Ar dtús, ba mhaith liom comhghairdeas a dhéanamh leis na Teachtaí Dála a fuair Aireacht sóisearach inniu. Go n-éirí an t-ádh leo uilig. Feicfimid an tslí ina mbeidh siad ag dul ar aghaidh ó seo amach.

The State's policies towards women and children are being scrutinised by the UN Human Rights Committee in Geneva. Committee members have been made aware of the results of a toxic political culture which existed in the State since its foundation and in which women and children were denied their rights. It is evident in the sorry saga of scandal which includes the Magdalen laundries, Bethany Home, the mother and baby homes, the illegal trafficking of children, child abuse in church and State institutions and the unequal status of women in the Constitution. The committee will hear other examples of dereliction of duty by the State towards its citizens, including members of the Traveller community and prisoners.

A 50-page report by victims of symphysiotomy will show how the State failed to protect more than 1,500 women who endured this barbaric practice and who still suffer physically and psychologically from its consequences decades later. The Government undertook to right this wrong so why did it ignore the call from survivors for the Statute of Limitations to be lifted to allow them the choice of going to court? Why did it produce a redress scheme which denies acknowledgement of the grievous wrong done to these women? Why provide only a minimalist financial package? Why deny the women an independent medical board and the right to advocacy? Yesterday and today the UN committee has asked why the State refuses to accept responsibility for the clear abuse of the rights of Irish women over decades. I put this question to the Taoiseach. Why does the State deny or refuse to accept responsibility for the clear abuse of these women over decades?

The Deputy's question is serious. Why did the State deny its responsibility in respect of Magdalen laundries, Bethany Home and mother and baby homes and why did it not do something about symphysiotomy before this? This is a list of sensitive personal serious issues which have been left lying around in the country for up to 60 or 70 years. They are being dealt with now. I am not quite sure whether the Deputy is proposing in respect of these women who underwent symphysiotomy that they should now be subjected to court appearances in a very aggressive confrontational manner. The State has looked at this, following the reports published, and has put forward a suggestion and proposition to deal with the challenges and difficulties, personal and serious, which the women went through during these symphysiotomy interventions. It is the case of a range of serious social and personal issues left lying around for years which are now being dealt with by the State. It is a matter for the group and individuals which course they wish to pursue. Nobody wants to see long drawn-out controversial, antagonistic or aggressive court hearings about something like this. Here is an opportunity, no more than the avoidance of all these difficulties in court sessions with the Magdalen women, of arriving at a conclusion, recognition of the situation and a recompense of some scale for those women who were subjected to what I have described as barbaric treatment. The Minister for Justice and Equality was in Geneva at the UN Human Rights Committee, of which Ireland is a member, outlining for it the actions which have been taken by the Government to deal with issues which have been swept under the carpet and left lying there for decades.

I thank the Taoiseach, but my question is in the present tense and not the past tense. Why did the Taoiseach ignore the call from survivors for the Statute of Limitations to be lifted? The Taoiseach cannot patronise these women and say he does not want to put them through a long court procedure if this is what they want to do. Why provide only a minimalist financial package? A question asked by the chairperson of the UN Human Rights Committee suggests there may be a question over the legality of the State's plan for redress. The UN Human Rights Committee rapporteur asked whether the scheme is compatible with the State's obligations under international human rights treaties. There is also the huge issue that these symphysiotomy operations were involuntary. This question is also being asked. There is a lack of judicial review and an absence of individual assessment and the fact that those who apply for the redress scheme will have to give up their legal rights. They are told they can have this redress scheme but they must give up their legal rights. What is most important is that while some women may go for the redress scheme, which is their entitlement, the vast majority have stated they do not want it, that they want acknowledgement of their ill-treatment and proper compensation commensurate with the trauma they have suffered. These issues are not being raised just by me. Deputies have raised these issues for some time. Is it not time for the Government to reflect and rethink its approach on this issue? It is time for the Taoiseach to meet the survivors to put together a comprehensive approach which meets the needs of all the victims of symphysiotomy. I know the Minister for Health has met them.

The decision of the Government was based on formal legal advice in respect of the Statute of Limitations being addressed. A €34 million fund has been put together in regard to the women who went through symphysiotomy. It is a choice they are entitled to make, either to avail of the redress scheme or, if they choose, to take a court case.

The Government will not lift the Statute of Limitations.

If a woman decides to choose the redress path and is not happy with the outcome she has the right and opportunity to appeal it if she believes it is appropriate. There is a ex gratia scheme to be administered by the State Claims Agency of €34 million as recognition of the difficulties, challenges and personal trauma these women went through. They have the right to take the case to court if they wish. They have the right to go through the redress scheme if they wish. If they are not happy with the outcome of it, they have every right to have it appealed. In respect of the Statute of Limitations, it is on the basis of formal legal advice. In many of these cases there are no notes available about what happened and it is not known who the doctor was who might have performed the intervention. The women could wait for a long period of between five and ten years before getting a court decision.

That is why the Government needs to tackle it properly.