Vol. 526 No. 4
74 Mr. Currie asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if her attention has been drawn to the fact that the Irish Insurance Federation wishes to use genetic testing in assessing life insurance; if the introduction of genetic testing for such a purpose would be a serious encroachment on right to individual privacy; her views on whether it should be prevented by legislation if necessary; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [26724/00]
I am aware of the draft code of practice in relation to genetic testing recently prepared by the Irish Insurance Federation, IIF, for its members. My understanding from the draft code is that the industry intends that applicants for insurance policies will not be required to undergo a genetic test to obtain insurance cover.
While the move by the insurance industry is welcome, I am conscious of the need to consider whether Government regulation in this area is warranted. Accordingly, I have asked that a process of consultation with interested parties be undertaken by the Department. When this process is completed and we are in a position to consider the matter further, having regard to all relevant factors, I will consider what, if any, action is required at that time.
Did the Minister see a recent letter to The Irish Times signed by ten PhDs from the department of genetics in Trinity College? In the letter they said it was plain that people are becoming reluctant to have genetic tests—
The Deputy cannot quote from letters.
I am paraphrasing it.
The Deputy does not appear to be paraphrasing. Quotations are not in order on Question Time.
I hope this time is not taken from the time allocation for this question.
There is an obligation on the Chair to ensure order.
The ten PhDs said it was clear that people were not having genetic tests, which would be helpful to them in terms of their health, because they feared their responsible behaviour would be penalised when they applied for life insurance. Does the Minister agree this attitude is bound to be common and that, in those circumstances, the lead given by Britain should not be followed in this case? Does he agree the lead given by France, the Netherlands and Belgium, which have introduced regulations to prevent genetic testing being used in these circumstances, is the lead we ought to follow? Will he agree, given that genetic research has advanced so far and is likely to advance much further, that we would be well advised to take our decisions in relation to it now and not when we are forced to do it later?
I read the letter in The Irish Times. It was signed by eminent scientists and medical experts. The Deputy is taking a simplistic view of the letter. If consumers found that genetic testing would ease their insurance problems, they might consider it. However, that is by the way. We should not be rushed into a decision.
The Irish Council for Science, Technology and Innovation, ICSTI, has set up a special group on biotechnology and it is currently considering genetic testing. The IIF has put forward its proposals and we have asked for consultations between the IIF, officials in the Department and the group on biotechnology under ICSTI. We will await the recommendations that will arise from that and we will take a decision at that time if that is the appropriate thing to do.
There is constant innovation in this area so there is no point sticking our heads in the sand and making a decision now which might be ridiculous in six or 12 months. This is an evolving area. The Government has taken a decision, based on the recommendations of ICSTI's technology foresight group, that we spend £560 million over the term of the national development plan on both information communication technology and biotechnology. All this is relevant. We must take cognisance of the current situation and not be rushed into doing something that might turn out to be foolish.
We do not wish to countenance a situation where people would be obliged to undergo genetic testing for insurance cover. We have an assurance in that regard from the IIF. The document is being discussed at present with the relevant groups and the final decision will be taken in due course. We will await that decision.
I do not have a simplistic attitude to the letter. Since I am not allowed to quote it, perhaps the Minister would read it. It is dated 31 October.
I have read it.
Does the Minister not agree that his lackadaisical attitude on this question contrasts with the attitude to wheat, for example? The report issued yesterday by the interdepartmental group stated that it should not at this stage consider human genetic engineering. Such an attitude lacks urgency and the Minister ought to give serious consideration to it. This issue will create more problems and sooner or later the Minister will have deal with it.
Again, the Deputy is being simplistic. We set up technology foresight and it made recommendations on which we acted. We set up the interdepartmental group on biotechnology, the subject of another question which we will debate today, and we will act on its advice. There have been consultations with the IIF about genetic testing and we are acting on them.
That attitude is simplistic. I might be ignorant but I am not simplistic.
The Deputy is neither ignorant nor simplistic and he does a good job. I do not want to denigrate the Deputy as a Member of the House, given that each Member makes his or her contribution, but to claim that we should take an instant decision on an issue now, with all the information and expertise that is available and all the reports and matters under consideration, would be short-sighted. We will await the outcome and recommendations as a result of the discussions between the ICSTI which are examining genetic testing on biotechnology, the IIF and our own team. When they make a final recommendation, I will consider if it is necessary to take a decision in that regard.
More procrastination from the Celtic snail.
When they make a final recommendation, I will consider if it is necessary to take a decision.
Maybe we should defer it to the taximen.
That concludes priority questions.
