I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Ó Ríordáin, and his officials to the House.
Redress for Women Resident in Certain Institutions Bill 2014: Committee Stage
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2
Amendments Nos. 1 and 5 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, to delete line 26 and substitute the following:
“(a) the provision of health services without charge as outlined in section 2 of the Health (Amendment) Act 1996,”.
Fianna Fáil supports this Bill. The intention of our amendments is to provide clarity in regard to specifics within the legislation. The amendment we are putting forward is in line with Mr. Justice Quirke's recommendations. I hope the Minister will be prepared to accept it in order that there is no misunderstanding on that point.
Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit agus muid ar ais arís ag plé an Bhille iontach tábhachtach seo. Ar na leasuithe trí chéile, sílim go n-aontaítear ar an dtaobh seo den Teach nach bhfuil an méid atá molta ag an Rialtas ag teacht leis an méid a gealladh.
We have had a briefing subsequent to the Second Stage debate on the issues we raised with the Minister of State. It is clear to me that the Magdalen survivors do not take the same reading of this legislation as the Government. They have sent us more information and appealed to us to bring forward the case. We are calling on the Minister of State to look again at the amendments put forward. Basically, they cover the area of Mr. Justice Quirke's redress scheme and what the Magdalen women believe to be missing from what the Government is putting forward.
The Government told the Dáil that it would implement the redress scheme in full, but it has reneged on its commitment according to the women. In respect of section 2(1)(b), drugs, medicines and appliances should not be limited to the medical card reimbursement list. They are not so limited under the Health (Amendment) Act card. As we explained, appendix G of Mr. Justice Quirke's report sets out how Health (Amendment) Act cardholders are entitled to any prescribed medications, drugs or appliances whatsoever. Mr. Justice Quirke recommended in appendix E of his report the following provision in place of section 2(1)(b): "drugs, medicines and medicinal and surgical appliances".
Section 2(1)(e) relates to dental, ophthalmic and aural services and references the Health Act 1970, namely, the medical card Act. This should be removed. We have been told the reference to the 1970 Act limits these services to the medical card standard, but 90% of the Magdalen survivors already have a medical card or general practitioner visit card according to Mr. Justice Quirke.
The Minister for Justice and Equality amended the wording relating to GP services in section 2(1)(a) after Committee Stage to remove the reference to the 1970 Act. She did this to make it clear that the women would be entitled to private GP care rather than normal medical card standard GP care. The Minister of State should do something similar for dental, ophthalmic and aural services. Mr. Justice Quirke's recommended wording relating to the Health (Amendment) Act 1996 in appendix E of his report is "dental, ophthalmic and aural treatment and dental, optical and aural appliances". This wording should substitute the current section 2(1)(e).
There is a major difference between the medical card and the Health (Amendment) Act card, as we teased out on Second Stage. For standard dental, ophthalmic and aural services, Health (Amendment) Act cardholders can visit any private practitioner and when referred for hospital treatment they are entitled to an appointment within two weeks.
Similar points arise in section 2(1)(f) relating to counselling. It is believed that this section should be amended to provide for counselling for immediate family members as well as the Magdalen women. Health (Amendment) Act cardholders receive free counselling for immediate family members, as explained in appendix G of Mr. Justice Quirke's report. The Minister for Justice and Equality has stated that this service is not needed for immediate relatives of the Magdalen women. Justice for Magdalenes research respectfully disagrees with that and we support this view. The Magdalen laundries abuse has affected these women's entire lives with many suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and other mental illnesses as a result.
The women's experiences in the past and present have often affected their loved ones, including children and partners. Some of the women who were in contact with Justice for Magdalenes research have only very recently begun to speak to family members about their experiences in the Magdalen laundries. It is our view that the immediate relatives of Magdalen survivors need and deserve access to counselling services in the same manner as the family members of HAA cardholders.
On the note regarding complementary therapies, it states the Bill should be amended to provide for complementary therapies which are available to HAA card holders if provided by a GP, registered nurse or physiotherapist. It refers to massage, acupuncture, reflexology, hydrotherapy and aromatherapy. The Minister for Justice and Equality has stated that she cannot include these in the Bill because the Minister for Health is opposed to them. However, she has acknowledged that she believes in the benefits of such complementary therapies and the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, who has responsibility for primary and social care opened acupuncture awareness week this week. The Minister for Justice and Equality has stated that her Department will consider-----
I apologise for interrupting, but the comments are more on the section than the amendment.
They are grouped.
If you wish, you can make those points on the section.
I will leave it at that. We will reserve the right to come back in.
Perhaps it would be more appropriate for me to speak on the section rather than the amendment.
I am pleased to be here on behalf of the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Fitzgerald. As I indicated on Second Stage, the Government is fully is committed to implementing all of the recommendations made by Mr. Justice Quirke and will be providing all of the health services recommended in his report.
I am unable to accept amendments Nos. 1 and 5. As I have stated, the women who were in Magdalen laundries will be able to avail of their GP of choice, whether he or she is a participant in the general medical card scheme or a fully private GP. However, if the Bill were amended as suggested and provided health services as outlined in section 2 of the 1996 Act, it would mean that chiropody and physiotherapy would not be provided in the Bill as there is no such provision in section 2 of the 1996 Act.
Moreover, the counselling services in the Act are specifically described as counselling services in respect of hepatitis C. Since none of the women has hepatitis C, amendment No. 5 would be of no benefit to the women. The effect of these amendments would be to cause confusion and provide a more restricted service than is currently provided in section 2 of the Bill.
I am surprised at the obstinance of the Minister of State. He realises in principle that this Bill and the way it has been constituted does not have the support of Justice for Magdalenes and the people involved. They are very unhappy that there is an obvious disagreement between his reading of the Bill and theirs. That is why we have tabled the amendments. It would have been more useful if the Minister of State had come before the House today with some Government amendments to address the issues and genuine concerns raised on Second Stage by Senators across the House.
Mr. Justice Quirke's recommendations have not been fully adhered to. When the Taoiseach made an apology in the Dáil, we heard that the Government was going to do everything in its power to try to redress the situation. A representative group speaking on behalf of the victims said very clearly to Senators and the Government, in a briefing organised by Senator Gilroy, that this is not cutting the mustard and it is not for what they asked. Surely the Minister of State could have some compassion and come back and accept the amendments we have tabled or introduced Government amendments. That would have addressed the genuine concerns that are there. They want expediency in the Bill.
They can agree with the thrust of the Bill but they feel they waived certain rights before the Bill was published in order that expediency would be brought forward because of the ageing profile of the victims in question. I again get the sense today that we are hitting a brick wall with the Minister of State on these issues. There is quite a dismissive tone in the responses we are getting. He is trying to dismiss the amendments out of hand, which is very unfortunate. Maybe we should ask him to reconsider the amendments. If he is not happy with them, he could tell us what the Government intends to do on Report Stage to take on board the genuine concerns of the people who have suffered in the Magdalen laundries. They have voiced their genuine concerns since we had the debate on Second Stage. They still do not agree with the Government's reading of the Bill and something needs to be done to bring the two sides together.
I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I acknowledge and welcome to the Chamber Ms Elizabeth Coppin and her husband. Ms Coppin is a former ward of the State and survivor of the Magdalen system.
We had a substantial and productive debate last week on Second Stage and have taken further steps to determine whether we can address the needs of the survivors and the perceived difference between what is proposed and what the survivors are seeking. We met a survivors' group last Thursday and met the Minister immediately afterwards. The assurance I received from the Minister went a long way to alleviate my concerns. In his response to me, the Minister of State might specify the differences, if any, between what the Bill proposes, what is recommended in Mr. Justice Quirke's report and what is contained in the legislative provisions of the 1996 Act.
To save the Minister of State some bother, I note there is no provision for alternative medicine and counselling is not provided for in the Bill. He has assured us that the responsibility for including alternative medicine lies with the Minister for Health, who is not disposed towards including alternative medicine in any medical card. We received an assurance from the Minister last week that her Department will create a scheme under which the provision of alternative medicine can be considered. I would like the Minister of State to comment on that and provide reassurance that I did not misunderstand what the Minister said to me last week. Perhaps we could put it on the record of the House.
My next point concerns counselling. Will a similar scheme be established in the Department of Justice and Equality to deal with counselling for the survivors of the Magdalen laundries, which would be outside the terms of the 1996 Act which specifies those suffering from hepatitis C?
Is there confusion about whether dental, ophthalmic and optical services are provided free of charge by a provider of these services in the private sector under the various schemes outlined in the medical card or HAA scheme? I would like some assurance that my understanding of what is proposed is as I outlined. It would go a very long way towards reassuring the House and survivors that the Government is doing everything possible in the most generous way possible within the provisions of legislation and other provisions which may not be necessary to provide for under legislation.
This amendment is motivated by our concern for the survivors of the Magdalen laundries. As we know, they have suffered a lot and travelled a long road to justice. They met many roadblocks and obstacles on the way. It is vital that we allay their fears. They do not seem to be happy with the current Bill, which was our motivation in looking for clarity, not just in the Chamber but in the Bill.
I would like to speak on amendments No. 1 and 5, but I also wish to speak on the section. I listened to what the Minister of State and advocacy groups said. For me, this is about trust and confidence. I can see from the perspective of those involved in advocacy groups that trust has been shattered and confidence is low.
The difficulty is I feel we are parsing words but what will it actually mean? In preparing for today's debate, I spoke to a person who gave me an example of how this amendment could affect people. The person had come across two separate cases of women who were in disability services, not in nursing homes, and who, because our capacity legislation is not in place, cannot sign to get the amount of money of which they are so deserving. Treatments and services they require are being denied to them. These women are in a nursing home and are paying out of their own money for mattress protectors and walkers, products that should be provided by the HSE. They are told they would have to wait so long for them that they would be better off buying them out of their own pocket. These are women who do not have that money, who have been institutionalised for 30 to 40 years and who do not necessarily have an extended family because they have been institutionalised by the State.
As I read the amendment, it seeks to give clarity and confidence to trusts to say to these women that they have a right to these services, not that they will be put at the end of the queue or will have to grovel, ask and beg. We want to be absolutely explicit, whether it is through this amendment or on the floor of the House, that the GP services, the treatments and the health services will be available to them without charge and without putting them to the end of a list. That is the least we can do. The Minister of State said on the last day that it was emotional; it is emotional but it is also a fact. I am not saying we should make sure we do this. We have to do this. We have to restore trust and confidence. We have to right the wrongs of the past. For me, the very least we can do is ensure that the services needed and should be provided are available as a right. For me, that is how we correct the past. We must ensure it is a clear right in the legislation.
My responsibility and that of the Department is to implement fully the recommendations of Mr. Justice Quirke. I do not necessarily want to do this but there is a statement from JFM research, National Women's Council of Ireland, which sets out a list of things which are not in the Bill. Of the ten listed, Nos. 1, 3, 6, 7 and 9 flatly contradict the recommendations because they are provided for in the Bill. If people are going to send out statements on what is and is not in the Bill, I wish they would stick to the facts because it is easy to make a statement understanding how passionate and emotional people feel about this issue. Frankly, as the Senator is listing things that are not in the Bill, of course it will upset people. At first glance, that Nos. 1, 3, 6, 7 and 9 are wrong, is remarkable, and-----
Can the Minister of State tell us what they are?
-----No. 8 is not relevant yet. I will state categorically what our job is here. Mr. Justice Quirke recommends that legislation be introduced to give effect to his recommendation with regard to the provision of health services. In his report Mr. Justice Quirke was of the opinion that the women of the Magdalen laundries should be provided with access to a comprehensive suite of health services. Mr. Justice Quirke's recommendation that the women receive medical services equivalent to those provided by the holder of a HAA card has been given effect in this Bill. However, he also stated that not all of the services described in the hepatitis C guide may be directly relevant to the Magdalen women and any comparable guide for the Magdalen women would require suitable adaptation. This is Mr. Justice Quirke's report. It should be noted that the services provided in section 2 of the Bill are precisely those recommended by Mr. Justice Quirke on page 35 of his report. I ask Senators to compare the Bill with the report. They include general practitioner services, prescribed drugs, medicines, aid and appliances, dental, ophthalmic and aural services, home supports, home nursing, counselling services, chiropody, podiatry and physiotherapy. All of these services are specified in section 2 and will be made available free of charge to the women who were in the Magdalen laundries. I appeal to Senators and those sending out press releases to look at the Bill.
The Minister of State has gone a long way to clarifying the issue. However, will he clarify whether the services to be provided free of charge to the survivors of the Magdalen laundries, such as dental, ophthalmic and aural services can be provided by providers in the private sector as well as the public sector in the same way as the section specifies in terms of general practitioner care that the sole arbiter of GP care, regardless of who provides it, is with the person seeking the service?
Is the Minister of Stating saying on the record that is the case? That is at variance with some of the information put forward. Some of the information, from wherever it comes, is saying that these services are not available in the private sector but only under schemes provided by the HSE.
They will have exactly the same facilities as the hepatitis C people; there is no difference according to the 1996 Act. If there is confusion, unfortunately it is unnecessary confusion. If I am coming across as being quite strident I apologise, but I feel strongly that we must have clear, concise proper information for the women.
What the Minister of State is saying could not be clearer. There can be no ambiguity about what the Minister of State is saying.
I thank the Minister of State for his patience but we are trying to achieve absolute clarity and certainty for the Magdalen ladies who are an extremely vulnerable group. Their advocacy groups have different perceptions of the Bill. Amendment No. 4 relates to dental, optical and aural appliances.
I will allow the Senator back in on the section.
I thank the Acting Chairman.
I concur with Senator John Gilroy that there is still quite an amount of confusion between what the advocate group has to say and what the Minister of State is telling the House. That is a matter of concern because from the information we were given by the people in this organisation, who are close to the legislation and the victims in this scenario, that they were told they had not properly parsed the legislation and its implications for the victims to the extent that they feel that the deal put on the table and the deal promised in the Quirke report is not being delivered upon shows there is a significant gap. According to the Minister of State's statement, they were wrong in their assertions. We will seek further clarification before Report Stage. We are a cosignatory to amendments Nos. 1 and 5. I propose to withdraw amendments Nos. 1 and 5 and seek to resubmit amendments around this issue on Report Stage.
For information purposes, the order of the House is that Report Stage will take place immediately after Committee Stage.
I suggest Report Stage be postponed.
This is an area of such importance to the people and the organisations involved, and to the Minister-----
On a point of information, the Order of Business has been agreed by the House. My hands are tied in that regard. Unless it is amended I cannot-----
That is very regrettable. On previous occasions when such issues arose during debates, the Leader of the House has been contacted. I am sure he is watching with great interest to see how this debate is proceeding.
It is the job of the Chair to carry out the order of the day.
We are here to make sure that the legislation passed by this House delivers on what it is supposed to deliver. This legislation should deliver on the recommendations of the Quirke report to the satisfaction of the victims but there is major confusion this morning. There seems to be a contradiction between what the Minister is saying and what the advocate groups are saying to us and, based on that, we put down our amendments. I am trying to be helpful. The Order of Business is agreed but the Leader should be contacted on this matter. We might seek to withdraw the amendments and table similar amendments on Report Stage if we believe that the issues we are raising have not been addressed properly.
Senator Conway is the Acting Leader.
I am the Acting Leader and while I would regularly agree with my colleague, Senator Ó Clochartaigh, in this instance the Minister of State has been forthright and abundantly clear. With respect to the legislation and the order of the House, we should proceed as planned on the basis that the Minister has been abundantly clear. The press release put out by an organisation outside this House, whether deliberate or not, has caused a lot of confusion. It is an emotional and difficult issue for many people and the best service we can give is to try to come out with an unambiguous position. On a regular basis the Minister of State, Deputy Ó Ríordáin, gives clarity in this House but the clarity he has given today is unambiguous.
I agree with the two previous speakers, and Senator O'Brien also, that clarity is the single biggest issue at stake with regard to this matter. I will take a few minutes of my time, which I believe I can do on Committee Stage, to go through with the Minister, word for word, the points laid out in the press release by Justice for Magdalenes.
Is that relevant to amendments Nos. 1 and 5?
It is 100% relevant to amendment No. 1. If the Minister does not mind I will go through the points from No. 1 to No. 10. I have the press release issued by Justice for Magdalenes. My eyes are not what they used to be so I cannot find a date on this document, but it is the right one. The press release states:
All of the following services are available to HAA cardholders. None of these services are provided for in the Bill.
That is what the Justice for Magdalenes press release states. Point No. 1 specifically states that the Bill does not provide for private GP services. Is that right or wrong?
Absolutely incorrect.
It does provide for GP services, unambiguously.
Will the Minister clarify where that is covered in the Bill?
And why I was ruled out of order on the grounds of-----
Sorry colleagues-----
Why was I ruled out of order on the grounds of-----
We will get to you in a minute, Senator.
If the Minister says so on the record of the House, the House is obliged to-----
It might be useful to clarify where that is in the Bill.
It was certainly laid out in the Second Stage contribution of the Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald, on the record of the Dáil, and it was also referred to here by the Minister of State, Deputy Ó Ríordáin, last Tuesday. It is on the record of both Houses.
Point No. 2: "Any and all prescribed drugs, high tech drugs, medicines, aids and appliances (rather than being restricted to the Reimbursement List within the meaning of the Health (Pricing and Supply of Medical Goods) Act 2013, as stated in the Bill)". That is totally provided for under the terms of the HAA card.
They get the drugs as provided for in the reimbursement list. It is the same as the hepatitis C-----
Okay. Point No. 3: "Any and all chiropody/podiatry services from any qualified (including private) chiropodist/podiatrist, without the need for a GP's referral."
That is absolutely incorrect.
That is provided for under the HAA card.
It is in black and white in the Bill.
Point No. 4, and we realise there is a difference and that this is not provided for in the Bill: "Complementary therapies, including massage, reflexology ... once referred by a GP." However, last Thursday morning, the Minister gave me and my colleagues a commitment that a similar scheme will be set up within the Department of Justice and Equality, not the Department of Health, to provide similar services as outlined here.
Not in legislation but-----
Not in legislation but the Minister has given that commitment, and the Minister of State is doing so now on the record of this House.
Point No. 5, with which we agree and to which I referred earlier: "Counselling, including psychological and psychotherapy services, from any professionally accredited counsellor, available to the woman or her immediate relatives, with no restriction or limit on the number of sessions attended. No GP's referral is required under the HAA card." Could the Minister comment on that?
No. 5, which is in regard to counselling for the woman herself, is being made available in the Bill but not to her immediate family. Hepatitis C was different because of the potential for cross-contamination.
Is the Minister giving any consideration to setting up such a scheme outside of the HAA provisions?
Some kind of advocacy services outside of counselling, but not specifically in the Bill.
It might be considered in the context of another amendment that is coming forward.
Point No. 6: "Comprehensive dental care, including access to private dentists not within the Dental Treatment Services Scheme."
Absolutely incorrect. It is in the Bill.
I hope there is no ambiguity with regard to any of these points.
Point No. 7: "Audiology services from private practitioners where services are not available within the public health service."
That statement is incorrect. It is in the Bill, black and white.
Point No. 8: "Dedicated liaison officers, such as those available to HAA cardholders, to help obtain optimum home nursing and home support services."
After the Bill is implemented they will be available.
Point No. 9: "The enhanced ophthalmic services provided to HAA cardholders (rather than being restricted to medical card services)."
Absolutely incorrect. It is in the Bill.
Finally, point No. 10: "Private physiotherapy services."
It is in the Bill.
Everything that is sought by the Justice for Magdalenes organisation is provided for, if not in the specific legislation in a commitment by the Minister to provide it in other legislation or under other schemes.
At least six of those points are flatly wrong. They are in black and white in the Bill. I appreciate why people might be upset or concerned when a press release of this nature comes out but, as legislators, we can only deal with what is in the Bill in black and white, not what is in a press release.
I hope this interchange, which is perhaps unorthodox in the House, assures Members of the House that what is in the Bill or committed to by the Minister, or provided for under another scheme, is provided in full in the Quirke recommendations.
We will soon find out, Senator, whether that has clarified the situation.
It is clear that there are concerns on both sides of the House. I presume the Minister has met with the representatives of the survivors of the Magdalen laundries, and I presume they have asked the same questions. The Minister might tell us if he had such a meeting with those representatives because if he gave the same answers, why is there such doubt and concern among the survivors in this regard? It seems to me as if they have had legal assistance in this also, and they are not happy. I have to make the point that a Minister's assurance is not the same as something prescriptive in legislation. Will the Minister tell us if he has gone through all of those points with the representatives, and have they got exactly the same answers?
I concur wholeheartedly with the sentiments of Senator Ó Murchú, who made the point much more eloquently than myself. In the years I have been a Member we have had many Ministers make promises in the House, but we are told that the promises Ministers give us, as opposed to what is in the legislation, are not worth much to the people who need redress. That is part of the issue. We are being told that a number of promises will be addressed with other mechanisms. That is not giving succour to the Justice for Magdalenes advocacy groups.
I imagine they have done much research and have had legal advice on this. I appreciate that the Minister of State has indicated this is in the Bill and although it might seem a tad pedantic, the Minister of State might indicate where exactly the issue has been dealt with in the legislation. Committee Stage is about parsing legislation and putting such issues on the record.
The Minister of State's reply seems to be quite definitive and I cannot imagine anything that would be more definitive than saying this is in the Bill or a particular statement is true or not true. On the other hand, ministerial guarantees on the record of the House are one issue but legislation is another. I know it might be a little tedious but I concur with Senator Ó Clochartaigh and perhaps the Minister of State can point out where the provisions are in the Bill. It may be a cumbersome way of doing things but it would utterly obviate any doubt that exists. I respectfully ask that the Minister of State, who seems very clearly in charge of his brief on the Bill, would do this for us. In that case there could not be the slightest possibility of any ambiguity. I have also been contacted by representatives of these women and they have raised the six points mentioned by the Minister of State's Labour Party colleague on the other side of the House. The Minister of State's answer appeared to be very definitive but if he could nail this matter down, we would very much appreciate it.
It would be useful. Perhaps we are all saying the same thing but we are not all hearing the same thing. To echo the Senator's comments and Senator Ó Clochartaigh's proposal, perhaps we could have a brief gap of a few minutes between Committee and Report Stage to allow a comprehensive statement to be put on the record of the House. This is in preference to just having a statement that this element is in the Bill or it is not there. May we have such a clear statement? It should outline the types of services that will be available and when the guidelines will emerge for the women. We are all focused on that. When the guidelines are available, the women will know they have the right to access those services.
I am not suggesting that we go piece by piece and I do not mind if we pause for a while to allow the Minister of State to put together a comprehensive statement that can bring about absolute clarity. We do not want to play ping-pong and I want us all to walk out of here today feeling that we have done some good. At the moment I do not feel that way because I have not heard clarity in the statements.
To clarify the position, we have until 4 p.m. to deal with Committee Stage and there is no rush or panic. As we get to the different sections, the Minister of State can deal with specific queries from Senators. There is no time constraint. The only difficulty that might arise is if we do not reach a conclusion by 4 p.m., as the order is that the Bill must be finished or adjourned at that stage.
I cannot understand why people are saying there is no clarity about this. The Minister of State could not have been clearer. The people who lived in Magdalen laundries suffered an enormous abuse, not just of civil rights but of every single right they had and that was perpetrated by the State. The Taoiseach acknowledged this in his speech some years ago. What possible incentive could there be for the representatives of the State to backtrack on what the Taoiseach so generously said at the time? I understand it is procedurally cumbersome, as I understand and as we see today, but I am prepared, uniquely on this issue, to say this is a red line issue. I am sure everybody in the House is prepared to do likewise. The Minister of State and the Taoiseach are prepared to do likewise. In the procedures available to us and structures set out for Committee Stage, we are being offered the exact clarity we are seeking. I suggest the entire moral authority of the House should be thrown at whatever gaps are not being covered by the legislation.
It is as clear as day to me what is being provided since the Minister of State spoke moments ago on the record of the House. Some elements cannot be provided under the terms of this legislation. We can agree on that as the medical card scheme or the Health (Amendment) Act, HAA, schemes work through the Health Service Executive and not through primary legislation. It is through regulation instead. I am probably confusing matters even more but it really is clear that the ten points raised by Justice for the Magdalenes-----
I want to hear it from the Minister of State in one clear statement.
The comments in the exchange could not have been clearer. Justice for the Magdalenes have the experts in this area and its ten concerns are clearly outlined on this piece of paper. I put them to the Minister of State on the record of the House and, as far as I can see, he has addressed them in sequential order. It seems there is no gap between what is recommended by Mr. Justice Quirke and what is in this Bill, other pieces of legislation or schemes or schedules to be set up by the Minister. It seems as clear as day, unless we are saying that we do not believe the Minister of State. I am not prepared to take that step.
It is absolutely fascinating. This seems to be the greatest example of confusion I have ever come across, whether it is confusion of language or cognition. Last week when I was here, some of us rose to speak about the Magdalen redress programme and we were told we were being overly compassionate and emotional and losing our heads. I deeply resented that. One cannot feel profoundly unless one thinks profoundly. Most of us were bringing some kind of cognition to the table. The greatest emotional speech ever made on this came from the Taoiseach two years ago and there has not yet been a bullet point plan for the issue.
Senator Gilroy, if he does not mind me saying so, is probably the greatest visual aid I have come across for the confusion. Last week he told us we were wilfully misreading the Bill. He is now wilfully standing behind the goalkeeper. I am more confused by his stance, his non-stance or his re-stance, as it were, than I am by anything else. If the Bill is everything the Minister of State says it is, why are my two amendments considered out of order in so far as they are-----
We will deal with them as we get to them.
I am delighted for anybody in the Gallery as drugs, medicines and medical and surgical appliances are now not going to be limited to the medical card reimbursement list. They will now go in parallel to the HAA. I am thankful if that is happening. The aural and dental-----
That is not what is happening. The dental, ophthalmic and aural services are not going to be limited to the medical card. They will be open to private as well as public concerns. If that is correct, that is also marvellous.
Let him answer.
I am delighted. I do not know why I am here if everything is present and correct.
Let the Minister of State answer. He has not said "Yes" or "No" yet.
Exactly. I thank the Senator. We are talking about cognition, the thought process and the lack of confusion in such a process, as well as the language in the process. That is what I am seeking, as well as the profundity of feeling.
Hear, hear.
This is no ordinary case. We know the history and background and we know the length of time it has taken to reach this destination. I am sure the Minister of State will reply in a moment and I asked if he has met the representatives of those who expect to benefit from the Bill and has given them the same answers. Senators Ó Clochartaigh and Norris have both put points for consideration. Everybody in the House, including the Minister of State, wants to do the right thing, and that is why people are emotional about this. They want to ensure we are dotting the i's and crossing the t's, with any anomalies, doubts or lack of clarity being dealt with.
We will have to take the Acting Chairman's direction on whether Senator Ó Clochartaigh's proposal to pause and reflect on what can be done on Report Stage can be considered. I certainly do not see any problem with the point put forward by Senator Norris. We all want to do the right thing and achieve clarity.
We are reflecting what the survivors of the Magdalen laundries are thinking and what they are concerned about. It should be possible and it has to be possible for us to put their concerns at ease.
From my inquiries, I have found that the HAA card for hepatitis C sufferers is limited to the reimbursement list except for a very limited number of drugs which are specific to hepatitis C. That is the only thing hepatitis C sufferers get with the HAA card and these would not be relevant to the Magdalen laundries women.
Obviously, my previous comments have been misconstrued by Senators. I do not want anybody who has gone through this lifetime abuse, if one wants to call it that, to have that situation compounded by misinformation. I sat through the debates in the Dáil, sitting beside officials and listening to contributions from people who clearly had not read a single word of the Bill. They walked into the Dáil and decided that whatever the Government was doing was wrong, and they got very hot and heavy and made speeches without referring to a single item in the Bill. Anyone on the outside watching this debate would assume the Government is not implementing the Quirke report and is implementing something completely different. A political opportunity was used by speakers in the Dáil in order to give that impression.
This is my second time in the House discussing this Bill. What I am saying now is similar to what I was saying on the last occasion in respect of the provisions of this Bill. When it comes to dealing with legislation, I have to say that, on the various different issues, I have had very good interaction with the Members in this House. I assume we are on the same side on this. There comes a stage when the campaigning ends and the winning begins. That is the same in every single campaign that anybody has ever been involved in. There comes a stage when the winning begins. This Bill is where the winning begins in terms of what Mr. Justice Quirke has asked for. I cannot say more. I am not asking the Members to look at a press release from the Department of Justice and Equality or to look at a statement that Minister X, Y or Z has made. I am asking them to look at the green piece of paper they have all been given, which is the Bill in front of them, which they have been asked, as legislators, to pass through this esteemed House.
The Bill states:
Provision of health services without charge to relevant participants
2. (1) The Health Service Executive shall make available without charge to relevant participants—
(a) the general practitioner medical and surgical service specified in section 58 of the Act of 1970 [the same as with hepatitis C],
(b) drugs, medicines and medical and surgical appliances for the time being on the Reimbursement List within the meaning of the Health (Pricing and Supply of Medical Goods) Act 2013 [as noted by Senator Moloney],
(c) the nursing service specified in section 60 of the Act of 1970 [the same as with hepatitis C],
(d) the home help service specified in section 61 of the Act of 1970, following an assessment of needs made by a registered medical practitioner or a registered nurse that the service is so required [the same as with hepatitis C],
(e) the dental, ophthalmic and aural services specified in section 67 of the Act of 1970 [the same as with hepatitis C],
(f) a counselling service, following a referral made in that regard by a registered medical practitioner, relative to a relevant participant’s admission to and work in any of the institutions specified in the Schedule [the same as with hepatitis C],
(g) a chiropody service... and
(h) a physiotherapy service... [the same as with hepatitis C].
All I am asking Senators to do is to look at what is in the Bill and to acknowledge that the only difference relates to quite specific circumstances which directly relate to hepatitis C and which do not relate to the Magdalen women. Mr. Justice Quirke's report is being implemented in full, and no Government, Parliament, Seanad or Dáil should stand over anything less. If I appear to be irritated by the misinformation, it is because I do not want people whose life experiences have been trawled through the media and in public comment in the last while, and who are trying to come to terms with their life experience, to have that situation compounded by misinformation and press releases and statements which are factually incorrect. I plead with Senators to look at the report and to look at the only bit of paper that is important in this context, namely, the Bill. I ask them to make their assessment, as myself and Senator Gilroy have done, by going through the subsections which list the ten services which we were told were not in the Bill but which we know are there because we have dissected them one by one.
If Members do not believe me, I will make this offer. If the Cathaoirleach wants to adjourn the House for a few moments, if that is possible under the Order of Business, the officials here would be quite happy to nail down in a detailed manner the individual questions the Senators have. However, I would say this. I have been here before and have outlined this before. I would ask those who are making statements to refer to the Bill and we can get some really solid work done here today.
By way of clarification, the order of the House is that Committee and Remaining Stages will be taken between now and 4 p.m. My hands are tied in that regard as that is the Order of the House. If the Acting Leader wants to amend the order to suspend-----
I propose a suspension of the House for 15 minutes.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
On a point of order, I made a suggestion previously that we separate Committee Stage and Report Stage because-----
That is a matter for the House. There has been a proposal-----
Surely the suspension of the House is a matter for the House as well.
That has been agreed. The House has agreed to suspend for 15 minutes.
Could I make the point first?
The question was not put.
The other crucial party in this are the representative groups. The suggestion made was that the Acting Leader could make a proposal to the House that we-----
We will get clarification on that.
That would be beneficial.
I would make the point that this is a generous offer by the Minister of State but, on the other hand, it will not be on the record of the House. It will be a private discussion between the officials and the individual Senators who have worries.
The House is suspended for 15 minutes. I am sorry. That was the decision made.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Sitting suspended at 2.15 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.