Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Céad fáilte romhat, a Aire Stáit. The Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, has indicated that she is aware of the criticisms of this legislation that have been levelled by Justice for Magdalenes Research, the National Women's Council, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and Amnesty International. These organisations are of the view that the Bill does not honour the promise made by the Government in June 2013 to implement in full all of Mr. Justice Quirke's recommendations for a Magdalen restorative justice scheme. Before I detail the criticisms to which I refer in detail, I emphasise that we are talking about redress for inhuman and degrading treatment, the arbitrary deprivation of liberty and forced labour. I further emphasise that we are talking about a scheme designed to persuade the victims to accept less than the full effective remedy, to which they would otherwise be entitled under law, in the interests of saving the State the potential expense to which it would be exposed should each individual victim take her case to court. That is, by definition, what an ex gratiascheme is: a reduced remedy in exchange for comparative speed and certainty of outcome. The women who have received their lump sum compensation payments and pensions under the ex gratiascheme have agreed not to sue the State in exchange for the full redress package recommended by Mr. Justice Quirke.

The first set of criticisms levelled relates to sections 2 and 3 of the Bill which provide for supplementary health care for the victims. Mr. Justice Quirke did not recommend that those who had signed up to the Magdalen scheme should be entitled to ordinary medical cards. He went much further than this. His actual recommendation, to be found on page 7 of his report, is that Magdalen women should have access to the full range of services currently enjoyed by holders of the Health (Amendment) Act 1996 card, also known as the HAA card. Notwithstanding the provisions in section 3 which amends the relevant provision contained in section 53C of the Health Act 1970, the nature of Mr. Justice Quirke's recommendation is the reason the survivors expected to see legislation in that particular form and explains why they are alarmed that it is not reflected in what the Minister for Justice and Equality has produced. In their view, the full list of services available to HAA cardholders are not provided for in the Bill. Under the regulations relating to the HAA card and, therefore, Mr. Justice Quirke's recommendation, holders are entitled to private GP services. HAA cardholders are also entitled to any and all prescribed drugs, including high tech drugs, medicines, aids and appliances; any and all chiropody or podiatry services, without the need for a referral from a GP or registered nurse; complementary therapies; and counselling services which are to be made available without restriction and without the need for GP referral. HAA card eligibility also contemplates comprehensive dental care, including access to private dentists, and audiology services from private practitioners where services are not available within the public health service; access to dedicated liaison officers to help to obtain optimum home nursing and home support services; enhanced ophthalmic services, beyond those restricted services available to ordinary medical card holders; and access to private physiotherapy services. As I understand it, having again reviewed the list and the Bill's provisions in the light of the Minister's assertions to the contrary, all of the services to which I refer are not provided for under the terms of the Bill.

The next set of concerns relates to the Bill's failure to make any provision for the appointment of care representatives under the Nursing Homes Support Scheme Act 2009. This is required in order that applications may be made to the redress scheme on behalf of those survivors who lack full capacity in order to ensure their payments will be secured, protected and used exclusively for their benefit in a regulated manner and with judicial oversight.This recommendation is crucial, given that there have been allegations that some of the women may have had their lack of capacity exploited in order that their institutional carers or others would realise financial benefit from their compensation packages and pension payments. I do not know whether there is substance to these allegations, but legislative provisions providing protections against this very possible outcome should have been in place long before now, given that a significant number of the survivors lack full capacity and many are still institutionalised in nursing homes or hostels run by the religious order responsible for the Magdalen laundries in the first place. The Minister has said this will all be provided for in the forthcoming Assisted Decision-making (Capacity) Bill. Survivors expected specific and dedicated provision in this legislation, for avoidance of doubt.

The final area of concern is with respect to pension provision, and the fact that the Bill utterly fails to implement in full, as promised, the Quirke recommendation on the State contributory pension. The current scheme provides the women with the State contributory pension backdated to August 2013 only. However, Mr. Justice Quirke recommended that the survivors should, as a consequence of redress scheme measures, find themselves "in the position that they would have occupied had they acquired sufficient stamps to qualify for the State contributory pensions". This would require the back-dating of pension payments to each woman's retirement age. Anything less is unacceptable. I ask the Minister to bring forward amendments on Committee Stage in acknowledgment that this was indeed stipulated by Mr. Justice Quirke.

Even if this Bill entirely fulfilled the terms of the Quirke recommendations to the letter, as promised to these women in 2013, it still would not be enough to ensure justice is done. The redress scheme the judge recommended was, by definition, limited to the mandate imposed upon him by the Government, and related to the inherent limitations of the McAleese interdepartmental inquiry. We need to establish a full commission of investigation, as was done for the victims of residential institutions and mother and baby homes. Tá súil agam go dtiocfaidh an Aire ar aghaidh le leasuithe, mar tá mé cinnte go dtiocfaidh muidne, mar Sheanadóirí, ar aghaidh le leasuithe, agus go mbeidh an Rialtas sásta glacadh leo sin le go ndéanfar an rud ceart do na mná seo.