Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, United Left) | Oireachtas source

The Magdalen women, who suffered greatly under the so-called watchful eye of the State, agreed to an ex gratiascheme on the basis that they would have all the benefits accruing to hepatitis C patients, both men and women, with the HAA card. That is exactly what Mr. Justice Quirke said in his report.

The 1996 HAA legislation is quite broad and has no restrictions. It does not state one must be referred by a medical doctor, nurse or otherwise. It simply refers in section 2 to “drugs, medicines and medical and surgical appliances”, “general practitioner medical and surgical services”, “the nursing service specified in section 60 of the Act of 1970”, “dental, ophthalmic and aural treatment and dental, optical and aural appliances”, “counselling services in respect of hepatitis C” and, importantly, "such other services as may be prescribed”. I presume the "other services" are services subsequently covered by the HAA card, including chiropody services provided free of charge. One does not need a referral. One can attend whenever one needs to do so. The hepatitis C liaison officer can provide one with the details of chiropodist in one's area. This is a consequence of section 2(1)(f) of the 1996 Act. Complementary therapies currently covered under the HAA card are reflexology, aromatherapy, massage, acupuncture and hydrotherapy. HAA cardholders need to be referred by their GP or consultant. This is not covered in the Minister's Bill.

HAA cardholders can avail of counselling not only for themselves but also for their immediate families. This is ruled out or is not contained in the Minister's legislation. If the Minister is to introduce legislation and says certain required measures will be covered elsewhere, she should bring the whole package to the Magdalen women. She should state the provisions may be introduced in bits and pieces but at the same time lay out the whole package. The legislation under discussion does not include the whole package. It is not what the hepatitis C patients have access to in any shape or form, and it does not give assurance in this regard.

Our amendments have not been ruled out of order for technical reasons but because they would impose a cost on the State. What is in the Minister's Bill that restricts the cost to the State and what is it in the amendments that costs the State extra? We need an answer to this question. Counselling for Magdalen women and their families, similar to that provided to those in the HAA card scheme, would involve an extra cost for the State but this is supposed to be based on the accessibility provisions in the HAA card scheme. The Minister refers to an administrative task not referred to in the legislation. I accept that; it is not a problem but the vital point concerns the services to which one is entitled as a cardholder. It is on this that clarity is needed.

I am very reluctant to support this Bill because it is not what the survivors want. I ask the Minister for clarification on the next Stage and to arrange a special meeting with the Magdalen survivors and the Opposition to explain the whole package and exactly what the women will be entitled to by way of counselling and other services. This Bill is absolutely different from the 1996 HAA Act.

Section 2(1)(e) refers to “dental, ophthalmic and aural treatment and dental, optical and aural appliances”. There are no restrictions in this regard and no referral is required by a doctor. The section also refers to “counselling services in respect of hepatitis C, and “such other services as may be prescribed”. The Minister needs to be more robust and convince people that her Bill covers these services. I do not believe it does.

See this speech in context