Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

752. To ask the Minister for Health why the symphysiotomy payment scheme's stated terms of making every reasonable effort to return all documents submitted by applicants has not been adhered to by the scheme’s administrator and why applicants were asked, at a late stage in the scheme, if they would like their documents to be shredded. [9930/16]

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Surgical Symphysiotomy Scheme commenced in November 2014 and has been running very well since then with 578 applications accepted for consideration under the Scheme. The Scheme is independent and has regularly posted updates on its website, which clearly set out its position in relation to the records obtained for the purpose of making awards to women affected by symphysiotomy.

The Scheme has also informed my officials that hospital records received by the Scheme were copy documents and any medical reports obtained by the applicant’s solicitor in support of a claim for significant disability were also copy documents. The Scheme did not receive any originals of these records and the original documents remain in the hospitals’ records storage, local and national archives and in GP offices. Contrary to recent reports in the media, it is important to note that the integrity of applicants' original records is not affected in any way by receipt of copy documents by the Scheme for the purpose of carrying out assessments.

Over the last few weeks the Scheme has been writing to each applicant regarding her records and 97% of the women concerned have replied to date. The Scheme is cognisant of an applicant’s right to privacy protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and in line with this will ensure that documents containing personal information are not returned to anyone other than the woman herself.

It is important to note that the Assessor to the Scheme received these copy records for the purpose of determining awards to women who met the criteria of the Symphysiotomy Payment Scheme only. The Assessor is not at liberty to hold the records, or to request that they be archived, for any other purpose. The Data Protection Commissioner has confirmed that data may only be used for the purpose for which it was supplied and for no other purpose. No documentation will be confidentially disposed of until the work of the Scheme has been completed and every effort will be made to contact women who have not yet replied to the Assessor to ensure their wishes regarding their personal records are respected.