Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

60. To ask the Minister for Health if he has considered the findings of the surgical symphysiotomy ex gratia payment scheme report, with particular reference to the fact that the scheme refused to take survivor testimony as evidence; if he has made contact with a person (details supplied) or the survivor groups; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37782/16]

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I met Judge Maureen Harding Clark on 19 October 2016 last when she submitted her report on the Surgical Symphysiotomy Payment Ex Gratia Scheme to me. I examined the report and submitted it to Government last week prior to its publication on my Department's website on 22 November last. I have not been in contact with the three survivor groups, as the work of the Scheme has now concluded.

The total cost of the Scheme was just under €34 million and payments of €50,000, €100,000 or €150,000 were made to 399 women, who met the criteria for an award. All of the women have received their respective payments totalling €29.85 million. The majority of claimants were over 75 years and payments were made to women between the ages of 51 and 96 years. 185 women who applied to the Scheme could not establish that they had a surgical symphysiotomy. Pubiotomy was frequently claimed but was established in only 1 case. Significant disability was established in this case.

As the Scheme was designed to be simple, straight forward and non-adversarial, the women were not expected to give oral testimonies as they might do in a court setting. In the interests of accountability, the Scheme required each applicant to prove that she had a surgical symphysiotomy or pubiotomy in order to be considered for the assessment of an award. The level of proof required was clearly set out in the terms of the Scheme. The Judge worked with each woman or her legal representative to locate medical records. The Judge met some women in different parts of the country where she considered this was necessary. Where claims could not be reconciled with established facts, women were examined by relevant medical experts.

Judge Clark encouraged women who believed they had a symphysiotomy to apply to the Scheme, advising them that they did not give up their right to pursue their case through the courts. It was only on accepting an award under the Scheme that a woman had to discontinue her legal proceedings. The vast majority of women opted to do so.

The brief given to Judge Clark in November 2014 was not an easy one. At that time the advice to the Department of Health was that many women would face an uphill struggle in proving their claims in the courts, with an uncertain outcome, as each case would be adjudicated on its merits. In her substantial Report Judge Clark has provided a comprehensive overview of the historical and medical context of symphysiotomy. Judge Clark had a unique opportunity to do this and her findings support the earlier findings of Prof Oonagh Walsh, whose report, commissioned by the Department of Health, was published in 2014.

Payments under the Scheme, together with the ongoing provision of medical services by the HSE, including medical cards, represent a comprehensive response to this issue by Government, which should help bring resolution to the women and their families.