Dáil debates

Tuesday, 14 July 2015

Topical Issue Debate

Residential Institutions Redress Scheme

6:30 pm

Photo of Kathleen LynchKathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. The Deputy will be aware that the Government accepted all the recommendations of the Quirke report and established an ex gratiarestorative justice system. In that context, the Government set up a range of payments and supports for the women who worked in these institutions. Payments of up to €100,000 are made to these women, depending on their length of stay in the laundries. In addition, the Department of Social Protection is making pension-type payments to these women. I understand from the Department of Justice and Equality that over 500 applicants have received lump sum payments to a value of approximately €20 million to date. Mr. Justice Quirke also recommended that legislation be introduced regarding the provision of health services to Magdalen women. To that end, the Minister for Justice and Equality brought the Redress for Women Resident in Certain Institutions Act 2015 through the Oireachtas. The Act sets out the primary and community health services that are made available free of charge to these women. These services include GP services; prescribed drugs, medical aids and appliances; dental, ophthalmology and aural services; home nursing; home support; chiropody; physiotherapy; and counselling services. A woman qualifies for these services where the Minister for Justice and Equality has determined that she is eligible under the restorative justice scheme and the woman has accepted a formal offer made to her under the scheme.

The HSE has contacted the qualifying women directly to issue them with the redress for women resident in certain institutions, RWRCl, card on the basis of information provided by the Department of Justice and Equality about the acceptance of an offer. The HSE has also provided information to the women about the health service. In this way, participants in the ex gratiascheme receive their RWRCI card to enable them to access easily the primary and community health services free of charge.

I imagine the Deputy will appreciate that the Redress for Women Resident in Certain Institutions Act 2015 was debated and approved by the Oireachtas earlier this year. Under the legislation, a medical card is not being awarded to the women. Mr. Justice Quirke did not recommend that Magdalen women should be awarded medical cards. In fact, the judge pointed out that most of the women already hold a medical card, as the Deputy has already stated. Therefore, we did not issue them with medical cards. Instead, a specific card is provided to the women to ensure they can access the health services without any charge, as set out in the Act.

The separate RWRCI card is warranted because the women benefit from a greater range of entitlements than under the medical card. The cards provided to Magdalen women were intended to be similar in manner to the HAA cards. The shorthand name of the HAA card is based on the underlying legislation. The HAA cards are issued on the basis of the Health (Amendment) Act 1996. The 1996 Act provides certain health services to persons who contracted hepatitis C from a blood product or blood transfusion. In this case, the Redress for Women Resident in Certain Institutions Act 2015, which this House approved without a vote earlier this year, provides primary and community health services without charge to women who were admitted to and worked in certain institutions.

In the same way, these cards are called RWRCI cards as a shorthand description of the Act. It will be relevant to the Deputy to note that it was never intended to cause any offence or embarrassment by referring to the Act on the card. However, I accept that putting the full title of the Act on the card identifies the holders in a way that the Health (Amendment) Act card does not. I only saw the card this afternoon. I am completely open to changing the title as it appears on the card if this is what the women want. It will only require a small effort to correct it and I am happy to ensure it will happen. I hope this puts the issue to rest.

I will not conclude with what is contained in my script. I must state that had I seen the card in advance, it would not have been issued. I have given instructions in respect of it. I am not certain that we should withdraw the card, but Mr. John Hennessy, director of primary care in the HSE, will meet relevant stakeholders to determine what the design should be.

Like the Deputy, I do not understand why the full title should have been on the card since the card had to be used for identification or to hand to the secretary of the general practitioner. The initials would have been enough. We do have to indicate that the card is different. This is important, but it was equally important to settle on the form of identification.

I have been centrally involved in the Magdalen issue, as Deputy Clare Daly knows. Really and truly at this late stage, identification in the manner in question is not appropriate. We will ask the director of primary care to sit down with the relevant authorities to address the issue. However, this is not even needed as we all know instinctively how we would go about it. What is required is being done.

I am not certain that I want the women to return their cards, but I am saying to the Deputy that new, more appropriate cards will be issued.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.