Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

I will first deal with amendment No. 44. This would insert a provision to the effect that nothing in the section could be used to deny a prisoner medical treatment prescribed by a medical practitioner. At present under the rules, prisoners are provided with access to health care services on a basis equivalent to those in the community covered by the medical card system. Section 37 would allow for prison rules to provide facilities where necessary for access to elective health care outside the public system. The prisoner will be responsible for the costs associated with such elective care. However, provision of health care under the public health system for all prisoners will continue to be funded by the State. Section 37 merely paves the way for another option.

All prisoners are entitled to medical card level medical services while in prison. This provides for something which would be elective health care over and above that level of care. This section is being included to enable it to happen and not to prohibit it. It makes it clear that, for instance, private medical treatment over and above what would be available to prisoners as of right would not be obstructed by some requirement that payment be made. That is what this is about. The last two lines of the section state that the payment is confined to the full cost of providing the goods or services in question.

If, for whatever reason, a prisoner decided he or she needed a treatment which was not normally available to prisoners, such as cosmetic surgery or some procedure generally not available to medical card holders, this would permit the governor to allow that to happen provided the charge did not exceed the cost of rendering the service to the prisoner. It cannot be a question of revenue generation if the payments or deductions cannot exceed the cost of providing the goods or services. By definition, it is netted out in the section.

I assure the Senator that there is no question of this being made into some kind of money spinner for the Prison Service. On the contrary, what is happening here gives prisoners an element of dignity. For example, if a prisoner was doing an Open University course and had to contact Hong Kong as part of it, that could be done. However, I will not state that every prisoner has the right at the expense of the State to telephone an academic in Hong Kong for a chat. I must have this kind of flexibility. It is only for the ease of prisoners; it is not to put them at a disadvantage.