Dáil debates

Thursday, 13 January 2011

2:00 pm

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)

There are five constituencies in the area in which the 35 excluded women, at least those of them who have survived, reside. The Minister, in her response, exposes the weakness in her position. One cannot give to somebody who is not democratically accountable and does not have ministerial responsibility the right to make the final determination as to what is appropriate in a particular situation. Whereas the Minister invited recommendations and advice, the ultimate responsibility in determining what is the appropriate response rests with the Minister.

The Minister cited two particular groups Judge Maureen Harding Clark recommended for inclusion under the terms of the redress scheme. The judge also recommended those who had reached the age of 40 years, a group which I specifically and deliberately referred to in my earlier contribution. How can the Minister, as an officeholder but also - if I may - as a woman, explain the decision to reject this recommendation? Will she explain the idea that women who had passed their 40th birthday were in some way less hurt than women who had not reached 40 years of age? Among the 35 cases excluded from the scheme is a woman who had her procedure deferred by one week immediately before her 40th birthday and had it performed three days after her birthday.

With all respect, whatever responsibilities will rest on those who will take up government after the upcoming general election, surely the Minister recognises that one of the last actions, in all justice and fairness, that she should take is to proceed as she has indicated she is not of mind to do, namely, by recommending to government, however late in the day, that a supplementary redress scheme be introduced.

We welcomed the money allocated for the first scheme and correctly covered many of the cases which came under it. I understand this money was not fully drawn down. There is a question that the additionality in this particular instance is so small that it is not beyond either the Minister's gift or duty to make such a recommendation and do justice and right by the women concerned. I conclude again with that appeal.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.