Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, Independent) | Oireachtas source

The publication and media coverage of Ms Justice Harding Clark’s report into the surgical symphysiotomy ex gratiapayment scheme raises fundamental questions about how citizens who pursue justice in cases of historical abuse are treated by the organs of the State. The terms of reference called for the assessor to report to the Minister on the activities and the expenditure of the scheme. I believe Ms Justice Harding Clark overstepped the mark in this case. It was highly inappropriate for her to comment on ongoing litigation because some cases are going through the courts.

The report on the scheme, overseen by Ms Justice Harding Clark, can only be read as a defence of the uniquely Irish practice of non-emergency symphysiotomy, as it served to diminish survivors’ claims that the non-emergency substitution of symphysiotomy for caesarean section, without consent as practised in Ireland, violated many women's human rights. This was taken up by the United Nations Human Rights Committee, which found that symphysiotomy, as practised in Ireland, constituted torture, cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment where patient consent was never sought. The report has caused tremendous anger and upset among women who successfully applied for the scheme and those whose applications were unsuccessful.

I believe it is an attempt to undermine the women by concentrating on unsuccessful applicants and brushing over the fact that 70% of applicants applied successfully to the scheme. The scheme's burden of proof made it difficult, if not impossible, for some women to prove their cases. It demanded absolute certainty. For women who were unsuccessful applicants and had no right to appeal, the report has just added insult to injury. It is hostile in its tone and attempts to smear the survivors and discredit them rather than own up to a bad and damaging policy and a poorly administrated redress scheme which not all people supported when it was set up.

I will finish by reading out an e-mail that was sent to me before Christmas, for the debate we were supposed to have in December, from a young woman whose mother-in-law was subjected to symphysiotomy. The latter is quoted in the e-mail as stating:

It is with a feeling of hurt and sadness I have read Judge Clarke's and the Irish Times view of the end of the symphysiotomy scheme. It was to be an non-adversarial scheme, and on the advice of my solicitor and because of my age (79) it would be easier for me to apply for the scheme (even though I had all my documentation of proof). I was prepared to go to court. Now as a group we are all being maligned as cheats and liars. Such a pity that [Mr.] Varadkar told us how straightforward this non-adversarial scheme was going to be. I remember the words he used. In future, schemes like this will remember our treatment as an example of trusting a minister and his appointee.

It goes on, but I will leave it at that. The report has affected these women very badly and should be withdrawn.

See this speech in context