Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim buíochas le gach Teachta a ghlac páirt sa díospóireacht seo aréir agus anocht. Céim eile chun tosaigh atá ann, céim eile i dtreo cothrom na Féinne do na mná a d'fhulaing inár n-ospidéal. I sincerely thank all Deputies who participated in the debate yesterday and today. In nearly 16 years in the House I have never seen such a large attendance of visitors for a debate, and the vast majority of these visitors are women who survived the horrific symphysiotomy operation. I welcome all who have joined us in the Gallery. I understand that yet again there is a significant spillover into the audio-visual room. These are brave, determined and dignified women and we all salute them.

The Dáil will not divide on the Bill and this is an important step forward. As I stated at the outset of the debate, more than once in the past the survivors of symphysiotomy have left Leinster House disappointed and disillusioned. At least this will not be the case tonight. I welcome the decision of the Government and the Minister for Health, Deputy James Reilly, to agree to accept the Bill. In announcing this acceptance in his speech yesterday, the Minister stated he wished to give a strong message to the women involved that he intends to help them get closure in this matter in the fairest way possible. This too is welcome.

In the course of his contribution, the Minister, Deputy Reilly, stated it is difficult to understand why the practice of symphysiotomy persisted when caesarean section was so safe in the latter half of the 20th century, and that as a doctor he deeply regretted this. It is indeed difficult to understand, but we need to try to understand. We are dealing with an era when doctors were always right and were never questioned, as pointed out by one of the speakers at yesterday’s Oireachtas Members’ briefing. There was a mindset among an important cohort of doctors in our maternity hospitals that their interpretation of Roman Catholic doctrine was correct and that the bodies of women must be subservient to this doctrine. These clinicians were bolstered in this mindset by the unaccountable authority with which their profession was endowed at the time. This type of authority has only been successfully challenged in very recent times, as the Michael Neary scandal and others have demonstrated.

It is important for the Minister, and for everyone, to understand this context to appreciate the enormity of what happened to these women, why it happened and why the State’s response needs to be wholehearted in ensuring justice and truth. I know only too well how essential this wholeheartedness will be, and I must note with regret that the Minister’s speech, while welcome for accepting the Bill, also indicated that in addressing the next required steps, the Government will be less than wholehearted. The Minister of State, Deputy White, also injected this note at the close of his contribution. I appeal to the Minister, Deputy Reilly, and the Minister of State, Deputy White, to prove my concerns are ill-founded. The Minister, Deputy Reilly, stated the Government is committed to dealing sensitively with the issue so it can be brought to "an appropriate and fair conclusion". The question which comes to my mind is who decides what is appropriate and what is fair, and fair for whom?

The Minister claimed there are serious flaws in the Bill. What serious flaws? Neither he nor the Minister of State identified them. He should spell them out. It is already extensively known that some of the finest legal minds in this State checked over the Bill’s construction. It is carefully based on the precedent in the child sex abuse amendment of this same statute. It is not that the Bill is flawed; it could be there is an absence of political will to accommodate the wishes of the greater number of the survivors. That said, if the legislation does have any flaws or weaknesses, I am open to have them being pointed out to me, and we let us address them on Committee Stage.

The Minister referred to services put in place for the women by the HSE. This list includes very little to which the vast majority of the women are not already entitled. They are almost all in their 70s and 80s. Ellen O’Brien, who was here yesterday and may be back with us today, is 91. They are entitled to their medical cards anyway. This is not a special entitlement for most of the survivors. The Minister’s claim the HSE is proactive in assisting the women is not borne out by many of the women’s account of their experiences, including in recent years, and we have heard this time after time.

In addressing the core of the Bill, the Minister stated it raises significant policy and legal issues which have wide-ranging implications, but again these were not spelt out. Where were these so-called significant policy and legal issues when a clear precedent was established in 2000? The Minister was quite right to say the State has a duty to ensure due process, the fair administration of justice and a fair balance between the rights of plaintiffs and defendants. However, where is the fair balance when the plaintiffs, through no fault of their own, are entirely excluded from seeking legal redress in the courts? We say allow these women access to the courts and let the courts decide, based on the evidence presented.

When I heard the following phrase in the Minister’s speech I saw a dense fog descending: "legal advice indicates that lifting the statute bar raises very complex issues that require broader consideration on a cross-departmental basis." To my mind, this is a formula for delay and obfuscation if ever I heard one. It is a Sir Humphrey formula of words for doing as little as possible. I again call on the Minister to prove me wrong, for if it is the case it is not acceptable. The Minister spoke of the aim of the obstetrics and gynaecology programme being to improve health care choice for women. This is laudable, but it is general. The specific purpose of the Bill is to provide resolution choices for the women survivors of symphysiotomy.

The Minister stated the Government is not persuaded that lifting the bar on the Statute of Limitations will resolve the problems facing the women who wish to bring their cases before the courts. Eminent legal advice says otherwise, including some of the finest legal minds and the most eminent senior counsel in the land. Why not let the courts decide? Regrettably, this statement from the Minister demonstrates a refusal to commit - it is this commitment we now need - to facilitate the passage of the Bill through its further Stages. We will get through Second Stage this evening and we need a commitment to move forward, which will require acceptance of the Bill, amended or otherwise.

I must emphasise that no one is encouraging these women to bring actions that may have little success, as the Minister suggested. There is no one leading them by the nose. This route is their clearly stated wish. There are steps that can be taken, by agreement, that would limit legal costs. All it takes is to talk this through with the women’s representatives and legal advisers. Will the Minister and his advisers undertake to do this?

We must remember, most importantly, that it is the failure of governments, not just historically, but in recent years and up to the present, to ensure justice and truth for these women that makes the legal route the preferred option for most of them. It is not long since the Minister himself, in this Chamber, contested the description of symphysiotomy as a barbaric practice. Now, however, that is an absolutely undeniable fact, which even the courts of the land have affirmed.

Having passed Second Stage, this Bill, under Dáil Standing Order 112, is automatically referred to the appropriate select committee. It must not be shelved. We will be pressing for the committee to schedule Committee Stage at the earliest opportunity. I appeal to all Deputies to hold fast to their commitment to the survivors of symphysiotomy, as demonstrated over many years on both sides of this House. They should pledge to facilitate the earliest address of this Bill on Committee, Report and Final Stages.

I again thank all Deputies who participated in this debate, without exception. I also thank Ms Marie O'Connor and say well done to all involved with the survivors of symphysiotomy. I pay tribute to all the survivors and I look forward to them completing their journey towards truth and justice. As legislators, we all have a positive role to play in assisting them to complete that long and difficult trek. Let none of us fail them now.

See this speech in context