The Government is dealing with a number of legacy issues that were neglected by previous Governments. Progress is being made, which makes it all the more vital to get it right. The concerns and issues I want to address are those which arise for the ladies who suffered the most appalling procedure of symphysiotomy. Many of us have met them; we have listened to their stories and had a debate here when some of them were present in the Visitors Gallery. I acknowledge the work of Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin who chairs the Oireachtas group in this regard.

The ladies in question had so many expectations and hopes the payments scheme would lead to justice for them, but, most regrettably, that is not their view of the scheme that has emerged, in which they have identified serious shortcomings and defects, the most serious of which is that the scheme is not in keeping with the concluding observations and recommendations of the United Nations Human Rights Committee. For example, there are oppressive timeframes. There is a deadline of 20 days, from 10 November, which, in exceptional circumstances, to be decided by the assessor, can be extended by a further 20 days. This is very different from the scheme for hepatitis C and residential institution survivors. In addition, there is no right to appeal to the courts when the assessor decides a sum, the levels of payment fall far short of what has been awarded in the few cases decided through the courts and there is no reference to a thorough and independent investigation of the practice of symphysiotomy.

All of us who have listened know about the inhumane, cruel and degrading treatment the ladies in question suffered. It is made all the worse by the fact that it was a treatment that was needless, a treatment about which they knew nothing and a treatment in which they had no hand, act or part during the entire procedure. The pain did not finish with the procedure; it continued and continues to this day for them. It is vital, therefore, that we get the scheme right for them in the interests of justice. How can the Taoiseach say they are receiving justice when 99% of the survivors are objecting to the scheme? Will he support their call for it to be withdrawn and replaced by one that meets the recommendations of the United Nations Human Rights Committee?

This is an issue of great personal concern to the women who had to go through this procedure. The Deputy is right on that point. I know Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin is one Member who has raised this issue on many occasions.

The options were stark. Every individual would have the opportunity to go to court to be involved in an adversarial conflict, the outcome of which could not be determined in advance. To avoid this, the Minister appointed a justice of the court to look at what the options for a scheme might be. She made very particular recommendations for payments of €50,000, €100,000 and €150,000, without the necessity of having to go to court but leaving open that option, if it were to be the choice of any woman involved. The figures were not determined by the Minister; they were brought forward by the justice in her fine report. The intention was to provide an option for women who had gone through this procedure to apply and receive prompt payment as determined and outlined by the justice in her report. That does not take away from their right, if they do not want to accept payment under the symphysiotomy scheme, to take a court case.

I know that there are a number of groups involved and that one particular group does not accept the terms of the scheme, while others do. It is a choice that was followed through on the principle that the Minister had decided we should have a scheme because this matter was sensitive and personal and had to be dealt with. The justice set out a scheme that, in a non-adversarial way, will deliver the payments promptly to the women involved. It is their right, individually, to accept or reject them.

As Deputy Marueen O'Sullivan will recall, we had the same in the case of the Magdalen scheme, when there was a lot of legal advice that people should take a different route and ended up in adversarial positions, in particular, women who had been through very difficult circumstances. That scheme, again determined by a justice, worked out well and payments have been followed through, with the provision of other facilities also. This scheme was determined and set out by the justice in her report, with the payments to be made promptly, while keeping the right for any individual woman to say: "I do not accept that. I want to take my case to court."

I have to make the point that 99% of the known survivors do not accept that the scheme is meeting their need for justice. On that aspect, there is no reference to the perpetrators of this most cruel treatment. If a survivor accepts the payments, she has to waive irrevocably all rights and entitlements and "indemnify and hold harmless" the people responsible for imposing this suffering on them. I do not know how we can expect survivors to be willing to accept this, as it goes against what the United Nation's Human Rights Committee advocated. The chairperson of that committee said:

I simply don’t understand how the State can look the other way at what seems to have been a systematic assault on people who weren’t in a position to resist or even give consent in many cases. We called for prosecutions explicitly and I would hope, I have to hope, that the recommendation won’t be ignored.

The ladies in question are not getting justice and it seems that the State is complicit in allowing the individuals, groups and institutions that were involved in this treatment to escape any sense of justice. I do not know what the Taoiseach thinks about restorative justice, but it is a very powerful tool. The ladies in question are being denied restorative justice and, if they take the payments, they will be denied the opportunity to go to court. They are being put in a very difficult position. At the very least, can there be a withdrawal of the waiver because there is an understanding that it is unlawful and a three-year entry period for those who want to make a claim?

The Deputy quoted from the letter, but the State is not looking the other way. Actually, in response to claims made in the House by many Deputies, the State has responded by asking a justice of the court to look at the nature and scale of what was involved and set out a scheme to allow for prompt payment, depending on the nature and scale of the procedure women had to go through, while keeping the right and entitlement of every individual to have her case taken to court. Justice is determined by the courts on some occasions. I recently met Louise O'Keeffe who had her case taken to the High Court and the Supreme Court and who eventually, after 16 years, had a determination made by the European court. The rights and entitlements of the women who went through the symphysiotomy procedure are not infringed by the scheme set out by the justice.

It is their opportunity, right and option to apply and have a prompt payment made to them relating to the scale of the procedure they went through. I do not know what purpose would be served by the extension of the waiver for three years if they do not lose their right to take their case to court if they wish. They know about the scheme and have voted on it in some cases. Two groups accepted it and a majority of the other one does not, which is its right, but the scale of payments are there and they do not lose their right or entitlement to have their case taken to court if they wish. I hope that they make a determination personally as to whether to apply under the scheme or take a longer and more adversarial route to court.