Niall Ó Donnghaile (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister. I welcome the opportunity to speak on Second Stage of this Bill. I wish to begin by signalling our support for this legislation, but I also state that it does come with a caveat; that is, we wish to see it significantly amended on Committee Stage, and we hope the Government will be open to such amendments given the many criticisms of the scheme as it currently operates.

It is all well and good bringing this legislation forward, and hoping to see it progress speedily, but unless it addresses the deficits within the current scheme it will only compound the hurt of those it claims to benefit. It is also worth pointing out that the Department of Justice and Equality has been less than co-operative in this regard. Without commenting on the High Court case in which the Minister fought for the exclusion of women from this scheme on a technicality, I cannot say that the Department has covered itself in glory in that regard, nor was it in any way considerate or compassionate; in fact, quite the opposite approach has been taken.

Approximately 18 months have passed since the Ombudsman published his report following an investigation by the office into the administration of the Magdalen redress scheme. The Ombudsman's investigation found a serious inconsistency in the Department's application of the redress scheme's eligibility criteria.Women recorded as admitted to a different institution closely associated with another named laundry, were wrongly refused admission to the scheme. Even after the investigation was complete and the recommendations prepared, the first instinct of the Department was to push back.

In evidence to the Joint Committee on Justice and Equality earlier this year, Peter Tyndall told members that in his ten years as Ombudsman, he had never reached a point where a Department had, prior to publication of a report, absolutely and categorically refused to engage in the process of accepting and implementing the recommendations made. The report stated:

My investigation found a serious inconsistency in the application of the eligibility criteria in that women were admitted to the Scheme who were recorded as admitted to one particular institution closely associated to a named laundry while women who were recorded as admitted to different institution closely associated with another named laundry, were refused admission to the Scheme. This was despite the almost identical profile, characteristics and relationship with the associated laundry both institutions shared.

On 16 April 2018, the Minister announced that he was bringing proposals to expand the scheme to Cabinet the next day, yet it has taken over a year for the Department to table this legislation. Forgive my cynicism, but it appears delay after delay is not a technical issue, but rather a failure and opposition to making this a political priority, to the point where it was fought in the High Court. I take no satisfaction in kicking the Government on this matter, but its performance to date has been abysmal, and disrespectful to the hurt and pain endured by survivors which was referred to by other colleagues.

The legislation applies the Magdalen redress scheme to women who worked in the institutions covered by the scheme while residing in certain adjoining institutions. The Bill makes the necessary technical amendments to the 2015 Act to expand it to apply to women who worked in the institutions covered by the scheme while residing in certain adjoining institutions.

Again, while the Bill is welcome, it does not address some of the fundamental flaws experienced within the current scheme, and we will be seeking to take the opportunity to amend it accordingly. I will be moving an amendment to ensure that the promised healthcare, as outlined by Mr. Justice Quirke, is finally provided by the scheme. The Government accepted the recommendations of the Quirke report in full in 2013 but has yet to uphold this particular commitment.

As has been noted extensively, the women who are part of this scheme are not afforded the standard of healthcare in line with that provided for through the Health (Amendment) Act, HAA, card. The card is one of the most important cards awarded by the HSE, as it gives entitlement to a range of services for the lifetime of the cardholder; and Mr. Justice Quirke recommended anyone who qualifies for this scheme be awarded this card.

Such services as complementary therapies fall within the remit of this card and are vital to those who seek to avail of the scheme. The scheme as it currently stands does not afford people within it access to any such therapies. The benefits of alternative and complementary therapies are well documented, particularly among those who have experienced traumatic events, and suffer with anxiety, depression or more complex conditions. I have seen that in practice first-hand, working with survivors and victims of the conflict in the North. These grassroots, complementary and alternative therapies often provide a real lifeline for people who are dealing with bespoke requirements. I cannot stress enough the need for that because I have seen first-hand the benefits it can have, albeit in different circumstances.

In August 2015, several dentists confirmed publicly that, instead of receiving HAA standard services as recommended by Mr. Justice Quirke and agreed by the Government in 2013, Magdalen survivors have been given a card that entitles them only to the "limited and incomplete treatment [...] for most medical card holders." The dentists called on the council of the Irish Dental Association, "to publicly disassociate itself from this act by the Government and to speak out publicly on behalf of its members who do not accept the injustice we are expected to support."

An amendment that ensures HAA standard services are realised as promised is, unfortunately, necessary and I hope to see cross-party support for such calls, given they were promised many years ago.

There is also the issue within the context of the current scheme, that is access for healthcare for women abroad. I am of the understanding that women in England are receiving reimbursement of their medical expenses, but this is a serious problem as the women need the British state to pay for their healthcare up front. The majority of these people simply do not have the means to pay out of their own pocket and then get reimbursed. There may be other issues that come to the fore which we feel are necessary to address, whether on Committee or Report Stages, and I hope the Minister can work with me and with colleagues to fix the shortfall within the current scheme to ensure these women are able to access the type of healthcare they deserve and which the Government committed initially to providing.