Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I will confine my remarks and questions to the three issues I raised in advance of the quarterly meeting. I wish to get off on a good and positive note. I wish to record my absolute welcome for the provision of the €3.2 million for the bilateral cochlear implant programme. I raised the matter again this Tuesday past and I welcome the reply provided among the replies received only yesterday. However, I am especially thankful to Ms Laverne McGuinness, who gave more information on Tuesday than was even in the written reply we got yesterday. I urge the Department to take that on board. It is not a criticism because we are simply trying to do our job and information is altogether important. What Ms McGuinness put on the record at the committee on Tuesday should have been and could have been in the written reply to the quarterly question. Mr. Tony O'Brien indicated a range of areas that were not included in the current year because of the difficulties and challenges. In the light of all that and because information is important, I emphasise how welcome it was that this start has been made. My only ancillary question is to ask the Minister to use the opportunity now to confirm that this will be a programme year on year for the future and that there will be continued funding for the bilateral cochlear implant programme for 2015 and every year thereafter to meet the needs of young people with hearing challenges.

The second issue is symphysiotomy. My understanding all along has been that what the victims of symphysiotomy sought and continue to seek primarily is truth and justice. I do not believe the indicators suggest this is where we are going to arrive. I am concerned about the terms of reference for Judge Yvonne Murphy. I am concerned that the Minister repeatedly refers to the women having choice and that they can take their case to the courts if they so wish. Some can, but the reason I have campaigned on this issue for years, in conjunction with colleagues across all political opinion in these Houses is because I know that a significant number of those victims cannot do so because of the statute bar situation. It is a fact of life. I am deeply disappointed given all the work we have invested in it, and I use the term "we" absolutely. I happen to have been the chair convener but there are colleagues on the committee who serve in both Houses of the Oireachtas and who have invested significant effort not only since 2011 but in previous Dáileanna. I call on the Minister to consider the position. Last April, we passed Second Stage of the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Bill 2013. It has not been facilitated to come to committee. Despite all assurances that there is great concern and a wish to bring closure for the women concerned, we must face up to the fact that women have a right and a choice to make. Some may accept the type of formula the Minister will present but I know, from listening to many articulate and committed women who have suffered grievously, that they want the option of being able to present their case through the courts.

I appeal to the Minister again to revisit the matter in the context of all that he is considering and not to set it aside. I understand that at a meeting last August with the representative groups for victims of symphysiotomy, the Minister indicated several points. For the record, I wish to establish if these points represent the position and I call on the Minister put his position on the record now. I am advised that the Minister told the representative voices of survivors, a group which would have included survivors among their number, that any compensation or restitution, call it as we will, would fall far short of the range specified by one of the groups of survivors of symphysiotomy and that the Minister was in no way considering anything in the ballpark they were arguing for. Furthermore, I understand that any restitution or compensation would be paid in instalments. We should be mindful of the fact that the survivors of this terrible and brutal procedure are a rather aged cohort of women.

Finally, I understand that the women would be denied public funding for legal representation in circumstances where they would wish to have it.

They are victims of a health service of its time. We, and the Minister most especially, are guardians of that health service today and we have inherited much. I acknowledge that we have inherited this situation but that does not in any way mean that we do not have a responsibility to face up to and address it and to employ all the compassion necessary in doing so.

I know several of the women and their families, many in the north east, some in my constituency. They are not people of means. Even at this late stage in their life the prospect of providing for independent legal representation is a big problem for them. That could corral people into accepting a situation that falls far short of their due. Will the Minister elaborate on those points and advise us exactly of the situation? I welcome the fact that he has included the women over 40 in dealing with the Neary scandal. We need the same compassion to address this issue. I believe the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Bill deserves to be progressed through the Houses in order to afford the women that choice.

My last point concerns the National Ambulance Service. I raised this during our private session. The committee has agreed to address this more fully during its work programme in the early part of this year. The reply that I received presents carefully constructed sentences and statistics which almost suggest that there are improvements in the service. There may be improvements but there is a regular series of real tragedies where the ambulance service does not respond within the required timeframe and consequently in many cases lives are lost. I am told that not all emergency vehicles have satellite navigation systems, that they are directed to the call-out point by the central service in Dublin. It has been suggested to me that the satellite navigation systems are not being rolled out because of the possible postal code change and a reluctance to expend moneys in the interim. A pittance is required in real terms when one considers that lives are involved and tragic outcomes need to be avoided. Why do all vehicles not have satellite navigation systems? Will the Minister ensure that they are installed? I know of instances in which ambulances have been going around and around but could not locate the address for the call-out. That is terrible on our small island.