Dáil debates

Thursday, 28 May 2015

Other Questions

Surgical Symphysiotomy Payment Scheme

10:40 am

Photo of Clare DalyClare Daly (Dublin North, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

19. To ask the Minister for Health if he is satisfied that the payment scheme to which survivors of symphysiotomy may apply is being administered consistently and constitutes an effective remedy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20564/15]

Photo of Seán BarrettSeán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As we have limited time, if Deputy Clare Daly does not introduce her question we might be able to take an initial reply and a supplementary question.

Photo of Clare DalyClare Daly (Dublin North, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will I be allowed to ask a supplementary question?

Photo of Seán BarrettSeán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Photo of Leo VaradkarLeo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The surgical symphysiotomy payment scheme commenced on 10 November 2014. It was originally estimated that 350 women would apply to the scheme but 576 applications were accepted. Applications are being assessed by the former High Court justice, Maureen Harding Clark. The scheme has in the region of €34 million available and participants will receive awards at three levels, namely, €50,000, €100,000 and €150,000. The scheme was designed to be simple, straightforward and non-adversarial, and it aims to minimise the stress for the women concerned. It was designed following meetings with all three support groups, two of which have welcomed its establishment. It was established to give women who do not wish to pursue their cases through the courts an alternative simple and non-adversarial option in which payments are made to women who have had a surgical symphysiotomy irrespective of whether negligence is proven.

Ms Justice Clark has informed my officials that 206 offers have been made to women as of 22 May 2015, including one offer that was rejected. Some 194 of those offers had been accepted and 11 offers are awaiting a response. Of the 194 offers accepted by applicants, 118 were assessed at €50,000, 71 at €100,000 and five at €150,000.A large number of applications have been made without medical records or evidence of symphysiotomy and this information is being sought by Ms Justice Clark in order to progress the applications. Where there was a delay arising in the compilation of a woman's supporting documentation due to difficulty in obtaining medical records, applications were accepted by the scheme provided the application was received within the time period set out in the scheme with a written explanation of the reasons for the absence of the documentation.

The scheme is voluntary and women do not waive their rights to take their cases to court as a precondition to participating in it. Women may opt out of the scheme at any stage in the process up to the time of accepting their award. It is only on accepting the offer of an award that a woman must agree to discontinue her legal proceedings against any party arising out of a symphysiotomy or pubiotomy. Deputy Daly may be aware of a High Court judgment delivered on 1 May 2015, where the judge dismissed the claim for damages by a 74 year old woman who had a symphysiotomy 12 days before the birth of her baby in the Coombe Hospital in 1963. The judge ruled that even though the woman has suffered since the operation, the practice of prophylactic symphysiotomy “was not a practice without justification” in 1963. The judge also stated in his judgment that "Though I would in the words of Sir Ranulph Crewe, Chief Justice of England, 'take hold of a twig or twine-thread' to uphold the plaintiff’s case, I must find that this remarkable lady whose story indeed deserves to be told must fail in her case against the defendants".

While the Government is aware of the comments made by the UN Human Rights Committee, it believes that the provision of the ex gratiascheme, together with the ongoing provision of support services by the HSE, including medical cards, represents a fair and appropriate response to this issue.

Photo of Clare DalyClare Daly (Dublin North, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand the UN Human Rights Committee will express its disagreement with the Minister at its next hearing. It is not acceptable that elderly women who were butchered in their youth, who lost connections with their children and relationships with their husbands, and who continue to live in pain are being forced to participate in this scheme. As the Minister pointed out, the overwhelming majority of these women were offered a paltry payment of €50,000. That is one third of the amount the judge administrating the scheme will be paid in a year. The five people who got the maximum payment because of a lifetime of agony are still getting less than what the judge is paid in one year. That exposes the severe limitations to the scheme. I am aware of the recent court case but the criticisms made by the UN committee about the fact that people were being exonerated and that nobody took responsibility will be taken further. The Minister will have to revisit the matter on human rights grounds because his response is not good enough.

Photo of Leo VaradkarLeo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The UN committee is free to offer its opinion on any matter it considers relevant but in this country we are ruled by our laws and justice is administered by the courts. We are an independent sovereign State. It is up to the women individually to decide whether to apply for the scheme and to accept the award. The vast majority have accepted their awards. They do not have to prove negligence in any case. With the exception of symphiosotomy on the way out, those who have gone to court were not able to prove that the practice was not without justification at the time it was done.

Written Answers follow Adjournment.