I propose to take Questions Nos. 190 to 200, inclusive, together.
On-going funding for any service is a matter for the HSE and I understand that the HSE provided the funding amounts set out in the following table to Dignity 4 Patients over the past three years to support the very valuable work that they offer to those who have suffered sexual assault or inappropriate sexual behaviour in a medical setting:
Year
|
Funding
|
2010
|
€171,890 Lottery Grant
|
2011
|
€4,000 Lottery Grant & €69,000 Lottery Grant
|
2012
|
€22,500 funding in two instalments
|
2013
|
€22,500 funding in two instalments
|
2014
|
€11,250 has been approved for payment and is currently being processed.
|
The HSE has also indicated to Dignity 4 Patients that it is not in a position to provide funding towards staffing costs and accordingly, the funding provided may not be used to establish a counselling service for alleged victims. Dignity 4 Patients clients may avail of the HSE's National Counselling Service and the HSE has put in place arrangements which will permit clients referred by Dignity 4 Patients to be fast-tracked into counselling as is the case for victims of institutional abuse. Dignity 4 Patients clients of course have the right to access all appropriate health and social care services in the same way as any other citizen. The HSE has also suggested to Dignity 4 Patients that they consider establishing synergies with other similar agencies, in order that their client group can continue to be supported.
Regarding the Deputy's question relating to setting up an Inquiry, I have no plans to set up a further Inquiry on foot of the Drogheda Review. In October 2009, the then Minister for Health and Children announced the establishment of an independent non statutory review, the “Drogheda Review”. The purpose of this review was to advise her on whether a further investigation into the procedures and practices operating at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital Drogheda during the period 1964 to 1995 to protect patients from sexual abuse while undergoing treatment or care at the hospital and to deal with allegations of sexual abuse against a certain doctor, would be likely to provide additional information or insights which would be of significant public benefit in helping to improve best practice guidelines and policies. This review was carried out by retired High Court Judge T.C. Smyth. Judge Smyth submitted his report to the Minister in September 2010. The report recommended that a further investigation should not
be held and that, in order to avoid prejudicing any civil or criminal cases, the report should not be published. I am aware that such proceedings are underway. A short summary of the report was, however, prepared and supplied to the patient support groups in January 2011.
The High Court proceedings with the Information Commissioner and also the Circuit Court proceedings, initiated by the Office of the Ombudsman, are on-going and accordingly I am not in a position to make any further comment as these matters are sub judice. The legal costs of the Department associated with these proceedings are borne by the Chief State Solicitor's Office vote. It is not possible to provide a reliable estimate of legal costs to date, or projected full costs for all parties.