrants to a community rated health insurance market have significant pricing advantages in the absence of satisfactory risk equalisation arrangements. I hope these comments reassure Deputy Flanagan that there is no need for his amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 11, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:
"(5) A State guarantee shall not be provided to enable the Board or a subsidiary to raise or borrow money under this section or under any other provision of the Voluntary Health Insurance Acts 1957 to 2008.".
Members were advised on Committee Stage that an amendment would be tabled on Report Stage to clarify the liability of the board and its subsidiaries for any borrowings that may arise. The proposed amendment provides accordingly.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 14 to 16, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 11, lines 22 and 23, to delete all words from and including "(other" in line 22 down to and including "Act" in line 23 and substitute the following:
"made by the Minister under section 2(5)(b)(ii) (inserted by section 6(c)) of the Act of 1996 or under section 9 or section 15”.
These amendments are technical amendments. It is noted that the VHI Acts do not provide for the making of regulations. Consequently, amendments Nos. 15 and 16 propose the removal of such references. Amendment No. 10 specifies the sections where the making of orders arise.
I accept what the Minister of State says and support the amendments.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 11, line 25, to delete "or regulation".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 11, line 27, to delete "or regulation is laid before it, the order or regulation" and substitute "is laid before it, the order".
Amendment agreed to.
Bill, as amended, received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
On behalf of the Minister, Deputy Harney, and myself, I thank all Members who have participated in the consideration of the Bill on Second, Committee and Report Stages for their different viewpoints. In particular, I thank the Opposition spokespersons in the Dáil and the Seanad for the amendments tabled. The amendments that were accepted or resulted in Parliamentary Counsel drafting amendments to address the issues raised have enhanced the provisions of the Bill and I compliment the Members who tabled them.
It is hoped that the Seanad will give consideration to the amendments made by the House in the near future and that the Bill will enable the Voluntary Health Insurance Board to attain authorisation as an insurer by year end.
I agree. This is important and welcome legislation and I thank the Minister of State for his contribution.
I welcome that we have been able to make some changes and improvements to the Bill, although perhaps not all of those we on this side of the House would have liked. It is good that we have passed this legislation, but there are a number of outstanding issues, such as building up reserves and so on. Presumably, they will be addressed by the end of the year and the legislation will be fully implemented.
I thank the Minister of State for taking Report Stage. Clearly, there are outstanding concerns to which Members have given voice in the course of Report Stage. With my colleagues from Fine Gael and the Labour Party, I record my support for the passage of this welcome Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
A message shall be sent to the Seanad acquainting it accordingly.
Sitting suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.