Ivana Bacik (Independent)

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I thank Senators for agreeing to this debate at short notice. I welcome the many survivors of symphysiotomy and their representatives who are in the Gallery. I know that more of them are following our proceedings from an overflow room because they cannot be accommodated in the Gallery. I thank the Captain of the House and the ushers for facilitating the visit of such a large group. We are delighted they are here.

The Labour Party Senators are pleased to have used our Private Members' time to facilitate this debate. We did so at the initiative of Senator Moran, who has been calling for this discussion for some time. It is important that this debate, along with the debate in the Dáil on 15 March last, marks an historic recognition by both Houses of the Oireachtas of the suffering of the survivors of symphysiotomy. This grotesque and barbaric procedure has been likened to female genital mutilation. There is no doubt that it is a form of abuse of women. It is appalling that it was carried out in Irish hospitals into the 1990s.

We have heard the harrowing stories of some of the many women on whom this procedure was performed. I would like to pay tribute to those who came into this House last night and on other occasions to brief us on their real and human stories and on the appalling health consequences they have suffered as a result of a procedure that was performed on them in most cases without any knowledge and in all cases without consent. As we know, it was far from being a standard medical procedure. It was carried out for Catholic doctrinal reasons. It was carried out in hospitals instead of caesareans, which should have been the standard procedure in these cases.

When I researched this issue eight years ago, I wrote that this barbaric procedure was carried out to avoid repeat caesareans, which were viewed by some Catholic doctors as being unwelcome as they might induce women to resort to contraception or sterilisation, given that a woman can deliver a small number of children only by means of caesarean section. Appalling and twisted as it may seem today, symphysiotomy was viewed as preferable in these circumstances. All of us agree that there is a need for action. This debate and the debate in the Dáil two months ago have highlighted the appalling abuse suffered by women who were subjected to this procedure.

I wish to pay particular tribute to Marie O'Connor, Olivia Kearney and the other women who have brought this issue to the fore. All of us are agreed on the need for justice for the women who have suffered. As Senator Cullinane said, there is a need for action. Senator Burke referred to some of the cases that have been taken. We are all conscious that the Olivia Kearney case, which succeeded in the High Court in March, is being appealed to the Supreme Court by the defendants. We know that proceedings have been commenced in a total of 141 cases. There is a real fear that the Statute of Limitations will form a serious legal obstacle to a number of those cases, if not the majority of them.

It is clear that the Walsh report must review the best way for the State to facilitate access to justice for the women who have suffered symphysiotomy. Perhaps we can provide for some sort of temporary lifting of the Statute of Limitations, as was done for the victims of residential abuse. That appears to be a possible and realistic option. Alternatively, the establishment of some sort of redress scheme has also been sought or suggested.

All of us welcome the critical health supports that have been put in place. More needs to be done in terms of a response on the justice side, in recognition and acknowledgement of the abuse and injustice that was done to these women. We know that records were disappeared and have been hard to obtain. That has been one of the reasons for the delay in the publication of the Walsh report. We were all delighted to hear the Minister of State say it will be made available to the stakeholders within the next two weeks. We all want to see a clear timeframe thereafter for the consultation process and the publication of the report. We look forward to action being taken immediately thereafter. I know the Minister of State is committed to that.