Does the Minister of State, Deputy Ó Ríordáin, who was in possession, have anything to add?
Redress for Women Resident in Certain Institutions Bill 2014: Committee Stage (Resumed)
SECTION 2
Debate resumed on 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,".
- (Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú)
Some of the issues that were concerning Senators have been outlined by officials outside the Chamber. If the Senators have any remaining questions that they want put on the record of the House, I am quite happy to reply to them.
It might be useful if some of the resolution to the questions that were asked outside, and some of the discussion, was now placed on the record by those who asked the questions, and the replies were gained so that these then become part of the record of the House.
If the Senator asks a question, I will give a "Yes" or "No" answer.
There was a question about whether it was an HAA card and what the difference was, and there is the fact that the only difference with the hepatitis C group was that they got certain specific drugs that were relevant to their condition only. That, to my mind, was a clarification.
My colleagues, Senators van Turnhout, Mary Ann O'Brien and O'Donnell, asked specific questions and there were some concrete answers given. It would be useful for the House if these questions and the answers were put on the record of the House and confirmed by the Minister of State.
I concur. In some of the briefing notes we have been given it was stated that HAA cardholders are entitled to any prescribed medications, drugs or appliances. There seems to be a different view on that. The Minister of State might clarify the Department's stance on that one.
The only difference is, as Senator Norris already outlined, the medication or services that were specific to hepatitis C. That is the only difference because it would not be relevant to the Magdalen women. That is the only reason and it is the only change.
There was also a question that there were a number of items that were stated in material emanating from the Justice for Magdalenes that the Minister of State felt were unfair. He felt that they stated that certain matters are not in the Bill, and he went through it and stated these are in the Bill. If further clarification is needed by those who asked the questions, now is the time to seek it.
There is confusion and a kind of obfuscation in the language. The clarity given to me, be it not what I would be genuinely looking for if I was looking a totality, is as follows, that the Magdalen women will be entitled to a medical card, to free prescriptions, to a suite of services as outlined in the Bill, to free access to a GP of their choice and, if necessary, referral to a consultant, maybe not necessarily within two weeks. That was the confusion. Am I correct on that? That is how I see the difference and that is what we have clarified outside. Could I also clarify that the ophthalmic and dental services will not be opened to private services and that they will be medical card services?
I wish to cover the dental, ophthalmic and oral services. The wording of the Health (Amendment) Act 1996, and Mr. Justice Quirke's recommended wording in appendix E, is "dental, ophthalmic and aural treatment and dental, optical and aural appliances". The wording in the Bill is not the same as that in the 1996 Act, and we need to hear the Minister of State's commentary on that.
As the Minister of State will be aware, the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, amended the wording of the GP service at section 2(1)(a) after Committee Stage in the Dáil to remove the reference to the 1970 Act. She did this, very kindly, to make it clear that the women would be entitled to private GP care rather than the normal medical card standard GP care. It was wonderful. The Minister of State needs to do the same for dental, ophthalmic and oral services.
I concur completely with Senator O'Donnell's understanding. I can confirm that Senator Mary Ann O'Brien's understanding is completely correct as well, in terms of dental and ophthalmic services. The only difference is that some of these provisions in relation to hepatitis C are not relevant to Magdalen laundries. That is the only reason. There is no other motivation behind the changes in legislation. Whatever the women were entitled to in terms of hepatitis C, the Magdalen women are also absolutely entitled to, as is correct. The only difference is for certain circumstances and certain services which are not relevant because they are specific to women who were suffering from hepatitis C.
I welcome the support given by the Minister of State and the officials as we took the recess to discuss some of the issues. I also thank the Leader of the House for coming in and agreeing to put back Report Stage. That is useful.
At this stage, as a signatory to amendments Nos. 1 and 5, I would suggest that we have discussed them and what we need to do is go back and look at what the Minister of State has said. If we withdraw amendments Nos. 1 and 5 and we are happy, after consulting some of those advocating on behalf of the Magdalen women, we will not need to resubmit them for Report Stage. If we feel, however, after consulting those advocating on behalf of the Magdalen women, there are still issues that need to be addressed or that are not 100% clear, we could resubmit the amendments on Report Stage. I would suggest, if we can do so, that we would withdraw the amendments at this stage.
I also thank the Leader of the House with regard to Report Stage.
I welcome the clarity provided by the Minister of State before our pause and since we have resumed. It is important and it is what I was looking for, that we would have absolute clarity. There is an outstanding question from me in regard to the guidelines and the timeline that will come into place. I am not putting the Minister of State under pressure to respond now but I would ask that he would provide clarity on Report Stage in regard to the anticipated timeline as to when these will be rolled out. This is what people are looking for. We can get caught up in legislation and we move on.
I appreciate the Minister of State took issue at a press release by Justice for Magdalenes. Many of us have seen the outstanding work that Justice for Magdalenes has done with the women long before any of us realised this was an issue. I would want that the record of this House today would applaud its work and thank Justice for Magdalenes for the service it has done to the State and to us as parliamentarians but particularly to the women for whom it works. I want to ensure we have the right tone in the House. I agree with the Minister of State that we all want to be happy with this Bill. It is in all our interests that we are all behind it and that this legislation will make the difference that we all want it to make.
Returning to the issue of dental services, the Minister of State said the only difference for the hepatitis C sufferers is that they have a huge need for very specific drugs, liver drugs and drugs for skin problems. Our amendments are simple and seek to delete the reference to section 67 of the Act of 1970 and insert "and dental, optical and aural appliances". This has nothing to do with hepatitis C or the liver. This is about teeth. I want the right for the Magdalen ladies that, just as they can go to any GP or a private GP, the same type of arrangement would apply to dental services.
I, too, commend the work of the Justice for Magdalenes group. I know from speaking to the Minister of State that he and Justice for Magdalenes want what is best for the women. People have been getting hung up, as it were, on a HAA card. The HAA card was introduced under the Health (Amendment) Act specifically for people with hepatitis C. The only difference, as already outlined, is that hepatitis C sufferers get medication specific to hepatitis C. The card we are legislating for today is exactly the same apart from that specific medication for hepatitis C, even though it is not being called a HAA card. The card for which we are legislating has enhanced benefits for the Magdalen women. We are seeking to ensure that the women who went through the Magdalen laundries get the best possible treatment from the State. God knows they had the worst of times, and now is our time to redeem ourselves and make sure these women are looked after properly and will have all the services they need and require. Perhaps the card should be given a name other than just a medical card. It should be different from the ordinary medical card that the ordinary man and woman on the street would get because it will include physiotherapy, chiropody, podiatry and counselling services. The women need to know that those services are available to them under the medical card for which we are legislating.
It is important that we proceed with this Bill and that the Minister of State gives us an indication as to the timespan within which these specific provisions of the Bill will come into operation. I say that because a number of these women are quite elderly, some have died, and we do not want this to continue.
Which is why we need to get on with it.
I understand that there are legislative difficulties with waiting for the legislation to come into effect. There may also be regulations. There is also the question of the actual provision of the medical service which has to be laid on. It would be very useful if the Minister of State could give the House an indication of the time within which he anticipates all these measures will be put in place.
I regret I have to leave the House as I have to do a couple of interviews.
As stated by Senator van Turnhout, I, too, acknowledge the Justice for Magdalenes research, solicitors, lawyers and the women who have stood up for women who have been oppressed and have had lost lives. If I had had the Justice for Magdalenes research in my own life, I may not have taken some of the roads I took. What Senator van Turnhout said is very important. The draft guide will need to be a comprehensive HSE guide.
Some €58 million has been given over to lump sum payments, €18 million has been paid in lump sums and €23 million has been spent to date. I am interested to know how much is left and how it will be used. However, that question does not necessarily apply to this amendment but it is certainly an important issue.
On the last point, some of these payments are made over a continuing period until the ladies pass away so it is not as if we have to continue with these payments.
The remarks about the Justice for Magdalenes group are well made. It has done sterling work and has been campaigning on a great injustice that was done to these women for a very long time. It is an Ireland to which none of us ever wants to return. When we debated this issue previously, I said there are many issues that still have to be dealt with in Ireland, particularly about the status of women, and also our love affair with institutionalising people which we still do to this day. We have spoken previously in this House on issues in this regard.
When a press release or a statement, which is factually incorrect, is issued, as Minister of State at the Department of Justice and Equality, I have to point to what is correct and what is incorrect. We have to refer to the Bill. I would make the point that there is in all things in life and in politics a time when the campaigning ends and winning begins. I genuinely feel that this is where the winning is beginning for women who deserve no less from the State. It is the intention for these provisions to be made available a month after the Bill is signed into law by the President. We have lost another week but if that week makes Senators more at ease with the Bill that is passing, then it is a week worth taking.
Is the amendment being pressed?
I will withdraw the amendment and reserve the right to resubmit it on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 2 to 4, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 4, line 6, after "service," to insert "as provided for in the services provided by section 2 of the Health (Amendment) Act 1996,".
It is suggested that we withdraw it, by leave of the House. We reserve the right to resubmit it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
I will not repeat the debate we have had. I have a question on how our amendments involve a charge to the Exchequer. I think Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell mentioned it earlier in respect of the two amendments we had tabled given that we were told it did not have material difference. However, I will put that one aside. I do not know if this is the appropriate section under which to raise the issue of personal advocacy. I raised it with the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, when I met her last week with Senator O'Donnell. Section 5 of the Citizens Information Act 2007 allows the Citizens Information Board to appoint persons to act as personal advocates to persons who, by reason of disability or lack of capacity, are unable to access particular social health or welfare services. I understand this section has not been commenced for resource reasons and I know the Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald, has been pursuing this issue, but I think this is a way in which we could provide, in the interim, where the capacity Bill has not come into law, personal advocates to women, particularly those in the disability services.
I agree with the views expressed by Senators that the service would be a very useful facility to provide to Magdalen women who have capacity issues. The Department of Justice and Equality is in discussion with the Citizens Information Board with regard to the provision of personal advocacy services to Magdalen women and will have further discussions with the Department of Social Protection in this regard. Section 5 of the 2007 Act has not yet been commenced and will require commencement in order for such a service to be provided.
While I believe it is important to make the option of advocacy available to women who need it, it is also important to recognise that the role of a personal advocate under the 2007 Act is limited to assisting an individual to apply for a social service. The personal advocate does not have power of attorney or cannot otherwise manage the affairs of an individual. The Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013, to which the Senator refers will provide an important additional safeguard for some of the Magdalen women who need more than an advocacy service. The Committee Stage debate on this Bill, which makes detailed provision in respect of a range of options - including decision-making assistance, co-decision makers, decision-making representatives and the public guardian - is due to be taken in the Dáil. The provisions to which I refer will cater more fully for the range of situations likely to arise in respect of Magdalen women who have capacity issues.
I welcome the Minister of State's commitment in respect of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill. However, the cases I cited previously in the context of Magdalen women seeking to access disability and social services illustrate that they cannot access them. It is obvious, therefore, that they require the assistance of personal advocates. I am of the view that this section of the Bill should be commenced as a matter of urgency because that would provide us with a way in which to deal with this matter in the interim.
I support Senator van Turnhout on this matter. We have tabled a similar amendment in respect of section 5. It has been brought to our attention that Justice for Magdalenes is extremely concerned regarding the welfare of survivors who lack capacity. The Government has decided to wait until the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill is passed before survivors can have a decision-making representative or a co-decision maker appointed to process their applications to the restorative justice scheme. The Magdalen women are of the view that until this happens, they will not be able to avail of the enhanced health care and other benefits available under the scheme. They believe that, in the interim, every woman who remains institutionalised in the care of the religious orders - particularly those who lack capacity - should be assigned personal advocates. The National Advocacy Service, which does excellent work, could be provided with additional funding by the Department of Social Protection in order to establish a small team of personal advocates dedicated to the Magdalen survivors. We call on the Minister of State to consider our suggestion in this regard. We all know how long - even with the best will in the world - it can take for legislation to be passed by the Houses. The age profile of the women involved must be taken into account. Obliging them to wait for the passage of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill would just seem to add another injustice to the list of those already visited upon these women previously.
The Senators' points are well made and we will do the best we can in that regard.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 are out of order as they would involve potential charges on the Exchequer.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.
SECTION 5
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."
The issue we raised in respect of personal advocates in the context of section 2 also applies here. I question whether what is proposed in our amendment would constitute a potential charge on the Exchequer, particularly if it could be done through the National Advocacy Service. I refer here to putting in place an interim solution for those women who lack capacity. I take on board the fact that the Minister of State has indicated that he will consider this matter between now and Report Stage and that, at that time, he will possibly provide more information on the Government's plans in respect of this issue.
It is very comforting that the Minister of State thought the Senators made good points in respect of personal advocates and that he agrees that action should be taken. The fact is, however, those women who remain institutionalised require to be represented in respect of obtaining things to which they may be entitled - including, for example, mattresses or walking supports - but on which they must spend their own money. Until we can help those women, they will not be able to access all the wonderful health benefits, medicines, dental services, etc., provided for in the Bill before the House. If provision is not made in respect of the appointment of personal advocates, some of the Magdalen women will be placed in a nonsensical position. It is extremely important that we should put in place something concrete - I do not suggest that this should be legislative in nature - to ensure the relevant steps will be taken immediately after the Bill is enacted.
Again, I take on board the points made by the Senators. We will hopefully have more to say in respect of this issue on Report Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 6
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 5, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:
“(2) That within 1 month of enactment of this legislation the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission will independently verify, in a report laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas, that the legislation does indeed fully and faithfully implement the relevant recommendations contained within the Magdalen Commission Report on the establishment of an ex-gratia Scheme and related matters for the benefit of those women who were admitted to and worked in the Magdalen Laundries, authored by Mr Justice John Quirke and published in May 2013.”.
The importance of this amendment is underpinned by what has been already stated during this debate. While the Minister of State may take issue with the words used, it is obvious that we all want to do the best for the women involved in a timely fashion. We also want to see to it that once the legislation has been passed, there will be a mechanism in place to ensure that what is promised will be delivered within a suitable timeframe. We are of the view that the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission can be trusted to independently verify that what has been said will be done and that the provisions of the legislation will be implemented. That is why amendment No. 8 has been put forward and we hope that all Senators and the Minister of State will support it.
While I understand the motivation behind the amendment, unfortunately I cannot accept it. This is because it would make no sense for the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission to be asked to report if the Bill is used to implement the ex gratia scheme, when that scheme is not contemplated by the legislation at all. As the Senators are aware, the recommendations in regard to the scheme have been already implemented in full and as recommended by Mr. Justice Quirke. All women who worked in the relevant institutions receive payments of between €11,500 and €100,000, depending on the length of time they spend in those institutions. They also receive top-up payments to ensure their weekly State benefits of up to €100 until they reach 66 years of age and then the equivalent of the State contributory pension, €230.30 per week, for the remainder of their lives. To date, more than €18 million has been paid out and payments will continue to be made to the women for the rest of their lives. The Bill makes provision for all of the health services recommended by Mr. Justice Quirke but it does not implement the ex gratia scheme or various other things recommended by him. I reiterate that all of the recommendations made by Mr. Justice Quirke will be implemented in full and that the introduction of legislation will not be required in most instances.
The entire debate on this matter almost broke down as a result of matters revolving around a lack of communication, miscommunication and, perhaps, the issue of trust. While I agree with the general tenor of the amendment tabled by Senator Ó Clochartaigh, there is nothing to require the Minister of State to attend in the House and provide progress reports on how the implementation of the legislation is proceeding. I am sure Senators will monitor the Bill's progress very closely and will invite the Minister of State to return to the House and lay reports before it in respect of this matter.
If the Minister of State takes on board the thrust behind what we are trying to achieve, perhaps he will seek to ensure that the implementation of the ex gratia scheme and related matters will be dealt with and that there will be some form of oversight in this regard. If he is not going to accept the amendment, perhaps he will indicate how the Houses will be notified in future, in a very timely manner, with regard to how the promises being made here are being delivered upon. If he clarifies the position in this regard, I may withdraw the amendment and - depending on whether we are satisfied with his response - decide whether to resubmit it on Report Stage.
This House has a proud record of pursuing issues that are of importance to it. We have engaged in an informative and robust debate on the Bill today. I would be both proud and honoured to return to the House at any time - at the invitation of Senators - to discuss any aspect of the legislation or the ex gratia payments being made to the women. I am sure also the Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald, would be happy to come here to discuss any relevant matters with Senators.
I have no doubt the Minister of State would, but with something this detailed and urgent, if possible, a more precise oversight mechanism needs to be put in place. A body such as the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, does need to independently verify the position. We could have a political argy-bargy in the House about what has been done and what has not been done but it would be preferable if an independent body such as the IHREC were to examine what has been done and what has been implemented within a very short period, as time is of the essence. In the political world things can get stretched out and it could take a while before the Minister of State could get back to see us. We have seen that happen previously. It would be more useful if the women themselves also had the mechanism in legislation to allow them to go to a body such as the IHREC to ensure that what is to be delivered will be delivered. Perhaps more steps need to be taken in that regard.
While I agree with the tenor of what Senator Ó Clochartaigh said, the wording of the amendment does not give expression to what he wishes to achieve. The view he expressed is something that is shared by all Members of the House.
There are enough avenues within the Houses of the Oireachtas for Members to hold the Government to account and to find out facts and figures in terms of the payments and how the provisions of the Bill are being implemented. I refer, for example, to parliamentary questions, the Topical Issue debate, or in this House by means of a Private Members' motion, commencement debate or other means. I do not believe an amendment to the Bill is necessary in this regard. I am quite sure Members of the Oireachtas have lots of avenues to hold the Government to account, and likewise the Bill, and to allow for Members to stand up in various ways to ensure the women get what they are entitled to.
With all due respect, the people about whom I am most concerned are the women themselves, and that they would have a mechanism to which they could resort to adjudicate on their situation and whether the promises have been delivered on. However, I do take on board the comments of colleagues and the Minister of State in terms of the wording of the amendment. I suggest we withdraw it at this stage and resubmit a similar amendment on Report Stage if we feel that needs to be done.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 6 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
When is it proposed to take Report Stage?
Next Tuesday.
Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 10 March 2015.
Sitting suspended at 3.05 p.m. and resumed at 4 p.m.